Beloved Brethren and co-workers in the service of Yahwshua and His Assembly,
Greetings to all and may the encompassing peace/shalom of Yhwh cover you and your loved ones wherever you are on this earth.
One of the main issues facing the brethren from the called-out Israel is about the head coverings women should or should not wear in certain instances. Brethren already into Yahwshua's assembly or ekklesia/kehilah of the kodeshim have no such problem. There is something very specific about Head Coverings addressed by our brother Shaul in his first letter to the Corinthian ekklesia. It is something that Efrayim must understand if they want to be part of the real assembly/kehilah of Yahwshua:
"But I would have you know, that the HEAD of every man is Mashiach; and the HEAD of the woman is the man; and the HEAD of Mashiach is Yhwh. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his HEAD covered, dishonoureth his HEAD.
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her HEAD uncovered dishonoureth her HEAD: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her (HEAD) be covered....
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Yhwh (HEAD) uncovered?
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a (HEAD) covering.
"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of Yhwh." 1 Corinthians 11:3-6; 13-16
This passage seems so misunderstood by so many, so let's let the Ruach Ha Kodesh address various aspects of israelite/middle eastern culture, of the passage which may be confusing, and the most common misinterpretations. And to do this we must adhere to the principle "line upon line, precept upon precept, a little bit here, a little bit there..."
We begin by noticing in the above passage is that one of the most obvious reasons for the headcovering is because of a woman's place in the natural order: Yhwh, Yahwshua, man, woman. This is again exemplified in the following verses:
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his HEAD, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of Yhwh: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her HEAD because of the angels." 1 Corinthians 11:7-10
Then Shaul makes a parallel between the command and nature. He mentions that in nature we see the same thing, man having a naturally "uncovered" head (with shorter hair) and women having a naturally "covered" head (covered with longer hair). He states that: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a (HEAD) covering."
First of all, the correct translation of the last part of this passage is "for her hair is given her AS a (HEAD) covering." In nature, women are given longer hair than men as a form of NATURAL headcovering. Even in nature, men do not and should not have long hair like women. Its unnatural for men. To men, it's a shame to have long hair because that would equate to a natural head-cover which men are not suppossed to have.
Shaul says that in nature, man has short hair, but women long hair with the intention of illustrating what he stated in the previous sentences. The passage is not speaking of haircuts. The acceptable length of each gender's hair is nos what is at issue here. This is clear in everyone's minds. Otherwise Shaul would not be using known hair lengths to make a comparison. Nobody would understand what he is talking about. But people who were hearing him understood what he was trying to establish, because they knew that the natural order was for a man to have short hair and a woman to have long hair.
The text's main theme is who should wear headcoverings. Here he is using nature's example with the purpose of equating a woman's long hair with a man-made headcovering and how she is under subjection to Yhwh through the man. He calls her long hair "a" head-covering, a "natural" headcovering. He refers to it as a natural headcovering because he starts the sentence with "does not even nature...?" And he explains that in the same way that as in nature a man cannot have long hair (which would be as a natural headcovering) and a woman can (for her glory, and note that the passage states "IF SHE HAVE LONG HAIR," ) so should it be in the Asssembly when they pray and prophecy. When Shaul says "if she have long hair" means that not all women might actually have naturally grown long hair. Thus they would not have all it as a headcovering in nature.
Shaul is saying that women should follow nature's example and have a covering, and the man also should and not have long hair as a covering. The man should have his head uncovered and the woman COVERED. And here is the interesting fact: They should do so necessarily with a manmade headcovering, because obviously the requirement is for the "cover" to be donned by women ONLY while praying/prophecying, and removed by men when praying/prophecying! There is no command here to for the woman to keep her head covered when not praying or prophecying. Thus it is a removable "covering."
If Shaul were simply referring to her natural hair, how could a woman take her hair off when not praying/prophecying and put it back on when going to pray/prophecy?
And how could a man "take his hair off" when he was going to pray or prophecy, and "put it back on" when done praying? Does this make any sense? Of course not! it is totally absurd! Natural hair cannot be taken off and be put back on at will!
Again, if in this passage Shaul is not talking of a manmade headcover, how could a man remove his hair for praying if he always has his hair attached by its roots to his head?
Shaul is talking of a manmade headcover such as a veil or hooded garment, which can be put over the head and removed at will depending on the occasion. He mentioned hair length in men and women to show that in nature there is a parallel. There is a NATURAL order of things in nature!
Some brethren may also suspect from this 'headship' example that at least in this passage "the command to cover" in women seems foremost to apply to married ones only, although clearly the word "married" is not specifically mentioned. Single women are directly under Yhwh through Yahwshua, and without a mortal husband between them and Yahwshua (unless we assume that every man is over a woman [like her father, brother, uncle, etc. and then as she ages, her son, nephews, etc., as in middle eastern semitic cultures)], they (single women) must cover their heads tooso as not to dishonor their head which is Yahwshua.
Another important aspect of Shaul's epistle is the fact that it is addressed to the gentile assembly in Corinth. We need to seriously take this into account because most of the members of the body of Mashiach in Corinth belonged to two groups: they were either native greeks or were "seriously helenized" efrayimites.
The latter group, "the lost sheep of the House of Israel" to whom Yahwshua sent his apostles to, had been living there for a good 700 years when Shaul went to preach to them the gospel of Yahwshua, and spoke, dressed and behaved "greek" in almost every way. The former group, on the other hand, were pure greeks that were never part of Israel or of Judah and never assimilated nor contemplated any of their customs. They were pure greek in all regards. And finally, in their assembly there were a few brethren from the tribe of Yudah too that were living in Corinth and converted to Yahwshua Ha Mashiach, because without doubt there were jews scattered all over Asia Minor especially in these areas of the former Greek Empire. These were very cosmopolitan regions.
And all of the brethren in Corinth---both greek and efrayimite along with the natural jews---were not precisely the epitome of the kodesh.
Corinth was not exactly an exemplary congregation as far as being kodesh for the rest of the asssemblies/ kehilot. Corinthians were very much troubled by their socio-cultural traits and infected with iniquity, which Shaul constantly and seriously addressed. We can learn about this in other chapters. He even accuses them of "sin unheard of in any other assembly" when he found a man was having sex with his step-mother while still attending the assembly regularly.
But as bad as that was, the most shocking thing about this entire episode is that no one locally would seem to take this wickedness seriously and correct it!
Does this sound like the early Kehilah in Corinth was a ver kodesh place to anyone? I should hope not!
But that was not all. Shaul also has to address the Corinthian Kehilah for homosexuality. There were allegedly "converted" men in the Corinthian assembly still practicing sex with other men, and we all remember Shaul's merciful but harsh and condemning words in 1 Cor. 6:9-13:
"...don't you know that evil-doers will not inherit the kingdom of Yhwh? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of Yhwh!
"11And that is what some of you once were, but you have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified in the name of our Master Yahwshua Ha Mashiach and by the Kodesh Spirit of our Elohim!
Why did Shaul have to speak these very words to a Kehilah that was doing things correctly? As a mere precaution? The verses that follow provide the answer. There were some saying they had the right to do anything they wanted! There were some saying that the body was meant for pleasure (sexual immorality) and Shaul has to correct them! Let's read it with our own eyes:
“I have the right to do anything,” you say--but not everything is beneficial! “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything!
You say, “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food," and it is so, but (know that) Yhwh will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for Yhwh, and Yhwh for the body."
So this passage alone should clear up any doubts as to the kodesh state of the early Corinthian assembly, and at the sane time make evident that those teachers who say that the corinthian church was an exemplary congregation go against what is stated in Torah and consequently are lying.
Corinth, along with Rome a short time later, were not the best places for the kodeshim of Yahwshua to spiritually grow and overcome sin. Both local societies were vile and stenching of iniquity---originally Corinth more so than Rome. It was filled with homosexuals, bisexuals and wife-swappers. The Romans loved vacationing in Corinth and its vicinities because of the colorful and playful morale of its male and female inhabitants--many of whom were "lost sheep from the house of Israel!" And this translates to most all their habits being pagan.
If we take a cross section of the moral state of Corinthian society at random to see its condition, then we must conclude that few of them--if any-- in the corinthian ekklesia wore clothing as kodesh as the jews back in Jerusalem. They probably wore normal greek clothing just like they had been wearing for centuries! So this is why Shaul needs to address them, exactly like he addresses "us" in the modern great babylon today who are reading his epistle. We do not dress at all like the ancient israelites either. We do not cover ourselves enough, we do not abstain from sex and other sins enough, because we are accustomed to being the way we are! Funny thing that we cannot make out what Shaul is talking about! This letter to the Corinthians, as well as all letters to the assemblies or kehilot/ekklesias are for our instruction, reproof and correction today as much as anciently.
Same as in Corinth back then, women here in our western societies rarely wear headcoverings as a requisite or as a normal way of dressing like they did (and many women still do to this day) in Jerusalem or in the Milddle East in general.
Therefore the natural tendency for women here and now in our "assemblies" is to pray and prophecy not wearning any---just like the corinthian women were doing and which prompted Shaul to correct them and prompt the men to excerise their authority. Further, today the called-out of Israel are infected with rabbinical judaism. They teach men to cover their heads while praying and prophecying. This is unheard of and totally inadmissible in the Kehilah of Yahwshua.
Same as in Corinth back then, a surprisingly large number of men and women struggle with ---or simply give loose rein to--- sexual practices that range from normal promiscuous heterosexuality to bisexuality to homosexuality. The messianic and christian churches and kehilot/synagogues of today, of THE END TIME, are not exactly kodesh, and this is specifically addressed in the third chapter of Revelation.
In Corinth women were more liberal than the women in Jerusalem, not the other way around. They were more permissive than in most other parts of the world. Greeks followed fashions and loved innovation. They were infected with human philosophical reasonings. Corinthian men were less authoritative than men back in Judah, by nature of having grown up and been reared in such an "open-minded" society --- and the SAME IDENTICAL thing is going on today in our western cultures. Efrayim is STILL dispersed among the pagan helenized and romanized and babylonized gentiles!
Anyway, Shaul starts the statement to the corinthians ---same way as he addresses US in who might still be in IDENTICAL CONDITION today--- with the milk as if they were kindergarden toddlers, explaining from the beginning, as if we had no knowledge or had fogotten it,and when he asked:
"...don't you know that evil-doers will not inherit the kingdom of Yhwh...?
...Shaul knew that the Corinthians knew this! He is not asking because he thought they didn't know --- he is asking them because THEY WERE ACTING AS IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW!
And likewise, when Shaul explains about the headcovering he also goes from "A" to "Z," over who is authority over who, from the beginning, with the milk instead of the meat, and uses the comparison between the veil and the natural human hair as if they were little children so that they understand and follow the heavenly pattern that Yhwh established for mankind. This explanation would also allow them to see why women wear a veil and why men don't. Shaul didnt want his disciples to do things mechanically and without knowledge of a meaning, and so he explains:
"But I would have you know, that the HEAD of every man is Mashiach; and the HEAD of the woman is the man; and the HEAD of Mashiach is Yhwh."
Note he starts "I would have you know"---as if saying, "because from what I see you doing you need to be made aware..." And then he goes on exposing the sound doctrine of Yahwshua, and the order of things, explaining the reason why women should cover and men should uncover.
This settled, let's go see what modern rabbis say and not waste undue time disproving their fallacies.
First of all, let's discard the frivolous rabbinical doctrine in which the "head" mentioned in Torah is suppossed to mean the "eyes" or the "face."
Of course, knowing that judaism and its christian counterpart "messianic judaism" rely on the satanic "Infallible Relative Truth" doctrine that we have already studied, it is no wonder their men try to justify their wearning "kippas" and "tallits" over their heads when praying, etc., in definance to Torah and in irreverence to Yahwshua.
If by "head" Shaul really meant "eyes" or "face," like some Rabbis allege, then let's substitute the word "eyes" in every instance that the word "head" appears in the above passage and see if it makes an sense at all...and put an abrupt end to their foolishness ---if any of you have already believed their lie:
"But I would have you know, that the EYES of every man is Mashiach; and the EYES of the woman is the man; and the EYES of Mashiach is Yhwh. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his EYES covered, dishonoureth his EYES.
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her EYES uncovered dishonoureth her EYES: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman's EYES be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her (EYES) be covered. .... Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Yhwh (EYE-)uncovered?
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for (EYE) covering.
"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of Yhwh." 1 Corinthians 11:3-6; 13-16, and
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his EYES, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of Yhwh: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her EYES because of the angels." 1 Corinthians 11:7-10
The above is an absolutely SHAMEFUL and DISGUSTING attempt at manipulating the Kodesh Scripture of Yhwh!
Clearly, EYES is not a correct meaning for the word translated as HEAD! These "jewish and messianic" heretics ("who call themselves 'jews" but aren't)--along with the Pope and the roman churches--- will have to do a lot of (useless) explaining to Yhwh in their day of judgment for this flagrant distortion of Yhwh's Truth! Yahwshua is not the "EYES of the BODY"---he is not the eyes of the assembly/kehilah ---HE IS THE ENTIRE HEAD, as Torah clearly states!
Anyway---speaking like one of those naive brethren the Rabbis make doubt with their twisting of Scripture--- IF "EYES" were the correct meaning as they say, one cannot avoid asking why then these Rabbis do not obey Torah and make their women cover their EYES in the synagoges as they say themselves that this passage instructs!
Others say that Shaul did not mean HEAD, and that he meant FACE. Let's try and see if the word FACE actually works any better, substituting it where Shaul said HEAD:
"But I would have you know, that the FACE of every man is Mashiach; and the FACE of the woman is the man; and the FACE of Mashiach is Yhwh. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his FACE covered, dishonoureth his FACE.
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her FACE uncovered dishonoureth her FACE: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman's FACE be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her (FACE) be covered.
"... Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Yhwh (FACE-)uncovered?
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a (FACE) covering.
"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of Yhwh." 1 Corinthians 11:3-6; 13-16, and...
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his FACE, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of Yhwh: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her FACE because of the angels." 1 Corinthians 11:7-10
Again those that say "head" means "face" AND NOT "HEAD" LIKE IT CLEARLY SAYS, BLATANTLY LIE. Judaism (as much as roman christianity) is a religion that through its teachers--- the modern descendants of the pharisees (confirmed usurpators of the authority and title of Yahwshua)---loves to disseminate flawed interpretations of Torah in order that their leaders can get away with virtually anything they propose, rendering absolute truth valueless.
Jewish and messianic men by the hordes love to disobey Torah by covering their heads even while praying or prophecying, they love to turn to the east to pray caliming its towerd the Temple, even though Scriture does not command this and worse yet, condemns it, and Satan their accuser loves to send them deeper and deeper into religious blindness and bondage with Yhwh's authority.
Again, if by "head" Shaul meant FACE, then:
WHY DONT THEY OBEY TORAH AND ORDER THEIR WOMEN TO COVER THEIR FACES AS THEY CLAIM "IS WRITTEN" IN THIS PASSAGE?
They dont. You see, when men twist what is written in Torah, they create a huge problem for themselves later on. They allegedly "obey" the twisted part of Scripture that pertains to men, saying they are not "covering" their eyes but instead their heads! But anyway they don't obey the remainder of the mitzvah, that would require their women to COVER THEIR EYES while praying/prophecying... why dont they?
Because they know they can't because they are wrong. Their hideous "Infallible Relative Truth" doctrine doesn't hold. And their synagogues and congregations would look ridiculous--or more than they already look--with the women with covered eyes! Why don't they address these disobediences to Torah?
Because, my dear brethren and sincere learners of the Torah, it is not in their hearts to obey Torah. Yahwshua has not put it there. They resist Yahwshua our Master and bow to human "Rabis." They surrender to Yahwshua only as far as surrendering to Him doesn't mean going against Rabbinical tradition! They have their hearts set on following the traditions of men and the lies of Babylon!
THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME HYPOCRITS AND LIERS TODAY AS THEY WERE THEN AS WHEN OUR MASTER YAHWHSUA CALLED THEM HYPOCRITS AND LIERS! PLAIN AS DAY, THAT IS WHY THEY DONT OBEY OR SIMPLY "HALF-OBEY" OR "TWIST-TO-OBEY."
They are under curse because they are in constant desobedience. They dishnonor their head, which is Yahwshua, and thus they lack the Ruach Ha Kodesh which scripture plainly states Yhwh "gives only to those in obedience." They also allow women to dishonor them, because they are not the "heads" of their women! And it goes on and on...because a little leaven infects the whole lump.
So as far as those TWO SATANIC LIES are concerned (of the body part to be covered being allegedly the FACE or the EYES), the Ruach Ha Kodesh and its two-edged, sharp and piercing sword has just torn those false doctrines to pieces.
The Ruach Ha Kodesh also reveals to us there are several passages in other parts of Torah indicating headcovering was a common practice among married/betrothed/single women in Israel (and most of the middle east descended from Abraham, for that matter), for instance:
"And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Yitzaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, 'What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us?' And the servant had said, 'It is my master;' therefore she took a veil, and covered herself." Genesis 24:64-65
Another verse showing that the practice of headcovering was an established fact is in the well-known case mentioned in the Tanak of a woman taken before the priest when her husband suspects infidelity. The situation is not that the woman has been found guilty and is being punished and "her hair shaven off" like some mistakenly claim. The woman has not been found guilty when her head is uncovered (her veil removed). She is being tried to see if she is guilty or innocent. She is not being condemmned and shorn:
"And the priest shall set the woman before Yhwh, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse." Numbers 5:18
The point above being, that in order to uncover, she obviously must have been previously covered. The passage makes the assumption that any wife brought before a priest will be covered by common practice. And that her covering can be removed.
Once again, it's not a question of having her "long hair" pulled out (removed) and then glued back on, to once again "cover" her head if found innocent! The covering is a cloth or veil. All women descendants of Abraham who believed in Yhwh coverred their heads by common practice. From Shaul's comment in 1 Corinthians 11:16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Assemblies of Yhwh," it seems clear he is referring to the custom that wives do cover their heads with some type of man-made cover that can be unveiled at will.
Now, to once again summarize: what kind of covering is deemed appropriate? Is a woman's hair sufficient? No, obviously not, as it has already been revealed to us by the Ruach Ha Kodesh.
For one, hair cannot be "veiled and unveiled at will" as we saw before and just saw again in Numbers 5:18. The priest did not remove the woman's hair. He removed the veil over her hair. But before proceeding to prove it further, let's examine what the passage would read like if the "covering" or "headcovering" simply referred to "hair."
Let's substitute the word HAIR for COVERING/HEADCOVERING and see what results:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Mashiach; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Mashiach is Yhwh. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head HAIR, dishonoureth his head.
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head un-HAIRED dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not HAIRED, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be HAIRED.
"... Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Yhwh un-HAIRED?
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a HAIR." Now does that make any sense?
Of course not. It is totally absurd, so it IS NOT CORRECT to assume that HAIR is the removable covering or headcovering being talked about in the entire passage.
Then there is another case in point: many african women do not grow long hair on their heads because of their genes. They barely have any hair, and many of them are converted to Yahwshua. If the "covering" Shaul orders merely referred to long hair, then all these converted african women who do not grow long hair would be guilty of constantly dishonoring their heads because they do not have the "long hair that is glory to them for their hair is given to them as headcovering" like those who misinterpret this passage say they must have!
What alternative would Yhwh give these naturally short-haired women so that they would not dishonor their "head"? None? Would Yhwh just condemn them for not being able to grow a "headcovering" (long hair)? Absurd! The re-written passage we just read with HAIR substituting COVERINGdoes not make any sense and this is because Shaul used different Greek words for the natural hair covering and the headship covering. For further confirmation of what we already know, let's look at the Greek words in the passage:
Apostle brother Shaul said that men should not cover (and the word there is "katakalupto") (Strong's 2619) their heads. And in verse 11 Shaul contrasts that with: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Yhwh uncovered ("akatakaluptos")?" (Strong's 177).
Note that "uncovered/akatakaluptos" is the exact opposite of "to cover/katakalupto." Katakaluptos basically means to UNcover or UNveil.
So far, we have a basic 'men uncover, women cover' command.
Now for where the confusion regarding this aspect comes in: When Shaul refers to a woman's natural hair covering, he uses an altogether different word:
"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering ("peribolaion") " (Strong's 4018).
Peribolaion means something that can hang loose and "be waved around" such as long hair in women is. Men cannot grow their hair so that it can hang loose and be waved around such as women do. So long hair being spoken of here is more like a glorious decoration given to woman. And again, it is a glorious decoration given to women ONLY, and which men cannot don without being in violation of 1 Cor 11:5 which we have read before and says clearly:
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her..."
Now if Shaul had meant the naturally occuring hair covering and the headship-type covering TO BE ONE AND THE SAME THING, he would have used the SAME WORD for both. But he does not. He uses two different words for each: KATAKALUPTO and PERIBOLAION. Instead, a woman's natural hair covering (peribolaion) is being contrasted to this other type of covering (katakalupto) that women wear, and it is done for a reason. In fact, the katakalupto actually covers the peribolaion.
Shaul has begun this passage showing the contrasts between men and women in this passage: men are uncovered ("akatakaluptos"), women are covered ("katakaluptos"). Then Shaul supports his case for headcovering by pointing out that even in nature a woman is given a natural type of covering -- by her long hair.
But Shaul never makes the leap that hair itself is a suitable headcover alone. If such a natural covering sufficed, then Shaul is wasting his time teaching this since the women already had a natural hair covering. Shaul deliberately used different words for the two coverings so we would understand they were complementary to each other but not identical.
And, to further prove he is trying to establish a difference in the nature of those two types of "coverings," Shaul does not intermix the two distinct terms with one another: he refers to each by separate. And also there is no choice offered in this passage that one may choose to either shave one's head and cover it, or to leave one's hair long and remain uncovered.
The natural order is to either wear a covering ("katakaluptos") over the hair ("peribolaion"), or to fully exploit the shame of being uncovered ("akatakaluptos") by also shaving off one's hair too! Better still, he addresses: if you resist submitting to the customary female headcovering, you should as well reject your natural hair too and totally shave it off:
"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn!"
"Covered" above DOES NOT MEAN "hair." For if the woman be not HAIRED (covered), let her also be NOT HAIRED (shorn)---does not make any sense at all!
Now among those who agree a married woman should wear some sort of man-made covering, there is always the one who argues this headcovering is solely due to modesty. That somehow hair is too much of a sexual turn on to men and therefore must be covered to keep a man's libido under control. While long hair can be attractive, the command given by Shaul has little to do with attractiveness, but instead only represents a husband's headship over his wife. Shaul in no way orders women to remain "covered" so as not to sexually arouse other men. He makes it plain that it represents authority, such as a husband's headship over his wife. Let me demonstrate why:
"Then took Myriam of Magdala a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment." Yochanan/John 12:3
We all remember this passage. If hair is so sexually-arousing that it must be kept covered, then the above verse would read absurdly tackily -- as if our beloved sister Miryam the Magdalene was trying to sexually arouse our Master Yahwshua in front of all those present! Clearly hair itself DID NOT have any such deep sexual connotations attached to it.
Furthermore (assuming hair's sexiness was the reason for the covering) the command to cover is given primarily to married women (again, notice there is no mention that single-woman Myriam wore no such covering here). Yet wouldn't many single teenage girls be the ones more likely to entice with their appearance? In fact wouldn't they be the ones most needing this modest head covering?
While certainly a woman's hair is attractive and a delight for her husband, the Ruach Ha Kodesh doesn't show in any of these passages that the command to cover a woman's head is strictly because of its attractiveness.
The headcovering Shaul refers to is less about looks and modesty, and more about showing a woman's 1) marital status, and 2) her submission to her husband's headship over her, or if unmarried, to Yahwshua; and finally, 3) as evidence for the malachim/angels to witness this submissive act (possibly also as a positive example for fallen angels to see -- those who had rejected Yhwh's headship and refused to submit to Him.
Now I address the concern oft revealed through various situations in Torah (such as in the story of Yob) that when any chosen or called-out person disobeys, the enemy can go and lift up an accusation before Yhwh and Yhwh could technically grant permission to that demon to afflict the disobedient as per the covenants He has made with mankind.
This means that when any woman is found by a malak/angel disobeying the command to cover her heads (especially so when praying/prophecying) it equates to her opening the door for that demon to go accuse her before Yhwh that she IS NOT DIRECTLY UNDER YAHWSHUA or through her husband, and this in turn leaves her unprotected from the fallen angels/sheydim.
A woman found in disobedience and dishonoring her Master Yahwshua can and will be subjected ---to one dregree or another---to the "other" master: Ha Satan. There are no more "masters," dear brethren...you either serve Yhwh through his son Yahwshua or you serve the pagan Baalim, and this is so WHETHER THE PERSON KNOWS IT OR NOT.
Do not be deceived, men and women: If you are not obeying Yahweh, YOU ARE STILL OBEYING SOMEONE. You are obeying someone in everything you do, so keep that in mind.
This must be the reason why so many called-out women, especially Efrayimite women, who violate this command and do not cover their heads when praying or prophecying---especially the married ones ---do not submit to their called-out husbands either and have questionable "personality" issues. And it is also the reason why so many men that allow their wives to go uncovered when praying at home or at the assembly have lost their place of authority in the home and why their homes have been progressively wrecked, and will continue to be, unless there is some genuine repentance and strict adherence to Torah's commands!
Now we ---especially married men and women---need to seriosuly look into the issue of when the Ruach Ha Kodesh reveals it is most necessary to cover one's head. There are many who feel headcoverings only need to be worn during congregational services (i.e. 'praying and prophesying'). Shaul says we are to "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17) -- so apparently, there is virtually no time when a kodesh woman should not be praying, therefore, no time when a woman should be walking without a veil at hand to cover herself at any moment's notice.
In conclusion, nothing stated specifically in 1 Corinthians indicates that hair (or, inversely, lack of hair) replaces a proper man-made removable and positionable headcovering on married women.
Most any form of headcovering will be adequate as long as it actually "covers" the head; from a headband, to a scarf, to a hat, to a full veil. The exception to "most any covering" would be a wig, since a wig defeats the whole purpose of the command by appearing to defy it and by giving the illusion of being uncovered. Therefore other than a wig, most any form of covering will adequately fulfill this command, since katakalupto simply means 'to cover' and doesn't specify a particular accessory. If you want to go with the traditional, then it would be a sort of veil or scarf.
Modest sisters preferring a modest look, don't choose headcoverings that would draw much attention to themselves. Do keep in mind that this is a two-edged weapon. To be OVERLY modest and covered up in the society we live in, could either lead to false modesty or to give others the impression we want to be noticed for extreme piety. Torah instructs us we should also avoid this.
The purpose of the covering isn't to attract stares at the supermarket or at the place of assembly but to show submission to Yhwh's natural order, to BE UNDER YAHWSHUA, and to avoid any unnecessary accusation AND possible CONSEQUENCE by Satan's malakim in front of Yhwh.
Thus from what we have seen so far when substituting the words, and when analyzing both different greek words used in the text, and from the passages discussed above in Numbers and in Genesis, the "cover" of which brother Shaul obviously speaks of is not simply "human hair" or "long human hair" that cannot be removed nor put back on the head in situations of prayer or prophecying. The cover is a man-made veil or "headcovering" of some sort. We can replace the greek words with the term "headcovering" and the passage will---far from sounding absurd---sound exactly reasonable:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Mashiach; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Mashiach is Yhwh. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head (covered) (WITH headcovering), dishonoureth his head.
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (uncovered) (WITHOUT headcovering) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not (covered) (WITH headcovering), let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be (covered_ (WITH headcovering).
"... Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Yhwh (uncovered) (WITHOUT headcovering) ?
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
And we of the assemblies/kehilot of Yahwshua today shall finish with the exact Ruach Ha Kodesh admonition that flowed through our brother Shaul back then: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of Yhwh."1 Corinthians 11:3-6; 13-16
May Yhwh bless each and every one of you in the same measure that you strive to honor and obey Him!