Culottes are Men's Clothing

[bzmomo7]

Yes, I agree with you on that one. I also don't want to be a stumbling block on the other side of the issue either, especially where the unsaved are concerned--there are plenty of Christians out there besides IFB who do not follow the same dress standard, but are not immodest in action or appearance other than the fact they wear loose fitting pants.

[kevinmiller]

According to some lexicons and studies? I need something a lot more concrete than that. Perhaps they are taking that from the clothing of that day and age, or culture. When I read that verse in English and the Greek according to the Strong's Concordance, I see that it means clothing, nothing more.

[kevinmiller]

I believe a woman should wear a skirt or dress in public that is modest. I believe a man shouldn't wear shorts either or walk around outside without a shirt. When it comes to life & death situations or extreme situations (Such as being stranded in a desert or trapped on a mountain or skiing) I think survival comes before clothing. Well that probably didn't add anything to the conversation but thats what I believe. (I also believe in seperate swimming/swimming ONLY with IMMEDIATE family.) *Prepares to be argued with*

I don't mix swim either. I've swam with my family and extended family before, but that's about it. I did take swimming lessons at the Y for four months, though, but I can't hardly see without my glasses anyway. :frog

In the summer, I typically wear shorts all the time. It just gets too hot to wear pants and I don't see a problem with showing my legs below the knee, anymore than a woman having a skirt just below her knee.

[bzmomo7]

I don't mix swim either. I've swam with my family and extended family before, but that's about it. I did take swimming lessons at the Y for four months, though, but I can't hardly see without my glasses anyway. :frog

In the summer, I typically wear shorts all the time. It just gets too hot to wear pants and I don't see a problem with showing my legs below the knee, anymore than a woman having a skirt just below her knee.

Agreed there. Trust me, women are not turned on by a man's hairy legs. :Bleh

[Jerry]

They were to put them on to perform certain tasks. Lev. 6:10 and 11 show this. He was to put them on and then take them off.

Lev. 6:10 And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
11 And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.

Looks like the passage is stating they were to put on and off the linen garment, not the breeches.

At that time, both men and women wore robes of different kinds. You will find the words, "robe" and "coat" throughout the Bible. Nowhere that I can find does it say that men wore any kind of "pants" under their robes.

Depends what breeches are. I believe based on what I have read that they were pants, that had to be at least as long as the knee (ie. covering the thighs). The Bible gives the minimum requirements because the passage is dealing with covering their nakedness.

No doubt men and women wore robes in the Bible. I do not believe the Scriptures teach that is all they wore, nor that they were some type of unisex garment. In light of Deuteronomy 22:5, we know that was impossible. There was a clear distinction between the men's and women's garments. Studying out all the Hebrew and Greek words translated as "robe(s)" shows that each type of robe was different, each word used has a different definition or connotation.

[Jerry]

Whether someone is against or for mixed swimming is personal opinion or preference - what they wear in public and for swimming is what is important. If nakedness is not covered, it is just as wrong in the context of your family, as it would be in public. I don't see where it is alright for someone to be naked if they are only around their family. Sure, children being unclothed around the parent bathing them is understandable - but that is not public nakedness. Husband and wife being in any state of undress when they are alone together is not wrong; however, being improperly dressed when the rest of the family is around or when you are in public is wrong.

[bzmomo7]

Looks like the passage is stating they were to put on and off the linen garment, not the breeches.


Depends what breeches are. I believe based on what I have read that they were pants, that had to be at least as long as the knee (ie. covering the thighs). The Bible gives the minimum requirements because the passage is dealing with covering their nakedness.

No doubt men and women wore robes in the Bible. I do not believe the Scriptures teach that is all they wore, nor that they were some type of unisex garment. In light of Deuteronomy 22:5, we know that was impossible. There was a clear distinction between the men's and women's garments. Studying out all the Hebrew and Greek words translated as "robe(s)" shows that each type of robe was different, each word used has a different definition or connotation.

Both the garment, and the breeches were made of linen. In verse 10 it separates the two "...shall put on his linen garment and his linen breeches..." in verse 11 it combines the two and calls them "garments" (plural). So, it sounds like to me that both were removed.

Where then, can one find out exactly what it was they did wear if you believe that they also wore something else besides their robes/tunic?

I totally understand that their robes were likely different in the length or way in which they were made, or perhaps their headcoverings or something, but I've never actually seen a description of what was worn from head to toe in that time period that wasn't just an opinion. (Like what I just gave. :lol )

[MilkmanDan]

I like the sermon I recently heard by Clarence Sexton on modesty.

He stated that Modesty is defined as, "Behaving according to a standard of what is decent orderly or pure".''

Sorry Bzmom.

How exactly did a priest or a man "gird" up his loins and to what purpose did it serve?

[bzmomo7]

I like the sermon I recently heard by Clarence Sexton on modesty.

He stated that Modesty is defined as, "Behaving according to a standard of what is decent orderly or pure".''

Sorry Bzmom.

How exactly did a priest or a man "gird" up his loins and to what purpose did it serve?

I don't know, you tell me. I'm not trying to justify my wearing pants or giving up whatever. I'm trying to get to the bottom of things. (no pun intended) For quite some time it has really irked me that people rant and rave over this issue without answering my questions about the origins of pant wearing. Did men wear those pants alone? Was it proper to? I had once heard the girding up the loins was tucking the outer robe into the tunic. I don't know if that is right. I can't find the information on it, so, if you know the answer and can point me to some place to research it further I'd be greatly appreciative. I'm not the kind of person to do something just because someone says so........unless it is God. If I end up switching to all dresses/skirts you can believe it will be because I'm 100% fully convinced--not because some person intimidated me into doing so because I was a "bad" Christian if I didn't. I'm not saying that you're saying that, but I've heard others imply it or hurt people so badly because of their view that they wouldn't return to church. If I change my mind--there will be no turning back, and I want to have my facts totally straight so that I can defend my conviction. Get what I mean? One of the things that hurts this issue more than anything is the differing degrees to which people follow it, and how little grace they give to others who differ in their view.

[speerjp1]

Looks like the passage is stating they were to put on and off the linen garment, not the breeches.



Depends what breeches are. I believe based on what I have read that they were pants, that had to be at least as long as the knee (ie. covering the thighs). The Bible gives the minimum requirements because the passage is dealing with covering their nakedness.

No doubt men and women wore robes in the Bible. I do not believe the Scriptures teach that is all they wore, nor that they were some type of unisex garment. In light of Deuteronomy 22:5, we know that was impossible. There was a clear distinction between the men's and women's garments. Studying out all the Hebrew and Greek words translated as "robe(s)" shows that each type of robe was different, each word used has a different definition or connotation.

What ever happened to women being ladies and men being gentlemen?

The insistence of everyone participating in everything has become quite an obsession with so many people. I don't think I will ever become an Olympic swimmer if for no other reason than the fact that I couldn't compete in the sport without violating God's standards of modesty. "Just because I'm a ____ doesn't mean I can't participate in ______." Fill in the blanks with just about anything and it still doesn't make a good argument.

It shouldn't matter what the activity is or if we are male of female, the most important thing is for us to always be pleasing God. :2cents

[SimplyComplex]

Did men wear those pants alone? Was it proper to? I had once heard the girding up the loins was tucking the outer robe into the tunic. I don't know if that is right.

I might be wrong (its happened once or twice :Bleh ) but I've always been told the girding up was pulling the bottom back of the robe up between the legs and tucking it into their belt so when they were working the robe wouldn't get in their way, their legs were free to move, and no one could see up. But I've always been under the impression that when they were working, it was usually with other men, not with women around so it wasn't something that was done around the women (they wore a modest robe like the women did). In the NT though someone (Peter I think) was working on the ship naked though... so I don't know...

I have asked the question, why do women still have to wear a modest robe to hide their figure, but the men don't....

[bzmomo7]

I might be wrong (its happened once or twice :Bleh ) but I've always been told the girding up was pulling the bottom back of the robe up between the legs and tucking it into their belt so when they were working the robe wouldn't get in their way, their legs were free to move, and no one could see up. But I've always been under the impression that when they were working, it was usually with other men, not with women around so it wasn't something that was done around the women (they wore a modest robe like the women did). In the NT though someone (Peter I think) was working on the ship naked though... so I don't know...

I have asked the question, why do women still have to wear a modest robe to hide their figure, but the men don't....

Well, this is the question that got the nastiest look yet for me, so I kept my mouth shut and never asked it again.....yes, why is it that pants are immodest for a woman, but the very same thing is NOT immodest for a man? I've concluded that the modesty reason isn't the best one, that is why I'm asking about the origins of pants. Now, if men in the Bible times wore those pants alone and they weren't considered immodest and women were not allowed to dress that way--we've got something. I not only have a good arguement for women wearing only dresses--I can defend it easily as well. I just need some proof. (please.)

[kevinmiller]

I have asked the question, why do women still have to wear a modest robe to hide their figure, but the men don't....

I'm assuming you're talking about this question.

Neither woman nor men have to. Nothing should be so tight as to over-accentuate a male or females body but neither do they both need to wear robes. Just so long as it's modest, feel free. :wink

[SimplyComplex]

I agree... Some men can be very immodest in pants just like some women can be in a skirt...



I'm glad I'm not the only one who has asked that!

Thats where I'm at right now though.... I err on the side of caution though and only wear skirts...

[bzmomo7]

:nutty No, you're not the only one. I do wear skirts--a lot.......uh, and "culottes" too, and loose fitting gauchos, but you know, I know other people who wear the same thing and would still say they are all skirt people.....I would not say that about me because I honestly think that even a split skirt is just like really wide pants, and pants under a skirt is still wearing pants, and a pair of snowpants with a skirt over the top is still wearing pants etc. etc. I would much rather have people think less of me for saying I wear pants, than think too highly of me just because they think I fit some external mold...if you know what I mean. Yes, I try to err on the side of caution as well, but this issue is most definitely not settled in my mind. I was hoping someone here had some historical information that would be helpful we could look up.