Pastor Scott Markle

Hmmm. I am not exactly sure why you engaged in this explanation, since I never presented a single word to deny that the baptism in Acts 2:38 was water baptism. It is contextually obvious that it was indeed water baptism. What I said concerning Acts 2:38 was not about the nature of the baptism, but about the grammatical meaning of the prepositional phrase "for the remission of sins," as follows:

And yet this explanation does nothing to deal with the phrase in Romans 6:4 -- "Therefore we are buried with him BY [through, by means of] BAPTISM into death . . . ." (wherein the Greek preposition for the English word "by" is NOT "eis," but "dia"). (Note: I also do not agree with your explanation concerning the grammatical intention of Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, and Acts 2:38. Rather, I would hold the phrase "for (Greek 'eis' - 'unto') the remission of sins" is intended as a modifier for the word "repentance" in Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3 and as a modifier for the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" in Acts 2:38. As such, it is the repentance that results in "the remission of sins" in Marke 1:4 & Luke 3:3; and it is (faith in) the name of Jesus Christ that results in "the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38. I believe that such an explanation for these passages follows the grammar more precisely, and does not attempt to "stretch" it as the other explanation does.)

Question: Is Romans 6:3-4 talking about "water" baptism or about "Spirit" baptism? (Note: From my understanding "Spirit" baptism is NOT an event wherein the Holy Spirit is the agent who baptizes us. Rather, from my understanding "Spirit" baptism should be viewed as an event wherein Jesus Christ is the agent who baptizes us in the "substance" of the Holy Spirit, as per Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16.) Additional question: Is Galatians 4:26-29 (specifically verse 27 in the context) talking about "water" baptism or about "Spirit" baptism? Another additional question: Is Colossians 2:10-14 (specifically verse 12 in the context) talking about "water" baptism or about "Spirit" baptism?

"They forsook all, and followed him." (Luke 5:11) Theme: Forsaking all, and following Christ. ________________________ Church motto: Exalting the name of Jesus Christ and the truth of God's Word.

I am a God-called pastor. I have two children, both sons. One is now 27 years old, is called of the Lord our God to the ministry of the pastor, and is presently the assistant pastor of a church in Pennsylvania. The other is now 22 years old, is called of the Lord our God to the ministry of the evangelist, and is presently in his senior year of college training for that purpose. I most certainly DID train/groom my sons to be faithful servants of the Lord our God in their daily walk and in the Lord's ministry, just as all children should be. I most certainly DID include my sons in the ministry work that the Lord our God has called us as a family, such that they ever observed the life and work of a pastor, both good and bad. (Note: I DID let them see and know the negative side of pastoral ministry, as well as the positive.) However, I very carefully did NOT "push" my sons to a call for pastoral/evangelist ministry. Did I desire it? Yes. Did I pray for it? Yes. Did I ever communicate that directly to them. NO! Did they guess that their father might desire for them to follow in his footsteps? Probably, even as most children probably guess such in relation to their own parents and their own parents' profession(s). However, I very purposefully waited for the Lord to communicate His will unto my sons; and I very purposefully communicated to them in my parental training that they needed to follow God's will for their lives, whatever THAT might be. In addition, when they communicated their thought that the Lord was calling them toward pastoral/evangelist ministry, I very carefully questioned them concerning that thought, in order to discern if their reason was truly from the Lord, or only from some emotional feeling. I did this because I KNOW that emotional felling will NEVER sustain through the difficulties of pastoral/evangelist ministry, and that ONLY the Lord can sustain through those times. I KNOW that if they pursue a pastoral/evangelist ministry that is not of the Lord, then they most definitely are on the path of failure; and I really, really, REALLY do not want my sons on the path of spiritual failure. Now, do I believe that some are daddy called and mama sent? Yes; and that is precisely what I was seeking to avoid in the upbringing of my sons.

I know a few as well. It is somewhat of a "gift" (although NOT a "spiritual gift" per se). However, more could develop this "gift" if they would take the time to learn English grammar more thoroughly and if they would be more habitual readers and students.

Actually, Biblical revival is not so much a 24 hr. day after day "worship time" wherein all other responsibilities of life are disregarded and neglected. Rather, Biblical revival is a genuine return of walking with and for the Lord after a time of walking for self apart from Him. It is always entered by a believer through broken-hearted repentance, wherein the believer humbles himself in repentance and returns unto the Lord with complete heart submission. It then is engaged moment by moment, day by day through abiding in Christ, and Christ in us, through being filled with the Holy Spirit and walking in and after the Spirit, wherein the believer lives in daily fellowship with the Lord, allowing the Lord to govern the priorities, thoughts, attitudes, decisions, communication, and conduct, bearing the fruit of the Spirit in the daily responsibilities and relationships of life. Biblical revival does not so much remove us from the daily responsibilities and relationships of life, but changes the way that we interact with those responsibilities and relationships.

For clarification -- Asbury University is not officially affiliated with any particular denomination, but its own statement of faith clearly centers it within the Wesleyan-Arminian system of belief. The following are direct quotes from their statement of faith: "Asbury University is a Christian liberal arts university which stands in the long succession of Christian orthodoxy. Although no official denominational emphasis exists at Asbury University and all may participate fully in the spiritual life of the campus, the institution maintains its commitment to an evangelical Wesleyan-Arminian perspective and requires all who affiliate with the university community to live within the guidelines of this commitment." "Asbury University stands in the Wesleyan theological tradition—believing that an act of God’s grace upon which one receives the offer of salvation through the sacrificial life of Jesus Christ can indeed transform a human heart in such a way that through His mercy they can experience holiness of life, have a heart that exhibits His love, and become an agent of His grace for the advancement of God’s Kingdom here on earth." "The institution maintains its historic Christian commitment and resists the public practice or propagation of beliefs alien to its Wesleyan Christian orthodoxy. It welcomes students though who have not come to that faith but are respectful of the institution, its mission, and its commitment."

Wow, what a confusing mess this thread discussion has become. The original question appears (to me at least) to be a question about the "calling" and/or "desire" for pastoral ministry (for the responsibility to pastor a flock of believers). Yet quickly the discussion was clouded and confused by a multitude of passages concerning: (1) God's call of lost sinners unto faith in Christ for eternal salvation; (2) God's call upon all believers to be His children with all of the benefits thereof; (3) God's call of all believers to witness/preach the gospel unto the lost world; and (4) God's call of certain individuals to serve in the ministry of apostleship. Now, it appears to me that #1, #2, and #3 of my listing above have no bearing upon the subject of the original question. However, it also appears to me that the phrase "called to preach" allows for a great deal of confusion in relation the original question and #3 of my listing above, because the same phrase "called to preach" could apply for two different contexts of subject. On the one hand, "called to preach" might refer to God's call of all believers TO PREACH the gospel unto the lost world. On the other hand, "called to preach" might refer to God's (supposed) call of certain individual believers to pastor a flock of believers. This is where Biblical confusion becomes possible. When an individual asks for Scripture concerning the call of certain individual believers "to preach" (to pastor a flock of believers), and Scripture concerning the call of all believers "to preach" the gospel unto the lost world is provided -- this is Biblical confusion. ALL believers are indeed called of God "to preach" the gospel unto the lost world, and the Scriptural passages which speak to this matter make such clear. However, NOT all believers are called to pastor a flock of believers; and pressing Scriptural passages from the wrong context upon this matter only confuses the Biblical doctrine of pastoral ministry. Thus I would contend that in discussions such as this thread presents, we should quit using the phrase "called to preach," and should rather use the phrase "called to be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, or pastor/teacher" (using the list from Ephesians 4:11). Now, in relation to this subject, Brother Rando has called for a definition -- What is a "calling"? Generally, a calling can either be an invitation to partake of some experience or an appointment to experience some privilege or to engage in some responsibility. In relation to the specific subject of the divine "call" to pastor a flock of believers, I would contend that this "calling" should be defined as a divine appointment to engage in the responsibility of pastoring. With such a definition before us, I believe that New Testament passages can indeed be provided to support the Biblical existence for such a "calling," as follows: Acts 20:28 -- "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." 1 Corinthians 12:18 -- "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him." 1 Corinthians 12:28 -- "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Ephesians 4:11 -- "And he [Christ] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Now, from these passages it is worthy to note that all three members of the Godhead are specifically referenced as being involved in the "calling"/appointment process. In addition, it is worthy to note that some of the passages reference the "calling"/appointment of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors/teachers in the same context. Thus it would seem that the "calling"/appointment of the New Testament apostles would have at least some bearing on the subject (as per #4 from my lising above). Indeed, I would contend that the matter of divine "calling"/appointment is indeed a Biblically valid doctrine. However, the question might then be raised -- By what means is this "calling"/appointment revealed?

This seems off to me according to the grammar of Ezekiel 28:12-17; for the grammar seems only to describe the "king of Tyrus" himself, not the Garden of Eden at all: "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; 1. Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 2. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; 3. every precious stone was THY COVERING, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: 4. the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 5. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: 6. thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 7. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 8. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: 9. therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 10. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: 11. I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee." Grammatically, in verse 13 (as per #2 & #3 above) the description of precious stones is NOT presented as a description for the Garden of Eden. Rather, the description of precious stones is presented as a description of the king of Tyrus' PERSONAL covering. In fact, the only thing that verse 13 says about the Garden of Eden is simply that the king of Tyrus had been in that garden. It says nothing about precious stones as a part of that garden.

Amen. My greatest desire is simply that we do the work of study, not just make assumptions or just go with what others have taught. Indeed, I myself do not get it right all of the time. Study, study, study the Word of God (not the words of men). Possessing a friendship with you outside the Forum, I already was aware of this. However, I wanted to take the opportunity in the flow of my explanation to provide the reason why I am "pressing" the issue. Well, I believe that that position would be missing the PRINCIPLE of the passage, and thus be also missing appropriate APPLICATION of the passage. In fact, four years ago in this very thread discussion, I posted the following: ______________________________________ As we consider this matter, we need to recognize, even as the fashion world acknowledges and regularly communicates, that clothing and attire communicates a message. First then, let us consider the point and principle of the instruction unto the men -- "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment." Since this instruction specifically references the "GARMENT" of a woman, we understand that it DOES apply unto the matter of clothing itself. Yet this instruction does not reference any specific form of clothing, nor does the rest of God's Word appear to make any such specification. Thus we might understand that this instruction applies unto clothing that was readily recognized within the Israelite culture as the clothing of a woman. Finally, this instruction describes the clothing as belonging unto a woman, "a woman's garment." Thus we understand that this instruction would have applied unto any form of clothing that would have communicated womanliness (femininity) within the Israelite culture. Even so, we are able to discern the principle of this instruction -- It is a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a man in any given culture at any given time and place to wear any clothing (whether by specific piece, specific cut, or specific decorative design) that would be readily recognized in that culture as being feminine. Certainly, the specific elements of clothing that are recognized as feminine may be different from culture to culture and from one era in a culture to another era in that same culture; however, the principle itself remains absolute. Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a man in present day American culture to wear any clothing (whether by specific piece, specific cut, or specific decorative design) that is readily recognized in this culture as being feminine. Second, let us consider the point and principle of the instruction unto the women -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man." Since our word study through the Old Testament has revealed that this instruction did NOT refer unto clothing in the time when it was originally given by the Lord God through Moses unto Israel, but refers rather unto a man's armor, we must consider what a man's armor would have communicated within the culture of Israel at that time. Furthermore, since this matter was more specific in that time than simply a reference unto masculine clothing, I conclude that a man's armor would have culturally communicated, not masculinity in general, but masculine AUTHORITY in specific. Many things might have communicated masculinity, but the armor would have more specifically communicated AUTHORITY. If I am correct, then we are now able to discern the principle of this instruction -- It is a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in any given culture at any given time and place to wear that specific form of attire that would be recognized in that culture as representing male AUTHORITY. Certainly, the specific element of attire that is recognized as representing male authority may be different from culture to culture and from one era in a culture to another era in that same culture; however, the principle itself remains absolute. Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in present day American culture to wear that specific element of attire that is recognized in this culture as representing male authority. Now, it is historically true that the particular element of attire that represented male authority in American culture through a significant number of years has been a pair of pants. Furthermore, it is also true that the subculture of Fundamentalism within present day American culture continues to view a pair of pants as the element of attire which represents male authority. Yet the question may be asked whether the changes in American culture have at all altered what element of attire now represents male authority within American culture at large. Does the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still stand with absolute authority today? I would contend that it DOES. Does the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5 indicate that pants-wear is inherently man's wear? I would contend that it does NOT. Does the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 encompass the cultural reality of pants-wear as man's wear within certain cultures at certain times and places of culture? I would contend that it DOES. Indeed, I would contend that the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5 presents the following: 1. A principle of absolute truth. 2. A principle of cultural application. 3. A prohibition against men wearing any clothing that culturally communicates FEMININITY. 4. A prohibition against women wearing that piece of attire which culturally communicates male AUTHORITY. (Note: In referring unto a "piece of attire," I am contending that this piece may be a piece of clothing that men wear regularly, or may be a piece of accessory that men wear less commonly, or may even be a piece of attire that men wear more rarely. I would contend such because in the time wherein the Lord God delivered the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 through Moses unto the children of Israel, the men would not have worn their armor on a common basis every day, or even necessarily as a form of accessory, but on more rare occasions of martial purpose.)

Indeed, the semantic range of a word is of great significance when doing any word study, whether in English, Hebrew, Greek, or any other language. Furthermore, when a particular Hebrew or Greek word is used hundreds of times throughout Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, we are able to gather a significant amount of data concerning the Scriptural semantic range of that given word. Even so, as I have mentioned already, the Hebrew word which is translated "that which pertaineth unto" is used 325 times throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Old Testament. What then do we find concerning the semantic range of this Hebrew word when we look up ALL 324 other usages? We find that it is translated throughout the King James translation with the following semantic range: 1. 166 times - "vessel(s)" 2. 39 times - "instrument(s)" 3. 21 times - "weapon(s)" 4. 21 times - "jewel(s)" (as in, jewelry) 5. 18 times - "armourbearer" (when added with the Hebrew word for "bearing, bearer," providing the "armour" side of the meaning) 6. 14 times - "stuff" 7. 11 times - "thing(s)" 8. 10 times - "armour" 9. 7 times - "furniture" 10. 3 times - "carriage" 11. 2 times - "bag" 12 13 times - miscellaneous phrasing (such as, "that which pertaineth unto") It is worthy to notice that of these 325 times it is NOT translated as something made of clothe, clothing, garment even a single time. Why not? Because that which is made of (woven) clothe, clothing, is NOT a part of the word's semantic range. Rather, the basic meaning of the word is "something manufactured from natural substances, such as stone, wood, animal skin, metal, precious stone, etc." Yet it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that in the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 the word is referring to something that is WEARABLE. So, does this contextual usage create a whole new semantic range element for the word, or has the word study revealed that the semantic range of the word already contains things that are wearable? Actually our word study has revealed that something wearable is already a part of the Biblical semantic range, even though clothing precisely is not a part of that semantic range. 21 times the Biblical semantic range encompasses jewelry, which is certainly wearable, but is not something made of clothe, clothing. 10 times the Biblical semantic range encompasses armor, and another 18 times it encompasses armorbearer (wherein our given Hebrew word is joined with that for "bearing, bearer" to create "armor-bearer"); and armor is certainly wearable, although it also was not made of clothe, clothing. Even so, there is no need to move outside the semantic range of the word as revealed by the other 324 usages, since they already include things that are wearable. Clothing/garments by definition are wearable, but not everything that is wearable is clothing. What is the point of all of this? First, both by its actual Hebrew grammar and its original Mosaic context, the verse could not have been referring to pants-wear. Attempts to indicate that pants-wear is somehow inherently built into the ORIGINAL MEANING of the verse are false to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. Second, is it possible that the PRINCIPLE of the verse, as gleaned from the MEANING of the verse, might lead to APPLICATIONS in some cultures that include pants-wear? Yes, this is certainly possible. Yet it should be understood that its application to pants-wear is NOT a part of the inherent MEANING of the verse, but is only an APPLICATION of the PRINCIPLE at certain times for certain cultural circumstances. (Note: Lest you all think me to be a complete "reprobate" - My own wife (I have no daughters) does NOT wear pants. On the other hand, I cannot declare that the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 toward women inherently refers to pants-wear. I do NOT believe that nature itself teaches that pants-wear is inherently man's wear. I also do NOT believe that Scripture teaches that pants-wear is inherently man's wear.) Certainly, this is accurate. The grammar of Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly talks about something that is wearable, something that can be put "on." This is where I would contend that your grammatical logic has gone astray. As I stated above, clothing by definition is certainly wearable; but NOT everything that is wearable is clothing. Your grammatical logic seems to be -- It is clearly something wearable; therefore, it must be clothing. My grammatical logic would be -- It is clearly something wearable; the Biblical word study reveals that clothing is not a part of the semantic range, but that two other wearable things are indeed a part of the semantic range (jewelry and armor); therefore, it is not referring to clothing precisely, but either to man's jewelry or man's armor (and I have logical reasoning why I lean toward the "armor" choice). There is no doubt that the King James translators recognized from the grammatic usage of the Hebrew preposition that this context was referring to something wearable. However, my presentation has NOT denied this Biblical reality at all. Rather, my presentation has indicated that "wearable" does NOT necessarily mean "clothing." Even so, it is worthy to note that although the King James translators certainly did employ the verb "wear" to indicate something wearable in this context, they did NOT employ a word for clothing/garment/raiment/etc. in the opening portion of the verse, which is also instructive concerning their understanding of the Hebrew grammar. So, are my conclusions contrary to many among Independent Fundamental Baptists? Yes. Are my conclusions developed on a whim? No. Are my conclusions built upon some real effort of actual Bible study? Yes.

Sorry, if God's own created nature teaches something, then human culture has no say in the matter at all. As per 1 Corinthians 11:14, God's own created nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. This truth of God's own created nature stands true anywhere in the created world, regardless of culture, from the beginning of creation unto the end. So -- 1. Does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear? Which one? 2. Is a robe a form of dress? Yes, or no? 3. Does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color? Which one? What you seem to be doing is to somehow merge what God's own created nature teaches with what human culture might teach. These two "teachers" are NOT the same at all. God's own created nature finds its source of teaching in God; whereas human culture finds its source of teaching in man.

Indeed, the context does not really provide much help in this case; however, the verse itself does provide some, if we will do the study-work. What do I mean? Well, four years ago when this thread discussion was at its beginning, I posted some Bible study truths concerning the actual terminology in Deuteronomy 22:5 itself. Herein I will repost those truths (with some editing for the present): ________________________________________ Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a mam, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Why is the first phrase translated as "that which pertaineth," and why is the second phrase translated as "garment"? The answer is because these two very DIFFFERENT English phrases are translated from two very DIFFERENT Hebrew words that each have two very DIFFERENT meanings from each other. Now, the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" means "something made of (woven) clothe, clothing." However, that is NOT what the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" means. Rather, that Hebrew word means "something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin, etc.)." Furthermore, a word study of the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" throughout the entire Old Testament will show that this Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament over 300 times, yet that it NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, refers to something made of (woven) clothe." (By the way, when my oldest son wanted to discuss this subject with me, I required him to look up all 300+ Old Testament passages BEFORE I would engage in the discussion, because his position needed to be rooted in actual Bible study, rather than in his dad's thoughts and opinions.) Yet Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is speaking about something that a woman might "wear." So then, what was it originally, if it was not clothing? Two DIFFERENT phrases in translation: 1. "that which pertaineth unto a man" 2. "a woman's garment" Two DIFFERENT Hebrew words: 1. כְּלִי ("kaliy," Strong's #3627) 2. שִׂמְלָה ("simlah," Strong's #8071) Two DIFFERENT meanings: 1. Something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin, etc.). 2. Something made of (woven) clothe, clothing. Two DIFFERENT Biblical uses when applied to an individual's attire: 1. With 325 occurrences in the Old Testament, it NEVER once refers to clothing itself, but does refer to something a man might wear - and that is . . . (yes, I have an answer). 2. With 29 occurrences in the Old testament, it always refers to clothing (made from clothe) of some kind. So, that which is DIFFERENT is NOT the same, right? I did not choose these differences. Rather, God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired these DIFFERENCES. I wonder if He had a reason. I wonder if we should consider His reason. ________________________________________ Indeed, this is a very important matter in Bible study - When God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired something to be different in wording, then it would be negligent of us as Bible students not to consider the meaning of and reason for that difference. And until we do so, we have not yet acquired the precise meaning of a given passage, and thus are not rightly prepared to understand the Biblical principle thereof or the behavioral application thereof. So then, if the Hebrew word which God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired for "that which pertaineth unto" does not ever mean garment/clothing, but it obviously does refer to wearable attire, what actually does it mean? In order to discern this Biblically, I believe that we would be required to do the word study of ALL 325 occurrences throughout the Old Testament Scriptures. Yet who is willing to do the due diligence of that study work? Sadly, among Independent Fundamental Baptists, with whom I stand by committed conviction, I have not found very many.

Having just expressed some disagreement with Brother Rancher, I wish to express some definite agreement with some things that he presented in an earlier posting -- This is a good question. (Note: A more specific question in relation to this might be -- If God Himself fashioned a robe of embroidery and beauty for the High Priest of Israel, being the highest male representative of God in Israel, then when and why did the culture of the world get to tell us that such attire is no longer masculine?) And this is an even more important question. When is it acceptable (if ever) for the world's culture around us to "change the rules" from what we find in the Holy Scriptures? (Note: This is a question that has very significant spiritual impact for our living in righteousness; yet it is also a "nuanced" question that requires a Biblically discreet answer, because the answer may be a little different depending on whether we are dealing with Biblical precept, Biblical principle, or Biblical practice.)

Although Brother "Rancher" has stood more on "my side" of this discussion lately, I cannot express whole-hearted agreement with his presentation above. The reason - I believe that the "meat" of any given passage must ALWAYS BEGIN with the precise meaning of that passage in its original context. Once that precise meaning has been discerned, then spiritual principles can be gleaned from that precise meaning. From these principles we then can develop behavioral applications for our present-day living. In my observation, both sides of this discussion tend to jump past the study work of precise meaning in original context to proclaim principles and applications. When we do this, we already set ourselves on a path of wrongly handling Scripture, regardless of whether we are on the right hand or the left hand of the issue.

So, does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear? Is a robe actually a form of dress (as some of my Fundamental Baptist pastor-friends sometimes indicate)? So, does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color? (Note: The distinction of pink as a feminine color did not actually become established in America until approximately the 1940s.) So, do we get to decide on our own whim what nature itself teaches us? If so, who gets to be the authoritative voice when a disagreement arises over what nature itself teaches us? (Thus I will state again -- The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture, which is ACTUALLY our only and final authority for belief and behavior.)

Well, skirt-wear is specifically referenced 19 times throughout the Old Testament Scriptures (none specifically referenced in the New Testament); and robe-wear is specifically referenced 37 times throughout the Old and New Testament Scriptures (from Exodus to Revelation). Whereas "breeches" (specifically as underwear, not outerwear) is referenced only 5 times in the Old Testament Scriptures. Can you provide any specific reference to pants-wear as outerwear anywhere in the Holy Scriptures? If so, how many can you provide? If not, what Biblical evidence could you provide to indicate that robe-wear is not "the main clothing everyone wore in every Bible generation"? (The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture.) (Note: Robe-wear is even revealed in Scripture as the attire of eternity.)

Actually, the word "skirt" is derived etymologically from the Old Norse word "skyrt," which means "shirt." Following etymologically back from the Old Norse, we have the following: Old Norse - skyrt, meaning "shirt" back to Middle Low German - shorte back to Old Saxon - skurtia back to Proto-Germanic - skurtijo, meaning "skirt, apron" back to Proto-Germanic - skurtaz, meaning "lacking, deficient, short." Indeed, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary presents the following etymological information: "Sw. skiorta, a shift or close garment; Dan. skiort, a petticoat; skiorte, a shirt, a shift. These words seem to be from the root of short, from cutting off." For the sense of "border, edge" (such as in "outskirts," etc.), such a usage we find first recorded in the late 15th century. However, the most relevant word here is the Hebrew word from which the English is translated, which is the Hebrew word "kanaph." In its most basic verb form, the Hebrew carries the meaning "to cover, to cover over." In its noun form, it carries two ideas from this basic verb meaning -- 1. The wing or wings (dual) of a bird; 2. The skirt (edge or extremity) of a garment. Yet in both of these ideas, the Hebrew always retains the sense of "covering," which is why we find some Biblical contexts wherein the word "skirt" may involve only the hem or fringe, but others wherein the word "skirt" more necessarily encompasses the fullness of the lower portion of the robe-garment.

"Skirt," according to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, means -- 1. "The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle. 1 Samuel 15:17" 2. "The edge of any part of dress." 3. "Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town." 4. "A woman's garment like a petticoat." 5. "The diaphragm or midriff in animals. Of these definitions three of them relate to a type or part of clothing -- #1, #2, & #3. In relation to a robe type garment, definition #1 & #2 would have application. Now, all of the references to a "skirt" in the Old Testament are as follows: Deuteronomy 22:30 -- "A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt." (Man's wear) Deuteronomy 27:20 -- "Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Man's wear) Ruth 3:9 -- "And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." (Man's wear) 1 Samuel 15:27 -- "And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent." (Man's wear) 1 Samuel 24:4-5 -- "And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily. And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt." (Man's wear) 1 Samuel 24:11 -- "Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it." (Man's wear) Psalm 133:2 -- "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments." (High Priest's wear, fashioned by God Himself) Jeremiah 2:34 -- "Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman) Jeremiah 13:22 -- "And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman) Jeremiah 13:26 -- "Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman) Lamentations 1:9 -- "Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman) Ezekiel 5:3 -- "Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts." (Man's wear, that of the prophet himself) Ezekial 16:8 -- "Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine." (God's wear, as this is a portrayal of God Himself) Nahum 3:5 -- "Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the city of Nineveh is represented as a woman) Haggai 2:12 -- "If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No." (Priest's wear) Zechariah 8:23 -- "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." (Man's wear, concerning Jewish men during the Millennial Kingdom of our Lord) Now, as per each context, it does not seem accurate to claim that in every one of these cases the word "skirt(s)" simply means the hem or fringe. This may be accurate for some of the above cases, but it does not at all seem accurate for all of the above cases. Furthermore, by definition any reference to robe-wear implies skirt-wear, since a robe includes an open bottomed portion below the waist (as per the 1828 Webster's meaning #1 above, which he specifically applied to the passage in 1 Samuel 15). So, how many references to robe-wear are there in the Holy Scriptures; and who all is portrayed as wearing a robe? Because every reference to robe-wear is by definition and implication also a reference to skirt-wear.

I have studied what type of clothes they wore throughout the time of the Old Testament; and in all five cases wherein breeches are mentioned, they are a type of underwear, NOT outerwear. In all five cases they are a part of the holy garments of the High Priest of Israel, which he was to wear ONLY when he was engaging in his holy service. For the outerwear of the High Priest, the garment which God Himself designed for the High Priest included the "skirt" of his robe for the lower half of his body. (See Psalm 133:2) In fact, an interesting study throughout the Old Testament is to consider who all wore a "skirt."

James 3:13-18 -- "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

James 3:13-18 -- "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

James 3:13-18 -- "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

James 3:13-18 -- "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."