2 "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God."
Paul was simply referring to human άγγελοι (angeloi), messengers or envoys from other churches. Paul is concerned that they will be offended by uncovered (i.e., unveiled) women in the Corinthian church. A parallel (so this view argues) is 1 Cor 14:23 (“If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds”). [204] An alternative to the human envoy view is that the angeloi were hostile, unbelieving spies in the churches. [205]
ISSUES: The argument is undermined by it proffered support—namely—pointing at visitors and outsiders who are not church leaders, but "(Greek: idiotēs, “untrained”) and “unbelievers” (apistoi, “those without faith”) — Heiser, Michael S.. Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ (p. 151). Kindle Edition.
It is hard to understand how pagan people, untrained in the doctrines of Christ and unbelievers are "messengers" whose status somehow warrants Paul going on about head coverings from God through Christ to husbands and then to wives. The argument just isn't sensible.
The angels are to be regarded as supernatural beings in God’s service who are guardians of the created order. Paul fears that gender roles might be transgressed, thereby offending the angels who guard creation order.[206]
ISSUES: What do hairstyles have to do with divine order? Why would guardian angels care? Moreover—there is no evidence from Second Temple Era Jewish writing that any angelic being standing watch over humans cares about women's hairstyles or head covering.
Paul is referring to supernatural beings thought to be present within the local church, assigned by God to ensure community purity and proper worship. The emphasis here is church order, not creation order.
ISSUES: The third argument has to do with Essene communities holding that their human worship was in a greater context of angelic worship. Thus, the cultic worship of the Essene would need women to be respectful of how the worship of people along with angels worked—keeping it all "in order". However, this view breaks down in light of non-Jewish pagan converts who don't hold to these Jewish traditions, especially in view of the removal of male circumcision as a requirement for participation in worship. Therefore, another overarching idea must be at work here for Paul to give such instructions to a Gentile church.
[First, ] It presupposes that Paul would have imagined that physical defects are sufficient reason for exclusion from the Christian community, since women are, on argument, being instructed to cover their heads on account of their association with other defects which, according to Leviticus 21:18–23 and the Dead Sea materials, are inadmissible to the cult … .
Secondly, and more of a difficulty, the tradition-historical background invoked by Fitzmyer does not directly bear on the presence or activity of women in the religious community…[and that] it relies wholly on analogy and does not help to account for the head covering (and by women!) in and of itself. [215]
With the weaknesses of these three primary arguments in clear question, we must now ask: "Is there a better choice?" The answer is yes, but the details require deeper first century pagan worldview understanding to bring it together.
A more persuasive alternative
This perspective can be summarized as follows. The covering for women was commended to protect women from sexual scandal in society and supernatural violation by angels. This dual rationale focused on social boundaries and sexual vulnerability, along with the precedent of angelic violation of women in the past.
NT Scholar, Troy Martin's writeup—focused on v 13-15:
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering (περιβολαίου - peribolaiou).
1. What is peribolaiou? (hair as a sexual function - draws up male semen)
2. Why is it a shame for a man? (hair isn't male sexual function - he is not receiving semen; therefore, male long hair seen as a "shame" or why does he have long hair?)
3. Therefore, it is nature for peribolaiou for a woman, but not for a man. Thus, the head covering is for women - "because of the angels".
This is the male side of the equation:
He casts Hercules as complaining, “After I received [my] bags of flesh, which are the outward signs of puberty, [I received] labors about which I [shall] undertake to say what is necessary.”… A dynamic translation of the first clause would be: “After I received my testicles (peribolaia), which are the outward signs of puberty.” In this text from Euripides, the term peribolaion refers to a testicle.
The female side of puberty in the first century:
What Martin is saying may not be clear due to its peculiarity. He is suggesting that Paul is comparing a woman’s hair to a testicle. This of course sounds like absolute nonsense, but, amazingly, there is no shortage of data to support this understanding of peribolaion. Martin proceeds to comb through Greek medical texts by physicians like Hippocrates, the namesake of the Hippocratic oath all physicians still swear to in modern times. These texts make Martin’s thesis—and its explanatory power—quite clear.
The lone idea of female hair seen by these first century people as having sexual function (e.g., "testicle") doesn't fully square the text. It leaves questions.
If all women of pubescent age have physically matured enough to have sex and children, then why is Paul exclusively focused on only the married women and not all women who are sexually mature? Do unmarried sexually mature women not need protection? What could be driving this?
QUESTION: Do any of the verses from 2 to 16 point to sexually mature women in general? Yes. There are two - the first is verse 14: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him?"
While this verse primarily concerns men's appearance, it indirectly references women through the distinction drawn between men's and women's hairstyles. It does not specify if it is specifically directed at married women. However, this verse is merely clarifying the function of hair from the viewpoint of having sexual function. It does not mean that Paul's doctrine is directed at all sexually mature women. His doctrine is still pointed only at married women. Why?
The second is verse 9: "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."
This verse addresses the creation order and purpose of men and women, highlighting that woman was created for man. While it pertains to women in general, it again does not negate the overall target Paul has put into view: married women. Why?
Relevant notes continue here.