|
ONLY ONE TEXT CHECKS UNISEX! By HERB EVANS, Ltt.D. 167 PATTIES PLACE PORTERSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 16051
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. -- Deut. 22:5 It is indeed noteworthy that as Christian preachers and laymen become more LOOSE and liberal in their attitudes towards unisex clothing (trousers on women, necklaces and earrings on men, etc.) that there is an alarming increase in homosexual boldness and promiscuity in our country. Now, many Christians will argue that this relationship cannot be proved. We must agree that they are right in that we are making spiritual judgements. Still, those, who would argue this point cannot prove that the removal of God, the Bible, and prayer from the public schools have anything to do with the drugs, rebellion, violence, and immorality in these schools, for this also is a spiritual judgement. Nevertheless, righteousness still exalteth a nation, and sin is still a reproach to any people. We, of course, are commanded to judge RIGHTEOUS judge- ment, and Christian history remembers and honors spiritual giants, who stood up and exposed and condemned the sins of their day. Personally, we cannot see how Christians can militantly oppose homosexuality and its deviate lifestyle without opposing and exposing its deviate dress style. Because Of Its Identification With Evil Abstain from all appearance of evil. -- 1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Transvestism is a form of behavior in which a person has a compulsive desire to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex." -- Robert B. Greenblott, M.D. If it were not for the word COMPULSIVE in the above quote, many Christians would find themselves classified under a very embarrassing label. To be found so close to a sin of homosexuality, is too close for comfort. The alternative, of course, is to abstain from the very appearance of evil! Because Of Its Disobedience The woman SHALL NOT WEAR . . . -- Deut 22:5 The trick today, if you do not choose to tithe or to observe certain moral precepts of the Bible, is to place them under the law or to relegate them to another dispensation, or in the case of Deuteronomy 22:5, to argue that it is ceremonial law, because the prohibition against wearing wool and linen together (verse 11) is found within the context of the prohibition. Since grace always lives ABOVE the law, such a pat argument can be immediately dismissed. The wool and linen prohibition, to be sure, is a ceremonial law. Linen is man-made and signifies the righteousness of the saints (rev. 19:8). Wool is formed by God and signifies imputed righteousness. They both are to remain distinct from one another and were NOT TO BE MIXED TO- GETHER. Moreover, the prohibition in the context against sowing diverse or mingled seed (verse 9) signifies MIXING God's word or the gospel with some other word or gospel. Also, the prohibition, in the same context, against plowing an ox with an ass (verse 10) signifies the unequal yoke of a believer with an unbeliever. Now, if the prohibition against wearing the opposite sex's clothing in verse 5 is CEREMONIAL, then what is the symbolic or spiritual significance of this so-called ceremonial instruction? Furthermore, while we are dealing with the context, WHY does the incest of verse 30, the rape of verse 25, the adultery of verse 22 to 24, and the apathy and laziness of verse 1 to 4 go unnoticed by the contextual critics. Are they CEREMONIAL? Do the wool and linen make these instructions also ceremonial? Moreover, do the wool and linen prohibition of Leviticus 19:19 make the holding of grudges in verse 18 and the lying carnally with a bondsmaid in verse 20 CEREMONIAL? No! The woman shall not wear! Because It Is An Abomination All that do so are ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God. -- Deut. 22:5 The SIN of wearing unisex clothing is called ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God, classifying this abom- ination with other MORAL abominations such as homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) and adultery (Ezek. 22:11). The MORAL abominations of the Old Testament have never been abrogated, rescinded, or done away (the dietary abominations notwithstanding) and will still be in force at the time of Revelation 21:27. Strange as it may seem, the attire of a harlot is never called an abomination. Even long hair on men is never called an abomination. Certainly, these things are wrong and are condemned by certain scriptures, but they are never called abominations. Our priorities are just not in the right order. Unisex clothing, the abomination that disgusts the Lord, should also disgust Christians. Because Of Its Immodesty . . . women adorn themselves in MODEST apparel . . . -- 1 Timothy 2:9 Clothing was instituted BY GOD (Gen. 3:21) to HINDER and PREVENT SIN — NOT to encourage it. Forgive us, but may we speak plainly? Any clothing that accents or emphasizes or exposes the woman's buttocks, breasts, crotch, or delicately formed thighs (Isa. 20:4; 47:3,4) is not only immodest but is downright sexually provocative to the lusts of sinful men. Pants on women, not only appeal to the lusts of men by emphasizing their private parts, but they also appeal to the Lesbian society, when they are placed in a masculine context. Because It Is A Stumbling Block It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, NOR ANY THING whereby thy brother STUMBLETH, or is OFFENDED, or is MADE WEAK. -- Rom. 14:21 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a STUMBLINGBLOCK to them that are weak . . . when YE SIN so against the brethren, and WOUND their weak conscience, ye SIN AGAINST CHRIST. -- 1 Cor. 8:9-12 Paul's attitude greatly differs from the attitude of certain brethren (and sistern), who, instead of protecting a weaker brother from stumbling, they FLAUNT their so-called liberty in front of them. The fact remains that if there is the slightest sexual provocation or wicked identification, the Christian's duty is clearly to protect the weaker brethren by abstaining from all appearance of evil and avoiding anything whereby his brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak.
Because It Becomes A Double Standard
What follows, after RELAXING the Christian's public dress code, is a situation where churches begin to look like burlesque shows. To WINKED AT in public (literalism not intended). All this after people have been told repeatedly not to live one way in church and another way in the world, an obvious double standard (more correctly a double-double or quadruple standard as we shall see below). Of course, the scriptures are never used to condemn women wearing pants in church services, for there are none. That is . . . unless you use the Text that also condemns the public wearing to — the ONLY Text that checks Unisex (Deuteronomy 22:5). Recently, a young convert related an episode to us, where a Christian woman went into a Pizza shop and found pictures of men dressed up in women's attire. The lady pitched a "righteous indignation" fit, vowing to take her business elsewhere. I commended her action, but I reminded the young convert that if she wears MEN’S clothing (pants) she is just as GUILTY. No scripture condemns weak clothing on man that does not condemn masculine clothing on women. Prohibiting one without prohibiting another is a double standard. Objections "But it is cold outside!" Wear a longer dress and heavy stockings. "But they are not in style!" Be not conformed to this world (Rom. 12:6)! "Well, how about wearing that which pertaineth unto a man underneath that which pertaineth unto a woman?" The woman shall not WEAR! "Well, you can't participate in certain sports, wearing a dress, without being immodest." Then don't participate, or wear some culottes. Be a lady! Don't replace immodest attire with an abominable attire. The woman shall not wear! "But the women and men all wore robes back then." Are you sure about that? How could the prohibition be understood, if that were the case? Actually, women wore vails that wrapped about their bodies (Gen. 24:65; 38:14; Ruth 3:15). Women's garments were not only distinct from men, they were distinct from each other: woman' garments (Deut. 22:5), widow's garments (Gen. 38:19), and the attire of an harlot (Prov. 7:10). Men wore breeches (Ex. 28:42; Le. 6:10) and robes (Pharisees wore long ones - Luke 20:46) or mantles or outer garments and all that pertaineth unto a man (Deut. 22:5). Moreover, only men girded up their loins (Job. 38:3; 40:7) "Well, my trousers have the zipper in the side, and men's trousers have the zipper in the front." (Even that has changed; we knew it would.) Imagine a man wearing a dress or skirt with the zipper in the front, and you will see the foolishness of your objection. The woman shall not wear! Neither shall a man put on! That's equal rights! Conclusion We need to quit closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Imagine a fundamentalist, who will either license or ignore scanty dress on Christian women. Then, after society degenerates another rung into mass fornication (because the salt has lost its savor), and he begins to lift up his voice like a trumpet against that fornication and even joins the fight against it. Oh, yes, there are Christians, who would insist that their scanty clothing have nothing to do with things like that and will even challenge you to prove it. Nevertheless, chickens do come home to roost, and we are ready to stand before the judgement seat of Christ with full confidence that we had nothing to do with lowering the bars. Are you? Romans 14:23. Notable Quotes On Deuteronomy 22:5
". . .very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex . . . neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment . . . would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so commit fornication and adultery with them . . ." -- John Gill "Sex is to be distinguished by apparel . . . the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the other is an outrage to decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in the woman, as well as levity and hypocrisy in both: and, in short, opens the door to the influx of so many evils that all who wear the dress of another sex are pronounced an abomination unto the Lord." --Jamieson Fausset & Brown "The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbor’s chastity, V. 5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1 Cor. 11:14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally." --Matthew Henry "May your children quit being influenced by the homosexual fashion world. May lady-likeness and red-blooded manhood return to our churches, our nation, and our world. Deuteronomy 22:5 states ‘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 an abomination to the LORD thy God.’ I believe we are the victims of brainwashing . . . Oh, how we have drifted from the faith of the founding fathers. " -- Jack Van Impe "In recent tears, multitudes of professing Christians have come to believe the Lord did not mean what He said in this simply stated warning . . . such matters, in the final analysis, at least for the Christian, are not appraised by opinion or argument or interpretation, but by spiritual discernment and obedience to the Spirit of God . . . Adam saw nothing wrong with eating the fruit . . . Cain saw nothing wrong with offering grain in worship. Aaron saw nothing wrong with the people dancing around a golden calf. Yet, each of these was a serious offense to the Lord and brought His strong condemnation." -- S. Frankin Logsdan former pastor Moody Memorial Church "A scriptural basis for the Israeli government’s exemption of ORTHODOX Jewish women for military service. –- Time Magazine on Deuteronomy 22: |
|
|
|