Jack Hyles & Hyles Anderson College

[Dr. Bob]

Kathy

The Deuteronomy passage DOES deal with cross dressing, actually wearing the under-garments of the opposite sex. Sadly, it has been wrested from its context in the law and brought over as "legalism" into Grace.

This is a tragic example of a doctrine/standard that is 100% "cultural" but is endowed by a certain subsect of Baptists as "biblical".

If MAN'S STANDARDS were the issue, the Amish are light years ahead of me!

 

[Kathy]

Hey Dr. Bob...I don't even have a PhD and I thought the verse was saying that...*hehe* IT'S TRUE IT'S TRUE! The Holy Spirit helps you to understand the Bible! YEEEEHAWWWW

Kathy
<><

 

[KeeperOfMyHome]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kathy:
Couldn't that be construed or interpreted against women cross-dressing as men and vice versa? (ala Rupaul and drag queens)&lt;&gt;&lt;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sooo . . . here goes . . . this is asked in humbleness sister . . . so please don't take it wrong . . .

Kathy, what if your husband bought a dress or skirt to wear? Would you consider that cross-dressing, even if he wasn't intentionally trying to look or act like a woman? Would you be comfortable going out in public with him in that attire?



P.S. Please don't bring up about Scottish men . . . kilts began as large, rectangular pieces of tartan wrapped about the body and secured somehow. How they turned into skirts, or when, is another discussion.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the Old Testament, 250 Jews called Moses and Aaron legalist.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just read that this week and strangely enough I missed the word "legalist." Of course, I was reading the NIV so that was probably why.

 

[Ernie Brazee]

God's annointed? Who annointed them?

Just because a man says he is called to preach, then proceeds to play the game does not make him "God's annointed". How many evil men have hid behind this label! Men who misuse their office then say you can not speak against me as I am God's annointed hogwash. A man truly annointed of God to preach the gospel, and pastor lives a life worthy of this calling. Many men walk not worthy because they were never called they just volunteered, and are self proclaimed preachers.

No man is above being reproved of sin regardless of his office! Refusing to teach and preach the whole counsel of God, shying away from certain sins compromising the truth these are all grievious sins against God anf the prople they are patoring. It is the pasotors responsibility to lead their people to be as close to god as they can possibly getm, not lead them to walk a line close to the world.

Why do so many professing Christians cry out against preachers who warn against sins that society has accepted as norm/

When I was a chile my lost family sent me to another room when they talked about someone being divorced (never mind how I knew shat they were discussing hehe) now churches put their stamp of approval on divorce and remaariage. Any church that preaches this is wron gis called legalist by those who don't!

Wake up Christians we have slipped a long ways and too many are listening to the serpent say "yea hath God said?"

Ernie Brazee

 

[Pastor Bob]

I listened to Brother Hyles for over 10 years now (on his tapes). I still do. (The present tapes are from the early 70's.)

I never heard Brother Hyles "condemn" anyone for apparel or any other standard. (I guess perception is in the ear of the hearer.) I have heard him preach standards (not legalism) so that there is a decency about how Christians conduct their appearance and perception by the lost world.

Everyone who has posted here has standards. They are just different lines in the sand. I try to teach the folks in my church that we are not to be a reproach to God. It is difficult to teach on such subjects (and I do) because people have different perceptions on what is "worldly" and "not worldly". As long as the Word is preached from the pulpit of a church, the Holy Spirit will teach in that sermon. I have seen young people come into my church with rings all over their body. I let them know I love them & that God loves them. AS the Truth and the Word is preached from the pulpit, the rings would gradually disapear week by week. Yet I never said one thing about "rings". Hmmmmm?

When the WORD is preached, and the people grow spiritually, they "know" when they are crossing the line with God. (I know *I* do!)

I appreciate the posts here. Many good points have been brought up.
As always,
Your friendly "country" pastor,
Pastor Bob

 

[Barnabas H.]

Preach it Pastor Bob! Thanks for adding to this thread. Enjoyed reading the above.

 

[Bible Believing Bill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the WORD is preached, and the people grow spiritually, they "know" when they are crossing the line with God. (I know *I* do!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I I can add to what Pastor Bob had to say is AMEN.

 

[Pete Richert]

KeeperOfMyHome wrote:
**************************************
P.S. Please don't bring up about Scottish men . . . kilts began as large, rectangular pieces of tartan wrapped about the body and secured somehow. How they turned into skirts, or when, is another discussion.
**************************************

Maybe not Scotland, but in Thailand the men definitly wear things that look like dresses. It was a little strange for me, but nothing blew me away more then when my older brother starting wearing one. He we were, two six foot four, 200 pound white americans and one of us is wearing a dress. Any way, point of story, while culturally I was rather taken aback, I wouldn't have ever claimed he was being non-Christian. Indeed, he was being much more accepting and open, and was making much more of an impact for the gospel among them.

Anyway, I certiany agree that men and women shouldn't dress purposely like the other. Just trying to show that what that means is different in different cultures though.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The Kilt is a purpose made garment with definite specification. If the garment is not made to the specification, it is not a kilt. It can be called kilt-like, but it is not a kilt. Another given is only males wear a kilt; ladies wear kilt-like skirts.
Robertsson, former ghillie to Harold Lord Breakstone.

 

[KeeperOfMyHome]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Squire:
Another given is only males wear a kilt; ladies wear kilt-like skirts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So. . . . if a lady wears a kilt, is she cross-dressing?

Or if a man wears a kilt-like garment, is he cross-dressing? LOL . . . boy, now that could get confusing!

 

[Kathy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KeeperOfMyHome:
Sooo . . . here goes . . . this is asked in humbleness sister . . . so please don't take it wrong . . .

Kathy, what if your husband bought a dress or skirt to wear? Would you consider that cross-dressing, even if he wasn't intentionally trying to look or act like a woman? Would you be comfortable going out in public with him in that attire?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point...you got me thinking and I really don't know how to respond to that. Thanks! To answer your last question, no I certainly would not be confortable with him wearing a skirt or a dress either in our home or in public. I can't believe I didn't think of it that way! Thank you sister!

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt; &lt;&gt;&lt; &lt;&gt;&lt; &lt;&gt;&lt; &lt;&gt;&lt; &lt;&gt;&lt; &lt;&gt;&lt;

 

[Bro Shaun]

I've been away for several days and haven't had a chance to check the board or respond.
But, I'm back, so here it goes.
Your are right, Kathy, the verse in Deut. does refer to cross dressing, which is exactly what women are doing when they wear pants. The word breeches is the same word breaches, or pants, and it is only mentioned in the Bible 5 times (Exodus 28:42, Exodus 39:28, Leviticus 6:10, Leviticus 16:4, Ezekiel 44:18). Each time it is mentioned it is refering to what men are to wear, pants. As for wearing shorts, Isa. 47:1-3 says it all.
Isa 47:1 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.
Isa 47:2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
Isa 47:3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

Obviously, showing your thighs is a shame. Even the world knows women are to wear dresses. Up until 50 or so years ago, women never even considered wearing pants. Go into any public building and find the ladies room, what is the figure on the door wearing, a dress. You really can't get around the issue.

 

[HankD]

OK, if you appeal to the law then you must also obey the following...

KJV Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

KJV Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes...thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

No mixing or mingling of fabric.

HankD

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[HankD]

&gt;&gt;KJV Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes...thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed:&gt;&gt;

BTW, besides not being allowed to wear garments of mixed fabric or mingled fabric, if you have a garden and grow more than one kind of plant, you have broken the Law of God.

KJV 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.

KJV James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

HankD

 

[Bro Shaun]

There are several interesting things about the Old Testament law of separation for Israel.

1. They were not allowed to sow different seeds together. Deuteronomy 22:9, "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."
In the Bible, seed is a type of the Word of God. Psalm 126:6, "He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." Luke 8:11, "Now the parable is this: The seed is the Word of God." The spiritual teaching is that we should not mix the Bible with other seed. The Bible is not one of God's books, it is THE Word of God!

2. They were not allowed to plow with an ox and an ass in the same yoke. Deuteronomy 22:10, "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together."
An ox in the Bible is symbolic of the man of God. Deuteronomy 25:4, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." I Timothy 5:17, 18, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." In I Timothy 5:17, the word "elder" is a synonym for "pastor" or "man of God," which means that the man of God should not be muzzled. Hence, the ox is symbolic of God's man. I Corinthians 9:9, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"

Just as the ox is symbolic of God's man, the ass is symbolic of false prophets and apostates. God is saying to us that just as He does not want His Word diluted, and just as He does not want His plan of salvation diluted, He does not want the testimony of His servants diluted by their being in a yoke with unbelievers.

3. They were not allowed to wear a garment with different materials such as wool and linen in the same garment. Deuteronomy 22:11, "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."
A garment in the Bible is a type of salvation. The Apostle John reminds us that the linen garments worn by the redeemed are symbolic of righteousness. Revelation 19:8, "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." This means that it is an abomination when anyone adds anything to salvation apart from faith in the finished work of Calvary. It is not salvation by faith plus baptism, it is not salvation by faith plus communion, it is not salvation by faith plus confirmation, it is not salvation by faith plus the sacraments, it is not salvation by faith plus good works. This is mixing material in the garment of salvation.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Simple exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:5 -

ishah = woman, wife, female [usually not expressed]
hayah = exist, come to be, not use [always emphatic]
geber = warrior, man
keliy = prepared items, unique armor
lo = nor
geber = warrior, man
labash = array, wrap around self
ishah = woman, wife, female
simlah = covering that assumes the shape of the body beneath
YHWH = LORD
elohim = God
tow'ebah = disgusting, idolatrous
kol = each one, whosoever
asah = does
eleh = this sort of thing

Choppy English translation =
Females must not use the unique armour of a man, nor a man array himself in the covering to make himself appear female, because the LORD God is disgusted with every one who does this sort of thing.

 

[HankD]

Hmmm, that's interesting Bro Shaun,
You seem to be saying or at least implying, that if I can find an allegorical or symbolic meaning to an Old Covenant Law then I don't have to keep it literally.

OK Let's follow up your premise:

&gt;&gt;A garment in the Bible is a type of salvation. The Apostle John reminds us that the linen garments worn by the redeemed are symbolic of righteousness. Revelation 19:8, "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." This means that it is an abomination when anyone adds anything to salvation apart from faith in the finished work of Calvary&gt;&gt;

So then if a garment is a type of salvation then consider the following:

KJV 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.

This relates to Revelation 17 and the Harlot Mystery Religion Cult.

Revelation 17:3-5
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

The people of God had intermingled with her and her hellenistic system of religion and were participating in a righteousness that was impure, wearing a garment of purple rather than white linen of which system God calls his people to come out.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

So according to what it appears that you are saying; now that I understand the New Covenant allegory of Deuteronomy 22:5 (or in fact, any Old Covenant Scripture) then I am not under the literal Old Covenant aspect of this particular law.

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

Since others have commented on various things you have said, I will limit it to only one thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ... the ass is symbolic of false prophets and apostates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Jesus rode into Jerusalem on teh back of a false prophet? Surely you haven't thought through this very well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God is saying to us that just as He does not want His Word diluted, and just as He does not want His plan of salvation diluted, He does not want the testimony of His servants diluted by their being in a yoke with unbelievers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think God was saying that he didn't want his people plowing their field with an ox and a donkey in the same yoke. Since that is what God said, it is improper to go beyond it. Furthermore, it leads to ridiculous conclusions such as shown above. Bad hermeneutics always results in bad preaching.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KeeperOfMyHome:

So. . . . if a lady wears a kilt, is she cross-dressing?

Or if a man wears a kilt-like garment, is he cross-dressing? LOL . . . boy, now that could get confusing!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Considering the other accoutrements (the stocking knife and dirk) to a male's Scottish attire, its not likely to be the case.
The Squire marches off while the piper plays "Black Bear".