Month 8:30, Rosh Chodesh Preparation Day, Year:Day 5937:237 AM|
Gregorian Calendar: Monday 2 December 2013
More Kippah Tales
Royal Priestly Headcoverings?
Continued from Part 1
I began this article originally to tie up a few loose ends left untied in previous articles. I did not know at the outset that I would end up producing a small book, that it would take me seven days, day and night, to write it or that I would unearth so much that had previously been hidden. Each time I dug deeper I found new truths and had to revise what I had initially written so I have literally been over this material dozens of times. I fully expect more to be unearthed.
What is presented is not done so lightly, it is not done so to 'target' any particular religious group or person, and yet I realise that in exposing more golden calves a lot of people will be upset and a lot of ad hominem attacks will be made from certain quarters. At the outset I have to say that I respect people's individual choices to ignore this data and continue in their ways. I will not be persuing them, the 'Hound of Heaven' will. But this is too serious to sweep under the carpet or gloss over with platitudes. The purity of the Body of Messiah is at stake and for those who are serious about overcoming and getting right with Yahweh before the "Great and Dreadful Day of Yahweh" Almighty, which is clearly very soon, this article will, hopefully, be welcomed. The rest will have to continue wrestling with their consciences until their dawning comes.
The sections or paragraphs have been numbered for easy reference.
Arvika, Sweden, 8 December 2013
1. The Enduring Controversy
The 'beanie'  (yarmulke, kippah - also variously spelled 'kipa' and 'kippa') controversy is back in spite of the very clear and unambiguous mitzvah (commandment) that a man should not cover his head while praying or prophesying (1 Cor.11:4-8) and in spite of the historical evidence that the Jewish skullcap was a post-apostolic co-option by Talmudic Judaism in order to be seen to be 'different' from Christian men who did not cover their heads while praying. For background information on this, please first review my earlier studies below:
2. Courting the Devil
Yet the pagan Cap of Attis, still mandatory wear for Roman Catholic cardinals, popes and trappist monks, and popular amongst Muslims (where it is called a taqiyah or kufi), seems to hold a fatal attraction for both Jews and large numbers of messianics, linked as it is to sun-worship and therefore to Satan-worship. Without a doubt there is a force or power behind this sun disk but it is not the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) - it is another spirit that seeks to break Torah tavnith (pattern) and in so doing dishonour the Supreme Head of man, Yahweh-Elohim, and destroy the symbolism of the true order of marriage. So this is not a small matter. Indeed, I will state from the outset that it is my belief that those who wear this sun-disk on the crown of the head as Catholics, Jews and many Messianics are doing, are declaring allegiance to the Enemy, purposefully or ignorantly, and giving the Enemy spiritual grounds to create trouble for them. I will attempt to explain why.
3. William Schnoebelen's Defence of Kippah - Part 1
In an article  defending his use of a 'beanie', messianic minister and well known popular speaker William Schnoebelen  who has apparently discovered he has some Jewish ancestry and like many like him  has responded accordingly to seek a closer Jewish identity by viewing Judaism's cultural traditions in a sympathetic light, offers a theological apology and scriptural exegesis for his wearing the Jewish kippah (kipa) or yarmulke. He is by no means alone in these beliefs, and I am not singling him out especially, but since his wife posted his article in my Facebook account to counter my earlier articles, I have elected to use his particular material as a response to all those who believe in male headcoverings of one sort or another. He offers several lines of defence so we'll divide his material into five parts and look at these in segments:
Bill wearing his famous black hat (left) and 'beanie' or kippah (right)
Thousands of Messianic Ministers wear the Jewish 'kippah' today
"i. In Yiddish, the skullcap is called a yarmulke, but the correct Hebrew term for it is KIPPAH.
1. This is rooted in the Hebrew word KAPAR #3722 which means atonement, literally to cover. (See Ex.29:33 and 30:10 among many other places)
2. A variation of the word, KIPPURIM is used in Lev 23:27 for the Day of Atonement (YOM HA KIPPURIM).
3. Even more critically, the word is also related to the word KAPPHORET (#3727) which we translate as the mercy seat or lid of the ark of the covenant, where the atoning blood was applied every Yom Kippur (see Ex.25:17).
4. Thus, by wearing it, I remind myself, I am under the ATONING BLOOD of the Lamb."
4. Uncommanded Religious Attire
All of these linguistic observations are, of course, perfectly true but irrelevent to the argument. I might just as well tie bells to my ankles, carry a Bible in my hip pocket or hold an opened red umbrella over my head wherever I go to remind me that I am under the atoning blood of the Lamb. The point is, Yahweh has nowhere called us to wear a kippah, yarmulke, skull-cap or 'beanie' to remind us of the Atonement. What He has commanded us to do is:
5. Things We are Commanded to Do
- 1. Attend Pesach (Passover) every year to remind us of the atoning work of the Paschal Lamb;
- 2. Wear tziztit (tassels) when in daytime clothes (men only) as a constant reminder of our obligation to obey the mitzvot (commandments) and of our Shavu'ot Covenant (Bar/Bat Mitzvah - men & women) or wear headcoverings (women only - to be discussed later) as a reminder that she is under the authority of her father or husband;
- 3. Attend weekly sabbaths and monthly new moons to hear the Davar Elohim (Word of God) preached;
- 4. Regularly partake of the Lord's Supper; and
- 5. Study the Scriptures like good Bereans (Ac.17:10-11) and pray privately (Mt.6:6; 1 Thes.5:1).
6. William Schnoebelen's Defence of Kippah - Part 2
All of these are divinely mandated reminders of qodesh (holy, set-apart) things that include remembering the Atonement but we are nowhere commanded to wear a disk-shaped kippah that has a known pagan origin (to be treated later).
7. The Kippah as a Helmet of Salvation?
If Yahweh wanted us to wear reminders of the armour of the spiritual warrior of Paul's allegory, He would have commanded us to wear something like a rectangular plate on our chest to remind us of the breastplate of righteousness, a holy belt to remind us of the belt of truth, a pair of external garters on our legs to remind us of the greaves, bells on our shoes to remind us of the Gospel of Peace, a little metal kippah on our left wrist to remind us of the shield of faith, a miniature sword on our right wrist to remind us of the sword of the Spirit, and so on. You get the idea. To be consistent, you must go the whole way. Of course, you would look rather ridiculous with all that junk on you.
8. More Religious Baggage
The point is Yahweh has not commanded this - wearing tassels and headscarves draws attention as it is and we are not to unnecessarily draw attention to ourselves. Dressing up like a clown with bits and pieces all over our body to remind us of this and that would understandably put Yahweh to riddicule in the eyes of unbelievers. Yarmulkes, phylacteries and mezuzah are examples of this religious baggage nowhere commanded and which so often becomes a snare to men's vanity, traps for legalism, and stumbling blocks to true spirituality. Rather, we are commanded not to invent more 'religious tradition' (Mt.15:3,6; Mk.7:8-9,13) - it was the undoing of the Pharisees and the Judahites of Yah'shua's (Jesus') day and it has been the undoing of Christianity ever since (Col.2:8; 1 Pet.1:18).
9. Men's Head-Covering is Anti-Torah and Anti-Paul
Throughout Judaism and the Messianic Movement the widespread practice of men covering their heads with tallit or prayer shawls while praying and worshipping is in direct violation of Scripture, sacred tavnith or pattern, and the historical witness. The apostle Paul declared emphatically:
10. Paul vs. Jewish Tradition?
"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonours his head (Yah'shua). But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head (her husband), for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of Elohim (God); but woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor.11:4-8, NKJV).
This apostolic injunction has sadly led many Messianic Jewish and Israelite men to reject the New Testament writings of Paul (Sha'ul) because they are of the mistaken belief that since Talmudic Jews wear headshawls (tallit) and skullcaps (kippah or yarmulke) that Paul must be wrong and the Jewish traditions right. However, as scholar Michael Marlowe states:
11. Do Not Listen to Jewish Fables
"Among Jews the custom of covering the head for prayer did not arise till the third or fourth century of the Christian era. Some theorize that Jews adopted the yarmulke in a reaction against Christian customs. For example, the Jewish scholar Abraham Millgram, in his book Jewish Worship (Jewish Publication Society, 1971), writes:
"See also the article Head, Covering of, in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 8 (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1971), in which it is said that one Jewish sage declared that "since Christians generally pray bareheaded, the Jewish prohibition to do so was based on the biblical injunction not to imitate the heathen custom." (p.5.) The assertion that the men covered their heads for prayer in New Testament times, often found in the older commentaries (such as John Lightfoot's Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ) was based entirely upon statements about headcoverings in the Talmudic tractates of late antiquity. But in the past hundred years scholars have become much more cautious about the use of rabbinic literature dating from the fourth century as a source of evidence for first-century practices" (Michael Marlowe, Headcovering Customs of the Ancient World).
'As the persecutions of the Church increased, the Jewish aversion to everything Christian deepened. The uncovering of the head became associated with Church etiquette and therefore became repugnant. To worship or even to go about with an uncovered head was regarded as imitation of the Christians and an act of irreverence' (p. 351).
Now if you want to dress up like a clown you are free to do so but be very careful when you seek Scriptural justification for it especially if what you are doing has clear pagan roots, for then you are mocking the Most High. Also, before very long, these man-made traditions tend evolve and fossilise into the dead "commandments of men" (Mt.15:9; Mk.7:7) because carnal man loves to add his own rules and appoint rulers who alone can interpret, guard and enforce them. Indeed we are warned explicity not to heed "Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the emet (truth) (Titus 1:14, NKJV).
12. William Schnoebelen's Defence of Kippah - Part 3
13. Bonnets and Hats and the King James-Only Question
"iii. It also refers to the garments of the priesthood. Remember, in the apostolic Scriptures, Peter tells us that we are ALL part of a 'holy priesthood' now (1 Peter 2:5), thus we are all priests before YHWH.
1. Ex.29:9 and 39:28 refer to the bonnet (King James Authorized Version - Some other translations say turban, unfortunately. This conjures up images of Arabs or swamis. Not a good thing!) as part of the commanded garments of the priesthood.
2. In Strong's #4021 we find the Hebrew word for this is migba'a that means a 'hemispherical cap' It is derived from a different Hebrew word, gib'a, meaning a little hill (#1389).
3. Thus, the head covering the priests in the Torah were wearing was a shaped like half a sphere. Very much like the hat you see me wearing in most of my DVD teachings, OR the hat worn by many Jews.
4. Lev.10:6 says that priests should not uncover their heads, even when mourning, "lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people."
Now these claims are a much more serious matter and therefore we must dissect them more carefully, so my response to this segment will be much longer and extensive. Remember, Bill is an unrepentant 1611 KJV-Onlyer  (which is why he exclusively uses that version of the Bible) which means that he believes it is word-for-word infallible and that all other versions or translations are false. That, at least, is what is claimed in the radically fundamentalist Christian Jack Chick publications where Bill is endorsed as a KJV-Onlyer. If he has changed his mind to 'KJV-Best', 'KJV-Preferred' or some other position (which he is perfectly entitled to do so - we all make errors and have to make apologies and retractions) then he has not, as far as I know, ever publically acknowledged his error or made any sort of retraction, so we must assume he is of his former belief still, even though I find this amazing since the KJV translation has a strongly anti-Torah (and therefore anti-messianic) bias. According to a letter written in 2013 on his own website  he is still definitely KJV-Only:
14. Sin, Heresy or Lie?
We'll not debate here whether Bill's holding this position is "a sin, a heresy, or a lie" - the reason I raise this matter is because he is, by direct implication, maintaining the inerrancy of KJV translation of key Torah passages concerning priesthood headgear which is important to our discussion on the kippah, so it's important he is called on his KJV-Onlyism . As we'll see later he sticks with the KJV's erroneous and rather silly "bonnets" and "hats" translations.
15. The Royal Priesthood and Men and Women's Headgear
Now to answer his claims in Section iii. Yes, it is true that in the B'rit Chadashah (New Covenant) we are all a Royal Priesthood but that does not mean that men and women have identical rôles, callings and ministries necessarily. In fact, Torah distinctions in the Tanakh (Old Testament) continue to be affirmed in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) by Paul and the other apostles. Bill's implication is that men and women should wear similar, if gender-distinctive, priestly headgear to refelct their priestly calling.
16. No Known Melchizedek Priestly Uniform
Unfortunately (for Bill's position), since there is no physical mishkan (tabernacle, temple) in the B'rit Chadashah (New Covenant), aside from the Father and the Son Themselves who are the New Covenant Temple in the New Jerusalem (Rev.21:22), and since we are told quite clearly in Hebrews that the old Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood has been entirely replaced by the Melchizedek Priesthood, then there would never be an occasion for either men or women to wear priestly headgear in the Melchizedek. Indeed, there is no Old or New Covenant scripture anywhere in the Bible indicating that there was ever any ritual clothing for the Melchizedek Priesthood. Since we are on duty 24/7 in the temple of our bodies - the temple of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) - which corresponds to the former Mosaic mishkan (tabernacle, temple), then - unless we all wear a priestly uniform all the time (nowhere indicated in Scripture) - we must assume that our daily clothing, in all its diverse forms, is the accepted clothing of this Priesthood Order.
17. Only Tzitzit and Women's Headcoverings Have Continued
The only items of clothing that have survived into the B'rit Chadashah (New Covenant) would appear to be the tzitzit (tassels) for men and the headcovering for women. And though by implication tzitzit (tassels) now symbolise New Covenant Melchizedek Torah rather than Old Covenant Levitical Torah, we have direct revelation from Paul as to the symbolic significance of the woman's headcovering in the New Covenant where none was ever mentioned in the Old. This was not some local 'cultural' thing, as Bill and others claim, but was, according to the Apostle, of universal application throughout all the assemblies of Messianic Israel, from Spain to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to India.
So in otherwords, then as today, people were arguing with the apostles about male and female headcoverings...something that needs to be carefully noted as our discussion progresses.
"If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we (the apostles) have no other practice -- nor do the assemblies of Elohim (God)" (1 Cor.11:16, NIV).
18. An Apostolic and Universal Headcovering Rule
In other words, the rules governing men's and women's headcoverings were universal and ubiquitous throughout all messainic congregations irrespective of whether they originated and existed in the Holy Land or in Gentile areas. And it was a ruling accepted by all the apostles. So this was not a temporary 'cultural' adaptation invented by Paul that could be altered as cultural conditions changed. But more about this later.
19. The Kippah and the Synagogue
To the modern Jew the kippah is a sacred item of clothing and is treated in much the same was as the priestly headpieces described in the two passages cited by Bill. In fact, you can't enter a synagogue without wearing one because to the Jew a synagogue is a bit like a mishkan or temple - it's holy space to a Jew. For a people still having an Old Covenant mindset who still believe in the importance of a physical temple, treating a synagogue like a temple makes sense. In fact, it's the same attitude that Catholics and traditional Protestants have toward their church buildings. It's a Tanakh (Old Testament) way of thinking and not at all like that of the B'rit Chadashah (New Covenant). But they also wear a kippah outside the synagogue for fear that they might tread accidentally on some holy spot and find themselves not properly 'covered'. Religious Jews therefore wear their 'beanie' at all times...just in case, with the Ultra Orthodox even having one to sleep in.
20. Removing the Precious from the Vile Before Yahweh
Here we are dealing with superstition which has led to extra rules. The Tanakh (Old Testament) teaches us that as Israel (whether the former Old or the present New Covenant Israel) we are always to be prepared to "stand before [Yahweh]" and to ensure that we are to "take out the precious from the vile" so that we can be "as [His] mouth" (Jer.15:19, NKJV). We are to set an example to each other in walking the true Derech (Way).
21. The Kippah an Exclusively Religious Item
Whatever we may feel about various items of head covering in general (hats, veils, scarfs, etc.) we have to first of all appreciate that the Jewish kippa is different from all of these because it is a religious symbol in and of itself. It never had a practical value like giving shade from the sun or keeping rain off our heads. And what it symbolises is VILE and ABOMINABLE because this little disk represents the sun and the sun-god and denotes his followers. And the sun god is, of course, none other than Satan himself. It's no different from the disk-shaped wafer that Catholics eat during their communion except they're eating the sun-god rather than wearing him as a symbol of his authority on their heads as their cardinals and popes do (and as the Archbishop of Canterbury does in the Anglican Church). If we are to remain a separate people - whether as direct descendants of the 12 tribes who trust in Messiah, or adopted gentiles doing the same - we must not have anything to do with this emblem of wickedness.
22. The Reason for the Invention
The original idea of the kippah was to serve as a reminder of what a Jew believed to keep him out of trouble. However, the kippah, as I maintained in my earlier articles, is of relatively modern provenance. The Jews know it and admit it quite openly so why can't we accept the word of its inventors? One Jewish website states:
23. The True Jewish History of the Kippah
"Here's a surprise for some readers, regular Jewish people in Biblical times and even as recently as medieval times DID NOT WEAR A KIPPAH. It is a practice that has evolved to be normal over time, in fact for women it has only been an accepted custom in most Jewish circles for about twenty or thirty years." 
Wearing of the kippah by ordinary Jews is a "practice" that has "evolved" with time. Jews in Yah'shua's (Jesus') time did not wear the kippah. The very first leaders to have started wearing something like a kippah may have been rabbis in the Babylonian exile, but not before. They were certainly not around in the time of Moses, David or Ezra. And it was never the mitznefet worn by the Cohen Gadol (High Priest) or the migba'at worn by ordinary cohenim (priests), as we'll see in a minute.
24. The Talmudic Record
The Talmud tells us that some who felt great awe for the experience of a Divine Presence in the world would also veil their faces and cover their heads, especially while praying or studying . It gradually became the custom for Torah scholars (scribes) to cover their heads, but this is clearly stated to be optional and reserved for established authorities and may have been a status symbol . For those who would lead services and give the priestly blessing a head covering became normal among the Jews of Babylonia, though not so much so in other regions, and clearly evolved abroad rather than having been originally practiced in Israel. What the apostate Jews in exile did is not, however, grounds for accepting an evolved practice that is unscriptural and undoubtedly of pagan origin. Moreover, they weren't all agreed which is why practices diverged which is why the Talmud is of so many contrary opinions. The great medieval commentator known as the Maharshal (Solomon Luria - 1510-1573) ruled a head covering during prayer to be optional, although Maimonides (1335-1204) equates an uncovered head with a person who does not take living seriously enough . This is the mediaeval period I spoke of earlier. It is not until R. David haLevy of Ostrog (in Volhynia, Poland) in the 17th century (1586-1667), by which time uniformity was becoming the norm, that we read for the first time about one of the differences between Christians and Jews is that Jewish men would cover their heads during prayer. This practice was the result of a long but gradual process of change over many centuries.
25. Did the Priests Really Wear 'Bonnets' and 'Hats'?
If, like Bill and other messianics, you say that the kippah is like the "bonnet" (e.g. Ex.39:28, KJV, etc.), or the "hat" that Yahweh gave to the cohenim (priests), then we must insist that a biblical reference be provided that describes the "bonnet" to be a kippah. For the burden of proof resides upon the one doing the tradition: why do you do what you do? What biblical basis do you have? For if you do not have a biblical basis then you are walking in a tradition, not in Torah. It is very important to understand where the tradition comes from. For if it is of pagan origin, we must have nothing to do with it. If it is not, and it enhances Scripture, then it is probably acceptable.
26. The Central Question That Must Be Asked
We must not lose focus here of the central question: 'Does the kippah symbolise submission to the Elohim (God) of Israel or to the sun-god, Satan?' And if to the Elohim (God) of Israel, then we must be able to substantiate our claim with Scripture. If a man wants to wear a turban with his head exposed (as I explain in an earlier article), all well and good. But Yahweh never commanded it for anyone in Israel except Aaron the Cohen Gadol (High Priest) and his sons. To indulge in scare tactics, as Bill does, by saying that a turban "conjures up images of Arabs" (as though that were something evil) is really quite unacceptable and smacks of racism. Turbans are, and have been, used by all sorts of people throughout history, whether by Muslims, Sikhs, or whoever. Sometimes they are worn for religous reasons but more often for purely cultural ones to denote shared values. I personally know I will be wearing a turban in the Millennium because Yahweh showed me a vision of myself and two others thus attired, so I know what it looks like. The turban does not necessarily contain within itself a religious symbolic meaning in every culture. But not so with the kippah which is a 100% religious object.
27. Circular Trimmings Forbidden
There are places in the Tanakh (Old Testament) where Yahweh tells the Israelites not to shave their heads in the form of a circle because this is originally what all the priests of Baal, Bacchus, Tamuz, Apollo, Jupiter and Dagon did to signify their allegiance to the sun god. Wearing a kippah is one very small step removed from having the head shaved that way. But the symbolism remains the same. The kippah represents the same circle or nimbus of light that encircles the Catholic pictures of 'the Lord' and 'Mary' and 'Joseph' and all the other 'saints'. This circle of light that radiates from their head is supposed to suggest their deity or goodness. But this representation was in actual fact borrowed directly from the pictures and statues of the 'gods and goddesses' of Babylon .
28. The Disk and the Sun-God
Pagan worship was rampant in the ancient world. From Ireland to Egypt, to Assyria to India, and to China and Mexico, the idolatrous pagan traditions were the same. The names of the gods and goddess' changed, but the rituals remained the same or similar. All of them can be traced back to Babel (Babylon). Speaking of the pre-Christian Roman Empire Hislop says:
29. The Kippah as Sun Disk and Kether of Kabbalism
"The disk and particularly the circle were the well known symbols of the Sun-divinity, and figured largely in the symbolism of the East. With the circle or the disk, the head of the Sun divinity was encompassed. The same was the case in Pagan Rome." 
He goes on to say that the nimbus was the same for the Roman Madonna (Virgin Mary). The kippah is the physical representation of the nimbus or disk or circle and represents the kether or 'crown' of modern Jewish Kabbalism and its esoteric occultic deity depicted as male and female in perfect union.
30. Israelite Apostacy and Sun-God Worship
Sun-worship has always lain at the core of false religion. The solar disk was their deity. The Greeks honoured Apollo as the child of the sun as the Romans worshipped the sun-god Mithra. It's the basis of modern Illuminati worship. The Israelites, when they fell into apostacy, were not long in worshipping the sun-god. John Yarker, the well known 19th century Masonic magician and occultist, makes mention of the fact that the High Priests of the ancient Jews also worshipped the sun-god:
31. The Sun-God, Mystery Religions and Satan-Worship
"The Mysteries we know were practiced in a secret subterranean chamber under the Temple of Solomon, at Jerusalem, where four and twenty elders adored the sun, with their faces toward the east." 
This vile paganism is condemned roundly in Ezekiel 8 and it is understandable why Yahweh would so detest worship of the sun-god by the Mystery Religions and by apostate Judahites. Another scholar affirms:
"There is little doubt that the culmination of the Mysteries was the worship of Satan himself." 
Like the apostate Jewish Elders of the past and the cohenim (priests) in the days of Ezekiel, Masons continue to worship Satan the sun-god, Lucifer or Baal. The name of their supreme deity, their 'Architect of the Universe', is revealed to their highest initiates to be Jahbulon, which is described in their upper degrees as a synonym for the solar deity (sun-god), Bul, and On representing Baal and On, both sun and fire gods, of Canaan and Egypt, respectively. As you can see from the illustration, 'Jahbulon' is associated in Masonic circles with the false Talmudic god 'Je-ho-vah'.
33. The Circle and its Central Point
All kippah's, of whatever design, unite at a point where the crown of the head is covered (see diagram to right). Here the kippah describes a circle with a point in the middle which is another Masonic symbol. The point represents the male phallus or lingham (penis), and the circle the female yoni (vagina). In Chapter 1 of my short book, The Occult, I write:
The image to the left is an ancient solar symbol featuring a circle with its center marked with a dot. It remains the astronomical and astrological symbol for the Sun, and the ancient Egyptian sign for "sun" or "Ra" in the hieroglyphic writing system. The character for "sun" or "day" in early Chinese script was similar, but it has become square in modern script.
"...the CIRCLE ... in occultism represents the universe and is derived from the shape of the SUN. In Masonry the circle contains a POINT in the centre and is derived from the Egyptian mystery religion where it represents the SUN. One noted Masonic writer, Harold Percival (33°), confirms that the symbol is related to sun-worship, itself a modification of phallus-worship. The point within the circle is one of the hieroglyphic signs of the Egyptian sun-god, RA, the Hindu god of destruction SHIVA, the Druidic god ODIN. It represents the union of male and female, the dot representing the male lingam (phallus) and the circle the female yoni. This same symbol is also used by the Cosa Nostra Maffia and the Illuminati to represent their respective secret orders."
34. The Ouroboros
At times this circle is represented by the anata (Sanskrit for 'eternity') in the form of a serpent or dragon with its tail in its mouth, known as an Ouroboros. The logo to the right, which is to be found above the door of the headquarters of the Theosophical Society in Budapest, Hungary, is representative and depicts the Ouroboros encircling a hexagram or 'Star of David' with a pagan Egyptian Ankh cross in the centre and a reduced anticlockwise Swastika above. The Theosophical Society, founded by occulist Helena Blavatsky, used to be known as the Lucifer Trust. The Ouroboros is the satanic counterpart of the Alef-Taw or Alpha-Omega who is Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) so in satanic symbolism it represents the Antimessiah (Antichrist). If Jews and messianics who use the kippah knew what it actually represents, they would rip them off their heads and burn them in disgust and repentance!
35. The Ubiquitous Satanic Sun-Disk
The Enemy has sought to implant the symbols of his worship wherever, and on whomever, he can. He takes almost as much pleasure seeing the dumbed down use and wear them - religious and unreligious - without being conscious of what they are doing as much as he does his conscientious followers doing so. Look around at pictures of famous people - politicians, musicians, artists, bankers, and others - and you'll see a good number of them with strategically positioned disks above or behind their heads to represent the nimbus of their claimed godhood. The picture on the left, showing U.S. President Obama standing infront of the Seal of the President of the United States, is a typical example of careful photopraphic position for publication in the media to send an occult message. In this, and thousands of others like it, important persons in the Hierarchy are depicted to show their positions amongst the Illuminati Pantheon - they are announcing themselves as 'gods'. Occultists in-the-know like their symbols as much as their master does because of their pride and vanity.
36. The Rounded Head in Antiquity and the Zuchetto
Here's an example from antiquity in the Scriptures in which Yahweh warned the Israelites not to imitate the pagans of the surrounding nations:
An odd mitzvah (commandment) until you do some historical research and learn that this rounded head was worn as a symbol of identification with the sun-god by ancient pagans and which is still imitated by many Catholic clerics to this day, as I mentioned earlier. (Get Hislop's book, The Two Babylons, and you'll no longer be in any doubt. You can download it free on the internet). Those Catholics in the 'Hierarchy' know fully well that their zuchetto's (the name they give to their kippah or skull-cap - see an example of a cardinal's zuchetto to the right) represents Satan, the sun-god. So where did the Catholic Pope and his cardinal's get their kippot (kippa's) from? Though it is claimed by some the Catholics copied the Jews, the emet (truth) is they had them long before the Jews ever adopted them, as we also saw earlier, since this Jewish practice is mediaeval in origin.
"You shall not shave around the sides of your head..." (Lev.19:27, NKJV).
37. History of the Devil's Tonsure
I am sure many of you know what a 'tonsure is'. The world literally means 'to shear' and describes the head shaved in the form of a circle, the upper part becoming bald as a result. You see an example of a monk (below left) who has had the top part of his hair shaved off, believed by Catholics to confer clerical authority. Alexander Hislop writes:
In a footnote to 'the mutilated Prince' (above) Hislop writes this:
"These celibate priests have all a certain mark set upon them at their ordination; and that is the clerical tonsure. The tonsure is the first part of the ceremony of ordination; and it is held to be a most important element in connection with the orders of the Romish clergy.
"When, after long contendings, the Picts were at last brought to submit to the Bishop of Rome, the acceptance of this tonsure as the tonsure of St.Peter on the part of the clergy was the visible symbol of that submission. Naitan, the Pictish king, having assembled the nobles of his court and the pastors of his church, thus addressed them: 'I recommend all the clergy of my kingdom to receive the tonsure.'
"Then, without delay, as Bede informs us, this important revolution was accomplished by royal authority. He sent agents into every province, and caused all the ministers and monks to receive the circular tonsure, according to the Roman fashion, and thus to submit to Peter, 'the most blessed Prince of the apostles.' 'It was the mark,' says Merle D'Aubigne, 'that Popes stamped not on the forehead, but on the crown. A royal proclamation, and a few clips of the scissors, placed the Scotch, like a flock of sheep, beneath the crook of the shepherd of the Tiber.'
"Now, as Rome set so much importance on this tonsure, let it be asked what was the meaning of it? It was the visible inauguration of those who submitted to it as the priests of Bacchus. This tonsure cannot have the slightest pretence to Christian authority. It was indeed the 'tonsure of Peter,' but not of the Peter of Galilee, but of the Chaldean 'Peter' of the Mysteries. He was a tonsured priest, for so was the god whose Mysteries he revealed.
"Centuries before the Christian era, thus spoke Herodotus of the Babylonian tonsure:
"What, then, could have led to this tonsure of Bacchus? Everything in his history was mystically or hieroglyphically represented, and that in such a way as none but the initiated could understand. One of the things that occupied the most important place in the Mysteries was the mutilation to which he was subjected when he was put to death.
'The Arabians acknowledge no other gods than Bacchus and Urania (i.e. the Queen of Heaven), and they say that their hair was cut in the same manner as Bacchus's is cut; now, they cut it in a circular form, shaving it around the temples.'
"In memory of that, he was lamented with bitter weeping every year, as 'Rosh-Gheza,' 'the mutilated Prince.' But 'Rosh-Gheza' also signified the 'clipped or shaved head.' Therefore he was himself represented either with the one or the other form of tonsure; and his priests, for the same reason, at their ordination had their heads either clipped or shaven.
"Over all the world, where the traces of the Chaldean system are found, this tonsure or shaving of the head is always found along with it. The priests of Osiris, the Egyptian Bacchus, were always distinguished by the shaving of their heads. In Pagan Rome, in India, and even in China, the distinguishing mark of the Babylonian priesthood was the shaven head. Thus Gautama Buddha, who lived at least 540 years before Christ, when setting up the sect of Buddhism in India which spread to the remotest regions of the East, first shaved his own head, in obedience, as he pretended, to a Divine command, and then set to work to get others to imitate his example.
"One of the very titles by which he was called was that of the 'Shaved-head.' 'The shaved-head,' says one of the Purans, 'that he might perform the orders of Vishnu, formed a number of disciples, and of shaved-heads like himself.'
"The high antiquity of this tonsure may be seen from the enactment in the Mosaic law against it. The Jewish priests were expressly forbidden to make any baldness upon their heads (Lev.21:5), which sufficiently shows that, even so early as the time of Moses, the 'shaved-head' had been already introduced.
"In the Church of Rome the heads of the ordinary priests are only clipped, the heads of the monks or regular clergy are shaven, but both alike, at their consecration, receive the circular tonsure, thereby identifying them, beyond all possibility of doubt, with Bacchus, 'the mutilated Prince.'
"Now, if the priests of Rome take away the key of knowledge, and lock up the Bible from the people; if they are ordained to offer the Chaldean sacrifice in honour of the Pagan Queen of Heaven; if they are bound by the Chaldean law of celibacy, that plunges them in profligacy; if, in short, they are all marked at their consecration with the distinguishing mark of the priests of the Chaldean Bacchus, what right, what possible right can they have to be called ministers of Christ?" 
38. From Paganism to Catholicism to Judaism
"It has been already shown (p.18, Note) that among the Chaldeans the one term 'Zero' signified at once 'a circle' and 'the seed.' 'Suro,' 'the seed,' in India, as we have seen, was the sun-divinity incarnate. When that seed was represented in human form, to identify him with the sun, he was represented with the circle, the well-known emblem of the sun's annual course, on some part of his person.
"Thus our own god Thor was represented with a blazing circle on his breast. - (Wilson, Parsi Religion, p.31.) In Persia and Assyria the circle was represented sometimes on the breast, sometimes round the waist, and sometimes in the hand of the sun-divinity. - (Bryant, vol. ii., Plates, pp. 216,406,409; and Laynard's Nineveh and Babylon, p.160.) In India it is represented at the tip of the finger. - Moor's Pantheon, Plate 13, 'Vishnu.'
"Hence the circle became the emblem of Tammuz (Ezek.8:14) born again, or 'the seed.' The circular tonsure of Bacchus was doubtless intended to point him out as 'Zero,' or 'the seed,' the grand deliverer. And the circle of light around the head of the so-called pictures of Christ was evidently just a different form of the very same thing, and borrowed from the very same source. The ceremony of tonsure, says Maurice, referring to the practice of that ceremony in India, 'was an old practice of the priests of Mithra, who in their tonsures imitated the solar disk.' - (Antiquities, vol. vii. p. 851. London, 1800.)
"As the sun-god was the great lamented god, and had his hair cut in a circular form, and the priests who lamented him had their hair cut in a similar manner, so in different countries those who lamented the dead and cut off their hair  in honour of them, cut it in a circular form.
"There were traces of that in Greece, as appears from the Electra of Sophocles (line 52, pp.108-109); and Herodotus particularly refers to it as practiced among the Scythians when giving an account of a royal funeral among that people.
"'The body', says he, 'is enclosed in wax. They then place it on a carriage, and remove it to another district, where the persons who receive it, like the Royal Scythians, cut off a part of their ear, shave their heads in a circular form,' &c. - (Hist., lib. iv. cap. 71, p.279.)'
"Now, while the Pope, as the grand representative of the false Messiah, received the circular tonsure himself, so all his priests to identify them with the same system are required to submit to the same circular tonsure, to mark them in their measure and their own sphere as representatives of that same false Messiah." 
The 'kippa' or zuchetto worn by the Catholic Pope and his Cardinals is a mirror reflection of the circular tonsure, a symbol of the solar-disk and of the sun-god, Satan. The Catholic Church had it before the Jews and the pagan priests and the heathen had it before the Catholics. The Catholic Church, as Hislop demonstrates to clearly, is an extension of the Babylonian system of religion. Why, then, would anyone - be they Jews or Messianics claiming to be faithful followers of the Tanakh (Old Testament), want to imitate them? There are native tribes in Africa and South America who shave their heads in the exact form of a kippa also. Is this global practice a mere coincidence or is it evidence of global apostacy?
39. Leaving No Stone Unturned
I have deliberately devoted a lot of time examining the pagan background of the kippah because Bill and other messianics have a tendency to selectively quote and rearrange the data to play down the obvious connection to the ancient satanic cult. Toward the end of this article we will see what Bill has to say on this matter and then compare it with all the information above. By then the emet (truth) should be very plain indeed. I don't want to leave any stone unturned.
40. King James' Old Testament Headgear
Now it is time to move on to the KJV renditions of the headgear of the Old Covenant cohenim (priests) and Cohen Gadol (Hight Priests) which Bill insists on using. We'll start with the "bonnet" which appears six times in the KJV, five of which refer to Aaron's sons and one to carnal Judahite women:
(1) "And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets (migba'ah) shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty" (Ex.28:40, KJV).
(2) "And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets (migba'ah) on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons" (Ex.29:9, KJV).
(3) "And they made coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons, and a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets (migba'ah) of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen"
(4) "And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and put bonnets (migba'ah) upon them; as the LORD commanded Moses" (Lev.8:13, KJV).
(5) "But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD: they shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge. And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. They shall have linen bonnets (migba'ah) upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat" (Ezek.44:15-18, KJV).
(6) "Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet (ek'kes, anklet), and their cauls (shabiyc, hair netting), and their round tires like the moon (saharon, round neck pendant), the chains (netiyfah, ear pendants of pearl), and the bracelets (sherah, wrist-band), and the mufflers (ra'alah, long fluttering veil), the bonnets (pe'er, 'fancy head dress'), and the ornaments of the legs (tse'adah, ankle-chain), and the headbands (quishshur, ornamental girdle), and the tablets (bayit nefesh, house hangings), and the earrings (nexem, nose ring), the rings (tabba'ath, signet), and nose jewels (af neh'zem, nose jewels, rings), the changeable suits of apparel (machalatsah, easily removed mantle), and the mantles (ma'atafah, cloak), and the wimples (michpachath, wide cloaks), and the crisping pins (chariyt, pocket), the glasses (cadyn, shirt), and the fine linen (tsanyf, piece of cloth wrapped around head), and the hoods (tsniynfah, wrapped-around head cloth), and the vails (radiyd, spreading veil)" (Isa.3:17-23, KJV).
41. Women's 'Bonnets' in Ancient Judah
We'll start with the fifth passage where the Hebrew word pe'er is rendered 'bonnet'. As you will see in the table below, where five representative Bible versions (two messianic, ISRV & OJB - and three Protestant, KJV, NASB & NIV...I have highlighted the KJV and ISRV for those who only want to look at two) are compared with the original Hebrew and Strongs, the general consensus is that pe'er should be translated as the unspecified 'headdresses'. I should have liked to have included many more versions but this would have required a table two or three times as large:
||Tinkling ornaments about their feet
||tinkling ornaments about their feet|
||round neck pendant
||round tires like the moon
||ear pendants of pearl
||long fluttering veil
||fancy head dress
||ornaments of the legs
||nose jewels, rings
||easily removed mantle
||changeable suits of apparel
||piece of cloth wrapped around head
||wrapped around headcloth
42. Pe'er as Viewed by Different Translations
Some more 'adventurous' translations render pe'er as 'diadems' (OJB) and 'coronets' (NEB) though for the life of me I don't know why - actually, I do, but they're supposed to be looking at the men's Royal Priesthood headdress - more about that presently. I am surprised by the OJB (Orthodox Jewish Bible), which is usually rigorous, though not by the NEB (New English Bible) which is a translation more in line with traditional British literature, a modern 'KJV' and heir to Shakespearean linguistic excellence if ever there was one. My own view is that Smith & Goodspeed's (S&G) The Complete Bible (University of Chicago Press, 1948) and The Berkley Version in Modern English (Zondervan, 1959) probably capture the correct sense in their use of 'headbands' but since we cannot be sure, we will stick with the non-specific 'headdresses' of the NASB (New American Standard Bible), NIV (New International Version), ISRV (Institute for Scripture Research Version), ATOT (Aleph-Yav Old Testament), ESV (English Standard Version) and others. The RSTNE (Restored Scriptures True Name Edition) 'headcoverings' seems inappropriate to the spiritual condition of these women (reminding us, rather, of pious women).
43. The Importance of Headtires
But the HRV's (Hebraic-Roots Version) (in reality, 1917 JPS's - Jewish Publication Society 1917) 'headtires', also used in other passages in different translations, is important. And although 'headtires' can conjure up the comical image of automobile rubber tyres ('tires' in American English), it's important to understand the evolution of our language because 'tire' or 'tyre' simply means a ring or doughnut-shaped object. The illustration below gets the point over, I hope, so that we can better understand what pe'er looked like, with one suggestion showing a ancient female tire-shaped turban or headdress still in use today:
44. Head-tires vs. Head-coverings
As we look at other turbans such as the cohenim's (priests') migba'ah we also find that they are described as 'head-tires':
This is very different from the images invented by artists based on the teachings of Judaism! The two I share here look more like pagan headdress and are definitely not doughnut-shaped. We will see later why Judaism has reinvented the priestly hats to fit in with its later theological development after its denial of Messiah.
"And for Aharon's sons you shall make tunics, and you shall make for them girdles, and head-tires (migba'ah) shall you make for them, for splendour and for beauty" (Ex.28:40, HRV, JPS 1917).
Exodus 29:9, Exodus 39:27-28 and Leviticus 8:13 also render migba'ah as "head-tires".
45. KJV Blunders
Pertinent also to our study is this question: why did the KJV translators use 'bonnet' for both pe'er in Isaiah 3:20 and migba'ah for the priestly headdresses for Aaron's sons in the other four passages quoted above? As you will see from the table, the KJV translators got some of the Hebrew words like ra'alah meaning a 'long fluttering veil' which they translated 'mufflers' which are 'thick scarves' or 'collars' complelely wrong. Indeed there are several KJV blunders in the list of items worn by these promiscuous Judahite women.
46. Israelite Priests, Scottish Highlanders and Prairie Girls
But why on earth did the KJV men choose a 'BONNET' for either of these two Hebrew words? What does a 'bonnet' conjure up in your mind if not girls and women from Little House on the Prairie (see right). Then, as now, a 'bonnet' meant, and means, a hat worn by women and girls and tied with a ribbon under the chin. Now we can forgive the KJV-translators for their struggle to find words for pe'er and migba'ah because their scholarship was limited by what was known in the 17th century, but we absolutely cannot forgive the ridiculous word-perfect dogma of the KJV-Onlyers! We cannot know what was in the translators' minds because they, like most, translators (sadly) have not left us explainations for the reasons of their choice of English words - perhaps they had in mind the flat brimless caps worn by Scotsmen (above, left), remembering that their patron the King of England was a Scotsman, but somehow I doubt it. Either way, I cannot imagine either Aaron's sons or the carnal Judahite "daughers of Zion" trying to be seductive wearing either, can you?
47. Dressed-Up Middle Eastern Women
Let us now resume our search and find out what those cohenim (priests) actually wore on their heads - I'm afraid we will have to part company with the Judahite lassies for now, however fascinating their attire may have been. Eastern women, you will know, liked to wear many bracelets on their arms, anklets on their ankles, and ornaments on their brows (see the Mesopotamian lady illustration alongside Isaiah 3:17-23 above). Some anklets had bells on them (Ezek.16:10-14) so that they would be both seen and heard as they walked around, arousing curiosity and attention. Whatever they wore on their heads they would not have been remotely like the "bonnets" worn by Aaron's sons, even though these are described as being full of "splendour" and "beauty" as we have seen! Pious Israelite women were supposed to be simple, modest and chaste, said the prophet Isaiah, so that they might become an example to the over-decorated sensual pagan women, an admonition repeated by the apostle Paul - they were to be simple in their attire and to refrain from wearing too many bracelets and trinkets and other jewels (or any at all, for that matter) so as not to draw attention to themselves (1 Tim.2:9-10) since such attention-getting was to be exclusively directed toward their husbands.
48. The Tires That are Also Headbands and Turbans
We have seen that the headdress of the cohenim (priests) were doughnut-shaped 'tires' but I shall now demonstrate that what Aaron and his sons wore on their heads - the 'tires' - were also HEADBANDS or TURBANS that left the top of the head uncovered...the very spot covered by the Jewish kippah and overall by their prayer shawls or tallit! We will see why I believe the ATOT (Aleph-Tav Old Testament), a modern scholaly messianic Tanakh that I highly recommend, and some other translations, have got it correct too. This is why I counsel everyone to study many Bible versions - see In Search of a Bible: Which Translation Should I Use? - you have nothing to lose and much to gain.
49. The Sad Tale of the Mitre and Bonnet
"You shall make coats for Aaron's sons, and you shall make sashes for them, and you shall make headbands (migba'ah) for them, for glory and for beauty. You shall put them on Alef-Taw Aaron your brother, and on his sons with him, and shall anoint them, and Alef-Taw consecrate them, and sactify them, that they minister to me in the cohen's (priest's) office" (Ex.28:40-41, ATOT).
These migba'ah are what the KJV translate as "bonnets".
50. Origin of the Mitre
"They made the Alef-Taw coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons, and the turban (mitznefeth - KJV, HRV/JPS 'mitre'; NKJV 'turban') of fine linen, and the linen headbands (migba'ah - KJV 'bonnets'; NKJV 'hats'; HRV/JPS 'head-tires') of fine linen, and the linen breaches of fine twined linen, and the sash of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, the work of the embroiderer, as Yahweh commanded Alef-Taw Moses" (Ex.39:27-26, ATOT).
The KJV translation is appalling, rendering as it does mitznefeth as 'mitre' (as, sadly, does the HRV/JPS), which the NKJV recognises as an error and correctly translates as 'turban'. Though the English word 'mitre' does indeed derive from the Greek word meaning a 'headband' or 'turban' (and should have been translated as such), by the 17th century a 'mitre' had assumed a completely different meaning to the one in use today - a 'mitre' is now "the liurgical headdress of a bishop or abbot, consisting of a tall pointed cleft cap with two bands hanging down at the back" . As such then, there can be no doubt that the translators, to appease their Anglican King, obsessed as he was with the idea of the Divine Right of Kings and his position as Head of the Church of England, had the Archbishop of Canterbury in mind who wore - and still wears - a hat identical in basic form to that worn by Roman Catholic Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Abbots. Needless to say the 'mitre' has nothing whatsoever in common with the Hebrew mitznefeth or turban.
51. Mitre of the Fish-god Dagon
Far worse (as far as KJV-Onleyers are concerned), the mitre, with its pair of fishy tails and gaping fish mouth at the top, has an undisputed pagan origin, and comes from the headgear of DAGON, the fish-god of ancient Philistia and Babylonia!
52. Aaron Did Not Wear a Catholic or Anglican Mitre
Without perhaps knowing it, the KJV translators were perpetuating the lie that Aaron wore the headgear of the pagan fish god, Dagon, whose attire is still worn by the apostate Catholic and traditional Protestant churches, just as it was in King James' day. No, Aaron did not wear a mitre, and the fact that the word 'mitre' appears in the KJV can only mean that the word was chosen to appease the Anglican Monarch. Do we know this has happened with other words in the KJV? Most definitely, such as in the usage of the word 'baptise' instead of 'immerse' in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) to justify Anglican infant baptism (continued from Catholicism). In other words, what we are seeing in the KJV translation, for all its excellence, is a political agenda serving the interests of a despotic king.
53. The Mitznefeth, Strongs Concordance and Royal Turbans
What we have to do is throw out English translations of passages which render mitznefeth as anything other than a turban and migba'ah as anything other than a headband, turban or head-tire. And remember. Strong's is not the Bible (though many people treat it as such) and contains errors too as you would expect of any human work. But first let's prove that that's correct.
54. Interchange of Words: the Headdress
"Thus says the Master Yahweh: remove the turban (mitsnefeth, tiara, diadem, turban of a king), and take off the crown ('atarah)..." (Ezek.21:26, ATOT)
"The [Levites, the sons of Zadok] shall have linen tires (pe'er - KJV 'bonnets', NKJV 'turbans') on their heads, and shall have linen breaches on their waists; they shall not cloth themselves with anything that makes them sweat" (Ezek.44:18, ATOT).
Here is evidence that the words, previously used in Torah, respectively, for the cohenim's (priest's) headbands and the women's supposed 'fancy head dress' (as Strong's would have us believe) - namely, migba'ah and pe'ehr - came, in fact, to be used interchangeably by Ezekiel's time and must therefore be translated in the general sense as 'headdress' whether worn by godly ministers or by reprobate women. If this is a general word, what is its root and what type (of any) headdress it is describing?
55. The High Priest's Mitsnefeth
Let's start with the mitsnefeth (NKJV & NIV, 'turban'; KJV 'mitre') of the Cohen Gadol (High Priest), Aaron:
56. The Royal Mitsnefeth is Windable
"They made...for Aaron...a turban (mitsnefeth) of fine linen..." (Ex.39:27-28, NKJV).
The root of mitsnefeth is the verb tzah-naf which means "to wind or wrap around" , "to wrap, or wind up, together" , "to wrap, wind up together" . The NIV Interlinear cites this root as the ground for its undoubtedly correct usage of the word 'turban'  and renders the text literally as:
The Hebrew noun mitsnefeth means: "turban, especially of the High Priest" , "turban of High Priest, turban of linen, sign of royalty" , "turban of the High Priest" .
Another Hebrew noun, tzah-neef means: "turban" , "turban", royal turban" , "turban" , "turban; also a sign of royalty...It was the distinctive head gear of the High Priest...The translation 'turban' is supported by the derivation of the word from 'sanap' (sic: sanaf) meaning 'to wrap around'" .
57. The High Priest's Open Turban
That establishes beyond any shadow of a doubt that the headgear of the Cohen Gadol (High Priest) was a turban. But what did it look like? Did it resemble the kind of turban you see Sikhs, Muslims and others wearing? No, because the heads of the latter were totally covered and the head of a man could not be covered for worship. The nearest modern equivalents to the Hebrew mitsnefeth are some of those worn by men on the Indonesian island of Bali and from the Indian subcontinent - notice the exposed crowns of the head:
Asian turbans with the top of the head exposed
58. Could the Priests' Hats or Bonnets Be Kippot?
This now brings us to the migba'ah which some would have us believe translates as "bonnet", "cap" or "hat". Since the mitsnefeth (turban) can't possibly be the Jewish kippah, might the migba'ah be? And would this justify Jews, Messianics and others wearing it as a reminder of spiritual things like the atonement as Bill suggests? As with nouns we have already examined, we must go to the root verbs, remembering that all Hebrew nouns are derived from words of action.
59. The Beautiful Migba'ah
The verb for migba'ah is pah'are and means "to adorn, beautify, honour" , "beautify, glorify" , "glorify, beautify, adorn" . So it should come as no surprise, given the interchangeable use of migba'ah and pe'er, have the same root meaning, the latter meaning "ornamental head dress, turban" , "head dress, turban...Ezk 44:18...of priest" , "turban" .
What meaning, then, is being conveyed to us behind the action verb roots used as nouns for the Hebrew turban?
60. The Migba'ah is Not a Bonnet or Kippah but a Beautiful Turban
"Turban. If the idea behind the verb is 'to clothe with beauty' it is only fitting that a derivative from the verb should refer to some kind of clothing. The turban was not limited to a certain sex or worn on just one occasion as the following shows. It could be worn by women (Is.3:20, KJV 'bonnets') or by men Ezk.24:17 23; Ezekiel himself, KJV 'tire'). It also was worn by the High Priest or Priest and was made of linen (Ex.39:28; Ezk.44:18). It was worn by the bridegroom (Isa 61:10), perhaps here with the translation 'wreath' CF. also 'garland' for ashes in Isa.61:3." (26)
So, yet again, the migba'ah or pe'er is, in fact, a TURBAN and not a 'kippah' or a woman's 'bonnet'. You can't 'wind' a kippa or 'bonnet' around your head. Whatever one or two English translations like the RSV may say, it is not a 'cap', let alone a 'hemisphereical cap'. A turban is a turban. The fact that the migba'ah comes from a root, givat, meaning a 'hill', or another givat meaning 'height', 'elevation', or gahvah meaning 'to be high', does not make it a kippah - it is simply describing headgear rising from the head like a hill. Attempts by desperate beanie-ites to link it to gavia, meaning a 'cup', 'goblet' (as on a menorah), 'bell of a flower', 'bowl', etc., just doesn't work. And attempts by the defenders of the 'mitre' to link migba'ah with some sort of 'conical' headgear also fail. The fact remains is you can't compress a turban wrapped around someone's head into a tiny disk - it just doesn't work!
61. Different Types of Turban
Clearly the Cohen Gadol (High Priests), cohenim (priests) and Judahite women must have worn different types of turban but how they differed in appearance is anyone's guess in the absence of any ancient art or descriptions of them, in spite of desperate attempts by some translators to not render the migba'ah as a turban. To be kind to the KJV translators, perhaps when they used 'bonnet' they had 'turban' in mind. We can afford to be generous to them in spite of King Jim's personal agenda and the KJV-Onlyers' ridiculous claims.
62. We Don't Need to Know the Exact Appearance
We may never know the difference in appearance of the two types of turban. Fortunately, we don't need to know for they are no longer required because the temple services, and the temple those ancient cohenim (priests) ministered in, belong to an Order that has long since passed away and will never return. If, upon His return, Yah'shua (Jesus) institutes the wearing of turbans again for His Royal Priesthood (as would seen to be indicated in the vision I saw of myself and two fellow Melchizedek cohenim/priests), then all well and good, but that is not apparently for now and must await, one supposes, the New Jerusalem.
63. Is the Kippah a Matter of Personal Choice for a True Believer?
This leaves us with the kippah and its continuing use by Jews, Catholics and Messianics. Should be leave it as a 'personal choice'? For the reasons I am about to give, I have to say that unless you're going to allow believers to celebrate Christmas (or any pagan festival) with all its religious paraphanalia, then the answer is a definite No! We forbid their use in our ministry along with tallit, phylacteries and other Jewish religious regalia. This is why.
64. Why Israelis Wear Kippot
If you speak with Israelis and ask them why they wear the kippah, they'll tell you two things:
- 1. The person who wears a kippah is a true religious Jew (remembering that there are many non-religious or liberal Jewish Israeli's who don't wear the kippah). Of these religious Jews, many wear them all day long while the other just wear them in the synagogue;
- 2. The ancient cohenim (priests) wore them (though probably few, if any, believe they actually wore a 'beanie'), or to be more accurate, they had their heads covered
65. Men Were Never to Cover Their Heads in a Religious Setting
But we have seen, Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood was commanded to wear turbans, and nowhere were the common men commanded to wear a head-covering - ever. Therefore, there is no biblical basis for a man to ever have his head covered for as we have seen, for even the turbans were deliberately left open at the top.
66. In Rain, Snow, Sand and Cold
This is not to say that men can't cover their heads for practical reasons if it's raining, snowing, because of the sun, or it's cold, or you're in a sand storm. The issue of men covering their heads whilst mourning we will treat in a moment. But what I am most emphatically saying is that the religious symbolism of the kippah has nothing to do with the turbans of the cohenim (priests), and too much to do with the sun-god, Satan.
67. Standing Before Yahweh-Elohim as a Minister
Now we have to answer the important question as to why Yahweh commanded the Levitical cohenim (priests) to wear turbans or head-tires and as we will discover it was not that their heads might be covered! The turbans were given to them by El Elyon (the Most High) for one reason, and one reason only: that they might be able to stand before Him as ministers on behalf of the people.
68. The Amazing Meaning of the Turban Revealed
What, then, did the turban represent? This is the revelation that has been given to me and which I am declaring today. The hollow turban or tire represents Yah'shua as our Cohen Gadol (High Priest) and as our Cohen Melek (Priest-King) who would come to serve. The turban is the symbol of the shammash, the servant, or the Deacon. The cohenim (priests) were the servants of Yahweh and of the ordinary people, representing them, and that is why they - and they alone - were commanded to wear turbans. It was required of the cohenim (priests) to stand before Elohim (God) but only as a practical and symbolic picture of their Priest-King, Yah'shua (Jesus):
69. The Turban is Not a Covering!
"Yahweh has sworn and will not relent, 'You (Yah'shua/Jesus) are a cohen (priest) forever according to the Order of Melchizedek'" (Ps.110:4, NKJV).
They did not need the turban in order to be covered before Elohim (God), because Yah'shua (Jesus) was their covering even as He is ours.
70. Turban of the Alef-Taw
Can you understand now why the headband-turban has to be tire- or doughnut-shaped? Can you understand why the head of the cohen (priest) must be uncovered? It is because both the mitznefeth and migba'ah represent the Alef-Taw, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the 'Eternal Round', Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ)? It's a circle, not a disk!
71. The Kippah as a False Rabbinical Covering
The kippah, on the other hand, is required by the Talmudic Rabbis so that all the people can 'stand before Adonai', a Hebrew loan word from Greek representing the pagan deity Adonis. This is not something found in the Torah but is an invention of man 'to cover himself' before Elohim (God).
72. Like the Fig Leaves of Adam and Eve
Does this not remind us of our first parents who also went and covered themselves and then went and hid, not standing before Yahweh anymore? They attemped to cover their nakedness with fig leaves (Gen.3:7) when they heard the voice of Elohim (God) calling them. Why fig leaves particularly? Because the fig tree symbolises obedience and they had been disobedient! However, Yahweh did not ordain fig trees to be their covering. What did He do? He slew an animal to provide them with skins (Gen.3:21) which would be a picture of the sacrifice of Yah'shua (Jesus) so that mankind could truly be covered by the blood of His righteousness. Only through this slaying could they once more stand in Yahweh's Presence again. And so it would be done this way for four millennia before the Eternal Cohen Gadol (High Priest), Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), came to take away the sins of the world.
73. The Disk of Apis
This the Talmudic Rabbis cannot give the Jewish People because they have rejected the Messiah. So what have they done? They have given them the symbol of the sun-god, Satan, the disk that sat between the horns of the Golden Calf idol of Apis, now a small disk or kippah to cover the crowns of the their turbanless and Messial-less heads so that they can, as they suppose, approach Yahweh. Impossible! Fig leaves and kippahs do not provide a covering and never can! Bacchus, Apis, the sun-god, or Satan can never save you!
74. The Kippah as a Substitute for Atonement
Two millennia ago Yahweh the Father sent Messiah Yah'shua (Jesus) the Son to die and give us the blood covering that would enable us to once more stand in His Presence. Sin cannot stand in His presence no matter how many fig leaves or kippah's we may wear in our own carnal efforts to get right with Him and back into His presence and fellowship. Sacrifice has always been what Elohim (God) required in order for Man to enter His Presence, whether for sin, or service and worship. The Tent of Meeting, with its Yahweh-ordained sacrifices, is typical of this (Ex.25:8ff; Lev.1-6; 16:1ff). But the Jewish leadership rejected Yahweh's Sacrificial covering for His People. And now we see that the kippah is part of their idea of what it means 'to be covered' in order to come into Elohim's (God's) Presence. The kippah has become a substitute for the sacrifices, or rather, the Blood of the Lamb, represented by the hollow turban or headband. So far from being a reminder of the atonement of Yah'shua (Jesus) as Bill claims his beanie means to him, it's actually a testimony that the Jews are relying on their 'Adonai'/Adonis sun-god for their covering!
75. Placing Yourself Under the Anti-Messianic Rabbis with the Kippah
If you choose to wear the kippah to identify with the religious Jewish People - and even if you don't - then you are still placing yourself symbolically under the authority of the Pharisees, for traditional Judaism is a direct descendant of them. The kippah is the Rabbinic religious symbol of what one needs in order to be covered before the Living Elohim (God). It is not only useless but it is blasphemous. If you want to wear something that at least conveys the right message, then wear a hollow turban! That is what I saw I was wearing in the Millennium, along with two other men, the crown of my head bare so that I could commune with Yahweh, surrounded by Yah'shua (Jesus) as my rosh or head, my intermediary with the Father. The kippah symbolically blocks that communion by placing the devil in the form of a skull-cap or sun-god between man and Elohim (God)!
76. Does the Mode of Mourning Disprove the Existence of the Open Turban?
What about Leviticus 10:6? Does this passage indicate that the cohenim (priests) wore covered heads as a matter of fact and that Yahweh was commanding them not to uncover their heads and not to mourn the deaths of Nadab and Abihu who offered "strange (profane) fire" before Yahweh (Lev.10:1, KJV) and were burned up because of their disobedience? Reading our English Bibles, with their various biases, you might be tempted to think so. Here's the way the NKJV translated the event:
77. Unbind not Uncover
"Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before Yahweh, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from Yahweh and devoured them, and they died before Yahweh. And Moses said to Aaron, "This is what Yahweh spoke, saying: 'By those who come near Me I must be regarded as qodesh (set-apart, holy); and before all the people I must be glorified'. So Aaron held his peace. And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, 'Come near, carry your Alef-Taw brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.' So they went near and carried them by their tunics out of the camp, as Moses had said. And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, 'Do not uncover (para') your heads nor tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the people. But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the Alef-Taw burning which Yahweh has kindled. You shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die, for the anointing oil of Yahweh is upon you.' And they did according to the word of Moses" (Lev.10:1-7, NKJV).
If by now you're still thinking in terms of 'mitres' and 'bonnets' and not in terms of 'turbans' and 'headbands' you're going to miss this. What does para', wrongly translated "uncover" by most English translations, actually mean? Four modern Messianic translations  and two Protestant ones (that I know of) will get the point over, I hope:
78. Priests Forbidden to Unwind Their Turbans
"Don't let the hair of your heads go loose (para'), neither tear your clothes; that you don't die..." (Lev.10:6, ATOT).
"Do not unbind your heads (para') not tear your garments, lest you die..." (Lev./Way.10:6, ISRV).
"Let not the hair of your heads go loose (para'), reither tend (sic?) your clothes, that you die not..." (Lev.10:6, HRV & JPS 1917)
"Do not let the hair on your heads hang loose (para'), not tear your clothes, that you die not..." (Lev.10:6, S&G).
"Neither let your hair hang loose (para') nor tear your clothes lest you die..." (Lev.10:6, Berkley).
While Anointed on Duty in the Tabernacle
Remember, think 'turban' and 'headband' and this will make perfect sense. The Hebrew word para' literally means 'to loosen' and whilst it can by implication sometimes mean 'uncover' in certain situations that is not what it literally means here. Why now? Because what is being literally described is a 'loosening', 'unbinding' or 'unwinding' of the twist that made up the hollow-shaped turban that kept the hair in place and from 'going loose'. Why would the cohenim (priests) have died - and the people too - if they had mourned by unwinding their turbans? Because they were on duty in the Tabernacle, standing in the Presence of Yahweh, and removing the turban would have meant symbolically removing Yah'shua (Jesus) who stood between them and Yahweh, and as they in turn stood between the people and Yahweh. They, and the people, would have been burned up without their Intermediary represented by the hollow turban, head-tire or headband! This has nothing to do with being 'uncovered' because they were always uncovered!
79. William Schnoebelen's Defence of Kippah - Part 4
Most of Bill's arguments are based on the assumption that the heads of the cohenim (priests) were fully covered because that is how Judaism has supposedly always taught it. He also cites the 19th century Vienese Jewish Christian  scholar Alfred Eidersheim (1825-1889), who converted to the Free Church of Scotland (see right), who was sometimes wildly in error in several things - he even tried to prove that Yah'shua (Jesus) was born on 25 December 4 BC on a Thursday, or Tevet 9 in the Rabbinical year 3758 , no doubt because that was what was expected of him, first, as a Presbyterian, and later as an ordained Anglican minister. No scholar believes that today. Bill cites Eidersheim as an authority on biblical headcoverings which he was not, confining himself to sometimes notoriously unreliable Rabbinical sources especially in areas where there were doctrinal axes to grind in reaction to much hated Christianity:
80. Eidersheim's Authority was the Talmud
"In regard to the covering of the head, it was deemed a mark of disrespect to walk abroad, or to pass a person with a bared head. Slaves covered their heads in the presence of their masters… The ordinary covering of the head was the Sudar, a kerchief twisted into a turban… A kind of light hat was also in use, either of a light material or of felt. The Sudar was twisted by rabbis in a peculiar manner to distinguish them from others… We read besides of a sort of a cap or hood attached to some kinds of inner or outer garments… of the outward appearance of Jesus [sic]… His headgear would probably be the SUDAR wound in a kind of turban or perhaps the Maaphoreth, which seemed to have served as a covering for the head and to have descended over the back of the neck and shoulders." 
Unfortunately for Bill, Eidersheim is citing the Talmud in regard to the Sudar which is not a biblical word and didn't come into use until long after the apostolic era. The sudar was a special hat, invented by the Rabbis, to be worn by Torah scholars over their kippah's, rabbis and deans of Torah schools always being distinguished by their distinctive hats , much as they were by their extra-long tzitzit and giant phylacteries in Yah'shua's (Jesus') time (Mt.23:5). So this is not valid evidence in support of Bill's claims because it comes from the wrong time period.
81. Pagan Priests Had Uncovered Heads
In an attempt to disprove that the Talmudic Rabbis adopted the Catholic 'beanie', Bill cites Savine Ostwalt who said:
Bill's point here is that since the pagan priest had an "UNCOVERED HEAD" (Bill's emphasis) and since Hebrew cohenim (priests) supposedly had COVERED heads that the one could not have borrowed from the latter. However, as we have seen, the cohenim (priests) didn't have covered heads either, neither were they attempting to either 'cover' or 'uncover' them, so the evidence is inapplicable.
"Historical resources on pagan Roman and Greek customs say: 'A sacrifice was made to Saturnus (false god – Bill) in his temple with UNCOVERED HEAD according to the Greek observance.'" 
82. Who Did the Talmudic Rabbis Borrow Their Sun-god Worship From?
His final defence is:
This line of 'reasoning' is a non sequitur - so what? It doesn't matter who the Romans borrowed from if the Rabbis borrowed from the Greeks (which is not in dispute) or anyone else. All pagan religious practices have a pedigree and can ultimately be traced through a series evolutionary adaptations and synchronisms. Who the rabbis borrowed their sun-god worship from is not as important as the fact that they did. If evidence can be found that kippah-like objects can be found in other cultures then obviously we must take a look at that too.
"Most scholars acknowledge that the Romans borrowed almost all of their religious deities and practices from the Greeks." 
83. William Schnoebelen's Defence of Kippah - Part 5
We now come to the last of Bill's objections and contentions which as you will see crumble in the light of the overwhelming evidence so far presented. It's a very important area of spiritual toqef (authority) so we must look at it carefully.
84. The 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 Controversy
It concern's Paul unambiquous instruction that women must have their heads covered and men have them uncovered when praying or prophesying. My position has always been to let the p'shat or plain sense of Scripture stand alone and not try to force other meanings into it. Then, as we understand the Hebrew roots of apparently disjunctive passages relating to it, we will see how everything neatly falls into place with no part contradicting any other.
"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Messiah, the head of woman is man, and the head of Messiah is Elohim (God). Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonours his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of Elohim (God); but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the malakim (angels). Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Master. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from Elohim (God). Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to Elohim (God) with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the assemblies (churches) of Elohim (God)" (1 Cor.11:2-16, NKJV).
85. Women's Headcovering
I don't want to get into a detailed study on women's headcovering today as I have gone into this subject in great detail elsewhere, it is beyond the scope of this article, and the student can study those resources for a plain and full exposition:
86. Is Paul So Hard to Understand?
Now let's look at Bill's 'take' which, in some places, reminds me of the type of thinking of those evolutionists who insist that all design in the universe is only 'apparent' but not real. He too seems to think that Paul only "seems" to be saying that men should not have their heads covered when praying or prophesying, justified no doubt by Peter's saying that Paul is sometimes "hard to understand" (2 Pet.3:14-16, NKJV). Granted, some of Paul's discourses are very spiritually deep, his sentences even gargantuan in size on occasion, but if his writings are inspired, then they must be comprehensible in the light of the whole counsel of Scripture. And, yes, sometimes his theology is twisted especially when evangelicals claim he supports a lawless Besorah (Gospel), and when some messianics claim he was a traitor to the Emet (Truth). He can be difficult to follow which is why you need to invest a lot of time and effort getting to know the man and why he wrote the way he did and how the Ruach (Spirit) inspired him.
87. James S. Stewart and Nicholas T. Wright
In-depth studies by seasoned theologians like James S. Stewart of the Church of Scotland and one time Chaptain to the Queen in Scotland (A Man in Christ: The Vital Elements of St.Paul's Religion, 1935) and more recently, Nicholas T. Wright of the Church of England and former Bishop of Durham (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2013), are well worth pursuing even if we don't necessarily agree with all their conclusions.
88. Letting Paul Speak Literally
But the question we are asking ourselves now is this: Is Paul's instruction here to the Corithinthians really that hard to understand if we don't try to complicate or or try to squeeze in some preconceived doctrine? I don't believe it is. If we take his statements and explanations at face value we won't need to invent complicated and convoluted history or theology.
Much of what Bill says is correct and I am in full agreement (marked with a ) but there are places where he is most definitely wrong (marked with a ) - where truth and error are mixed I have marked with both - :
90. Just a Local Custom?
"b. Some may object, what about what Paul says in 1 Cor.11:3-4 where he seems to say that a man should not cover his head: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (vv.3-4, KJV).
i. First of all, this is primarily talking about spiritual headship. What is being said is that (in context – remember, a text without a context is a pretext) a man’s spiritual covering ultimately is Messiah (verse 3). If he has any other SPIRITUAL head covering, he dishonors his head.
ii. Also, the word there for 'covered' is KATA (Greek #2596) which means “down from” or “against.” This is more like a veil than a hat.
1. In other words, Messiah’s head is YHWH. The husband’s head is Messiah. The wife’s head is her husband.
2. What Paul is saying here is that no one else can come between the headship of a husband and Yah’shua, not even a pastoral leader.
3. For a husband to submit totally to the authority of a pastoral leader would be dishonorable.
4. This is why some Christian “discipleship” movements such as were popular in charismatic circles in the 1970’s and 1980’s are not scriptural.
5. Thus, the primary meaning of the passage is not about headgear, but about spiritual headship.
iii. Remember, elsewhere, Paul was preaching to the Corinthians.
iv. How do we know this? Because YHWH does not change! (Mal. 3:6, Hebr. 13:8) He is not going to tell His priesthood to cover their heads in Exodus and Leviticus and then countermand that order through Paul.
1. Corinth was a very pagan culture. It was very similar to San Francisco, today.
2. Cross-dressing was common in pagan Greece, both for sexually perverse reasons and for religious reasons.
3. Because of this, Paul is saying here that a man should not be wearing the veil of a woman!
4. He was not talking about Kippot.
v. Remember, when there is an APPARENT contradiction in the Bible, the problem is not with the Bible, but with our understanding of the Bible.
1. As a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) - Gamaliel was arguable one of the most respected, learned rabbis of his generation - Paul would have had to have memorized the entire Torah and studied it for years.
2. Paul knew the Torah like the back of his hand, and he would not contradict it.
3. Remember, even at the end of his ministry, he called himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6)
vi. In that light, it makes more sense that Paul was preaching against cross-dressing men; not telling men they should not wear a Kippah during prayer or worship. 
The most common interpretation made about Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 rests on the assumption that this is a local, cultural instruction. To quote Greek scholar Spiros Zodhiates who represents this position:
91. False Assumption #1: Jewish Practice Has Never Changed
"Paul is writing here to the Corinthian Christians who, living in Greece, customarily complied with Greek traditions: men had their heads uncovered and the women covered theirs, which, however was contrary to the Jewish tradition. Even to this day, Jewish men cover their heads at worship, but not the women. The question which faced the Corinthians was what to do with the existing custom of the day. Paul's advice is to examine the symbolism of the custom. If it has nothing in it that is contrary to God's Word or order in creation accept it." 
One problem here is the false assumption that modern Jews conduct themselves as the Jews did in the days of Yah'shua (Jesus) and the apostles in regard to headdress when we know they did not.
92. False Assumption #2: Greek and Hebrew Culture Were Always Contrary
Another problem was that this was not the Messianic Community "accepting" a "Greek tradition" and disregarding the Jewish practice of the time because in respect of women being covered and men uncovered this was the biblical custom already. There was no difference between the Greek pagans and Hebrews in this regard. Yes, there were additional pagan Greek customs spoken of in the passage under examination not having commonality with Hebrew culture but there is no issue with the shared custom of women covering and men not covering. But the main point is that the apostle was appealing not to some Greek pagan custom but to Creation itself:
93. Not About Kippot or Pagan Cross-Dressing
"The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle's mouth, but we are ignoring words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it viâ our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation, not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul's stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisogesis." 
Bill is right when he points out that this passage is not talking about kippot (§b.iii.4) because kippah's didn't exist at that time! Kippah's didn't appear on the scene until much, much later, as we have seen in the evidence I provided earlier. Neither is it issue about "cross-dressing" - Paul wasn't talking about Greek transvestites wearing women's veils as though there were some universal, pressing problem requiring urgent addressing! So who was he talking about? Pagan converts from the priestly class?
94. Greek and Hebrew Synchronicity Once Again
Bill himself pointed out that these men performed their religious rituals with uncovered heads so they would have had no reason to start donning veils. We know that it can't have been Jewish converts generally because tallit's or Jewish prayer shawls that are commonly used today by modern Jews and Messianics didn't exist back then:
95. The Guilty Party Identified: Pharisee Converts
"Among Jews the custom of covering the head for prayer did not arise till the third or fourth century of the Christian era. Some theorize that Jews adopted the yarmulke in a reaction against Christian customs. For example, the Jewish scholar Abraham Millgram, in his book Jewish Worship (Jewish Publication Society, 1971), writes:
"See also the article Head, Covering of, in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol.8 (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1971), in which it is said that one Jewish sage declared that 'since Christians generally pray bareheaded, the Jewish prohibition to do so was based on the biblical injunction not to imitate the heathen custom' (p.5). The assertion that the men covered their heads for prayer in New Testament times, often found in the older commentaries (such as John Lightfoot's Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ) was based entirely upon statements about headcoverings in the Talmudic tractates of late antiquity. But in the past hundred years scholars have become much more cautious about the use of rabbinic literature dating from the fourth century as a source of evidence for first-century practices." 
'As the persecutions of the Church increased, the Jewish aversion to everything Christian deepened. The uncovering of the head became associated with Church etiquette and therefore became repugnant. To worship or even to go about with an uncovered head was regarded as imitation of the Christians and an act of irreverence' (p. 351).
Clearly only some of the men were doing this in the Messianic Community (Church), but doing so in such a way as to disturb the peace of the assemblies, as they had done earlier in trying to force Greek believers to submit to cicumcision. In other words, we are talking about those commonly referred to by scholars as the 'Judaisers', not men trying to impose Torah on Gentiles because Yah'shua (Jesus) had done away with it on the Cross (as Protestants would have you believe) but Pharisees wanting to impose Talmudic rules on top of Torah. And as we saw earlier, customs had arisen amongst some of the Pharisees in Babylon which they brought back to the Holy Land with them after the Exile. This included covering themselves at certain times in what were likely forerunners of the post-apostolic tallit and kippah. These Pharisees were, like the early Paul, particularly zealous and keen to impose their man-made rules, first, on the Jews in general, and then - as converts to Messiah - upon Gentile converts. These are almost certainly the men Paul was upbraiding because this was not the first of such incidents.
96. Inner vs. Outer Realities
Bill wishes us to believe that the emphasis in the Corinthian passage is almost entirely on the spiritual aspect of headship. Yes, indeed, Paul does speak about the spiritual headcovering but Bill's mistake is in assuming it is only speaking about the spiritual. Rather, Paul was saying the physical symbols were a refection of invisible spiritual reality and were themselves important in the same way that the festivals of Messianic Israel, like the Sabbath, are principally about inner realities and yet their external form is also relevent (we're supposed to celebrate them!) - we've not been told to stop assembling on the Sabbath as Protestants claim. Bill runs the danger of encouraging the Protestant tendency to allegorise everything that is physical and external when both inner and outer are part of a compund echadness or unity.
97. The Offending Male Headcovering Identified
So a wife being covered by her husband as he is covered by Messiah is both a literal, symbolic mitzvah (commandment) as well as an invisible, spiritual one. Yes, it's true what Bill says that if a man has any other spiritual covering, he dishonours Yah'shua (Jesus) his head, but that is exactly why Paul was trying to convey the importance of why men should not be using that physical symbol, namely, a head-covering of any kind, be it a long, flowing proto-tallit (the offensive item in this case) or a proto-kippah (assuming one even existed which it probably didn't). Outer and inner must complement each other, as all the oridinances of New Covenant Torah teach us. The point is, all male headcoverings are anathema because what they symbolise is rebellion against Yahweh and exaltation of the sun-god (in the case of the kippah).
98. Practical Instruction and Spiritual Insight
The verses in 1 Corithians 11 had a two-fold purpose - to both give practical instruction as well as spiritual insight in its symbolism, the same as physical immersion or baptism is a symbol of the old nature being put to death and buried, and rising to new life. Not many Protestants attempt to dispense with baptism altogether while acknowledging that the inner baptism into Christ is the main thing:
99. Male Headcovering Compared with Baptism
"Do you not know that as many of us as were baptised into Messiah Yah'shua (Christ Jesus) were baptised into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Messiah was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom.6:3-4, NKJV).
Would any of us dare to claim that Yah'shua's (Jesus') words, "Go therefore and make talmidim (disciples) of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit)" (Matt.28:19, NKJV), only seem to be saying that believers should be physically baptised by immersion in water, and that it's OK not to baptised so long as we are truly spiritually "baptised into Christ" inside? I know Baptists, for one, would rightly rush to the defence of a literal physical baptism symbolising the inner reality if for no other reason that Yah'shua (Jesus) commanded it. They would - again rightly - get even more upset if someone came along with a replacement ritual saying that the ritual helped remind them of something entirely unrelated to baptism though positive like (for example) hospitality.
100. Changing the Ordinances to Create Our Own Private Religion
We could say the same of any ordinance like a marriage ceremony in front of witnesses, taking communion, or even physically attending congregational worship and replacing them with other ordinances which, though biblical, were unrelated. It might sound 'nice' and be 'personal' but would it be right? If, instead of taking physical communion of bread and wine I instead walked around my home carrying a banner with the inscription, 'God is Love' written on it, saying that in being reminded of His ahavah (love) for me it enabled me to 'commune' with him, do you think Yahweh would be pleased? What if everybody did different things in place or the ordinances of the Besorah (Gospel)? What would happen to unity and communal fellowship and worship? And what is it that the Ruach (Spirit) actually wants? That is why the Messianic Community has structure, order and leadership to preserve the true Biblical tavnith (pattern):
101. Our Freedom was Not Given for Men to Change the Ordinances
"He Himself gave some to be apostles, some nevi'im (prophets), some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the qodeshim (set-apart ones, saints) for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Messiah, till we all come to the unity of the emunah (faith) and of the knowledge of the Son of Elohim (God), to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Messiah; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the emet (truth) in ahavah (love), may grow up in all things into Him who is the rosh (head) -- Messiah" (Eph.4:11-15, NKJV).
We are given the freedom in Romans 15:5 to do private things like celebrate anniversaries or have regular family get-togethers on certain days we remember fondly but we have absolutely not been given the freedom to invent our own religious rituals and then claim they remind us of good things Yahweh has commanded us to do. This was the rationale of the Israelites in building a golden calf and worshipping it because they claimed it reminded them of Yahweh and they were doing it for Yahweh! In truth, they were doing it for themselves - for their flesh - and in so doing serving the devil. For their folly and presumption, they paid with their lives!
102. The Origin of Sectarianism and Denominationalism
It is not for us to discard the outward symbolism of inward spiritual realities, let alone replace the outward symbol with something different which we happen to 'like', just because the symbolism might contradict some cherished non-biblical practice that has been done for centuries. That is how division and sectarianism starts. It's why we have the insanity of some 34,000 denominations in Christianity! Do you think Yahweh is pleased with our egotistical existentialism all done in His Name? We are not to be held prisoner by false tradition and then give Yahweh the credit for it.
103. Paul Would Have Been More Specific
Now it is true, as Bill says, that Paul was preaching in a very pagan context but He was not saying that men should simply avoid a women's covering (but intended or allowed them to wear imaginary kosher male coverings). If anything, if that was his intention, He would have quoted Torah where Elohim (God) commands that men should not wear women's clothing, nor women men's (Dt.22:5). This would have been something he would have remembered easily being, as Bill again correctly points out, as Paul well versed and highly educated in Torah. He would not have been afraid to quote it to them, as he often quoted from the Tanakh (Old Testament).
104. The Plain Truth About Headcoverings
So again, Paul wasn't preaching 'different physical head coverings for men and women' - he was saying, rather, head coverings for women and none for men when they pray and prophecy BECAUSE of what the head covering reflects or represents. That is the simple, plain emet (truth) of this passage.
105. Paul the Former Pharisee
Yes, Paul called himself a "Pharisee" late in Acts but he was not describing his present membership of that group, and only did so earlier to get himself out of a dangerous situation that might have resulted in his death - at that time he pitted the Pharisees against the Sadducees because, like the Pharisees, he believed in the resurrection, which the Sadducees didn't. Yes, in Acts 26:5 he stated that "lived a Pharisee", but this was past tense - he was giving his history - as he was to later in Philippians 3:5. And whilst he, of course, retained Pharisee teachings that were true (like the resurrection), as we all do from our former religious backgrounds, this did not mean he continued to be a Pharisee any more than we are still adherents to the sects and churches that we abandoned to come to the Emet (Truth). So no, he did not, as Bill claims, still call himself a Pharisee (§b.iv.3), but viewed himself as an ex-Pharisee.
106. Messianics Still in Bondage to Judaism
This has been a long, exhaustive but necessary study so that certain myths that continue to hold believers in bondage can be dispelled once and for all. If we are true to our profession as talmidim (disciples) then we can not be satisfied with anything less that the whole emet (truth). There are still lots of messianics in bondage to Judaism and its dark man-made and demon-inspired traditions because they feel an obligation to look up to, uncritically trust and accept what these spiritual and biological descendants of the Pharisees of old teach them. That is no different from trusting in the popes and priests of Christendom with their man-made and demon-inspired traditions.
107. The Kippah Remains What It Is
The kippah remains what it always was - an emblem of the sun-god, the Devil himself, who wants to be man's covering, and who takes demonic glee when ignorant men, who are commanded to have their heads uncovered in their communions with the true Elohim (God), Yahweh, so that their kether or crown, at the top of their head, can be connected to pure, unadulterated knowledge and emet (truth).
108. There is a Biblical Reason Jews Wear Headcoverings
The simply reason why Jewish men pray with their heads covered is, as a friend of mine living in Kenya once pointed out, and it's biblical...or was. The Jews are lamenting the destruction of the temple and covering their heads is the biblical way for a man to show shame, repentance and sorrow (2 Sam.15:30; Est.6:12; Jer.14:3-4). Now where this matter gets interesting is that Yah'shua (Jesus) decreed the destruction of the Temple (Mt.24:2; Mk.13:2; Lk.19:44, Lk.21:6). So Messianic Jews who follow Yah'shua (Jesus) should not be lamenting the destruction of the temple, should they? Jews who reject the Messiah lament the loss of the Temple, and the tradition of Jewish head shawls - tallit and kippah's - is a lament for the Temple.
109. Three Condemnations on Tallit- and Kippah-Wearers
Which brings us to the main point with which I would like to end: the head shawl is anti-Messiah (antichrist) since it is a rejection of the Messiah's judgment which he pronounced upon the hard-hearted. Whatever reason you wear a tallit or a kippah, you are bringing yourself under condemnation:
- 1. If you're wearing a tallit or kippah on biblical grounds, you're lamenting (and therefore rejecting) Yah'shua's (Jesus') judgment on the temple, on the Talmudic Pharisee system, on Judaism as a whole;
- 2. If you're wearing a tallit or kippah because you think men should have their heads covered like women you're overturning the divine tavnith and dishonouring your Head, Yah'shua (Jesus); and/or
- 3. If you're wearing a kippah (whether only in a synagogue, by day, or 24/7 as some Orthodox Jews do), you're declaring your allegiance to the sun-god - to Satan, the enemy of Yahweh-Elohim - and blocking of your communion with Heaven. The kippah is the physical representation of the clerical tonsure that Yahweh commands against in both Leviticus 19:27 and 21:5. The tonsure is the mark for the priests of the sun-god, the tonsure being circular, representing the sun, as well as the kippah. The kippah is the religious symbol of Orthodox and Sefardic Judaism, and the one who wears it places themself under that authority.
For whatever reason you're wearing kippah (or tallit for that matter), there is only one thing you need to now do - get on your knees, repent, accept Yahweh's judgments and Davar (Word) and burn them. Give no more glory or authority over your life to Satan.
 Technically a 'beanie' is not a kippah but a knitted or cloth hat that that looks a bit like a tea cosy or a large cut-off sock worn over the head that is commonly worn by skiers and snowboarders to keep their heads and ears warm but is also worn to be fashionable (see picture to right). However, the Jewish skull-cap or kippah is apparently also called a 'beanie' in some circles
 William Schnoebelen, Why Do I Wear a 'Beanie'?
 Bill, because of his background in the occult, had a profound influence in setting me on course in the field of deliverance ministry and in consequence of which I hold him in high regard even if we do disagree in a number of areas such as KJV-Onlyism (he has written for the late Jack Chick who claims all other Bible versions, barring the 1611 KJV, are corrupt and of the devil), kabbalism, a number of Jewish practices such as the wearing of the kippah and tallit, etc. He is - or was - a member of UONYC, the Union of Nazarene Yisraelite Congregations, a shadowy organisation which seemed to fade away to later reappear as an ultra-messianic Jewish group called B'nai Avraham that is steeped in kabbalism and the Talmud and critically denies the deity of Messiah
 When Steven Butt of BFree Ministries discovered some Jewish ancestry in his family it reinforced a number of Messianic Jewish convictions and influenced the direction of his ministry, now called Tsiyon Radio, and resulted in a name change to 'Eliyahu Ben David'. Similarly, James Trimm of the World Nazarene Assembly of Elohim (WNAE) along with his Nazarene Space forum, and translator of the excellent Hebraic Roots Version - 'New Testament' (HRV), found apparent impetus in discovering some Jewish ancestry, though this is contested by some as having later been manufactured to make his claim to be the head of the Nazarene Judaism movement more acceptible and credible to those actually coming from a Jewish background. Though it is impossible to judge motivations, it is nonetheless interesting how a discovered 'Jewish' background does seem to cause some messianic leaders (who may or may not have any actual Jewish ancestry) to be less critical of Jewish customs than propriety might warrant.
 William Schnoebelen, Could We Be Scriptural Please – Just Once?? Unfounded, Unscriptural Personal Attacks on Ministers of the Gospel, 2013, p.2
 I hope that he has the courage one day to make a public retraction because the KJV-Only position is untenable and illogical. Certainly some sort of clarification would be very welcome as to what kind of KJV-Onlyism he believes in as it would help us know where he is coming from. I also know, because of his otherwise excellent books on deliverance, that he expresses the belief that KJV Scripture works far better in throwing demons out than, say, the NIV. That's not my personal experience as a deliverance minister for the last decade. I would mark down any minister's preference for a particular translation in deliverance as having more to do with familiarity and the sense of security that flows from that more than anything else. (The KJV works fine in deliverance, I hasten to add). My own belief about the KJV is no secret - it's an excellent translation but too antiquated for modern readers (unless you were born and raised on it) and contains a number of serious translation errors and biases. So I do not feel obliged to lay off any criticism of some of its poorer translations. For an in-depth exposé of the KJV-only cult, please see my website, King James Version Only?
 Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (1862), 2nd American edition (Neptune, New Jersey, U.S.A: Loizeaux Brothers, 1959), p. 277. The Catholic Church has clothed itself in Christian garb, but is actually the ancient Babylonian Mystery religion revived. This was an incredible insight on Hislop's part
 Talmud Shabbat 165b
 Rabbi Goldie Milgram, Kippah: Understanding and Appreciation of the Yarmulke
 Hag.14b; RH 17b; Ta'an.20a
 Nedarim 30b Kid 29b
 Yad, De'ot 5:6
 Alexander Hislop, Op.cit., p.87
 Alexander Hislop, Ibid.
 John Yarker, Notes on the Scientific and Religious Mysteries of Antiquity (London: 1872), p.8
 G.H.Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages (Hodder & Stoughton, London: 1907)
 Alexander Hislop, Op.cit., pp. 220-223
 Messianic Jew, Avram Yehoshua (see Acknowledgements below), commenting on this quotation, says: "It seems to me that this would refer directly to the Commandment of Yah[w]eh for all His People not to follow the pagan practice of the shaved or circular head for the dead, and also not to represent the circle on their head, the kipa......I cannot in the conscience that God has given me, wear a kipa any longer. I will not be part of what I have come to see is a pagan symbol that has absolutely no biblical basis, but associates the wearer with the sun god, better known as Satan. Tamuz, his 'son' is the anti-Messiah. I am not talking about wearing a hat or head covering for a woman, or a hat for a man, but specifically the kipa. The kipa is not a hat or a bonnet or a cap. It is a religious symbol of the sun god. And we Jews for whatever reason, may not have intentionally copied it, I don't know, but it is not for me to wear"
 Alexander Hislop, Op.cit., p.222. This section is Footnote Y to 'the mutilated Prince'
 The New Collins Concise English Dictionary (Guild Publishing, London: 1987), p.723
 The use of the word 'tire[s]' for 'turbans' in some translation might be the occasion for mirth for some because of the use (in American spelling) to describe the rubber wheels on cars. However, the word 'tire' is an archaic word which today we render 'attire' and may be used to describe a woman's headdress, an ornament for the head, generally of gold and precious stones, hence tiara - Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, unabridged second edition, Deluce Color Edition (William Collins Publishers Inc., USA: 1972), p.1914
 Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI: 1979), p.647
 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles Briggs and Wilhelm Gesenius, The New Brown, Driver Briggs and Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Association Publishers and Authors, Inc., Lafayette, IN: 1978), p.857
 R. Harris, Editor; Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, Associate Editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Moody Press, Chicago, IL: 1980), p.1943
 John Kohlenberger lll, Editor, The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, vol.1. 'Genesis - Deuteronomy', (Regency Reference Library, Grand Rapids, MI: 1979), p.262
 The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Op.cit, p.647
 The New Brown, Driver Briggs and Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, Op.cit., p.857
 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Op.cit., p.1943
 The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Op.cit., p.647
 The New Brown, Driver Briggs and Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, Op.cit., p.857
 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Op.cit., p.1943
 The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Op.cit., p.620
 The New Brown, Driver Briggs and Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, Op.cit., p. 802
 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Op.cit., p.713
 The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Op.cit., p.620
 The New Brown, Driver Briggs and Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, Op.cit, p.802
 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Op.cit., p.713
 Ibid. p.714
 The OJB and RSTNE unfortunately continue the Talmudic bias
 This was before the birth of the Messianic Movement
 Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Wm.B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI: 1976),Vol.1, p.187; and The Jealous Husband: What Yahweh Feels About Christmas
 Alfred Edersheim, Op.cit., pp.426-431; William Schnoebelen, Op.cit, p.4
 Berel Wein, Living Jewish: Values, Practices and Traditions, p.247. The same author makes the point that the kippah is not what we would call a 'hat' and is certainly not recognised as one in Orthodox Judaism
 Savine Ostwalt, The Concise Encylopedia of Greek and Roman Mythology, p.261; William Schnoebelen, Op.cit., p.4
 William Schnoebelen, Op.cit., pp.4-5
 William Schnoebelen, Op.cit., pp.4-6
 Spiros Zodhiates, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN: 1986), p.1399, footnote to 1 Cor.11:2-16
 R.C.Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL: 1977), p.110
 Michael Marlowe, Headcovering Customs of the Ancient World
 Avram Yehoshua, The Kipa. A messianic of Jewish origin, Avram Yehoshua abandoned wearing a kippah once he discovered its true origin. I have borrowed extensively from his research and wish to acknowledge that here with gratitude
Comments from Readers
 "I love soooo much the truth in your long and extensive article on kippah. This is one of the best articles I have ever met on this topic! Let us keep fighting the tradition of men and standing on truth. If we are truely Messianic, this document is a yard stick to our growth. I plan to translate it in Swahili to help many Africans acquire this truth. We are seriously considering it to be part of our conference teaching. May Yah bless your work so much. Continue pressing hard in Messiah. A reward awaits you!" (Pastor Agoi, Kenya, 9 December 2013)
 "I enjoyed your Kippah Tales article. I always thought the kippah seemed too silly to be taken as a serious head covering and tended to like the kufi style cap worn by the Naked Archaeologist. And I considered buying a kufi but was afraid there might be some hidden Islamic symbols woven into the deign. Since my grandfather was Cherokee and DNA and other evidence (non-Mormon) has shown they were of Hebrew ancestry I noticed that a lot of them wore the turban. But they also wore headbands. So perhaps even the headband is a more fitting 'tire' for the head. Of course [this] makes me wonder how the L.A. gangs started wearing bandanas in the same fashion. I also think that wearing 3 feathers in the headband is probably an ancient symbol of the shin rperesenting the fire of Yah. Ble blessed" (WS, USA. 2 March 2015)