Bible Modesty - Part 1

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Herb Evans, Dec 18, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    ONLY ONE TEXT CHECKS UNISEX!


    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. -- Deut. 22:5

    It is indeed noteworthy that as Christian preachers and laymen become more LOOSE and liberal in their attitudes towards unisex clothing (trousers on women, necklaces and earrings on men, etc.) that there is an alarming increase in homosexual boldness and promiscuity in our country. Now, many Christians will argue that this relationship cannot be proved. We must agree that they are right in that we are making spiritual judgements. Still, those, who would argue this point cannot prove that the removal of God, the Bible, and prayer from the public schools have anything to do with the drugs, rebellion, violence, and immorality in these schools, for this also is a spiritual judgement. Nevertheless, righteousness still exalteth a nation, and sin is still a reproach to any people.

    We, of course, are commanded to judge RIGHTEOUS judgement, and Christian history remembers and honors spiritual giants, who stood up and exposed and condemned the sins of their day. Personally, we cannot see how Christians can militantly oppose homosexuality and its deviate lifestyle without opposing and exposing its deviate dress style.


    Because of Its Identification with Evil


    Abstain from all appearance of evil. -- 1 Th. 5:22

    "Transvestism is a form of behavior in which a person has a compulsive desire to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex." - Robert B. Greenblott, M.D.

    If it were not for the word COMPULSIVE in the above quote, many Christians would find themselves classified under a very embarrassing label. To be found so close to a sin of homosexuality, is too close for comfort. The alternative, of course, is to abstain from the very appearance of evil!


    Because of Its Disobedience


    The woman SHALL NOT WEAR . . . Deut. 22:5

    The trick today, if you do not choose to tithe or to observe certain moral precepts of the Bible, is to place them under the law or to relegate them to another dispensation, or in the case of Deuteronomy 22:5, to argue that it is ceremonial law, because the prohibition against wearing wool and linen together (verse 11) is found within the context of the prohibition. Since grace always lives ABOVE the law, such a pat argument can be immediately dismissed.

    The wool and linen prohibition, to be sure, is a ceremonial law. Linen is man-made and signifies the righteousness of the saints (rev. 19:8). Wool is formed by God and signifies imputed righteousness. They both are to remain distinct from one another and were NOT TO BE MIXED TOGETHER. Moreover, the prohibition in the context against sowing diverse or mingled seed (verse 9) signifies MIXING God's word or the gospel with some other word or gospel. Also, the prohibition, in the same context, against plowing an ox with an ass (verse 10) signifies the unequal yoke of a believer with an unbeliever.

    Now, if the prohibition against wearing the opposite sex's clothing in verse 5 is CEREMONIAL, then what is the symbolic or spiritual significance of this so-called ceremonial instruction? Furthermore, while we are dealing with the context, WHY does the incest of verse 30, the rape of verse 25, the adultery of verse 22 to 24, and the apathy and laziness of verse 1 to 4 go unnoticed by the contextual critics. Are they CEREMONIAL? Do the wool and linen make these instructions also ceremonial? Moreover, do the wool and linen prohibition of Leviticus 19:19 make the holding of grudges in verse 18 and the lying carnally with a bondsmaid in verse 20 CEREMONIAL? No! The woman shall not wear!


    Because It Is an Abomination


    All that do so are ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God. --Deut. 22:5

    The SIN of wearing unisex clothing is called ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God, classifying this abomination with other MORAL abominations such as homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) and adultery (Ezek. 22:11). The MORAL abominations of the Old Testament have never been abrogated, rescinded, or done away (the dietary abominations notwithstanding) and will still be in force at the time of Revelation 21:27.

    Strange as it may seem, the attire of a harlot is never called an abomination. Even long hair on men is never called an abomination. Certainly, these things are wrong and are condemned by certain scriptures, but they are never called abominations. Our priorities are just not in the right order. Unisex clothing, the abomination that disgusts the Lord, should also disgust Christians.


    Because of Its Immodesty


    . . . women adorn themselves in MODEST apparel . . . --1 Tim. 2:9

    Clothing was instituted BY GOD (Gen. 3:21) to HINDER and PREVENT SIN—NOT to encourage it. Forgive us, but may we speak plainly? Any clothing that accents or emphasizes or exposes the woman's buttocks, breasts, crotch, or delicately formed thighs (Isa. 20:4; 47:3,4) is not only immodest but is downright sexually provocative to the lusts of sinful men. Pants on women, not only appeal to the lusts of men by emphasizing their private parts, but they also appeal to the Lesbian society, when they are placed in a masculine context.

    continued
     
  2. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bible Modesty - Part 2

    ONLY ONE TEXT CHECKS UNISEX! (Continued)


    Because It Is a Stumbling Block


    It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, NOR ANY THING whereby thy brother STUMBLETH, or is OFFENDED, or is MADE WEAK. -- Rom. 14:21

    But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a STUMBLINGBLOCK to them that are weak . . . when YE SIN so against the brethren, and WOUND their weak conscience, ye SIN AGAINST CHRIST. -- 1 Cor. 8:9-12

    Paul's attitude greatly differs from the attitude of certain brethren (and sistern), who, instead of protecting a weaker brother from stumbling, they FLAUNT their so-called liberty in front of them. The fact remains that if there is the slightest sexual provocation or wicked identification, the Christian's duty is clearly to protect the weaker brethren by abstaining from all appearance of evil and avoiding anything whereby his brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak.


    Because It Becomes a Double Standard


    What follows, after RELAXING the Christian's public dress code, is a situation where churches begin to look like burlesque shows. To WINKED AT in public (literalism not intended). All this after people have been told repeatedly not to live one way in church and another way in the world, an obvious double standard (more correctly a double-double or quadruple standard as we shall see below). Of course, the scriptures are never used to condemn women wearing pants in church services, for there are none. That is . . . unless you use the Text that also condemns the public wearing to—the ONLY Text that checks Unisex (Deuteronomy 22:5).

    Recently, a young convert related an episode to us, where a Christian woman went into a Pizza shop and found pictures of men dressed up in women's attire. The lady pitched a "righteous indignation" fit, vowing to take her business elsewhere. I commended her action, but I reminded the young convert that if she wears MEN’S clothing (pants) she is just as GUILTY. No scripture condemns weak clothing on man that does not condemn masculine clothing on women. Prohibiting one without prohibiting another is a double standard.


    Objections


    "But it is cold outside!" Wear a longer dress and heavy stockings. "But they are not in style!" Be not conformed to this world (Rom. 12:6)! "Well, how about wearing that which pertaineth unto a man underneath that which pertaineth unto a woman?" The woman shall not WEAR! "Well, you can't participate in certain sports, wearing a dress, without being immodest." Then don't participate, or wear some culottes. Be a lady! Don't replace immodest attire with an abominable attire. The woman shall not wear!

    "But the women and men all wore robes back then." Are you sure about that? How could the prohibition be understood, if that were the case? Actually, women wore vails that wrapped about their bodies (Gen. 24:65; 38:14; Ruth 3:15). Women's garments were not only distinct from men, they were distinct from each other: woman' garments (Deut. 22:5), widow's garments (Gen. 38:19), and the attire of an harlot (Prov. 7:10). Men wore breeches (Ex. 28:42; Le. 6:10) and robes (Pharisees wore long ones - Luke 20:46) or mantles or outer garments and all that pertaineth unto a man (Deut. 22:5). Moreover, only men girded up their loins (Job. 38:3; 40:7)

    "Well, my trousers have the zipper in the side, and men's trousers have the zipper in the front." (Even that has changed; we knew it would.) Imagine a man wearing a dress or skirt with the zipper in the front, and you will see the foolishness of your objection. The woman shall not wear! Neither shall a man put on! That's equal rights!


    Conclusion


    We need to quit closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Imagine a fundamentalist, who will either license or ignore scanty dress on Christian women. Then, after society degenerates another rung into mass fornication (because the salt has lost its savor), and he begins to lift up his voice like a trumpet against that fornication and even joins the fight against it. Oh, yes, there are Christians, who would insist that their scanty clothing have nothing to do with things like that and will even challenge you to prove it. Nevertheless, chickens do come home to roost, and we are ready to stand before the judgement seat of Christ with full confidence that we had nothing to do with lowering the bars. Are you? Romans 14:23

    --by Herb Evans


    Notable Quotes on Deuteronomy 22:5


    “. . .very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex . . . neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment . . . would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so commit fornication and adultery with them . . .” --John Gill

    “Sex is to be distinguished by apparel . . . the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the other is an outrage to decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in the woman, as well as levity and hypocrisy in both: and, in short, opens the door to the influx of so many evils that all who wear the dress of another sex are pronounced an abomination unto the Lord.” --Jamieson Fausset & Brown

    “The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbor’s chastity, V. 5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1 Cor. 11:14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally.” --Matthew Henry

    “May your children quit being influenced by the homosexual fashion world. May lady-likeness and red-blooded manhood return to our churches, our nation, and our world. Deuteronomy 22:5 states ‘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 an abomination to the LORD thy God.’ I believe we are the victims of brainwashing . . . Oh, how we have drifted from the faith of the founding fathers. “ --Jack Van Impe

    “In recent tears, multitudes of professing Christians have come to believe the Lord did not mean what He said in this simply stated warning . . . such matters, in the final analysis, at least for the Christian, are not appraised by opinion or argument or interpretation, but by spiritual discernment and obedience to the Spirit of God . . . Adam saw nothing wrong with eating the fruit . . . Cain saw nothing wrong with offering grain in worship. Aaron saw nothing wrong with the people dancing around a golden calf. Yet, each of these was a serious offense to the Lord and brought His strong condemnation.” --S. Frankin Logsdan, former pastor MoodyMemorialChurch
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not addressing your overall point, but the verse means abstain from evil wherever and however it appears. It does not mean to avoid appearing evil to anyone.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And THIS type of absurd "thinking" causes me to thank God daily that I understand grace and not caught in OT legalism.

    The "leap" of Deut 22:5 to "unisex" and then another leap that unisex = women wearing slacks is byond laughable. It is the worst dregs of ifbX and sickens me.

    Bro. Herb, don't you have somewhere to go to offer a bullock or tithe your mint and cummin? :BangHead:
     
  5. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    The absurd "responses" to this thinking causes me to thank God daily that I understand that we are to be a holy and separated people.

    The lack of understanding that while it is universally acceptable that men shouldn't wear dresses but it's alright for women to wear slacks is beyond laughable. It is the worst dregs of Laodicean, soft on sin but warm to licentiousness churchianity and it sickens me.

    Phenomenal post brother Herb...stick around. ;)
     
  6. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Herb!
     
  7. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 points:

    1. No one wore pants in the OT.
    2. Most of us are sinning right now...we're wearing cotton/poly shirts...that's a no-no in Leviticus.
     
  8. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Amen Dr. Bob.

    It is truly sad to see people caught in the trap of legalism.
     
  9. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    Rufus_1611, let me share with you why I feel Herb's post is not phenomenal.

    It's not that he feels that women should wear dresses all of the time.....I can deal with people who have those opinions and have dear friends who share those opinions and I would NEVER argue with them.

    It's his attitude and tone of voice that bothers me the most.

    I don't know if you understand how demeaning it is to a christian women to read posts like this from christian men, but it hurts.

    Consider his following references to women who wear slacks:
    • "sin"...."encouraging sin"......"sinning against Christ"
    • "abomination"......"moral abomination"....."abomination that disgusts the Lord"
    • "deviant"
    • "evil"...."giving the appearance of evil"
    • "tranvestism"....."so close to homosexuality"...."attractive to lesbians"
    • promotes "mass fornication"
    He concludes that scripturally speaking, women wearing jeans or slacks is in the same context as:
    • "incest"
    • "rape"
    • "adultery"
    • "apathy"
    • "laziness"
    Most of puzzling of all was his correlation between Isaiah 20:4; 47:3-4 and women's:
    • "buttocks"
    • "breasts"
    • "crotches"
    • "delicately formed thighs"
    I couldn't find anything in the bible about women's "delicately formed thighs". Isaiah 20:4 is about a particular king being naked and humiliated and Isaiah 47:3-4 is not a reference to a human being at all, but to Babylon. Babylon is referred to as a woman who is going to be degraded and humililated.

    In his list of offensive body parts of women, he, himself, has exploited a woman's worth (or worthlessness) into the sum of her body parts.

    Rufus, I am not going to argue with anyone who believes that women should always wear dresses.

    But I will be hanged if I will not address a post where the constant use of exclamation points, extra-biblical commentaries mixed with scripture, and the verbal slander of women makes me feel like trash when I read it.

    I know that was not his intent and I know that you don't feel like that, but it's how it comes across......to me, anyway.
     
    #9 Scarlett O., Dec 18, 2006
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2006
  10. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pardon me Herb, but the language you use here is as sexually provocative as the attire about which you are complaining. Reading this sentence took my mind places that it should not go. It makes me wonder what you spend your time thinking about.
     
  11. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this even Herb's work or is it copied from some place?
     
  12. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my college days, I was sick one Sunday AM. I stayed home and watched TV preachers. One preacher delivered a sermon on the sinful episode of David and Bathsheba. It was vivid and convicting! A few months later, that preacher who delivered that vivid sermon was exposed as an adulterer. His name: Jimmy Swaggart.

    In my first ministry out of college, our church had an evangelist in. He preached five nights in a row. Four of his five sermons, plus the chapel sermon he delivered in high school were about adultery and illicit sex. Within a year we heard that he had gotten caught in inapropriate circumstances with teenage girls.

    There are a few passages in scripture that deal with these issues, but not many. These need to be preached, but the subject is not a healthy one over which a pastor or preacher should obsess. For the most part, godly young women should be taught principles of modesty by godly older women. This should be done discreetly, privately, and quietly. Other than that, the less said in the pulpit about this subject, the better. The act of preaching against immodesty will provoke the male mind to unspiritual thoughts just as surely as seeing immodestly dressed women will.

    And with that, I think I've said enough!
     
  13. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hey folks, relax! I remember when I was a moderator here on BB that we had something like FOUR of these 'modesty' threads going at once!

    But when I saw this one, what went through my mind was "Here we go round the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush...."

    I agree with modesty; I disagree with the pants thing. Jeans and sweatshirts are my 'uniform' these winter days, especially when I'm out taking care of the horses. Of course, I doubt seriously that any guy would want a sweatshirt with hearts all over it that says "I'm a Country Girl", or one with sweet little cutouts of houses that show the color of your turtleneck beneath. Then there is the one that says "Whitewater Mom" as I have a daughter and son-in-law there at college...

    Now there are times when I am downtown and I can't tell if someone is a guy or a gal! That bothers me ... but these characters are so scruffy that I doubt they would tempt anyone sexually!

    I do find it totally disgusting when the bare midriff thing attracts some women who have a few inches too much midriff and it sort of relaxes itself in folds over the tops of the pants. But these things I find disgusting, not provocative.

    Provacative is often in the way a person acts and talks, almost regardless of what is being worn. There are clothes which leave little or nothing to the imagination, and that kind of immodesty is, indeed, revolting to me and to many others.

    However, all being said and done, I'd rather know a person's heart. If I can lead that person to the Lord, I trust the Holy Spirit is quite capable of convicting of sin when and where and at the timing right for that person. He has been gentle with me and I am grateful for that. Should I have been corrected of everything wrong right off the bat, there would have been nothing left of me, I'm sure.

    Let's worry more about a person's future desitination rather than their present condition.
     
  14. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Incredible that anyone would think that a woman wearing slacks is trying to dress like a man... Also incredible that the thought of women in slacks automatically sends some men into a sexual frenzy....I believe that speaks more of the man's heart condition than anything the woman is doing.

    The biblical instruction is modesty...There are certainly modest women's slacks, thus this remains a non issue except in the mind of the legalist.

    Bro Tony
     
  15. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to Dr Bob, 100%. What a ridiculous concept, Herb. Really Herb, you should go back over your posts, you left some rules out. You know, God gave us Scripture as the Living Word to know Him better. He also gave us a brain with common sense.

    Hey, now here is an idea. Herb for President and Rufus for VP on the Pharisee ticket 2008.
     
  16. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    Thank you, Helen.
     
  17. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes they did.

    See OP.
     
  18. J. Jump

    J. Jump
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    While a couple of people that I highly respect have posted on here with views that I don't happen to agree with I would say that this is eqally as disagreeable.

    We are to be holy as He is Holy, so a person's present condition (if they are saved) is EXTREMELY important. No you might not have intended for Christians to be included in that statement I don't know, but I think it is accurately reflective of the way Christianity sees its own. Everyone is okay and will be okay despite of anything and everything. Just sad.
     
  19. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    A Christian's present condition has to do with the finished work of Christ on the cross. It also has to do with grace, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our lives. It has nothing to do with being weighted down by meaningless legalism.
     
  20. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,142
    Likes Received:
    364
    Whew - I'm so glad I'm wearing women's pants and a woman's thermal top - don't want to sin, you know!!

    Oh, and don't worry, I have no butt so no butt to show off in these baggy jeans anyway. As for boobs - well, God made them and they're kind of hard to hide - even in a nice denim jumper with a turtle neck (which I DON'T wear). Right now they're covered up with a wool sweater anyway since I'm chilled. :D

    Trust me, even in my pants and top, I'm nothing provacative to look at! I don't usually dress this way but I think I have a head injury and needed to get tests and stuff done today - comfy clothes are in order for me. My usual style is like what I bought last night - a nice pair of cream slacks and a red turtleneck sweater for our Christmas party tonight. ;)

    Ann
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...