Modest appearal

[PastorHarrison]

And you have yet to show that pants are solely a man's garment, nor have you been able to answer the obvious fact that "breeches" were underwear, not pants. The principle of not wearing another person's garment is easy- don't wear what is designed to be worn by the opposite sex. Pants for men or women didn't exist in Bible times so there is nothing to determine which sex it was "originally" designed for and that is determined by culture, so long as it is within the modest guidelines.

Romans 14 would be a good chapter to read.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another

[HappyChristian]

from Noah Webster:

breeches
BREECHES, n. plu. brich'es. [Low L. braccoe.]

A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.

To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.

trowsers
TROWS'ERS, n. plu. s as z. A loose garment worn by males, extending from the waist to the knee or to the ankle, and covering the lower limbs.

Is this from the 1828? That's a great dictionary!

[IM4given]

Is this from the 1828? That's a great dictionary!

yep - it makes it all very clear doesn't it?

[HappyChristian]

yep - it makes it all very clear doesn't it?

Yeah, it does. It's interesting that the men who lived in that time believed that pants on women were wrong because of the fact that pants were men's apparel. Wonder what they would say to today's Christians saying it's okay because it's part of the culture. Man - there are so many things today that are part of our culture that we could do or partake in because they aren't blacklisted specifically by name in scripture going by that standard!!

[JerryNumbers]

Over in Matt 13:24-30 (The account of the wheat & tares which grow together) Jesus tells us of some wheat which grows among the tares... some wheat he says grows so deeply enshrouded by the tares among which it has found a home, that it inter-twines, entangles and grows so closely connected to the tares that to undo them and tear the wheat apart from the tares is not possible in this life.... "Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them"

Some wheat has spent it's whole life tangled up with the tares.... it loves them, needs them, supports them and defends the life and preferences of the tares....and all along the while it was wheat and had no business looking like, acting like, supporting or entangling with the tares. In my estimation Jesus has made it clear..... some wheat ain't gone get removed from it's entanglement with the tares until Jesus comes to get us..... Yet, some wheat could be detangled.... I was! My wife was and thank God for those wheat plants that just kept pointing out the tares.

"Wherefor by their fruits ye shall know them".... Matt 7:22

I read once a good comment concerning the sheep and the wolves. The wolves sent an message to the sheep and accused the dogs of instigating strife by their constant barking and that if the sheep really wanted peace, get rid of those pesky dogs and their constant barking.... The sheep agreed and sent away the dogs ... the wolves promptly rushed in and viciously killed the sheep.

Amen brother.

The thing is, to many of us have our mind poisoned by our prejudices of world teachings that is fed into our brain a thousand fold more than God's Word, these prejudices fogs over our mind, them we cannot discern what is right and wrong according to the Bible.

Perhaps some are just not going to be the peculiar people that God wants them to be, we can be very stubborn .

Maybe there be some who just can't help their self, they just have to conform to the ways of this world for they love the ways of the world. Its much easier to go along with their ways than it is to resist their sinful ways.

Sometime back a neighbor told me about witnessing to a man in these parts who was known for being wild and doing many crazy wild things, drinking was the main part of his life. He said, maybe I did wrong but I invited him to go fishing with me and took along a ice chest full of beer and while we were fishing and drinking I talked to him about God.

There is a way that seems right unto man, the majority of the people in this world use that way never fully submitting to God and His way.

1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Romans 12:1-2 (KJV)

How many of us really present our bodies a living sacrifice. How many of us have really sacrificed anything for God the Father of Jesus the only Savior?

We are a head strong generation completely turning from the Holy ways our forefathers walked, trading them in for the ways of this fallen world.

Thru the years I've heard people pray about doing things for Jesus' sake, but how many of us really ever do anything for Jesus' sake? Just think what He endured for our sake.

[kevinmiller]

Bro Kevin, do you really, truly suppose that God set the name of ABOMINATION on something so vague no one could violate it? So ambiguous and culturally subjective that it would be promptly rendered moot? Do you really think God meant for us to lable britches which in every case only men wear as something everyone can wear if they add some length to'em and wear them outside rather than under?

It's not at all vague. I would never buy an article of clothing to wear from the women's section of a store or any other piece of clothing that was considered to belong to the female sex. You're taking one verse that talks about an undergarment and trying to build an argument around it and it doesn't work. Your argument is so far-fetched that it only makes sense because it has been pushed so hard.

Based on your argument, we could easily say that it is a sin for men to wear pants because they were meant to be undergarments and that we should still wear robes. Also, is it okay for me to wear a dress?

Additionally, do you suppose that Rom 14 apertaining to judgment of one's salvation violates or otherwise contradicts or renders ineffective God's words in 1 Cor 2:15, 5:13, 6:3, II Thess 3:14, 15, and of course II Tim 3:5 just to name very few?

The verse is not referring to judging another person's salvation and that can be easily seen by reading it in context. Also, the word that was translated as judge is different for those passages and Romans 14. The word judge in Romans means to condemn or damn, while the verse used in Corinthians 2 means to discern. The Scripture is clear that we are not to condemn another man's servant which, in this case, is God's servant.

Your verses from Romans 14 are very sweet words of God and well taken. They must be rightly divided of course though, you agree? For example if a fellow Christian had been drinking (not drunken) and weeding (not drunken thereby) and was standing at the door of a brothel (since Scripture doesn't forbid them specifically) and about to go in unto a harlot. Could this young man not quote these very verses and thereby deem harlots to be unclean only to them who consider them thus...for he says to himself "nothing is unclean of itself".... Ahh how convenient..... how easily is the word of God rendered ineffective in the mind (not in reality) of one who considers it subjective & vague.

I notice you didn't "rightly divide" those verses if I had so incorrectly interpreted them. In answer to your example, it's quite simple. Things are not sin. That's what the verse says and you will not find a Scripture passage that says that any thing of itself is a sin. Actions, however, and thoughts, can most definitely be sin and the Bible is clear about that. Getting in bed with a harlot is sin and God also knows the intent of the heart and what he is planning to do. That action would be a sin, things such as alcohol are not sins because nothing is unclean of itself, according to Scripture. Getting drunk, which is an action, is sin and the Bible says as much.

In your selected chapter ye shall find the very verse needed

Indeed, in verse 22, Paul tells them not to condemn themselves for the things that they allow that they do in faith. In the case of a woman who wears pants, he is telling her not to condemn herself for her freedom to wear pants.

There is nothing in Scripture that addresses pants and especially not on women. The only verse that is used is for an undergarment and if one wants to turn to such far-fetched arguments, we must also conclude that we should still be wearing robes. The fact is, the verse is used as a crutch to prop up a legalistic belief that can't be supported with real Scripture.

[kevinmiller]

Yeah, it does. It's interesting that the men who lived in that time believed that pants on women were wrong because of the fact that pants were men's apparel. Wonder what they would say to today's Christians saying it's okay because it's part of the culture. Man - there are so many things today that are part of our culture that we could do or partake in because they aren't blacklisted specifically by name in scripture going by that standard!!

So you'll rely on a dictionary definition over what is described in Scripture? The word breeches has evolved like many other English words so we must use the Biblical description of being under a garment and above the knees, not anything like trowsers. Not at all. If it's modest and not seen as a man's garment, it's not wrong, because it doesn't violate Scripture. If something else is accepted in the culture but forbidden in Scripture(such as unmarried people living together, which is very accepted nowadays), we could not have any part of it. Since you mentioned it, can you tell me something in our modern culture that is wrong that we could justify by Scripture? In reality, there aren't many wrong things that we could participate in based on modern culture.

[HappyChristian]

.
So you'll rely on a dictionary definition over what is described in Scripture? The word breeches has evolved like many other English words so we must use the Biblical description of being under a garment and above the knees, not anything like trowsers. Not at all. If it's modest and not seen as a man's garment, it's not wrong, because it doesn't violate Scripture. If something else is accepted in the culture but forbidden in Scripture(such as unmarried people living together, which is very accepted nowadays), we could not have any part of it. Since you mentioned it, can you tell me something in our modern culture that is wrong that we could justify by Scripture? In reality, there aren't many wrong things that we could participate in based on modern culture.

Kevin, please stop. Of course I don't rely on a dictionary definition more than scripture. But I will tell you this - I'll accept his definitions before yours. :Green


Pants on women violate scripture that commands distinction (male and female, modesty and identity (Christian). Sorry if you can't understand that, but that's where it is.

BTW - I never said that we could justify wrongs from scripture. I said there are things that are not specific in scripture that Christians do today because it's accepted in our culture.

[Bakershalfdozen]

That is traditional Jewish garb before this modern era. How many of you men would be caught dead in that outfit?


Men wore lace collars and sleeves in the 1700s.

Men wore wigs in the 1700s.

Men used to wear long nightshirts. Actually, some still do.

Men wore tights before women did.

Men wore t-shirts before women did.


All of those items used to be considered men's clothing. But you men wouldn't wear any of them now. Not in this culture anyway. There are plenty of eastern cultures where men still wear the ancient garb of their ancestors - long robe-type garments.


I think that pants on women could be argued from a modesty standpoint (although that goes for men too) but not a "it is a man's garment" standpoint.

[Bakershalfdozen]

And I don't think any women on this board dress like the woman in that picture either. :smile

[bzmomo7]

I can tell that you said the "underwear" sarcasticaly. As I said to begin with, I am not getting in on the total argument about pants. I just want these verses left in context. Exodus 28:42 "And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:" Now if this is describing pants, britches, slacks, or whatever name you want to give them, then we need to note that they do not cover so much as the knee. This is a part of the priests garments. So if they are the same as my pants, I ask this question. What would you do next sunday if one of your churches men, a sunday school teacher, walks into services in a pair of breeches, covering from the loins to the thigh, but not covering the knee. Will you let him take his class, or would you tell him to put on proper clothing, and take his class from him?? I am sure (or I would hope) you would not let him have his class wearing his shorts!!! So we see they are not the same as the pants we wear today. So they must be underwear!!!The same priest who was wearing them was not to go up to the alter be steps lest his nakedness be discovered!! So they were not something to be seen. Now another question. Since you have been so strong that these breeches were only mentioned in scripture as something MEN wore, and we can see that they were not outer clothing, but underwear, what is your stand on women wearing underwear, aka underpants. I mean, where in scripture do you find a woman wearing underwear?? I do not mean to be overly blunt, just wanting the Bible kept in context.

Could someone please address the above quote? I think he has a good point.

[PastorHarrison]

The thing is' date=' to many of us have our mind poisoned by our prejudices of world teachings that is fed into our brain a thousand fold more than God's Word, these prejudices fogs over our mind, them we cannot discern what is right and wrong according to the Bible. Perhaps some are just not going to be the peculiar people that God wants them to be, we can be very stubborn.[/quote']

Yes Sir.... we have a tendancy to want out...not in! Preach!

[PastorHarrison]

That is traditional Jewish garb before this modern era. How many of you men would be caught dead in that outfit?

Its a neat picture..... and the comments are interesting. However photography was developed in early 1800 (200+ yrs ago). Consequently - while the pic does wonders for a visual image of that particular couple it does little to tell us whether or not they were headed to a costume party or role playing..... it's appearance in a book or on a website and presentation as being an accurate representation of standard Jewish dress standards for 4000 yrs of Jewish history..... ummm.... questionable?

How do we know, just postulating, that this photograph is 1. Real. 2. Not a picture of a couple headed to a costume party in Manhatten in 1890. 3. Not just a couple of progressively dressed Jewish trendsetters who were not in the least dressed like the children of Israel did 4000 yrs ago?

I think however it is like me showing an NIV bible and saying "this is an exact representation of the original way the word of God looked". Hopefully everyone would look at me with incredulious looks and say "uhh....yea".

No offense Baker....but being a bit of a skeptic... I'd be personally hard pressed to accept any photograph 200 yrs old as being an accurate representation of 4000 yrs old events. I mean, its like saying Jurassic Park is an accurate depiction of extinct dinosauers.

[deafnva77]

All of those items used to be considered men's clothing. But you men wouldn't wear any of them now. Not in this culture anyway. There are plenty of eastern cultures where men still wear the ancient garb of their ancestors - long robe-type garments.

When women start copying their fashions from men, men do not want appear effeminate, so they start wearing something that would separate themselves from women. Now it is seem like the world is going opposite direction, more and more men are copying what women are wearing.

[IM4given]

Although the man in the photo is wearing a long outer robe, he is wearing trowsers or breeches underneath. He is not modeling his clothing , but it is true that jewish men wore pants under their long outer coat. Their robe is not unlike the jacket that modern men wear with a three-piece suit. The three piece suit is a pair of pants, vest, and jacket and also worn with undershirt, undershorts, socks, a button up shirt, a neck tie, belt and shoes to be complete. Such is the way the people in the photo are dressed - at face value they look very similar, but upon closer inspection it becomes obvious that the two of them are each wearing distinctive clothing to their religion and sex - this is not a unisex example by any means.