Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Although I have engaged in this discussion with a push toward a more precise understanding of God's Word on the matter (which causes me to appear as the "contrarian"), I have NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER AT ALL with the above posting.  Something IS wrong among believers in the matter of attire, and it is NOT just about "pants on women."

By the way, I wish to add that something is NOT just wrong with the choices that the adult women and young ladies are making for their attire; but something is also VERY wrong with husbands and fathers who are not doing anything to prevent it.  Not all may agree with me on the following, but -- I say shame on the women; and I say shame on the men much, much MORE.

''Susie'' wants to wear that form-fitting, low cut dress with the "slit" all the way up as far as she dares and Mom says it's Ok. What are you going to do if you are merely a "leader" of the home and have no authority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
46 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

''Susie'' wants to wear that form-fitting, low cut dress with the "slit" all the way up as far as she dares and Mom says it's Ok. What are you going to do if you are merely a "leader" of the home and have no authority?

"Susie" is 15 years old, so shame on me for not discipling my own wife for the past 15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And how do you "discipline" a wife?

Honey....bring me the paddle(again)....now this is going to hurt me more than it is you. No, on second thought, just go to your room. You're grounded. 😄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

And how do you "discipline" a wife?

Honey....bring me the paddle(again)....now this is going to hurt me more than it is you. No, on second thought, just go to your room. You're grounded. 😄

 

He said discipling, not disciplining :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Oh, is YOUR daughter named "Susie". My deepest apologies! I just picked a random name. 😱

No, sir.  I was simply continuing your hypothetical, and inserting myself so as NOT to confront anyone else directly.  Actually, I myself have 2 sons (a 22 year old & a 17 year old) and NO daughters.  Oh, and I DO have a wife of 25 years in marriage.
 

17 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

And how do you "discipline" a wife?

Honey....bring me the paddle(again)....now this is going to hurt me more than it is you. No, on second thought, just go to your room. You're grounded. 😄

 

Woe now!!!!  Discipline my wife - Are you CRAZY!!!  As Brother "PastorJ" pointed out above (and you acknowledged), I said DISCIPLE my wife (one of the God-give responsibilities of the godly husband).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

No, sir.  I was simply continuing your hypothetical, and inserting myself so as NOT to confront anyone else directly.  Actually, I myself have 2 sons (a 22 year old & a 17 year old) and NO daughters.  Oh, and I DO have a wife of 25 years in marriage.
 

Woe now!!!!  Discipline my wife - Are you CRAZY!!!  As Brother "PastorJ" pointed out above (and you acknowledged), I said DISCIPLE my wife (one of the God-give responsibilities of the godly husband).

Yes, I already know what you said, and you already know that brother Scott, why reiterate it?   Brother "pastor j" already corrected me, and I  acknowledged my mistake..........but I'm still "crazy"   😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
25 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Yes, I already know what you said, and you already know that brother Scott, why reiterate it?   Brother "pastor j" already corrected me, and I  acknowledged my mistake..........but I'm still "crazy"   😄

Sorry for my miscommunication, Brother Wayne.  My comment was intended to come off as a JOKE, not as a rebuke.  I was trying to go for light-hearted.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I keep seeing this issue being argued as one of "modesty" when modesty has nothing to do with 

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.

Dresses can be just as immodest if not more immodest than pants.  We had one woman that wore dresses that were high necked and below the knee but were so tight and thin that if she got goosebumps you could probably see it through the material.  Another wore a dress that had a "flesh toned" panel on the front that caused every warm blooded male to do at least a double take at her chest to make sure she wasn't indeed topless.

It is an issue of women vs. men's clothing.  Nothing to do with whether either or both are immodest.  Only what is considered sex appropriate because a clear delineation between the sexes is very important to God.  God is NOT in favor of unisex and pants are unisex.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

It is an issue of women vs. men's clothing.  

Yet that is just what I am contending is not precisely accurate.  Rather, it is an issue of women's CLOTHING vs. men's SOMETHING ELSE.

Deuteronomy 22:5 -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, nether shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 1:18 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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).
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is such an old diversion, able still to get us all off track. Anything that distracts from the Holy Spirit working in hearts has to be examined carefully. If someone visits our church, don't care what they dress like as long as they stay long enough to hear the preaching and the altar call. So maybe if our group looks a little...different...from time to time, it just means we are reaching the target.  Personally I wear skirts at church just because pastor doesn't want a needless distraction in the leadership, and I'm an adult teacher, organist, etc, so visible.  He's responsible for the flock, I'm responsible to be a good team member, so there you go.  We have a clear goal, "bring them in."  Don't get side-tracked from that, and the rest will follow.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
29 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

This is such an old diversion, able still to get us all off track. Anything that distracts from the Holy Spirit working in hearts has to be examined carefully. 

Interesting that a Holy Spirit inspired command is considered "an old diversion."  Yet the Holy Spirit Himself DID indeed INSPIRE the command of Deuteronomy 22:5, which would move me to conclude that the Holy Spirit Himself DOES care about this matter and that this matter IS a part of the Holy Spirit's working in our hearts.

31 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

If someone visits our church, don't care what they dress like as long as they stay long enough to hear the preaching and the altar call. So maybe if our group looks a little...different...from time to time, it just means we are reaching the target.  

Yet this matter is NOT about the unsaved visitors or the brand new converts, but is about the obedience and spiritual growth of believers.

33 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

Personally I wear skirts at church just because pastor doesn't want a needless distraction in the leadership, and I'm an adult teacher, organist, etc, so visible.  He's responsible for the flock, I'm responsible to be a good team member, so there you go.  

Yet this matter is NOT about following the leadership of a pastor, but is about faithful submission and obedience unto the Lord our God Himself.  The command of Deuteronomy 22:5 is in GOD'S WORD.  it is not the word of a pastor.  it is the WORD OF GOD.  It supersedes the authority of ANY pastoral leadership. 

37 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

We have a clear goal, "bring them in."  Don't get side-tracked from that, and the rest will follow.  

Indeed, we DO have a clear goal; for the greatest command of all, as per the estimation of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is -- "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (See Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30)  So then, if you really feel the need to narrow all of the doctrine and instruction within God's Holy Word unto one responsibility, then THIS should be that one responsibility.  Even so, how shall we demonstrate this "all-heart," "all-soul," "all-mind" love unto the Lord our God?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 14:21, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."  

Furthermore, how can a believer be empowered to be an effective witness unto the lost world?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 15:4-5, "Abide in me, and I in you.  As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.  I am the vine, ye are the branches.  He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."  So then, how can a believer abide in Christ?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 15:10, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."  

It appears to me that understanding and obeying all of the commandments that the Lord our God has given us in His Holy Word (including the command of Deuteronomy 22:5) is SIGNIFICANTLY and SPIRITUALLY IMPORTANT, not "an old diversion" that "side-tracks" us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet that is just what I am contending is not precisely accurate.  Rather, it is an issue of women's CLOTHING vs. men's SOMETHING ELSE.

Deuteronomy 22:5 -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, nether shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

 

 

Graphic1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

 

Graphic1.jpg

Indeed, Brother Wayne,

The program that you are using above does claim that the Hebrew word can mean "clothing, ornaments."  Yet it provides one, and only one, example for the possible meaning of "clothing."  That example is Deuteronomy 22:5 itself, which is the VERY instance under dispute.  Furthermore, that program translates that phrase of the verse as follows, "a man's clothing."  However, the King James translation does NOT so translate that phrase of the verse.  Rather, the King James translation translates that phrase as, "that which pertaineth unto a man."  On the other hand, the modern translation DO translate it differently.  The NIV gives, "A woman must not wear men's clothing."  The ESV gives, "A woman shall not wear a man's garment."  The NASV gives, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing."  The New Living Translation gives, "A woman must not put on men's clothing."  The Good News Translation gives, "Women are not to wear men's clothing."  The Message gives, "A woman must not wear a man's clothing."  You will notice that all of these modern translations translate the Hebrew word either with the English word "garment" or with the English word "clothing."  So, now I wonder if the King James translators had a reason why they did NOT translate the Hebrew word with the English word "garment" (just as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word) or with the English word "clothing."  I wonder if we trust the King James translators more than the modern translations.  If we do trust the King James translators more, then I wonder if we should seek to discern the reason for their translation choice, and for the fact that they did not choose the word "garment" even as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word.

As for myself, having done the word study of the Hebrew word throughout the entire Old Testament, actually looking up ALL 325 occurrences, I stand with trust upon the phrase which the King James translators employed in the King James translation.  Furthermore, I believe that this full word study has granted understanding as to the reason why they chose the translational phrasing that they did.

As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in the King James translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," is used 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As such, it is translated as the following within the King James translation:

 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 should be noted that the words for "clothe," "clothing," "garment," etc. are not on this list even a single time.  The fact is that the Hebrew word does NOT mean "that which is made of clothe, clothing."  On the other hand, Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is referencing something that a man might wear.  So then, what do we find on this list of 325 occurrences that is something which a man might wear?  We find two options, being "jewels" (jewelry) or "armour."  As such, we may understand that in the immediate context of the time wherein the Lord God gave this instruction through Moses unto the children of Israel, He was indicating that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's jewelry (wouldn't that be interesting to preach in a Fundamental Baptist church), or that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's armor.  I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.  (Please note that this conclusion is based upon an ACTUAL word study throughout the Old Testament.)  If this is correct, then this would mean that a women was NOT breaking this command if she put on a man's shirt, cloak, coat, belt, hat, etc., but only if she put on a man's ARMOR.  On the other hand, a man would be breaking his side of this command if he put on any number of clothing pieces that would be recognized as women's (feminine) clothing.

So then, with such an understanding for the MEANING of this instruction, what is the point and PRINCIPLE of this instruction whereby we may make APPLICATION of this instruction unto our present day?  (Note:  I believe that understanding the meaning of an instruction is necessary BEFORE we can discern the principle, and that understanding the principle of an instruction is necessary BEFORE we can discern correct applications.)

(Another side note:  As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," occurs 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As I have also mentioned in a previous posting, I REQUIRED my oldest son to look up ALL 325 occurrences BEFORE I would discuss this matter with him.  I wonder how many here felt any need to do the due diligence of that complete word study.  If my experience with the Fundamentalist movement is a gauge (having grown up therein from baby-hood, and being committed by conviction to the foundational principles thereof), I would guess that there were only a few.,  If I may bare one of my heart's ongoing burdens at this point - This lack of diligence in Bible study is one of the things that grieves and burdens my heart deeply about the Fundamentalist movement.)

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

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

(Another side note:  As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," occurs 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As I have also mentioned in a previous posting, I REQUIRED my oldest son to look up ALL 325 occurrences BEFORE I would discuss this matter with him.  I wonder how many here felt any need to do the due diligence of that complete word study.  If my experience with the Fundamentalist movement is a gauge (having grown up therein from baby-hood, and being committed by conviction to the foundational principles thereof), I would guess that there were only a few.,  If I may bare one of my heart's ongoing burdens at this point - This lack of diligence in Bible study is one of the things that grieves and burdens my heart deeply about the Fundamentalist movement.)

I agree completely with you. I grew up in the IFB and am still part of it. I am shocked at what can be said from the pulpit and everyone say Amen, when they should be saying "Heresy". I used to hold to this position and my wife and daughter wore nothing but dresses, culottes, skirts, etc until I was challenged to study it out and realized it was based on misuse of the Word of God. I applaud you for your study and challenge others to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

I agree completely with you. I grew up in the IFB and am still part of it. I am shocked at what can be said from the pulpit and everyone say Amen, when they should be saying "Heresy". I used to hold to this position and my wife and daughter wore nothing but dresses, culottes, skirts, etc until I was challenged to study it out and realized it was based on misuse of the Word of God. I applaud you for your study and challenge others to do the same.

Brother "PastorJ,"

I believe that you understood this, but your comment allows me to add a further explanation - I did not give the additional side note above about my heart's grief and burden just concerning the subject matter of this thread, but concerning so many Biblical matters of doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother Markle, If a man was not to "put on a woman's garment", that means men had to have been wearing something else, correct? Unless they were going around naked but we know that wasn't the case.. So, whatever they were wearing "pertained" to men.  The word you mention as being "something else" DOES cover a lot more than just clothing. BUT, clothing IS part of what is WORN which "pertains" to men. Today, men don't normally wear a sword, dagger, a quiver of arrows, etc. but even in our culture today there are clothes readily associated with "women" and "men".

image.jpeg.7da2a69af6b8a57accd838432caec4e7.jpeg

Both history and archaeology prove that things "which pertained to a man" covers more than just clothes, brother, and no one disputes that. There's a much longer list here for men's "wear", than for women... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_clothing  But Deuteronomy 22:5 makes it perfectly clear that there was a distinction between men's and women's clothes; otherwise it would not say "neither shall a man put on a woman's garment". 

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 10 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...