Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrators
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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would just like to express appreciation to those in this thread that though their conviction is strong, have maintained a spirit of meekness.  "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth..." (II Tim. 2:25).  God forbid that any of us would be as that Pharisee in Luke 18:11 - "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are..."  Indeed, we need to consider the publican's attitude and example in Luke 18:13.  May what we say be motivated by "that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Eph. 4:29).  We can yet stand with boldness applying Col. 4:6 - "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."

It's very interesting and thought-provoking to ponder on how we have absolutely no right to condemn another's heart (Matt. 7), yet another's heart is what we should care about the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/9/2016 at 2:21 PM, HappyChristian said:

NN - I began with a book titled Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman.

I finally have this installed on my Bible Software. I couldn't find it in any of the extra sources (that I'm aware of) that provide modules for theWord. However, eSword has it available for download, and I was able to convert the eSword module over so that it works on theWord. 

Thanks again HC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I finally have this installed on my Bible Software. I couldn't find it in any of the extra sources (that I'm aware of) that provide modules for theWord. However, eSword has it available for download, and I was able to convert the eSword module over so that it works on theWord. 

Thanks again HC!

You're welcome! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Moderators

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 10/24/2016 at 5:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

Yes. And they also create new names for themselves like Neptune or Aquarius or some other weird name (gotta quit hanging around Walmart so much...) - kinda reminds me of Hippies for some reason - and they wear make-up. Some wear it better than real women...even weirder!

So is it wrong to wear make-up too?

That might be opening another can of worms.... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 10/24/2016 at 2:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

I'm not sure anyone can realistically or logically make a solid biblical argument for or against anything on the basis of 'transgender' people's ability to know what is natural.....So to answer your question....I don't know how they do it.......definitely is weird.....then again I do not spend much time reading about their transitioning habits to know.....nor to I currently care to find out. So.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."

Indeed.  Although I myself do NOT believe (due to my above Biblical studies) that "pants-wear" is inherently "that which pertaineth unto a man" (as per Deuteronomy 22:5), and although I do NOT therefore believe that it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pants-wear," I DO believe that cultural realities SHOULD be factored into our decision concerning the matter.  Indeed, it has been a cultural reality for a past number of centuries (at least within European and American cultures) that "pants-wear" is "man's-wear," not "women's-wear.  No, this has NOT always been the case throughout world history and within every culture of the world.  However, it HAS been the case for numbers of centuries within the cultures in which we presently live.  (Note: Although I recognize that Wikipedia cannot be absolutely trusted for information, I do believe that the Wikipedia article on "Trousers" is a worthwhile read in relation to this matter, especially the sections on "History," "Society," and "Laws.")  Therefore, I believe that we SHOULD factor this cultural reality in our practice (at least, in our public practice) on the matter, in accord with the Biblical principles concerning "not offending brethren, but seeking their edification," and concerning "not offending the lost, so as not to hinder the gospel," and concerning "maintaining a clearly and culturally recognizable distinction between male and female." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."
 

Thank you, that was pretty much my point. Though I guess it isn't that the recognize that women must ONLY wear dresses, but rather, they see and understand dresses to be particularly more feminine or female than pants. Even the lost can recognize that dresses are more feminine and female than pants. IS that a basis upon which we should base our truths? Maybe not, but it interests me that the lost often see things more biblically that Christians. An unsaved person might chide a believer for smoking or drinking as indulging in non-Christian behavior, which some Christians will fight for their absolute right to do so.Most unbelievers also clearly see the ridiculousness of CCM, and see it for what it is? Christians wanting to keep up in clearly un-Christian music, while pretending it is okay because they sometimes mention Jesus. I think Southpark, CLEARLY not a Christian program, did an entire episode about that.  Why do the lost see things that are actually correct, that we as Believers often don't, or won't?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • ITJesus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • JenM earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • ITJesus earned a badge
      First Post
    • ITJesus earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • 2bLikeJesus earned a badge
      Very Popular
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  PastorMatt

      Why is it here in 2022 that truth is all of a sudden arrogance ?
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...