“…the priest shall…take away from her the head-dress of her head, that she may
be judged with her head bare, and deprived of the symbol of modesty, which all
those women are accustomed to wear who are completely blameless…”
This evidences the presence of women head coverings in Philo’s time (mid-1st century). In a similar vein, Paul directly instructs the faithful women to cover their heads “as in all the assemblies of God” when he 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. For if
the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a
woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered” (I Cor 11:5-6).
Picking up from the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Qur’an instructs women:
“…And let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms. And they
should not display their adornment…And turn to [God] all, o faithful, so that
you may be successful” (24:31).
While Christians and Messianic women go about bare-headed, the Muslimahs (Muslim women) condemn us by their be-garbed piety. We do not incline ourselves to the witness of tradition and Scripture, and the Muslim, aware of our obligations, finds us hypocritical and inconsistent.
The following link is a Muslim song about the value of the hijab. Hijab represents the distinctive styles of Islamic modesty including the female head scarf. The example that Muslim women offer to Christian women is outstanding. We would do well to awaken from our cultural stupor against women head coverings and fall back on the traditional Christian and Jewish understanding of this practice.
“This Hijab”
http://www.prohijab.net/english/hijab-nasheed.mp3
19 comments:
very nice post, modesty is a part of every religion, not just islam.
Peter, I'm picking up on some of why you appreciate Philo...Great post.
Great post ,
im a muslim new muhajaba myself and wearing it is the best thing ever happened to me. i feel precious and comfortable .. i struggle all the time to explain to others that hijab is about modesty .. but to know that it is in other religions too ,thats anew thing for me ..
thanx alot
Hello Nara!
Yes, it is incumbent on Christian and Jewish women to cover their heads. Most of the ahle-kitab ("people of the book") covered their heads until recent times. Modernity has taken its toll. Now only the most observant of the Jewish hold to this practice along with a few fringe Christian sects.
I always appreciate seeing women in hijab. I thank those of you who are brave enough to stand against our culture of death and depravity with a stance for modesty.
kol tuv,
PeterS (Tzuriel)
Very nice info.
I studied in christiarn schools and the Sister used to cover their heads ..I never thought about it before but ..yes, they were wearing hijab !!!
How close we are from each other though always stress the differnces!!!!..
i belive that if there were more like you brother Peter we won't have all this hatred and even Wars..
May Allah grant you success
Hello Nara,
Thank you for the kindness. My brand of Christianity values a number of practices and prohibitions that are in common with Islamic piety. For example, we eschew pork, shellfish, and meat inappropriately slaughtered. We also maintain a qiblah despite the historical reality that most Christians are unaware of the qiblah established by the prophets.
The practice of nuns wearing coverings is similar though different to the biblical ideal or imperative of women's head coverings. Head coverings are not only required for the clergy as modeled by the Catholic nuns, it is incumbent on all of the faithful.
The early church fathers (in the 100's and 200's AD) depated the practice of head coverings extensively. The Alexandrian Christian communities favored the wearing of a face veil while the Macedonian and Roman congregations accepted a head covering without the veil. The aesthetic leaders demanded that all women wear a covering where others insisted that virgins (women before marraige) were not required to wear one. Despite the disagreements--all agreed that the practice was obligatory on women.
May Allah grant us success!
kol tuv,
Peter
abd YHWH
Peter,
I wholeheartedly concur! Even though, admittedly, it's hard to do sometimes (because of pride-- shame on me, I know), I am convicted to fully cover my head, and years ago I even belonged to an Anabaptist group that still practices this command. Today I prefer to use my longer, cotton scarves made in Jerusalem, as they are much more modest-- but my husband doesn't want me to cover anymore. :-( Therefore, when I see a Muslim woman, modestly and beautifully covered up, I envy her!
P.S.
I didn't intend to be so "anonymous"-- I don't know why my name doesn't link to my webpage:
www.geocities.com/clinging2thevine
Hello Photini,
Thank you for sharing. My situation is a bit different. My wife used to wear a head covering when we lived as Jews in an Orthodox Jewish community. She was quite observant of this. I really admired her for it. Now that we are outside of that community, she does not feel comfortable wearing one solo. She is convicted about the practice, but she does not feel like she can wear a covering unless she is part of a community that supports her. I always encourage her to wear one. Right now she generally reserves the head covering for times of prayer or fellowship. I would love for her to wear it everytime that she goes out.
I saw your picture of you as an Anabaptist. You looked quite "plain" amongst the "plain people"--quite a contrast with your earlier pictures. I first became convinced of the value and perpetuity of women's head coverings through reading Mennonite and Anabaptist literature. I do not recall who the publishers or who the authors where, but it was well written and well-researched. I would love to re-obtain some of this material. Do you still associate with Mennonite congregations?
Kol tuv,
PeterS (Tzuriel)
Hi, Peter,
Just to let you know I responded to your post through your email...
Blessings,
Photini
Hey, Peter:
Any thoughts about abandoning Xianity completely and actually following Ribi Yehoshua precisely as his 1st-century followers did (without all of the Messy-antics)?
Personally I think that refusing to progress with Orthodox Judaism was a bad decision for you to have made. If you had been open about everything during your time as a geir, (as is mandated by Torah ethics) declaring full and total allegiance to the authentic Torah teaching Ribi Yehoshua (Aramaic: Yeshua) and not his Romanized counterfeit, you would have been in good standing. At the end of the day, it's all about emulating as precisely as possible the practices of that first-century community in accord with the best information available on that subject. That's something that Messies seem to want to understand, but never implement. It's not about Messy-antics, or attempting to use explicitly non-Torah examples (Islam) to promote the Torah observance that should be sina que non at this point.
I hope this helps if I have not been overly harsh.
Hello Anon,
Thank you for visiting. I was as honest as I could be. I was in mental turmoil at the time. God was gracious to me, and He did not give up despite my waivering. God is good.
Anon, I do not follow the 1-st century Messiah. I follow the risen, 21st century risen Messiah. Every man goes to his idols which speak not and hear not. Follow your traditions, I choose to follow the living God who both speaks and hears. His massorah is the basorah.
kol tuv,
PeterS (Tzuriel)
Except, if G-d is essentially the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then there is simply no better example for following Ribi Yehoshua ha-Mashiakh (who, indeed, was resuscitated from death three days after death, calculated to be at the end of Shabat and not on Sun-g*o*d-day) than the community of his 1st-century followers. The alternative is if G-d is a liar and is a support for displacement/replacement theology (not Biblical).
Furthermore, if the pristine original community of followers is not the prime example of how to follow the Master, nothing is. Obviously, the environment in which they deliberately chose to exist (Perushi=Orthodox Judaism) remains. Human nature has not changed one bit; halakha need only make new answers for such recent technological issues such as internet, electrical appliances, and plastic surgery. How is claiming allegiance to the practices of that non-assimilated community rather than the later developments forced upon it from outside by the Roman world or the various redactions considered "idolatry"? Your definition for idolatry is not the Torah definition.
Anon,
Yeshua was not a Perush (Pharisee). He did support the status quo of the courts which then existed as bodies with multivalent sectarian respresentation. From this support one cannot support the conclusion that Yeshua supports the rabbinic platform.
A few concerns that I have with Rabbinic Judaism: First, the axioms and presuppositions of Rabbinic Judaism are often quite incongruent with the basic teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles. Second, Rabbinic Orthodox Judaism offers a propriospective platform that varies immensely from that of 2nd-Temple Pharisaic perspectives. Third, similarity between Yeshua's teachings and lifestyle and that of the Pharisees does not "prove" that He was a Pharisee.
I am only positing points, not supporting them, at this time. Anon, it is because of the above that I will not bend the knee to the synagogue of Satan (to borrow from John's sectarian rhetoric). I have been in your shoes before. I was once part of the Yirmeyahu ben Quack's sect in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il). I also tried to live "Orthodox" outside of the rabbinic community and outside of Yirmeyahu's sect. I am not a novice to this topic.
Thank you for calling and sharing...
kol tuv,
The top scholarship that has ever been done on this subject (Hyam Maccoby, Harvey Falk, Geza Vernes, E.P. Saunders, James Parkes, Jerusalem Synoptic School, etc.) proves you dead wrong. Also everywhere you see in the "gospel" of Matthew where the followers of Yeshua refer to him as Master, that is translated from the word Ribi (Ashkenazic: "Rabbi") in the original Hebrew account by Matityahu ha-Leivi, which means Master in Hebrew.
The seeming inconsistency with the Pharisaic establishment as a whole in the 2nd-Temple period as compared to today's Orthodox Judaism, is because Phariseeism at that time was anything but monolithic. There were Heleilite, Shamaist, and some Hellenist Pharisees. rYb"Y and his chief followers (the "Apostles") and lesser/later followers opposed the latter two (as confirmed by the top scholarship).
The synagogue of Satan referred to by Yokhanan ha-Tzadiq is the beit Shamai establishment at that time and its corrupt 18 ordnances, which beit Hileil people opposed. It is certainly not referring to the beit Hileil Perushim community within which the original community deliberately operated (confirmed by the aforementioned top scholarship), and from which mind you Orthodox Judaism developed from. Also, the latest and most advanced Qumran scholarship demonstrates that all the Jewish groups in the 1st century, including the Sadducees, observed the Oral Traditions (although the Sadducees opposed it being written down).
Please do not spread lashon hara against anyone, and not against the honorable paqid of the Netzarim. His studies and work are very legitimate. I doubt you are being honest about having been affiliated with his group; the Netzarim explicitly demand that home-students conceal nothing about Yeshua ha-Mashiakh from the Jewish community.
You may never pick up on some of these things if reading from a corrupted King James bible or anything similar.
Furthermore, I am concerned that the main focus of your blog seems to be about opposing Judaism and proving Yehoshua a g*o*d-man.
Hello Anon,
One of the *central* purposes of my blog is to testify that Yeshua is Y-H-W-H.
I do welcome you to check with Yirmeyahu as I think he would be willing to confirm that I was accepted by his group. I was accepted as a Netzarim geir toshav in early 2000. I cancelled my membership after about three months in order to convert to Orthodox Judaism. As you state, Yirmeyahu would not advocate one of his disciples entering the Orthodox community while keeping allegiance with his group a secret. I rejected belief in Yeshua before cancelling my membership. Yirmeyahu stands publicly for positions that are biblically heretical. Speaking against him publicly is kosher lashon hara, i.e, it is my responsibility to speak against his teachings when the opportunity presents itself.
I really enjoy using the King James Bible. It is my favorite English translation. However, I generally read Tanakh in Hebrew. And, I have a hard time reading the Writings of the Apostles unless I have a Greek text to read in tandemn with it. There are passages which betray the langauges and intentions of the authors. But, the KJV is a kosher read.
Sectarian traditions are inherint to sectarian identity. Hence, even groups such as the Sadducees observed tradtion. You may have mistated your point. The Sadducees were not opposed to writing down their traditions. They were a group that codified "halakhah" in the form of rewritten biblical books and pseudepigraphical writings--not the most honest way to bestow authority on your point of view.
If you expand the definition of "Pharisee" far enough, then it is possible to define Yeshua as a Pharisee. Certainly, of the sectarian spectrum, Yeshua displays the most congruency with the Pharisees, but this does not make Him a Pharisee or, much less, a rabbi.
He most certainly was not a "rabbi" in the later sense of the word. He did not teach like a rabbi. He never quoted from the masorah/tradition of another man. Rather, He spoke as one who had authority--authority outside of human institutions. Never did He state, "Rabbi so and so stated...." He taught and exhorted as a prophet and not a Perush. He was called "my master," but this does not confer on Him the status of Orthodox rabbi.
Thank you again for sharing,
kol tuv,
PeterS (Tzuriel)
Again, I'm referring to the best scholarship in the world, all of which have no axe to grind (whereas it seems you do). I've got no reason to listen to your wishful thinking when I'm learning from the best. Read Harvey Falk's "Jesus the Pharisee" or James Pakes' "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue" or you have no business making your counter-historical claims.
Also, note that the Mashiakh's main purpose is to repair the breaches in Israel's Torah observance, not to repeat. His purpose is to correct, not to repeat what has already been correctly stated.
The King James translation is one of the worst translations of anything that has ever been done. First of all, why would you use a corrupted Hellenist Septuagint translation when you could be reading from an authoritative translation of the Tanakh, that Ribi Yehoshua was familiar with (Artscroll's is a good translation, but I think that the 1985 JPS is perfect). King James was anti-semitic (misojudaic), and I would never trust anyone in the misojudaic Hellenist gentile world to handle Judaic texts. Also, please note that much of the NT has become corrupt from the original and has been redacted thousands of times by Hellenistic groups. This has been shown quite conclusively by various experts. Finally, if downright archaic, old-English translations (and sometimes utter, and anti-Torah, mistranslations) that are often barely understandable by most people today are your idea of solid, easily-comprehended phraseology, then go ahead with your misojudaic KJV.
I have no reason to argue with you further; I've got the authoritative findings of world-recognized scholars to learn from, not blog opinions to run off of.
Note that even various Messies such as Tim Hegg do not disregard the tremendous academic evidence that Yeshua was both a Pharisee and a tzadiq Ribi; they promote that evidence (and note that Hegg has your same position on the "deity" of the Master).
שלום
Hello Peter,
This letter seems to be the only way you will communicate with me. You won't talk with me on the phone. You wont talk with me in person. You know I've given you every opportunity. First I would like to state that I was the anonymous poster who said that the terrorists have the right interpretation of the Koran. And I was the poster who quoted from Don Richardson's book "Secrets of the Koran" (Forward by Reza Safa, Author of Inside Islam). And I was the one who had to endure your insulting reply.
Let me make it clear, that my aim was not to argue over interpretations of Islam, but to draw you out so that you would state your position. Thanks for doing so. You show yourself to be in the greatest state of spiritual confusion, and frankly you need deliverance. But that is only possible if you reach out to the God of Israel and seek the assistance of a Pastor gifted in this area. I know one who is a Seventh Day Baptist Pastor.
Yes, you are angry at God and angry with your wife. Trust me though. Your foremost problem is with God and not your wife, which is why I will not say a word to you about that. The wife problem is a result of your doubting relationship with God. She was only the catalyst, and not the cause. You were the cause. I know you want to divorce her, but she does not want a divorce. She is willing to change. Are you? You will have to get right with the God of Israel. You will have to accept his TEST OF YOUR FAITH, ADMIT FAILURE, and ask for FORGIVENESS, and recommit your LIFE to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
You have to stop hiding Peter. I am not going to let you hide anymore, at least not from those I can talk to. If you feel ashamed at this public rebuke, believe me, it is nothing compared to the shame that you will feel from God if you keep going on the course you have set.
Now let's get down to business. You are still posting on your blog, and you still have a statement of faith up. So let's start with being honest. In my opinion you no longer believe the things in your statement of faith and as an honorable man you should take it down:
You wrote Riazahmed@al-balaagh.com: Sat, 5 May 2007
********************8
Hello!
Thank you for your replies.
I no longer am able to stand behind what I post on my blog. I do not accept the idea that Isa is God. I have a hard time accepting the idea that the Bible is the uncorrupted Word of God as I see many layers of development and authorship in the texts. I provided the link to my blog simply to give you a peak into who I am.
I have been to your blog a number of times. I will check it in more depth, and I look forward to hearing more from you.
Salam,
Peter.
*******************
You wrote Riazahmed@al-balaagh.com: Sun, Apr 1 2007
*******************
Hello Riaz:
Thank you for the books that you make available at the Al-Balaagh site. I am considering Isalm … I am a big-time fan of Tolu-e-Islam …
********************
The main reason I wanted to talk to you was to explain these statements. I told you that there would be a one sided default if you did not respond. They are totally inconsistent with the statement of faith you have.
So please fess up that your statement of belief is just as much a spoof as the cicada tale about the kids.
The Torah says "Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt" (Lev. 19:17.
Daniel Gregg
Dear Peter,
This is my second open letter to you. I don't know if you read the first yet, but I sent a copy in email also. I see that you have a different profile and link to another blog in your response to my anonymous post. The link is: http://daat-erwat.blogspot.com/. I think all your readers should know about it so that they can see that your thinking is not settled and that it is in fact in the process of radical change. This is hardly evidence of a well thought out position or logical arguments. It is evidence of spiritual confusion and psychological pathology.
Daniel Gregg.
Post a Comment