Woman wearing pants = spirit of sodomy

Jesus warned us that at the end of the world it would be like Sodom and Gomorrah. See Luke’s Gospel ch. 17 verses 28-30. Sodom and Gomorrah were two ancient cities which practiced sodomy (homosexuality, same-sex, “gay” stuff). Because of their evil, God destroyed them by fire. Jesus said the same would happen to the world at the end time. That’s why sodomy is being promoted right now by the wicked ones who control modern society. That sodomite, evil, spirit works on Christians and tries to get them involved in perversion so they too will come under judgment. As always, Satan first tries to get a spirit of evil to work on the people, then later he moves in stronger to get the person to practice the evil. In the case of sodomy, Satan first tries to get the person, especially Christian people, to get “in the spirit” of sodomy. You get “in the spirit” of a thing by ACTING LIKE, or ADMIRING, or TOLERATING that thing. So today, one of Satan’s main techniques is to get Christians to ACT in a sodomite spirit, by DRESSING in a way that confuses or merges the sexual roles of male and female. If Satan gets you to do that, he has already succeeded in putting on you a sodomite (uni-sex, perverted) spirit, then it won’t be long before you, or people in your company, will be affected more by that spirit, and go on to practice sodomy. Often, as Jesus said to His disciples, people ARE UNAWARE OF THE SPIRIT THAT IS WORKING ON THEM. See Luke’s Gospel ch. 9 verse 55.

So I want to let you know one of the main forms of Satan’s working right now. That is on women who wear man’s clothing. The Bible condemns this practice, and calls it an ABOMINATION. Abominations means “absolute filth”. The Bible says trousers or pants are MEN’S CLOTHING, because they are “sanctuary garments” to be worn by priests only. Only males can be priests in the Bible AND ALL MALE TRUE BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN MALES ARE PRIESTS over their households. When a woman puts on pants she is usurping the male role of priest, and GOD HOLDS HER GUILTY OF SODOMY. To read more on this and get the quotes from the Holy Bible which tell you these things, right-click and “Save As …” to download the little tract from this link.

Posted in Featured, Holy Living and tagged , , .


  1. They didn’t even have trousers or pants in biblical times. They wore robes and albs. you’ve got to be kidding me if you think otherwise.

  2. Thanks for the comment Rev.
    You are mistaken on the main point: THEY DID HAVE PANTS/TROUSERS IN BIBLICAL TIMES. Please read thoroughly the tract linked at the end of the post “Woman wearing pants = spirit of sodomy”. It gives you all the Biblical detail there. The Bible word for pants/trousers is (Hebrew) MIKNESAYIM. You will see from the tract that these are designated by God Himself “sanctuary garments” to be worn only by priests. Since the Old Testament sanctuary was in every way modeled on the true Heavenly (New Testament) Sanctuary seen by Moses in vision on Mount Sinai, we see that the true spiritual Sanctuary in heaven only dresses priests in trousers. Women cannot be priests. Women are STONES in God’s heavenly sanctuary NOT PRIESTS within it. In Bible Protestantism it is the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL MALE BELIEVERS. Only male born-again believers are priests and only they can wear priest’s clothing, namely trousers. Blessed are they who do ALL that is written in the Bible that they may have access to the Tree of Life. If after you read the tract you have any Scriptural questions or comments on detailed Bible points referred to there, I will be more than willing to discuss it with you. On another point: of course it is OK for males or females to wear robes, as robes are not classed either “male” or “female” clothing by God Himself in the Bible.

  3. Amen to that a true revelation thanku for enlighting my soul and thank the good lord for truth0and the holyghost and those precious stones n the church as well as the godly men that are chosen

  4. “Only male born-again believers are priests and only they can wear priest’s clothing, namely trousers.”
    See Revelation 1:6.

    [The rest of this comment now appears under the Blog post “Sodomy promoted by Obama”]

  5. You have quoted Rev. 1. 6 which says God has made us kings and priests. That is what this Blog post is saying. God has made us KINGS AND PRIESTS. Note: — NOT “queens and priestesses”. Only male believers are referred to here — they are kings (male) and priests (male). The woman is included if she is, as a Christian female should be, under the headship of a Christian male believer (that is, under a “king and priest”). Read the tract linked at the end of the Blog Post (above) and you will see full Bible facts about this there.

  6. “Jesus said we are neither greek nor Jew, nor slave or free, nor man nor woman no more.”

    It is not what we wear-that makes us evil–but what comes from the heart ….

    [The rest of this comment has been put under an appropriate blog post “Beware of “Right-Wing” Vaticanites and World-Coonies”]

  7. You say: “Jesus said we are neither greek nor Jew, nor slave or free, nor man nor woman no more.” But you have MISQUOTED the Scripture, by MISSING OUT important words. Jesus says we must not add or take away A SINGLE WORD from the Scriptures — Revelation 22:18-19: “18 For I [Jesus] testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

    The Bible verses you misquote actually read as follows:

    Galatians 3:26-28:

    “26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
    27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Here it says in verse 28 “there is neither male nor female … FOR [= BECAUSE] ye are all one IN CHRIST JESUS” and this is confirmed in verse 27 which says this state ONLY APPLIES TO AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST AND HAVE PUT ON CHRIST. The word “put on” in Greek is “clothed with” — here Christians are “clothed with” the Spirit of Christ, as it says in Luke 24:29 “49 And, behold, I [Jesus] send the promise of my Father [that is, the Holy Spirit, see Acts 1:4-8] upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued [in Greek = “clothed”] with power from on high.” To be a fully born-again Christian, a person MUST HAVE THIS HOLY SPIRIT — Romans 8:9 “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” After believing in Jesus a true Christian must be baptized into the Spirit of Jesus — just as if he or she was baptized or immersed in a bath of water — or, as it also describes this experience, the believer must “put on” the Spirit of Jesus like clothes. This is a SPIRITUAL CLOTHING all over and around the believer, just as if all the male and female believers PUT ON A WHITE SHINING ROBE OVER THEIR PRESENT CLOTHES. Now, on the “top layer”, meaning “in the Spirit”, they ARE ALL ONE, THE SAME, they all have a white shining spiritual robe on, but underneath they are all still different. So there is neither MALE NOR FEMALE in the Spirit, but in the body (underneath the Spirit) there still IS MALE AND FEMALE. Not only that, the same passage in Romans quoted above, goes on to say that if we have the Spirit of Christ (as all true believers must), and if we live every day in that Spirit, then WE WILL MORTIFY (= KILL, ANNIHILATE) the deeds of the body — Romans 8: 13 “13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” What are the works of the fleshly body? The Bible says — Galatians 5:19-21: “19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” You can see here works of the fleshly body include “fornication” and “uncleanness” which are the Biblical words used to describe SEXUAL IMMORALITY OF ANY KIND AND IMPURE SEXUAL PRACTICES. The Bible describes cross-dressing, or putting on clothing of the opposite sex (which includes a female wearing pants or trousers) as MORAL FILTH (ABOMINATION). See the tract linked at the bottom of the Blog post “Woman wearing pants = spirit of sodomy” for details.

    So yes, IN THE SPIRIT, IN CHRIST, there is neither male nor female, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN DO ANYTHING WE LIKE IN OUR PHYSICAL BODY AND GET BY WITH IT. We must act decently, morally (BY GOD’S DEFINITION OF THAT WORD), with our physical bodies if we claim to have the Spirit of Christ. Proper moral behavior, by God’s definition, INCLUDES NO CROSS-DRESSING, AND NO WEARING OF THE OPPOSITE SEX’S CLOTHING.

  8. As always we are debating…

    The christian fundamentals must be kept, but trivial things like wearing a pair of pants is an unprofitable thing to dispute.

    I would say to everyone, “Let the owner of this blog believe that a woman cannot wear a pair of pants if he wants to believe it”.

    Believe in Christ, build His Church, and do not let Satan distract you into arguing about these obscure doctrines. The bible is supposed to edify us, not to put us into a debate class.

  9. You say the “CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALS MUST BE KEPT”. I say Amen! And what is THE fundamental?? BELIEVE THE BIBLE, THE WORD OF GOD. If you dump the Word of God on any point, you are dumping Jesus Christ because He is the Word. That’s where Eve fell and brought the whole world into condemnation and death. She disbelieved ONE WORD. She accepted Satan’s false interpretation. You won’t get back to Paradise by doing exactly the same thing as she did.

    Notice Jesus said about the end-time: “Remember Lot’s wife”!!! Yes, she was given one little command “Don’t look back”. Now you could say, “What’s looking back got to do with the great fundamentals, like salvation, faith, predestination etc. etc.???” But GOD SAID, “don’t look back”!!! That’s it — BELIEVE WHAT GOD SAYS, NO MATTER HOW SMALL A WORD IT IS. And Jesus said to us in this last time: “Remember that!” Now if your wife wants to look back to Sodomite, unisex, culture of this world, and wear pants, and you say “That’s ok, that’s fine with me, what’s that got to do with the great fundamentals?” Then the result will be the same, your wife will perish for disbelieving one Word, and you will perish for encouraging it.

  10. So, by your reading of scripture most women are disobedient, doomed and will be thrown into the fiery pit because they wear slacks?

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Not a single human being can meet all the literal demands of scripture. That was why Jesus came. Humans will always be sinners no matter how much they try to obey.

    Judge not, lest ye be judged.
    It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that condemns him, but what comes out. The condition of our innermost hearts, something only God can know, is what will ultimately be judged.

    Thanks for your website.

  11. Not by my “reading of scripture most women are disobedient etc.” By my reading of Scripture ALL WOMEN AND MEN ARE DISOBEDIENT AND DOOMED TO HELL UNLESS THEY RECEIVE FORGIVENESS AND MERCY BY BELIEVING IN JESUS CHRIST. Notice BELIEVING IN CHRIST, and Christ IS the Word. Believe the Word and you will be saved, disbelieve even A SINGLE WORD, like Eve believed the Serpent’s twisted interpretation of God’s Word AND YOU WILL DIE SPIRITUALLY AS WELL AS PHYSICALLY. So when God says, as He does, that IT IS ABOMINATION FOR A WOMAN TO WEAR UPON HER PERSON GARMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE PERTAINING TO A MAN, then a real believing, born-again Christian BELIEVES GOD’S WORD and gets as far away as possible from such an abomination. A true Christian does not want to displease his or her Heavenly Father in anything. If a person claims to have “faith” and then does not produce “works”, then that person’s faith is not real. That is what the Bible says: James Chapter 2 verses 15 and following:

    15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
    16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
    17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
    18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
    19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
    20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

    Notice what God says: if a person IS NAKED and a Christian does nothing to help clothe that person then that Christian’s “faith” IS VAIN. Their faith is no different from the Devil’s “faith”. The Devil believes (now) that Jesus is the Son of God. He believes it more than most so-called Christians believe it, because he can see and experience the judgmental power of Christ, but the Devil still remains wicked: he believes Christ exists but he hates Him and does everything contrary to the will of Christ. So just intellectually believing does you no good — you’re no better yet than the Devil. You’ve got to PRACTICE your faith. See how God says in James that if you see your fellow-man (or woman) NAKED than a real believing Christian will clothe that naked one. This is usually taken to apply, as truly it does also, to destitute people who should be provided with clothes: however, the Bible word NAKED means, not totally without clothing, but “not PROPERLY clothed” as you can see, for example by Job 22. 6: ” 6 For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.” Now the Bible says of the last Laodicean Church in Revelation 3. 17 that it said it was rich and needed nothing, but it was actually NAKED and didn’t know it. That church was NOT PROPERLY CLOTHED. That is how the so-called Church is today, rich, but NOT PROPERLY CLOTHED. Jesus said He would spew that Church out of His mouth, it made Him sick. So is Jesus today sick of this sin-sick Sodomite mealy-mouthed modern so-called Church. Now I am not judging you or anyone — the Word will and does judge you if you refuse to believe It, or if you say you believe It but don’t do what It says: John’s Gospel 12. 48: ” 48 He that rejecteth me [Christ], and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” If you have a fornicating spirit in your heart it will come out in your Sodomite deeds, like, if you’re a woman, wearing clothes that pertain to a man.

  12. [The first part of this comment is under the appropriate Blog post “Sodomy promoted by Obama”] Is there any room in your theology for mercy or practicality? Some women need to wear pants for work or chores. When I am using a snow blower or driving a tractor, I am not going to wear a dress. That would just be silly and unsafe and I think God understands that. And please don’t say women shouldn’t do things that require pants because these activities are not feminine. The old testament does not explicitly address snow blowers. And my family benefits by my capacity to do things other than the traditional pre-industrial female domestic arts. A woman can give birth, nurse a baby, can vegetables, run a chainsaw, stack wood, and lots of other things without having a spirit of sodomy on her.

  13. Thank you for your attention to this widely-rejected revelation of Christian female modesty. But your excuses don’t hold Biblical water. As any Bible Dictionary will tell you “The long outer robes needed girding up around the waist, when active work was needed; hence, metaphorically (1 Pet. 1:13), “gird up the loins of’ your mind.” Workers, pilgrims, runners, wrestlers, warriors, typify the Christian; they all needed girding. So Israel at the Passover (Exo. 12:11, compare Luke 12:35). The feet were covered in reverence of the presence of a king (Isa. 6:2).” This was all done with the Biblical outer garment, a robe, not with trousers which were Sanctuary Garments only worn by the priest. So when you use your snow blower or clamber up onto your tractor, or grapple with your chainsaw (you sound as though you need a real born-again husband!) gird up your loins. Oh and if you think the cold changes that read Jeremiah 43. 12 which tells you the Israelite shepherd wrapped himself in his long outer robe to do his job — and an ancient shepherd’s job was much harder, colder and dirtier than anything you’ll be doing with your snug modern tractor or mechanized snow-blower.

  14. i am really loving the debate, though if i am asked my opinion i believe that women should not wear trousers though it makes them look cute, but i am still of the opinion that the wearing of trousers/pants by the female folks should really be arrested.

  15. This is a good discussion, I think for me outside the Word of God and the Spirit which convicts, I was totally amazed when watching ‘Joan of Arc”; that the first thing her “spirit guides” told her to do was cut her hair and put on pants.

    If you look up which “catholic saints” were speaking to Joan through their feast days and connect that with the demonic feast day, you come up with a very powerful connection between Joan and the real demons she was conversing with. These same warring demons attack women today to lay down their spiritual weapons of modest dress and tempt them to cut their hair(which dishonours their heads and weakens them spiritually)this is no samll topic for women and they are deep spiritual truths and weapons, which is why some can’t accept them.
    I pray the Lord opens their understanding.

  16. Thank you sister for your observation that the first thing the Devil tries to do is get women to cut their hair and put on pants instead of decent, modest, women’s apparel. That is certainly true. I’d just like to exhort you on one important point where you have been misled without realizing it. That is on Joan of Arc. Unwittingly, you have believed the accounts of Joan spread around by the Vatican, based on her “trial” records. Please be aware, my Sister, that you CANNOT rely on any trial record from the Middle Ages (or from today, for that matter), when it is written by the Inquisition and Vatican stooges. The earliest picture we have of Joan of Arc shows her wearing a dress and with long hair! The Vatican cultists claimed she was wearing man’s clothing because she wore a little bit of protection to fend off the weapons on the battle-field. That was always a lie. Also the only non-manipulated historical records of Joan say she was a Beguin (which meant a Waldensian, a true, Spirit-filled Bible-believer) and that she was against the Vatican cult. That’s why they arrested and burnt her. In the trial-records they made her Spirit-inspired visions look dodgy by calling them “voices”. They also lied in the trial records about her “recanting” then changing back again to her “errors” just before she was burned. This was a favorite trick with the Inquisitors. Because the ordinary people admired the bravery of the martyred saints, the Vaticanites subverted their wonderful pure testimonies by claiming they had “recanted” in prison. That made them look unstable, and changeable. Of course, no-one was able to talk to them personally in prison except Vaticanite guards, so nobody could tell whether they had really “recanted” or not. Then, since the Vaticanites were going to burn them, they had to claim that the martyr or martyrs had “changed back again to their errors”, so “unfortunately” they would have to burn them! They did this with a famous martyr in England, a Lord of the realm, just a short time before Joan of Arc was murdered. It was a common trick. So, as you can see, you shouldn’t believe the trial records of the Dark Age martyrs. They are thoroughly doctored.

    The fact is that at the time of Joan of Arc the Vaticanite King of England, a great persecutor of Bible-believers, who had martyred hundreds of them in England, was aiming to take over France and do the same there, because Waldensian Bible-believers were beginning to spread through France. There was a big dispute at the time over which branch of the royal house, the English branch or the French branch, should rule the whole territory of England and France (they counted as one big domain). The Vatican put the King of England up to do this and financed him. He began very successfully, winning the Battle of Agincourt by dirty tactics, and was about to take over the whole country, as the king of France was weak politically and militarily. It looked like doom for all Bible-believers in France. Then God did a miracle! He sent His angel down to a little girl, about 11 or 12 years of age, playing with her dolls in the field. He said, I’m going to drive the English out of France using you! HE DID IT! Can you imagine, the most powerful fighters of all time, great hefty knights in full armor (you had to be a mighty man even to wear the heavy armor, let alone fight on horseback with it), DEFEATED BY A LITTLE GIRL. God knows how to do it. She went to the king of France and said, if your knights follow me into battle Jesus will give you victory! The weak king of France didn’t believe her at first, but then a prophecy she gave turned out true, so he let her ride in front of his army with a banner reading JESUS (no weapons!). She was the first to run up to the walls of Orleans and clamber up them with all the English knights firing at her. They couldn’t kill her. The French took the city back from the English. The English had to do something to stop her as she now became famous. Sick were healed when she prayed for them. The dead were raised to life. So they called her a witch. They finally captured her and tried her in their kangaroo court, and burned her as a witch. As she was being burned, crying out for mercy (the poor little creature), the roaring flames were stirred by the wind and formed with blazing tongues of fire the name JESUS! Her soul soared up to heaven. It looked as though evil had triumphed. But it was too late for the English, the French had got emboldened because of her. The French drove the English out of Paris and set up the independent Kingdom of France. Without Jesus’ sending little Joan of Arc it would not have been possible. The persecuting Vaticanite English would have crushed the whole country under the heel of the Pope. So you can see, the truth is Joan of Arc was a Pentecostal, Spirit-filled, saint of God. Later, the Vatican wanted to curry favor with the victorious French. Obviously they couldn’t get the French to stop praising Joan of Arc, so instead they changed their tack, brought out doctored trial records in which they claimed Joan had “admitted the Lordship of the Pope” etc. etc., so she could now be recognized by the Vatican as one of their “saints”! Later they even dug up the bones of the people who put her on trial and threw them in the river as a “penance” for the “mistake”. What a set of twisting little cultists! They did the same with Patrick of Ireland. Patrick was a protestor of the Pope! He had nothing to do with their evil little cult. The Irish were converted through his God-inspired ministry, and so again, much later, when the Vatican wanted to “get in” with the Irish, they switched their tune, and claimed Patrick was one of Rome’s “saints”. People still believe that lie today, like the lie that Peter preached in Rome and founded the Roman cult. Don’t fall for Roman lies.

  17. So funny, I used to be with UPC and we were taught the same thing. Then I started to study the Bible with History and customs of that time and found the many errors in UPC teaching. Show us where in the bible it says “Women in pants is a spirit of sodomy” you can’t. Also you are incorrect about pants. What the priest wore under their robes were breeches similar to boxer shorts. The priest not all men. I have read your other post and you do have a zeal but not according to knowledge.

  18. “History” and “customs of that time” has got nothing to do with it — stick to the Bible. On the UPC — thank God for those brothers and sisters of the United Pentecostal Church who stood up for the Name of Jesus Christ. In love to them and to all, I exhort to use the Scriptural baptism words: I baptize you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST” or “in the Name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST” — because some wrongly just baptize “in the Name of Jesus” and there are many Jesuses, Jesus is a common name, for example in South American countries. We need to know “Which Jesus?” — it is the “Lord Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” or better “The Lord Jesus Christ” (“Lord” = Father, “Jesus” = Son, “Christ” = Anointed with the Holy Ghost) — all these are Scriptural. PS: Anyone baptized in the Titles “Father Son and Holy Ghost” needs to get REBAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST otherwise he or she HAS NEVER BEEN BAPTIZED IN CHRISTIAN BAPTISM (Read Acts 19. 1-5). You say: “Show us where in the bible it says “Women in pants is a spirit of sodomy” you can’t.” Well you show me in the Bible where It says “A Christian should act right” — you can’t, USING THOSE WORDS, It just uses different words. That’s what Jesus sent preachers for — to explain in other words understandable to all what the Bible says. You say: “what the priests wore were breeches” — yes, but breeches are the same as trousers, you should go to the link noted in “Women wearing pants = spirit of Sodomy” as there you will find a tract giving ALL THE DETAILED SCRIPTURES ETC. If, AFTER READING THAT, you have any problems please comment again, with DETAILED Scriptural points, not just wild or unfocused accusations, and by the help of God I’ll reply to you. You say: “this wearing of breeches only applied to priests not all men” — again go to the tract linked at the post, and you will find that the Bible treats ALL CHRISTIAN MALES AS PRIESTS. The Bible teaches THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL (MALE) BELIEVERS — NOT OF FEMALES. Remember the Old Covenant or Old Testament priests’ garments WERE ALL MODELED ON THOSE MOSES SAW IN THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE — THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE IN HEAVEN WHICH IS WHERE WE CHRISTIAN MALES SERVE AS PRIESTS. Therefore the clothing of the priests IS OUR CHRISTIAN MALE CLOTHING TODAY. God doesn’t change.

    To make it easier for you in case you can’t be bothered to go back to the original post to get the link: here it is again —

    “To read more on this and get the quotes from the Holy Bible which tell you these things, right-click and “Save As …” to download the little tract from this link. If you’re using a downloader the link is http://christianhospitality.org/resources/clothes.pdf

  19. Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

    Breeches – mik-nawce’
    From H3647 in the sense of hiding; (only in dual) drawers (from concealing the private parts): – breeches.

    Priest – ko-hane’
    Active participle of H3547; literally one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman): – chief ruler, X own, priest, prince, principal officer.

    Not until the New Testament were we all called Priest. In The Old Testament the Levites were the priest.

    Php 1:27 Now, the important thing is that your way of life should be as the gospel of Christ requires, so that, whether or not I am able to go and see you, I will hear that you are standing firm with one common purpose and that with only one desire you are fighting together for the faith of the gospel. GNB

    This is one of many scriptures on Christian Behavior. “women in pants” as the spirit of sodomy is not even alluded to in scripture.

    Your tract is one of many that extremist have produced. I cannot show you the error of your learning unless you truly want to know truth.

    NO biblical scholar or theologian uses the bible only to study scripture but uses both history and customs to understand.

    Moreover, this is your blog. You can tell people whatever you wish. It is their responsibility to study, not just take the word of a stranger.

  20. Thank you for your attempt to answer some of the Scriptural points made in the post “Woman wearing pants = spirit of Sodomy”. The four quotes you give — 2 from the Bible and 2 from dictionaries — all go to prove the points I made in my previous reply. You seem to be trying to make a difference between “breeches” and “trousers” but the Hebrew word miknesayim means both: according to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 1980 this means: “Trousers or drawers (for priests) (KJV, ASV, RSV render similarly, breeches). This noun occurs only in the dual (miknesayim) [meaning it denotes an object with two parts, in this case two leg-sections]. It is found five times in Exodus and Leviticus and once in Ezekiel 44:18. Trousers were ordered by God in the interests of decorum, and were made of linen to absorb perspiration.” I would recommend using a more precise Hebrew dictionary like the above rather than quote a popular dictionary like Strong’s (which is what you used) as this does not aim to give the technical and precise definitions. The Bible describes the trousers of the priest as reaching down to and covering the thighs. This was necessary for priests then and still is now, as otherwise, as you will see from the Bible quote, “nakedness” will result. That means “shorts” as commonly worn by “men” in public these days is OUT BY THE BIBLE. They reveal “nakedness”, because they are loose around the thighs. “Nakedness” in the Bible means “not being properly dressed” (according to the Bible definition) not “totally without clothes”. Note the Bible word “priest” means also “acting priest (although a layman)” even in the Old Testament. That is correct. You are wrong when you make the statement that only Levites were priests. You will see in the Book of Exodus and also in Genesis there were priests before the Law of Moses was given. These were not Levites. One of them was Melchizedek in Genesis 14. Also under the Law priests in Israel were not Levites they were Levites of the family of Aaron only. The important thing to remember is that under the New Covenant or New Testament of Jesus ALL MALE BELIEVERS ARE PRIESTS — it is the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL MALE BELIEVERS. Our Sanctuary is the Heavenly Sanctuary which Moses saw in vision and which he copied on earth in the Tabernacle for Israel. (Read the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament to get the facts on that.) That means Moses copied the priests’ clothing in the Tabernacle FROM THE HEAVENLY PRIESTS CLOTHING (that’s US IN HEAVEN!). That’s why PRIESTS (MALE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST) wear trousers/breeches because Jesus prayed “Thy (God’s) will be done IN EARTH AS IN HEAVEN”. Again read the tract I linked to for all the details. Women believers in Jesus are NOT PRIESTS, they are STONES IN THE TEMPLE BUT NOT PRIESTS SERVING IN IT. When God commanded women not to wear garments pertaining to a man He was talking of the Heavenly Sanctuary males since the whole Law was copied by Moses from the heavenly pattern shown to him on Mount Sinai. Males (all males) in the heavenly sanctuary are priests, therefore their garments are the “male” garments God was talking about, including TROUSERS/BREECHES.

    Finally your quote from the Bible on Christian behavior (though using a Vatican-infected version, the “Good News Bible” which does not use the God-inspired Received Text) proves my point. I said you can’t find anywhere in the Bible which says “Christians should act right” but you will find the same thing just in different words. Precisely. That is what you’ve done — you just found a Scripture which said it IN DIFFERENT WORDS. Just so, the exact words “Woman wearing pants = spirit of Sodomy” do not occur in the Bible, but ALL OVER THE BIBLE IN DIFFERENT WORDS THAT MESSAGE IS LOUD AND CLEAR.

    PS: God REJECTS theologians and scholars of the world. He said “I will DESTROY the wisdom of the wise”. The Bible says “if any man speak LET HIM SPEAK AS THE ORACLES [= THE WORD] OF GOD”. You will find most of the WORST devil-possessed insane people are intellectual, highly educated. Look at how many fine cultured Muslim terrorists come out of an intellectual background, and then go and, like their father the Devil, run out and blow innocent men women and children to pieces. As it happens you will find ALL THE HISTORY AND ANCIENT CUSTOMS CONFIRM THE FACTS PREACHED IN THE TRACT AND THE THINGS SAID IN THIS POST. Trousers were ALWAYS men’s garments. The eastern custom of wearing male pants came from Semiramis a wicked queen of Babylon who had herself worshiped as a god and dressed like a man.

  21. I Know the arguments better than you. I came out of the same groups you are in went to their Bible schools and taught the say lies. Only God can change you at this point. Your definitions are twisted and that is what oneness are famous for. I have asked God to forgive my ignorance. Please be more truthful and ask God to give the proper understanding. It’s all about Jesus not this attempt to be more spiritual. It didn’t work for the pharisees and it will not work for you. The ref. I use are acceptable to oneness until it says something you don’t like. Also, All of your ref. were compiled by Trinitarians who you believe are of the devil.

  22. You seem very bitter — it looks as though your move to Trinitarianism didn’t bring you closer to God, but into a cold and unforgiving spirit. You have clearly lost the argument as you are now resorting to shooting the messenger because you can’t beat the message. Your name-calling is not befitting a Christian: you accuse me of being a “liar” “twisted” “lacking understanding” “needing to be truthful” “being a pharisee” “believing Trinitarians are of the devil” — that’s all within a 6-line posting. If you claim to be a Christian get the Bible out and show IN DETAIL where what is taught here is wrong. If you can’t do that, shut up — as the Bible says: (Proverbs 17. 28) “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding”. You should realize I’m not “oneness” “trinity” or any other sect, I’m “Jesus Bible”. Trinitarians are not necessarily “of the devil” but Trinitarianism certainly IS OF THE DEVIL. There is no such word as Trinity or Trinity doctrine anywhere in the Bible. God is ONE IN PERSON, not “three persons”. There is ONLY ONE GOD AND THAT IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. He is both God and the Son of God. He is both perfect God and perfect Man. He has a Divine Nature and a Human Nature. Anyone who believes God is “Three separate persons” has a schizophrenic God. The One God, Jehovah, the Creator, the Almighty was made flesh and “tabernacled” amongst us in the form of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That’s Bible teaching. Read Hebrews 1. 3 to understand the Hebrews One in Three. The ONE PERSON is God the Father and the Son IS THE EXPRESS IMAGE OF THAT PERSON. If you see an image of me, you say “that’s Brother Richard”. And that’s right. Strictly speaking it’s an image of me. Likewise when we see Jesus Christ, we say “That’s God” and that’s right. Strictly speaking it’s the IMAGE OF GOD, otherwise known as THE SON OF GOD. That’s so simple a child can understand it. The Trinity dogma was hatched up by the Roman “Catholic” Cult and causes spiritual death wherever it is accepted. When spiritual death strikes, righteousness and holiness go out the window too and that’s why the mainline Trinitarian cults totally lack holiness, including modest dressing, moral decency etc. etc.

  23. what about scottish men who wear kilts lol,and polynesian men who wear dress like attire.

  24. Scottish kilts come from the pagan Roman soldier’s skirt-like tunics (which, actually, were often worn with trousers underneath), likewise Polynesian pagan dress was skirt-like in appearance. Both these are of pagan origin. We are talking about Christian, non-pagan, dress. God’s dress is holy, not pagan, so if you want to be filled with a pagan spirit of the Devil, continue on in your pagan dressing, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

  25. This is so silly. You are INSANE if you think that Jesus cares if women wear pants or not. Foolish legalistic arguments like this do not encourage any unbelievers to want to know Jesus better, it just makes them think Christians are crazy people to be avoided at all costs.

  26. Your email name suits you: “Bratmaiden”. I advise you to grow up (spiritually). Obviously, YOU have decided what God likes and what God doesn’t like. You have PUT YOURSELF IN THE PLACE OF GOD, which is exactly what Lucifer tried to do (Isaiah chapter 14). Remember, READ THE BIBLE TO FIND OUT WHAT GOD LIKES AND WHAT HE DOESN’T LIKE. Let me quote God’s Sacred Word:

    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.

  27. I find it interesting that you find pants to be a male’s “holy” garment and date it back to OT times. What about the breastplate, an ephod, a robe, a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle? Were the pants the only holy garment to survive? I believe that you are trying make the scriptures conform to your beliefs instead of letting the scriptures remain in their proper context.
    The Bible does not tell us what specific clothing i.e. Pants, tee shirts, dresses etc. that we should wear, because clothing styles change over time from generation to generation and it varies in the different cultures. It only states that we are to dress modestly and if a culture designates a specific article of clothing to be male or female only, THEN we should not wear that which has been designated for the opposite gender.
    Today’s American culture allows for pants that are specifically made for women, and alot of the pants are more modest than some of the women’s dresses that I’ve seen in church.

  28. Thank you, Gary, for your serious attitude to this important Scriptural issue. First, if you haven’t already, read the leaflet on God’s Word on Men’s and Women’s Clothing, as that goes into all the Scriptural details. You can download it from this link

    It’s a small PDF file. But to answer your main points briefly here:

    Have you understood the Scriptural pattern properly? First: God is patterning the Israelite Tabernacle and all its clothing etc. etc. in the Old Testament on the HEAVENLY Sanctuary, which according to the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament, is the Heavenly Sanctuary where we are seated right now with Christ. We can’t say “That’s Old Testament and has nothing to do with us Christians”. IT’S FOR US TOO. In the Heavenly Sanctuary where Jesus is the High Priest (Book of Hebrews) WE ARE THE PRIESTS. Moses saw us up there dressed in the way we are dressed as heavenly priests and put in the identical clothing for Israel’s priests in the earthly Tabernacle. Now in the Heavenly Sanctuary ALL MALES ARE PRIESTS. We are all “kings and priests” (not queens and priestesses). Female Christians are living stones in the Temple but not also Priests within it, but all Christian males are stones AND Priests (that is, members of the Mystical Body of Christ — stones — and ALSO ministers — priests — within the Body of Christ). So when God said MALE CLOTHING, OR LITERALLY a woman should not have on her person ANYTHING PERTAINING TO A MALE, He was talking about THOSE MALES (PRIESTS) IN THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY (ALL US CHRISTIAN MALES), as Moses made the whole Tabernacle and its equipment AND CLOTHING after the “pattern which he saw on the Mount” (Book of Hebrews again). That means NO WOMAN IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ON HER PERSON ANY ITEM MENTIONED AS PRIEST’S CLOTHING OR EQUIPMENT IN THE LAW OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. That is specifically MALE (PRIEST’S) CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT. THAT INCLUDES TROUSERS. Also it includes the things you mentioned: the breastplate (though that was only High Priest’s equipment), the mitre and the special priest’s girdle. All those items are technical words in the Hebrew OF THE PRIEST’S OR HIGH PRIEST’S EQUIPMENT AND NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DO WE FIND WOMEN PERMITTED TO WEAR OR WEARING THESE ITEMS AT ALL. There is one item in the priest’s wardrobe that came into a different class, and that was the mehil or ROBE. ORDINARY ROBES IN THE BIBLE CAN BE WORN BY BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. So here, to prove the point, the Law of Moses says about the priest’s robe, NOT JUST “ROBE” BUT “HOLY ROBE” OR “ROBE OF THE SANCTUARY”. You see, if the Law of God had just said the priest wore a “ROBE” it would mean ALL robes were priest’s garments and a woman should not wear it, but in this case it says “HOLY ROBE”, which was the priest’s SPECIAL SANCTUARY ROBE, SPECIALLY MADE AND DESIGNED AS GOD INSTRUCTED. THAT robe must not be worn by a woman, but an ordinary robe of other type can. So you can see how precise and exact the Word of God is on this. And remember, GOD SAYS IT IS ABSOLUTE SPIRITUAL FILTH (ABOMINATION) TO GOD FOR ANY WOMAN TO WEAR A MALE ITEM, AS LISTED, INCLUDING TROUSERS. According to the Book of Revelation NOBODY WHO WORKS (= DOES, PRACTICES) ABOMINATION WILL ENTER INTO THE HEAVENLY CITY. Since most people don’t go around wearing an Ephod, breastplate etc., you can see that trousers are the main item by which Satan has tricked modern Christian women into becoming ACTUAL FILTH IN GOD’S SIGHT AND EXCLUDED FROM THE CITY OF GOD.

    I hope you see this clearly, my Brother. But if you want more detail, go to the leaflet where all the Scriptures are quoted. On your other point, that male and female clothing is “just according to the culture of the time”, you are 100% wrong. God does not change, unlike culture. The Bible says, IF ANY MAN SPEAK LET HIM SPEAK ACCORDING TO (= IN ACCORD WITH, IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH) THE ORACLES (= WORD) OF GOD. If you say something is right or wrong IT MUST BE ABSOLUTELY FROM THE BIBLE, not just what Tom, Dick or Harry does today. The Bible says “BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN” We know what sin is BY THE LAW OF GOD (THE LAW). We don’t go by the fashion of this world, which is under Satan. “The whole world lieth in that wicked one”. That is what the Word of God says. You will find Satan’s fashions, Satan’s ideas, out there. We want God’s ideas, what God likes.

    On a final point: dresses, robes etc. must be MODEST BY GOD’S DEFINITION. You will find in the leaflet GOD TELLS US IN THE BIBLE WHAT IS NAKEDNESS (IMMODEST) BY HIS DEFINITION. And it’s God’s definition that counts. Not what you or somebody else thinks is modest. In the Bible, for example, nakedness is anything which shows the thighs to the public. That is NAKEDNESS, IMMODESTY, ACCORDING TO GOD. So if your shorts, skirts, dresses, robes etc. show your thighs to the public that is immodest clothing and condemned by Jesus Christ.

  29. I spent about half an hour looking over your leaflet and I’m not to sure that there are to many scholars that would link priest’s breeches with today’s trousers.

    Priest’s breeches are nothing like today’s trousers. They’re different in both material and function. Today’s trousers have no “holy” significance.
    Once again, even if they were the same, you cannot just pull out one article of clothing from Exodus 28 and forget the rest.

    I would say more but it’s past my bedtime. God Bless.

  30. I would recommend you spend more than half an hour reading up the Word of God on this, and also go to bed later if necessary.

    To answer your first point, the latest (as well as the oldest) scholars agree absolutely that those priests’ breeches are trousers or pants. Re-read the Theological Dictionary (1980) definition:

    The Hebrew word for “breeches,” as they were called when the KJV was translated, or “trousers”, as they are called nowadays, is miknesayim. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 1980 this means, I quote — “Trousers or drawers (for priests) (KJV, ASV, RSV render similarly, breeches. This noun occurs only in the dual [meaning it denotes an object with two parts, in this case two leg-sections]. It is found five times in Exodus and Leviticus, and once in Ezekiel 44:18. Trousers were ordered by God in the interest of decorum, and were made of linen to absorb perspiration.” End quote.

    These items of clothing have two leg-sections covering the private parts and thighs at the minimum from public view and extending to the knee where they could be pulled in (to hide the thighs) or farther down the calf (for the same purpose). Remember, God doesn’t change — He calls the wearing by a woman of clothing pertaining to a male ABOMINABLE FILTH!! READ THAT AGAIN. He hasn’t changed. If He sees a woman today wearing anything PERTAINING TO A MALE, THAT WOMAN HERSELF, THE BIBLE SAYS, IS ABOMINABLE FILTH TO GOD. Now many people like to pick and choose which Bible verses they like to do and which they don’t. But Bible-believing, truly evangelical, truly Spirit-filled, born-again Christians DON’T DO THAT! We take everything God says and WE BELIEVE IT JUST THE WAY IT IS. So you better find out BY THE WORD OF GOD, exactly WHAT IS clothing pertaining to a male BY GOD’S DEFINITION, because it will cut you out of the Kingdom of God if you do such a thing or permit it to be done without correction and reproof. You might say, well it doesn’t harm me if some woman wears pants. THAT IS IRRELEVANT. IT BOTHERS GOD. That’s what counts. You must be transformed by the renewing of your mind to humble yourself and SEE THINGS GOD’S WAY, not yours.

    On the other point, nobody is pulling one item of clothing out of Exodus 28, ALL THE CLOTHING IN EXODUS 28 IS MALE (PRIEST’S) CLOTHING, and is therefore OUR CHRISTIAN MALE CLOTHING. None of those garments and items can be worn by a female. PERIOD. GOD SAYS SO. Are you really in the faith? Check it out, brother. You’re deciding which bit of the Bible to believe and which not. If you can do it on one point, you’ll soon be doing it on another.

  31. I’m sure that the Theological Dictionary (1980) is a good dictionary, but why don’t we let the Bible define the preistly breeches itself. Exodus 28:42 says that the breeches shall be from the loins even to the thighs.
    They are undergarments in this verse my friend, not full length trousers. To say that they are like today’s trousers would be making the scripture say something that it does not say. It would be like saying the breastplate in Exodus is the same as colorful sweater vest of today.
    You might say that today’s women should not wear linen boxers, but to say they can’t wear trousers would be taking God word out of context.

    I take the word of God very seriously and I take the literal interpretation of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I believe in every “bit” of God’s word. I will not however take God’s word out of context to make it fit my beliefs. There is NO new revelation outside of God’s word!

    Thanks be to God our Father, I’m a spirit filled regenerated Christian! His Spirit lives in me and through His grace, I bear the fruits of the Spirit. He is constantly showing himself to be working in my life.

    Please be careful my brother to not take God’s word out of context as you did in Exodus. When you have a choice between the Bible and a dictionary, always trusts the Bible’s definition first. God Bless.

  32. Thank you for your continued attention to this important Bible message.

    Again, you’re missing the Scriptural point. The interpretation of a Hebrew word is what you were originally talking about, and what I replied to. The word is miknesayim. This means: BREECHES, TROUSERS, PANTS, DRAWERS (OR WHATEVER WORD YOU WOULD LIKE TO USE TO DESCRIBE AN ITEM OF CLOTHING WITH TWO LEG-SECTIONS COVERING AT LEAST THE THIGHS TO HIDE THEM FROM PUBLIC VIEW). I simply quoted a neutral Dictionary to show you that it is the same word — trousers, breeches in the Bible is the SAME WORD. So there’s no reason for you (who I am sure is not as expert in languages as the Theological Dictionary writers) to tell me you know better what that Hebrew word means. When the Bible says “FAITH” (Hebrew emunah, Greek pistis) IT MEANS FAITH. It’s no good someone coming along and saying it doesn’t mean “faith” it means “trust”. That’s the same thing. We are saved by grace alone through FAITH, TRUST, BELIEVING (IN JESUS), which is all different words for the same act. Now you come along and quibble: it doesn’t say “trousers” it says “breeches”. I have just showed you they are two words for the same thing.

    Then you quibble again: in your interpretation (note: YOUR interpretation) breeches are UNDERNEATH garments. The Bible says THE SCRIPTURES ARE ALL GOD-INSPIRED AND ARE OF NO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. These priestly breeches were ordained by God to cover the thighs from public view when the priests went up above the crowds on the altar steps. The important thing here is they could potentially be viewed by the public (otherwise there would be no point in God’s explanation of why He wanted them worn) and God was happy that they were worn in public view like this. So to call them “underneath” garments is IRRELEVANT. The garments are described in the Bible as EXTENDING THE LENGTH OF THE THIGHS, and nothing is said about how long they were or were not after the thigh (but the thighs had to be hid from public view). So that is the BIBLE DEFINITION OF TROUSERS. If the items have two leg-pieces, reach the full length of the thigh and an indefinite length thereafter, they are BIBLICALLY-SPEAKING, TROUSERS, BREECHES, DRAWERS (MIKNESAYIM). Also, if you want to call them “underneath” that makes no difference to the Scriptural point, whether underneath or on-top, they are MALE (PRIEST’S) GARMENTS AND NOT TO BE WORN BY A FEMALE UNDERNEATH, ON-TOP, ON THE HEAD OR ON THE NOSE.

    I am glad to hear you believe all the Word of God literally. Now have a good prayerful meditation in the Word by the Spirit and find out WHAT IS GARMENTS PERTAINING TO A MALE. Because God Himself SAYS VERY CLEARLY ANY WOMAN WHO WEARS OR HAS CUSTOMARILY ON HER PERSON ANY MANUFACTURED ITEM PERTAINING TO A MALE, ANY MALE ITEM, INCLUDING CLOTHING, THAT WOMAN IS TOTAL FILTH TO GOD, AND GOD DOES NOT CHANGE. Now since God Himself, our Beloved Savior, Jesus Christ, makes this very strong statement about the bits of cloth we wear, we better find out quick what IS male clothing by GOD’S DEFINITION. Notice it is YOU who are going by UNREGENERATE HUMAN CULTURE TO DEFINE MALE CLOTHING, I’M NOT. I am going by the Word of God Himself. AND THAT IS WHAT ALL BORN-AGAIN, SPIRIT-FILLED CHRISTIANS MUST DO. The Bible says “If they speak not according to this WORD it is because there is no light in them”. Amen to that. Now speak according to the Word. WHAT IS MALE CLOTHING BY THE WORD OF GOD? Not by what some so-called prophet, pastor, teacher, punk, fashion guru or Hollywood pervert says is male clothing. Do you see where you are leading people? Down the slippery slope to Hell of ANYTHING GOES IF IT’S YOUR INTERPRETATION. In other words, if you go by present-day culture, WHICH CULTURE? They are different. In Polynesia the men wear dresses. Now according to you, that’s OK. In the jungles of the Amazon, the men wear nothing. Then according to you, that’s OK (for them in their culture)? Do you really think so? The Bible says different. The Bible calls any defective dressing (defective by God’s definition) NAKEDNESS, not just total nudity, but WRONG DRESSING ACCORDING TO GOD’S WORD IS NAKEDNESS. So you better find out by the Bible what IS PROPER CLOTHING BY GOD’S DEFINITION. And He tells us that it is IMMODEST CLOTHING — EVEN STRONGER IT IS UTTER FILTH — FOR ANY WOMAN TO WEAR MALE CLOTHING AND FOR MEN TO WEAR WOMEN’S CLOTHING. The New Testament commands Christian women to wear MODEST (NOT FILTH) CLOTHING. So I don’t care (except for your poor benighted soul) if you aren’t bothered about this part of the Word I AM BOTHERED, AND BY GOD’S HELP I WILL KEEP THAT WORD AND EVERY OTHER WORD OF GOD.

  33. In the CONTEXTS of Exodus 28:42, I’ve never seen any scholar with a working knowledge of Hebrew and OT studies say that these breeches were not undergarments. This is not my interpretation. I don’t care if you can make breeches mean blue jeans. You say that today’s trousers are male priestly garments and use Exodus 28:42 as your source. If you use this verse as your source then you MUST take it in its context and how God described it i.e. Linen and from the loins to the thighs. Did God say ankles here noooo he said thighs. As you said in regards to covering the priest’s thighs in pubic as he went UP above the crowds. The crowds would not see his breeches if he was on the ground because if his outer garments. This is relevant, because you are condeming women for wearing an OUTER garment i.e. Trousers or pants. That’s like saying women shouldn’t wear shoes, because men first wore socks!

    You CANNOT take a clear scripture and make it say what you want. The function of the breeches in Exodus are totally different from today’s male or female pants! In Exodus 28 it talks about a fine linen coat for the priest. According to the way that you interpret scripture, I guess women are going to go to Hell for wearing a light jacket when they get cold.

    Post #29 you stated that because God just said robe and not Holy robe that that made it ok for women to wear robes. Huh? Exodus 28:2 states that the garments (including) the robe was holy. It is funny that the only thing not really specified as holy is the breeches.

    I say this with all sincereity my brother, please open your eyes to the truth. Take a closer look at the context of the scripture. Stop misinterpreting God’s Holy Words.

  34. Thank you for the time and effort you are putting in to this important Scriptural truth.

    Since you are getting into detailed points of Scriptural interpretation here, for the sake of other readers of the Blog, I will summarize the main areas of agreement and disagreement (if I misrepresent you in any way here, please put me right in another reply):

    1) Both you and I claim to believe the Bible as the infallible Word of God.
    2) Both you and I accept that the Bible condemns women who wear items of clothing pertaining to a male, and the wearing of woman’s clothing by men. The Scripture we both claim to believe absolutely is 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“.
    3) You say that the culture a person lives in defines what is the type of clothing for male and female. It goes by the surrounding culture of the person.
    4) I say it is the Word of God Itself which defines what pertains to a male (or female).

    That is my attempt at a summary of the main points. If you have no objection to the summary, then let me go on to say where that leads both you and me.

    First Objection to your interpretation: It leads YOU into MORAL RELATIVISM. If the present “culture” defines what is right and wrong, then we will be judged at the End of Time by “culture”, and if the “culture” didn’t think something was wrong, and I agreed with the culture, I was alright to do it. Well we know by the Word of God, which we both claim to believe as the infallible Authority, that we will be judged BY THE WORD OF GOD: John 12. 48 — Jesus speaking: He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. God is CONSISTENT. If he judges what is male and female clothing by CULTURE, then He judges what is perverted male behavior or perverted female behavior BY CULTURE. But He doesn’t. He defines perverted sexual activities in the Bible, and we go by that. For example a male lying in a sexual manner with another male IS ABOMINABLE FILTH TO GOD AND THE PENALTY IS DEATH. It doesn’t matter to God what the present-day CULTURE says about it — the present culture in the West makes it legal — GOD SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL ABOMINABLE FILTH DESERVING THE DEATH PENALTY. I say AMEN TO GOD’S WORD. What you’re ending up with is a strangely pyschotic Hippy Jesus. First HE UTTERLY CONDEMNS A WOMAN AS ABSOLUTE FILTH FOR WEARING MAN’S CLOTHING, then when the poor believing woman asks this Hippy Jesus “What IS man’s clothing, Lord?”, he replies “Whatever your culture says, lady, just take it easy, it’s relative, everything’s relative — but remember you’ll go to Hell if you get it wrong.” Wow, man, crazy!!!!

    Objection to your interpretation #2: The Bible Itself says “BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN”. Notice it does not say BY CULTURE is the knowledge of sin. We know what SIN is by the THE LAW, WHICH IS THE LAW OF GOD GIVEN TO MOSES. Romans 3. 20: “for by the law is the knowledge of sin”. What you are saying is that a person is guilty BY THEIR INNER ATTITUDE. If a person goes contrary to the culture around them and wears opposite-sex clothing defined by the culture around them, then they are guilty. What you are missing here IS THE ABSOLUTE, THE WORD OF GOD. You are saying if they sin in their own view, then they are guilty. That is right as far as it goes — that is, the person has sinned against their own conscience, and the Bible says (Romans 14. 14) “to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean”. Yes, but that is only half the story. If I deliberately wear the kind of clothing I know people around me associate with the opposite sex, and do it for the deliberate purpose of looking like the opposite sex according to the culture, I am doing wrong, because I have sinned inwardly. That is the same as committing adultery IN THE HEART (Matthew 5. 28). BUT THERE IS ALSO A PHYSICAL ADULTERY, AND YOU WON’T GET OUT OF BEING CONDEMNED FOR PHYSICAL ADULTERY, AS DEFINED BY THE BIBLE, BY CLAIMING “IT WAS OK IN MY CONSCIENCE”. So there is an INWARD SIN and an OUTWARD SIN. The Bible tells us that from Adam to Moses people had no Law personally given to them from God, so they hadn’t transgressed any commandment personally given to them, like Adam had, BUT THEY STILL DIED. Romans 5. 14: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”. Their conscience had nothing to do with it. They died, because WHETHER THEY KNEW IT OR NOT THEY WERE IN SIN, NAMELY IN ADAM’S SIN, ORIGINAL SIN, AND THEREFORE THEY DIED, DEATH BEING THE PENALTY OF BEING IN SIN (BY GOD’S DEFINITION). So sinning and suffering the penalty of sin comes from BREAKING GOD’S LAW, whether our conscience or culture agrees or not.

    That’s the basic anti-Word position you have taken. On the details of your last post: You are stubbornly sticking with this word “Underneath clothes” though the Bible does not call the trousers/breeches “Underneath clothes”. The Bible says DO NOT ADD A SINGLE WORD TO WHAT GOD SAYS. Also I repeat: The Bible does not say “If a woman wears UNDERNEATH CLOTHES pertaining to a man, IT IS OK”. No, It does not say that. ANY CLOTHES, UNDERNEATH OR OTHERWISE pertaining to a male are forbidden to a woman.

    You misquote me utterly as follows: “Post #29 you stated that because God just said robe and not Holy robe that that made it ok for women to wear robes.” then you go on to accuse me of MISINTERPRETING. What I said is “IF THE BIBLE CALLED THE PRIEST’S ROBE SIMPLY A “ROBE” THEN THAT (A “ROBE”) WOULD BE A MALE GARMENT TOO. That statement is correct — BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT CALL THE PRIEST’S ROBE SIMPLY A “ROBE” IT CALLS IT A “SACRED ROBE”. This “sacred robe” was the priest’s particular robe specially designed and commissioned by God, it was not just any robe. THAT TYPE OF ROBE is MALE GARMENT AND MUST NOT BE WORN BY A WOMAN, WHEREAS AN ORDINARY, NON-SACRED, ROBE CAN BE WORN BY A WOMAN. What I pointed out to you is the PRECISION of the Word of God as regards the clothing pertaining to the priest. It does not call the turban a “sacred turban” or the girdle a “sacred girdle” it just picks out the robe amongst the other priest’s clothing and calls that a “sacred robe” alone. The Word specifically calls the priest’s robe a “sacred robe” to distinguish it in this way, thus not excluding women from wearing ordinary, non-sacred, robes. ALL THE PRIEST’S GARMENTS ARE “SACRED GARMENTS” OR “SANCTUARY GARMENTS” PERTAINING TO MALES (PRIESTS) AND MUST NOT BE WORN BY WOMEN, AND THAT INCLUDES THE “SACRED ROBE” (not JUST any old “robe,” which could be either a male or female garment). Now God defines what is MALE by WHAT HE THINKS IS A MALE, i.e. a Christian, born-again, Spirit-filled priest and king, serving God in heaven, and as I have explained in detail. Moses COPIED the clothes of those born-again Christians in heaven when he designated the priest’s clothes in the Israelite Tabernacle.

    On your quibble about the material and length of the trousers/breeches. God says it is the MANUFACTURED ITEM ITSELF (Hebrew keli) PERTAINING TO A MALE which cannot be on a woman’s person, not the specific material. It is the item of clothing, here, trousers, which is forbidden, OF WHATEVER MATERIAL. Also the length beyond the calf is NOT WRITTEN IN THE SCRIPTURES AND THEREFORE MUST NOT BE ASSUMED. We must not ADD or take away a single word from the Bible. The trousers went down the full length of the thigh, but the Bible does not say they ENDED AT THE THIGH. To ADD THAT IDEA would be adding to the Word. The thigh, minimum, had to be covered. That is the point. If God wanted to say, END THE TROUSERS AT THE KNEE, HE WOULD HAVE SAID IT, BUT HE DID NOT, therefore neither can we say it. However long they are still trousers if they cover the thigh from public view. That is the Bible definition.

  35. I’m guessing that your main problem with me is my cultural statement, please allow me to clarify.

    We can see God’s dress code in two important scriptures;

    Deuteronomy 22:5 deals with not wearing that which pertains to the opposite sex.

    Culture tells us what pertains to each sex which differs in each culture and time period. God does not tell us what object or clothing is male or female only. God gave us that freedom, but when an item is designated toward only one sex, we should honor that.

    1 Timothy 2:9 deals with modesty.

    I did not say that if a culture dressed immoral i.e. men and women walked around outfits that exposed their private parts or wore tight fitting clothes that that would make it ok for us to do the same. The cultural clothes that we wear must be modest. Just because bikinis are allowed by our culture doesn’t mean that God is ok with our women wearing them. It’s a modesty issue.

    The problem that I have with your arguement is your comparing priestly breeches with today’s pants. EVERY expert on the subject from Jewish rabbis to OT scholars say that the priestly breeches worn in the OT were undergarments. If you know of any experts that say otherwise, please let me know. Even if a dictionary says that breeches can mean Levi Strauss blue jeans it doesn’t matter, you have to take item in context.

    People on my side of the fence are always taking the Hebrew word (geber) for man in Deut. 22:5 out of context by saying “because in the Strong’s concordance geber can mean valiant warrior, this verse must only mean that women can’t wear a warrior’s clothing.” they don’t understand that geber just means man in this verse.
    You are doing something similar with your dictionary.

    You cannot say that just because male priests wore something that had two leg sections that women can never wear anything that has two leg sections. That my friend is adding your own interpretation.
    If a helmet is male only does that mean a woman cannot wear anything on her head?

    You should take everything in context:

    1. It is not my interpretation, but just about everyone who understands the OT, that breeches is an undergarment. If you say different than you are in the extreme minority and are adding to scripture.

    2. As they are undergarments they serve a different function as today’s pants. Are you against women who wear underwear, just because they wish to have something to COVER THEIR PRIVATE PARTS AND ABSORB THEIR PRESPIRATION, especially if they are in a dress?

    Well it’s past my bedtime again, so I must go.

    My apologies if I misqouted you in my last post. I appreciate the time and effort that you have put into this discussion.

  36. Oh, I didn’t miss your comment in regards to length. You have made it clear that you think that trousers are anything that has two leg sections, no matter the length. I will however point you back to my geber illustration. When God DOES talk about the priestly garment he is very clear in regards to how they are MANUFACTURED and to what their function is i.e. My female underwear comment. Your blanket “leg section” statements that bans women from just about everything outside of a dress are adding to God’s word.

    One final point, in your leaflet you mentioned that only Christian males could wear trousers, so I guess that puts all other males in today’s society back into robes? I’m sorry but your priestly arguement is not God’s standards

  37. I accept your apology for misquoting me. Thank you again for your continued questioning and/or responding. You seem to have a genuine interest in the Word of God as our Written Authority. I would recommend to you a second time prayerful consideration of God’s Will and how it is expressed to us. It is expressed to us ONLY IN THE WORD. We don’t find out what God likes or dislikes from our feelings or our friends’ feelings or Satanic culture of the world. We find out God’s nature by the Word of God.

    Having lost the Scriptural debate, you are now resorting to senseless repetition and Pope-like “infallible” pronouncements, without any Scripture to back you up. I quote your last post: “Culture tells us what pertains to each sex which differs in each culture and time period. God does not tell us what object or clothing is male or female only.” Where does it say THAT in the Word? As the Bible says “If they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them”.

    The Word is VERY CLEAR that Moses made everything in the Tabernacle according to the PATTERN of the heavenly sanctuary he saw on the Mount of God. That is the point. In HEAVEN THERE ARE TRUE MALES (THE HEBREW WORD FOR MALE IS GEBER) AND FEMALES ACCORDING TO GOD’S DEFINITION. AND THEY DRESS LIKE PROPER MALES AND FEMALES SHOULD. The male Christian believers in heaven ARE ALL PRIESTS, AS GOD HIMSELF SAYS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Moses COPIED these true MALE CLOTHES HE SAW IN HEAVEN for his earthly priests’ clothing. Now WE KNOW THEREFORE WHAT IS TRUE MALE CLOTHING. How simple and Scriptural. You are now running round in a confusing Babylon of cultural relativity trying to explain what is male and female clothing in different cultures, when EVERYONE BELONGS TO DIFFERENT CULTURES. I am not interested in different cultures, I AM INTERESTED IN GOD’S CULTURE ONLY EXPRESSED IN THE BIBLE.

    There is no difficulty in the MODESTY issue. Modest clothing MUST BE WORN ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT BY ALL CHRISTIANS. What you are trying to claim, contrary to all Scriptural sense, is that FILTH (ABOMINATION) CLOTHING IS MODEST. No, it is not, it is IMMODEST. ALSO revealing clothes are IMMODEST, but for a different reason, because they show nakedness. CROSS-SEX clothing is IMMODEST BECAUSE IT IS MORAL FILTH TO GOD, and LIKEWISE REVEALING CLOTHES ARE IMMODEST BECAUSE THEY SHOW NAKED FLESH. OK, both are immodest and must not be worn by Christians. Now we get back to WHAT SCRIPTURALLY IS GARMENTS AND OTHER ITEMS PERTAINING TO A MALE. Until you answer this point you are running round in circles in a crazy world of cultural relativity. Is a person SAVED ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN CULTURE??? Clearly not. They MUST COME TO SALVATION GOD’S WAY AS EXPRESSED IN THE BIBLE. The same goes for every other aspect of the Christian’s walk, spiritual and physical.

    You keep quoting like a sick parrot the word “context” as if just saying something has to be “in context” helps you defend your Unscriptural “culture” dogma against the plain meaning of the Bible. I am quoting the Word exactly “in context” — TRUE MALES (TO GOD) ARE CHRISTIAN MALES (IN HEAVEN), AND THEIR CLOTHING, AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE, IS TRUE MALE CLOTHING. Having dumped that Scriptural definition, you are in a swamp of different cultures grasping around for something firm to stand on.

    Because you have no Scriptural basis, you repeat endlessly like a mantra the word “undergarments”. IF THE PRIEST’S TROUSERS WERE UNDERGARMENTS, AS I HAVE STATED MANY TIMES BEFORE, THAT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE, (even though they were not actually, as they were made to hide the thighs etc. from PUBLIC view), AS I SAY, THAT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE GOD BANS WOMEN FROM WEARING ANY GARMENT OF A MALE, UNDERGARMENT, TOP GARMENT OR OTHERWISE. Properly the priest wore a “sacred robe” (KJV translates “coat” instead of robe) as well as trousers, just as I might wear a coat over my trousers when I go out. That MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. I am still wearing trousers UNDER MY COAT. If you want to call my trousers “undergarments” because they are under my coat, I would say, “carry on, friend, you have a strange use of words”, but STILL THOSE TROUSERS ARE MALE GARMENTS AND A WOMAN IS FORBIDDEN BY THE WORD OF GOD TO HAVE THEM ON HER PERSON. Now do you get it??? Or are your ears dull of hearing like the disciples’ ears were before they were filled with the Holy Spirit???? If you ignore this much stated point, I conclude you are not serious in this Scriptural debate, and do not want to discover Truth, but are merely quibbling about words to no profit, which Paul the Apostle says is what heretics do.

  38. Thank you for your second reply in one day. Keep it up! Eventually some Scriptural truth might sink in somewhere.

    The pity is you are once again resorting to senseless guesses “I guess” and dogmatic, non-Scriptural judgments “… is not God’s standards”. It is YOUR statements that are not God’s standards as your standard is “culture which changes over time”. That is a common view today, as by it people can let themselves off the hook for every practice which is contrary to the Holy Word. You are fitting right into the mold of the “liberal” anything-goes anti-Bible non-literalist.

    As regards the length of the trousers, as I said in the previous post, the trousers reach “AS FAR AS” the thighs. The Hebrew word is “ad”, which means “as far as”, “the full length of”. It differs from the word “el’ which means “unto” in that IT INCLUDES THE DESTINATION. That is it means here “as far as and including the thighs”. Now if I said I traveled AS FAR AS AND INCLUDING NEW YORK, I certainly mean I got to the destination of New York, but I do not mean necessarily I went as far as New York AND NO FARTHER. I didn’t say that, and someone who concluded I went no farther, WOULD BE TAKING MY WORDS “OUT OF CONTEXT”. I could well mean I went further in the countryside beyond New York, but not to the next city. To restrict my words to New York itself would be a LYING interpretation of my words, and so is it if someone tries to say that God’s Word here means “ONLY” to the thighs “AND NO FARTHER”. They will be lying against the Word of God BY ADDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE.

    Likewise the material of the garment IS IRRELEVANT. The PATTERN in the heavenly realms is what Moses followed, he couldn’t follow THE MATERIAL as that, in heaven, is NON-FADING AND ETERNAL. The Bible Itself says the FINE WHITE LINEN OF THE HEAVENLY REDEEMED IS THE “RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS”. (Revelation 19. 8.) Since saints include men and women, the MATERIAL ITSELF HAS NO MALE-FEMALE GENDER DIFFERENCE according to God Himself. It is the PATTERN of trousers which Moses copied for his earthly priest, the “look” of those items of clothing with two leg-sections, not, of course the heavenly material, and they stretched TO THE MINIMUM THE FULL LENGTH OF THE THIGH. THAT IS A MALE ITEM OF CLOTHING, A MALE GARMENT AND MUST NOT BE ON A CHRISTIAN WOMAN’S PERSON. It doesn’t look right to God and is actually HORRIBLE, REPULSIVE FILTH TO GOD. That’s a good enough statement for me and my house.

    On your reference to trousers as believers’ wear only, yes exactly: in God’s Book there is only one type of TRUE MALE AND THAT IS A CHRISTIAN ONE (AS THEY EXIST, AND ARE CLOTHED, UP IN HEAVEN). So you can see Christian males are designated trousers to wear, nobody else. What the worldly male wears is irrelevant to God, as he is abomination to God in his sins regardless.

  39. You know, I once heard my pastor say that if your interpretation is in the extreme minority or shared by only yourself, then you might want to consider that you might be wrong? There are alot of biblical scholars that have such a great love and thirst for God’s word that they study it to it’s fullest. They pray, study the language, the history, and they devote their whole lives to making sure that the scriptures are properly interpreted. You know I honestly don’t think that there is even one of them that would agree with your theory on the priestly breeches. Was this your own revelation or did you learn this in some seminary class.

    Ok, I understand that you think that because Moses was shown priestly heavenly clothes that were “manufactured” with two legged sections that for all eternity women should not wear anything with two legged sections because God meant it for male priests. It does not matter the lenght or FUNCTION of the clothes. Women just need to stay in dresses (but no underwear for concealing private parts or perspiration).
    With respect, your hermeneutics is awful.
    Please, show some scholarly support for your beliefs outside of your own personal interpretations. You can’t twist and misuse scripture to fit your beliefs. I know some very good, highly educated pastors that are against women in pants, but none of them would use your arguement. I also noticed that when I asked you to show me someone with some kind of expertise in OT studies, you were silent.

    In reference to the scriptural debate, I haven’t lost anything. Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1Timothy 2:9 ARE where we look to to see God’s standards for dress and they make no mention as to what articles pertaineth to each sex. Outside of your pants theory, what other clothing items are gender specific in the bible? If a man wears a helmet, can a woman wear any kind of hat? To make sure that we are dressed properly, should we all return to robes? We know that a sword is masculine but what about tee shirts. They were first worn by military men, should women wear them? Of course culture decides what is masculine and feminane. Men wear ties around their necks and women wear bows in their hair.

    I’m sorry if I seem disrespectful in tone, I am praying that God opens your eyes to the truth. You may think that God has given you some plain obvious revelation to scripture, but please remember the words of my pastor. God’s word is infallible, not your interpretation.

    I think that we might as well rap things up here, because we are both accusing the other of “dull ears”. About a year ago I spent 3 months studing this topic. I researched on the internet, corresponded with Doctors in OT studies and Rabbis. Questioned people from both sides of the debate. All because I was asked to by a family member.
    I think that you are the first to make blue jeans “heavenly priestly garments”.


  40. Thank you for your continued interest and for your studies in the past over this very important Bible truth.
    I notice you are backing out at this point, which is a pity. You seem to have had a real interest in finding out the truth about cross-gender clothing. You made ONE BIG MISTAKE. That is, you consulted theologians, experts, scholars etc. etc. That is where you went wrong. God’s Word doesn’t come to theologians and scholars, it comes to God’s prophets. You must go only by God’s Word as given to TRUE, BIBLE-CENTERED PROPHETS. Now the Writing Prophets have given us the Word of God in written form, so we can be sure we have a permanent, never-changing ROCK on which to base ourselves. When challenged by the Devil, Jesus said, IT IS WRITTEN, IT IS WRITTEN, and when the Devil copied him and also said, It is written, Jesus said AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN. ALL the Word of God must be in harmony.

    You have one big difficulty, and that is that GOD SAYS THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS MAN’S CLOTHES AND WOMAN’S CLOTHES and YOU CAN’T DEFINE IT. That is because you are going outside the Word of God. Stick ONLY with the Word. You ask me “Have I got any scholarly support?” I’ve got BIBLE SUPPORT. There’s nothing more perfect, scholarly, wise, intelligent, up-to-date, than the Word of God. It’s eternal. That is why Jesus got crucified by scholars and experts and theologians and Rabbis. They still think today He was a fanatic. That is because He stuck ABSOLUTELY AT ALL TIMES WITH THE WORD AND ONLY THE WORD. You must do the same to be a true Spirit-filled Christian. Dump your theologians and come back to God. Now take a good look at GOD’S PATTERN IN HEAVEN, then see that THAT defines our looks, our attitude, our clothing, our behavior, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN”. You can see Jesus wants those Heavenly patterns to be duplicated here on earth. That is why He ordained Moses to build the Tabernacle, dress the priests etc. etc. exactly according to the PATTERN he saw in God’s presence on the Mount. And today, WE ARE HIS TABERNACLE ON EARTH. We pattern ourselves after that same Heavenly order. We don’t confuse the genders or the roles. The male Christians are priests, the females are living members of the Body. We dress differently, act differently, have different gifted roles in the Body of Christ.
    Now as I repeat YOU ARE TAKING SATANIC CULTURE OF THE WORLD AS YOUR DEFINITION. You have ended up making Satan your God without knowing it. The WHOLE WORLD lieth in that Wicked One. One culture of the world is as bad as the other and you won’t find a single one that is under the dominion of God. That’s where you’ve got yourself. Also, of course, you will make yourself extremely UNPOPULAR if you accept God’s own Pattern in the Bible. You are going to be rejected by 99.99% if not more of modernized, masculinized women who have adopted a Sodomite spirit by wearing their male apparel. To say that this is not a major factor in many pastors’ theological reasoning would be foolish. Yes, the bread and butter might get scarce if they actually follow God’s Word alone. That is usually why they don’t.

    To answer the (not very well stated) points you make one by one. (Please note you are much too hazy and fuzzy, which is the characteristic of all those who depart from the Word. Jesus taught WITH AUTHORITY, NOT LIKE THE THEOLOGIANS, BECAUSE HE KNEW FROM THE WORD WHERE HE WAS STANDING. You must walk as Jesus walked.) Now to your points and questions:

    You say: “You know, I once heard my pastor say that if your interpretation is in the extreme minority or shared by only yourself, then you might want to consider that you might be wrong?”

    ANSWER: not only do I consider I might be wrong, I AM WRONG!!! BUT GOD’S WORD IS RIGHT!!!!! That is why I follow the Word. If everybody else DISAGREES WITH THE WORD, THEY ARE WRONG!! AND I AM ALWAYS WRONG IN MYSELF, BUT RIGHT AS LONG AS I JUST SAY WHAT JESUS SAID. Jesus said two important things: 1) If they are not against US, they are FOR US,” and 2) “If they are NOT WITH ME, THEY ARE AGAINST ME. ” If it comes to JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES, CHRISTIANS, “US” in #1, then we treat people as either pro-Christianity or anti-Christianity, whatever their particular fellowship, doctrinal tendency etc. BUT THAT IS IF JESUS IS AMONGST US CHRISTIANS. And how do we know where Christ is? HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME (AND HE IS THE WORD) IS AGAINST ME. If you are not WITH THE WORD YOU ARE AGAINST HIM, YOU ARE ANTI-CHRIST, BECAUSE YOU ARE ANTI-WORD, IF YOU ARE NOT WITH (IN AGREEMENT, FOLLOWING WITH) THE WORD. So that’s how we discern who is worth listening to. Not the intelligence, Doctor’s degree, educational background, fame and acceptance of the person, but whether they are WITH THE WORD WHICH IS CHRIST.

    You say: “There are alot of biblical scholars that have such a great love and thirst for God’s word that they study it to it’s fullest. They pray, study the language, the history, and they devote their whole lives to making sure that the scriptures are properly interpreted. You know I honestly don’t think that there is even one of them that would agree with your theory on the priestly breeches. Was this your own revelation or did you learn this in some seminary class.”

    ANSWER: There were a lot of loving, caring, devoted Rabbis in Jesus’ day and NOT ONE OF THEM STOOD UP TO STOP JESUS BEING CRUCIFIED. That’s good enough for me to show me what I should do if I follow Christ. It is not “my revelation” it is what God SAYS IN THE BIBLE. What you are advocating is the “Tradition of the Elders”. Jesus found the people in His day following a man-made tradition of this famous Rabbi and that famous Rabbi (who, incidentally all disagreed on this point or that). He said that by their Tradition, they had made the Word of no effect. Don’t be influenced by that same spirit today. Keep away from man-made traditional interpretation, however nice, prayerful, or intellectual the elders may be. Follow only the Word, as That alone was given by God, and is ALL we need. THE SCRIPTURES ARE OF NO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT HOLY MEN OF GOD, PROPHETS, SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST, and therefore we compare SPIRITUAL (WORD) WITH SPIRITUAL (WORD), not culture of the Devil. If it was possible to learn the Word of God in seminaries, Jesus would not have said, ALL THY CHILDREN SHALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD. If a seminary teaches something, it is a good sign the teaching is wrong. It is PROPHETS who receive God’s Word, not seminaries.

    You say: “Ok, I understand that you think that because Moses was shown priestly heavenly clothes that were “manufactured” with two legged sections that for all eternity women should not wear anything with two legged sections because God meant it for male priests. It does not matter the lenght or FUNCTION of the clothes. Women just need to stay in dresses (but no underwear for concealing private parts or perspiration). With respect, your hermeneutics is awful.”

    ANSWER: With respect not only are your hermeneutics awful but even your level of comprehension of the normal English of my posts is awful. I certainly did not say the heavenly clothes were “manufactured”. I said IN HEAVEN, which is where all true Christians are seated in Christ, all males are dressed in a way which Moses copied for the “manufactured” priestly clothes in the earthly Tabernacle. That is true. All those garments specific to priests (which is what Christian males are) ARE GENDER-SPECIFIC, and have “male associations” (which is what the Hebrew says literally “there should not be a manufactured item WITH MALE ASSOCIATIONS on the woman’s person”). I said, since God is talking to people on earth here, He does not mean the HEAVENLY MATERIAL, which is described in the Bible as belonging to a sphere where there is NO CORRUPTION AND NO FADING AWAY, as that cannot be manufactured on earth, but he is talking about THE PATTERN OF THE GARMENTS (as Moses copied the pattern), i.e. trousers (of earthly material) have MALE ASSOCIATIONS, THAT IS PRIESTLY ASSOCIATIONS IN THE HEAVENLY REALM, WHICH IS GOD’S STANDARD. Therefore a woman is forbidden to wear them. I certainly did not say a woman should not wear UNDERWEAR!!!! as God’s Word does not say that. It is you who are claiming the trousers are UNDERWEAR though you are adding to the Word when you say it, and in fact, are lying against the Word, because the Word says these garments were there specifically to guard against nakedness being SEEN IN PUBLIC, therefore contained in that statement is the acceptance that the trousers could be SEEN IN PUBLIC ON SUCH OCCASIONS AS THEY WERE ORDAINED FOR.

    You say: “Please, show some scholarly support for your beliefs outside of your own personal interpretations. You can’t twist and misuse scripture to fit your beliefs. I know some very good, highly educated pastors that are against women in pants, but none of them would use your arguement. I also noticed that when I asked you to show me someone with some kind of expertise in OT studies, you were silent. “

    ANSWER: Jesus does NOT ACCEPT THE WITNESS OF MAN, and I follow Him. I am not interested what scholars say or don’t say as regards spiritual things, because they are only “scholars” according to God if they STICK WITH THE WORD OF GOD. First find what the Word says, then look for SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH THE WORD. How do you know they are scholars? Are you going by their degrees? The Wisdom of this world IS FOOLISHNESS TO GOD, the Bible says. The Greeks seek after Wisdom, but we preach Christ (the Word) crucified. I am merely quoting to you what our great Apostolic founder Saint Paul said himself.

    You say: “In reference to the scriptural debate, I haven’t lost anything. Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1Timothy 2:9 ARE where we look to to see God’s standards for dress and they make no mention as to what articles pertaineth to each sex. Outside of your pants theory, what other clothing items are gender specific in the bible? If a man wears a helmet, can a woman wear any kind of hat? To make sure that we are dressed properly, should we all return to robes? We know that a sword is masculine but what about tee shirts. They were first worn by military men, should women wear them? Of course culture decides what is masculine and feminane. Men wear ties around their necks and women wear bows in their hair. “

    ANSWER: Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Timothy 2:9 are not where we look to define what is male or female clothing, they are Scriptures which tell us WE MUST NOT WEAR CLOTHING OF THE OPPOSITE SEX AS IT IS IMMODEST. Those Scriptures themselves tell us nothing about WHAT IS man’s and woman’s clothing but only that we mustn’t wear cross-gender clothing. We then ask what is man’s clothing and woman’s clothing, and we find the answer to that very Scriptural question in the Scriptures, not in Satanic culture of this world. We want God’s idea, not the Devil’s or the world’s idea. Man’s clothing, according to the Bible includes trousers, and the minister’s robe (the “sacred robe”). So women are not allowed to wear them, and that shows these modern-day female ministers who are being ordained by different “churches” all over the world, and dressed up in minister’s apparel, ARE UTTER ABOMINABLE FILTH TO GOD. Both those are items pertaining to a male in God’s Book, also the other items of the ministerial job, the special “girdle” and “turban” which are specific ministerial items. Women and men both wear robes, and robes are not gender-specific in God’s Book. The clothing of women is defined by the Bible characteristics of a woman, tenderness, beauty, etc. If a man wears a robe which is effeminate in any way, the Bible condemns that, as it says the effeminate will not enter heaven (1 Corinthians 6. 9), but the same is not said, of course, for a woman. Her garments should be feminine, if not neutral. A dress, the normal woman’s dress of modern times, is in the robe category, by the Bible definition, but it is a feminine robe, and therefore not wearable by a man as he must not be effeminate. You will find that the main item forbidden for a woman, relevant for today, is trousers, and the widespread modern use of trousers by women in the last couple of generations represents a massive apostasy from the Word, and goes hand-in-hand with a general usurpation by women of man’s God-ordained authority position, even to the ridiculous level of the deliberate ordination to the ministry of practicing Sodomite men and women.

    You say: “I’m sorry if I seem disrespectful in tone, I am praying that God opens your eyes to the truth. You may think that God has given you some plain obvious revelation to scripture, but please remember the words of my pastor. God’s word is infallible, not your interpretation. I think that we might as well rap things up here, because we are both accusing the other of “dull ears”. About a year ago I spent 3 months studing this topic. I researched on the internet, corresponded with Doctors in OT studies and Rabbis. Questioned people from both sides of the debate. All because I was asked to by a family member. I think that you are the first to make blue jeans “heavenly priestly garments”.”

    ANSWER. I remember God’s Word, not your pastor’s Word, which seems to have led you AWAY FROM THE BIBLE. For someone who doesn’t think their own interpretation is infallible, you seem to hold with dogged determination to your own interpretation, which it only took you three months to come up with (and that after consulting every Tom Dick and Harry theologian, instead of listening to GOD HIMSELF in His Sacred Word). ALL TROUSERS ARE SANCTUARY GARMENTS AND BELONG ON TRUE BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN MALE MINISTERS, not on females. Of course trousers down here are not “heavenly” garments, they are garments with MALE (THAT IS, PRIESTLY) ASSOCIATIONS. Next time you go to your Church meeting, scan the congregation and remember what God thinks of women wearing male clothing, priestly clothing, trousers, pants, jeans — He considers them utter filth. They might speak in tongues, jump up and down, praise God with their hands up in the air, claim miracles of healing, claim to be ministers of God, but they remain UTTER FILTH TO GOD, and so does any male who tolerates that filth. Be exhorted my brother. You can’t say you haven’t heard.

  41. Wow… It was late at night when I wrote my last post and I didn’t think that I posted it. I was tired and thought that I was babling a little. Lol

    Your last post pretty much sums up your interpretation ( not to be confused with God’s). I think it would be helpful for you to read Eph. 4. Start with verse 11. It says that God gave us people with special giftings for teaching us. The NT was written 2000 years ago and the OT obviously alot older. A person such as yourself can easily develop wrong doctrine, because you read God word without understanding the language and history behind it. You need to learn how to read scripture in its proper context. Please place yourself under a good pastor who can teach you how to rightly divide God’s word.

    I know that you think that God has gifted you with a special gift of interpretating the Bible, but what you are posting here is not correct.
    You accuse me of thinking that my interpretation is infalliable (I don’t), but my interpretation is not my own. A lot of God’s annointed teachers agree with me. You seem to be blind to the fact that your interprtation is just that, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION!

    I’ll let this be my last post here, since I know that you are probably not ready to receive correction. Once again please place yourself under a knowledgeable, Spirit filled pastor. With his help, I know that with your passion, you’ll become a great man of God.

  42. Thank you for your continuing, but clearly failed, attempt to explain to me your fuzzy thinking on why the Word doesn’t mean exactly what It says. I notice your reference to the writing of the New Testament “2000 years ago” and to the fact that the Old Testament is “a lot older”. This reveals what you mean when you say I (and everyone else who simply believes the Bible) must “take the Bible in context“. The sick parrot has now spewed up. What you mean is: “That Bible is an old thing from the past, therefore you don’t have to listen to it for today”. Why didn’t you just say that at the beginning? What you are willfully ignorant of is that GOD DOESN’T CHANGE AND GOD IS THE WORD. The Bible is GOD IN WRITTEN FORM. IT IS AS ETERNAL AS GOD. You see that’s the difference between me and you. What you want is some “Spirit-filled” pastor who will allow you to do what you want by explaining away the Bible. What you need is a God-given pastor telling you God’s Word. The Spirit and the Word, the Bible says ARE ONE. If a pastor is speaking God’s Word, THEN he is a true pastor. Test the spirits, the Bible says, to see if they are of God. If they listen to (obey) what John the Apostle and the other Apostles of the New Testament said, then and only then are they of God. You must test your so-called pastor’s spirit. There will be, the Bible says, in the end time FALSE ANOINTED ONES. They might be anointed with the genuine Holy Ghost, like the false prophet Balaam, giving the occasional true prophecy, operating flawed healing ministries etc. etc., YET STILL TEACH WRONG, LIKE BALAAM DID. How do we discern these false ones? By the Word test. If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. So your Ephesians 4 five-fold ministry so-called pastor, won’t help you at all if he is not speaking the Word, and speaking ALL THE WORD AND ONLY THE WORD. I would also point out to you that the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4 is only for a time: it exists TILL WE ALL COME IN THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT UNTO THE STATURE OF THE PERFECT MAN, CHRIST. When that happens (and it has through the God-sent ministry of the voice of the seventh angel, our beloved Brother William Branham) then we have a perfect gifted body, whose ministry-members are described in 1 Corinthians 12. 28. You will find there is no PASTOR AND EVANGELIST listed as a member of the Body of Christ. Now that is what most ministers call themselves today in the USA. So, you are out by the Word. You are looking for a pastor when there is no God-ordained pastor there. As always, the parasites babbling on about “gifts of the Spirit” and “anointings” have taken up the old manna TOO LATE, and God has moved on.

  43. Blasphemy is a terrible thing. The bible tells us that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, we are one in him. Is God promoting sodomy by making this statement? I think not. The bible also says that we should not think more highly of ourselves, well you know the rest. Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus, which makes each believer equal. However, one will never see this without the guidance of the holy spirit. The bible is spiritual with hidden, spiritual wisdom contained therein.

  44. I have already answered your main point here. You quote a small portion of the Scripture (in Christ there is neither male nor female), then go on to make ridiculous conclusions. IN CHRIST there is neither male nor female, but IN THE BODY, there IS MALE AND FEMALE, and you will find in the Scriptures that WE ARE STILL AS CHRISTIANS “IN THE BODY”. Therefore, your point is not relevant. The Scripture about there being neither male nor female etc. is dealt with fully in the following post on this Blog: Click HERE.
    More Scriptures showing we are still IN THE BODY, and God wants that body not to be sinfully used and wants it dressed properly:
    Hebrews 13.3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.
    Romans 6. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
    James 2. 15 If a brother or sister be naked [the Bible word “naked” means “not properly clothed”, not “totally without clothes”], and destitute of daily food,
    16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
    17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

  45. People with ideas like yours are why I could not stay in the Baptist faith. Dresses are a western custom, not a biblical one. If you truly want to follow the law that closely, then men should be wearing the long middle eastern robes. I believe that women should dress modestly, in loose clothing, but that doesn’t mean we cannot wear pants. You have your opinion, but in mine, you are wrong. In my estimation, the dresses women wear that show the lower leg, show more of the woman’s body than pants do. I am thankful to God for the women’s movement which gave us the right to vote and own property when people like you would have kept it from us.

  46. Thank you for your personal view of this Scriptural question. You are coming from the typical worldly woman’s angle. All you see is “your rights” as a female in regards to the question “Does the Bible say a woman shouldn’t wear pants?” So you mix two issues together, women’s “rights”, and what the Bible says about clothes. These are two completely different things. The USA as presently run might give you so-called “rights” to do this and that, to vote for political leaders, for example. Well, how did the USA decide that giving women the right to vote was a good thing????? Where did they get that idea? I’ll tell you — they got it from secular, worldly, liberal ANTI-BIBLE PHILOSOPHY. They certainly didn’t get it from the Bible. Now, I don’t belong to the USA, I belong to the Kingdom of Heaven. I am in Jesus’ Kingdom, not any human kingdom. That’s the difference between me and you. You have the NAME of a believer in God, but I am a willing SUBJECT of God the King. He is my boss, so I am very bothered what God says in His Word. You are not, because you just have the NAME, not the experience of belonging to the Kingdom of God. You care what the politicians say about your so-called “rights”. Now take a good long look at these politicians who say you have these “rights”. Are their lives worth following?????? Are they examples of true Christians???? Do they follow Jesus, as all true Christians must????? If they did, then they would agree with Jesus that EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS ABSOLUTELY THE WORD OF GOD AND WILL NEVER PASS AWAY — HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT NOT ONE JOT OF THE BIBLE WILL EVER PASS AWAY. Those are the words of Jesus Himself. Check them out in the New Testament. Every Christian should follow Jesus Christ. Do you know better than the Virgin-born Son of God????? I don’t think so.

    To answer your specific points:
    1) First you imply I am “narrow-minded” on Biblical issues and “like Baptists”. Well there are many Baptists, and different kinds of Baptists. I am not a Baptist I am a Bible-believing, born-again, Spirit-filled CHRISTIAN. I follow only Jesus Christ Himself, and the Bible as the Word of God. If certain Baptists agree with the Bible, then they agree with me. If they disagree with the Bible, they disagree with me. Many Baptists might have been brought up on a half-digested doctrine, partly based on the Bible and partly on human creed. They would then need instruction in the Word of God. I wouldn’t reject any brother or sister in Christ, Baptist or otherwise, because they weren’t instructed correctly in the Word. God wouldn’t either. I would reject any so-called brother or sister who WILLFULLY TURNED DOWN THE WORD WHEN IT WAS PROPERLY SHOWN TO THEM.
    2) You say “dresses are a western custom not a Biblical one”. That is just plain wrong. They had dresses in ancient times, Bible times, and people in the Bible had dresses too, as the word “robes” covers what we call dresses. If you mean “The Bible has nothing to say about women wearing dresses or pants, because it is just a question of custom”, that too is plain wrong. The Bible says that there are women’s clothes and men’s clothes, and that males should not wear females’ clothes, and vice versa. The Bible also identifies pants/trousers as men’s clothes, therefore It forbids a woman to wear them. For all the very detailed Bible quotes on that, see the preceding Blog posts, which go into it in detail.
    3) You claim, quite wrongly, that men ought to wear long robes if they follow the Bible. That is your imagination, not what the Bible says. The Bible says a man should not wear women’s clothing. It then defines women’s clothing by its female characteristics (“effeminate”, “soft” “delicate” etc.). The Bible also says women should not wear any manufactured item (including clothes) pertaining to a male. That includes trousers/pants, which are definitely and very clearly and significantly male-associated items ACCORDING TO GOD’S OWN DEFINITION, as they are male clothing in God’s own heavenly realm. Robes are neutral garments in the Bible and can be worn by males or females, but “effeminate”, “soft” or “delicate” robes are, as said before, defined as female and not wearable by a man. Modern women’s dresses in the West come under the latter category.
    4) You say in your opinion I am wrong about women not being able to wear trousers. Madam, you have no opinion coming. Jesus said to “judge not”. You are judging. Jesus said if you judge, you will be judged. If you put forth YOUR OPINION, you are the judge. We, as Christians, DO NOT PUT FORTH OUR OWN OPINION, WE ONLY SAY WHAT GOD SAYS IN HIS WORD ABOUT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING WHAT IS MALE AND FEMALE CLOTHING. That way God judges, not man.
    5) You say (again in your opinion) that women should dress modestly. Well again, nobody is interested in YOUR OWN OPINION, but as it happens, you are saying here what the Bible Itself says. Yes women should definitely dress MODESTLY. Now your problem is: what does GOD MEAN BY MODEST? Not what you mean by modest, but what does GOD MEAN BY MODEST? To get the answer to that you need to find God’s thinking, and God’s thinking is only expressed in His sacred Word, the Bible, as Jesus Himself said.
    6) Again you tell us your opinion that showing the calf of the leg with a dress is showing “more flesh” than trousers would show, so dresses are, in your opinion, “more immodest”. Well again NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINION, Christians are only interested IN GOD’S OPINION, and God’s opinion is found in the Word of God. It is God who defines what is and what is not modest. Nakedness of the lower body, according to God, is showing the THIGH AND UPWARD TO THE PUBLIC. It is not to do with showing the calf of the leg. That is what God thinks about it, so I am only interested in God’s opinion, not yours. For the Scriptures in the Bible which show you that the unexposed thigh is nakedness to God, not the calf of the leg, see the above Blog posted answers, which go into it in detail.
    7) On your love of “women’s rights”, see the comments above at the beginning of this reply. I would point out, that if you want to carry on in this world-loving, secular, liberal, “women’s rights” way, carry on. God will let you do it, BUT YOU ARE SINNING AGAINST GOD’S WORD AND GOD’S PUNISHMENT WILL EVENTUALLY CATCH UP WITH YOU. That’s precisely how the USA is going down the drain today, by following secular, worldly culture of the Devil. Christians, true Bible Christians, will separate from that and follow Jesus and His Word. PS. Who says women can’t own property? The daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27) prove the opposite.

  47. This oneness folks are crazy! Liars and hipocrites alot of human standards but not fruit of the Spirit. Anyone reading this please dont waste your valuable time with them. Quoting a oneness “there is always an answer” yeah they have an answer to everything which is why they have not answer the question who was here first the chicke or the egg?

  48. You obviously didn’t like what you read on this post Woman Wearing Pants = Spirit of Sodomy. That’s because, as you say “They (by which you mean us supposedly “Oneness” people) have the answer to everything”. Let me put you straight. We’re not “Oneness” , “Twoness” or “Threeness”, we are Bible-believing, Holy Ghost filled Christians who love Jesus. Jesus is the answer to everything, and we do have Jesus, so yes we do have THE answer to everything — Jesus. Jesus Christ is THE ONLY PERSON, God, Father, Son and Spirit. There’s no “three persons” (three centers of consciousness) in God, there is ONLY ONE PERSON, ONE CENTER OF CONSCIOUSNESS, THE I AM, OUR LORD JESUS. God’s not bi-polar or tri-polar, He is ONE. He came down in human flesh in the form of Jesus Christ and shed His own blood, the blood of God (Acts 20:28) to save us from sin. Now as regards your post, you’re just filled with bitterness, there’s not a single Scripture in your rant, just accusations and blasphemy. If you’ve got something Bible-based to say, say it, and we’ll continue searching the Scriptures with you to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). If you continue ranting your posts will get deleted.

  49. Thanks for this illumination. Just baffled about wearing tight under my gown, because it hurts when my tighs are walking all day. I’m also engaged in exterior decor, i need to work wit guys. Cant i wear tight under my gown to climb, cos my work involves climbing, in order to protect my nakedness as u stated above.

  50. Thank you for your attention to this important Scriptural point. You should have no concerns about tights if you follow the basic Scriptural principle. That is: IF YOU WEAR THESE AS PRIVATE UNDERGARMENTS, MEANING CLOTHES WHICH ARE NOT TO BE SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC (LIKE WOMEN’S LINGERIE), THEN FINE TO WEAR THEM — AS PRIVATE UNDERGARMENTS. If you are wearing tights in such a way as they are going to be seen by others (like you say you are going to in your job), then no — that is a man’s garment. Notice in the priests’ case in the Bible, they wore these trousers TO COVER THEIR THIGHS FROM BEING VIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY WENT UP ON THE ALTAR STEPS. That means, these priests’ trousers COULD BE SEEN POTENTIALLY BY OTHERS, and that was their purpose — to hide flesh from sight by the public. So there are two elements to the defintition WHAT ARE TROUSERS SCRIPTURALLY? One is LOOK — trousers are two material covers of the thighs including down to the knee. Second is the purpose of these clothes — to cover thighs from public view. If the clothes meet these two requirements they are trousers Scripturally and men’s garments. Likewise for you — if you are going to be wearing tights in such a way as they might be seen by others — then no, that is man’s garments. Also, the word tights is used differently by different people. There are some tights which show the flesh of the thigh underneath. Those are PRIVATE UNDERGARMENTS. Below the knee, it is OK to show flesh. That is the Bible principle. There are other tights which are colored (often dark, black), and the flesh cannot be seen (but usually they hug the line of the flesh tightly). Those are trousers, men’s garments, if they can be seen by others. It would be very difficult for them not to be seen by others — you would have to tie up your skirt around your ankles I would think in order to keep them out of sight!! So they are men’s garments — trousers, that is COVERS for the thighs (which might go down below the knee), such as might be seen by the public. I might have caused other questions to spring up in your mind, so please post again if you’ve got other questions.

  51. Some verses to consider:
    Galatians 2:16, 19-21
    ” 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
    Galations 5: 1, 6
    “1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”
    Colossians 2: 13-17
    “13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow things to come, but the substance is of Christ.”

    I know it is difficult to fathom, but “God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him might be saved (John 3:16).” The gift of God’s grace is free. Wearing pants or not observing the sabbath on Sunday or whatever other doctrine people argue over will NOT get you cast into hell. What will is not believing that our Lord Jesus Christ came and willingly sacrificied Himself for us. He did not come “to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:17).” Christ came to rid us of legalism and bondage to the law. He has set us free with His blood and we no longer have to adhere to weird doctrines. I believe in Christ Jesus who has saved me from my sins and continues to forgive me despite my unworthiness of His love. That is the only belief that truly matters. All else is irrelevant and extraneous.
    I am a woman and I will continue to wear pants AND worship my King, Jesus Christ, in them. I will do so because it is the condition of the heart that He looks at, not the clothes that I wear.

  52. Thank you for the verses from the Bible which you quote and which I recommend you should FOLLOW. First of all, as you say you are a WOMAN, you should NOT be attempting to teach me, a man, if you claim to believe the Bible:
    1 Timothy 2: 11, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12, But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13, For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14, And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    Now, in spite of the fact that you wilfully disregard this direct instruction of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Apostle Paul, and obviously don’t care a jot about what the Bible says about how a Christian woman should behave, by the true Grace of God I will attempt to show you, deluded as you are by Satan, how you have been led up the Garden path right OUT of the Garden. Satan came up to you, in the form of some twit of a so-called pastor, or some other shyster, and whispered in your ear just as he whispered to your mother Eve: GOD DOESN’T MEAN YOU WILL DIE IF YOU BREAK HIS WORD, HE MEANT, IF YOU EAT THIS TREE OF KNOWLEDGE, YOU WILL SPIRITUALLY DIE AND BE REBORN AS AN ENLIGHTENED SPIRITUAL CREATURE, KNOWING THE TRUE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL. That was a lie then and it’s still a lie now. If you break God’s Word YOU WILL DIE SPIRITUALLY AND PHYSICALLY. Your body will rot in the grave and your soul will burn in Gehenna fire till it’s annihilated. That’s what happens to any soul which disregards God’s Holy Word and tramples on His Offer of the Grace of God through remission of sins in Jesus Christ. What you have done, in order to get out of doing what God commands you to do, is you have SELECTIVELY QUOTED FROM THE APOSTLE PAUL THOSE PASSAGES WHICH YOU THINK SUIT YOUR OBJECT AND IGNORED ALL THOSE PASSAGES WHICH DISAGREE WITH YOUR TWISTED VIEW. For example, the first Scripture passages you quote, Galatians 2:16, 19-21, Galations 5: 1, 6, and Colossians 2: 13-17, show we are NOT SAVED BY DOING THINGS THE LAW COMMANDS WE ARE SAVED BY THE GRACE (FREE MERCY) OF GOD SHOWN TO US AT CALVARY. Well of course that’s how we are saved. What that DOESN’T mean is we can now go on and act however we like, claiming we are saved by Grace, and God will never condemn us. GOD WILL CONDEMN US IF WE WILFULLY SIN NOW AFTER WE HAVE BEEN SAVED BY ACCEPTING HIS GRACE: God says so in Hebrews 10:
    “26, For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
    27, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
    28, He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
    29, Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
    30, For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
    31, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
    and Jude 1:3-5:
    “3, Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
    4, For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
    5, I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
    6, And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
    7, Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
    You see here that people who DESPISE THE GRACE OF GOD, and TURN THE GRACE OF GOD INTO LASCIVIOUSNESS (= LOOSE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR) AFTER they have claimed “salvation by faith” WILL BE DAMNED BY GOD. Loose sexual behavior by the Bible definition includes the cross-dressing of wearing clothes pertaining to the opposite sex.
    Just to believe in Jesus WITH YOUR MIND is not enough. The Devil believes in that way and trembles, James 2:
    17, Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
    18, Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
    19, Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
    20, But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
    21, Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
    22, Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
    23, And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
    24, Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
    You must BELIEVE WITH YOUR HEART and then the good fruits of faith spring out of the believing heart:
    Romans 10:
    “9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
    “3, For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
    4, That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

  53. Please stop all of the controversy about clothing. I am a woman and wear dress slacks to work. I am a mother, grandmother and now great grandmother. This has nothing to do with any sinful thoughts or spirit. I work in a professional capacity and am a Christian woman. All of this talk of spirit of sodomy is absolutely ridiculous. There is no commandment for a woman to not wear slacks. Those of you who keep this fight going, take that time to do good to others and quit judging what is worn as long as it is clean and in good taste (the skin is covered). The world needs Jesus, not condemnation among us.

  54. You are a typical product of the post-war generation of masculinized “women” pumped out off the conveyor belt by the false anti-Bible so-called “Christian” cults of America. It started with overall-wearing perverts “working” in munitions factories in World War 2 and went on to the “slack-wearing” perverts of the Rock-and-Roll era. You need to repent of that filthy Sodomite spirit that is working on you and get back to Bible holiness and decency standards. You are the ones causing the slide into sexual perversion and immorality which is now engulfing the USA and bringing God’s judgment in wind, fire, flood, war and economic collapse. Repent or perish! As regards the very clear command of God, read it and do it —

    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.

  55. Absolutely my Christian friend, women should cover their heads when they are praying and prophesying, and since the Bible tells us we should all “pray without ceasing” (I Thessalonians 5. 17), that means a woman should HAVE HER HEAD COVERED AT ALL TIMES, HER GOD-GIVEN COVERING BEING HER UNCUT HAIR (not some material covering of a veil, shawl, hat, kerchief etc. etc.). You can read all the Scriptures on this and how they show women should have long, uncut hair, at this link http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/hair.pdf.

  56. Hello what do you believe about woman covering their heads in pray or prophecy according to 1cor/11 I hold fast to this doctrine what about you mr Richard

  57. Excerpt from:
    The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle
    by Karen L. King (Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa, California, 2003), pp. 3-12

    “Few people today are acquainted with the Gospel of Mary. Written early in the second century CE, it disappeared for over fifteen hundred years until a single, fragmentary copy in Coptic translation came to light in the late nineteenth century”

    Brother Richard, in faith, this is for you: think carefully how close to Christ Mary of Magdelene is in terms of apostolic authority.

    Think carefully about what authority is and why Christ’s authority requires every knee to bow before it.
    What is authority based on? What is Mary Chris’s?
    What is ours? Yours and mine?

    The following excerpt is from Karen King’s new translation with extended commentary, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle. The Gospel of Mary is also included, along with a useful introduction, in the International Edition of The Nag Hammadi Scriptures (published in 2007).

    1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

    2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

    3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

    4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

    5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

    6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

    7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

    8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

    9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

    10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.

  58. Thankyou, my friend, for your comment. In case you believe the Gnostic gospel you quote is an authentic account of what historically happened (as you seem to), you should realize there was a whole swarm of Gnostic gurus, especially in Egypt, later in Rome, in the second century AD, who perverted the true saving Gospel of Jesus into a kind of Buddhist philosophical “revelation”. The aim of Satan here was (and still is) to get people away from the TRUTH Jesus taught and into worldly “reasoning”. For example in the so-called “Gospel of Mary” you quote, it cites Jesus Himself as saying Chapter 4 verse 26 … “There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.” and verse 38 “Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver [that is, Moses] lest you be constrained by it.” But the real Jesus said John 16. 8f: “8 And when he [the Holy Spirit] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me.” and Romans 3. 20: “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” So there is such a thing as sin, and we know what sin is by the Law of Moses. Also Jesus established the Law of Moses, he did not do away with it: Matthew 5. 17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Of course the Law will not by itself save you, but it tells you WHAT sin IS. As Jesus said, SIN IS NOT BELIEVING CHRIST THE WORD (John 1. 1). When you BELIEVE truly that Christ died to save you and receive His Spirit into your heart you are saved from the sin we all know to be sin, because the Law tells us so.

    If you want to find out where these false gospels like the so-called Gospel of Mary came from please go to the tab “Bible Resources” at the top of the Blog and download two pdf files: 1) “The First Church of Rome” and 2) “The Great Bible Text Fraud”. God bless you in your search for the Truth.

  59. Good thing I like pain because I sure as **** [expletive deleted] am going to enjoy burning in hell for having so much sweaty hot lesbian sex with so many women and wearing my tight jeans that show off my curves. Thank satin [misspelled for Satan] for modern day thinking against biggots like you.

  60. Thank you for your strong confirmation that it is perverted Satanically-inspired people who wear clothing pertaining to the opposite sex. PS. on another note: you will first freeze, shiver, etc. etc. in Hell, if you don’t repent, whilst feeling the heat of the coming Lake of Fire, as first an unrepentant sinner like you will be cast into the muddy slime of the pit of Hell, for many ages until the Great White Throne Judgment, then Hell will be thrown into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna) after the Universal Judgment, when God will judge every thought in your wicked black-as-Hell heart. The Lake of Fire, after cycles of time will utterly consume your spirit until it is annihilated. Then Jesus and the humble, believing, righteous saints will reign for ever in Paradise. I recommend that you repent from your sin and believe in the saving power of Christ immediately, to save you from your sin and evil conscience, as the moment you depart this mortal life it is too late. No matter how wicked you have been till now, there is mercy for you and all, IF YOU REPENT AND BELIEVE IN GOD’S ONLY SON, JESUS CHRIST, WHO DIED TO SAVE YOUR SOUL. May God guide you to the Fountain of Life.
    PPS. The word “bigot” means a person who is “intolerant of or prejudiced against those of differing religious beliefs, political opinions, etc.” (Webster’s Dictionary).” This word is frequently misapplied and misused (as for example by you) to attack the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by Bible-believing Christians. All Christians tolerate any belief, no matter how small or weak, and those who hold that belief, because Jesus said to love your enemy. No Spirit-filled Christian, truly born-again, acts violently towards anyone. Belief is a matter of conscience. But ACTION is a matter of deeds. Any Christian who tolerates EVIL BEHAVIOR in his presence is an ACCOMPLICE TO EVIL. Any Christian who permits idolatry or blasphemy in his house or bad behavior is an ACCOMPLICE TO EVIL. Any Government (whose job it is to PUNISH evil) which does not PUNISH idolatry, witchcraft, perversion, Satanism, false outward worship of other Gods apart from Jesus Christ, is itself corrupt and an ACCOMPLICE TO EVIL. (Of course, no government can or should examine beliefs of conscience, as they are dealt with by Christian teachers — only actions are punished by true governments.) So bigotry is the intolerance of people who believe differently. Also bigotry is PREJUDICE against people with differing beliefs. Prejudice is (Webster’s) “a judgment or opinion formed without due examination of facts etc.” Of course no Christian makes judgments without examination of facts, and, in fact, no Christian makes judgments just by their own opinion. The Christian judges only by the Word of God, the Bible. Your trumpeting of the word “bigotry” is a throw-back to the ridiculous ideas pushed out by idiots at the French Revolution, such as trumped-up, made-for-the-purpose “Human Rights”. These supposed “Human Rights” were a mockery of the “Bill of Rights” of the American Revolution. The Bill of Rights is truly a great Christian, Bible-based document, stating the rights of believing Christians to Bible-based legitimate and limited government, as opposed to your false so-called “Human Rights” based on bad humanist philosophy. Of course, the so-called “Pope” of Rome is one of the main promoters of this anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-Christian, anti-American supposed charter of “Human Rights”. Humans as a race don’t have any rights, we are all here only by the Grace of our Heavenly Father.

  61. Thankyou my sister for your humble obedience to the Word of God and your love for Jesus which you have shown by accepting the Bible teaching on this as the great Apostle Paul gave it. Yes, the Bible teaching on hair is of massive importance as hair represents a female’s position under divine authority of the male. In a few words, the Bible teaching is that the GOD-GIVEN COVERING OF THE FEMALE IS HER UNCUT HAIR. There is no Bible authority for a woman to wear a material covering on her head at all, in or out of worship, but a woman must be covered at all times with her God-given uncut hair, which is called by God her “glory”. People have misquoted the Word of God to give the impression that God is telling females to wear a material covering only when they are praying or prophesying, but actually the Bible says a woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered DISHONORS HER HEAD, her head being the man, and that is saying AT ANY TIME she dishonors her head if she does so. Since we are all commanded to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17), then if the cover God was talking about was a material covering, then a woman would have to wear a material covering AT ALL TIMES WITHOUT CEASING. In fact, of course, when we read the Scripture we find that the Apostle Paul says directly God has given the woman the covering he is talking about, and that covering is her hair, which, as a Christian believer, she should not cut. All the Scriptures relating to this important teaching is given in the following little tract which you can read online by left-clicking this link or you can download by right-clicking here and Save … As: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/hair.pdf If you have any questions at all after reading this tract please post here again and I will try to answer your questions. God bless you.

    The main Bible Scripture relating to hair is 1 Corinthians 11:3-16:
    3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
    4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
    5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
    6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
    7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
    8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
    9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
    10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
    11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
    12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
    13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
    14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
    15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
    16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

    On the jewelry: please see 1 Peter 3:3 relating to women’s clothing:
    3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
    4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
    5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves

    Notice in this Scripture it does not say a woman is wrong to have items of gold or jewelry on them, but a woman is wrong to “adorn themselves” in gold etc. as well as garments, and Peter constantly repeats “adorn”, “adorning” etc. The Greek word for “adorning” is kosmos or kosmeo, and this is the same word as kosmos, “the pattern and display of the world”. So this is condemning “worldly fashion” and “wordly display” by jewelry, clothing etc. The Scripture tells a woman to be of a higher heavenly worldly fashion and look, of meekness and humility and faith. So it is any items of jewelry and clothing which are this-worldly in the way the Bible condemns as this-worldly, that is, for example, excessive, rich, sumptuous, designed to attract the wrong kind of male attention etc. etc., which the Word of God condemns. No Christian female should wear those type of things. Again there are bound to be questions, so if you want to get more details please post again with any questions.

    The same relates to make up/make over etc. It is the way it is done that makes it right or wrong. The only woman in the Bible who painted her face was Jezebel, and God fed her to the dogs, so if a woman wants to be dog’s meat too she should follow Jezebel. Of course no Christian woman has anything in common with the witchy worldly woman Jezebel. Her intention in painting her face was to go out and meet a man, and that’s usually the real reason today. That is this-wordly (kosmos), so Christians don’t do it. Anything put on as an “adorning” (kosmos, this-worldly addition) of the natural look is wrong as the Bible says God made us the way He wants us, including our natural look. Any substance which merely brings out our natural God-given look is fine with God, but anything which adds to that look like red lipstick etc. is out. So for example a person might want to make the natural color of their lips come out stronger with clear substance put on the lips, there’s nothing wrong with looking the best you can in that natural God-given way, but red, scarlet, purple added color is a this-worldly addition to the natural God-given look. I am merely giving some examples here of what is the difference between “adorning” in the Scriptural sense of this-worldly and looking your best as God gave you your features.

  62. I have followed your teaching on this topic and I find it interesting. I made up my mind not to wear trousers but I had like to know if not covering my hair all the time is a sin because I only cover my hair when am praying. I also want to know if wearing of jewelries is wrong and Makeup/Make over.

    I truthfully dont want to offend God. I have tried studying but I need more light. I pray the Spirit of God guides you into all truths.

  63. I had been struggling with the fact that I feel that God had been convicting me of that I have felt for 5 or more years that I shouldnt wear pants. Regardless of what others say I know what God says to me and thats for me not to wear pants.

  64. I encourage you, my sister, to continue on that Path — it’s Jesus Christ’s path — the path of humility and obedience to the Loving Father’s Word. Keep going!

  65. Nothing brings me greater peace than the knowledge that you and your kind will soon return to the Earth and make room for people of equal spirituality, but will less hate, suspicion, and subjugation in their hearts. You are on the wrong side of the Scripture, the wrong side of History, the wrong side of Ethics– the wrong side of the Heart.
    — An athiest woman working construction

  66. Nice to feel I’ve given someone great peace. I suppose as a typical “atheist” (relevant quote from the Bible — Psalm 53. 1: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good”), as a typical “atheist” you will be unable to back up your strange, delusional assertions with FACTS. Prove your statements, madam, or shut your cake-hole (as they say in olde-worlde Yorkshire).

  67. I also feel that this speaks to more than just priesthood but also the traditional family roles and even societal roles. In a way this can speak to the entire feminist movement as a whole. Its funny when you think about certain sayings and how they can be found in the Bible. The saying with which I am speaking is “wears the pants in the relationship.” I’ve been studying neuroscience for a while and a recent topic which struck my interest and led me here was a lecture given on autism. The general idea/theory is that autism is a condition in which the brain is more masculinized, meaning that it has reduced empathy and increased systemizing/patterning abilities. So on average males are more typically affected, likely because they are already at the end of the spectrum and that any further “masculinization” leads to an improper balance and an inability to function normally. However, if a woman brain becomes more masculinized, then it would perhaps still be functioning in a proper range, but just in the realm of what is average for a male on the empathy to systemizing spectrum. The kicker is that there seems to be an increase in the occurrence of autism over the past 10-15 years. Not to mention the fact that this disorder wasn’t even really known about a few decades ago. So how might this be related to gender roles? Generally, its thought that society drives how boys and girls behave and that they are pushed towards. This is partially true and im sure depending on who you talk to you will get a different answer on just how much of an influence this has on the behavior of males and females. However, If you think about it, societal pressures probably werent so great back in the time of adam and even or even a few generations onward. So when did this societal pressure begin or was it for the most part inherent? The real question now is why are the societal pressures changing and with them, the traditional roles of males and females. A possibility is that what is causing the surge in autism may be related.

  68. Thank you, my friend, for your extremely interesting observations. Of course I know nothing about the medical side, which is your field. As an amateur, or less than an amateur, I can only suggest some possibilities. As regards the modern surge in gender confusion — have you studied the influence of drugs, from alcohol (mid 19th century onwards) to the rise of estrogen in the environment (lately)? Though individual females have always been sexually “controversial”, only in the late 19th and in the 20th/21st centuries has the female sex en masse, as it were, pushed the “equality” line in the social and political realms to the extreme. This has coincided with industrialization, that is, the concentration of women in cities, and the increased use of alcohol as a result. (In earlier, harsher, non-urban environments, drunks didn’t live long.) Alcohol has very destructive effects on reproductive ability etc. etc. Alcohol has been superseded recently by more potent and subtle drugs, prescription and “leisure”. For example, estrogen is flushed down the sewers regularly in massive amounts from the bodies of women who take the pill (that is an almost incredible 82%+ of the breeding female population of America), and ends up in the food chain (absorption by fishes, then by predators, and so on). Estrogen de-feminizes women by interfering with ovulation and feminizes men. There would seem to be a very obvious connection here with the rise of sodomite culture in the 20th century.

  69. sodom wasn’t even the word for homosexuality but temple prostitution. Also when pants were invented women and men wore them in persian. Both Women and men didn’t have much different clothes. both men and women wore skirts. both adam and eve had the same clothes. IGeber in the talmund always had to do with warrior and pertained was not in the translations. Many NDE women went to heaven. Why don’t men wear skirts. Pants weren’t invented. Both men and women wore pantyhose and highheels in 1700

  70. Paul and O.t clothes were were not the same. Men had long hair(samuel) and wore skirts. Paul was in roman and women and men wore roman clothes which were different.

  71. This is an extra comment which I’ll answer in the same way:

    1. You say: “Paul and O.t clothes were were not the same”. Obviously Paul was not the same as Old Testament clothes. Paul was human, clothes are things made of material. I presume you mean “Paul lived in a later time from the Old Testament and had a different attitude to clothing.” If that’s what you mean, you’re wrong, as Paul taught that “By the Law [of the Old Testament, the Law of God given to Moses] is the knowledge of sin”. Paul taught that we know what is sin by referring to the Old Testament Law. Then, through Christ we obtain mercy and the Holy Spirit (if we repent and believe) in order to do what the Law says by the grace of God. So Paul taught what was and was not male and female clothing by referring to the Law of the Old Testament. I do the same.

    2. You say: “Men had long hair(samuel)”. There is no evidence in or out of the Bible that all or even the majority of men had “long” hair. Some men did (like one of David’s sons). Perhaps that is what you mean by “Samuel” (Book of Samuel???). This, of course, has nothing to do with the subject of male and female clothing, It has to do with hair, on which you can find the Bible teaching by going to this link: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/hair.pdf.

    3. You say: “Men … wore skirts”. There was no such thing as modern “skirts” in the ancient world. Men and women wore robes, and robes are fine and are okayed by God in the Bible for both men and women. The Bible condemns women for wearing trousers or pants, not robes. You can find the Scriptures that tell us that in the Post and replies above.

    4. You say: “Paul was in roman and women and men wore roman clothes which were different.” I presume you mean Paul was in Rome, where Roman clothes were worn by men and women. Yes, Paul was in Rome, but Roman clothes had nothing to do with Bible clothes. We are talking about what the Bible (and Paul) said were male and female clothes.

  72. Thankyou for your assorted dysfunctional ramblings. I will quote them one by one, and in each case answer your question or statement as you wrote it first, then secondly answer what I think you meant.

    1. You say: “sodom wasn’t even the word for homosexuality but temple prostitution.” Answer: No, Sodom was the name of a sinful city. It was not the word for homosexuality, nor was it a word for temple prostitution. So what’s that got to do with anything???? I presume you meant to say: “Sodomite was a word for a temple prostitute, not for a homosexual”. In which case, you are quoting the King James translation: in that translation “sodomite” translates the Hebrew word “kadesh” which means a male person claiming to be a “devotee” (“kadesh” in Hebrew means devotee) of a pagan cult involving ritual sex, including various forms of perverted sex, like sodomy (homosexuality). You can see by that last phrase of mine, I use the word “sodomy” as it is used in common English, since according to Webster’s dictionary, sodomy means (I quote) “Anal copulation, especially between male persons or with animals”.

    2. You say: “when pants were invented women and men wore them in persian.” This is difficult to comprehend, as very rarely, if ever, has any person been known to wear clothes in a language. However, what I presume you mean is: “when pants were invented women and men wore them, and that was in Persia.” Well, for one thing, nobody knows when pants were invented. Secondly, there’s no evidence whatsoever it was in Persia. Thirdly there’s no evidence that Persian men and women wore pants when they were invented, because of the aforesaid fact. Persian men and women may have later worn them, but what on earth has that got to do with what the Bible says concerning the wearing of male/female clothing???? Human cultures of various kinds have come and gone, and have had different dress-codes, but we are talking about the Bible’s standards of dress.

    3. You say: “Both Women and men didn’t have much different clothes.” “Much different” means you accept they were at least a “little different” so for once we agree, at least in the fact that they were different.

    4. You say: “Both men and women wore skirts.” What? All the time???? Everywhere???? This is a little sweeping to say the least. And if you mean, “both men and women in certain cultures in the past could wear skirts”, that is totally irrelevant, once again, to what we are talking about. We are talking about the BIBLE TEACHING ON WHETHER A MAN SHOULD WEAR FEMALE GARMENTS AND VICE VERSA, AND WHAT THOSE MALE AND FEMALE GARMENTS ARE BY THE BIBLE DEFINITION. It doesn’t matter what other cultures did or did not do.

    5. You say: “Both adam and eve had the same clothes.” How do you know that? The Bible doesn’t say exactly what kind of clothes they wore, only that they were made of animal-skins and that they covered their nakedness (which means hid the thigh, and other private body-parts from public view).

    6. You say: “IGeber in the talmund always had to do with warrior.” IGeber is not a Hebrew word, I presume you mean “geber”. “Geber” means both in Biblical and later (Talmudic) Hebrew “male, man” not simply “warrior”. You are wrong on this. Jastrow in his Talmudic Dictionary translates “geber” as male, man, not warrior. You make this incorrect statement on account of the fact the Hebrew Bible talks of a “keli of a geber” as not allowed on the person of a female. keli means “manufactured item” (and includes clothes) and “geber” means “male”. Therefore the Bible forbids a woman to wear on her person any “manufactured item of a male”, including male clothing. That is the Bible fact. If you believe the Bible at all, you have to accept that.

    7. You say: “pertained was not in the translations”. But it was in my translation. What you mean by this, is when I translate “keli geber” as “manufactured item pertaining to a male” I am supposedly incorrect. No, you are incorrect. Do you know Hebrew? “keli geber” means precisely “manufactured item pertaining to a male” as it is in what is sometimes called the “construct” case. You could also say “manufactured item of a male” or “male manufactured item” — all the same. But it means more specifically “manufactured item pertaining to a male” or “manufactured item with male associations”. Then I go on to prove by the Bible what those “male associations” are for the manufactured item of clothing, and that includes trousers or pants. Again you have to accept the Bible facts.

    8. You say: “Many NDE women went to heaven.” Presumably you mean by “NDE” Near Death Experience. What on earth (or otherwise) has that got to do with it? Because many women had near death experiences, that doesn’t prove women can wear pants. It doesn’t prove anything except that certain women had near death experiences.

    9. You say: “Why don’t men wear skirts.” Answer: I have no idea — they seem to do every other perverted thing these days. It’d be more honest of most so-called males in the modern world if they did wear skirts, since they’re certainly filled already with a perverted feminine spirit inside them. At least then their outside would match their inside.

    10. You say: “Pants weren’t invented”. This doesn’t make any sense at all. Pants were invented at some time. So again you’re just WRONG.

    11. You say: “Both men and women wore pantyhose and highheels in 1700”. What? All over the world???? Not true, of course. Red Indians in America didn’t, Siberians didn’t, Arabians didn’t, most of the world didn’t. A few corrupt and effeminate people in Western Europe may have worn some such clothing around 1700, but so what??? There are many perverted dressers today also. That’s got nothing to do with what the Bible says about wearing cross-gender clothing, and that’s what we’re talking about here.

  73. This whole situation about pants being worn by woman has been taken a bit over board. I dont believe that women will go to hell for wearing pants. if you look up the word pants it is an abbreviation for the word pantalooms. these were invented about 500+ years ago. How can you say that the bible and if to be specific Deu 22:5 speaks about pants? pantalooms were not inveted back then. And the other thing is that if we read further to verse 11, the bible clearly states that we should not wear clothing of diverse materials. if a man wears jeans and a t-shirt he is wearing diverse materials of clothing. So that means we are all going to hell? What excludes verse 11?? We need to understand that The book of Deutronomy was a book of Law. We are in the dispensation of Grace, Nobody was able to keep the laws and that is why God sent Jesus to die for us and through him we have received salvation. So was the coming of Jesus in vain??

  74. Thank you for your questions on this important Bible teaching. You appear to believe the Bible is the Word of God from your tone and manner and I am glad to know you want to be right by the Word. As the Bible says, though, you must “understand what you read” (Acts 8:30). I will go through your questions one by one:

    You say: “if you look up the word pants it is an abbreviation for the word pantalooms. these were invented about 500+ years ago. How can you say that the bible and if to be specific Deu 22:5 speaks about pants? pantalooms were not inveted back then.”
    Answer: You miss the point. The point is not all the types and kinds of pants that exist, nor how long they have been in existence, nor whether they existed in Bible times. The point is the Bible in Deteronomy 22:5 forbids a woman to wear on her person ANYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO A MALE. Now obviously it is God speaking here, so God has in His great Mind things that “pertain to a male”. That is God’s idea of what pertains to a male, not ours. Well we better find out what God thinks “pertains to a male” — because He also says in the same verse that anyone who breaks this commandment IS ABOMINATION TO GOD. Abominations to God will not get into heaven, as the Bible tells us in Revelation 21:27: “And there shall in no wise enter into it [the Heavenly City] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie”. So God thinks certain things on a physical body PERTAIN TO A MALE. Next question: “what is a male in God’s thought?” That might seem obvious, but in fact it is God’s male is what He is talking about, a proper male, a male in the divine realm, the heavenly realm. It is not what we down here think is a male, it is God’s idea. In heaven, in God’s realm, ALL THE MALES ARE PRIESTS AND KINGS. So, it is the things that PERTAIN TO THESE MALES that must not be on a woman’s person, clothes and other items. That is what God is talking about. Moses dressed the priests in the earthly temple in exactly the pattern he saw in the heavenly realm in a vision on Mount Sinai. (Hebrews 8:5.) So the priests’ garments in the Jewish temple were a copy of what males in heaven wear. That includes trousers, which is “miknesayim” in the original Hebrew — two leg sections running down over the thighs or further down the calf. That is what these items are. If anyone wears such things they are wearing items that PERTAIN TO A MALE, meaning to the heavenly male priest.

    Your next Question: You say “And the other thing is that if we read further to verse 11, the bible clearly states that we should not wear clothing of diverse materials. if a man wears jeans and a t-shirt he is wearing diverse materials of clothing. So that means we are all going to hell? What excludes verse 11??”
    Answer: You are mixing up two different things here. You must “rightly divide the Word of Truth” as the Bible says (2 Timothy 2:15). The wearing by a female of things pertaining to a male is called in the Bible “an abomination to God”. Every statement in the Bible that such-and-such a thing is “an abomination to God” is still true today — it is still an abominatiuon to God — and God doesn’t change. IT IS HATEFUL TO HIS NATURE — always was, still is, and ever shall be. But, on the other hand, the commandment you quoted about mixing different materials is not called an abomination to God — it is a commandment given to Israelites only who were under the ritual Law. The ritual laws in the Old Testament apply to Israel, the nation of Israel, only, not to Gentiles. The ritual law includes all the sacrifices of animals, the feasts and other ritual items. But the moral Law expressed in the Old Testament still applies, and not only to Israel, but to everyone: Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal etc. etc. Nothing has been abolished there. So likewise ALL THE THINGS THAT GOD SAYS ARE ABOMINATION TO HIM STILL ARE, AND WILL ALWAYS BE, ABOMINATION, AND THAT INCLUDES A FEMALE WEARING GARMENTS PERTAINING TO A MALE (BY GOD’S DEFINITION).

    You say: “We need to understand that The book of Deutronomy was a book of Law. We are in the dispensation of Grace, Nobody was able to keep the laws and that is why God sent Jesus to die for us and through him we have received salvation. So was the coming of Jesus in vain??”

    Answer: Here you are confused on the relationship between Law and Grace. The Grace of God that we receive through Christ doesn’t mean we don’t keep the Moral Law now as expressed in the Old Testament. If we truly receive the Grace of God, and have Christ living by His Spirit within us, WE NOW KEEP THE MORAL LAW, WHICH WE WERE NEVER ABLE TO DO BY OUR WORKS. THE SPIRIT OF JESUS WORKS IN US THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LAW. Romans 8:4: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” So, Jesus did not abolish the Law, He fulfilled it. The New Testament MAGNIFIES the Law, it doesn’t do away with it. So Jesus said, “The Old Testament said, you shall not kill, but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother has killed already.” That doesn’t mean now we CAN kill people, it means we can’t kill people AND we can’t hate them either. You see the Law is magnified by Christ, not done away. Similarly, The Old Covenant said, you shall not if you are a woman wear male clothes, but ALSO the New Covenant says, you shall not have a SPIRIT of maleness clothing your person if you’re a female, you will avoid even a taint of wanting to take a male role. I hope, my sister you see this clearly. If not, please ask any further questions, and I’ll try to answer them.

  75. Oh may God bless you Brother Richard. You are truly a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ who tries to not compromise with the world and I thank you for that. There are many people who have had near death experience and have testified women wearing pants and all clothes of a harlot end up in hell. They also mention jewelries and make up. Some of these testimonies arr by Adelaida deCarillo, Linda Ngaujah, Sister Olga from russia, Micheal Sambo and much more. All these videos can be found on youtube. I believe they are the absolute truth as what they say is backed up with the word of God. I pray that anyone reading this takes their time to watch these blessed videos. May God bless you all and may He help all of us to be prepared for the rapture of the saints, His second coming. Ohhh Glory be to the Almighty God. Shalom.

  76. Really all I can do is laugh. Reminds me why I left the Baptist meetings we attended. The pastor said in his sermon one day it was a sin for men to wear silk shirts as only women’s undergarments where made of this. Some people are very offended at females being treated as equals in strength and spirit as males are. That is the only answer to this.

  77. MY testimony at MY near death experience is GOD was naked and only clothed in light. Do you really believe there are clothes in heaven? Maybe you also believe as the muslims do…. we have sex, drink, and party in heaven also, and make heaven a carnal place…? What some will say to TRY to make others act believe and do as they say NOT what GOD does.

  78. I’m glad you did more than laugh and bothered to write a comment. Thank you. That shows something is working in you. Could that actually be the Voice of God? Before you laugh again, think and meditate on the Word of God. Jesus Christ IS THE WORD MADE FLESH (John’s Gospel Chapter 1). If it’s not the Word it’s not Jesus. Anyone who isn’t following the Word is not following the real Jesus. They’ve got what Paul said is ANOTHER JESUS (2 Corinthians 11:4). Now on your ex-Baptist-pastor’s statement, I would agree with it, if that silk shirt is “effeminate” in style, etc., as the Bible condemns effeminacy (1 Corinthians 6:9), also 1 Peter 3:3 the Bible condemns ornate (“adorning”) apparel, for a woman, as well as a man. Any given case, we, as Christians, should sit down and search out from the Scriptures what is right and wrong, and probably your ex-pastor would have been open to this. Women are not equals to men in strength, generally speaking, physically and otherwise, as the Bible describes the woman as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). What I am saying is currently you’re off of the Word. Check it out, if you’re bothered. Remember, true Spirit-filled Christians follow the Bible word for word solely through their LOVE OF JESUS. You’re like a jealous woman criticizing a faithful young Bride who is head-over-heels in love with her husband and wants to do EVERY LITTLE THING HE SAYS.

  79. I don’t doubt your near-death experience, but that isn’t any proof of Scriptural truth. As it happens, the Bible agrees God is clothed in light. As you noticed GOD IS CLOTHED (in light). Likewise the saints in heaven ARE CLOTHED (in light raiment), BUT THEY ARE CLOTHED. so we agree, yes? What you will see if you read the chain of comments and replies on this blog post is that earthly clothes in the Tabernacle of the Hebrews were “patterned” (outward appearance, not in substance, material) after the heavenly garments (of “light” etc.). This has nothing to do with carnal, earthly, things going on in heaven. On the contrary, spiritual things are spiritual (though, of course, very real), and heavenly things are spiritual (but very real).

  80. God requires only our belief in Jesus to go to heaven -this is biblical !!! GOD DOESN’T SEND PEOPLE TO HELL FOR THIS IF THEY ARE SAVED

  81. Thank you my friend for your observation. It is absolutely correct to say we get into heaven through faith, but it is BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. And we are exhorted not to receive the GRACE OF GOD IN VAIN. If the Grace of God reigns in our hearts we automatically want to do what God wants, including to keep our spirit clean — we don’t want to go round with a filthy Sodomite spirit, by wearing opposite-sex apparel, and other anti-God behavior. I must point out to you also that the “sola fide” or “by faith alone” quote is often used wrongly. Luther and all true born-again teachers of the Word knew and know that the “JUST shall live by FAITH ALONE”. This is the Scriptural quote you are referring to. If you read the Old Testament background in Habbakkuk you will see that it means what it says — that is that the JUST, NO MATTER HOW RIGHTEOUS AND JUST HE OR SHE IS, WILL ONLY LIVE, THAT IS, HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, ONLY (Luther’s “sola”) IF THEY BELIEVE IN THE PRESENT TRUTH OF GOD, NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR PAST RIGHTEOUSNESS. So as Paul said the righteousness of God is revealed FROM FAITH TO FAITH, from one level of faith to another, with the believer each day believing anew in the present truth revealed. So for you to claim that you were “once saved by a declaration of faith in Jesus” and need not continue believing today in EVERY WORD OF GOD, AS IT IS REVEALED, would be a misrepresentation of the Scriptural doctrine of salvation by Grace through faith.

  82. I note you are Anonymous. Why? What are you hiding? Perhaps you think your identity will give away the fact you have an ax to grind. On your unproven statements: 1) you criticize me for being a “debator”. “Debating” is part of true spiritual ministry. You obviously are ignorant of that fact. The word “preaching” in the New Testament is used in two ways: a) the Greek word kerusso – that means preach like a town-crier in public and b) Greek dialegomai, that means to reason through a subject as in a debate. QED: a Christian minister should have what we would call a gift of “debating”. 2) You seem to think a “minister” (meaning a Christian minister) is some kind of official post or profession. Not so, the word “minister” in the Greek New Testament means “servant, slave” and is used of anyone who “serves or slaves” for Jesus Christ. I am Jesus’ happy slave, and His servant alone. All the Apostles and true prophets in the New Testament as well as Jesus’ servants of all kinds were UNPROFESSIONAL, ordinary people moved by the Spirit of God to serve the Lord. So it is today with all true servants of Jesus. 3) You seem to think “personal” arguments are invalid. All arguments are valid as long as they are true, whether personal or not. All the messages in the Bible are personal because the messenger PERSONALLY experienced the Spirit of God’s inspiration.

  83. Brother Richard, God Almighty wears skirt which we believe to be women cloth. Ezekiel 16v8 kjv

    Prophet Samuel that God speaks to wears skirt.1 Sam15v26-27.

    And there nowhere the word trouser is mention in scripture.

    We need the Holy Spirit teach us the truth on this subject.

  84. Thank you my Christian friend for your comments. Your understanding of the verses you quote is incorrect because you misunderstand the old English word “skirt” or “skirts” used in the (excellent) King James translation of the Holy Scriptures. This word in old English means, not what we call a “skirt” today in modern English, that is a woman’s garment, but it means “edge” or “border” of a robe. So in the passage you quote from Ezek. 16:8 God covered Jerusalem with the “edge” of His robe, as Boaz covered Ruth (Ruth 3:9), and in Ruth too the King James, using old English calls the edge of the garment the “skirt”. The same applies in Samuel 15:27, where the “skirt” is not an item of clothing — it is the “skirt of his mantle” as you can see by reading the text itself. The “mantle” is what we call today a “robe”, the long outer garment worn by people in Israel and elsewhere in the Near East in those days. In the Bible a robe may be worn by a man or a woman, as explained in the earlier replies to comments on this post. “Trousers” are mentioned several times in the Bible, but the King James uses the old English word for “trousers”, that is, “breeches”. You can call them either “breeches” or “trousers” it is the same thing. The Hebrew word for these “trousers” or “breeches” is “miknesayim”, which is a garment with two leg-portions running down the thighs and onward in some cases also over the calves of the legs. Please have a look at the earlier replies to comments on this blog post where it is all explained. Thank you again for your interest and your love for the Lord.

  85. So am I going to Hell for wearing pants? I have many friends who believe that pants are sinful and I want answers as to if it is! The Bible is timeless and it does say don’t wear men’s clothing, but since the Bible is timeless, wouldn’t that mean that women shouldn’t wear what is considered men’s clothing now?

    What I mean is, is that when you walk into a department store, a woman should only wear what is labeled women’s clothes. I’ve always believed this for the Bible goes for all centuries! I wear pants myself but I want to wear dresses and skirts just because I like them and I have a girly side but not for religious purposes.

    So my question is, will I go to Hell even though I wear pants and find nothing wrong with pants? Women’s pants are made differently then men’s pants sot that’s why I also believed that the verse goes for all centuries and that women should only wear woman’s clothing and not men’s clothing.

    I used to be the kind of person that only wore skirts and dresses but I didn’t feel like pants were wrong, for the Bible was timeless. I don’t wear men’s clothes for I shop in the ladies department. Is what I am doing still wrong? I’ve had many people tell me I am going to Hell, and I believe I am not for I believe in and have faith in the Lord Jesus, but I would like further answers on this “no pants” issue!!

    Thank you for taking time to read this! I’m at a crossroads when it comes to this topic because many christian girls wear pants!! God bless you!!

  86. God bless you my Sister. Thank you for your honesty and desire to follow what the Word says about this. As you say God is eternal and His Word timeless. The key to it all is: it’s not what humans think is moral, it’s what GOD thinks is moral and what He tells us is moral in His timeless Word. God calls it ABOMINATION (= moral filth) to wear clothing that pertains to the opposite sex. He also says in the Book of Revelation that anyone who works ABOMINATION will not get into the heavenly city. So people who wear clothing that pertains to the opposite sex will not get in the heavenly city. It would be unjust of God to deny entrance to the heavenly city if He did not DEFINE what clothing was of the opposite sex. If He did not define it, we wouldn’t know what was clothing of the opposite sex, and we would be excluded from the heavenly city unjustly because we were not informed. So of course God does define for us what is clothing of the opposite sex: neutral robes can be worn by either sex, trousers can only be worn by males, not by females. All the Scriptures that show us these things are listed and quoted in the answers to earlier comments in this thread and in the little booklet which you can go to in the following links:

    Small pdf Booklet on men’s and women’s clothing in the Bible: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/clothes.pdf

    The following comments and replies explain the Scriptures about “modern culture” and how God’s Word about clothing defines male and female clothing not modern cultural ideas (this link takes you to the correct comment in the thread about clothing, read that comment by “Gary” and the replies and comments that follow in the “Gary” heading): http://www.christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=63#comment-99

    If you look down the other comments and replies you will find more Scriptural passages quoted and related to your questions. If you still have any questions after reading those, please let me know and I’ll do my best, with God’s help, to answer you. Thank you again and the Lord Jesus bless you richly.

  87. Generally I agree with you. However, TROUSERS do not “STEM” from BREECHES, according to the Hebrew, they are THE IDENTICAL THING. The Hebrew miknesayim means “trousers, OR breeches”: it’s only later around 19th century that breeches became different (in some settings) from trousers. Still in many areas of England “breeches” is used (as it was in King James’ days) as a word for “trousers”. This is the case in Northern England, where I was born.

  88. Brother Richard is right.
    Read his evidence. Who would save a place in Heaven for a woman who does not observe God’s creation of woman as woman or a man who does not act as God wished him.
    Hell is full of women in men’s clothing and sodomites.
    Only men dressed as men and women as their property will go to Heaven.
    You may take that risk if you like for He has given us free will but then again, you may wish to worship Satan or deny God’s existence or call him by the name given by false prophets but why take the risk?

  89. Simply because God says so. In the Ten Commandments Commandment #10, Exodus 20:17, it says: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” The moral Law (10 Commandments etc.) applies to all Gentile and Israelite believers. This verse tells you the wife and the maidservant are the PROPERTY OF THE MAN, along with any other property. Property means “that which is PROPER to a person,” that which BELONGS TO A PERSON. The same moral Law tells us how as servants and children of God we should treat all property with love and respect with thankfulness to God for His goodness to us in providing us with everything we need. The trouble with many women today is that they are wandering in an unprotected cultural environment where they become neurotic and fearful. Remember the bull elephant. When danger comes he and his male brethren circle the herd of female and young elephants and woe betide any predator who tries to attack them!

  90. Thank you my friend for your attempt at a comment on this important Bible doctrine about women’s modest clothing. However this is not a real comment but merely a Copy and Paste of a tedious article by some pastor voicing irrelevant quibbles without Scriptural sense. You can read it (if you want) by clicking on the link I have given to it in a txt file format.

    For the good cheer of honest readers of this Blog I summarize the only points of any relevance in this turgid piece of writing and give a link to previous comments/replies in each case where these points have already been discussed thoroughly and proven Biblically to show women should NOT wear pants which are men’s garments:

    Turgid Argument #1: I quote the aforementioned article: “So, our word “pertain,” defined Biblically, means “to be the exclusive property of or belong solely to.” …
    “So, we can conclude expressly that what God said and meant in Deuteronomy 22:5 is that a woman should not wear that which is the exclusive property of or belongs solely to a man.”

    This has already been fully answered at this linked comment: http://christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=63#comment-100 and http://christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=63#comment-146 and many later comment-replies in the thread.
    Additional Comment: The whole turgid argument of this little tract runs on the first argument here that “pertaining to” means strictly “property of”. This is, of course, a ridiculous assertion: because EVERY WOMAN, according to the Bible, is herself the property of her husband, if she is married (see http://www.christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=677), or of the male head of her house if she is unmarried (see I Corinthians 7:36-37, Ruth 2:5 and many other Scriptures). Thus, ALL her clothing is ALWAYS the property of her male head. So she would have to go completely naked if this man’s silly argument was true!

    Turgid Argument #2: I quote: “The argument goes something like this…”Seeeeee, they [pants] are only for men.”
    Noooooo, they are only for priests.
    “But, thepriests were always men.”
    True, but normal men are never, ever, not even once mentioned in the Bible as wearing breeches .
    Therefore, these garments do not “pertain to” (are not the exclusive property of) men, but rather “pertain to” (or are the exclusive property of) priests.

    This has already been fully answered at this linked comment: http://christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=63#comment-149 and many other comment-replies in the thread.

    Turgid argument #3: I quote: “Have you realized yet what these breeches really were? They were underwear! They were never an external garment to be seen by anyone.”

    This has already been fully answered at this linked comment: http://christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=63#comment-106 and many many other comment-replies in the thread.

    Turgid Argument #4: I quote: “In fact, by a Bible definition similar to the one used for “pants,” “skirts” are exclusively men’s clothing and yet ladies wear them all the time! Is this abomination too?”

    This has already been fully answered at this linked comment: http://christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=63#comment-159…and other comment-replies in the thread.

    Turgid Argument #5: I quote: “”Oh, but those are only the ‘ceremonial law’. We are still bound by the ‘moral law’.” Okay, if they insist, but I have some relevant questions….Does that apply in the church? [examples: stoning for adultery, treatment of 2 wives under polygamy, execution of rebellious son etc]”

    This has already been fully answered at this linked comment: http://christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=63#comment-149… and other comment replies in the thread.

  91. Brother Richard, I’m hoping you could give a little insight on my current situation. I’m not looking for an argument or to be told I’m going to hell. I’m truly, sincerely seeking God’s truth on a personal level. I became saved in a little Pentecostal church at just 15 years old. I was baptized in Jesus name, repented of my sins, and to my incredible surprise I was filled with the Holy Ghost. So, I have no doubt that it’s definitely real. Then I conformed to the holiness standards of that church. I stopped cutting my hair, my sleeves never went above my elbow, I traded my pants for long skirts, just to name a few.

    Many years later I am now at a crossroads. I did those things because a preacher said I had to, or else I was headed to hell. I did it out of fear, not due to personal convictions. Mainly on the pants issue. My hair? Extreme conviction! Folks often refer to me as Rapunzel. Just the thought of cutting it is truly a personal conviction. And the sleeves? I now wear t-shirts, which obviously don’t come below my elbow. Yes, the rest of my arm and shoulder is covered, as I feel it should be. Again, truly a personal conviction.

    Pants, however, I only have somewhat of a conviction. Allow me to elaborate.
    By my own personal conviction, I still wear my long, modest skirts in public. At home, I wear pajama pants because only my husband sees me in them. Why? Because I believe that MOST women’s pants are truly immodest. I don’t want other men to see too much of my body, but I see nothing wrong with my husband seeing me in them. He’s the only one who should see my body shape.

    However, I have found that there are a few styles of pants that do offer modesty, in my opinion. Mainly culottes. Recently I accepted a really good job, one that many try for but only a few make it in. The pay is incredible, the full benefits of complete medical and 401k, just to name a few. This job came at a time when we needed it the most, and will secure our future. However, I wasn’t told in the beginning that pants were mandatory. Honestly, it truly upset me. They explained that a skirt could get caught in machinery causing injury or even death. Pants would not get caught like a skirt would, plus the legs have to be fully covered to protect from spills.

    I was able to find long, ankle length culottes that fit well enough to prevent getting caught in machinery, yet still was modest enough to not be overly revealing to my body shape. And unless you really pay close attention, you’d think it was a skirt. See, my issue isn’t with pants themselves, but with modesty.

    I’ve read your comments and it’s very clear where you stand on this subject, but I’d still appreciate your input. I’ve actually asked different folks of their views, and the responses range greatly. I know it isn’t what people think that counts, but what God thinks. I sincerely seek God’s truth on every aspect. I’m not proclaiming to be an expert, but I’ve dived into His word, and even began attending a university to study ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek languages, as well as a few theology classes. It’s challenging with a busy work schedule, but I feel it’s necessary. If I can better understand the original language the scriptures were written in, their definitions during that time and how it was meant to be understood and applied during that time, then I feel I can better rightly divide.

    I’m truly seeking God and His word in all aspects of my life. I hope you understand that. I don’t have rebellion or any aversion to obeying God. I only want to know that I’m doing what God wants of me because I love Him, and not just doing it out of fear because another human being said I’d go to hell if I did not.

    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

  92. My dear Sister. From what you say you seem to have a genuine love of God and a desire to serve Him. That’s great. I see something there, however, that is off the Word. Don’t add one word or take away one word from God’s Revelation, as God takes that person’s part out of the Book of Life (which is the Word), Revelation 22:18-19. You say in your comment: “However, I have found that there are a few styles of pants that do offer modesty, in my opinion. Mainly culottes.” and “See, my issue isn’t with pants themselves, but with modesty.” Now it is best to take the advice you yourself give a little later: “I know it isn’t what people think that counts, but what God thinks. I sincerely seek God’s truth on every aspect.” You see Paul refers to “modest” clothing (1 Timothy 2:9), but Paul ALWAYS went by the Word. He didn’t use his own idea of what “modest” is, as he says: 2 Corinthians 10:5: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” but you have slipped into doing that, as you say: “I have found that there are a few styles of pants that do offer modesty, in my opinion.” We don’t have any opinion coming. “Romans 8:7: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” We see here that our own thinking, if it is not the “mind of Christ” in us (1 Corinthians 2:16), is HOSTILE against God and CANNOT be subject to the Law of God. The Holy Spirit entering into our spirit brings us the mind of Christ, and that mind is TOTALLY SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD. Now we need to see, as you say, what GOD THINKS ABOUT PANTS ON WOMEN according to the Law of God. We see that TO GOD a woman having on her person any manufactured item, clothing or other, pertaining to a male IS ABOMINATION TO GOD (Deuteronomy 22:5). So that’s simply it. We don’t need to look any further if we bother about God’s thoughts on the matter. Notice when Lot’s wife was commanded not to look back at Sodom when it was being destroyed by God, but she did so and was turned into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26). That was such a little thing God asked her to do. She might have said, “Why not? I don’t think looking back would do any harm. What’s wrong with one little glance back??” etc. etc., all the excuses. God didn’t explain it, and He doesn’t have to. He just said it. And look how disobeying that (apparently non-understandable) command ended up destroying her. So likewise here. Whether we know the full reason or not we do it because the Spirit of Christ compels us. And Jesus said specifically to us at the end-time: “Remember Lot’s wife!” (Luke 17:32).

    Now a further point on your job. “No man can serve two masters” as Jesus said (Matthew 6:24). You either serve God or mammon (mammon = this worldly advancement, promotion, money etc.), you can’t do both. We as Christians must serve God, the Lord Jesus Christ, absolutely, only, at all times, without letting the Devil have any say. The Devil goes about looking for Christians who obey the Gospel, then tempts them to do contrary to God’s will, by offering them money, success, social advancement etc., or threatening to destroy them. That’s his business. That’s what he did to Job when he saw he followed God with a perfect heart. No Christian should take employment with any boss who is not a practicing Christian who is willing to do God’s will. Therefore first: is your boss and the company he runs working on Bible-believing Christian principles and for Christian purposes? You need to know that. Also, if this Christian boss is approached with the Word of God re. clothing etc., he should be willing to change. If not he is failing to keep a revealed portion of the Scriptures and should be exhorted to repent. If you can ensure these things for this job you have been offered, fine. If not, get out of it quick. As it says, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

  93. A Roman emperor was the first person to commission the Bible to be written, for many, many years it was spread only orally. If no-one should trust the Romans then we shouldn’t believe any word of the Bible. Perhaps it is better not to say such things. Also, the Romans had an agenda, male patriarchal society, that is why the sacred feminine was suppressed, things WERE altered to support their agenda and this continues today. Jesus had a wife and children and Mary Magdalene was Jesus’s successor, she was chosen by Jesus to continue his teachings, the Romans kept that quiet for obvious reasons. I’m sorry to disappoint you but no-matter how closely you analyze the Bible to find full meaning of the words of God and Jesus Christ, it was written by scribes appointed by Romans and it was written hundreds of years after the events, by humans who make mistakes. The Bible, as holy as it is, may contain errors due to these reasons. The Bible clearly contradicts itself on a few occasions.
    To note your point about clothing, Priests wear robes, they look like… Oh that’s right, they are like dresses, not trousers, the priests are representing the feminine but I bet nobody told them off for that and it’s not because men are holier than women, the life-givers, who bring us all into this world. It is because it supported the Roman agenda. Maybe God did command that women should not wear trousers but he also commanded women cover their long hair, their glory before praying to God and not many Christian people bother to follow that rule any more, either.
    Anyway, just wanted to offer a fresh perspective. It’s unlikely because you seem set in your ways but there’s a very small chance I may enlighten you. Women should dress modestly, I think God would much prefer to see a woman covered wearing jeans than flaunting everything she’s got physically in a miniskirt and low-cut top. True Christians who have been blessed with the gift of discernment can recognize and separate the true words of God from the flaws imposed upon these words through human error as well as translation.

  94. Thank you for your observations. You make several gross errors in this comment and I shall attempt to address the obvious ones:
    1) You say: “A Roman emperor was the first person to commission the Bible to be written, for many, many years it was spread only orally.” This is nonsense and you have probably got this understanding from a drugged punk online. The Bible (Old Testament) was written in Hebrew originally beginning in 1446 BC (Moses, first year of the Exodus). It was translated into Greek in the third century before Christ (the translation was called the Septuagint), before the days of the Roman Empire, when Greeks ruled the Near East. Writing existed at least as early as c. 2200 BC, and that was in the time of Abraham. However, it was Moses who wrote the first books of the Bible at the time of the Exodus, God giving him divine revelation of the truth of the history before him. I suppose you mean by the Roman Emperor who “wrote” the Bible, Emperor Constantine I, who had copies of the Bible made and brought to the Imperial library at Constantinople in the 4th century AD, when the Roman Empire was Christianized. That, however, was many centuries after the Bible was written: it was composed in stages from 1446 BC (the book of Genesis etc.) to AD 96 (the last book included in the Bible, the Book of Revelation).
    2) You say: “The Romans had an agenda, male patriarchal society, that is why the sacred feminine was suppressed, things WERE altered to support their agenda and this continues today”. The Romans had many agendas depending on the time and circumstances, but it certainly wasn’t at any time “patriarchal society”. In fact at the period when Rome had dominance over the ancient world Roman society was largely dominated by powerful females of the Imperial court, and it has been commonly stated by historians that the Roman Empire fell because of the influence of women. When you say Roman “patriarchy” continues to this day I suppose you mean the Roman “Catholic” cult, which suppresses women. I agree that cult suppresses women, but that is coming not from native Roman custom as such, but from pagan religion introduced by that cult into Christianity: pagan cults (especially Eastern ones popular in Rome at the time it was Christianized) suppressed and enslaved women and turned them into cult-prostitutes. These have become the “nuns” of modern Romanist closed convents. This is not Biblical Christianity it is Roman “Catholic” cultism.
    3) You say: “Jesus had a wife and children and Mary Magdalene was Jesus’s successor, she was chosen by Jesus to continue his teachings, the Romans kept that quiet for obvious reasons.” First there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Christ was married (in fact, the opposite, He was single), but the afore-mentioned paganized pseudo-Christians (of Rome and other places) invented false “Gospels” claiming Jesus had sexual relationships with Mary Magdalene etc. etc., but that was because priests in the pagan cults and in the false so-called “Christian” Gnostic sects did have sexual relationships (with cult-prostitutes), so they turned Jesus into a guru like their own.
    4) You say: “I’m sorry to disappoint you but no-matter how closely you analyze the Bible to find full meaning of the words of God and Jesus Christ, it was written by scribes appointed by Romans and it was written hundreds of years after the events, by humans who make mistakes. The Bible, as holy as it is, may contain errors due to these reasons.” The so-called “Roman scribes” I have already proved not to have existed. The Bible does not claim to have been written by man, but by God, using prophets who wrote what they saw in vision directly from God. It is 100% INSPIRED.
    5) You say: “The Bible clearly contradicts itself on a few occasions.” I have been reading the Bible probably longer than your lifetime, and have never found any contradictions in it. Please give me some supposed contradictions and I will show you, God willing, where you have misunderstood.
    6) You say: “Priests wear robes, they look like… Oh that’s right, they are like dresses, not trousers, the priests are representing the feminine but I bet nobody told them off for that and it’s not because men are holier than women, the life-givers, who bring us all into this world.” Robes are not dresses and in God’s clothing code, robes are gender neutral, and are worn by either sex, though other “feminized” ornamental designs etc. should only appear on women’s robes. That is explained in detail in the post’s comment replies. Women are a sacred treasure through whom life is brought into the world, and must be respected and honored as God commands us clearly in the Bible to do.
    7) You say: ” Maybe God did command that women should not wear trousers but he also commanded women cover their long hair, their glory before praying to God and not many Christian people bother to follow that rule any more, either.” You are wrong about the hair, as God gave women a glorious COVERING of hair precisely as their covering, not a material covering like a veil or hat etc. This is explained in detail at the following link: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/hair.pdf
    8) You say: “I think God would much prefer to see a woman covered wearing jeans than flaunting everything she’s got physically in a miniskirt and low-cut top.” Low cut tops and mini-skirts are out as well as jeans for God-loving women. All equally bad in God’s sight. See the following link: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/clothes.pdf and the comment replies here.

  95. Which of the words in the Bible is trivial? Women who wear men’s clothing are abomination to the Lord. That is the WORD. If you respect the word, and you are guilty, confess your sins and stop justifying this sinful acts. Put on the whole armour of God that you can stand against the tricks of the devil. Don’t allow Satan to trick you into hell fire. We are to preserve our whole body, spirit and soul blameless unto the coming of our Lord. You will not enter heaven if your spirit and soul are blameless and your body is not.

    Satan is the king of tricks, a liar, a thief , a murderer and a destroyer. If you feel women wearing trousers is trivial in the kingdom of God, then wait for the JUDGEMENT DAY. On that day, you will meet Jesus face-to-face and see where you will be

  96. Breeches (noun): short trousers fastened just below the knee.


    Biblical Hebrew:
    – Strong’s H4370 -miknac (masculine noun)

    Outline of Biblical Usage:
    1. Underwear, drawers, trousers
    1. a priestly undergarment of linen

    Let’s repeat that: “a PRIESTLY UNDERGARMENT OF LINEN.”

    Let’s make sense of this all:

    – Paraphrased: an undergarment made from linen used only by priests
    – Exodus 28:42 makes it clear that “breeches” is specifically a linen article of clothing (UNDERGARMENT) that is made specifically to cover one’s nakedness.

    Undergarment define: underclothing

    So what defined as nakedness according to biblical Hebrew? Let’s look at Strong’s H1320 “basar.” While there are several biblical usages, there’s on that appears to be a direct correlation to the topic at hand: “male organ of generation.”

    Question: What is the male organ of generation?

    Answer: Penis.

    Going back to Exodus 28:42


    So we understand that breeches are an article of clothing that are to cover a man’s “nakedness” also known has his genitals.

    Well, the same verse provides further clarification and description of this particular article of clothing: “From the LOINS even unto the THIGHS they shall reach.”

    So, not only is this made from linen that covers a man’s genitals/male organ of generation/penis it is also to reach from his LOINS down to his THIGHS.

    Let’s define loins: “the part of the body on both sides of the spine between the lowest (false) ribs and the hipbones.” Or, “the region of the sexual organs, especially when regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power.”

    Ah, you don’t say. Again, we have the region of sexual organs. I presume you are able to now locate your loins down to your thighs.

    Hmmm…is that what “pants” are? No, however, many of us today do use ‘pants’ and ‘breeches’ interchangeably yet scriptures tell us what “breeches” or “miknac” are.

    Today, women wear pants, which is an article of clothing that extends from the hipbone down to the ankle not from the loins down to the thigh that’s made from linen.

    Now, there is a male article of clothing that seems to better fit this description in terms of today and that is male “drawers” or what some also call “boxers.” These women do not wear, and if they do. Yes, I agree it is cross-dressing. You have lesbians who impersonate the male gender by wearing “boxers.”

    Boxers or drawers are made from linen (check mark), made for men only (check mark), used to cover the male genitals/cover their nakedness (check mark), and extend from the lions down to the thighs (check mark).

    Now, yes, you could argue “Well, they supposed to be worn by priests only!!!”

    But where are the Israelite priests today? According to scriptures, they would still be scattered among the heathen (into all nations). They don’t even know who they are. There is a plethora of verses that speak to these, even those in the Apocrypha.

    TMH does NOT need anyone to speak for Him. He has spoken for Himself. We lean on our own understanding and refuse to think outside of our own little mental box.

    TMH is merciful. Do you really believe that a woman who lives by the Law even that of the new covenant, righteously, fearing Elohim and because of one so-called error (in your opinion) of wearing pants (not linen, not extending from the loins down to the thigh, is not an undergarment to cover nakedness) would be condemned to eternal death? Is that merciful?

    Many are called but few are chosen. There’s a hefty price to call yourself a teacher and teach the wrong things…On a brighter side, iron sharpens iron. Are you willing to be sharpened or fail to challenge your own understanding? (Rhetorical questions).

    I’ve used the Blue Letter Bible Lexicon and Strong’s Concordance, and the KJV Bible.

    -Basar (H1320): https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h1320

    -Miknac (H4370): https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h4370

  97. Thank you for your comments, which are noted, but they are irrelevant. Every point you try to make has been thoroughly answered from a Scriptural point of view in the preceding thread, as you will see if you bother to read it. You have missed the main point completely. The question is: since God does not want men to wear women’s garments and neither does He want women to wear men’s garments, question: are pants, trousers, breeches men’s garments ACCORDING TO GOD’S HOLY WORD? That’s the question. That means God Himself defines what is male clothing ACCORDING TO HIM, not according to you. The Bible itself defines men’s clothing by the clothing in the Heavenly Temple of which all true born-again male Christians are priests. In this heavenly Temple the priests (males) wear pants, Hebrew miknesayim, and they therefore, ACCORDING TO GOD’S HOLY WORD, are MALE CLOTHING. Got it? The earthly Israelite Temple was only a duplicate on earth of the True Heavenly Temple to which all Christians belong.

    For your information the following Comment Replies deal with your points:

    1. Breeches/trousers/pants are not underwear, but visible clothing (visible to the public) under a top garment, in the same way we wear trousers under a raincoat. The point is they were made to be visible to the public:
    See the following comment reply and some of those around it: http://christianhospitality.org/wp/?p=63#comment-106

    All garments with two leg-pieces, however far they go down the leg are Biblical miknesayim, breeches/trousers/pants:
    See the following comment reply and some of those around it:

    Boxer shorts are out for Christian men as well as women as publicly visible garments for the reasons shown here:
    See the following comment reply and some of those around it:

    On the importance of all this spiritually, it’s not what YOU THINK that gets you into heaven, it’s WHAT GOD THINKS, and He thinks IT IS ABOMINATION FOR A WOMAN TO WEAR PANTS (Deuteronomy 22:5), WHICH ARE MALE GARMENTS, PRIEST’S GARMENTS, AND ALL WHO WORK ABOMINATION WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE HEAVENLY CITY (Revelation 21:27).
    See the following comment reply and some of those around it:

  98. Praise the Lord, Brother Richard.

    I have an important question to ask. I stumbled upon the article named ‘Woman wearing pants = spirit of sodomy’. And I have a question regarding the garments, “two leg sections running down over the thighs”. Please note that my intention is not to debate or argue, I really need your Biblical views about it. As per the article, the garment with two leg sections pertains to a man. It does imply that pajamas or anything that has two leg sections should not be worn by females? That’s my first question.

    In India, women wear Kurta – Pajamas. (Kindly do a Google search). People think that it’s a modest garment, but it has two leg sectioned garment. And Christians who are into the true word, wear the same. Yes, I am referring to the people who are aware about the 7th Age Messenger. As per the article and the quotes you’ve given, is it appropriate for the Indian women to wear this dress, Kurta Pajamas? That’s my second question.

  99. kurta pajamas woman

    Thank you for your questions on this important Bible teaching. May God bless you and yours richly. If the garment you are referring to is as depicted above, it is not possible for a Bible-believing woman to wear it. As you will see by reading the comment answers above, trousers or pants (including these kurta pajamas) are male garments, according to the Scriptures, made to be publicly worn by men only. Thus they could not be worn publicly by women. When they can be seen at all by the public, they are male garments. If a woman wore a similar type of clothing as an undergarment, that would be a different matter as the Hebrew miknesayim (= “pants”, two leg-sections reaching at minimum to the full extent of the thigh) are designed to “cover the nakedness” in public view. Undergarments, of course, are totally invisible to others, which would be difficult to do in this case — you would have to wear a long top garment and almost sew up the hem to make the pants invisible. I hope this answers your questions, but if you want more information please ask again. Thank you with much love in Jesus Christ.

  100. Hmm.. I just came across this. I’m confused, are there little [obscene reference deleted] attached to the pants so when the women sit they are sodomized? Wait!!! Women are being sodomized this whole time by pants and we didn’t even know it?!?

  101. Enoch focused on heaven and God took him up. The Holy Bible says very few shall survive his work. It means what it says. On one occasion the Lord told me, He put a woman in hell for wearing pants, only. Deuteronomy 22:5. He later said he abhors (hates) pants. It is a lie from the devil. I beg women and men, all, to pray and ask. He is a not for profit, Jewish, God who never changed, never had a church, he went from place to place. The Holy Bible means exactly what it says. Many lie to make money. Please pray. They pray five to ten hours in a church service in Korea. You may want to pray for 12 hours. In one dream while talking to a group, I mentioned 12 hour prayer was a better standard. Who prays like this in America? Very few. He is upset with the preaching following the revelation by Linda Rika, on youtube.com, that many were not eligible for heaven. She said on the day she visited heaven and hell, for her country,Sierra Leone, five out of five million people were eligible for heaven. In a recent rapture dream, he said only 123 seeds from the entire United States were heaven ready. Read Matthew 22:11-13 and verse 8. Verse 8 says no one was worthy for heaven. In verses 11-13 a man’s clothing kept him out of heaven. The bible says nothing but clothing caused the man to miss heaven, your preacher says sin and righteousness. People go to church for the truth and they stay for a lie. Without covered heads and long dresses, women will not make heaven. Preachers/Teachers have lied to get everyone to pay tithes to go to hell. There is no law against this in America. The Lord says Freedom of Religion destroyed America. Every word of the bible applies to each one of us and the preacher must preach each word of the entire Holy Bible, word for word, only, his word only. All Jezebel did in 2nd Kings 9:30-37, was tie her hair and paint her face. See Isaiah 3:16-24. Perfume make up and jewelry are all condoned by most churches to appease people in the church. A church full of people who fail to make heaven because of poor teaching/preaching. A Jewish God who never changed. Scary too some. Almost every television preacher and many others say do not worry. Suppose they are wrong. In one of Linda Rika’s recent dreams, the devil brags about running every church in the world with the exception of the Holiness Revival Movement Worldwide.com. Please ask God. He says that many people fail to pray, with sincerity, and ask him. Thanks.

  102. Thank you for your comments, but there are a few things you appear to err on. For example: you say “The bible says nothing but clothing caused the man to miss heaven, your preacher says sin and righteousness. ” Here you appear to be saying that failure to dress right ALONE will take a person to Hell, and then you say “your preacher” (who do you mean?) says “sin and righteousness” is what determine your eternal destination. I say, with the Bible, that “sin and righteousness” is what determine your eternal destination. Do you disagree with this?
    Also you say “The Lord says Freedom of Religion destroyed America”. Where did the Lord say this? It isn’t true that “Freedom of Religion” destroyed America because UNBELIEF (which is SIN) destroyed America and still destroys it.
    I would welcome a reply from you to clarify if possible. Thanks and blessings in Jesus!

  103. Brother richard im john .Im so delighted with your post here.You stood up for GOD and his word.There are so many people nowadays that look all cherry but mention about GOD and they wil reject it big time.I always feel the odd one and so lonely but when i looked and read your article i was delghted how GOD gave you the courage and wisdom with words they couldnt contradict no matter how hard some of them tryed.I prayed to GOD and thank him for you.Its a brilliant enlightenment to be uplifted to what i beleive to be true and right.GODS HOLY WORD.BLESS YOU AND THANK YOU LORD FOR A TRULY LOVING CHRISTIAN SOLDIER.

  104. Thank you my brother for your loving and kind words. It’s nice to get a boost along the road. Many don’t realize the importance of the message re. clothing, because they don’t see it for what it is. It is the outward type of THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAMB. We certainly need that covering, of the Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God, and just as certainly we need the outward covering which types it, and of course, as you so rightly say, it must be according to the Word. I’m glad we don’t serve a haphazard God. He lets us know in his marvelous Word everything we need to know. With blessings in Jesus.

  105. 1.) “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ to die for us while we wete yet sinners and whosoever believes in him shall have everlasting life.” (John 3:16). This explicitly states that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

    2.) When Jesus preached about Him being the only way to Heaven, he told the people he preached to that He is doing His Father’s work and that it is the Father that speaks through him. Jesus Christ also says that “in My Fathers house, there are many mansions, if it were not so, i wouldn’t have told you.”

    3.) When Jesus Christ was ascending He promised the disciples to send the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of the Father, which makes it one with the Father.
    So there is indeed a trinity of God. God, the Father, His Son and His Spirit.
    Your post about sodomy is correct. But denying the trinity of God is dangerous I must warn.

  106. Thank you for your concern about what you understand to be my “theology”. Actually you have got it completely wrong. Jesus is the Son of God AND HE IS GOD. There are not, and never have been, in true Christian Bible-based theology, three individual “persons” in God. That would make God a schizophrenic. The word “person” in today’s English means “center of consciousness” and there is ONLY ONE SINGLE CENTER OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN GOD. God is the I AM, not the “WE ARE”. Jesus Christ was and is God manifest in the flesh. He is the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form, the perfect human Image of the invisible God. That is the Bible teaching. That is what all true Bible-believing Christians believe. Now some (like Jehovah’s Witnesses) see Christ as Man, but not God. Some (like Roman Catholics) see Jesus as God, and not man (as He becomes a piece of bread, according to them). Both are wrong. Jesus Christ is God and Man. Both the Unitarian Jehovah-Witness types and the Trinitarian Roman Catholic types forged their creeds at the Nicene Council 300 years after Christ, under the guidance of Santa Claus, bishop Nicolas or Nicholas of Myra. Like the Christmas-tree fairy, their creeds (both of them) are delusion. Please be advised that if you follow the Nicene Creed you are, according to the Bible a Nicolaitan (follower of Nicolas, Santa Claus), which thing, says Jesus “I hate”. (Revelation 2:15).

  107. After I was saved the day came when i was under conviction about wearing pants. So I stopped wearing pants. It became a strong conviction not to because I knew in my heart that it was sin for me to wear pants. Over time I would judge another in my heart for wearing pants especially if they were a pastors wife. I know that this too was wrong so I prayed for this person that Gods word would convict them I have seen women who start wearing pants for one reason or another and then over time that is all they wear. I have 7 granddaughter and my prayer is that they first of all see me their grandma has a good example. I have two daughter in laws that also do not wear pants and one daughter in laws and one daughter that do wear pants. So I know that their children will probably end up wearing what their moms are wearing. When we put pants on our children when they are little they will probably continue to do so. In my church there are some of our women that do wear pants and it is sad to see their behinds at times. I do get to have opportunity to share at our Ladies Bible Studies and would love to share Deuteronomy 22:5 with our ladies. Put it would have to be totally in Love and totally lead by the Lord. It would have to be Gods words not mine. I have not read all the comments and do not agree with them all but thank you that i can share my heart.

  108. Thank you my Sister for your positive comments and your desire to follow Jesus in this important Scriptural regard. I hope you will be able to share as you say in your Bible Study. This is a great opportunity to teach the “younger” (spiritually younger) women, as the Bible says the “elder” (spiritually elder) women should do. I have no idea why any woman should want to discard the glorious, beautiful apparel that God approves for some unisex, dull, drab, demonic array. Makes no sense even to the carnal mind, let alone the spiritual Mind of Christ.

  109. You are very wrong in your arguments Richard. You just don’t know hermeneutics. You better go for a theological school. It will help you with best ways of interpreting the Bible. Context is the king in interpreting the Bible. You have completely forgotten the historical, cultural, literary, and theological contexts as far interpretation of the Bible is concerned. You are completely arguing out of context, thus you are cheating people or cheating yourself. I will come back to you to help one another as regard to the text in Deuteronomy 22:5.

  110. Thank you for your sweeping unevidenced criticism of “me”. As I myself am always wrong, and Christ the Word is always right, there is no problem for me in accepting I am wrong. The context as you say is king, in argument as in hermeneutics (interpretation of the Biblical text). So the context of your comment here is one of a broad condemnation of an opponent’s position, without a single shred of evidence adduced, along with a vague expression of an intention at some time to come back with some evidence. Hmmmm. I have learned to be very skeptical of an “offer” of “help”, when such “help” can easily be provided immediately.

  111. Hi Brother Richard! I’m so glad I came upon your article and very clear detailed answers. I think through your article and answers in the comments is God’s way of answering the questions I had on this subject. I just learned on this past Saturday that it was an abomination to God for women to wear pants and I became so scared because as a young woman who has recently received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit last month, I do not want to be an abomination to God. I want to continue to grow in grace and faith and continue to learn more and more truth as God continues to reveal it to me. I fear doing anything wrong according to God’s word. I became so scared and a little stressed because I have been wearing pants all these years and never learned it was an abomination until recently. Deuteronomy 22:5 not specifically stating pants, caused me to have a lot of questions; are pants considered garments of a man? Are hats considered garments of a man? Are snow boots considered garments of a man? I had prayed to God sincerely asking Him to please give me a clear answer to the specific things that are of a man so I can know, understand and completely obey His word as what to wear and not wear. I think God is giving me clear confirmation on all my questions through your answers here on this posting. I thank God for your clear answers and I’m grateful for you. So I now know pants are of a man. Can you tell me if hats like baseball caps that have feminine design are of male garments and if boots are too? Can you tell me all the garments other than pants, that are considered to be of a male?? What about when women are on their period, would this be one situation where God would understand that pants would need to be worn??? Really can’t wear a dress or skirt while a woman is on her period, especially if it’s a heavy flow. What about when women workout in the gym or play sports, a dress or skirt wouldn’t be fitting then? I hope you can answer my questions because I really have the desire to obey God whether I completely understand or not. I just can’t see how a woman can wear a skirt or dress when in the gym working out, playing sports, going to an amusement park on the rides like a roller coaster, or doing yard work.

  112. Thank you my Sister for your kind remarks. Always nice to have positive feedback, as there is so much confusion today on these Scriptural matters. It is heart-warming to find someone who is actually concerned to do what Jesus commands. He only commands when it is necessary from the viewpoint of Love, just as a parent commands not to be authoritarian but out of love for a child.

    On the questions relating to specific clothes-items:

    You ask:
    1) “Are hats considered garments of a man? Are snow boots considered garments of a man?”

    Answer: No, neither of these, hats, boots, are referred to in the priestly garments, and therefore are not “male items” by God’s definition. The other items worn by priests apart from the miknesayim (pants) do not correspond to anything worn today by Gentiles (non-Jews), but were specific to the Israelite priesthood. Of course if an Israelite woman ever wore such, imitating a priest, that would be a male-garment abomination condemned by God. Only the “priesthood” type applies in our case, therefore, that is, if a woman deliberately wears “priestly” or “ministerial” robes to claim or demonstrate she is a “minister”, as some do, that is abomination, not because of the exact form of the item, but because of the intention (aiming to be a priest, which is a male function). Here it is not the form of the item which is “male” but the use. But that still means it has “male associations” and is forbidden. Hats and boots do not in themselves have male associations by God’s definition because they do not appear on the Levitical priest. They would only be abomination if they had other male associations, like specific masculine attributes, mottoes, logos etc. etc., declaring their masculine nature.

    2. You ask: “Can you tell me if hats like baseball caps that have feminine design are of male garments and if boots are too?”

    Answer: That is answered above. hats, caps with feminine design and boots likewise are fine, nothing about them being abomination, unless, as I say, they have specific male attributes.

    3. You ask: “What about when women are on their period, would this be one situation where God would understand that pants would need to be worn??? Really can’t wear a dress or skirt while a woman is on her period, especially if it’s a heavy flow. What about when women workout in the gym or play sports, a dress or skirt wouldn’t be fitting then?”

    Answer: Here remember the miknesayim (pants) on the Levitical priest were publicly visible garments, NOT underwear. There is nothing stopping a woman wearing underwear shorts, etc., so long as they are NOT AT ALL VISIBLE publicly. That is the dividing line. This came up in the Comments regarding Indian-style pants with a kind of skirt over them, as you will see. Zero visibility is the key for these. All the tasks you mention could be done with a skirt, but would have to be done modestly (by God’s definition) and discreetly, that is, without underwear showing publicly at all. Unfortunately many women have been taught from earliest days to fight, compete, exercise in a manly fashion “with the boys”, and this has caused a blurring of God-given gender identities.

    Please, if this hasn’t answered everything to your satisfaction, write again, and we’ll go into it, God willing, in more detail.

  113. Who ever wrote this is right on point. if you notice women are not as feminine as women once were in the past . They dress and act just like men most of them. I believe the clothing does carry a spirit with it as well. It is sad that a women don’t have a skirt or dress in their closet and if they do they don’t know how to sat as a lady with them on. This is the spirit of the world as we are in the last days. We are in the Beast System and the Chip is already here. People call right wrong and wrong right. I use to wear paints when I was not saved but at least we wore dresses and skirts most of the time. The bible says in Isaiah the he would take away their beauty and this is what is taken place. I don’t know what the big deal is about paints unless they just like them for comfort.
    It use to be a time that I could tell a saint from a sinner which people say that it is not all in the clothing and this is true but it is not what we say it is what the word say’s. the bible also says that you know a tree by the fruit and your outward appearance can cause people to fall in to temptation.

  114. Blessings in Jesus. Amen my sister, and great to hear a clear voice on female modesty, femininity, clothes etc. It looks like many a woman is being crushed under the heel of Satan, as he started to do with Eve in Eden. You need the Spirit of God these days more than ever to resist the outpourings of Satan’s lies and delusions. He’s trying to make good look evil and evil good as you say. Kick the propaganda out of the home I say. Give Satan the boot and all his filthy hordes of lying journalists, pseudo-experts, sociologists, and corrupt politicians, but especially the lying preachers who clothe themselves with the Name of Jesus but inwardly are ravening wolves!

  115. Brother Richard, couldn’t this same logic be applied to women wearing SHIRTS, SOCKS, and HOSIERY? If you do a quick read up on shirts, they were sprung from the male undergarment. As with “tights” (pantyhose) they were worn by men before pants as we know them. I was just curious, as the LORD convicted me on wearing pants so I switched to skirts. But then I came into contact with the shirt situation and now have started wearing long dresses.

  116. Thank you for your comments and Shalom. No the Scriptural definition of male garments is what we go by, not custom or fashion of the day. That is the whole point. You will find the Scriptural details and the discussion about which clothes come into this in the various comments and replies underneath the blog post. It doesn’t matter where these items came from as such, what matters is what GOD defines as male clothes, and these are the male priest garments, described in the Law, because these were based on the clothing Moses saw in heaven, and all Christians are priests in heaven. (Female Christians are not priests, they are stone-members of the heavenly Temple.) By the Law (the written Law in the Old Testament), said Paul is the knowledge of sin. We know what sin is by the definition in God’s Law, not by what we think is sin. Part of this is the gender-specific clothing. So trousers or breeches are male clothing by God’s definition, because they are priestly garments. The other priestly garments are not part of the common clothing but are special to the divine service, not being worn today, but trousers or breeches are. So they should not be on women, because God counts them as male garments. Shirts are robes in the Biblical definition, and are gender-neutral in the Bible — they can be used on males or females. Only they shouldn’t be specifically “masculine” or “feminine” in style or adornment, cut, by design etc., when worn by the opposite sex. “Tights” are fine as long as they are undergarments on women, and that means not visible at all to the public. If that isn’t clear to you, please ask away. Peace in Jesus.

  117. The Lord calls pants on women the spirit of the Anti Christ in the church. A rapture dream with very few going to Heaven. Not true please ask God. Linda Rika youtube testimony. Three preachers eligible for heaven out of five million people. Please ask the Living God. Many pray but they do not pray to God.

  118. Dear Richard,
    I apologize. I have been here before. This Lord speaks to me like this, “A lot of people say they hear from me, you tell people you hear from me.” Six or seven times in the old testament it talks about pants on men. Never on women.

    To Followers of The Lord Jesus The Christ

    Unless the preacher reads the Holy Bible, King James Version, word for word, only, just his word, only, nothing else, he or she is not God’s preacher. Unless we follow the bible the same way, not his people. They preach for money. You return to church for a lie. The bible, only, is the truth, anything else is a lie. A warning from God, he never changed anything in his word. Linda Rika, youtube testimony, three preachers out of five million people, in her country, eligible for heaven on the day she saw The Lord. He calls pants on women the spirit of the antichrist. Read Matthew 22:11-13, clothing, only, caused a man to miss heaven. Verse 8 in the same chapter says no one was worthy for heaven. A Hebrew Jewish God, not for profit, who never had a church, went from place to place, and the bible meant exactly what it said, only the KING JAMES VERSION. Why not pray and ask God if the testimony is true?

    American law began with the bible. We changed the law. Homosexuality was illegal. So was gambling and oh yes, pants on women. Who changed all of this in this country? God did not change one word. Someone is lying. Ask God. Please. The Koreans pray five to ten hours in a church service. The Lord was pleased. In a dream, I am teaching a class and I say The Lord recommends a 12 hour prayer. What is wrong with praying and asking, Lord is it true? Am I eligible for heaven? In the dream, ask, is that you Lord? The Devil will give you a dream, also. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I rebuke thee Satan, I rebuke thee. All means what God says. A rapture dream, only 123 seeds from the entire United States of America go to heaven. In a later dream, the rapture had very few people/seeds going to heaven from this country.

  119. Thanks for your message, my brother, see fuller answer at end of your third comment.

  120. Thanks for your message, my brother. I appreciate greatly the attempt by the movement you refer to, Pastor Rika’s movement in Nigeria, to uphold Biblical standards of decency. I certainly also would commend any Christian brother standing up for Jesus Christ in Nigeria, where radicalized jihadis are attempting to slaughter Christians, and destroy Bible-faith. Thank God for the brothers and sisters in Nigeria. I love even the photos or clips of decently-clothed female believers which I noticed on Brother Rika’s youtube site. You are certainly correct about how decency laws have been abandoned in the USA. That is a major sign of apostasy. The Devil has replaced Jesus with drugs, alcohol and pornography. In fact, you will find that women started to become masculinized and men feminized more and more after the use of alcohol became widespread in the 19th century, and the process speeded up with the introduction of estrogen in anti-conception pills and other drugs. You will find false prophets try to link “liberation of women” and “liberation of homosexuals” with the “liberation of African slaves” — which is an insult to native African males, as if they were “women” and “homosexuals”. The liberation of African and other slaves under Lincoln was a great victory of Bible-truth taught by the anti-slave Methodists against the Church-State colonial powers of Europe. Thank God for Lincoln! Women/men differences are differences of sexual role, of course, and have nothing to do with political and social status. Homosexuality is a perversion of sexual morality, and has nothing to do with political and social status. America originally was a patriarchal constitutional Republic, and the Constitution remains so. In a patriarchy, the male head of the household, whatever race, has the sole vote, and that’s how it was originally, and how God wants it. Dependent females in the household have no voting right granted by God, as that is a political status that does not belong to them, according to the Word of God. Thank you, again my brother, for your comments.

  121. Yes clearly and absolutely. The Bible also tells us a woman should be a “keeper at home” Titus 2:5: “To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” That masculine spirit hanging around females at work away from the patriarchal home environment, leads them to become sexual prey.

  122. So sad! There is no longer a sanctuary so men should not wear pants now either? The Sanctuary was stopped in Jerusalem at Christs death, curtain ripped top to bottom. Sacrificial system stopped as Christ was the sacrifice. Someone has real hangups.

  123. So sad! There is no longer any Scriptural understanding so we should stop teaching Scripture? Really? Obviously you misunderstand the point completely — please re-read the original post and you will see THERE STILL IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN A HEAVENLY SANCTUARY OF WHICH THE EARTHLY SANCTUARY WAS JUST A SHADOW-IMAGE. The point is males in heaven wear pants and they are therefore male garments ACCORDING TO GOD’S DEFINITION.

  124. Dear “Concerned Christian” please state your comments here rather than cop out by linking to another site. Thank you.

  125. It wasn’t a “cop out”.
    I just wanted you to go to the site that I had posted a link to and read and then share your opinion of what you read there.

  126. Thank you Concerned Christian for replying. I have looked at the site you link to, but it seems to be an attack-dog site against our beloved brethren of the United Pentecostal fellowship. I might have disagreements with some United Pentecostal teachers on points of doctrine, but I certainly don’t think they should be trashed like that site does. The site picks out certain individuals who couldn’t cope with Biblical holiness standards and therefore felt they were “abused” by those who held the line. That is ridiculous. You are welcome to comment further and let me know what you think about the site.

  127. Comment #1: Get a grip. I dare you to go into the women’s section, put on a pair of women’s pants ,and tell me if you do not look effeminate in them. I do not want to hear any arguments, debates, or your very false interpretation of Scripture until you do. Bye.
    Comment #2: And lets not forget this. I am not here for debate. I am sharing this to make a statement using this youtube link that deals with this same type of nonsense that goes in in the COGIC church, a denomination where many sects preach against women wearing pants and the like. And think before you call a women wearing pants a Sodomite. [link omitted] Bye.

  128. Thank you friend for your comments. I notice you want to avoid all “debate” which means you cannot defend your ridiculous opinion that cross-dressing (a female wearing pants) is ok for Christians who follow the Bible. Well cross-dressing is NOT ok according to the Word of God, as proven multiple times on this thread, and when it comes to God’s Word, “let God be true but every man [and/or woman] a liar” Romans 3:4.

  129. Comment #1: Excuse me. I am just trying to say that before you judge and condemn women for wearing pants, look at yourself first. And, if you go into the women’s section and do not look effeminate in a pair of women’s pants after trying them on , then let me know. Most times a pair of women’s pants would look effeminate on him. I just wanted to say this and the portion about debating because debates and divisions and legalistic attitudes (like yours) on matters likes these can send a anyone to hell faster than any pair of pants would. And the proof is that every church I have been to that forbids wearing pants acts almost like a Christian “cult” because they usually have prohibitions on other things not forbidden by scripture and use subtle brainwashing techniques on them coupled with ungodly fear imparting mechanisms too. The last thing I want to say before we end discussing this topic is that I understand why men get so mad at women for wearing pants ( many look too tight on women and are very revealing), but lets not make these scenarios a blanket case argument against women wearing pants because there are women out there who look more modest in a pair of pants than the woman next to her wearing a revealing dress ever would. She may have on the dress or skirt alright but the woman in pants would have less judgement on God than that woman in the dress ever would. And she is no less of a woman because she has on pants ( which are by the way tailored and cut for her body and gender).The real issue isn’t “pants vs. dresses”, but how to be modest and properly dressed in either one of them . I do not have time or even want to debate this ( the reason being is that is not what God ultimately wants because Satan has kept God’s people divided and quarreling for too long). Anyway, may God continue to be with you and lead you and direct you on your walk with Him.

    Comment #2: And no, I do not think cross- dressing is okay. My pants , my shirts, my lingerie,and my shoes are made and tailored for me , not someone of the other sex – -not cross dressing Stop going off of your narrow- minded and westernized opinion and examine this by the written word of God and what it really says. I am not trying to argue or debate this topic as my reason for saying adding this to my comments. I say this because I get so sick of these people with all of these convictions that do not align with Scripture putting others down for having different conclusions on different matters in order to lead them into captivity, bondage, opression , and ungodly fear .

  130. Dear Friend. Calm down. As I said before, you repeatedly state you “don’t want to debate this” because YOU CAN’T debate it, because you are off the Scriptures. You keep saying you’re going according to the Word, but you refuse to check it out by the Word. Don’t be afraid. Find out what God actually says. Bible-believers go by the Bible, of course. It’s not up to us to say what is ok, it’s God Who tells us what is ok. It’s not us who define what is male clothing and what is female clothing. It’s God Who defines that. Now go to your Bible and find what God thinks is male clothing. You will find God thinks trousers (pants, Hebrew miknesayim) are male clothing. period. The Bible quotes are fully given in the Comment Replies above, and especially in the section replying to “Gary”. Read those for what the Bible says. Now you may think that women wearing pants is ok, but that’s your personal judgment. Jesus said “not to judge”. It is you, not I who are judging. God’s judgment is found in the Word of God. When we go by the Word and the Word alone, we are not judging, we are repeating God’s own judgment. That’s the only way a human can do it — not state their own judgment, but go by God’s eternally valid judgment.

  131. Thank you friend for the time you are giving to this very important Biblical point. Now as you have made in your previous comments a whole series of rash statements without backing them up from the Scriptures, I have temporarily deleted the rest of your most recent comment so that you can back each statement up by the Bible. I will deal with each of your statements one at a time and as the Bible says “prove ALL things” I Thess. 5:21. So until you back up your statements with some Biblical proof, we will stay on that point. When you have given your Biblical proof for one statement we will move on to the next. Now your first statement in your latest comment is as follows:

    “Actually, the word for trousers also means “underwear””

    Where is your Biblical proof for this statement?

  132. Google the word for the Aaronic garments. One of the other words for it is drawers , so it can mean underwear. Again the key, word is “loins”- meaning that the garment is supposed to cover the genitals or certain organs. God wanted this garment to cover their loins ( as stated in the samw chapter) partly because when the priests go up to minister they would look utterly naked and one could see sensitive parts of their body if they just wore a loin cloth ….

  133. Dear friend, I said “back it up by the Scriptures.” Instead you replied as follows (with a lot of other verbiage which will be saved for later display on the blog if you answer the first question):

    Your weak answer: “Google the word for the Aaronic garments. One of the other words for it is drawers , so it can mean underwear. Again the key, word is “loins”- meaning that the garment is supposed to cover the genitals or certain organs. God wanted this garment to cover their loins ( as stated in the samw chapter) partly because when the priests go up to minister they would look utterly naked and one could see sensitive parts of their body if they just wore a loin cloth.”

    Nowhere do you quote the Scriptures here you merely say “Google it” — as if Google was a reliable source (it actually prioritizes moneyed sites). Now show me in the Bible where the Aaronic priestly garments “miknesayim” (trousers, pants) are stated to be “undergarments”. As I say you can’t debate it by the Word, you are merely stating your own reasonings.

    When you provide Biblical evidence we will proceed to your next point. If you can’t provide Biblical evidence back down and admit you have not been Scriptural in your statements. Thank you.

  134. Dear Friend you have submitted two lengthy comments in a row (which I have saved and summarized with dots …. above), neither of which quotes a single Scripture.
    Your statement was “Actually, the word for trousers also means “underwear””
    Where is your Biblical proof for this statement? Quote the Scriptural verse which tells us all that the word for trousers (miknesayim) also means “underwear”. Only when you do this or back down from your statement, will we move on. Thank you.

  135. What I am telling you is from Scripture… [rest of this comment saved till commenter answers the question — see next reply]

  136. Dear Friend you still have not answered the question: where does the Bible (quote it) tell us that “the word for trousers also means “underwear””

    either back down off this assertion or prove it by the Scriptures. As I said earlier you clearly CANNOT debate this by the Scriptures because you are NOT ABLE TO.

  137. Friend, thank you at last for ALMOST acknowledging the fact that the Hebrew word for “pants” or “trousers” (miknesayim) does not mean “underwear” in the Holy Word. However, you seem to be weaseling somewhat, so please show me ANY VERSE OF SCRIPTURE which says miknesayim are underwear, when in fact these garments are worn as a covering to be seen clearly in public. Till you back down and admit the Scriptural miknesayim are publically-visible garments, I will continue to save your multiple other statements in your comments.

    [Update 1st Oct 2019: here will be listed the dates this commenter replies with “splurge comments” composed of long irrelevant statements but refuses to quote a single Scripture to back up the ludicrous claim that miknesayim means “underwear”:
    10-01-19 x 4(!!)]

  138. Well back in Jesus times men wore skirts so wouldn’t that be a sin then to if women can’t wear pants. I believe that when these scriptures were writen they were talking about LGBT and so on because I don’t dress like a guy I still dress like a girl even though I wear pants.

  139. Thank you friend for your comment, which, however, makes some erroneous claims. Men in Jesus’ time (generally speaking) did not wear skirts, they wore robes, which, in the Bible, are gender-neutral garments and may be worn by men or women still to this day. Sometimes the Bible refers to the “skirts” of a robe, which means the edge or fringe of a robe, and that has confused some modern-day readers who don’t bother to look up the original meaning. Certainly the Bible condemns “LGBT” practices absolutely. You think you are “dressing like a girl” but when you wear pants you are wearing what the Word of God specifically defines as a male garment. The Biblical proof of that is found in the Comment replies above, particularly in those to “Gary”. You can also download or read online a little tract on the Biblical teaching on male and female clothing at this link: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/clothes.pdf.

  140. Wow!!!,thank u so much for this preaching brother rechard,I wish to serve God all the days of my Iife am a Christian but I was lead into a relationship which almost drag me away from God but thank God I realize the truth through the revelation I hard,at first I new trousers were not for women,but because of love I ran into sin but now God has show me anything, and I don’t care what others might say but I believe the word of God and all u have said are correct, even when other try to influence me,most expecally the world today trousers are wore by females,so I brought up this topic about how disobedience it is for a woman to but on trousers then in my place of work they never accepted instead they call me name and insulted me but I left them with God, for I have said what I have to say according to the scripture about good and evil.

    It wasn’t easy doing away with trousers but with God it was easy,for no one should disobey the word of God, for not only the soul even the body natters.

    God bless u brother Richard

  141. God bless you my sister for your stand for the Word of God. Keep going! The Lord is obviously helping you in your everyday walk, as you resist the Devil’s lies. How people can be so twisted in these things is amazing! Look what they say if you condemn this abomination sin of females wearing male clothing — they say “that’s hate speech”. Hypocrites! Don’t they see that if condemning sexual perversion is “hate speech” then also condemning the Bible-believers’ statements is ALSO “hate speech”. They are expressing THEIR hatred of Christianity. So God bless you as you continue on God’s path of peace and life.

  142. I am so elated coming across your posts. I am proud of you and your stand to defend I hate trousers, make up, jewelry and hair extensions. I wear ankle length gowns, I do not wear make up, perfume or wear human hair. I am natural as the lord has made me. I believe with all my heart that women who wear trousers are filthy before their maker. Keep up the good work and may the good lord continue to grant you patient and love as you share the true doctrine to those who cared to believe. I will like to learn more from you as I am evangelist, let me know how to get in touch perhaps via Skype. Remain blessed. Sylva Clinton.

  143. Thank you for your words of Christian friendship and kindness.

    I am so glad to hear you are serving the Lord. I wonder when you say “evangelist” if you mean specifically women’s ministry, or more generally teaching men also? Perhaps the former, when you are so Biblically strong on women’s apparel. Either way I am so pleased you are zealous for the truth.

    The abandonment of this foundational teaching on the Biblical roles of men and women has caused great damage in society, and young people have become totally gender-confused.

    Yes it would be great to communicate with you over the net, and a first step will be to register (just needs some username chosen by you and an email) on our Interact site. We are busy setting it up at the moment, so it is not at all in full swing, but you can register and start messaging or posting there. Have a look round it to find out how it works. Eventually hope to get a video chat plugin working on that. The link to register is found at the following temporary page:

  144. Men didn’t even wear pants back in those days, I’m just saying
    P.S. this may have been the subject of a different thread.

  145. Shalom! Factually you’re wrong. Pants in Hebrew are called “miknesayim” and they are referred to a number of times in the Old Testament. The comment and comment replies above give you full details.

  146. We have women trousers and male trousers. Both of them are different. And if you read from the verses you mentioned about breeches, it’s talking of a type of breeches and it’s “linen breeches” so women can wear any other materials except linen breeches. Thank you. Correct me if am mistaken please

  147. Thank you my friend for your questions and comments. If you read through the earlier comment replies on this page you will see that both your points have been answered already scripturally. To answer again here briefly:

    You say: (I quote) “We have women trousers and male trousers. Both of them are different”. Here you are implying it is ok for women to wear trousers so long as fashion-people call them “women’s trousers”. That would make our sanctified behavior depend on carnal judgments and sinners’ viewpoints. The Bible on the contrary calls all miknesayim (the Hebrew word for trousers, breeches), “male garments” because in God’s view these are priestly garments and only males are priests. That is God’s definition. Let God be true and every man a liar.

    2) You say: (I quote) “if you read from the verses you mentioned about breeches, it’s talking of a type of breeches and it’s “linen breeches” so women can wear any other materials except linen breeches.” Here you suggest that the material is what is important, but as I already quoted from the Bible, trousers/breeches (miknesayim) are “male garments”. The word garment is keli in Hebrew, and that is any “manufactured item” including clothes. It is the “item” that is considered “male” or “female” not the material. So your suggestion that only “linen breeches” are male is incorrect from the Bible point of view.

    3) You say in your first comment: (I quote) “What of shirts?”. Shirts are not considered male garments and are gender-neutral in the Bible. Shirts are kuttoneth or ketoneth in Hebrew, if they are the usual shirt-length (to the waist): in that case they could not, of course, be worn alone, but with some other type of robe (dress) or trousers, or as underneath clothing. And if they are long shirts (below the knee) worn in public, they are a type of robe (Hebrew mehil). Both the kuttoneth and mehil may be and are worn by males and females in the Bible. But if in their pattern or logos etc. these shirts contain specifically masculine emblems or features, then that would stop them being on a female’s person, because they contain male elements (kelis). Such a special male “shirt” or “coat” (kuttoneth) was the priest’s “coat”, and that is specifically called a “holy/sacred/sanctuary” coat, with special priestly embroidery etc., to distinguish it from an everyday “coat”, as you can see in Leviticus 16. 4. Likewise the priest’s “robe” was a specially-designed “sacred robe”, that is for the priest and sanctuary, and those extra “male” attributes make that robe specifically male. (See the comment reply above, https://www.christianhospitality.org/wp/2009/04/20/woman-wearing-pants-spirit-of-sodomy/#comment-356.) “Trousers” on the other hand are totally and specifically priest’s garments and “male”. In heaven all the priests (all Christian males) wear trousers, and women cannot be priests. It is from the heavenly pattern (the form of garment worn by the male priests in heaven) that Moses copied the earthly shadow-type in the earthly Tabernacle.

    If you have any further questions or comments please fire away!

  148. What is girding one’s loins? This was a common phrase similar to “rolling up your selves” and meant to prepare for work. Historically, this was something done by both men and women and not just men. When a man needed freedom to work, run or fight, they would tuck the hem of the tunic into the girdle to gain greater freedom and movement. For women, they would lift the hem of their tunics to help carry heavier or numerous objects or to help them more more freely. In both instances it created shorts, not pants.

    Does the Bible say that only men girded up their loins? No.

    Proverbs 31:17
    She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

    The passage above is the biblical description of the virtuous woman who was ready for work. If we are to argue that girding up ones loins creates pants, then a woman should Biblcally wear pants because it makes her Biblically a virtuous woman and who is ready for work.

  149. Dear friend you misunderstand the passage. It is a metaphor: girding the loins “with strength” (not with clothing) is what it’s talking about. This is a Hebrew way of saying “get ready for strong household labor”. You’re trying to get round the Word of God as it relates to male and female clothing, and ending up going into the ridiculous.

  150. Thanks sir,
    What of other verses in Deuteronomy 22 vs 11 is it still prevalent in the life’s of other believers?

  151. Dear friend, I guess what you mean here is does the Law of Moses still apply? Of course it does for Jews and all the natural descendants of Israel, and for Gentiles specific laws are contained in the Torah, for example the 7 laws given to Noah, which were confirmed at the Council of Jerusalem as described in the Book of Acts. Jesus did not come to do away with the Law but to FULFILL it. And that means what it says. The ritual laws of the outward shadow are for Israel to keep as an example to the Gentiles, and all the moral Law is to be kept by the Gentiles, including abstaining from ALL abominations described in the Law, like cross-dressing. Paul said by the Law is the knowledge of sin. We only know what sin is by the definition of God in the Law (Torah), and we should repent (turn away) from that sin and believe on Jesus the Messiah promised in the Law to receive forgiveness and salvation.

  152. What makes this a ritual law? Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

  153. Dear friend, that is not a moral law but a carnal ordinance as Paul calls it, a symbolic act of not mixing different stuffs in clothes, similar to ritually-impure foods, meaning those forbidden to Israel, which are not literally “dirty” but symbolically so. These symbols were the teaching of the Schoolmaster bringing the children to the Revelation of the Messiah. We are not to mix worldly behavior with spiritual — cross-dressing for example.

  154. I know many women who have the holy spirit, speaking in tongues but are wearing trousers! Can holy spirit dwell in a filthy place?

  155. Dear friend, the answer is “no God cannot dwell in an unclean place” but He can visit that place and clean it up!

  156. Dear friend, it means nothing of the sort as what you call a “bonnet” is actually Hebrew migba’ah and mitznepheth which are technical words specially and only applied in the Scriptures to the priest’s headgear, not to anything worn by a female.

  157. I want to understand, is it an abomination for a woman to put on bonnets? From the scriptures

  158. Dear friend, of course not. It would only be an abomination if it was a priestly bonnet, meaning of a type worn by a minister or designed to represent the office of a minister.

  159. Yes my friend, it is what comes out from the heart that defiles THE MAN, not that which goes in. Please note this scripture is often misapplied, as though it is saying God does not care what goes onto the body (clothing) or what goes into the body (like drugs, alcohol, etc.). God DOES care what goes into the body. Jesus said the whole MAN is defiled by what comes out of the heart, and MAN is a threefold being, body, soul and spirit. But the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and the body ITSELF must not be defiled (by alcohol, drugs, etc.). 1Cor 6:19 “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” 1Cor 3:17 “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy” So defiling the body by abomination clothing will lead to the destroying of that person by God.

  160. Dear friend, reread the post above and the multiple comment replies which detail all the Scriptures which show what is male clothing (trousers, pants) according to God Himself, and the female garments are the ketoneth/kuttoneth (shirt-like garment or skirt) with “soft” (feminine) attributes, typical of the female, and the mehil (robe, dress), likewise with female attributes. The word “garment” is Hebrew simlah, which refers to both outer and inner garments, including the ketoneth and mehil. So what God says in Deuteronomy 22. 5 is that a man should not wear a “garment (simlah) with female attributes (ishshah)”. The Hebrew literally reads “garment of a female” which is the ancient way of saying a “female type of garment” or a “womanish garment”. Just as when it says “mountain of holiness” it means “holy mountain”. The ketoneth and mehil are the particular words used for certain garments worn by females without condemnation and these two terms are gender-neutral unless they have specific male or female attributes, according to the Scriptures. You will find the scriptures quoted in the thread above. Remember the word keli in Deteronomy 22.5 means “any manufactured item” including the whole clothing as well as items of adornment on the clothing or independently attached to the person. Thus a female is specifically forbidden to have on her person any “manufactured item (keli) with male associations”. And as said before, the feminine-looking garment, that is robe, or skirt, outer or inner, are not allowed to be worn by a male. For a list of clothing worn by (lascivious) females read Isaiah 3. 18-23.

  161. I have studied about the laws given to children of isreal and I understand it’s not for gentiles. If women are not to wear trousers then this case should also be applied to men who shave the edges of their beards(Liviticus 19 vs 27) the Bible says if we fail one law, we are guilty of all.

    We are under grace that has nothing to do with laws given to the children of isreal. This laws has nothing to do with salvation.

  162. I think these laws are not for the gentiles. If these laws are for the gentiles, it is an abomination unto God also for men to shave the edges, or carve their beards Liviticus 19 vs 27. So I think these laws are only for isrealites

    We are under grace and salvation is not on the clothes or beards or anything you put on.

  163. Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

  164. My dear friend, this is a reply to the three comments above from the same email address. Yes of course we are saved by Grace alone through faith. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Abraham believed God and therefore obeyed Him when He told him to leave his father’s house and go to the land promised where his seed would be heir. If he had not obeyed he would have showed he was not a believer. As the Apostle Paul says, God sees your faith is real by looking into your heart, but as the Epistle of James says, your fellow man sees your faith when it is put into action by your works. What we are talking about here is the latter case — we are not God. We need to see you believe by observing your obedience to the Word, and that means NO CROSS-DRESSING.

    As regards your points about the Law of God — you are obviously confused on the difference between the moral Law and the ceremonial.
    You should read the multiple comment replies above first, before making such irrelevant points, as your question has been thoroughly answered already. I have listed some of the comment replies above so you can get what the Scriptures say on this. Please read them and then if you have any explicit refutation, fire away!


  165. Hi, Brother Richard. This is Taylor Hattley. I just simply wanted to apologize for any misunderstandings on the posts I sent earlier or any erroneous teaching I spread on your page. I am sorry and I apologize. I ask that you and God would forgive me. I have had a slight change of opinion on the subject of a women’s pants (trousers) and am writing this to you as part of restitution. Anyways, take care!

  166. Thank you, my friend, for your frank apology. Of course I forgive you, though you haven’t done anything against me personally. As David said to the Lord, “Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned.” Trusting we all shall be at the end of the day, what our Heavenly Father wants us to be — a shining reflection on earth of the Image of God, that is of Christ Himself. With love in Jesus.

  167. Sir, thank you for these biblical teaching. Please I would like to know The word “hosen” does it mean trousers?

  168. Dear friend, I presume you mean by “hosen” the word used in the King James Bible at Daniel 3. 21`, where it says the three Hebrew friends of Daniel the prophet were thrown into the fiery furnace “bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments.” If that is the word you are talking about, it is the popular Hebrew (Aramaic, Chaldaean) word pattiysh, which means undergarment or shirt, or tunic, that is, the same as the kuttoneth or ketoneth, a garment worn underneath the overcoat or robe, the mehil. The old English word “hosen” similarly means a tight-fitting garment reaching to the knees or ankles, so this is how the King James translated it.

  169. What of women who do rigorous exercises and are into military activities? Can’t they wear Trousers so as to help them in covering themselves properly.

  170. But here it’s written in Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

  171. Dear friend, as regards your specific point: Christ is the END not the ABOLISHING of the Law, as He Himself said, “I came to fulfill the Law, NOT do away (abolish) it”: Matt 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” So the word “end” (Gk. telos) in Romans 10. 4 means “fulfillment”, as it commonly elsewhere does, not “abolishing”. And as Saint Paul brings out: Rom 2:27 “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature {Gentile}, if it fulfil the law, judge thee {a Jew under the law}, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?” This shows that the Gentile Christian, if he “fulfills the Law” (that is, if he partakes of Christ, Who is the fulfillment of the Law), shall judge the so-called Torah-keeping Jew who thinks he keeps the Law but actually breaks it. These Bible principles have already been explained in the immediately preceding comments: but for your benefit I repeat:

    “I have listed some of the comment replies above so you can get what the Scriptures say on this. Please read them and then if you have any explicit refutation, fire away!”


  172. “Ending of law” means the “final point of law”. For righteousness to every one that believes. Meaning that if you believe in Christ, you are not under law to observe the letters. As also written in, Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

    So believing in Christ is enough to take one to heaven not observing laws. As written, for God so love the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16).

  173. Dear friend, if we follow your interpretation, then a Christian is not bound by the moral law, and can freely 1) murder, 2) fornicate , 3) steal, 4) lie, 5) covet his neighbor’s property, because all those things are written in the letter of the Law, and a Christian, according to your interpretation, is not bound any more to do what the Law says. Rubbish! This is the normal Calvinist gobbledeygook, which is advocated by those who serve God with their mouth, but their hearts are far from Him, as Jesus Himself put it. Your hippy Jesus won’t wash with Spirit-filled believers, through whom alone Christ FULFILLS the Law. Your type of Calvinist, who thinks “believing” is enough, is no better and probably worse than the Devil, since the Devil, as James says, also believes — and trembles (which is slightly more than what your average works-denying Calvinist does). But then, of course, your type of Calvinist usually cuts out of the Bible all those texts which do not agree with the Calvinist dogma, for example: THESE SIGNS SHALL FOLLOW THOSE THAT BELIEVE. Also the whole of the Book of James etc. etc. Can you confirm, first, for me that you accept Mark 16 final portion, and the whole of the Received Text of the New Testament as inspired and inerrant Scripture, then at least we can proceed to rightly divide the Word of Truth on a common, rock-solid basis.

    P.S. I am a Calvinist inasmuch as and so long as Calvinism is in the Word, and where it departs I drop it. Likewise I am an Arminian as long as Arminininism is in the Word, where it departs I drop it.

  174. The universal priesthood in NT as you mention is different ….

    [Comment awaiting requested answer, see next comment reply]

  175. Thank you for your further comment. However, you have not answered my request to you on 2020/04/10 at 11:52 am
    which was:
    “Can you confirm, first, for me that you accept Mark 16 final portion, and the whole of the Received Text of the New Testament as inspired and inerrant Scripture, then at least we can proceed to rightly divide the Word of Truth on a common, rock-solid basis.”

    Till you answer this I am holding your present comment, and will publish it when you reply. Thank you.

  176. Hi, brother Richard!! You said that the priests material for trousers is irrelevant? But the scriptures defined it as a material for Trousers, That it must be of linen?

    Ezekiel 44:17 And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.

  177. Dear friend, you misunderstood what I was saying. The linen garments are the shadow (in the Tabernacle on earth) of the actual image (in heaven) as Paul says in Hebrews, and the white shining linen on earth is emblematic of the “righteousness of saints” in heaven. The earthly garments are a reflexion of the PATTERN in heaven. In heaven the trouser-pattern is reserved for males (priests), showing that in God’s definition, trousers are (by pattern) male garments, not by material (which is heavenly material of course, in heaven). So anyone wearing the trouser-pattern of garment is wearing a male garment, according to God’s definition. This is explained in the comment-replies above.

  178. Yahwists always get lost in the material world and constantly bicker about meaningless materialistic trivialities – Pharisees! When will you realize that “God” (the SOURCE – neither male nor female, but androgynous) has no regard for mankind’s silly rules and regulations. Your best bet is to return to your original state – nudity – and focus on finding the god within. Welcome to Paradise 😉

  179. I have been looking for a church that follow all of the apostle doctrine. So i am sending my email. I would like to be contact soon.

  180. Dear Cat, you claim to have found Paradise down here with nudity etc., but I would think it’s pretty obvious this is no Paradise. Just look at the scene around you. All this happened because one woman, Eve, misinterpreted the Word of God on one little point, at the suggestion of Satan. Don’t think you will get back into Paradise doing the same thing Eve did. Believe every word of God! That includes “no cross-dressing”. Don’t confuse the sexes. I would have thought every woman would want to be a real woman, and every man a real man. Still there’s no accounting for taste (of the forbidden fruit).

  181. Dear Sister. May God bless you in your desire to find a Bible-believing church with Apostolic doctrine. That’s exactly what this mission represents. I am sure some of the Christian sisters would like to share the Word of Life with you on the contact site of this mission. It’s not fully in operation yet, but you can register on it and send messages put up posts etc. it’s called Christian Hospitality Interact and is found at the following link:
    [link no longer active].
    Just go there and register by putting in an email and username. Hope to see you on the Interact site shortly.

  182. But if we believe in Jesus Christ we are saved, nobody is perfect, only God is perfect. Women wearing pants doesn’t mean that they will not enter heaven. God looks at the heart not the flesh. Women wearing pants doesn’t mean that they will go to hell, but if we have faith and believe in Jesus Christ our saviour. Nobody is perfect, we all commit sin everyday. Women wearing pants those not mean they will go to hell, all of us usually commit sin everyday and we are all saved by Jesus Christ to enter heaven.

  183. Thank you my friend for your thoughts. You are, however, misguided. The Bible says the JUST (those who are just in God’s sight, that is believers) shall live BY FAITH. (Romans 1: 17.) First a person is JUSTIFIED (by accepting Jesus as Savior). Then that person LIVES BY FAITH. Paul says in that same verse the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. (It is a process of believing.) Jesus said if you CONTINUE in My words then you are My disciples indeed and the Truth shall make you free. (John 8: 31-32.) So you see you’ve got to CONTINUE in His words, not just start by accepting Jesus. Part of that continuing in faith is believing what the Bible says about dressing modestly and for a woman not to wear man’s clothing.

  184. Thank you my friend for your question. The Bible says it is forbidden for a woman to wear on her person “any manufactured item with male associations” (Deuteronomy 22. 5). Shirt is Biblical Hebrew kuttoneth and Biblical Greek khiton, which is gender-neutral in the Bible. It is a garment that does not by itself “cover nakedness” and would therefore be worn in Bible times with the outward covering of a robe etc. when the person was out and about in public. Only if this shirt had specifically “male associations” in its design or emblems etc. would it be “immodest” clothing by the Bible definition and not wearable by a woman.

  185. For the argument that Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids women to wear pants, we must conclude that pants are intrinsically something for men–that is, it isn’t a matter of culture or anything, pants are men’s wear, period. Now, if this was the case–that pants were viewed as such from the beginning–I would expect we would have seen some writings a good while ago (that is, not merely within the last century or two) explicitly state as such and connect this to Deuteronomy 22:5.

    So here is my question, which I have asked elsewhere but never gotten a response; perhaps you can offer one. What is the earliest writing you can point to that explicitly states that women wearing pants is a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5? (a simple mention of men wearing pants, as is the case in your Exodus cite, does not count–it must be an explicit statement that a woman wearing pants would be a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5) It doesn’t even need to be a Christian writing; a Jewish one would work also. So what is the earliest instance of someone drawing this conclusion? The earlier you can point to one, the stronger your argument becomes.

  186. Dear friend. Thank you for your interest in this important Scriptural question. Your premise is misguided. You are reasoning not believing. The Bible says 2 Cor. 10. 5: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”. So we first find out what God says about a thing, then we do it, and we get rid of any reasoning or imagination or thought that proudly rises up against it. Also “let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” Romans 3. 4. What you want is someone APART FROM GOD to bear witness that pants are not to be put on women. Relatively detailed Jewish exegesis of the Scriptures begins (in a patchy manner) with the Targums, and they date from around the time of Jesus, so you’re not going to find anything much earlier than that amongst the Jews. Since you follow reasonings of this kind, you do the research necessary and tell me when is the earliest Christian or Jewish writer who says explicitly that it is OK for women to wear pants?

  187. But there are women who are wearing Trousers because they are living in cold regions. So they will all go to hell because they wanted to cover their bodies against cold

  188. But there are people who just want to get on with worldly people in this lukewarm Laodicean age, and they will all go to hell just because they want to get on with people?

  189. Chibuike
    August 2, 2020 at 12:24 pm
    “Is it a sin for a man to wear skirts?”
    No. Not if they are MEN’s skirted garments.
    Men wore skirted garments for ages before trousers became common. When men were doing dirty work, they removed their cloaks and tunics, wearing loincloths and similar wraps while working.
    When Peter was working on his fishing boat and saw Jesus, he stopped working put his cloak on, just as men used to put their jackets on when they were welcoming guests or leaving their workplaces, especially before air conditioning.

  190. Shalom! Good points. The word “skirt” originally meant “edge” or “border” as in the word skirting-board, that is a wooden “edge” or “border” of the room. We still use the word “skirt” as a verb, “skirt the pool” means “go round the edge of the pool”. That’s what the word means in the Bible the “skirts” of Aaron’s robe were its bottom edges. So strictly speaking the man does not wear a “skirt” as a total garment, he wears a robe with a “skirt” that is an edge. The modern common use of the word skirt is in relation to a female. Biblically a skirt must cover the thighs from public view in order to be decent and modest, so the length and fashion of it are important.

  191. I suspect you are overusing the Bible’s tendency to have adapted itself to the cultures in which it was inspired. For example, in Paul’s day, Grecian women were heavily segregated from the men, as the men were barbarous rapists who would attack anything that moved that they could subdue. The women had to keep even their hair covered, as Paul mentions, but Paul never says exactly why it’s needed for modesty. Everyone knew why, back then; it was obvious to them, but not to us: Timothy was bishop over Ephesus. His church stood in the shadow of Artemis. Many of the converted women were ex-prostitutes from her temple. Removing hair-covering meant what it meant in Ephesus. What happened in the temple stayed in the temple, as it were.
    Now imagine if the Gospel began in ancient Japan: the women there were topless for hundreds of years. It was not a sexual thing to be topless. It was normal unless it was cold. Christian missionaries found this shocking, but if you were a missionary, you’d soon find out, to kiss or even hold your wife in public, you would be jailed for indecent acts. Do you think if scripture were inspired there, it would say differently, where women were topless but hugging was scandalous?
    If Japan were the chosen people and the Christ were tied over a bamboo shoot instead of hanged on a roman crucifix, would their commandments be the same (prescriptive) or relative (descriptive)? Consider it seriously before blurting an answer, now. What even is Christian culture but an alteration of the Jewish, then the Greek, then the Latin and Coptic, and so forth to America?
    It it’s comething unique, are the Quakers and Amish the only ones to successfully embrace it? They might be the only ones that are saved!

    I suggest you don’t use all-caps to emphasize things. It makes for bumpy prose and it scatters thoughts, and distracts from the reasoning behind what you’re saying.

  192. Shalom! You miss the Biblical point entirely. You treat the Bible as if it is merely a book of sacred literature, dependent on the “culture” from which it sprang. Of course the Bible Itself claims it is the Word of God. That is what we and all Bible-believing born-again Christians believe. You will find, if you bother to read the comment thread above, that the teaching about women’s clothing is based on Biblical scriptures going back to the very beginning of Genesis, and not on the shifting sands of “culture”. Incidentally your characterizations of ancient and more modern foreign cultures are ridiculous. Ancient Greeks did not have segregation between males and females and were not a set of “barbarous” rapists!! Where on earth did you ever get that idea from? Japanese women do not by custom go topless and never did in any age I know about, though perhaps you are thinking of Western artists’ depictions of topless Javanese women??? They, of course, have nothing to do with Japan. And artists will be artists. You can find plenty of paintings of topless western women but that is a reflection of the artists’ licentiousness and not of western “culture”. I suggest you need to heed particularly the ALL-CAPS sections of the comment-replies above as they are intended to inject the expressed thoughts more deeply into your consciousness, and you are seriously in need of that operation. With love and respect in Jesus.

  193. “[God] defines perverted sexual activities in the Bible…”
    Sexual matters are in all but one place referred to in euphemisms and generalities. In only one place the scripture reads that Onan copulated with Tamar, but before ejaculating inside her he pulled out and emitted the semen “on the ground.” For this he was instantly struck dead. His evil motive was to avoid possibly impregnating Tamar but nowhere is the death penalty prescribed for not wanting to generate children. In the case of the levir (duty of the brother-in-law) the insulted widowed sister in law was to denounce him publicly.

  194. Shalom. The phrase you quote about God’s defining perverted sexual activities in the Bible is from my comment-reply above: https://www.christianhospitality.org/wp/woman-wearing-pants-spirit-of-sodomy/. You seem to have a problem with this, but as it says further on in that same comment-reply Apostle Paul states “By the LAW is the knowledge of sin”. We know what sin is by the Law of God as written in the inspired Hebrew scriptures. Sin is the transgression of the Law. If the Law says it is is wrong, it is wrong, not if you or I say it is wrong. Thus for a woman to wear male apparel according to the definition of the Law of God is wrong, whether you or I like it or lump it. Your reference to Onan and Tamar is misplaced because God slew Onan on account of the fact he failed to raise up seed to his deceased brother:
    Genesis 38. “9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.”
    The Law on this is found in Deuteronomy 25. 5-10. It is irrelevant if later such an act did not specifically incur the death penalty as all deliberate breaches of the Law of God warrant death: “the soul that sinneth that soul shall die.” and Hebrews 10:
    “26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
    Thus Onan’s act in marrying this wife in order to raise up seed to his deceased brother, then failing to honor that commitment, displeased God and he was slain by God accordingly. Likewise if we despise God’s Law on cross-dressing. Our soul in that case will be consumed in the Lake of Fire.

  195. We christians don’t need the law as the bible says 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

  196. Shalom! Thank you for your (misplaced) observations. Jesus as He Himself said came to FULFILL THE LAW, not to do away with it. Thus in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus MAGNIFIED the Law. Where the Law said “Thou shalt not kill” Jesus said it applied spiritually, as well as carnally — thus to hate one’s brother was to kill one’s brother. So also not only did the Word of God command not to commit adultery, it also commanded, according to Jesus, not even to look at a woman lustfully. Thus, immodest clothing (including cross-dressing, a woman wearing garments that pertain to a man, pants) causes ADULTERY according to the Law of God written in the heart — that is, according to the New Covenant/Testament.

  197. Some don’t agree, so that is irrelevant. If we are Christians we believe the Bible and that says BOTH women should not wear pants and men should not wear dresses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments of all kinds are welcome.

If you have no email or want to keep it private, just enter no-mail@me.com or similar in the Email box. Thankyou.