The following is a email we got from a man out east who was drawing close to the truth and unity with us some time back. Sadly his worldly career of professional singing training, a feminist disobedent wife and his unbiblical theology separated us. (he was striving to fully obey God once but he fell back) Around covid madness, they reached out to us and his wife was leading the phone call. Later he began to tell me he now believed in the heresy of once saved always saved. His home is not in order. While I know that biblical dress and head covering are not really his biggest issues that he should address asap; I though I would refute it here to edify all to the truth vs his twisted theology.
See his email and my answers with ***** by my words below
**********************************
Hi Jim,
I was reading on your website that you use this verse to say that men should wear pants:
“And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach.” Exodus 28:42
This verse is NOT talking about pants, it is talking about underwear (from the loins to the thighs), and this underwear had to be made of linen (not wool). Linen represented purity and holiness.
**** the material of the breeches is not important to us today as we are not keeping Torah ways. What we are looking for is a pattern that God ordained for men, not ladies.
Also the word “breeches” as used in the KJV was another word for underwear/drawers, not pants.
***** the point here is that God gave men a under garment breeches and it later became pants. This allowed men to go to war, work and still have coverage. Ladies did not need this.
During that time, both men and women wore robes. The reason this verse is referring to underwear and not pants is because God didn’t want people seeing the priest’s genitals underneath the robe when the priest would walk up the steps of the altar.
******this is true, as God ordained tunic like robes in Genessis 3;21 and it never changed. Men were to have another garment underneath as they did more hard labor and priest duty so they could lift up their robe and still be covered. (see gird up your loins) That is where pants of today originated.
I agree that clothes should be looser and not skin tight or suggestive, but you have the wrong verse to claim that men should wear pants.
Additionally, this command was for the priests and high priests (not all men).
**** By his bad theology dress standard loose yoga pants are ok. No God has a standard and that is the correct verse to us. The key is God acted to cover mankind's private parts up in a tunic. Yet today people strive to show them off ...its wicked!
Jesus and Paul wore robes, not pants. There were men’s robes and women’s robes. A man was not supposed to dress in a woman’s robes and a woman was not supposed to dress in a man’s robes.
********It is clear the men then wore a under garment too as they girded up their loins in war and work and that would have shown nakedness then.
That was the culture of the time. I believe you said that a woman shouldn’t wear pants, although they do meet the guidelines of going from the waist to the feet per your criteria.
****** Here he is trying to help his feminist wifes agenda to wear pants. God put mankind in tunics then he added a under garment for men that became pants. In 1 Tim 2 ladies are to wear a long loose dress (see apparel) Men could wear just wear a long robe today but doing vigorous work would uncover them so pants make sense.
You’ve said that God has shown us how to dress in the Garden of Eden. That men have to wear pants and women have to wear dresses that reach to their feet.
******No I teach God put mankind in tunic like robes in Genesis 3;21 by shedding the frst blood to cover us (an archetype of Christ) and later a under garment (pants today) was added for men to work and not be naked.
If clothes have to always go down to your feet or you’re in sin, then God didn’t do it right in the Garden of Eden. Because in the Garden of Eden, God put coats of skins on Adam & Eve. The Hebrew definition for כֻּתֹּנֶת (kethoneth) is a tunic, under garment, a long shirt-like garment usually of linen. A tunic or shirt like garment goes from your shoulders and reaches down to either the hips or the knees (not the feet).
******No I never teach an exact length but a tunic or robe is known to go at least to knees and past. We know a priest had to cover his thigh up and In Isaiah 47 we see the term uncover thy leg that denotes nakedness in ladies so we fall on the safe side and teach ladies the dress should be long to about the feet. (we are priests today)
Next... Right, wrong, or neutral, there are cultural institutions and customs across every nation in history. To understand the scripture properly, we must be able to interpret scripture with scripture, and when necessary, understand the history and context in the light of certain verses so we can know when, if, or how to apply them to our new covenant lives. This is where good teachers in the body of Christ are needed.
***** Ah he tries the culture card but it fails and you will see why!
In some cultures, it is a custom to remove your shoes before you go inside. It would be considered offensive by some culture’s customs if someone didn’t take off their shoes when entering a home. So if we were in a country that practiced that cultural habit, out of respect, it would probably make a better witness to take off our shoes to show respect so that they would listen to us preach the gospel.
******Not sure the point here as God's Word does not speak on shoes?
During Paul’s day in that part of the world, greeting one another with a Holy Kiss was a cultural normative. I don’t tell someone they are in sin and going to hell because they’re disobeying the bible by not greeting everyone with a Holy Kiss as commanded. I understand that this was a cultural item and am able to divide the scripture in context to figure that out.
******Here he twists a loving greeting of the time and Paul describing it with the command / action of God Himself to put on a tunic in Genesis 3! Not good biblical study especially when we see all over scripture that God HATED nakedness but we do not see God Himself laying out specific greetings do we? He is trying to twist the truth to cover for carnal dress and it wont work.
During Paul’s day in that whole part of the world, it was a custom for a wife to wear a head covering to show that they were under the man’s authority:
*******So Paul guided by Gods Spirit spent 16 verses to teach on headship and veil head covering in 1 Cor 11 ... even the OT talks of uncovering a woman's head as shame to then toss it all out?
“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” 1 Corinthians 11:16
**** how silly of him to claim this. Paul is telling us we have no CUSTOM of being contentious. 1 Cor 1 tells us these instructions are for ALL churches everywhere.... so that alone shoots his culture arguement in the foot!
Just like it was a custom (same Greek word) that Pilot release someone to the Jews at the time of the Passover:
“But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” John 18:39
We do not have a custom of releasing prisoners at the time of the Passover here in America.
***** no sir..that custom is NEVER commanded in scripture but... head covering with a veil is commanded for all time and everywhere and you have not shown otherwise. Fact: Woman today just love to show off their hair as they are vain / carnal and husbands are too afraid to take charge of their homes.
To not wear a head covering when married (like not wearing a wedding ring when married today) would show that a woman was rebellious against her husband’s authority and the marriage itself. Both the saved and unsaved in Corinth knew what the head covering meant.
***** wedding rings are a pagan practice not of God.
Now in modern America, the custom of wearing a head covering doesn’t symbolize anything regarding marriage. A woman not wearing a head covering doesn’t show she is married, under protection, or under the husband’s authority like a wedding ring may in more recent times. The principles of marriage remain, but the cultures change as a result of the world we live in.
***** again, wedding rings are a pagan practice not of God.
The Greek in the New Testament did not have a separate word for husband or man. Nor did it have a separate word for woman or wife. This leaves it up to the reader/translator to rightfully divide when the word means husband or man, or woman or wife, based upon the context in which the word(s) are used.
In this custom of the time, if a man covered his head, it would be dishonoring Christ because man is the image and glory of God; which is why man was created first (Man is not to be under the subjection of women, but under the subjection of Christ).
In the custom of the time, if a wife was uncovered (like taking off her wedding ring today), it was dishonoring to her husband who is her head; signaling to everyone that she was like a prostitute, or an unfaithful wife (another man isn’t the wife’s head; the husband is; thus the word “woman” in 1 Corinthians 11:5 should probably be translated or referred to as “wife”).
***** again wedding rings are a pagan practice not of God.
If the woman is not (according to their custom) covered, she should be shorn (as if she were a prostitute or unfaithful woman). IF it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven she should wear a head covering. It is not a shame in America today as being cut or shaven doesn't signify faithfulness or unfaithfulness to her husband.
Perhaps if a wife didn’t have a head covering on during that time, it may have been a sign to the angels stationed by God to not protect the wife against satan or demons because not wearing a head covering (in that place and time) was an outward sign of an inward rebellion against her husband; thus she was sinning against her husband and God.
***** He lacks good study. Go read 1 Cor 1 ... the letter is for ALL churches everywhere not just Corinth. And for 1900 years the claimed churches taught a cloth veil till men folded to today's feminism. It is wicked and shameful.
Is it proper that a wife pray undo God uncovered? (Pray without ceasing does not literally mean praying every moment of every day of our lives, otherwise Jesus wouldn’t say “when” you pray like “when” you fast, nor would Paul or anybody need to exhort others to prayer, thus this verse is not saying a wife (in this culture) should wear a head covering 24/7 because believers are to be constantly praying without end). But the heart of this verse is pointing out the question: should a wife pray without respecting the authority of her husband? Will her prayers be answered? Will the angels protect her?
*****here he misses that covering her hair (her glory) from other men and the public is also in play here. (In the OT uncovering hair in public was sinful form ladies) We have articles that cover that in detail and see the links below. Note: I must add this man is not holy and is not even teacher yet he is tries to teach.
God gave women a covering, that is long hair. (Men should have shorter hair in relation to the woman so they don’t look like a woman. It is not defined how long hair should be).
***** he shows how little he studies as Paul uses a Greek word that means a cloth veil then he uses a different word veil for her hair.
(see out article below)
If anybody was causing strife over these matters of 1 Corinthians 11:3-15, Paul etc. did not know of any other custom (to obey there) nor did any of the other churches at the time.
****** the custom was being contentious.... Paul does NOT teach on it for 16 verse to then toss it all out. How foolish.
The scripture many times uses contrast. Jesus said: "Do not labor for the food which perishes." (John 6:27). Does that mean we shouldn't work for our food? Of course not. "If any would not work, neither should he eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10). In John 6:27, Jesus was using a Hebrew expression to make contrast in putting our focus towards the food that doesn't perish vs. the food that does.
***not sure how that ties into his case ??
"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;" 1 Peter 3:33
"Apparel means clothes."
***** he is void of truth. This verse means do not put on clothing that adorns you. He is twisting scripture....
In Genesis 3 we know God put mankind in tunic/robes and 1 Tim 2 teaches ladies wear along robe so the garments here mean just that. Adorning is anything extra that draws undo attention outside of what God ordained. If it is not plain, it is starting to be adorned. Why do woman add many things to their dress? To be noticed. It is pride and vanity.
Is Paul saying that women should not put on clothes? Of course not. He is making a contrast. In 1st century Roman Culture, there were those in extreme poverty and those that were rich. There was a trend where the rich would wear elaborate, fancy clothes and ornaments, and braid their hair in circles one on top of the next, where they would mix in gold lace, pearls, and fancy jewelry. They wore gold chains and gold rings profusely even in their multi-layered braided hair. Even unsaved people have written about how extravagant this was and how they spent so much time and money on doing themselves up in this way. Then some of them got saved and Paul is telling the rich how they ought to meet with fellow believers. This was not a reference to a simple ring, necklace, or otherwise "normal adornment" that is not used to attract attention or entice lust.
***** he plays to culture again and he loses big. The bible says dont adorn. Why do woman add adorning? It is to be seen! Jewelry, fashion is used to draw attention to ones self. And make up was never worn by godly ladies and look at claimed Christian today. Only harlots and pagan did such things.
You say we shouldn't adorn ourselves. Yet God wants "women to adorn themselves with modest apparel" (1 Timothy 2:9). Contrast this with 1 Peter 3:33 which out of context makes it sound like women should wear no apparel at all.
God is not against adornment:
"For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness, as a bridegroomadorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels." Isaiah 61:10
"I clothed you also with embroidered work, and gave you sandals of badgers' skin, and I clothed you with fine linen, and I covered you with silk. I adorned you also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon your hands, and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose, and earrings in your ears, and a beautiful crown upon your head. Thus were you adorned with gold and silver; and your clothing was of fine linen, and silk, and embroidered work; you did eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and you were exceedingly beautiful, and you did prosper into a kingdom. And your renown went forth among the nations for your beauty: for it was perfect through my splendor, which I had put upon you, says the Lord GOD. But you did trust in your own beauty, and played the harlot because of your renown, and poured out your harlotry on every one that passed by; his it was." Ezekiel 16:10-15
The problem here was not the beauty of outward adornment, but trusting in the beauty itself (idolatry).
***** The OT had many outside ways that later in the NT word taught against . Adorning is one such practice. We are in the NEW and we look to see if the NEW has changed the OLD. This is one clear case of yes, it has. Other things did not change like ... tunic/robes.
You ask why would we not adorn ourselves with anything except plain colored fabric? (Non linen based nonetheless). God is not against beauty. The tabernacle in the wilderness had an entrance that was white, blue, purple, and scarlet. The New Jerusalem will be beautiful:
"Each of the twelve foundations was a precious stone. The first was jasper, the second was sapphire, the third was agate, the fourth was emerald, the fifth was onyx, the sixth was carnelian, the seventh was chrysolite, the eighth was beryl, the ninth was topaz, the tenth was chrysoprase, the eleventh was jacinth, and the twelfth was amethyst. Each of the twelve gates was a solid pearl. The streets of the city were made of pure gold, clear as crystal." Revelation 21:19-21
****He makes the fatal flaw of saying well God does this and God does that so why cant we? One God told us today to not adorn. Two...God is coming with a flaming sword to kill millions in 2 Thess 1 ...so why cant we? That is foolish theology. God is the author of the faith/creation and He can rule as He sees fit. We must obey scripture that teaches us to NOT draw attention to ourselves and to not adorn.
Also you are correct about the pagan origins of many cultural institutions (Birthdays, Easter, Christmas, etc. – I don’t celebrate them myself), but I’m sending this on September 29th. September is a pagan month. Let me ask you: if/when you write or accept a check, do you use or accept the months from the pagan Gregorian calendar instituted by Roman Catholic Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 or do you use the correct Hebrew calendar, being a holy set apart peculiar people?
***** and he ends with another terrible example of his bad biblical study and discernment skills. God says do NOT do as pagan do in regards to worship and spiritual ways. See Jer 10 / 2 Cor 6 and many other verses. Christmas and Easter are PAGAN holidays united right to God by millions of false believers. That has NOTHING to do with me writing/dating a check to buy a loaf of bread? We avoid all things pagan that have linking to a Holy God and His pure ways. We are not defiled by the cultures ways. We are in sin when we unite to pagan ways and mix it with God's ways. Jesus covered that in Mark 7:6-9 and it makes your worship of God in vain.
God Bless,
Jordan
God blesses those who obey him Jordan ( John 14:15/ Heb 5:9 ) and in love, you and your wife have a ways to go. We love you and have tried our best to help you many times but it seems you are trying your hardest to make feminism and carnal dress biblical but it is not so. We pray you repent and obey vs twisting Gods Word like the devil did in the garden. I pray men do not listen to sinful wives like Adam, but listen to scripture.
Go here to see our teaching blog with many detailed articles on dress, head covering and pagan holidays.
Do not be deceived by man like this folks.
Apostle Paul said it best:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:8
God be praised
******************************************************
See our resources below that will help you in the biblical faith.
God be praised
Here is the biblical gospel:
Here is a 10 point biblical test:
Spirit and Truth Teaching Blog
Go here for audio teachings
Go here for video's: