The veil/head cover in monotheistic religions

[Mary]

If you are challenged when it comes to reading comprehension, I will now explain the concept in pictures:

1) The principle of subjection

Symbols many and diverse have been given both to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of subjection: and among them this also, that she should be covered, while he hath his head bare. If now these be symbols you see that both err when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God, and their own proper limits, both the man falling into the woman’s inferiority, and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments.

Ver. 7. “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”

This is again another cause. “Not only,” so he speaks, “because he hath Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman.” For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that hath the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of thy rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest thou insult both thyself and Him that hath honored thee.

And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also is it a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection. “But the woman is the glory of the man.” Therefore the rule of the man is natural.

[5.] Then, having affirmed his point, he states again other reasons and causes also, leading thee to the first creation, and saying thus:

Ver. 8. “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.”

But if to be of any one, is a glory to him of whom one is, much more the being an image of him.

Ver. 9. “For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.

Ver. 10. “For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.”

“For this cause:” what cause, tell me? “For all these which have been mentioned,” saith he; or rather not for these only, but also “because of the angels.” “For although thou despise thine husband,” saith he, “yet reverence the angels.”

It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience.

Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably. Consider then the excess of the transgression when being honored with so high a prerogative, thou puttest thyself to shame, seizing the woman’s dress. And thou doest the same as if having received a diadem, thou shouldest cast the diadem from thy head, and instead of it take a slave’s garment.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...&postcount=321

* The man was created in the image and glory of God. Therefore the man is "perfect" as he is.

* The woman was created inferior to the man. And the woman was created for the man. Therefore the woman is in subjection to the man.

* The veil symbolizes that the woman is inferior and in subjection. It is a marker of rank.

2) How do we know this means a Christian woman has to cover her face?

Because if the woman only covers her head, the difference in rank disappears:





You cannot see that the woman is in subjection to the man here.

But if the woman covers her face:



Here you can clearly see that the woman is below the man in rank.

(Sorry for using a Muslim picture, but it was the best example I found)

[riverman]

Mary, seriously, I'm through arguing with you. We can agree to disagree. You know that I have never opposed your right to wear what you want. You have your interpretation of Biblical scripture and as unique as it is, that is your right.

[Mary]

And yet none of this are actual verses from the Bible commanding women to be covered in this manner. It is a tradition that is desert/some muslim orientated, whether you or frankly anyone thinks otherwise.
It is your choice to wear the niqab, it's not required by Christianity and it never has been.

Did you miss these very obvious passages:

31Now Susanna was exceeding delicate, and beautiful to behold.

32But those wicked men commanded that her face should be uncovered, (for she was covered,) that so at least they might be satisfied with her beauty.

33Therefore her friends and all her acquaintance wept.

This is from the Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...13&version=DRA

7The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.

8For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.

9For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.

10Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

From the Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...11&version=DRA

This comment by Clement:

it has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered

This comment by Nikodemus:

"We read in the Sacred Scripture that, when they left the house, the women of old times were covering not only their head, but also their face.

[Mary]

Mary, seriously, I'm through arguing with you. We can agree to disagree. You know that I have never opposed your right to wear what you want. You have your interpretation of Biblical scripture and as unique as it is, that is your right.

One more time:

32But those wicked men commanded that her face should be uncovered, (for she was covered,) that so at least they might be satisfied with her beauty.

Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...13&version=DRA

Does it say that her face was covered?

Yes...

Does it say that the men who wanted to uncover her face were wicked?

Yes.

There has to be a limit to the denial.

[riverman]

lol It's not a commandment, Mary, and you know it. Christianity is shaped by culture, and certainly in the context of the Orthodox churches, of which you claim to be an adherent to, it is neither asked or demanded by the clergy.
Think about it, why aren't Christian clergy, who know far more about scripture than you, demanding that women do this...the obvious answer is that it's not a Christian tradition.
Even further, only some muslim women do this, it's not even a 'standard' muslim tradition.
1. Cultural garb, pre-Islam, worn by some
2. Islamic garb, worn by some, taken from previous cultural usage

You simply cannot contort this into a Christian tradition or commandment.

[Mary]

lol It's not a commandment, Mary, and you know it. Christianity is shaped by culture, and certainly in the context of the Orthodox churches, of which you claim to be an adherent to, it is neither asked or demanded by the clergy.
Think about it, why aren't Christian clergy, who know far more about scripture than you, demanding that women do this...the obvious answer is that it's not a Christian tradition.
Even further, only some muslim women do this, it's not even a 'standard' muslim tradition.
1. Cultural garb, pre-Islam, worn by some
2. Islamic garb, worn by some, taken from previous cultural usage

You simply cannot contort this into a Christian tradition or commandment.

1) Do you acknowledge that the face veil is in the Bible?

32But those wicked men commanded that her face should be uncovered, (for she was covered,) that so at least they might be satisfied with her beauty.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...13&version=DRA

2) How do we know if we have to follow it?



That's the whole point of the Bible.

3) We look at commentaries by religious authorities:

"We read in the Sacred Scripture that, when they left the house, the women of old times were covering not only their head, but also their face.

And until today the women of the Ottomans walk with their cheeks wrapped. Let these be heard by the women of the Christians and let them feel shame!

For this let them force themselves, for the love of God, to straighten this indecency from now on and, when they leave the house, be wrapped on the head with honor and decency, as is becoming Christian women. And if not, they will be condemned on the day of Judgment by the women of the Israelites(the Jews) and of the Pagans!"

- Nikodemus the Hagiorite

There's no debate about this, it says very clearly what you're supposed to do. There is even condemnation on the Day of Judgment involved, if you don't do it.

In what way is this not clear? There are two options:

a) Cover your face in subjection
b) Condemnation on the Day of Judgment

There is no:

c) It's not a commandment so I don't have to do it
d) It's just Mary's interpretation so I can ignore it
e) No priest ever told me to

[Mary]

The face veil should also cover the eyes. It comes out in Clement's text.

For it is common to both to be covered, as it is to eat and drink. The necessity, then, being common, we judge that the provision ought to be similar. For as it is common to both to require things to cover them, so also their coverings ought to be similar; although such a covering ought to be assumed as is requisite for covering the eyes of women.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

But feminine motions, dissoluteness, and luxury, are to be entirely prohibited. For voluptuousness of motion in walking, "and a mincing gait," as Anacreon says, are altogether meretricious.

"As seems to me," says the comedy, "it is time to abandon meretricious steps and luxury." And the steps of harlotry lean not to the truth; for they approach not the paths of life. Her tracks are dangerous, and not easily known. The eyes especially are to be sparingly used, since it is better to slip with the feet than with the eyes. Accordingly, the Lord very summarily cures this malady: "If your eye offend you, cut it out," He says, dragging lust up from the foundation. But languishing looks, and ogling, which is to wink with the eyes, is nothing else than to commit adultery with the eyes, lust skirmishing through them. For of the whole body, the eyes are first destroyed. "The eye contemplating beautiful objects (καλά), gladdens the heart;" that is, the eye which has learned rightly (καλῶς) to see, gladdens. "Winking with the eye, with guile, heaps woes on men." Proverbs 10:10 Such they introduce the effeminate Sardanapalus, king of the Assyrians, sitting on a couch with his legs up, fumbling at his purple robe, and casting up the whites of his eyes. Women that follow such practices, by their looks offer themselves for prostitution. "For the light of the body is the eye," says the Scripture, by which the interior illuminated by the shining light appears. Fornication in a woman is in the raising of the eyes. Sirach 26:9

"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, and concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: for which things' sake comes the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience," Colossians 3:5-6 cries the apostle.

But we enkindle the passions, and are not ashamed.

Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02093.htm

[Mary]

"It must be known, that this covering of the head hath principle relation to the face, which is the best
and most conspicuous part of the head..."
(Joseph Hall, 1660)

Joseph Hall (1 July 1574 – 8 September 1656) was an English bishop, satirist and moralist. His contemporaries knew him as a devotional writer, and a high-profile controversialist of the early 1640s. In church politics, he tended in fact to a middle way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hall_(bishop)

"It being the custom then to cover the faces of those that were put to any shame...The man's face is
used well to be uncovered...But the woman is subject unto him..."
(Richard Baxter, 1695)

Richard Baxter (12 November 1615 – 8 December 1691) was an English Puritan church leader, poet, hymn-writer,[1] theologian, and controversialist. Dean Stanley called him "the chief of English Protestant Schoolmen". After some false starts, he made his reputation by his ministry at Kidderminster, and at around the same time began a long and prolific career as theological writer. After the Restoration he refused preferment, while retaining a non-separatist presbyterian approach, and became one of the most influential leaders of the nonconformists, spending time in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baxter

"...Divines think, that the face is that part of the head, which the Apostle here intendeth should be
covered...with a veil..."
(Matthew Poole, Annotations, 1700)

Matthew Poole (1624–1679) was an English Nonconformist theologian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Poole

"But every woman who...prays or prophesies without a veil on her face...disclaims subjection..."
(John Wesley, Explanatory Notes, 1757)

John Wesley ( /ˈwɛslɪ/; 28 June [O.S. 17 June] 1703 – 2 March 1791) was a Church of England cleric and Christian theologian. Wesley is largely credited, along with his brother Charles Wesley, as founding the Methodist movement which began when he took to open-air preaching in a similar manner to George Whitefield. In contrast to George Whitefield's Calvinism, Wesley embraced the Arminian doctrines that were dominant in the 18th-century Church of England. Methodism in both forms was a highly successful evangelical movement in the United Kingdom, which encouraged people to experience Jesus Christ personally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley

"Now the Corinthian women, in imitation of the heathen women...did cast off their veils, discovered
their faces..."
(William Burkitt, Expository Notes, 1832)

William Burkitt (25 July 1650 in Hitcham, Suffolk, England – 24 October 1703, Essex) was a biblical expositor and vicar in Dedham, Essex, England.

He studied at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, earning a B. A. in 1668 and M. A. in 1672.[1] He became a Church of England curate at Milden, Suffolk, about 1672, and vicar of Dedham in 1692. Burkitt was also rector of Milden, near Lavenham, from 1672 to 1703.

Burkitt is known for his Bible commentary, Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament (Gospels published 1700, Acts to Revelation published 1703). Matthew Henry wrote in the preface to his commentary that it "met with very good acceptance among serious people" and that it would "do great service to the church." In fact, he went on to say that Burkitt's Exposition was the inspiration for his own commentary on the Old Testament, to complement Burkitt's work on the New Testament. Charles Spurgeon regarded Burkitt's commentary as a "goodly volume," and recommended "attentive perusal" of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Burkitt

"It was required in females that they should cover their faces whenever they appeared in public..."
(Lucius Robinson Paige, 1867)

Lucius Robinson Paige (March 8, 1802-1896) was a Universalist minister, biblical scholar, historian, and public official.

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/artic...ciuspaige.html

"...in the holy congregations of earth woman veils her face in the presence of man...The words 'covered'
and 'uncovered' should be rendered veiled and unveiled, for a woman may cover her head with a turban
and yet not conceal her face with a veil."
(F.C. Cook, 1881)

The Rev. Frederick Charles Cook was born at Milbrook Dec. 1, 1804 and died at Exeter June 22, 1889. He studied at St. John's College. Cambridge (B.A., 1831; M.A., 1844), and was ordained in 1839. He was inspector of schools, prebendary of St. Paul's from 1856-65, preacher at Lincoln's Inn from 1860-80 and prebendary in Lincoln cathedral 1861-64. He became chaplain to the Queen in 1857, canon residentiary of Exeter in 1864, chaplain to the bishop of London in 1869 and precentor of Exeter 1872.

http://www.ccel.org/c/cook_fc/

All quotes from here: http://www.kingdombaptist.org/sermon...heir+Faces.pdf.

[Mary]

Didascalia Apostolorum (or just Didascalia) is a Christian treatise which belongs to the genre of the Church Orders. It presents itself as being written by the Twelve Apostles at the time of the Council of Jerusalem, however, scholars agree that it was actually a composition of the 3rd century, perhaps around 230 AD.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didascalia_Apostolorum

[[26]] Thou therefore that art a Christian, (p. 9) do not imitate such women; but if thou wouldst be a faithful woman, please thy husband only. And when thou walkest in the street, cover thy head with thy robe, that by reason of thy veil thy great beauty may be hidden. And adorn not thy natural face; but walk with downcast looks, being veiled.

[i. 9] And take heed that thou bathe not in a bath with men. For when there is a women's bath in the city or in the village, a believing woman may not bathe in a bath with men. For if thou coverest thy face from strange men with a veil of modesty, how then canst thou go in with strange men to a bath? But if there is no women's bath, and thou art constrained to bathe in a bath of men and women, -- which indeed is unfitting -- bathe with modesty and shame, and with bashfulness and moderation: and not at all times, nor every day, and not at midday; but let there be an appointed season for thee to bathe at, (to wit) at the tenth hour. For it behoves thee, as a believing woman, by every means to fly from the vain and curious gaze of the many which is met with in a bath.

[i. 10] And thy strife with all, and especially with thy husband, check and restrain as a believing woman; lest thy husband, if he be a heathen, be offended by reason of thee and blaspheme against God, and thou receive a Woe from God:� for, Woe to them, by reason of whom the name of God is blasphemed [[28]] among the gentiles [Isa 52.5; Rom 2.24]; or (lest) again, if thy husband be a believer, he be constrained, as one who knows the Scriptures, and say to thee the word from Wisdom: It is better to sit upon a corner of the roof than to dwell with a prating and quarrelsome woman within the house [Prov 21.9-10]. For it behoves women by a veil of modesty and humility to shew (their) fear of God, for the conversion and the increase of faith of them that are without, (both) of men and women.

Now if we have admonished and instructed you in brief, our sisters and our daughters and our members, do you as wise women seek and choose out for yourselves those things that are good and honourable and without reproach in worldly conversation; and learn and know those things whereby you may arrive at the kingdom of our Lord, and may find rest, pleasing Him with good works.

http://www.bombaxo.com/didascalia.html

The Apostolic Constitutions (or Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, lat. Constitutiones Apostolorum) is a Christian collection of eight treatises which belongs to genre of the Church Orders. The work can be dated from 375 to 380 AD. The provenience is usually regarded as Syria, probably Antioch.[1] The author is unknown, even if since James Ussher it was considered to be the same author of the letters of Pseudo-Ignatius, perhaps the 4th century Eunomian bishop Julian of Cilicia.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions

You, therefore, who are Christian women, do not imitate such as these. But thou who designest to be faithful to thine own husband, take care to please him alone. And when thou art in the streets, cover thy head; for by such a covering thou wilt avoid being viewed of idle persons. Do not paint thy face, which is God’s workmanship; for there is no part of thee which wants ornament, inasmuch as all things which God has made are very good. But the lascivious additional adorning of what is already good is an affront to the bounty of the Creator. Look downward when thou walkest abroad, veiling thyself as becomes women.
That a Woman Must Not Bathe with Men.

IX. Avoid also that disorderly practice of bathing in the same place with men; for many are the nets of the evil one. And let not a Christian woman bathe with an hermaphrodite; for if she is to veil her face, and conceal it with modesty from strange men, how can she bear to enter naked into the bath together with men? But if the bath be appropriated to women, let her bathe orderly, modestly, and moderately. But let her not bathe without occasion, nor much, nor often, nor in the middle of the day, nor, if possible, every day; and let the tenth hour of the day be the set time for such seasonable bathing. For it is convenient that thou, who art a Christian woman, shouldst ever constantly avoid a curiosity which has many eyes.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.ii.iii.html

[orangepulp]

This is happening while millions of muslims in Africa are dying because of hunger.

Now, we the secular countries are supposedly the evils because we don't wear hijab, and these wahhabi cocaine addicts are the real muslims and you live "true islam" in UAE?

So you give some of you salary to the people in Africa?? The least I give is 2.5% of my savings each year. Some of the Arabs pracitices should not be generalized to the entire population.