There are several key sections of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 that Bible commentators and Christian congregations have held differing opinions about, which have resulted in a diversity of practices regarding the use of headcoverings.


Gender-based headship: Paul connects the use (or non-use) of headcoverings with the biblical distinctions between each gender. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul wrote, "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman." He immediately continues with a gender-based teaching on the use of headcoverings: "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head."


Glory and worship: Paul next explains that the use (or non-use) of headcoverings is related to God's glory during times of prayer and prophesy. In 1 Corinthians 11:7, he states that man is the "glory of God" and that for this reason "a man ought not to have his head covered." In the same verse, Paul also states that the woman is the "glory of man." He explains that statement in the subsequent two verses by referring to the woman's creation in NASB, and then concludes, "Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head" (verse 10). In other words, the "glory of God" (man) is to be uncovered during times of worship, while the "glory of man" (woman) is to be covered.


Angels: In 1 Corinthians 11:10, Paul says "Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." Many interpreters admit that Paul does not provide much explanation for the role of angels in this context. Some popular interpretations of this passage are (1) An appeal not to offend the angels by disobedience to Paul's instructions, (2) a command to accurately show angels a picture of the created order (Ephesians 3:10, 1 Peter 1:12), (3) a warning for us to obey as a means of accountability, since the angels are watching (1 Timothy 5:21), (4) to be like the angels who cover themselves in the presence of God (Isaiah 6:2), and (5) not to be like the fallen angels who did not stay in the role that God created for them (Jude 1:6).


Nature and hair lengths: In 1 Corinthians 11:13–15, Paul asks a rhetorical question about the propriety of headcoverings, and then answers it himself with a lesson from nature: "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to 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." In this passage, some see Paul as indicating that since a woman naturally "covers" her head with long hair, she likewise ought to cover it with a cloth covering while praying or prophesying. Others interpreters see the statement "her hair is given to her for a covering" as indicating that all instances of headcovering in the chapter refer only to the "covering" of long hair.


Church practice: In 1 Corinthians 11:16, Paul responded to any readers who may disagree with his teaching about the use of headcoverings: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." This may indicate that headcoverings were considered a standard, universal Christian symbolic practice (rather than a local cultural custom). In other words, while Christian churches were spread out geographically and contained a diversity of cultures, they all practiced headcovering for female members.



Interpretive conclusions and resulting practices Edit
Due to various interpretive issues (such as those listed above), Bible commentators and Christian congregations have a diversity of conclusions and practices regarding headcovering. One primary area of debate is whether Paul's call for men to uncover their heads and women to cover their heads was intended to be followed by Christians outside of the First Century Corinthian church. While some Christian congregations continue to use headcoverings for female members, others do not.

Some churches[who?] view Christian headcovering as a practice that Paul intended for all Christians, in all locations, during all time periods and so they continue the practice within their congregations. They base their interpretation on the God-ordained order of headship,


Another interpretation is that Paul's commands regarding headcovering were a cultural mandate that was only for the first-century Corinthian church. Often, interpreters will state that Paul was simply trying to create a distinction between uncovered Corinthian prostitutes and godly Corinthian Christian women. Under that interpretation, a church will not practice Christian headcovering.


Some Christians believe that Paul stated that long hair is the covering, when it comes to modesty (see 1 Corinthians 11:14–15).Feminist theologian Katharine Bushnell provides another interpretation that similarly teaches that Paul was not intending for women to cover their hair with a cloth covering, for modesty.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering

Hair covering is one of the soxtrinee that came as a result of wrong interpretation.

Men dont Need to remove cap in prayer
women dont need to cover hair in prayer

Emedu:

Some Christians believe that Paul stated that long hair is the covering, when it comes to modesty (see 1 Corinthians 11:14–15).Feminist theologian Katharine Bushnell provides another interpretation that similarly teaches that Paul was not intending for women to cover their hair with a cloth covering, for modesty.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering

Wikipedia is now a source on things of God....CHEEZUS!!!!

If Jesus Christ, the Christ in CHRIST-ian did not command it, what do you gain from attempting it in His name?

Kobojunkie:
Wikipedia is now a source on things of God....CHEEZUS!!!!

If Jesus Christ, the Christ in CHRIST-ian did not command it, what do you gain from attempting it in His name?

How does Wikipedia become the source? Abi Wikipedia is human, unbeliever Wikipedia is a platform where information about many things are shared freely by intelligent people. I am expecting your own counter interpretation of those verses/ points instead of attacking the medium or platform the information is being shared.

petra1:

Hair covering is one of the soxtrinee that came as a result of wrong interpretation.

Men dont Need to remove cap in prayer
women dont need to cover hair in prayer

I will appreciate if your claims are backed up with concrete verses in the scriptures.

Emedu:

How does Wikipedia become the source? Abi Wikipedia is human, unbeliever Wikipedia is a platform where information about many things are shared freely by intelligent people. I am expecting your own counter interpretation of those verses/ points instead of attacking the medium or platform the information is being shared.

Counter verses that drone on about a subject that is meaningless where Jesus Christ, the New Covenant Law is concerned? Heck no!

Kobojunkie:
Counter verses that drone on about a subject that is meaningless where Jesus Christ, the New Covenant Law is concerned? Heck no!

I didn't really get what you mean?

Are you saying the doctrine is meaningless?

Or are you saying the doctrine has nothing to do with new covenant??

Please let me understand you better!

You don't need a covering if you're a lady that is not leading the congregation during worship, the covering is supposed to be a sign that such is not a duty of the female gender so she must put on that signal because angels may strike her dead on the pulpit.
They recognize only males as leaders during worship! 1Corinthians 11:10

But a man must not put anything on his head because he is standing before a mighty spirit king who is your HEAD! 1Corinthians 11:3

Emedu:

I didn't really get what you mean?
Are you saying the doctrine is meaningless?
Or are you saying the doctrine has nothing to do with new covenant??
Please let me understand you better!

Jesus Christ warned us against giving our focus and attention to the doctrines and traditions of men, lies He called them all, of which your doctrine of head coverings happens to be one of - Matthew 15 vs 1 - 14

Basically, anything that Jesus Christ, God's very own Law in the Kingdom of God, never commanded or asked of you is meaninglessness where the things of God are concerned.

So yes, head covering had nothing to do with the New Covenant.