Newbie question!

[Esaias]

A corollary to the “difference in pants” argument is the “they both wore robes” argument. This is an argument by professing believers to eliminate the designed gender distinctions. No specific Scripture verse says, “They both wore robes.” They did (2 Sam. 13:18; Exodus 28:4), but Scripture does not say that the robes were the same. In fact, 2 Sam 13:18 shows specifically that there were different robes for men and women. God’s Word admonishes mankind to maintain designed differences. “Same robes” is not about maintaining designed differences, but about erasing them. The Scriptural point would be that the robes were designed to look differently, not that men and women can dress essentially the same today because in Bible times they both wore robes.[xxii] The purpose in designing differences is to agree with God’s creative work. God made male and female, and by retaining the external symbolism, the roles are taught, preserved, and God is praised for His perfect design. Erasing the designed distinctions is an “abomination” to God. The other abominations to God in Scripture that have already been mentioned are nothing to be confused with anything morally borderline. They are particularly offensive still today to most professing Christians. That this one abomination gets overlooked does not make it any less abominable. God is disgusted by the people that design, make, and wear these garments.

(ibid.)

[Esaias]

This interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5 is not a private one (2 Peter 1:20, 21). Historical theology evidences this point. When older commentaries written by conservative Bible scholars and teachers are relatively unanimous about a certain position, one ought to be careful in taking a differing viewpoint. When changes in doctrine follow massive alterations in practice, another occasion to look cautiously is provided. Change in interpretation for Deuteronomy 22:5 began occurring after changes in practice. The practice came first, and then the doctrine. The changes did not come from the doctrine, but the doctrine came from the changes. Doctrine was changed to conform to the errant practice. Older commentaries for purposes of this doctrine would have been written before 1960. Before 1960, women were rarely seen wearing pants in public and most of America disapproved the practice. Even after that time, many commentators are honest with the text and agree that it talks about gender-distinct clothing.

(ibid.)

[Esaias]

In a sermon entitled, “The Sinfulness of Strange Apparel,” Puritan preacher Vincent Alsop said in the mid 17th Century:

Nothing can justly pretend to be lawful ornament, which takes away the distinction which God has put between the two sexes.—That law, Deut xxii. 5, is of moral equity and perpetual obligation: . . . That which pertaineth, keli—The word signifies any “vessel, instrument, utensil, garment, or ornament,” military or civil, used for the discrimination of the sex: so Ainsworth (In Pentateuchum). . . . God therefore will have the distinction between the sexes inviolably observed in the outward apparel. . . . What particular form of apparel shall distinguish the one sex from the other, must be determined by the custom of particular countries; provided that those customs do not thwart some general law of God, the rule of decency, the ends of the apparel, or the directions of scripture.[xxviii]

(ibid.)

[Esaias]

By the way, God does care what we wear. Zephaniah 1:8 states, “And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD’S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king’s children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.” God specifically says that He will punish you if you wear “strange,” that is, heathen, apparel, apparel not appropriate to the people of God. God does look at your heart, yes, but He also looks at your outside, and a sinful outside reveals a sinful inside.

(ibid.)

[Esaias]

The Jewish Publication Society Commentary: Deuteronomy, states:

“Put on a man’s apparel,” Literally, “a man’s keli may not be on a woman.” The translation “apparel” makes this clause synonymous with the second part of the verse; it is based on the fact that the plural of keli means “clothing” in rabbinic Hebrew. . . . The halakhah combines both views: women may not wear armor or clothing, hairdos, or other adornments that are characteristic of men, not may men wear what is characteristic of women (what is characteristic of each sex is defined by local practice).[xxix]

(ibid.)

[Esaias]

Funny how people who have little to no knowledge of things Jewish, pretend to know the proper Jewish context of a Hebrew statement, yet they are at odds with the Jews' own understanding of Hebrew. lol

Did anyone read that last quote? Here it is again: The translation “apparel” makes this clause synonymous with the second part of the verse; it is based on the fact that the plural of keli means “clothing” in rabbinic Hebrew.

Well looks like somebody forgot to tell the Jews what their own language means lol.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Should a christian women have a combat role in the military?

No Christian should join any military headed by pervert antichrists, and if they are currently in they should do their time and get out.

Women don't belong in the military anyway unless the nation is being overrun or all the men are too effeminized to be of any use... but that goes back to point one above.

[Heavenatlast]

Hey sister please read this article you will find the answer to your question.
http://eternal-destinations.blogspot...en-divine.html
I pray the Holy Spirit will help you understand.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Also the Hebrew words for abomination are different in these scriptures. I am not condemning anyone nor am telling this young lady what to do I am only showing my point of view from scripture

And I am not saying you're wrong. I am just saying that is not the best way to show your belief about it.

I don't understand why it is so touchy a subject to people. My question is if scripture was more definitive would it still be an issue. That makes it a matter of the heart. Personally I wouldn't condemn a lady for wearing pants if they were modest, but I still teach De. 22:5 because I feel that people should be informed. People can decide for themselves, but our church staff has a dress code.

Amen,.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Hebrew word for “man” here is geber. Both times it appears in this verse, “man” is geber.[vii] As distinct from one of the general words for “man,” ’adam or ish, this word relates specifically to a male at the height of his powers. The usage of this word is not primarily a military one, although the Brown, Driver, and Briggs Lexicon defines it: “man as strong, distinguished from women, children, and non-combatants whom he is to defend.”[viii] It depicts a man operating at his most competent and capable level. Another word, gibbor, uniquely means “warrior.” Geber is not gibbor. These words are used entirely differently. Those who interpret this verse to prohibit women from wearing military armor argue their view by alleging that this word “man” is the word for “warrior.” Certainly, God could have used the word gibbor, because He did use that word c. 160 times, speaking of heroes or champions. Geber, “man,” communicates man in his strength, emphasizing his masculinity or manliness.[ix] Especially parallel with the second regulation and the use of the word “garment,” geber is not talking about a warrior and his armor. Anyone who says that the word here means “warrior” either has not looked closely enough or is depending on the ignorance of his audience to slip past them a more culturally acceptable interpretation. Most people still oppose women in hand-to-hand combat (infantry), but they have long since stopped disputing women wearing men’s clothes. Of course, if they are not “wearing the pants” in a household, they will also not be in the military.

(quoted from the article)

"Geber
Word Origin
from gabar
Definition
man
NASB Translation
boy (1), everyone (1), man (54), man's (3), men (8), warrior (1)."

"Geber
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
every one, man, mighty
From gabar; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply -- every one, man, X mighty. "

"Gibbor
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty man, one, strong man,
Or (shortened) gibbor {ghib-bore'}; intensive from the same as geber; powerful; by implication, warrior, tyrant -- champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.
see HEBREW geber"

"It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).” It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier.

Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows: “The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”


Also, "that which pertaineth to a man"

Strong's Concordance
keli: an article, utensil, vessel
Original Word: כְּלִי
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: keli
Phonetic Spelling: (kel-ee')


Short Definition: utensils