Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The question that I would like to raise is whether or not it is considered sinful for Christian women to wear pants, and why that is the case.

The controversy within this community regarding women's apparel has manifested itself countless of times whether it be in small local churches, such as my own, or large scale conventions and conferences where the attire of an individual, typically a woman's, is criticized or condemned. Personally, I believe that one should place more emphasis on behavior/actions and our faith than in the triviality of appearances. However, I am aware of the fervent stance that many of us have regarding this issue and I would like to hear/see our opinions on the matter, and whether they differ at all.

Edited by Katherine Solarte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As a woman, I don't think it's a sin...there are times when wearing pants/jeans is appropriate. I had to wear them for years for safety reasons...construction sites are NOT set up for someone in a dress or skirt. I think modesty is more a state of mind rather than what's on your body. Its an attitude that doesn't call attention to self. That said, since I no longer have to deal with construction sites, I wear skirts/dresses much more often now. 

I think the idea is that women should look like women and men should look like men. I think each woman should pray about what the Lord would have her do when it comes to wardrobe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Personally, Pants tends to draw the attention of men's eye to the woman thighs and bottom. I will say however i much more prefer loose pants than a short skirt no a lady, however I would prefer NEITHER. I do not really feel comfortable with woman wearing pants, I do think they blur somewhat of the distinction between the sexes, however our culture is changing and though my preference is against them, I have a hard time with my own conscience to condemn pants from scripture. 

Modesty is definitely an attitude, but that attitude should manifest itself in the way one dresses. I detest when people who are selfish and just want to dress their own way use the "modesty is a heart thing" excuse. Not that anyone here is necessarily doing that. Every issue is a heart issue, but the heart issue manifests itself in many ways. 

I have noticed also however that dresses and skirts on Christian women are becoming thinner and more form fitting... the other day I was at a Baptist Church and young teenage girl was wearing a long skirt that was tight and EXTREMELY thin, in fact it was so thin and tightthat anyone could see the outlines of her underwear and  basically see all the contours of her bottom. I find that very troubling. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

...and then what about necklines or form-fitting tops on women.  I believe modest apparel and appropriate apparel is quite Biblical.  A woman working with Preschoolers may best be serving in clothing that keeps areas covered when bending or turning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/17/2018 at 8:16 AM, Pastorj said:

Modesty is the key to clothing and both Men and Women fail in this area far too often, even in church. I am amazed at the clothes Christians wear. The short shorts, the low necklines, tight clothes, etc.  

In the sermon, "The Mule Walked On," by Lester Roloff, uploaded by Matt in "Sermon," Lester Roloff stated, "We need to learn  how to dress like Christians."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not addressed in this post is that to dress like a man is an abomination.  Men wear pants.  It was the leftists, the God-haters, who began the unisex movement.  Why would a Christian want to follow after them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Going back even further, it was the men who carried hunting pouches, possibles bags and such.  Now the ladies where them and they are called purses!  

If an activity causes one to sin, then maybe one shouldn't be doing it?  Just a thought!  My children ask me about dressing properly and then ask about water sports like diving or hunting and I reply that if you cannot dress for the Lord in that activity, you should not do it.  Cheerleaders, ballerinas, most competitive sports all put the woman into immodest forms of dress.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Heartstrings stated, "Bruce Jenner, the once mighty athlete is now "Kaitlin Jenner" wearing a dress".  Why?  Because wearing a dress clearly pertains unto a woman, which Bruce Jenner and other transvestites, effeminate, and gay people understand more than it seems many Christians.  You don't find those that are trying to look like women wearing blue jeans for some reason.

Deuteronomy 22:5 King James Version (KJV)

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 issue is clear and the clothing can even differ in many cultures, but in EVERY culture and time there is always a clear difference between what is considered women and men clothing.  For me, if I can't tell from 200 yards away whether someone is male or female by what they are wearing, then the line has already been crossed.  If I have to look and examine closely parts of a persons body that I should not be resting my eyes on just to determine whether it is a man or a woman in those pants, then it is clearly clothing that pertains unto a man.  The strongest word God uses when listing anything as a sin is "abomination".  I try to steer very clear of even approaching anything called an abomination by God.

2bLikeJesus

In His will.  By His power.  For His glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/15/2018 at 2:01 PM, RayTX said:

...and then what about necklines or form-fitting tops on women.  I believe modest apparel and appropriate apparel is quite Biblical.  A woman working with Preschoolers may best be serving in clothing that keeps areas covered when bending or turning.

The way I'm built, they're ALL form-fitting. If I want to try to hide what's in front, I might as well wear a tent. I don't wear low cut but there's absolutely NO question I am a woman.

 

On 5/21/2018 at 8:57 AM, swathdiver said:

Not addressed in this post is that to dress like a man is an abomination.  Men wear pants.  It was the leftists, the God-haters, who began the unisex movement.  Why would a Christian want to follow after them?

Yes, men wear pants...however, in certain situations, it's a safety matter. And, if I AM wearing pants, it's still pretty obvious I am a woman. Women's pants are cut quite differently from men's pants. I cannot wear pants that are cut for men. They just do not fit right. I'm short, on the chubby side, and it isn't hard to figure out I'm female from the back or the front. 

For the record, I wear dresses/skirts and tops most of the time. I will not swim in a public pool or a beach. Any time I'm wearing shorts/tank tops, I'm inside my home. I get dressed for church. I don't normally wear make up or jewelry other than my wedding rings. My hair is to my waist. However, in the days when I was walking around construction sites, I wore the appropriate personal protective equipment including jeans, workboots, reflective vest, hard hat, etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:57 AM, swathdiver said:

Not addressed in this post is that to dress like a man is an abomination.  Men wear pants.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Indeed, when God Himself designed an outfit for Adam, He created pants for Adam, right?

Indeed, when God Himself designed an outfit for the high priesthood of Israel, He designed pants as outer wear for them, right?

Indeed, when God Himself commanded Moses to deliver the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 unto Israel, the men wore pants, right?

Indeed, when God's Word represents God Himself as wearing some form of clothing, it represents Him as wearing pants, right?

Indeed, when our Lord Jesus Christ engaged in His ministry upon the earth, He wore pants like any truly godly man would, right?

Indeed, when our Lord Jesus Christ appeared in His exalted form before John in Revelation 1, He is portrayed as wearing pants, right?

Certainly, since pants-wear is THE clothing piece that represents masculinity and masculine authority, then the highest male authority of all the creation would be wearing pants, right?

I wonder - Who invented pants-wear (even for men)?  Was it God?  Was it a godly culture or a godly individual?  Or was it a pagan culture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, when God Himself designed an outfit for Adam, He created pants for Adam, right?

Indeed, when God Himself designed an outfit for the high priesthood of Israel, He designed pants as outer wear for them, right?

Indeed, when God Himself commanded Moses to deliver the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 unto Israel, the men wore pants, right?

Indeed, when God's Word represents God Himself as wearing some form of clothing, it represents Him as wearing pants, right?

Indeed, when our Lord Jesus Christ engaged in His ministry upon the earth, He wore pants like any truly godly man would, right?

Indeed, when our Lord Jesus Christ appeared in His exalted form before John in Revelation 1, He is portrayed as wearing pants, right?

Certainly, since pants-wear is THE clothing piece that represents masculinity and masculine authority, then the highest male authority of all the creation would be wearing pants, right?

I wonder - Who invented pants-wear (even for men)?  Was it God?  Was it a godly culture or a godly individual?  Or was it a pagan culture?

It says "that which pertaineth to a man" . If you're an Eskimo, you wear a man-styled "parka". If you're a 'bronze age" Jew, you wear whatever men wore back then. But there was a DISTINCTION in the clothes of the sexes.  In our culture, "Pants" "leggings" or "breeches" have long "pertained" to the men, and likewise dresses or skirts to women. But then you should already know that; right?

Image result for eskimo clothing

Image result for 18th century american clothing

 

Image result for 19th century american clothing

Related image

 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

It says "that which pertaineth to a man" . If you're an Eskimo, you wear a man-styled "parka". If you're a 'bronze age" Jew, you wear whatever men wore back then. But there was a DISTINCTION in the clothes of the sexes.  In our culture, "Pants" "leggings" or "breeches" have long "pertained" to the men, and likewise dresses or skirts to women. But then you should already know that; right?

Certainly, Brother Wayne, I am aware of the cultural element to this issue, which is the very reason for my series of questions above.  In the present-day Fundamental Baptist movement, this issue is being preached with such statements as -- "Men wear pants; pants-wear IS men's wear."  Yet such statements are NOT precisely accurate.  It would be somewhat more accurate to say something like -- "For the last few hundred years, in European and American culture, pants-wear has been men's wear."  However, if we actually acknowledged the cultural element to this issue, then we would also have to acknowledge that culture itself can change, and even has changed from past times.  For example, hosen was originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear hosen today.  For another example, high heels were originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear high heels today.  For yet another example from a different perspective, culottes are defined in a dictionary as "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the leg to resemble a skirt;" yet although many in the Fundamental Baptist movement declare that pants-wear (trousers) are men's wear and are therefore an abomination for a woman to wear, they still allow (and even recommend) females to wear culottes.

Now, let us consider another point.  It is taught that the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still has application today, and I FULL-HEARTEDLY AGREE.  It is further taught that the application of that principle for today is to forbid women from wearing pants-wear (except possibly culottes).  However, it is my understanding that we should NOT seek to apply a principle unto our present situation until we FIRST understand the original meaning of that principle in its original Biblical context.  So then, I am compelled to ask -- What did the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 originally mean when it is was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel?  Do we even know?  (By the way, having done a fairly extensive word study JUST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES concerning Deuteronomy 22:5, I am prepared to contend that the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto a man," did NOT originally refer unto a piece of clothing (a garment made from clothe) AT ALL.)  For example, an argument was made in an above posting that if an individual cannot discern whether someone is a male or a female from 200 yards away, then a line has been crossed.  Well, I am compelled to ask -- During the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel, when BOTH males and females wore a robe-type garment, could an individual discern whether someone was a male or a female from 200 yards away simply from the type of clothing that was being worn?

Yet another thought - I have a pastor friend who often makes fun of the Roman Catholic priest for his priestly garment, claiming that the priest's robe-garment is a dress (since that would be somewhat accurate within present-day American culture), and thus that the priest is wearing woman's wear.  Now, if that pastor friend is correct that a robe-garment is equivalent to a dress and thus to women's wear, then our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wore women's wear when He engaged in His ministry on the earth.  To me, implying any such thing is highly offensive.  Maybe, just maybe, we need to be a little more precise and a little more accurate with our arguments and our declarations about this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Certainly, Brother Wayne, I am aware of the cultural element to this issue, which is the very reason for my series of questions above.  In the present-day Fundamental Baptist movement, this issue is being preached with such statements as -- "Men wear pants; pants-wear IS men's wear."  Yet such statements are NOT precisely accurate.  It would be somewhat more accurate to say something like -- "For the last few hundred years, in European and American culture, pants-wear has been men's wear."  However, if we actually acknowledged the cultural element to this issue, then we would also have to acknowledge that culture itself can change, and even has changed from past times.  For example, hosen was originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear hosen today.  For another example, high heels were originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear high heels today.  For yet another example from a different perspective, culottes are defined in a dictionary as "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the leg to resemble a skirt;" yet although many in the Fundamental Baptist movement declare that pants-wear (trousers) are men's wear and are therefore an abomination for a woman to wear, they still allow (and even recommend) females to wear culottes.

Now, let us consider another point.  It is taught that the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still has application today, and I FULL-HEARTEDLY AGREE.  It is further taught that the application of that principle for today is to forbid women from wearing pants-wear (except possibly culottes).  However, it is my understanding that we should NOT seek to apply a principle unto our present situation until we FIRST understand the original meaning of that principle in its original Biblical context.  So then, I am compelled to ask -- What did the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 originally mean when it is was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel?  Do we even know?  (By the way, having done a fairly extensive word study JUST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES concerning Deuteronomy 22:5, I am prepared to contend that the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto a man," did NOT originally refer unto a piece of clothing (a garment made from clothe) AT ALL.)  For example, an argument was made in an above posting that if an individual cannot discern whether someone is a male or a female from 200 yards away, then a line has been crossed.  Well, I am compelled to ask -- During the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel, when BOTH males and females wore a robe-type garment, could an individual discern whether someone was a male or a female from 200 yards away simply from the type of clothing that was being worn?

Yet another thought - I have a pastor friend who often makes fun of the Roman Catholic priest for his priestly garment, claiming that the priest's robe-garment is a dress (since that would be somewhat accurate within present-day American culture), and thus that the priest is wearing woman's wear.  Now, if that pastor friend is correct that a robe-garment is equivalent to a dress and thus to women's wear, then our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wore women's wear when He engaged in His ministry on the earth.  To me, implying any such thing is highly offensive.  Maybe, just maybe, we need to be a little more precise and a little more accurate with our arguments and our declarations about this issue.

Deuteronomy 22:5  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.

Nobody is questioning whether it was "cloth" or animal skins or whatever. The point is; it was a "garment".  It's really very simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

Deuteronomy 22:5  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.

Nobody is questioning whether it was "cloth" or animal skins or whatever. The point is; it was a "garment".  It's really very simple.

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."

Brother Wayne, do you know why the first phrase is translated as "that which pertaineth" and why the second phrase is 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)."  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?  Maybe it is not so simple after all.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
numeric correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
25 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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."

Brother Wayne, do you know why the first phrase is translated as "that which pertaineth" and why the second phrase is 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)."  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 200 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 200+ 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?  Maybe it is not so simple after all.

 "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment".  Just by implication, that phrase tells us that men weren't wearing women's "garments", correct? So if they weren't already wearing women's fashions they must ahve been wearing 'men's duds" right?.  Brother, it is talking about wearing the clothes(or things if you must) of the opposite sex. If you want to add a sword, a sling or anything else a "man" might "wear" on his person, I'm sure that could be included too. 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...