Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Pants

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Barbarians also wore coats, and robes, and shoes, had beards, carried spears, and slept in tents. .If britches were strictly
barbarian clothes then why did God ordain that His priests wear them?


.
Exodus 28:40
And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.
42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The 'breeches' that God instructed the priests to wear were undergarments... not pants.

That said, it is possible the Greeks understanding of 'breeches' may have been different than that of the Jews?

*of interest concerning 'breeches" in the Word of God is the fact that they are only associated with priests.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You know, if some people would just slow down and pay attention to the WORDS in the word of God, it would help alot of people.

42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
I don't be a'wearin' me Fruit of the Looms to be a'coverin' me nakededness lads..............Why would you need someting to COVER your nakedness if that something is an undergarment? Comprende senior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Who cares what a homosexual does or believes. What does the Scripture say.


Ugh, it shows they know there is a difference in the way a man & woman are to look, that a woman is suppose to look like a woman, not a man, that a man is suppose to look like a man, not a woman, yet many that call their self Christian do not.

Maybe you'll get it after thinking about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Strongs also included "trousers".........
http://www.bluelette...trongs=H4370&t=KJV
1) underwear, drawers, trousers

Again, why would the priest's need to cover nakedness if it's already covered by something else?

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A kilt is not always men's wear, Trell. Women have kilts, too, and they are distinct from the male kilts (and they are actually ceremonial, not daily wear). And, yes, I do think men look silly in them. *shrugs* Just sayin... :icon_smile: And, yes, God is concerned about women not wearing men's apparel and vice versa. That's what Deut. 22:5 is all about. The principle of gender distinction crosses "law" lines. And yes, believer's are to walk by the Spirit...but they are to obey the Book. There are principles that too many people (as Kita said) want to proclaim as their liberty not to follow. And yet, we are told by God not to use our liberty as an occasion to the flesh. Too many Christians proclaim liberty when want they really want is license.

Standing - you can't argue away the fact that God preserved the shoes of ALL of Israel while they were in the wilderness. AND - Moses was, by command of God, speaking to all of Israel when he gave the passover commands. It was the man's duty to get the lamb, but instruction was given to the entire household. Again, your "argument" is silly, and the logical end of your comparison is that women should eat their children. While they are barefoot. :realitycheck:


I've seen men wear kilts, I thought they looked silly, yet one has to consider, I think many Christian women dress silly too.

And of course its all about pleasing God, not self & trying to present one's self to the world as following Jesus as closely as possible.

Of course if one wants God to have His way with them, & they do as God would have them to do, them that person gets their way. Think I phrased that correctly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Strongs also included "trousers".........
http://www.bluelette...trongs=H4370&t=KJV
1) underwear, drawers, trousers

Again, why would the priest's need to cover nakedness if it's already covered by something else?
Strongs does say "trousers", yes. But notice under that line it clearly says it was a 'priestly undergarment'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I wasn't taking Strongs word for it; as I usually don't. I was pointing out that you left out the word 'trousers' which he included.
The Bible says the priests wore "breeches", and it tells WHY....... "Underwear" as we know it is unseen (at least it should be) and therefore serves no purpose in "covering nakedness" as the "Breeches" were intended to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wasn't taking Strongs word for it; as I usually don't. I was pointing out that you left out the word 'trousers' which he included.
The Bible says the priests wore "breeches", and it tells WHY....... "Underwear" as we know it is unseen (at least it should be) and therefore serves no purpose in "covering nakedness" as the "Breeches" were intended to do.
Actually, I did not "leave out trousers". I quoted the Strongs from my Quickverse software program. It apparently is different than BLB for some reason.
I copied the def from Strongs on QV verbatim.

I have noticed differences in the Strongs on many sites and programs. Not sure the reasoning. But the fact remains, Even the BLB says breeches were a priestly undergarment. And in the Bible, breeches are only identified with the priest.

They may be called trousers elsewhere, but in the Bible the only place you find breeches is in connection to the priests attire.... they were undergarments. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Since returning to church after a long absence from actively serving the Lord, there are many things on my list as I cry for wisdom and understanding. (Proverbs 2: 3-6) Until this thread, the subject of women wearing pants wasn't on that list. After reading so many posts and differing opinions, decided to do a little digging. In this case that meant trying to learn what was happening at the time and place Deuteronomy 22:5 was inspired by God.

Fire up the search engine. Started out looking for info on the female Egyptian pharoah who took on a man's role and wore a fake beard. Looking for her timeline vs when Moses gave the law. You know how search engines function, and soon the word transvestism popped up. Treading carefully to stay away from places I know I don't want to visit on the Internet, I came across this site.

Transvestism in Ancient Israel by Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament, Northern Baptist Seminary http://doctor.claude...ent-israel.html

Quote from the article's conclusion:

The law in Deuteronomy 22:5 is a prohibition against Israelite men and women wearing the garments that would identify them as worshipers of Asherah. Since those garments were dedicated to Asherah and since the servants of Asherah wore identical garments, any Israelite man or any Israelite woman who wore these garments would be committing an abomination against Yahweh.

Transvestism is a violation of the natural order and as such, it should not be practiced by the followers of Yahweh. Deuteronomy 22:5 is prohibiting a specific kind of transvestism, one in which men dressed as women and women dressed as men would identify themselves as servants of Asherah, prostitute themselves in the temple of Yahweh, and thus bring ritual impurity to the worship of the God of Israel.

And a follow up:

Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5 - Part 1

http://doctor.claude...225-part-1.html

Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5 - Part 2

http://doctor.claude...225-part-2.html

Your thoughts?


Edit: This search keyword combination seems to work to weed out the undesirable web sites:
Bible deuteronomy transvestism pants

Edited by Oldtimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is getting a little ridiculous....


Yes, Kitagrl for some I see it is a trial in itself.

Call me a barbarian if you like I wear trousers (present day vernacular) and I will prefer my wife wear shoes. My wife also wears women's slacks.

It seems to me some folks urgent matters are too trivial for me to take seriously. I must be cold and callous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Since returning to church after a long absence from actively serving the Lord, there are many things on my list as I cry for wisdom and understanding. (Proverbs 2: 3-6) Until this thread, the subject of women wearing pants wasn't on that list. After reading so many posts and differing opinions, decided to do a little digging. In this case that meant trying to learn what was happening at the time and place Deuteronomy 22:5 was inspired by God.

Fire up the search engine. Started out looking for info on the female Egyptian pharoah who took on a man's role and wore a fake beard. Looking for her timeline vs when Moses gave the law. You know how search engines function, and soon the word transvestism popped up. Treading carefully to stay away from places I know I don't want to visit on the Internet, I came across this site.

Transvestism in Ancient Israel by Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament, Northern Baptist Seminary http://doctor.claude...ent-israel.html

Quote from the article's conclusion:

The law in Deuteronomy 22:5 is a prohibition against Israelite men and women wearing the garments that would identify them as worshipers of Asherah. Since those garments were dedicated to Asherah and since the servants of Asherah wore identical garments, any Israelite man or any Israelite woman who wore these garments would be committing an abomination against Yahweh.

Transvestism is a violation of the natural order and as such, it should not be practiced by the followers of Yahweh. Deuteronomy 22:5 is prohibiting a specific kind of transvestism, one in which men dressed as women and women dressed as men would identify themselves as servants of Asherah, prostitute themselves in the temple of Yahweh, and thus bring ritual impurity to the worship of the God of Israel.

And a follow up:

Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5 - Part 1

http://doctor.claude...225-part-1.html

Women, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5 - Part 2

http://doctor.claude...225-part-2.html

Your thoughts?


Edit: This search keyword combination seems to work to weed out the undesirable web sites:
Bible deuteronomy transvestism pants


De 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

The verse is quite easy to read, it clearly says, woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to man, & man is not to wear that which pertaineth to woman. It is an abomination unto the Lord. And if you will slowly read it again, its quite clear, woman is not to wear that which pertaineth to man at any time, & man is not to wear that which pertaineth to woman at any time. That is, neither man or woman is suppose to cross dress at anytime. It is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Neither the verses before, & or after this verse, points to anything that you brought up.

That is, unless you want to just explain it away, doing as you please, & ignore God's very stern warning. In other words, there is no wiggle room, unless a person uses wisdom from this world to interpret the Bible.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

That said, I will not debate it, the Holy Scriptures speaks very clearly for their self, everyone is more than welcome to argue with God about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jerry, I didn't state an opinion or viewpoint on this issue. Simply posted an article and a rebuttal to some responses to the original article.

While your reply disagreed with the article, that was fine. However, when by inference you've questioned my "cry for knowledge" with

That is, unless you want to just explain it away, doing as you please, & ignore God's very stern warning. In other words, there is no wiggle room, unless a person uses wisdom from this world to interpret the Bible.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.


which gives me pause to ponder.......

In other words, there is no wiggle room, unless a person uses wisdom from this world to interpret the Bible.


Do you ever read and study anything that's outside the pages of the King James Bible? Sermons by other pastors? Commentaries? Have you ever recommended a book (article, web site, etc), written by a respected Christian author to a brother/sister in Christ or to someone who hasn't come to the Lord?

Is your position just as strong on all the points in the Deuteronomic Code (chapters 12-26 of Deuteronomy)? For example, if my great, great, great grandfather was of illegimate birth, should I be banned from entering our church? Surely that is as important as whether the garment on my lower body has been divided by a seam.

Lastly, this scripture passage come to mind as I read your reply.
2 Timothy 2:15 KJB
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Combine that with:
Proverbs 2:3-6 KJB
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;

5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.

6 For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

As I study any item on my "want to know more list" of God's word, I believe the Holy Spirit is my guide, not "wisdom from this world" to rightly divide His word.

Now for my "opinion" on this subject.

I believe that satan is using Deuteronomy 22:5 to drive a wedge of division into the body of the true church in Christ. This issue regarding the configuration of a piece of fabric reminds me of the fight over red carpet in the church of my youth. Much to my regret, today, that fight (and others) left a lasting impression on this, then new Christian. Yes, deep regret, as I drifted away from the church for many years. I don't know how much influence those fights had on me, but I do know, they were a contributing factor. Satan achieved his goal, in my case. Edited by Oldtimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Oldtimer...I want to agree AND disagree. I disagree that its "just a seam in fabric" because it IS true that the "seam" causes men to be able to see a woman's butt and crotch. The eyes are drawn to that, and its not fair to men who aren't supposed to be looking at that. The "seam" does make a big difference. I mean, I kind of wish I could wear pants in public, but even if I did, I would try to make sure I had enough of a top covering that "seam" so that guys weren't looking at things they aren't supposed to look at. God even tells us in the Bible you can tell a harlot by her dress...now, I'm NOT saying that's pants, because I'm sure in the Bible they still wore some sort of dress...but....the more revealing the clothing, the more obvious it was that the woman was "loose". So, you can't just say that clothing never matters...it does. Now, I'm not saying pants per-se are wrong....however, most pants are too tight and too revealing. It is difficult to dress modestly in pants, and easy to dress modestly in a skirt. When I put on a pair of cute capris or something, I feel more "attractive". Is that how I should feel? I do not know....part of me thinks maybe not.

The part I agree with is that I think this issue has become much too big of an issue in IFB. Often its used as a litmus test as to a woman's spirituality. Not really in our church, because in MY church, I'm outnumbered...most women, even the stronger Christians, wear pants at home or out in their daily lives. But in the larger IFB churches....people really use that as a way to decide whether or not someone is a "worthy" IFB person. I think that's sad. While it IS in the Bible to dress modestly...there are so many other things that are in the Bible too...like PRIDE, which is one of the biggest problems, I think, in IFB. The passage in the NT where they say "I am of Paul...I am of Apollos...I am of Christ." The "I am of Christ" is a prideful statement saying they wouldn't obey any man other than just Christ, and I feel like today the IFB movement is like, "I am of CHRIST so I am the best Christian."

Yep, pride is a much larger problem, I think, than pants on women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 39 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...