1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"Women Dressing as a Man etc." (Don't Worry, It's not what you think....)

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Daughter of the King, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. Daughter of the King

    Jul 14, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Here I've been digging into the LORD's Word and also the sort of extra-biblical sources to investigate WHAT the LORD was meaning in the sometimes controversial topic of Deuteronomy where He tells us we are an abomination to dress as the other sex

    Wellllll, I was having coffee with a friend who is a Messianic Jew the other day. We were going over my bible study on Spiritual Warfare. Do be do be do. SHE mentioned that that PARTICULAR reference in Deuteronomy is something of an idiomatic phrase.

    She didn't have a source for this, but said that the phrase was an idiom for sodomites. "Women who dressed as Men" = Lesbians. "Men who dressed as Women" = Sodomites. This was very intriguing to me and actually reminded me of my having learned a few of the Corinthian and other Pauline letters references to DOGs was a Greek idiom for Sodomites. Hmmmmm. Again, I don't have THE sources for this extra-biblical scholarly explination, but I DID think that was INTERESTING enough to share with you all. Of course, I live in the SF Bay Area, land of Sodom and Gomorrah, so I am PARTICULARLY intrigued by such studies.

    God bless!

  2. Elnora

    Elnora New Member

    Jan 4, 2001
    Likes Received:
    I have a Jewish friend who is a Baptist, leaning toward a Messianic church. His parents are from Israel, if I remember right he was born there also and still has close ties to family there. He knows a lot of the culture, history and graduated bible college. I haven't contacted him for some time but if you would like, I can try to see if he can help point me to some resources for you.
  3. donnA

    donnA New Member

    Aug 10, 2000
    Likes Received:
    So once again you are calling those of us who wear pants lesbians.
    Can't you just use scripture, we gave you every listing in the bible for breeches, read them soometimes instead if always turning to someone or something else, use a lexicon to learn hebrew and greek word meanings.
    And stop insulting us by calling us lesbians. If thats the best you can do it's plain pitful.
  4. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia Guest

    Don't worry it's not what you think? But... We're Lesbians again?

    Ug... Not again! :( :( :( :( :(

    And Jesus wore a long robe, as did his disciples. Their clothing was almost identical to the womens clothing.......

    I'm so sick of this 'wear pants = Lesbian' mentality. What Jesus did for me on Calvary is much more powerful than any blue jeans vs dresses debate.

  5. Dina

    Dina New Member

    Nov 3, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Funny, Wearing jeans has NEVER made me feel attracted to a woman. [​IMG]
  6. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia Guest

    LOL.. Not tonight honey! I wore JEANS today!
  7. donnA

    donnA New Member

    Aug 10, 2000
    Likes Received:
    ROTFL! [​IMG]
  8. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia Guest

    Yeah... all this time I thought 'they' were trying to say it was in their genes but now I find out they meant it's our JEANS!

    Calling Dr. Bob, Oh Dr. Bob!
  9. Elnora

    Elnora New Member

    Jan 4, 2001
    Likes Received:
    I ask my friend a very wise Baptist/Messianic Jew about this seperately. He gave very wise replies. So I decided to share them before waiting for a reply. First on the meaning of dog.

    He replied:

    Hebrew word in question is "goy."
    Like all Hebew words, it has a cluster of meanings. In this case, the
    literal meaning is "nation." The implied meaning is "anyone who is not a
    Jew." Then there's the subtle dig. The word can also mean "dog," meaning of
    course, that everyone who is not a Jew is a dog. In Middle Eastern cultures,
    dogs are the lowest of animals. They are unclean and a nuisance. So, the
    implication goes, are goyim. Jesus uses this train of thought in the
    oft-misunderstood episode where the Samaritan woman asks for healing and he
    replies that it is not fit to take the children's food and give it to the
    dogs. She understands that the gospel is for the Jews first but also that
    the goyim will have their day. Hence her reply that even the dogs can dine
    off the crumbs from the children's table. Jesus is pleased with the depth of
    her understanding and heals her.

    Now, I suspect that the first reaction of most non-Jews and many Jews as
    well would be horror and offense. Even in the Hebrew language, Jews are
    chosen and non-Jews are dogs. What racism! You don't have to look far in the
    New Testament (particularly Acts) to see this tension played out over and
    over again. But look to the parable of the Prodigal Son. Both Jews (the
    clean older brother) and goyim (the filthy younger brother) are children of
    the Father. Both were born to be his sons. The difference between them is
    not genetics but position. One is near and the other far. It is not genetics
    that makes the goyim dogs. It is their separation from the Father. When they
    return, he runs out to greet them, dresses them in the finest robes, and
    slaughters the fattened calf for them. God the Father loves goyim just as
    much as he loves Jews.

    The end of the parable is also important. The older brother is jealous
    because he had considered himself superior to the younger for many years.
    During those years, he had stayed by his father's side and done his father's
    bidding (or so he thought anyway) but, in the end, his filthy younger
    brother gets the honor that he considers his exclusive birthright. He has no
    understanding of grace. If he does not understand his brother's salvation,
    then he cannot understand his own. In the same way, many First Century Jews
    rejected the gospel precisely because it provided an easy way into the
    Kingdom for the goyim. They just couldn't bear the humiliation of sharing
    with the dogs.

    Now I ask the Greek but his answer says Hebrew. So I am assuming it is the same meaning since the new testament is in harmony with the old.

    I ask specifically about dress women's vs. mens clothes. He replied:

    You might find Acts chapter 15 helpful. It covers the First Jerusalem
    Council where the Church struggles with the issue of whether a man first had
    to become Jewish and obey the Law of Moses in order to become a Christian.

    There is an element of Messianic Judaism which, it seems to me, is bent on
    turning non-Jewish Christians into Jews. This is exactly what the first
    century Judaizers were trying to do. In Acts 15, we see the Apostles dealing
    with the issue decisively. It also seems to me that St. Paul (aka Rabbi
    Saul) wrote his epistle to the Galatians to deal with precisely the same
    problem. I think the tone of that particular letter speaks volumes about his
    feelings on the subject. Judaizing upset him to no end because it was an
    ungodly addition to the Gospel.

    I observe the Hebrew calendar and keep kosher as a testimony to the world
    that God has faithfully preserved the offspring of Jacob as a pecular people
    for himself, despite innumerable attempts by various nations to destroy us.
    This observance does not save me. In fact, it is not about me at all. It is
    all about proclaiming God's faithfulness to the nations. My salvation is by
    grace through faith. Certainly, my salvation manifests itself in obedience,
    but my obedience is not to the 613 laws of Moses per se. Romans 7:1-4 tell
    me that the Law of Moses is eternal and binds me as long as I live, but I
    have died and been resurrected with Christ and am therefore freed from the
    Law of Moses which was but a shadow so that I might obey the Living Word.
    The Gospel freed me from the shadows so I might obey the light. Or to put it
    another way, Jesus broke the chains that bound me to one master so I might
    be free to follow another.

    Many Christians find this liberty disconcerting. They have difficulties
    following the Holy Spirit and feel the need to grab hold of something that
    feels more solid. This leads them back to the Law of Moses which can give
    them some understanding of God's will but can also lead them back into
    bondage if they are not careful. I think such Christians are Paul's "weaker
    bretheren" in Romans 14. Note that in that chapter, Paul does not condemn
    these weaker brethern. If they feel the need to obey the letter of the law
    at this stage in their walk, that's OK. Sometimes training wheels are
    helpful and older, more mature Christians shouldn't trouble them. But at the
    same time, we need to remember that the need to hold on to the written law
    is a sign of spiritual weakness, not one of strength. Those who attempt to
    use the law to lord over others are adding to the gospel and need to be
    corrected before they cause others to stumble.

    I hope I'm on the right track this time and have addressed your real
    question. I don't think the issue of how to interpret Moses's commandment
    against cross dressing is nearly as important as the issue of the
    Christian's proper relationship to the entire Law. St. Paul says over and
    over again that the Law is just and holy and good but that it can only
    condemn us and sentence us to death. It cannot save us. Your salvation is by
    grace through faith. Please don't let anyone trouble you by tacking
    requirements and conditions on to the Gospel.

    I don't know anyone who perfectly keeps all 613 commandments of Moses.
    Trying to do so is a fool's errand. As for me, I will cling to Christ.

    I hope that helps.

    Please take some time to ponder the things he said. I feel there are some very important points he made at considerable cost of his time to reply to me, so please take a little time to consider what he said. I believe we can all learn somethng here.
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator

    Jun 30, 2000
    Likes Received:
    I am here, listening to the discussion (and first time posting on a "women's" forum).

    Closing this thread immediately. There is NO TRUTH to that line of "women dressed as men" = lesbian. Or sodomite. It is a perversion by a legalistic few trying to twist Scripture to support their own position.

    To say a woman wearing slacks is a lesbian is vile and and evil. The real SIN here is on the pseudo-pious" women trying to libel others.