What’s Paul’s Issue with Head Coverings in Corinth? (1 Cor 11:4-5) - On site in Corinth
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- What’s the story with head coverings in Corinth? Why does he tell the women to cover their heads when they pray but then tell the men to uncover their heads when they pray? In this week’s video, we are on site in Corinth looking for answers to these questions. We will look at a possible reason why both the Corinthian women and the men were confused about this. And we’ll ask the question: what implications does it have for us today? #bible #newtestament #Corinthians #Corinth
All my socials, podcast, and support link: linktr.ee/then... (clickable link in the bio)
Great explanation, thank you
Excellent teaching and historical facts!
Thank you!
1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head *because of the angels* .
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter And it is her physical covering not her spiritual covering. Verse 5 states we are to cover our HEADS not our hair!
That's why it's called HEADCOVERING AND NOT HAIR COVERING! Because we don't cover our hair like muslims do. We cover our heads as a sign or symbol of headship and submission
@@Bringbackheadcovering I think you are finally coming around “it is her physical covering not her spiritual covering” YES. We are talking about a physical thing like hair specifically long hair. And YES “Verse 5 states we are to cover our HEADS not our hair!” Praise God you are opening her eyes. You are making my case that we are talking about covering the head which hair does and not about covering our hair which a veil does along with the head.
So you admit to seeing the difference a woman’s head is to be covered completely which hair obviously does. So many people in the head covering community like to make mention of covering the hair when it doesn’t say that it says covering the head.
For if it would have said hair INSTEAD of head then there would be a good argument on a head covering object because hair would be the thing that would needed to be covered but since it doesn’t say that then hair can easily fit the bill as it covers the head.
Now the idea of symbolism you need to just put that aside as there is no wording mentioning this idea. It may sound nice but we need to keep this biblical and not theoretical because people will ask where does it say this and you won’t be able to respond to it at least not in the KJV.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter the symbolism comes from verse 3 in context. And yes it is talking about the head and not the hair!
That's why physical covering and spiritual coverings are mentioned.
Spiritual In verse 4 and 5 and physical in verse 15.
Verse 15 is the ONLY verse that talks about the physical covering which calls the hair a woman's glory. Aside from the comparison paul uses in verses 4 and 5.
Hes comparing the shame of lack of a spiritual covering to lack of the physical covering.
But verse 3-5 state that a woman should cover her glory.. how are u not understanding this?
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter lol I think in a weird way we are kind of agreeing. I believe women should have long hair that can be seen with a small covering on her head to represent her headhip authority if that makes sense!
I IN NO WAY believe a woman should cover her entire head.
I was expecting him to link it to ancient reproductive medicine. 💊
So I have to have my PhD in ancient Roman and Greek culture to understand scripture? If Paul was correcting the Corinthian believers, did this letter not apply to believers in other places? I always was of the belief that I don’t need to be an expert in ancient culture to understand God’s word. Understanding the culture of the time can certainly deepen the meaning of a particular passage, but it will never change the plain meaning.
Fair question and one I get a lot. My answer is always the same. No, one does not have to be an expert or even knowledgeable of the ancient world to understand scripture, which is a mark of its beauty. However, given that the NT is a collection of first century Greek documents written to a Roman world, having an understanding of this context is going to help unlock much more of its meaning. In terms of this passage, it was written to a specific group of Corinthians in approximately 54AD who were dealing with a very particular issue. And so having an understanding both of the city and the broader culture is obviously going to give deeper insight into what is happening. Naturally there is a broader application to the church, hence it was canonised, but to fully appreciate what’s happening you need some more historical perspective.
You may disagree with this, that’s no problem.
@@thenewtestamentstory2744I appreciate your response, however, you just proved my point. You are taking your knowledge of ancient history and changing the clear and plain meaning of the scripture. You are not “deepening” the meaning but are changing the meaning. If the head coverings were required in the Corinthian church, when did that requirement end? How would early church know it had ended? Does culture dictate what God’s word means? If so, are we adding to or taking away from God’s word? I’m not trying to be argumentative but these are legitimate questions. R.C. Sproul, a respected theologian, would disagree with your analysis. He rightfully states that God gives the reason for head coverings in the remainder of Chapter 11. Your position ignores this lengthy explanation. Further the comment that we don’t hear Paul speaking of head coverings in other letters is most likely due to the fact that head coverings by women were most likely the norm. He would not need to mention something they were already doing. This is born out by verse 16.
I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue, but I think we’ll just need to agree to disagree on this one.
@@kiheidude1 Corinthians 4:16-17
I beg you therefore, be imitators of me. Because of this I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every assembly.
Those teachings were taught everywhere. 😊
@@kiheidudewell said. The letter was also addressed to the church of Corinth and ALL THAT IN EVERYPLACE CALL ON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Amen I think people have been so indoctrinated that they can no longer discern between God's words and man's interpretation. No where will we be able to read the idea that women ought to wear a veil.
Is a woman allowed in church with short hair? Also does a woman only need long hair when praying and prophesying?
@@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus You are not making sense what what church are you referring to? Though I believe a woman should have long hair I am pretty sure that most churches would welcome any woman with short hair. As for praying and prophesying it is evident that women were able to pray and prophesy according to Paul the fact is that it would be a dishonor to do so. Any more questions?
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I meant is a woman allowed to pray or prophecy with short hair?
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter yes , another question is why has the historical church from 1 corinthians 11 all the way till about the 1900's understood it this way and practiced it ?
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Just so everyone knows; he writes this same nonsense on every head covering CZcams video. It’s one big straw man attack on the headcovering position. He misrepresents the headcovering position’s argument and defense, and then makes arguments that appears like they’ve been defeated. In reality, the real arguments are just being avoided by him.
Don’t fall for his lies sisters. He’s just a wolf in sheep clothing.
We have so much evidence that a veil is being spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11.
1)early apostolic church fathers writings detailing a veil is being spoken of
2)All Greek scholars from the reformation.
3)scripture being interpreted by scripture(Haman removing his head covering in the Book of Esther is the same Greek phrase used in 1 Corinthians 11)
4). And many more
Verse four of 1 Corinthians 11 uses the Greek words kata kephalēs (κατάIn κεφαλῆς) for "head covered", the same Greek words used in Esther 6:12[229] (Septuagint) where "because he [Haman] had been humiliated, he headed home, draping an external covering over his head" (additionally certain manuscripts of the Septuagint in Esther 6:12 use the Greek words κατακεκαλυμμένος κεφαλήν, which is the "perfect passive participle of the key verb used in 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 7 for both a man's and a woman's covering his or her head [κατακαλύπτω]")
Verse four of 1 Corinthians 11 uses the Greek words kata kephalēs (κατάIn κεφαλῆς) for "head covered", the same Greek words used in Esther 6:12[229] (Septuagint) where "because he [Haman] had been humiliated, he headed home, draping an external covering over his head" (additionally certain manuscripts of the Septuagint in Esther 6:12 use the Greek words κατακεκαλυμμένος κεφαλήν, which is the "perfect passive participle of the key verb used in 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 7 for both a man's and a woman's covering his or her head [κατακαλύπτω]")
@@jesuscameintheflesh4725 I disagree in using the Septuagint as it is not the original Hebrew. If you’re going to try to compare between similar or same words you should keep it within the New Testament. In any event I think we can understand Paul’s meaning without having to go so far away as to needing to read the Old Testament. The words Paul wrote are pretty clear. Here is an excerpt from a person well versed in this area regarding the words cover and covering….
“Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’
We cannot dismiss the facts. The word cover was used like a verb/adverb and NOT a noun. So, we can reject the idea of a specific thing like a cloth or fabric as those words are not there. The other facts are that hair is mentioned directly 3 times and indirectly with the words shorn and shaven 4 times. That is a total of 7 times whereas the word for a head covering like hat or veil is never used in 1 Corin. 11:1-16 in the KJ bible. So, CONTEXT is important. There is no mentioning of an item that one puts on or takes off. The proof of a veil is simply not there.
Paul mentions that one of the reasons for women to be covered (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (meaning have short hair) is because man was made first and the woman second (meaning the order of human creation). So, if Paul is mentioning creation, then it is logical to assume that it was important back then but there was no manufacturing of veils or even the existence of churches (as some like to claim this is a church rule). So how could a hat or veil be an issue back then when it never existed. It had to have been something natural like long hair which is exactly as Paul points out in verse 15.
The facts prove that Paul was referring to short and long hair here not a veil. And of course, there is still more evidence found withing the passage, but this should be enough to logically prove what Paul was really talking about instead of someone’s bad interpretation of a simple message.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter can’t you see how misleading your scholar is? He insist that, because it’s not a NOUN it’s not speaking of a physical head covering. This is a Strawman attack. He’s attacking the word when the argument is about the phrase. So manipulative.
You once again show no outside proof of your claims. You insist on this guy’s explanation as being correct, even though he doesn’t back up his claims with any supporting evidence.
The headcovering position is backed up by so much evidence for its support.
1)early Christian apostolic Fathers (disciples of the Disciples) writings literally telling us Paul’s speaking of veils.
2) the septugint which is the Greek translation of Hebrew the Apostles used. (Same phrase used when speaking of headcovering).
3) the actual passage which suggests a removable covering is being spoken of; since it’s to be done at certain times.(when praying a prophesying.
4) long hair being both a symbol of authority and her glory at the same time is nonsensical. (2 Greek words translated as covering indicating 2 different coverings being spoken of in the passage.)
5) At least 1950 plus years of the church interpreting this passage as a head covering compared to 60 recent years where a small minority don’t. (Your position is held by the minority of the minority…because it doesn’t hold water)
6)and so much more that I’m not going to continue repeat to a spiritually blind and deaf man (you).
If long hair is being commanded in the passage(which it’s not) how then do you:
1) tell a woman who is experiencing hair loss (40 percent of woman) that she’s not in line with scripture?
2) tell a woman with alopecia (a disease creating baldness) that she’s not obeying scripture?
3) tell an African woman with kinky hair that she’s out of line, because she doesn’t have a a long Afro hair style?
That's not implying anything because that's exactly what it's saying.If a woman does not cover her head while she's praying or prophesying in church she is dishonoring god because she's showing her own glory and not God's glory. Now, it is very, very easy to become legalistic on this.I don't believe wearing a headcovering or lack of thereof is the sin at all. Considering it is a symbol of active obedience and not an ordinance for us it is not a sin when a woman decides not to wear a head covering. With that being said it is something that we are advised to do as women of God. And it is seen as shameful in the eyes of god unless you just believe paul is a liar when he setted himself. This.
Doesn't clash with first fifteen at all, In fact, the way many women rate it is that you can still show your hair with a covering on top of your head.Because Paul doesn't tell us to cover our hair.He tells us to cover the top of our heads. So that's how that scripture can be interpreted the right way without a legalistic background. So verse fifteen can be applied to the scripture. You've just.
Proven the scripture to be correct, praying or prophesying.Does insinuate that it's something that you can take off and put on. It's something that women don't have to wear all the time unless they feel lead to.
See this is the problem that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge is that this bible was not written in the english language and it was written in greek. The term covering in greek is kalypto Which translates to veil Or to conceal something. So yes this scripture just says that it is a veil. See a big problem.A lot of people do not understand is that the english language can have one word.That means several different things. For instance, a covering can be a physical covering a spiritual covering.
And many other things but in the greek language it means one thing.. A lot of people who disagree with the head covering movement often refuse to look at the greek translations and it makes no sense to me why people would ignore that when the bible was originally written in greek. In fact, the New Testament in the king James version was directly transliterated from the Greek language, meaning it was taken from the Greek language word by word.So if calypto means to be covered in the english language, it would make sense for it to mean Vale as well.When that is what it means in greek..
The scripture doesn't have to physically say that someone took the veil off.During worship and afterwards it's the same context that would be used when speaking about homosexuality. Christians are obligated to be against homosexuality because it is a sin correct? But the bible doesn't actually mention the word homosexuality , it mentions two men Sleeping in the same bed the Tells us that it's talking about homosexuality. In context in this scripture tells us that Someone is taking a covering off of their head.
Exactly.He is telling us that we have always been naturally covered. But that Doesn't take away the head covering movement debate or argument. Because if we naturally cover then we should physically inspirishly , cover as well correct? Paul tells us several times that the only glory that should be showing is the glory of God. The bible also says that it doesn't even nature teach you That don't let me should cover. Saying that we've always Has some type of coverage Talking about our hair. Then he goes to talk about The glory of our hair and how our glory should not be shown. That is where the head covering movement comes into place, Because the only glory that is supposed to be shown is the head of man which is God. And if a woman has hair that is her glory.Then she should cover her glory.Because it in no way should triumph God's glory. Nature itself teaches a woman that she should cover. I agree the only verses that are Referring to physical head and a physical hair is verse.14 and 15, which is talking about the physical covering.But that doesn't take away the fact that the rest of the scripture is talking about a synthetic covering. A lot of women when covering show their hair because of verse fifteen. Which says that a woman who has long hair is a glory to her and her hair is a cover. But the rest of the scripture doesn't say we cover our hair says we cover our heads. That's why a lot of people get confused on the scripture because we're not actually supposed to cover our physical hair.That's why I show my hair.We're supposed to cover our physical heads.Not for modesty sake but for a symbol and a sign.
Once again verse fourteen is yes talking about long hair. But we must understand that that is simply saying that we should cover our heads and show our hair out of our headcovthink.Because our hair is still a glory.
This is what you get when you don't exposit a passage verse by verse
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. That’s why I have a whole podcast episode where I go through the passage verse by verse. You may still disagree with my conclusions but you’re right about the need for thorough analysis.
Men AND women covered their heads in the temple before the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies.
And in synagogue this custom was continued because the scrolls of scripture were brought in because scripture is that which is contained within the Ark of the Covenant, and thereby signifies the Divine Presence.
The first Christians continued this Jewish practice because they were Jews, and the Holy Eucharist was even more the reality of the Divine Presence than the Holy of Holies in the temple.
Some of the women of Corinth were acting like they were worshipping in the local temple of Diana, and defying common etiquette by removing their FABRIC head covering and speaking out of place like they were in a pagan temple.
So in the beginning of Christianity men and women BOTH covered their heads because that was standard Jewish practice because virtually all Christians were Jewish, and men would REMOVE their head covering at THE CONSECRATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST because a man removed his head covering to show the common courtesy of acknowledging a superior.
czcams.com/video/pk2C0xUTqrM/video.html
The Greek word for a woman's hair is the same Greek word referred to as Testicle within Greek medical texts. (Parabolion)
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head exposed? Does not even nature (physis) itself teach (didaskō) you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory (doxa)? For her hair is given to her for/ instead of/ in place of (anti) a peribolaion. The Hairs is given to Her instead of (THE HAIR OF MEN?) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, it must be something only men have and not women.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.