Thank you, ReChoired. It is not offensive at all and it is a beautiful compliment and very sweet. Just to clear something up, that word is katakaluptó as a verb in the Greek in reference to 1 Corinthians 11:6, which defines a removable covering. The word is also kalupto is also used, 2Corinthians 3:13 where Moses veils his face where they veil is clearly stated as a removable covering.
So I was under the same impression as you for MANY MANY MANY years. Growing up with an Apostolic Pentecostal impressions, it wasn't easy to change my mind.
So just BEAR with me, because I know this is not an easy concept and sometimes I know when you're learning something different, it can tick you off. But it's worth it. I promise. Because there's a huge treasure in this, so dig with me.
So you can read in 1 Cor 11:2 that it begins with Paul saying " I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you" - now that statement shows that there is some kind of tradition Paulwassettingcom
At the ending of this chapter, you see through 13-16 that these people are being talked to about their contentiousness, as in 16, meaning there is something about this tradition that they didn't want to do. "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (What this verse means is, "If you have a problem with having to do this, we don't do anything else.")
Now women aren't going to complain about having to do something that is naturally occurring and has no effect on them, but if you read it clearly (I posted more in post #11) you can see that people in the church just simply didn't want to make this extra effort, as our churches just don't today. We did 150 years ago. Notice as the covering diminished, modern feminism came more into place.
The purpose is to not shame her husband by exalting the man's glory (the woman) before the throne of the king. Man doesn't have to cover, because he is the glory of Christ. This is outlined in the whole first paragraph. It is a sign to the angels that she is in obedience to God's natural order and will not disgrace men by flaunting man's glory before God.
"A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man."
This is the part where we get mixed up. We see the reference to nature. "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering."
This isn't the same word used in the above scriptures either - which stated a verb (doing something), but it is peribolaiou, which is also a covering, "that which is thrown around" a "veil" BUT this is nothing other than showing an example that is
independent in nature, but isn't the tradition of the church, where people were actually expected to do something that Paul stated they were being contentious about.
Best way to understand it, would you get mad because you had to grow your hair out every Sunday (or in your case Saturday) for church?
It also cannot be cultural, because it was regarded "As a sign to the angels," which eliminates the possibility of it being cultural or for a time.
Hope that makes sense.