Veils-Head Coverings, Leaving in Public, Sign of Oppression or Modesty?

tobelieveinHim said:

Because I am involuntarily, single! Lol. And I can only leave with my parents, every so often.

I can't avoid leaving the house by myself sometimes.
But, I don't think the answer is to make veiling, mandatory.
For the Orthodox ones I bought, I'm gonna let them be drapey, over my shoulders
Like a scarf

Click to expand...

If you need to stay under your parents' care for health reasons, then do what you need to stay safe and healthy.

I'm still now sure how the veil connects to this, though. Do you connect veil-wearing to marital status, so that you think you should (or shouldn't) wear one on account of being single?

Or is it about being unaccompanied in public -- do you think women should be veiled if they're alone in public?

Your profile lists you as being in the United States. Here in the US, most women have full freedom of choice about the headwear they do or don't wear, regardless of marital status or age. Do you come from a subculture in which women in your family/community normally veil when they go out in public?

I like scarves, and I support your choice to wear them on your shoulders or your head or however else you choose. I'm just not sure how this choice relates to your being single.

Aussie52 said:

Bart is an apostate. He has fallen from grace.

Click to expand...

Yes, clearly, just having academic credentials doesn't mean someone knows what he's talking about.

Aussie52 said:

Payne is not a feminist but rather an egalitarian, and a competent Greek scholar.

Click to expand...

It's a distinction without a difference. And I wouldn't call a man whose publications include only articles on Christian Post, PDFs on his personal website, and self-published Amazon books a "competent Greek scholar."

That's kind of beside the point, though. You can find more qualified Greek scholars who will make all sorts of heretical claims (e.g. Ehrman). Ultimately it comes down to whether you think the Holy Spirit is actually guiding the Church or not and whether you think an American living nearly 2,000 years later understands NT Greek better than native speakers in antiquity did.

jas3 said:

Yes, clearly, just having academic credentials doesn't mean someone knows what he's talking about.

It's a distinction without a difference. And I wouldn't call a man whose publications include only articles on Christian Post, PDFs on his personal website, and self-published Amazon books a "competent Greek scholar."

That's kind of beside the point, though. You can find more qualified Greek scholars who will make all sorts of heretical claims (e.g. Ehrman). Ultimately it comes down to whether you think the Holy Spirit is actually guiding the Church or not and whether you think an American living nearly 2,000 years later understands NT Greek better than native speakers in antiquity did.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to you opinion and you have stated it.

tobelieveinHim said:

It generally isn't safe, nor healthy for women to go out alone, unless necessary. Even in the states. Actually, especially in the states.

I believe liberal women, are going to drive this country into the ground. With the rise in immigration, and the rise in people thinking communism is safe, I'm just being realistic

Our culture is shifting, whether we want it to or not. It has never been safe for women to be alone, Even more-so, Now. Just a reality check.

Click to expand...

I found and read some of your earlier posts on CF, so I think I have a better understanding of your situation now.

I'm mostly comfortable being out alone, but you're right that it's important to be careful. (Not because of immigration or liberals, but because even if only one person in a thousand is a creep, in a city of thousands of people you're statistically going to run into some creeps.) So I do what most women have trained themselves to do, and what I assume you do also: I stay in lighted areas, I glance around me to see who might be coming into my space, all that kind of thing. With those precautions, I mostly feel okay going to work, going shopping, going to the park, and so on.

But if you don't feel safe -- and especially if there are things about your situation that makes you genuinely unsafe -- then do what you need to feel safe. Take a companion with you when you go out. If covering your head makes you feel less exposed to danger, then do that.

Aussie52 said:

In the Greek,1 Cor 11 is not about veils as in English translations but rather about whether women have their hair up or flowing down.
When you see pictures or sculptures of Greco-Roman women, their hair is always held up. To have one's hair down in public was a shame and a sign of sexual looseness. This was what Paul is describing in Corinthians.

Click to expand...

Following the Feminist movement in the 1960's - theological pressure built up to interpret Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:3-15 differently from the traditional reading (the literal physical covering of a woman's head); some Egalitarians hypothesised the word 'uncovered' / 'akatakaluptō' [ἀκατακαλύπτῳ] (Strong nr G177) might refer to:

• short hair, so Paul might be just telling women to keep their hair long
• having hair-down/loose, as opposed to bound-up; so Paul might be telling women to properly bind their hair up

Others admit Paul's instructions did refer to literal physical head-covering but that these instructions were just for that community in that particular place/time/culture.

Evaluating the evidence the hypothesis that 'uncovered' / 'akatakaluptō' [ἀκατακαλύπτῳ] (Strong nr G177) should not be read as a literal, physical covering of a woman's head does not hold up:

a) the meaning of the positive adjective 'covered' / 'katakaluptō' [κατακαλύπτῳ] (G2619) was well established at the time of writing - we can deduce this from Greek literature before Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians.

The LXX/Septuagint, the Greek translation of the TNK/OT from mid-3rd century BC, uses the word in Genesis 38:15 to describe Tamar who disguises herself as a prostitute by 'covering' her face with a veil - an obvious effort to hide her identity. The word can't possibly mean 'long hair' or 'hair down/loose' in this context.

The LXX uses the positive adjective in Leviticus 3:3, 3:14, 4:8, 7:3, 9:19; Numbers 4:15; Isaiah 11:9, Habakkuk 2:14 and Ezekiel 26, 32, 38. In all these occurences the word means 'cover-over', and never anything hair related.

The negative adjective 'uncovered' / 'akatakaluptō' [ἀκατακαλύπτῳ] appears in the LXX in Leviticus 13:45 describing the ritually unclean leper whose head is to be left bare/uncovered as a marker of his impure status.

Both Genesis 38:15 and Leviticus 13:45 represent 'smoking gun' evidence the '(un)covered' in Greek should be read as physical (cloth) head-covering, not a hair-state description.

b) in the underlying Greek for 'covered', 'katakaluptō' [κατακαλύπτω] (G2619) the phrase 'kata' literally means 'down'/'downward' - from a purely etymological perspective it would have been very unnatural for that to mean 'bind UP (hair)' as this is the opposite direction.

c) Paul uses a separate word for (growing) long hair: komaō [κομάω] (G2863) - making it illogical the word for 'cover' would refer to the same.

d) the early Church Fathers lived/swam in the same Greek language world of Paul and Corinth - they were close to the Apostles in time and culture and highly likely familiar with the common and passed-down reading of Paul's letter. These Church Fathers unanimously read 1 Corinthians 11:3-15 as Paul instructing women to physically cover their head while praying/prophesying - and did not read it as a hair-style instruction (as @jas3 already pointed out)

The traditional reading was uncontested for 1900 years in the history or Christianity - and for good reason it seems.

Some Egalitarians may accept this traditional reading, but subsequently hypothesise the instruction is confined to local conditions/church situation/cultural. That's an entirely different topic of course. Personally I prefer a universal interpretation whenever timeless universal theological arguments are presented for a principle.

On another note, @PloverWing states 'it would be a sign of submission to men, and thus a sign of oppression. So I don't veil.', equalling submission to oppression. But that's a logical fallacy - we're told to submit to Christ and all proper authorities without that meaning Christ and authorities 'oppress' us. Submission does not equal oppression - it just makes the submitting party vulnerable to bad actors in authority (and that's a risk in ANY hierarchical chain-of-command).

Oppression is the abuse of authority or power; not the mere existence or exercise of that. Calling authority/power we don't like 'abuse' can be a convenient tactic to evade duty or accountability. That's all separate from actual abuse that may exist.

Be blessed !

Reluctant Theologian said:

On another note, @PloverWing states 'it would be a sign of submission to men, and thus a sign of oppression. So I don't veil.', equalling submission to oppression. But that's a logical fallacy - we're told to submit to Christ and all proper authorities without that meaning Christ and authorities 'oppress' us. Submission does not equal oppression - it just makes the submitting party vulnerable to bad actors in authority (and that's a risk in ANY hierarchical chain-of-command).

Oppression is the abuse of authority or power; not the mere existence or exercise of that. Calling authority/power we don't like 'abuse' can be a convenient tactic to evade duty or accountability. That's all separate from actual abuse that may exist.

Click to expand...

The statement that it's appropriate to submit to "proper authorities" is true by definition, I think. The question becomes: what is a "proper authority"?

Is the Almighty Creator of the Universe a proper authority? Yup.

Is a man a proper authority over me merely on account of his gender and mine? Even though we are all one in Christ Jesus, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves? Mmm, I don't see it. I agree that the abuse of authority or power is a form of oppression, but inappropriately claiming authority over someone who is supposed to be your equal is also a form of oppression.

PloverWing said:

The statement that it's appropriate to submit to "proper authorities" is true by definition, I think. The question becomes: what is a "proper authority"?

Is the Almighty Creator of the Universe a proper authority? Yup.

Is a man a proper authority over me merely on account of his gender and mine? Even though we are all one in Christ Jesus, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves? Mmm, I don't see it. I agree that the abuse of authority or power is a form of oppression, but inappropriately claiming authority over someone who is supposed to be your equal is also a form of oppression.

Click to expand...

Your honesty and frankness about your position I appreciate - that saves a lot of misunderstandings. It seems your position is 'a priori' - it's the dominant presupposition based on which you interpret the Bible subsequently - you then would have to neutralise several explicit statements on hierarchy and authority in marriage, church, etc. When Paul outlines hierarchy and authority in e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:3 or Ephesians 5:22, or Peter says the same in 1 Peter 3:1-6, you would view that as calling for oppression? And therefore, based on your 'a priori' starting point, you would have to declare those statements as not coming from God, or only valid for that specific time or culture? I'm trying to understand your thinking ..

There are a number of places in the gospels where Jesus talks about overturning the structures of this world that oppress people and hold them captive, or that lead people to view themselves as better than others. Examples include Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 20:24-28, the Golden Rule, the many times that Jesus criticizes the rich and powerful, and the many times that Jesus welcomes the various "undesirables" of his time -- tax collectors, Samaritans, lepers, and, yes, women. Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1) also speaks to this theme.

When I see passages in the epistles about power structures in home life, like the ones you've listed, I read them in light of the larger theme of freeing captives and overturning human hierarchies.

Bible interpreters reconcile these conflicting passages in various ways, as I assume you know. One possibility is that Paul and Peter were taking for granted that the household structures of Roman life were just the way things were, and were giving advice about how best to live as a Christian within those structures.