Conservative Camp Meeting, Ventura, CA.06/22-06/26 - Page 10

Truthseeker · #91 07-01-2009, 02:16 PM

Any thoughts on it only mentions men wearing breeches?

*AQuietPlace* · #92 07-01-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Any thoughts on it only mentions men wearing breeches?

Isaiah 32
11 Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.

Sam · #93 07-01-2009, 03:21 PM

Speaking of breeches or britches as I've also heard them called.

After Adam and Eve's sin, Genesis 3:7 in the Geneva Bible reads: "Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches."

Then in verse 21 says: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

There is a marginal note for verse 7 which says, "Hebrew, things to gird about them to hide their privities."

Then there is a marginal note (I assume this is an alternate reading) for verse 21 which says, "Or, gave them knowledge to make themselves coats."

some thoughts:
--does this mean britches are wrong for both men and women but coats are OK?

--when it says, "unto Adam also and to his wife" does that mean some of their children were present and needed clothing?

*AQuietPlace* · #94 07-01-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

some thoughts:
--does this mean britches are wrong for both men and women but coats are OK?

I was thinking that earlier. If we're going to look to the Bible for specific directives on clothing, it seems that we can find a basis to teach against men wearing pants, too, not just women.

The Biblical clothing standard was robes. Even when men tucked their robes up, it was only temporary.

Truthseeker · #95 07-01-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Isaiah 32
11 Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.

Are you saying girding loins is the same as breeches?

*AQuietPlace* · #96 07-01-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Are you saying girding loins is the same as breeches?

What were you calling breeches?

Truthseeker · #97 07-01-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

What were you calling breeches?

I have read where some present breeches were what ONLY men wore that were pants like.

On The Wheel · #98 07-01-2009, 04:35 PM

[QUOTE=GrowingPains;766962]

Quote:

Originally Posted by On The Wheel

I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?QUOTE]

Great points. Most would say a mixture of historically and culturally. Biblical definition would be for more black and white issues that would transcend time and culture. For instance, homosexuality, no matter how much accepted in modern culture, will never be permissible according to Scripture.

The problem then, is that the church's position on issues goes according to the whims of the world. So if in 100 years, mankind walks around stark naked. Would it then be modest to worship in string bikinis, because after all, that's modest. Far-fetched? But I think you have to take logic the full distance to see how it plays out.

In the final analysis, I think culture is our biggest indicator. Traditions aren't bad though... and it's sometimes traditions that helps us preserve culture.

Well said. We what is right cannot be defined by culture alone. If that were true, what was holy would be defined by whomever had the biggest advertising budget on Madison Avenue. That's scary!

So historical tradition and bible principles must be thrown into the mix. After all, most agree that there should be distictions between how men and women act and present themselves.

I don't think most people take issue with pastors taking a position that pants and skirts make a great visual separation between men and women. The problem arises when those people refuse to recognize any other interpretation of men's and women's clothing, and cry "abomination" at anyone who thinks differently.

To be sure, the church should take an active role in shaping culture. That is part of the mandate Christ gave us to be salt and light. But we should shape it by example and with love, not by self-righteous condemnation of everyone who takes an alternative point of view.

How did we ever take such a weakly supported theological position and make it a holiness, church dividing, heaven or hell issue?

God forgive us. God forgive me.

*AQuietPlace* · #99 07-01-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I have read where some present breeches were what ONLY men wore that were pants like.

Biblically, I don't know. I think they all wore robes. I've not done an intensive study of it. The priests were commanded at certain times to wear garments that were similar to pants.

GrowingPains · #**100** 07-01-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

Originally Posted by GrowingPains
Just to provide a challenge:

It's well understood "girding up the loins" was a euphemism of going to battle. Do not agree with this. I think it was more about working, which going to battle would be work but I don't think it was the only thing it was used for.

The robes would be tucked, from the bottom, into the waist belt. So this is a masculine thing, and the Scripture about "girding up the loins" is a masculine statement. The reference in Isaiah is about God's judgement, and his shame upon Israel. I know this would be brought up. Still can not say it is only a man thing. The women were the ones being talked to. So it is only okay for a woman to gird her loins if she is being judged by God?
Not the best depiction for a quintessential truth. Much of OT was written in a man's time, with man words, feelings, etc... Most certainly, women weren't the ones who carried staffs in their hand. Not all men carried a staff and I am not sure a women who was traversing the desert would NOT have one in hers.

So, regardless of the global argument here, refuting these scriptures as applying to men and women isn't really accurate. God evidently cares about distinction. However, I don't think it's accurate to "read into" the Text that girding up the loins means pants, and that these are garments God has made sacred for only a man. Here I would have to say I agree.

Jax, Whether there "could have been" a woman with a staff, or they "could have" gone to work should not be how we interpret Scripture. It should be in light of the dominant culture, what the author's intent/purpose and understood by what it meant then. There's plenty of scholarly research that points to "girding the loins" having to do with battle. I can see it being used for work, of course, but what is the primary symbol? I think it's battle. Work or battle, both were likely exclusive for men. Enjoying the convo.