Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister DePriest,

What would the information of your above posting mean for so many Fundamental Baptists who preach so strongly against "pants-wear" on women as an abomination to the Lord, yet who readily allow for women and girls to wear culottes?

I think they would need to admit that, indeed, they have allowed culture to influence their standards. I have never been in favor of culottes precisely because they are pant-like (or pants-wear). I have seen too many women - both young and old(er) - who sit like men while wearing the culottes, wrongly assuming that nothing can be seen. IMO, wearing the culottes puts the female in the same mind set as wearing full-blown pants does. 

For full disclaimer, I will say that I do not wear pants, nor do I wear culottes. However, I do have a swimming outfit that was made at my request from a pair of culottes that have elastic in the bottom hem. So they look, effectively, like bloomers. I chose that because pinned skirts just don't work for modesty sake, and I will not  wear a bathing suit (totally immodest, IMO). I believe that my stance on pants is scriptural, and I don't believe that my swimming apparel pertains to a man. Neither, more importantly, does my hubby. (add to that the fact that they are only worn when in the pool, where there are no men, and no manly man would be found dead in them...;) )

I have made this suggestion before and I will repeat it just because I like the book so much. An excellent read is The Fall and Rise of Christian Standards. The author delves into a number of standards, but pants is addressed. And it is laid out very well, with scriptural explanation and application. It's a worthy addition to any bookshelf. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, one thing that the Lord showed me when reading Deut. 22:5 one day:  it is not the wearing of the apparel that is abomination. It is the wearer. "all who DO SO"...female or male. 

In this country, the history of clothing has been typically that women wore dresses, men wore pants. But as time has progressed, and feminism/gay rights has taken hold more and more strongly, things are being flipped on their heads. And women are donning more and more masculine apparel while men feminize theirs. All in the name of freedom - the banner cry for the feminist of yore who wanted to wear pants and the men of today who want to wear dresses/skirts. (it truly is a movement - just google "men who want to wear skirts" and you'll find out a lot...)

Unisex/Gender-neutral. Not pleasing to God...

When one looks at the standards God set from the time He clothed Adam and Eve (the term coat used means, in the Hebrew, a long, flowing garment...they were both fully covered), to Deut. 22:5, to Romans 1 (the natural outcome of abandoning the distinction between male and female) to the NT commands on modesty, one has to realize that God wants us distinct. Distinct from the world, and distinct from each other (gender-wise).  That is one of the biggie reasons I don't wear pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister DePriest,

1.  Do you believe that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear (as in -- "doth not nature itself teach you" through the very creation as God created it)?

2.  Do you believe that "pants-wear" was the primary issue of Deuteronomy 22:5 when it was first communicated?

I do not at all desire to move you from your convictions; I simply desire to understand them.  Indeed, I very much respect the consistency of your convictions.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
mistake in Biblie reference corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Markle - to be 100% honest, I cannot say definitively that "pants-wear" is specifically taught by nature (but, then, that quote is specifically related to a man's hair...). However, I do believe that God intends for the genders to be distinct. As distinct as possible in whatever culture in which one lives. Because, admittedly, each culture has acceptable and unacceptable garb. But as I mentioned before, I notice a marked difference in the way women comport themselves in different clothing. Many (I will not say most because I do not know most) women who don "pants-wear," whether in the form of culottes, pants, shorts, or whatever style - lose a bit of their femininity while wearing them. (Now, I do know women who have donned culottes both without and under skirts and do not manifest masculinity, so, here again, is why I have to say many and not most.)

Where "pants-wear" becomes pertinent to men is in, well, a society's culture.  Yes, there I said it. The US has a culture that was founded on scriptural principles - and one of those principles is gender identity. And in this country, that identity was manifested by men in breeches and women in dresses. 

And so we come to the fact that society/culture here in America has changed. So that means pants-wear no longer pertains to men, correct? Well, why? And where has that change in American society/culture brought us? To a better, higher plane? I don't think anyone would say that, right? Do I think the poor societal change is linked to clothing? Honestly? I think it is strongly related, because of the gender neutral/unisex issue. It was only when that began being pushed that homosexuality began to be accepted and which now is not only accepted by protected. As are many other forms of sexual deviancy, many related to clothing styles (transvestites, cross-dressers, etc).  When we cross lines God never intended us to cross, chaos follows.  (heh - I just re-read my last post...seems a bit of repeating, eh?)

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?). No. I don't think any honest person could say that it is specifically about pants since only the priests (that we know of, biblically) wore breeches (although the outer girdle on a man's robe was designed so that the man could tuck his robe into it [kind of like a belt] so that he could run unhindered). Nor do I think it is simply cross-dressing, as so many have tried to make it simply be (although it does include that idea).

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing. Setting up the principle of gender distinction. There's more, but it's late and my mind is beginning to fray (it's been a long three first days of school).   

But, and here's the cruncher that shows some ambivalence, I'm sure...do I think that women who wear pants are an abomination? I cannot go that far, because pants were not the subject of Deut. 22:5. 

Never fear, I don't think you are trying to move me from my convictions.  Here's how I have explained it in the past:

A conviction is something for which one is willing to die. A preference is something upon which someone will stand, but not for which one is willing to die. 

It is my conviction that I am to be modest. And that I am to be distinctly feminine - in action as well as apparel. It is my PREFERENCE to show my convictions by not wearing pants (but to be properly shown, it has to be accompanied by action and attitude as well...and I do strive for that as well) or masculine-style clothing.

As I said, it's late here, and my mind is a bit of mush, so I hope this post isn't completely confusing or seems contradictory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Brother Markle - to be 100% honest, I cannot say definitively that "pants-wear" is specifically taught by nature (but, then, that quote is specifically related to a man's hair...). However, I do believe that God intends for the genders to be distinct. As distinct as possible in whatever culture in which one lives. Because, admittedly, each culture has acceptable and unacceptable garb. But as I mentioned before, I notice a marked difference in the way women comport themselves in different clothing. Many (I will not say most because I do not know most) women who don "pants-wear," whether in the form of culottes, pants, shorts, or whatever style - lose a bit of their femininity while wearing them. (Now, I do know women who have donned culottes both without and under skirts and do not manifest masculinity, so, here again, is why I have to say many and not most.)

Where "pants-wear" becomes pertinent to men is in, well, a society's culture.  Yes, there I said it. The US has a culture that was founded on scriptural principles - and one of those principles is gender identity. And in this country, that identity was manifested by men in breeches and women in dresses. 

And so we come to the fact that society/culture here in America has changed. So that means pants-wear no longer pertains to men, correct? Well, why? And where has that change in American society/culture brought us? To a better, higher plane? I don't think anyone would say that, right? Do I think the poor societal change is linked to clothing? Honestly? I think it is strongly related, because of the gender neutral/unisex issue. It was only when that began being pushed that homosexuality began to be accepted and which now is not only accepted by protected. As are many other forms of sexual deviancy, many related to clothing styles (transvestites, cross-dressers, etc).  When we cross lines God never intended us to cross, chaos follows.  (heh - I just re-read my last post...seems a bit of repeating, eh?)

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?). No. I don't think any honest person could say that it is specifically about pants since only the priests (that we know of, biblically) wore breeches (although the outer girdle on a man's robe was designed so that the man could tuck his robe into it [kind of like a belt] so that he could run unhindered). Nor do I think it is simply cross-dressing, as so many have tried to make it simply be (although it does include that idea).

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing. Setting up the principle of gender distinction. There's more, but it's late and my mind is beginning to fray (it's been a long three first days of school).   

But, and here's the cruncher that shows some ambivalence, I'm sure...do I think that women who wear pants are an abomination? I cannot go that far, because pants were not the subject of Deut. 22:5. 

Never fear, I don't think you are trying to move me from my convictions.  Here's how I have explained it in the past:

A conviction is something for which one is willing to die. A preference is something upon which someone will stand, but not for which one is willing to die. 

It is my conviction that I am to be modest. And that I am to be distinctly feminine - in action as well as apparel. It is my PREFERENCE to show my convictions by not wearing pants (but to be properly shown, it has to be accompanied by action and attitude as well...and I do strive for that as well) or masculine-style clothing.

As I said, it's late here, and my mind is a bit of mush, so I hope this post isn't completely confusing or seems contradictory...

To me, this seems like an even and considered post, and to finish with the difference between a conviction and a preference put into this context is a mature way to end the post.

Well done Ma'am.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?).

Sorry.  Proverbs 22:6 has also been a recent study for me (due to your own thread on the subject), and I merged the two references in my head by accident.  I should have actually checked the reference, rather than just take it from "memory."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

 

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing.

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

NN - I began with a book titled Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. It is, to me, an invaluable look into the Oriental mind and so into the meanings of so many things that westerners don't always completely grasp - because our minds do, indeed, work differently.

Here is a quote from the book (and I actually found the full text online - I will add the link so you can spend hours and hours browsing =D ):

2OO. DISTINCTION IN DRESS. 

XXII, 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 distinction between the dress of the sexes being less than with us, 
there was the greater need of this regulation. There is reason to believe 
that the law was made not merely to preserve decency, but because the 
heathen were in the habit of pursuing a different course as a part of their 
idolatrous worship. Maimonides says: "In the books of the idolaters it is 
commanded that when a man presents himself before the Star of Venus, he 
shall wear the colored dress of a woman ; and when a woman adores the 
Star of Mars, she shall appear in armor." Pagan idols were frequently 
represented with the features of one sex and the dress of the other, and 
their worshipers endeavored to be like them. It is not at all unlikely that 
this custom was as old as the time of Moses, and was a partial reason for 
the enacting of this law. 

https://archive.org/stream/handbookofbiblem00freeuoft/handbookofbiblem00freeuoft_djvu.txt

Then, when we go into the NT and see that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, it strikes me that we should be even more concerned about gender distinction (and not just in our apparel - although apparel is ofttimes where the distinction begins). If God was concerned enough about it to warn Israel away from it, how much more concerned would He be for the living temples in which the Holy Spirit resides to be distinct?  (notice, too, that he begins with the idea that the distinction of dress is less with them that with us - westerners...and yet, now, that distinction is slowly going away; women are wearing pants and men are beginning to wear dresses/skirts)

I think the comment regarding Deut. 22:5 from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary (I know many people don't like commentaries, but I do...and JFB is often a good one) is pretty spot-on with where this verse is actually going:

"Though disguises were assumed at certain times in heathen temples, it is probable that a reference was made to unbecoming levities practiced in common life. They were properly forbidden; for the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the other is an outrage on decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in the woman as well as levity and hypocrisy in both; and, in short, it opens the door to an influx of so many evils that all who wear the dress of another sex are pronounced "an abomination unto the Lord."

I would venture to say that there isn't one among us who would say that there has not been a grossly softening and effeminacy in men and an impudence and boldness in women that has grown exponentially. This is where Romans 1 links to Deut. 22:5. Where there is a softness and effeminacy in men and a boldness and impudence (I would venture to use the word masculization  [not really a word, but sums up what I mean] of women as an explanation of what boldness and impudence would mean), there is the leaving of the "natural use of the woman..."  

Thank you, Dave, for your comment. I'm glad you found my post cogent. As I was heading into sleep last night, I re-worded things in my mind, wondering where I could have been more clear...=D

I would like to add a couple of thoughts to the idea that I presented re: conviction/preference.  Modesty is indeed a conviction. I believe God shows us His desire for us to be modest clear back in Genesis, when He covered Adam and Eve. Gender distinction (I mistakenly called it identity a couple of times, although distinction does show identity) is also something I believe God shows us He desires. Deut. 22:5  is a verse that can be used for that, but so, too, are any verses in which God discusses what a woman is to do/be and what a man is to do/be (for instance, Prov. 31). And then there is Christian identity. The identity of Christians is being blurred more and more as we allow ourselves to be swallowed up by the philosophy of the world in all aspects of our lives. So, my conviction is that I must be modest, distinct in my gender, and show my Christian identity. And my preference is to do that - outwardly - by my clothing choice.   Does that make sense?

Bro. Markle - I figured it was a typo, but I'm glad to know you're looking at Prov. 22:6. I actually have been hoping to hear your input on that verse!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Bro. Markle - I figured it was a typo, but I'm glad to know you're looking at Prov. 22:6. I actually have been hoping to hear your input on that verse!

Sister DePriest,

I thank you for your encouragement on the matter of Proverbs 22:6.  I have indeed presented two postings of word study research on that verse, but my full study thereof is not yet complete.  More shall follow as I am able.

Concerning your above posting "when you were half-asleep," I also found it well communicated and thoughtfully developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

Brother McWhorter,

I thank you much for your comment above concerning the Hebrew.  Until that comment I had not examined the specific Hebrew terminology of Deuteronomy 22:5.  Your comment motivated me to do so, and I believe that this examination has provided a significant advancement of my understanding concerning the verse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original missionary pastor that I was saved under taught the explanation that HC supplied in her reference material, " Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. " Although he taught it, I never remember him giving any reference for it.

So far I have not commented on this thread because although I believe this is in reference to armor, I had no supporting evidence for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

The original missionary pastor that I was saved under taught the explanation that HC supplied in her reference material, " Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. " Although he taught it, I never remember him giving any reference for it.

So far I have not commented on this thread because although I believe this is in reference to armor, I had no supporting evidence for it.

Brother Jim,

Having now looked at the Hebrew terminology in Deuteronomy 22:5 (as per Brother McWhorter's mention), I intend as the discussion continues and time permits to present Biblical evidence for that reference (not just historical).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

First, thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed answer...it's very much appreciated. I have a Manners and Customs... on my Bible Software, but it's not that one. I'll definitely look at that link and see if I can purchase one on Amazon (or somewhere). Thank you.

I've known of the "armor" for several years, yet ashamedly, I've never taken the time to delve deeper into it. My belief has been that it centered around the armor somehow, but I couldn't pin down a reason, so I generally remain silent on this topic. Yet, knowing how many of the commands deal with worship and not modeling the worship of God after the pagans...I should have made the connection. Hindsight...

Now, let me try to briefly give my general view of these types of topics. I don't claim to be right, but after "experience", I think I could handle certain topics better. I personally believe that topics such as this are best handled as a result of growth. In other words, as a Christian grows and matures, they will hopefully (and should be) more open to conforming to God's word. Some may enter that "phase" quicker than others. However, in the day in which we live, the general Christian is worldly. I'll leave it at that.

Now to tell on myself. Where I live, when a young man or man announces that he's been called to preach, every Baptist church within a 25 mile radius will invite him to come preach. After I'd been preaching for about a year...that's when I basically became an IFB. I was raised in Southern Baptist churches but was attending an Independent Missionary Baptist Church when I started preaching. At the time, I didn't know the difference between Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Independent Fundamental Baptists, etc. I thought a Baptist was a Baptist. After being exposed to the preaching of some of the big-names in the IFB movement, nothing else seemed right to me...I became IFB.

I was a young buck...mid-20's. Churches would invite me, and I'd rip 'em up one side and down the other about pants on women, watching TV, movies, smoking, etc. You know...all the major sins that Christians shouldn't be doing. I probably called a lot of them "beer-drinkin' Baptists" at some point too. Well...I know I did. LOL! After all...I was preaching God's word, and they just needed to accept it and change the way they lived...whether they liked what I was preaching or not...they just needed to get right with God.

The preaching invitations started dwindling for some reason...before long, I wasn't being asked to preach anywhere except in the church that I belonged to. In fact, I've only preached in one church (by invitation) in probably the last 5-6 years.

They weren't ready for it, and they couldn't handle it. All they saw was this angry preacher calling them a bunch of heathens, hypocrites, and pharisees.

I'll be 50 soon, and though I've grown, and it's been a long time since I've preached in those churches...I still have that characterization applied to me as a preacher.

Was what I was preaching right? Yes, I believe so. Was my "preaching" right? No...

People need to grow, and a lot of them aren't ready to grow when we think they should.

Is it wrong to preach about such things? No...but it doesn't help to beat them over the head with it. Allow God to change them...not the preacher.

Anyway, I wrote too much and exposed myself as "Dan...the angry preacher".

I just think now, that a lot of these topics are things that come with growth...and just like plants, a little "fertilizer" will help them grow...but too much "fertilizer" will kill 'em.

Know how to fertilize...

 

Amen!

Nice to meet you, fellow earthling.

Seems we all have similar experiences in life. May we all continue to get past ourselves and be what we need to be.

I will be praying in detail for you NN as I hope you will for me brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

They weren't ready for it, and they couldn't handle it. All they saw was this angry preacher calling them a bunch of heathens, hypocrites, and pharisees.

I'll be 50 soon, and though I've grown, and it's been a long time since I've preached in those churches...I still have that characterization applied to me as a preacher.

Was what I was preaching right? Yes, I believe so. Was my "preaching" right? No...

People need to grow, and a lot of them aren't ready to grow when we think they should.

Is it wrong to preach about such things? No...but it doesn't help to beat them over the head with it. Allow God to change them...not the preacher.

Anyway, I wrote too much and exposed myself as "Dan...the angry preacher".

I just think now, that a lot of these topics are things that come with growth...and just like plants, a little "fertilizer" will help them grow...but too much "fertilizer" will kill 'em.

Know how to fertilize.

The lesson is that they should have been fed milk and not meat, sadly when we're young we have more vinegar running through us than wisdom!  But you know all this now and the Lord will use you again when the time is right.  However, while you may not have been invited back, God's Word doesn't return void and surely some mended their ways and were brought closer to the Lord because of your preaching.  Good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who may be interested,

Thus far in this discussion I have asked various "thought-provoking" questions concerning the subject of the thread, but I have not directly expressed my position concerning that subject.  I may have already dropped enough "hints" as to my position; however, with this posting I wish to express directly that position.

I myself respect those who hold to the position (which I recognize as the common "party line" among many Fundamental Baptist circles) that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear and that therefore it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pants-wear."  I do wish that those who hold to this position would be more consistent in their application thereof.  Yet I DO respect the position itself.

On the other hand, I myself have NOT yet been convinced, either through Biblical, natural, historical, or cultural evidence, that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear.  Therefore, I am not honestly able to hold the position that it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear a form of "pants-wear."  I am compelled to acknowledge that in some cases for some historical times, the cultural argument would carry some weight in regard to the matter.  However, I do not presently believe that it carries such weight in the present case of our present time.

Since I have indicated previously in this discussion that I shall present some further thoughts on particular matters, I intend to do so with future posting.  Indeed, with such future posting I intend to communicate some Biblical reasons as to the position which I have taken on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

To those who may be interested,

Since I have indicated previously in this discussion that I shall present some further thoughts on particular matters, I intend to do so with future posting.  Indeed, with such future posting I intend to communicate some Biblical reasons as to the position which I have taken on the matter.

Brother Markle,

It's not nice to "tease", just come out and say it.  :coffee2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armor issue is interesting and worth a look. However, in the Hebrew, the word "armor" is used only a very small amount (10) of times, whereas the term 'vessel' is the translation 166 times.  That being said, the word seems to have a pretty wide application, 'vessel', 'instrument', 'weapon', 'jewel', 'armourbearer', 'stuff', 'thing', 'furniture', etc. so it could refer to this.  The one things that makes me wonder, however, is that the context in which it is found has nothing to do with worship, and everything to do with regular, everyday life. in context it is just general life commandments, dealing with neighbors, responsibility toward one another and their possessions, and such. If this was referring to a particular activity of the pagan worshippers, I would expect to see it in that context, unless, of course, the Lord is referring to that, BUT makes it clear that it applies to ALL of life, not just worship, which would make sense as well.  But I don't disagree, just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who may be interested,

As I have mentioned previously, I was challenged by a comment from Brother McWhorter to consider the Hebrew construction for Deuteronomy 22:5.  In so doing, I found that the Hebrew construction for the two prohibitions of the verse are a bit different from one another.

In the prohibition against a man's putting on "a woman's garment," the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" is "simlah' ."  This Hebrew word is employed in the Old Testament 29 times, and in every case it refers to something made of cloth.  In particular it is used for a piece of cloth twice, and every other time it is used for a garment of clothes.  Yet when the word is used for a garment of clothes, it can be used equally concerning a man's or a woman's garment.  Thus the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 would indicate that a man should not put on himself a garment that is distinctly recognizable as a woman's garment.

In the prohibition against a woman's wearing "that which pertaineth unto a man," the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," is the single word "keliy."  The primary meaning for this Hebrew word is not a reference unto clothing per se.  Rather, that primary meaning for this Hebrew word refers to "something which is made or prepared."  This Hebrew word is employed in the Old Testament over 300 times.  As such, this Hebrew word is variously translated with a reference to "jewels," "weapons," [household] "stuff," [material] "stuff," "sacks," "a bag," "vessels" [of various and sundry types], "instruments" [of war], "instruments" [of work], "instruments" [of the temple], "instruments" [of music], "furniture," "a pot," [any] "thing made of" [wood], [any] "thing made of" [skin], "a thing" [sat upon], "carriages," "wares," and "armour."  Among this usage this only thing that is for wearing is that of "armour."  Even so, this Hebrew word is translated in the Old Testament as a reference unto "armour" 27 times (Judges 9:54; 1 Samuel 14:1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14; 16:21; 17:54; 31:4, 5, 6, 9, 10; 2 Samuel 18:15; 23:37; 2 Kings 20:13; 1 Chronicles 10:4, 5, 9, 10; 11:39; Isaiah 39:2).  On the other hand, this Hebrew word is never used anywhere else throughout the Old Testament for a garment of clothing.  Thus if we take the basic meaning of the Hebrew word, the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 would indicate that a woman should not wear something which is distinctly made for a man.  Furthermore, if we take the primary usage of the Hebrew word throughout the Old Testament in relation to that which is worn, the prohibition would indicate that a woman should not wear a man's armor.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

The one things that makes me wonder, however, is that the context in which it is found has nothing to do with worship, and everything to do with regular, everyday life.

I'm persuaded that this particular verse had to do with worship/service; in that, they weren't to model themselves or their worship/service after the surrounding pagans and their idolatry...

Leviticus 19:27
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Yet, it too, is surrounded by verses that have nothing to do with worship/service.

NOTE TO SELF: When combining worship/service, be sure to indicate that you are referring to worship and/or their service unto the Lord...not a "worship service". LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, with issues such as "pants on women" (and others like it, drinking, smoking, movie theaters, etc) the issue on both sides center around "is it permissible?" I think the better argument would be to encourage the Christian to adopt a position that "Most glorifies God's created order" regardless of whither or not something is "permissible". In our current culture pants are an accepted form of ladies wear and have some practical applications and is certainly "permissible" if that particular family decides to let the ladies use them to the extent they decide.

However, The modest dress and skirt are still seen as more feminine than a modest pair of pants and would give more glory to the distinction between man and woman. So many, while not disallowing pants, opt to limit their uses. For example, some conservative women still use women's  pants for practical reasons, but in a modest way under a skirt combo in winter or during physical activities to ensure modesty at all times, which would be considered better then one or the other alone. 

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Edited by John Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, John Young said:

Personally, with issues such as "pants on women" (and others like it, drinking, smoking, movie theaters, etc) the issue on both sides center around "is it permissible?" I think the better argument would be to encourage the Christian to adopt a position that "Most glorifies God's created order" regardless of whither or not something is "permissible". In our current culture pants are an accepted form of ladies wear and have some practical applications and is certainly "permissible" if that particular family decides to let the ladies use them to the extent they decide.

However, The modest dress and skirt are still seen as more feminine than a modest pair of pants and would give more glory to the distinction between man and woman. So many, while not disallowing pants, opt to limit their uses. For example, some conservative women still use women's  pants for practical reasons, but in a modest way under a skirt combo in winter or during physical activities to ensure modesty at all times, which would be considered better then one or the other alone. 

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Having presented above my position that I do not believe "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear and thus that I do not believe it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pant-wear," I do indeed agree with the sentiment of Brother Young's posting.  As such, it is extremely rare for my own wife to wear "pants-wear" of any form in the public arena.  Furthermore, although I cannot honestly preach against "pants-wear" on women as inherently sinful, we do prohibit "pants-wear" on women for certain ministry activities and responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread I presented three basic questions that Biblical, doctrinal integrity would compel us to consider in relation to this subject, as follows:

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 0:02 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In order to answer the issue of the question in the opening post, Biblical, doctrinal integrity compels us to answer the following three questions:

1.  Is it a spiritual abomination for a woman to wear that which is inherently man's wear?  The answer to this question is Biblically easy, since Deuteronomy 22:5 directly declares, "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."

(Note: Both sides of this declaration should be honestly considered.  Since God's Word indicated that it is equally a spiritual abomination for a woman to "wear that which pertaineth unto a man" and for a man to "put on a woman's garment," then this matter should not be a one sided consideration.  Thus we are moved also to ask -- What is inherently "a woman's garment," such that a man should never put it on?)

2.  Is pants-wear inherently man's wear?

(Note: If one answers to the affirmative, what Biblical evidence might be provided in order to support this answer?  Indeed, wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak negatively concerning a woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?  On the other hand, in those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?)

3.  What exactly is the definition for "pants-wear"?

(Note: A basic English dictionary definition for "pants-wear" would be "an outer garment extending from the waist to the knees or ankles and divided into separate coverings for the legs."  Within this definition culottes, although commonly accepted among Fundamental Baptists for women to wear, are indeed "pants-wear."  In fact, an English dictionary definition for "culottes" would be "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the legs to resemble a skirt."  Furthermore, wearing any form of "pants-wear" under the skirt or for bed clothes would still be wearing "pants-wear."  So then, how absolute and consistent do we believe the declaration of God's Word in Deuteronomy 22:5 actually is?)

It appears that there is no real dispute concerning the questions and thoughts of the first question and the third question.  However, there would be some level of dispute concerning the second question.  Therefore, in this posting I wish to engage with some of the sub-questions under that second question.

1.  Wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?

The only specific reference unto "pants-wear" in Scripture is that of the "breeches" for the priests of Israel who were to engage in making sacrifices. (See Exodus 28:14; 39:28; Leviticus 6:10; 16:4; Ezekiel 44:18)  The reason for these "breeches" is given in Exodus 28:14 in order to "cover their nakedness," covering "from the loins even unto the thighs."  The context for this requirement was because the priests wore a robe form of garment that possessed an open-bottomed skirt, and because the priest performed his duties on a somewhat elevated level before people.  Even so, it was possible that someone might get a glimpse up the skirt of the priest's garment, and might thereby get a glimpse of his "nakedness."  Therefore, the Lord God required that the priest wear a pair of "breeches" (shorts) as an undergarment in order to prevent this possible glimpse of his "nakedness."

So then, how might this apply unto the present day?  First, let us recognize that our Lord required this specifically for the sake of modesty.  Second, let us consider the case of our present time.  In our present culture today, our men do not generally wear garments with an open-bottomed skirt.  However, in Fundamental Baptist circles our women are strongly encouraged to wear such garments.  Furthermore, in our present culture our women do go up stairs and reside on platforms (or, bleachers) before people.  Even so, I wonder if we should encourage the principle that females should wear a form of undergarment "breeches" in order that their "nakedness" might not perchance be glimpsed.  Even more, I wonder if we should encourage this principle the more in accord with the shortening of "accepted" skirt lengths from the floor or ankles unto the knees.

2.  Wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?

Except the matter presented above concerning the priests, Scripture does not speak concerning the matter of "pants-wear" in a direct fashion.  In fact, within the culture of Israel (and much of the Middle East) throughout the time of the Old Testament and into the New Testament, neither men nor women wore "pants-wear."  Thus it would appear to be a legitimate question whether the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 had any direct meaning concerning "pants-wear" for the people unto whom it was originally delivered, that is -- the children of Israel.  Would any individual among the children of Israel have thought of "pants-wear" when that prohibition was given?  If not, then the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 must have had some other primary meaning and application for them at that time; and it would seem legitimate for us to ask what that primary meaning and application might have been.  For in the precision of "rightly dividing" God's Holy Word of truth, it is in the realm of that primary meaning and application wherein we also must primarily apply and obey the principle of the verse.

3.  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?

Although the only specific reference unto "pants-wear" in Scripture concerned the "breeches" of the priest, there is an implication of "pants-wear" which may be considered.  This implication concerns the reference unto "girding up the loins."  Wearing a robe form of garment, sometimes individuals would gird up that garment by drawing the hem from the back of the garment's skirt up between the legs and tucking it into a belt around the waist.  By so doing, a form of "pants-wear" would be created.  So then, does God's Word ever speak concerning a woman "girding the loins;" and if it does, does God's Word speak negatively, positively, or neutrally thereof?  In answer, I would present two possible cases.  First, we might consider Exodus 12:11 and whether the women of Israel were included in the instruction of the Lord to have their "loins girded."  Second, we might consider the case of the virtuous wife in Proverbs 31:17.  So then, I shall make no argument concerning these cases, but shall simply leave them for individual consideration.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 28 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...