Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

I must confess that I am possibly one of the "many" that Bro. Scott indicated may not have done a diligent word study on this subject.I am not well educated and find it very difficult to reference the Hebrew with any measure of accuracy.

Having said that I would remind those following this thread that early on in the thread, in reference to one of Bro. Scott's early posts I suggested that that, "that which pertaineth to a man", might be armor. I did not arrive at this conclusion by myself. Many years ago my first missionary pastor taught that this phrase  most likely meant armor, rather than clothing.

I trusted this man of God like I have trusted no other since and believed that he would not lead us wrong. He was one of the earlier breed of pastors that had a heart for god and God's word and studied diligently long before there even were computers. I am not saying he was perfect or without any error, but he was  man that would not just "go with the flow". He made it his life's work to study and teach others in a manner that I have not seen since.

Please understand that I am not putting this man up on a pedestal, I am simply saying that I learned that I could trust him to tell me the truth over many years as his student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

I understand and agree. This is an area that is lacking in all of Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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")

Allow me to reiterate --

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 either 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, and the actual communication of the Old Testament Scriptures supersedes ANY guess-work that anyone might make.)  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Allow me to reiterate --

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 either 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, and the actual communication of the Old Testament Scriptures supersedes ANY guess-work that anyone might make.)  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.

I just looked at all instances of "pertain" in the Bible and they all mean the same thing.  Brother, if a man is prohibited from wearing women's clothes, whose clothes is he wearing? it would have to be "men's clothes" wouldn't it? Then do not men's clothes "pertain to a man"? It can't be that hard to understand. The verse (in the kjv) don't say 'armor" brother BUT "armor" is mentioned many times in the KJV. If it were specifically 'armor" wouldn't it say so? Maybe, since it doesn't specifically say "garments" or 'armor" it is referring to ANYTHING that a man wears. A woman, apparently just wore "garments" but a man wore numerous other things including "armor", a quiver of arrows, a sword, "tassels" and "girdle" for "girding up is loins" or whatever. So by saying "that which pertaineth to a man" it covers it all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

<snip>

 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.

Hi Pastor Markle, I've just read your summary of your word study and I found it edifying and inspirational. Hope you don't mind me jumping in with a question, actually I guess a repeat of something you posed near the beginning: what do you think is the specific reason for the translator's choosing the phrase "that which pertaineth unto" in Deut 22:5 and not any of the eleven words you have listed, including 'armour'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 either 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, and the actual communication of the Old Testament Scriptures supersedes ANY guess-work that anyone might make.)  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.

6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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? 

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.

(Side Note:  Because we are involved by committed conviction within the subculture of Fundamentalism, my home holds the general standard that my wife does NOT wear pants outside the home in the public arena, and that she rarely wears them within the privacy of our home.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

Hi Pastor Markle, I've just read your summary of your word study and I found it edifying and inspirational. Hope you don't mind me jumping in with a question, actually I guess a repeat of something you posed near the beginning: what do you think is the specific reason for the translator's choosing the phrase "that which pertaineth unto" in Deut 22:5 and not any of the eleven words you have listed, including 'armour'?

Brother Carl,

I believe that they did so in order that the principle of the verse might be applied more readily unto all cultures at all times and in all places, rather than to be focused strictly upon the idea of armor itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 8:57 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

I guess even that depends on where you live huh?  Scotland for example.

Or San Francisco, Boston, or any other city where Satan has so confused people they don't know if they are men or women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is a typical outfit for men and women in Bible times. The man is wicked because he is wearing women's clothing? No, there is a distinct difference between the man and women. 

warddrobe.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Pastorj said:

This is a typical outfit for men and women in Bible times. The man is wicked because he is wearing women's clothing? No, there is a distinct difference between the man and women. 

warddrobe.jpg

Indeed, the teaching (or even implication) that pants-wear is INHERENTLY (by created nature) man's wear is one of the FALSEHOODS that I have been seeking to demonstrate as a falsehood through actual Bible study.  It is interesting that most of the support for the doctrine that pants-wear is inherently man's wear is through cultural evidences.  Yet throughout the actual revelation of God's Holy Word, we do not find any place wherein God Himself designed or instructed pants-wear as outer wear for men OR women.  (Actually, when God Himself has designed clothing for men, He has designed skirt-wear as outer wear for the lower half of the man, just as in the picture above.  It was not God, but was ungodly, pagan, Satan-lead culture that designed pants-wear for men.  Furthermore, when God Himself is portrayed in Scripture as wearing clothing, He is portrayed as wearing skirt-wear as outer wear for His lower half.  I wonder if these Biblical facts should at all influence our doctrinal position on this matter.)

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Indeed, the teaching (or even implication) that pants-wear is INHERENTLY (by created nature) man's wear is one of the FALSEHOODS that I have been seeking to demonstrate as a falsehood through actual Bible study.  It is interesting that most of the support for the doctrine that pants-wear is inherently man's wear is through cultural evidences.  Yet throughout the actual revelation of God's Holy Word, we do not find any place wherein God Himself designed or instructed pants-wear as outer wear for men OR women.  (Actually, when God Himself has designed clothing for men, He has designed skirt-wear as outer wear for the lower half of the man, just as in the picture above.  It was not God, but was ungodly, pagan, Satan-lead culture that designed pants-wear for men.  Furthermore, when God Himself is portrayed in Scripture as wearing clothing, He is portrayed as wearing skirt-wear as outer wear for His lower half.  I wonder if these Biblical facts should at all influence our doctrinal position on this matter.)

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.)

Brother Scott, Are you admitting That Deuteronomy 22:5 includes prohibiting women from wearing men's clothes as opposed to just "armor"?

And for the record, I for one, never said that "pants wear" was "inherently man's wear": I thought that I made it clear that the style or construction of "men's wear" and women's wear depends on the CULTURE.  Our culture just happens to associate pants on men....at least until recently.

image.png.dfe00a24049cb966457feb7094a318e4.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Brother Scott, Are you admitting That Deuteronomy 22:5 includes prohibiting women from wearing men's clothes as opposed to just "armor"?

18 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

(Side Note:  Because we are involved by committed conviction within the subculture of Fundamentalism, my home holds the general standard that my wife does NOT wear pants outside the home in the public arena, and that she rarely wears them within the privacy of our home.)

Brother Wayne,

As per my above posting (which I have quoted just above), I acknowledge, NOT that the contextual MEANING of Deuteronomy 22:5 is a reference unto any form of clothing, but that the PRINCIPLE of Deuteronomy 22:5 in prohibiting women from wearing the piece of attire in any given culture that represents male AUTHORITY does indeed encompass a piece of clothing IF that piece of clothing is that piece which represents male AUTHORITY in the culture of that time and place.  As I have mentioned previously, I would contend that the contextual MEANING of the verse MUST be discerned BEFORE the PRINCIPLE of the verse can be discerned, and that the PRINCIPLE of the verse MUST be discerned BEFORE the present-day APPLICATION of the verse can be determined.  Therefore, I do contend that the contextual MEANING of the verse has NO reference whatsoever AT ALL to clothing, but only to a man's ARMOR.  From that MEANING, I discern that the PRINCIPLE of the verse concerns that piece of attire (whatever it may be, whether a piece of common clothing, or less common accessory, or more rare attire) which culturally represents male AUTHORITY.  From that PRINCIPLE, I seek to determine what that piece of attire may be in our present-day (of 2018) American culture.
 

16 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

And for the record, I for one, never said that "pants wear" was "inherently man's wear": I thought that I made it clear that the style or construction of "men's wear" and women's wear depends on the CULTURE.  Our culture just happens to associate pants on men....at least until recently.

image.png.dfe00a24049cb966457feb7094a318e4.png

Indeed, that is quite true, Brother Wayne.  You have from the beginning acknowledged the cultural aspect of the principle in Deuteronomy 22:5.  I make NO accusation against you in this regard.  In fact, I respect you highly for your acknowledgement thereof.  (By the way, as I have time, maybe later today, I wish to post a commendation and thanks unto you for one of your previous postings, by which you drove me to a deeper study on the abomination passages of Scripture.)  Yet others have at least implied otherwise.  

I myself also have acknowledged that pants-wear has been historically that piece of attire which represents male authority for quite some within American culture.

18 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

(Side Note:  Because we are involved by committed conviction within the subculture of Fundamentalism, my home holds the general standard that my wife does NOT wear pants outside the home in the public arena, and that she rarely wears them within the privacy of our home.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you believe that changing American culture may no longer mean that pants are recognized as men's attire, then please tell me what has replaced pants as men's attire? In not pants, then what?  If you are going to say that "cut" is what distinguishes men's pants and women's pants, then you are asking men to closely look at a woman's shape (in areas that should only be examined closely if she is your wife) to make the determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 minutes ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

If you believe that changing American culture may no longer mean that pants are recognized as men's attire, then please tell me what has replaced pants as men's attire? In not pants, then what?  

The suit coat and neck tie.

12 minutes ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

If you are going to say that "cut" is what distinguishes men's pants and women's pants, then you are asking men to closely look at a woman's shape (in areas that should only be examined closely if she is your wife) to make the determination.

I myself would NOT say that per se.  Yet even if I did, your complaint against it is a false complaint.  The instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 does NOT instruct me to examine whether every OTHER woman is wearing appropriate clothing.  Thus it does NOT give me any need or responsibility to look closely at the cut of her clothing.  Rather, the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 gives the responsibility unto men to be certain that they do not wear the clothing that culturally communicates femininity; and the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 gives the responsibility unto women to be certain that they do not wear that piece of attire which culturally communicates male authority.  (Note: The only women for which I would have direct responsibility to closely examine the cut of their clothing would be my own wife and daughters.)  Please explain to me wherein the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 indicates the responsibility that I myself need to be out and about closely examining other women's clothing and attire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

The suit coat and neck tie.

I myself would NOT say that per se.  Yet even if I did, your complaint against it is a false complaint.  The instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 does NOT instruct me to examine whether every OTHER woman is wearing appropriate clothing.  Thus it does NOT give me any need or responsibility to look closely at the cut of her clothing.  Rather, the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 gives the responsibility unto men to be certain that they do not wear the clothing that culturally communicates femininity; and the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 gives the responsibility unto women to be certain that they do not wear that piece of attire which culturally communicates male authority.  (Note: The only women for which I would have direct responsibility to closely examine the cut of their clothing would be my own wife and daughters.)  Please explain to me wherein the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 indicates the responsibility that I myself need to be out and about closely examining other women's clothing and attire.

I have to agree with the 'not examining women's clothing' part. But is 'armor" the only thing that "communicated male authority" back in Deuteronomic times?

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

I have to agree with the 'not examining women's clothing' part. But is 'armor" the only thing that "communicated male authority" back in Deuteronomic times?

Brother Wayne,

From the word study, it is the only piece of attire that I am able to conclude from Scriptural revelation itself.  If there was anything else, I have not yet found any Scriptural indication for it.  Now, I would certainly acknowledge that there were probably pieces of attire that communicated KINGSHIP authority (such as a crown or scepter) or that communicated HIGH PRIESTHOOD authority (such as the High Priest's various accessories); but I am not aware that Scripture reveals anything else concerning general MALE authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As stated before - I doubt anyone here will change their position on this so I will bow out after this comment.

A bathroom sign does not determine culture, especially when those symbols were created over 100 years ago. If you sit in the mall and simply look at people, what do you see. Can you clearly distinguish between a man and woman that are walking towards you. If the answer is yes, then the woman is wearing clothes that pertain to a woman and the man is wearing clothes that pertain to a man. Let's stop basing our Biblical positions on signs. This passage is teaching a principle that can be used for thousands of years, not just the 21st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

As stated before - I doubt anyone here will change their position on this so I will bow out after this comment.

A bathroom sign does not determine culture, especially when those symbols were created over 100 years ago. If you sit in the mall and simply look at people, what do you see. Can you clearly distinguish between a man and woman that are walking towards you. If the answer is yes, then the woman is wearing clothes that pertain to a woman and the man is wearing clothes that pertain to a man. Let's stop basing our Biblical positions on signs. This passage is teaching a principle that can be used for thousands of years, not just the 21st century.

Of course a "bathroom sign" does not determine culture. But you know which one to use by looking at the sign don't you? That's because our culture determined the bathroom signs. Now, thanks to the "trans-gender' movement, that will soon be a thing of the past. Carry on.

Image result for transgender bathroom

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, 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...