Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 minutes ago, Jerry 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.

I would say based on the Hebrew parallel that the same thing is being said for both sides - not to wear the garments pertaining to the other sex.

Not trying to be argumentative, but if you think it has another meaning, it is up to you to state it and show any proof for it. Otherwise, I think the normal/regular interpretation will still stand. But, even if it applies to other things AS WELL, it still certainly directly applies to clothing. God certainly is not saying it is an abomination for a man to wear women's clothing, but it is okay for a women to wear man's clothing.

Here's a verse which was always intriguing to me:

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

If "nature itself" teaches us things like this are a shame, pertaining to how the respective sexes should look, why wouldn't seeing some guy in a pink dress do the same? God made us male and female: we should look like, dress like,  and act like the sex we belong to. To do otherwise is just confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As I mentioned in the last post, the Arab man was offended that someone offered him a women’s robe. There are/were differences. Things can be very similar while having very certain differences. And they may be a difference that someone from another culture would not see. In the instance with Arab I mentioned, the one telling about it said he could not tell the difference. It was stated by one poster a few pages back (don’t remember her name) that she worked making pants and that there were different cuts depending if it was women’s or men’s. It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same. With that being the common belief, how can we say I don’t want it to be because it disagrees with what I think, so you should accept it. As for it being a hill to die on, it is a very important part of the discussion. If the men wore robes, then we have to ask when it became wrong for men to wear them. What and when culture can change the rules. How many need to accept the change before it is acceptable. How long it has to have changed before being acceptable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 minutes ago, rancher824 said:

As I mentioned in the last post, the Arab man was offended that someone offered him a women’s robe. There are/were differences. Things can be very similar while having very certain differences. And they may be a difference that someone from another culture would not see. In the instance with Arab I mentioned, the one telling about it said he could not tell the difference. It was stated by one poster a few pages back (don’t remember her name) that she worked making pants and that there were different cuts depending if it was women’s or men’s. It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same. With that being the common belief, how can we say I don’t want it to be because it disagrees with what I think, so you should accept it. As for it being a hill to die on, it is a very important part of the discussion. If the men wore robes, then we have to ask when it became wrong for men to wear them. What and when culture can change the rules. How many need to accept the change before it is acceptable. How long it has to have changed before being acceptable. 

I think if all the men wore blue robes and the ladies wore pink, polka dotted, or flowery lacy ones, it would solve two problems at once: we would all be wearing what "pertaineth" to our respective sex, and it would be far more decent. Although that could pose a whole new set of problems comfort-wise I guess.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, rancher824 said:

It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same.

Maybe I worded what I was saying awkwardly, my point was there was no way it was unisex robes, like pictured in tv and movies (and robes are mentioned here and there in various places in the Bible, not stated as the main clothing everyone wore in every Bible generation).

I am not saying I know the definitive answer as to what the differences were (or that all of the differences could be determined today about clothing worn in Bible times) - but I think it was more than colour differences, otherwise it would not have been an abominable action to God when the other sex wore them.

Edited by Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Jerry said:

(and robes are mentioned here and there in various places in the Bible, not stated as the main clothing everyone wore in every Bible generation).

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

(Note: Robe-wear is even revealed in Scripture as the attire of eternity.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

If "nature itself" teaches us things like this are a shame, pertaining to how the respective sexes should look, why wouldn't seeing some guy in a pink dress do the same? 

So, does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear?  Is a robe actually a form of dress (as some of my Fundamental Baptist pastor-friends sometimes indicate)?

So, does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color?  (Note: The distinction of pink as a feminine color did not actually become established in America until approximately the 1940s.)

So, do we get to decide on our own whim what nature itself teaches us?  If so, who gets to be the authoritative voice when a disagreement arises over what nature itself teaches us?

(Thus I will state again -- The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture, which is ACTUALLY our only and final authority for belief and behavior.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I agree 100% they did not wear unisex robes. There is not a question in my mind that there was a definite difference. Now I would not guarantee that you or I could tell the difference, but it was there. Even in the movies you are mentioning, are you positive they are all unisex? I’m not saying they are not, as we all know Hollywood does not care about honesty nor decency. But with the cultural differences are you sure we would notice the difference? For instance, when you look at shirts, some are very similar at a glance. But if you look a man’s buttons from one side and a woman’s from the opposite. Small difference, but enough for someone who knows to tell quickly. 
now I am going to get to where I think the real meat of the passage lies. I have seen those who stand that any manly man would wear pants, therefore “don’t you dare say my Lord wore anything but pants!” I don’t believe the Bible nor history supports this. I have seen the society and “even the McDonald’s bathroom doors know what we should wear!” But if you look around, yes our society says a Godly man won’t wear a dress, they do not see pants as a masculine only thing. Now I realize they are accepting certain men wearing dresses, but that comes later in my opinion. I have heard the modesty is the reason for women to wear dresses. But with the probability (I realize we can’t go back in time to check, but history and the fact the Bible doesn’t mention pants(besides the breeches that went under the priest’s robe) but does robes I feel certain) that in the time of Christ they all, male and female, all wore some sort of flowing covering that did not accent those parts of the body, why shouldn’t we do the same. I know some will say “ but men look at things different”. But I do not believe this to be true. From the time of my teens I have seen girls go crazy about looking at boys in ways that totally go against this theory. Maybe, at one time this was different and girls didn’t have the fight against lust we men do, but a lot of them today do. So if it is modesty, and to keep the opposite sex from looking, shouldn’t we all be wearing something different? Now I’m not saying unisex. But men wearing something like a kilt? Then I’ve heard the “well it makes the ladies stand out and be noticed as Christian’s.” Now this one, to me, is a direct argument against the “culture says” reason. As in if culture said that women should be in a dress all the time, then a lady in a dress would not stand out at all. Also, this one crosses over into the modesty thinking. If again Christ wore a robe, and will give me a robe to wear  in eternity, why should I not stand out , as a Christian, by wearing a masculine robe? Now what would define masculine and feminine, I don’t know. But it could be done. But! I don’t believe this is what we need to see in that verse. When I go to church on Sunday, will I wear a button up shirt or pearl snaps? The definite answer is pearl snap. Is that because God is only happy with pearl snaps? No. That is because I am only happy with them. God expects me to come dressed in a spirit of humbleness to him. I dress up in what I feel makes me look my best to show Him respect. He doesn’t care what the clothing is, but that my heart is right. The verse in question does not specify what a woman nor a man is to wear. Just that it is not to be what belongs to the opposite. Now why? We know God had already destroyed Sodom, pulling Lot out by the hand. We know (Ecc 1:9) that there is no new thing under the sun. The sins we see today have been haunting this earth since the beginning. It is not the dress. It is not the shirt. It is not the armor as was mentioned earlier in this thread. It is the reason for putting on the thing that belongs to the opposite. It is the telling a holy infallible God “you messed up when you made me, so I am going to act the way I should have been made!” I do not believe the Arab I spoke of earlier would have sinned by covering himself in the women’s robe long enough to get to a man’s robe in that he was not doing it so that he would be thought as a woman, but simply to cover his nakedness. It’s the heart more than the clothes. If there is sin in the heart, it will come out to be seen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
40 minutes ago, rancher824 said:

now I am going to get to where I think the real meat of the passage lies. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Having just expressed some disagreement with Brother Rancher, I wish to express some definite agreement with some things that he presented in an earlier posting --

19 hours ago, rancher824 said:

If the men wore robes, then we have to ask when it became wrong for men to wear them. 

This is a good question.  (Note: A more specific question in relation to this might be -- If God Himself fashioned a robe of embroidery and beauty for the High Priest of Israel, being the highest male representative of God in Israel, then when and why did the culture of the world get to tell us that such attire is no longer masculine?)

19 hours ago, rancher824 said:

What and when culture can change the rules. 

And this is an even more important question.  When is it acceptable (if ever) for the world's culture around us to "change the rules" from what we find in the Holy Scriptures?  (Note: This is a question that has very significant spiritual impact for our living in righteousness; yet it is also a "nuanced" question that requires a Biblically discreet answer, because the answer may be a little different depending on whether we are dealing with Biblical precept, Biblical principle, or Biblical practice.)

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

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

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

I agree we always need to look at what the verse meant and what the context is. In this case I don’t see much in the surrounding verses to give us much in the way of context. So we don’t get much there. Then the verse itself. Perhaps my mentioning Sodom goes a little to far as to say that is the reason for the verse. But we do know that kind of perversion was going on in that time frame. I also know that some say it was because of some worshipping false gods were dressing as the opposite for the activity they were taking part in. And yes, I can see the possibility of this being in it. But either of these still gives the same base reason for the verse. Not to dress in such a way to appear as the opposite sex. It is not what the clothes look like (dress, pants, armor, etc. I’m not meaning immodest) that is important to God as the heart that is putting them on. And the man who is trying to look like a woman or the woman trying to look like a man has a heart issue. And that heart issue is what sickens God. If it was a condemnation that meant God wanting certain things to differentiate, it would be in scripture. Such as if there were a verse that said a man’s robe should be 2 to 3 inches below his knee, but a women’s should come to 1/2 inch from the floor, we would know what God saw as men’s and women’s attire. But it’s not there. Therefore He did not want us demeaning one another over it in the way we do (if your wife doesn’t wear dresses all the time, you are out of God’s will and cannot preach/teach in the church).  If our society today still looked at it that a women should be in a dress, then the verse could be used because we would not want to be wearing what society said was sinful. So 150 years ago I could accept this. Funny though during that time a boy under around 4 was most likely going to be wearing a dress. In our culture there is no way I would have put a dress on my son at that age. But if there is no room for culture to change, then which one is right? A 3 year old boy in a dress or pants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 minutes ago, rancher824 said:

I agree we always need to look at what the verse meant and what the context is. In this case I don’t see much in the surrounding verses to give us much in the way of context. So we don’t get much there. Then the verse itself. 

Indeed, the context does not really provide much help in this case; however, the verse itself does provide some, if we will do the study-work.  What do I mean?  Well, four years ago when this thread discussion was at its beginning, I posted some Bible study truths concerning the actual terminology in Deuteronomy 22:5 itself.  Herein I will repost those truths (with some editing for the present):

________________________________________

Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a mam, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Why is the first phrase translated as "that which pertaineth," and why is the second phrase translated as "garment"?  The answer is because these two very DIFFFERENT English phrases are translated from two very DIFFERENT Hebrew words that each have two very DIFFERENT meanings from each other.  Now, the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" means "something made of (woven) clothe, clothing."  However, that is NOT what the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" means.  Rather, that Hebrew word means "something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin, etc.)."  Furthermore, a word study of the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" throughout the entire Old Testament will show that this Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament over 300 times, yet that it NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, refers to something made of (woven) clothe."  (By the way, when my oldest son wanted to discuss this subject with me, I required him to look up all 300+ Old Testament passages BEFORE I would engage in the discussion, because his position needed to be rooted in actual Bible study, rather than in his dad's thoughts and opinions.)  Yet Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is speaking about something that a woman might "wear."  So then, what was it originally, if it was not clothing?  

Two DIFFERENT phrases in translation:

1.  "that which pertaineth unto a man"
2.  "a woman's garment"

Two DIFFERENT Hebrew words:

1.  כְּלִי ("kaliy," Strong's #3627)
2.  
שִׂמְלָה ("simlah," Strong's #8071)

Two DIFFERENT meanings:

1.  Something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin, etc.).
2.  Something made of (woven) clothe, clothing.

Two DIFFERENT Biblical uses when applied to an individual's attire:

1.  With 325 occurrences in the Old Testament, it NEVER once refers to clothing itself, but does refer to something a man might wear - and that is . . . (yes, I have an answer).
2.  With 29 occurrences in the Old testament, it always refers to clothing (made from clothe) of some kind.

So, that which is DIFFERENT is NOT the same, right?  I did not choose these differences.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired these DIFFERENCES.  I wonder if He had a reason.  I wonder if we should consider His reason.

________________________________________

Indeed, this is a very important matter in Bible study - When God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired something to be different in wording, then it would be negligent of us as Bible students not to consider the meaning of and reason for that difference.  And until we do so, we have not yet acquired the precise meaning of a given passage, and thus are not rightly prepared to understand the Biblical principle thereof or the behavioral application thereof.

So then, if the Hebrew word which God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired for "that which pertaineth unto" does not ever mean garment/clothing, but it obviously does refer to wearable attire, what actually does it mean?  In order to discern this Biblically, I believe that we would be required to do the word study of ALL 325 occurrences throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.  Yet who is willing to do the due diligence of that study work?  Sadly, among Independent Fundamental Baptists, with whom I stand by committed conviction, I have not found very many.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I’m not sure where you have gotten the idea I am disagreeing with your explanation of the phrase. The word pertain in the 1828 Webster means “1. To belong; to be the property, right or duty of.” which goes right along with your armor idea. I have no argument with that at all. That is the reason I listed armor in my list earlier. I still stand by that God is not sickened by the armor but the heart. For example, if a mother were at home without her husband and saw an enemy coming against her home, would God be more sickened by her picking up her husbands armor and sword and at least try to protect her children, or her standing by and watching them slaughtered because she could not put on that which pertains to a man? I stand by the belief it is the heart wanting to look like the opposite sex, not the actual thing being put on. Now with that said, I will not be responding to this thought anymore. I am a strong believer in my KJV Bible. I will discuss it with anyone at any time. But when I feel it is no longer looked at as the perfect word of God I leave the discussion. I do not know Hebrew or Greek. Yes, I have access to a Strongs and it is a good way of finding passages. But I have heard many pastors say that the Greek or Hebrew says and my first thought is that they, whether they think they believe it or not, have just put the KJV on the same level as the NIV. For if I need the Greek or Hebrew to understand the scriptures, I do not hold a perfect word of God in my hands, but one that could use correcting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

So, does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear?  Is a robe actually a form of dress (as some of my Fundamental Baptist pastor-friends sometimes indicate)?

So, does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color?  (Note: The distinction of pink as a feminine color did not actually become established in America until approximately the 1940s.)

So, do we get to decide on our own whim what nature itself teaches us?  If so, who gets to be the authoritative voice when a disagreement arises over what nature itself teaches us?

(Thus I will state again -- The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture, which is ACTUALLY our only and final authority for belief and behavior.)

Robes? Yeah, nature would if we lived in a culture which wears robes. You know like; Eskimos all wear "parkas: but Eskimo dudes where dude parkas and eskimo ladies wear lady parkas? It would appear that "nature itself" should teach people to strive to distinguish themselves as members of their own sex by their attire..... in their own culture. I mean, even the LGBT's(did I leave a couple letters out) have the basic discernment enough to recognize distinction in attire:  Because they call their perversion of that distinction "cross dressing".  What was your point?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So, does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear?  Is a robe actually a form of dress (as some of my Fundamental Baptist pastor-friends sometimes indicate)?

So, does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color?  (Note: The distinction of pink as a feminine color did not actually become established in America until approximately the 1940s.)

So, do we get to decide on our own whim what nature itself teaches us?  If so, who gets to be the authoritative voice when a disagreement arises over what nature itself teaches us?

(Thus I will state again -- The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture, which is ACTUALLY our only and final authority for belief and behavior.)

1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

Robes? Yeah, nature would if we lived in a culture which wears robes. You know like; Eskimos all wear "parkas: but Eskimo dudes where dude parkas and eskimo ladies wear lady parkas? It would appear that "nature itself" should teach people to strive to distinguish themselves as members of their own sex by their attire..... in their own culture. I mean, even the LGBT's(did I leave a couple letters out) have the basic discernment enough to recognize distinction in attire:  Because they call their perversion of that distinction "cross dressing".  What was your point?

Sorry, if God's own created nature teaches something, then human culture has no say in the matter at all.  As per 1 Corinthians 11:14, God's own created nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.  This truth of God's own created nature stands true anywhere in the created world, regardless of culture, from the beginning of creation unto the end.  So --

1.  Does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear? Which one?

2.  Is a robe a form of dress? Yes, or no?

3.  Does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color? Which one?

What you seem to be doing is to somehow merge what God's own created nature teaches with what human culture might teach.  These two "teachers" are NOT the same at all.  God's own created nature finds its source of teaching in God; whereas human culture finds its source of teaching in man.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So, that which is DIFFERENT is NOT the same, right?  I did not choose these differences.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired these DIFFERENCES.  I wonder if He had a reason.  I wonder if we should consider His reason.

________________________________________

Indeed, this is a very important matter in Bible study - When God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired something to be different in wording, then it would be negligent of us as Bible students not to consider the meaning of and reason for that difference.  And until we do so, we have not yet acquired the precise meaning of a given passage, and thus are not rightly prepared to understand the Biblical principle thereof or the behavioral application thereof.

So then, if the Hebrew word which God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired for "that which pertaineth unto" does not ever mean garment/clothing, but it obviously does refer to wearable attire, what actually does it mean?  In order to discern this Biblically, I believe that we would be required to do the word study of ALL 325 occurrences throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.  Yet who is willing to do the due diligence of that study work?  Sadly, among Independent Fundamental Baptists, with whom I stand by committed conviction, I have not found very many.

 

I basically have agreed with almost everything you have said up to this point, but I just want to offer some light, pushback on this. 

Even in the bible itself, especially in the Gospels for example, you will often see words that are different from each other used to in those inspired parallel accounts, but words which are closely synonymous. Even in the KJO preface (Which I know is not inspired) they defend their practice of NOT translating Hebrew or Greek words consistently by appealing to their perception that God used a "diversity" of words to express the same sense in his word. Couple that with the Hebrew practice of parallelism which often contrast, expands, and sometimes even states one singular idea with two different phrases, I think we should be careful of making a sharp distinction simply due to different words choices. Yes different word choices do sometimes denote different meanings, but not always. 

Another caution about doing words studies as well is in order, words have what we call "Semantic Range", meaning that a word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which it used. For example, the word  "good" in English can mean a variety of things, it can mean "morally excellent" as in "The law is good" or it can mean "pleasant" as in the "the food tastes good" or it can mean "of a high quality" as in "he does good work" etc etc etc. All of those meanings are slightly different in nuance and highly contextualized. Some words can have pretty significant difference depending on context, for example the English word run. You can "run" to the store, meaning you "went", you can "run" a business, meaning you're in charge and responsible for it, you can also "run" for your life, meaning you fled, a car automobile can "run" meaning it operates properly. 

That being said, a word study, whereby one looks at all the occurrences of word in the Bible will be good for illuminating the semantic range of word, but some people make the mistake of forcing the sense of a word in one context, onto another context and vice verse, or of trying to apply ALL the different senses and uses of a word into each place the word is found in linguistics this is called the "illegitimate total fallacy". Just because a word has one sense in 324 places for example, it may still yet have another distinct sense in 1 other single place based on context.

That being said, I essentially agree with the conclusions you are presenting here, but I just wanted to point out something that I see people say. People often say things that are different are not the same, but usually when people say they, they are only looking at the form of words and not the sense, and what many people do not realize is sometimes different forms can express similar or identical "senses" 

That being said, let me make some observations. 
1. כְּלִי and שִׂמְלָה both appear to be set in parallel to each-other, with the second clause clearly being about a man wearing a woman's garment. 
2. כְלִי appears to be a word that has a rough meaning of "articles, possessions, objects" etc, and the type of objects it can refer to seems largely dependent on context, in some contexts it appears to refer to items of warfare, in some places just general objects, in some contexts used of a yoke of oxen, and we could go on and on and on. 
3. In Hebrew, a rigidly literal translation of the phrase in question would be "There should not be upon women, כְּלִי  of a man. 

From my point of view, based on context and what seems to be a basic sense of כְּלִי that the word is in fact referring to clothing. One way of understanding the passage would be something like "There should not be the general things of men, UPON women", the Hebrew preposition "עַל" literal means "upon" and that tells us that the כְּלִי  in mind are things that can be "on" someone. The Hebrew preposition and the parallelism found in the passage, seems to strongly imply to me that the כְּלִי is in fact referring to the clothing of men. After all, what are the "things of men" that can be physically "upon" someone but clothing? I think the fact that the KJV translators translated it as a woman shall not "wear" seems to indicate that the KJV translators picked up on these clues as well, especially since there is no actual explicit Hebrew verb in the first half of the verse that actually means "wear".

 I don't honestly see any sharp distinction contextually to try and draw out a significant distinction between כְּלִי and שִׂמְלָה in this particular context.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
51 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Another caution about doing words studies as well is in order, words have what we call "Semantic Range", meaning that a word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which it used. For example, the word  "good" in English can mean a variety of things, it can mean "morally excellent" as in "The law is good" or it can mean "pleasant" as in the "the food tastes good" or it can mean "of a high quality" as in "he does good work" etc etc etc. All of those meanings are slightly different in nuance and highly contextualized. Some words can have pretty significant difference depending on context, for example the English word run. You can "run" to the store, meaning you "went", you can "run" a business, meaning you're in charge and responsible for it, you can also "run" for your life, meaning you fled, a car automobile can "run" meaning it operates properly. 

That being said, a word study, whereby one looks at all the occurrences of word in the Bible will be good for illuminating the semantic range of word, but some people make the mistake of forcing the sense of a word in one context, onto another context and vice verse, or of trying to apply ALL the different senses and uses of a word into each place the word is found in linguistics this is called the "illegitimate total fallacy". Just because a word has one sense in 324 places for example, it may still yet have another distinct sense in 1 other single place based on context.

Indeed, the semantic range of a word is of great significance when doing any word study, whether in English, Hebrew, Greek, or any other language.  Furthermore, when a particular Hebrew or Greek word is used hundreds of times throughout Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, we are able to gather a significant amount of data concerning the Scriptural semantic range of that given word.  Even so, as I have mentioned already, the Hebrew word which is translated "that which pertaineth unto" is used 325 times throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Old Testament.  What then do we find concerning the semantic range of this Hebrew word when we look up ALL 324 other usages?

We find that it is translated throughout the King James translation with the following semantic range:

 1.  166 times - "vessel(s)"
 2.  39 times - "instrument(s)"
 3.  21 times - "weapon(s)"
 4.  21 times - "jewel(s)" (as in, jewelry)
 5.  18 times - "armourbearer" (when added with the Hebrew word for "bearing, bearer," providing the "armour" side of the meaning)
 6.  14 times - "stuff" 
 7.  11 times - "thing(s)"
 8.  10 times - "armour"
 9.  7 times - "furniture"
10.  3 times - "carriage"
11.  2 times - "bag"
12  13 times - miscellaneous phrasing (such as, "that which pertaineth unto")

It is worthy to notice that of these 325 times it is NOT translated as something made of clothe, clothing, garment even a single time.  Why not?  Because that which is made of (woven) clothe, clothing, is NOT a part of the word's semantic range.  Rather, the basic meaning of the word is "something manufactured from natural substances, such as stone, wood, animal skin, metal, precious stone, etc."  

Yet it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that in the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 the word is referring to something that is WEARABLE.  So, does this contextual usage create a whole new semantic range element for the word, or has the word study revealed that the semantic range of the word already contains things that are wearable?  Actually our word study has revealed that something wearable is already a part of the Biblical semantic range, even though clothing precisely is not a part of that semantic range.  21 times the Biblical semantic range encompasses jewelry, which is certainly wearable, but is not something made of clothe, clothing.  10 times the Biblical semantic range encompasses armor, and another 18 times it encompasses armorbearer (wherein our given Hebrew word is joined with that for "bearing, bearer" to create "armor-bearer"); and armor is certainly wearable, although it also was not made of clothe, clothing.  Even so, there is no need to move outside the semantic range of the word as revealed by the other 324 usages, since they already include things that are wearable.  Clothing/garments by definition are wearable, but not everything that is wearable is clothing.

What is the point of all of this?  First, both by its actual Hebrew grammar and its original Mosaic context, the verse could not have been referring to pants-wear.  Attempts to indicate that pants-wear is somehow inherently built into the ORIGINAL MEANING of the verse are false to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.  Second, is it possible that the PRINCIPLE of the verse, as gleaned from the MEANING of the verse, might lead to APPLICATIONS in some cultures that include pants-wear?  Yes, this is certainly possible.  Yet it should be understood that its application to pants-wear is NOT a part of the inherent MEANING of the verse, but is only an APPLICATION of the PRINCIPLE at certain times for certain cultural circumstances.  

(Note: Lest you all think me to be a complete "reprobate" - My own wife (I have no daughters) does NOT wear pants.  On the other hand, I cannot declare that the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 toward women inherently refers to pants-wear.  I do NOT believe that nature itself teaches that pants-wear is inherently man's wear.  I also do NOT believe that Scripture teaches that pants-wear is inherently man's wear.)

1 hour ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

One way of understanding the passage would be something like "There should not be the general things of men, UPON women", the Hebrew preposition "עַל" literal means "upon" and that tells us that the כְּלִי  in mind are things that can be "on" someone. 

Certainly, this is accurate.  The grammar of Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly talks about something that is wearable, something that can be put "on."

1 hour ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The Hebrew preposition and the parallelism found in the passage, seems to strongly imply to me that the כְּלִי is in fact referring to the clothing of men. After all, what are the "things of men" that can be physically "upon" someone but clothing? 

This is where I would contend that your grammatical logic has gone astray.  As I stated above, clothing by definition is certainly wearable; but NOT everything that is wearable is clothing.  Your grammatical logic seems to be -- It is clearly something wearable; therefore, it must be clothing.  My grammatical logic would be -- It is clearly something wearable; the Biblical word study reveals that clothing is not a part of the semantic range, but that two other wearable things are indeed a part of the semantic range (jewelry and armor); therefore, it is not referring to clothing precisely, but either to man's jewelry or man's armor (and I have logical reasoning why I lean toward the "armor" choice).

1 hour ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 I think the fact that the KJV translators translated it as a woman shall not "wear" seems to indicate that the KJV translators picked up on these clues as well, especially since there is no actual explicit Hebrew verb in the first half of the verse that actually means "wear".

There is no doubt that the King James translators recognized from the grammatic usage of the Hebrew preposition that this context was referring to something wearable.  However, my presentation has NOT denied this Biblical reality at all.  Rather, my presentation has indicated that "wearable" does NOT necessarily mean "clothing."  Even so, it is worthy to note that although the King James translators certainly did employ the verb "wear" to indicate something wearable in this context, they did NOT employ a word for clothing/garment/raiment/etc. in the opening portion of the verse, which is also instructive concerning their understanding of the Hebrew grammar.

So, are my conclusions contrary to many among Independent Fundamental Baptists?  Yes.  Are my conclusions developed on a whim?  No.  Are my conclusions built upon some real effort of actual Bible study?  Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sorry, if God's own created nature teaches something, then human culture has no say in the matter at all.  As per 1 Corinthians 11:14, God's own created nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.  This truth of God's own created nature stands true anywhere in the created world, regardless of culture, from the beginning of creation unto the end.  So --

1.  Does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear? Which one?

2.  Is a robe a form of dress? Yes, or no?

3.  Does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color? Which one?

What you seem to be doing is to somehow merge what God's own created nature teaches with what human culture might teach.  These two "teachers" are NOT the same at all.  God's own created nature finds its source of teaching in God; whereas human culture finds its source of teaching in man.

.  I don't have any more answers, although I think you did miss my point, whatever that was.  God bless Brother Scott.

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified

1 Corinthians 2:2

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Indeed, the semantic range of a word is of great significance when doing any word study, whether in English, Hebrew, Greek, or any other language.  Furthermore, when a particular Hebrew or Greek word is used hundreds of times throughout Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, we are able to gather a significant amount of data concerning the Scriptural semantic range of that given word.  Even so, as I have mentioned already, the Hebrew word which is translated "that which pertaineth unto" is used 325 times throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Old Testament.  What then do we find concerning the semantic range of this Hebrew word when we look up ALL 324 other usages?

We find that it is translated throughout the King James translation with the following semantic range:

 1.  166 times - "vessel(s)"
 2.  39 times - "instrument(s)"
 3.  21 times - "weapon(s)"
 4.  21 times - "jewel(s)" (as in, jewelry)
 5.  18 times - "armourbearer" (when added with the Hebrew word for "bearing, bearer," providing the "armour" side of the meaning)
 6.  14 times - "stuff" 
 7.  11 times - "thing(s)"
 8.  10 times - "armour"
 9.  7 times - "furniture"
10.  3 times - "carriage"
11.  2 times - "bag"
12  13 times - miscellaneous phrasing (such as, "that which pertaineth unto")

It is worthy to notice that of these 325 times it is NOT translated as something made of clothe, clothing, garment even a single time.  Why not?  Because that which is made of (woven) clothe, clothing, is NOT a part of the word's semantic range.  Rather, the basic meaning of the word is "something manufactured from natural substances, such as stone, wood, animal skin, metal, precious stone, etc."  

Yet it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that in the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 the word is referring to something that is WEARABLE.  So, does this contextual usage create a whole new semantic range element for the word, or has the word study revealed that the semantic range of the word already contains things that are wearable?  Actually our word study has revealed that something wearable is already a part of the Biblical semantic range, even though clothing precisely is not a part of that semantic range.  21 times the Biblical semantic range encompasses jewelry, which is certainly wearable, but is not something made of clothe, clothing.  10 times the Biblical semantic range encompasses armor, and another 18 times it encompasses armorbearer (wherein our given Hebrew word is joined with that for "bearing, bearer" to create "armor-bearer"); and armor is certainly wearable, although it also was not made of clothe, clothing.  Even so, there is no need to move outside the semantic range of the word as revealed by the other 324 usages, since they already include things that are wearable.  Clothing/garments by definition are wearable, but not everything that is wearable is clothing.

What is the point of all of this?  First, both by its actual Hebrew grammar and its original Mosaic context, the verse could not have been referring to pants-wear.  Attempts to indicate that pants-wear is somehow inherently built into the ORIGINAL MEANING of the verse are false to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.  Second, is it possible that the PRINCIPLE of the verse, as gleaned from the MEANING of the verse, might lead to APPLICATIONS in some cultures that include pants-wear?  Yes, this is certainly possible.  Yet it should be understood that its application to pants-wear is NOT a part of the inherent MEANING of the verse, but is only an APPLICATION of the PRINCIPLE at certain times for certain cultural circumstances.  

(Note: Lest you all think me to be a complete "reprobate" - My own wife (I have no daughters) does NOT wear pants.  On the other hand, I cannot declare that the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 toward women inherently refers to pants-wear.  I do NOT believe that nature itself teaches that pants-wear is inherently man's wear.  I also do NOT believe that Scripture teaches that pants-wear is inherently man's wear.)

Certainly, this is accurate.  The grammar of Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly talks about something that is wearable, something that can be put "on."

This is where I would contend that your grammatical logic has gone astray.  As I stated above, clothing by definition is certainly wearable; but NOT everything that is wearable is clothing.  Your grammatical logic seems to be -- It is clearly something wearable; therefore, it must be clothing.  My grammatical logic would be -- It is clearly something wearable; the Biblical word study reveals that clothing is not a part of the semantic range, but that two other wearable things are indeed a part of the semantic range (jewelry and armor); therefore, it is not referring to clothing precisely, but either to man's jewelry or man's armor (and I have logical reasoning why I lean toward the "armor" choice).

There is no doubt that the King James translators recognized from the grammatic usage of the Hebrew preposition that this context was referring to something wearable.  However, my presentation has NOT denied this Biblical reality at all.  Rather, my presentation has indicated that "wearable" does NOT necessarily mean "clothing."  Even so, it is worthy to note that although the King James translators certainly did employ the verb "wear" to indicate something wearable in this context, they did NOT employ a word for clothing/garment/raiment/etc. in the opening portion of the verse, which is also instructive concerning their understanding of the Hebrew grammar.

So, are my conclusions contrary to many among Independent Fundamental Baptists?  Yes.  Are my conclusions developed on a whim?  No.  Are my conclusions built upon some real effort of actual Bible study?  Yes.

I understand what you are saying and will have to give it some more thought, Perhaps you are right that I assumed wearable=clothing in this context.

Also, I never asserted that pants was inherently mans wear. I agree as you stated “by its actual Hebrew grammar and its original Mosaic context, the verse could not have been referring to pants-wear.  Attempts to indicate that pants-wear is somehow inherently built into the ORIGINAL MEANING of the verse are false to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.” 

My response was based on an argument I have heard from some claiming that the passage refers exclusively to weapons and attire of war and who thus limit the passage to things as women going to war, and who want to exclude any inclusion of clothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I understand what you are saying and will have to give it some more thought, Perhaps you are right that I assumed wearable=clothing in this context.

Amen. My greatest desire is simply that we do the work of study, not just make assumptions or just go with what others have taught.  Indeed, I myself do not get it right all of the time.  Study, study, study the Word of God (not the words of men).

6 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Also, I never asserted that pants was inherently mans wear. I agree as you stated “by its actual Hebrew grammar and its original Mosaic context, the verse could not have been referring to pants-wear.  Attempts to indicate that pants-wear is somehow inherently built into the ORIGINAL MEANING of the verse are false to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.” 

Possessing a friendship with you outside the Forum, I already was aware of this.  However, I wanted to take the opportunity in the flow of my explanation to provide the reason why I am "pressing" the issue.

6 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

My response was based on an argument I have heard from some claiming that the passage refers exclusively to weapons and attire of war and who thus limit the passage to things as women going to war, and who want to exclude any inclusion of clothing. 

Well, I believe that that position would be missing the PRINCIPLE of the passage, and thus be also missing appropriate APPLICATION of the passage.  In fact, four years ago in this very thread discussion, I posted the following:

______________________________________

As we consider this matter, we need to recognize, even as the fashion world acknowledges and regularly communicates, that clothing and attire communicates a message.

First then, let us consider the point and principle of the instruction unto the men -- "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment."  Since this instruction specifically references the "GARMENT" of a woman, we understand that it DOES apply unto the matter of clothing itself.  Yet this instruction does not reference any specific form of clothing, nor does the rest of God's Word appear to make any such specification.  Thus we might understand that this instruction applies unto clothing that was readily recognized within the Israelite culture as the clothing of a woman.  Finally, this instruction describes the clothing as belonging unto a woman, "a woman's garment."  Thus we understand that this instruction would have applied unto any form of clothing that would have communicated womanliness (femininity) within the Israelite culture.  Even so, we are able to discern the principle of this instruction -- It is a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a man in any given culture at any given time and place to wear any clothing (whether by specific piece, specific cut, or specific decorative design) that would be readily recognized in that culture as being feminine.  Certainly, the specific elements of clothing that are recognized as feminine may be different from culture to culture and from one era in a culture to another era in that same culture; however, the principle itself remains absolute.  Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a man in present day American culture to wear any clothing (whether by specific piece, specific cut, or specific decorative design) that is readily recognized in this culture as being feminine.

Second, let us consider the point and principle of the instruction unto the women -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man."  Since our word study through the Old Testament has revealed that this instruction did NOT refer unto clothing in the time when it was originally given by the Lord God through Moses unto Israel, but refers rather unto a man's armor, we must consider what a man's armor would have communicated within the culture of Israel at that time.  Furthermore, since this matter was more specific in that time than simply a reference unto masculine clothing, I conclude that a man's armor would have culturally communicated, not masculinity in general, but masculine AUTHORITY in specific.  Many things might have communicated masculinity, but the armor would have more specifically communicated AUTHORITY.  If I am correct, then we are now able to discern the principle of this instruction -- It is a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in any given culture at any given time and place to wear that specific form of attire that would be recognized in that culture as representing male AUTHORITY.  Certainly, the specific element of attire that is recognized as representing male authority may be different from culture to culture and from one era in a culture to another era in that same culture; however, the principle itself remains absolute.  Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in present day American culture to wear that specific element of attire that is recognized in this culture as representing male authority.  Now, it is historically true that the particular element of attire that represented male authority in American culture through a significant number of years has been a pair of pants.  Furthermore, it is also true that the subculture of Fundamentalism within present day American culture continues to view a pair of pants as the element of attire which represents male authority.  Yet the question may be asked whether the changes in American culture have at all altered what element of attire now represents male authority within American culture at large.

Does the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still stand with absolute authority today?  I would contend that it DOES.  Does the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5 indicate that pants-wear is inherently man's wear?  I would contend that it does NOT.  Does the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 encompass the cultural reality of pants-wear as man's wear within certain cultures at certain times and places of culture?  I would contend that it DOES.  Indeed, I would contend that the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5 presents the following:

1.  A principle of absolute truth.
2.  A principle of cultural application.
3.  A prohibition against men wearing any clothing that culturally communicates FEMININITY.
4.  A prohibition against women wearing that piece of attire  which culturally communicates male AUTHORITY.  (Note: In referring unto a "piece of attire," I am contending that this piece may be a piece of clothing that men wear regularly, or may be a piece of accessory that men wear less commonly, or may even be a piece of attire that men wear more rarely.  I would contend such because in the time wherein the Lord God delivered the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 through Moses unto the children of Israel, the men would not have worn their armor on a common basis every day, or even necessarily as a form of accessory, but on more rare occasions of martial purpose.)

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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 31 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • 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
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...