A brother I know was out street witnessing in Missouri and a man he met and talked to later emailed him. The man went to my website and decided to call out my teaching on dress as the only real issue he could find, I guess? He does a poor job on rightly dividing it and I wanted to answer it here as a teaching moment for all. This is a topic few ever teach on and even fewer ever obey sadly. In truth; once your are made new via the gospel, everything has to change as fruit you are of Him. Here is a link to MANY articles on biblical clothing for men:
http://spiritandtruthdiscernment.blogspot.com/search/label/Dress%20For%20Christian%20Men
This man Tracy (Allan) Bays from Missouri is concerning as his email is FULL of lies as you will see.
Below see his words in blue and my reply in black with **** by my words:
*************************************************************
Hello, I am the guy that came up to you in Springfield today. I read the card, looks good. I researched your website. I found what I believe to be error. On both your website, and the websites of the man you mentioned to me today.
****Lets get at it
My stance in a nutshell. I believe both men, and women should dress modestly.
*****Here he makes the common mistake saying dress modest. That word has NOTHING to do with style we wear but how we wear it. It appears in the KJV bible here:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1 Tim 2:9
The word modest in Greek is ....kos mee os and it means orderly, good behavior and well arranged. It has NOTHING to do with what to wear at all but the next word does... apparel / That means a garment let down, a dress. To say modest and go no deeper ...puts you at the mercy of the fallen culture were revealing clothing is ever changing.
Although not much from scripture is revealed as to actual dimension, and style.
****Actually this is not true as I showed you. Woman are told to wear dresses and men from Genesis 3:21 and the OT were in breeches and a tunic like garment both given by God Himself. We will get to that.
The basic idea from scripture is to cover nakedness, and not cause others to be tempted. Meaning to not dress sexually like so many do in this age.
*** This is so subjective as what is a... sexual manner. To some tight jeans and tank tops are ok as you are covered up somewhat. Jesus said we live by Gods Word Matt 4;4 but Tracy does not cling to that as you will see so I am concerned for him.
It is true actual dress, and style is commanded of the Levitical priests. Those clothes were meant to be completely different, and set apart from what they wore in their daily lives. Those clothes were only for Temple service, in the operation of priestly duties. It was not a universal command to all people, at all times. So those commands are restricted to that solitary purpose.
*** That is true about the Levi priests but; I do not teach men to wear Levi priest wear today. I teach them to wear what God put men in in Genesis 3 long before Torah law and it never changed.
It seems you have adopted a tradition of man from this other guy named Brother Jim.
**** Tracy/Allan, this is a lie as my brother was shown what God put us in form Genesis 3:21, that it never changed and he choose to obey God and NOT follow the culture. Tunics for men is NOT my tradition but God's ordained way. It is THE way godly men dressed in scripture.
I listened to his recording where he is refuting Mark Bullen. I also disagree with Mark Bullen. Yes. Sadly I do know him. Yet Mark Bullen uses a lot of the same types of arguments that Jim has made.
*** Tracy/Allan, you are setting a bad pattern here as this is another lie. Bullen has NO basis for his dress standard for men. Pants alone, tucked in shirts and suspenders is NOWHERE to be found in scripture. More lies from this man Tracy who is in grave danger biblically.
Bullen tried to usurp his style of dress as needed for salvation, in much the same way Jim does it.
**** Tracy/Allan...you have another lie here as I have never taught tunics for salvation but I do teach the fruit of knowing God is obeying Him in all things. John 14;15 / Hebrews 5;9 the bible teaches that all over.
They only differ in the style of dress. Yet the base of their arguments are strangely similar.
*** Another lie from you Tracy/Allan. Bullen teaches a Baptist dress code form man and I teach right from scripture .... tunics or robes.
They both use imagination to decide what people in Biblical times dressed like, and say you have to look like they did to stay saved.
*** Tracy/Allan... more lies again and again; you are full of lies. I do not have to imagine as a tunic or robe was the standard in all the bible and it is a long loose garment that covers up your body. No one in the later OT or in any area of the NT ever wore just pants. My teaching articles on dress prove it all over scripture. Tracy has NO teachings to prove what he says which sadly is full of lies, as you can see.
The problem is basically the same. Neither Jim, or Mark dress like they want us to imagine about that time period.
**** Tracy/Allan stop the lies that keep rolling. I actully do wear a tunic like garment (with breeches/pants underneath) that covers up my front and back but Bullen wears pants that show off their bodies that God covered up.
Mark draws attention to colors worn. Jim draws attention to the tunic. There is the difference.
***** I teach what God put man in tunic/robes. Genesis 3;21 / I also teach per 1 Peter 3 we should NOT adorn or show off ourselves in prideful colors that draw attention. Why wear bright colors and flowers and patterns to look pretty and gain attention?
Mark is easier to refute. Since bright colors are listed as a good thing for the godly woman to dress her whole household in Proverbs 31. Dressed in scarlet. Bright red. Also clothes with patterns on them aren’t sinful. Since the priests clothes included broidered coats(tunics). We don’t know what exactly the pattern which was embroidered on the coats. We simply know they had patterns on them. Stripes? Maybe. We don’t specifically know. So what Mark calls acceptable colors, without patterns. Like striped shirts, for example, Doesn’t hold true to scripture. He simply imagined it, so therefore, if you disagree you are condemned. Creating law, where there is no law.
***** Tracy/Allan you seem very "biblically unlearned" as the bible clearly says do not adorn. 1 Peter 3... And why do people wear bright colors and patterns anyway? To show off and be seen right as there is no other good and godly reason. God hates pride / see Prov 6
With Jim it is slightly more difficult. I do not deny they wore coats ,and robes. I don’t necessarily disagree that the coats could be tunics.
*** Of course you cant deny it as it is right in Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
That word coats is Koot to neth in Hebrew. It means a long shirt, tunic or robe
Although, another Hebrew word is also translated as robe, which is not the same word Jim highlights for the tunic. “meh-eel” There are verses where both this robe, and the coat (keth-o-neth) are listed together. Since these are different Hebrew words. Then it is reasonable to conclude they are two separate garments. So the tunic was also worn with a robe. Two separate garments. We cannot paste tunic everywhere, and say that’s all that matters.
**** Tracy/Allan you are twisting truth here. The root word is koot to neth in Genesis 3:21 ... it means robe or tunic. Not two seperate words at all. Look all over the OT and NT ....all godly men including Jesus wore tunics and robes with breeches (today's pants underneath)
Even though, I agree these people wore tunics, and robes. There is no actual commandment from God to Adam and Eve, or to people universally. Only the priests were specifically commanded about style of dress. Since that was special, and set apart from ordinary daily attire.
**** So God acts Himself to dress mankind, all godly men wore what God put us in (tunics and robes) but Tracy in rebellion and strange fire says, we do not have to do it today. He has no scripture to back him up at all. God dressed man long before their were Levi priests.
How are the two seemingly different positions similar? Both are trying to use imagination to create a law from silence. There is no command in scripture to only wear “safe” colors, and no patterns.
*** Tracy/Allan you continues in lies. I do not imagine, the Word teaches clearly tunics and robes, period! And to wear just pants is like wearing your under garment on the outside. It shows your bott and crotch. God had us cover up and gave men breeches underneath. Look up breeches that became mens pants in the OT like Ezekiel 44:18 / Now to be clear; I do not teach you MUST wear pants under your tunic or robe men. But if you ever pull your garment up to work or the wind blows it up, you will be fully naked so we see the the way of God was a tunic or robe with breeches or pants today underneth.
The same is true about tunics. Jim should include robes along with tunics. Yet, he doesn’t
*** Tracy/Allan keeps lying as the idea of a tunic or robe is interchangeble for men as it covers you up. I teach to meet the spirit of Gods intent. Our bodies are to be covered up in a long loose garment. It is seen from Genesis 3 to Revelation 19:16 when Jesus returns in a robe and we get a robe of righteousness. To not see this makes a man either biblically illiterate or rebellious in pride and vanity.
Do I care about how Mark Bullen chooses to dress. No, not really. It seems modest to me. It doesn’t show nakedness, or is it sexually explicit.
**** Tracy/Allan you again use modest a terrible translation and he ignores Gods desire for man to cover up his butt and crotch (sexual areas) as woman are to do as well. Men are to be examples.... 1 Peter 5:3
What about Jim? The same is true. It is modest, also. Just two different styles both being asserted as law for everyone. That is what I object to.
**** The way Bullens dress and I or biblical men dress is very different. You can see their forms and God wanted them covered. But Tracy is rebellious or ignorant of Gods ways and that is a dangerous place to go. Angels wore robes/tunics and Jesus returns in a robe/tunic... heaven will be tunics and robes. I am just keeping Gods ordained way. Ordained is what God put in motion. See a article on that here: http://spiritandtruthdiscernment.blogspot.com/2016/08/ordained-by-god-what-does-ordained.html
Do some historical research. This is the same issue with the Amish. Most people don’t understand that the Amish are Mennonite Anabaptist’s. In history they were once the same group. Jakob Ammann broke away from the rest of the Mennonites because of the style of dress. He made much the same argument. Christians shouldn’t look like the world. He takes something which refers to personal conduct, and behavior; then we applies it to actual style of clothes. Jakob was a tailor, by trade. He was a third generation tailor. So he designed an outfit for their sect to wear. So that everyone else, would see they were different. Some followed Jakob. Others did not. They broke into two separate groups. So today we have the result of the Amish.
**** Tracy/Allan tries to use the heretical Amish who do not even dress biblical as an example and it fails him in a bad way. I am keeping Gods Word, Bullen, the Amish and Tracy keep mans traditions by how they dress. Paul said keep the traditions he handed down 2 Thess 2;15 .... pants and tucked in shirts was not one of them!
One of the things the Amish do. They use their style of dress as a token of righteousness. So they can feel good about being different than the “English”(non-Amish) It is a self righteousness. The same can be true about Mark, and his group. They believe if you don’t dress like them, it’s because you are wicked. Jim said the same thing about Mark, and everyone else on the internet that happens across his page. If you don’t wear tunics like he does. It’s because you are wicked.
**** Tracy/Allan you keep up in lie filled attacks but the truth exposes you. Bullen and the Amish are keeping man made ways in dress. I am teaching what we see right in scripture. The word wicked means one who breaks the law, that would be a sinner. God hates the wicked per Psalm 5;5 / Per scripture if you wilfully sin, you are not covered by Jesus. Hebrews 10:26. Men like Tracy teach woman to head cover as do I, they teach against a lie and against stealing. So can we do all those sins and gain the kingdom Tracy? Of course not. He is seemingly a well with no water and he lacks full truth. I want better for him.
I hope you can see the similarities. I am not intending to seem insulting. Just pointing out the similarities. Also the lack of command from scripture
**** His argument is insulting to the Lord as he ignores Gods desire and set example to wear tunics or robes to cover up our bodies. God with His own hand clothed us.... it is the only thing He himself put on our bodies, our temples!!!
When the Bible is silent, I don’t see that as an opportunity to fill the vacuum with my own law for everyone else to follow. I have preferences, sure. They are only preferences, not law. When the Bible is silent, I try to also be silent.
*** Tracy/Allan this really shows how void of knowing Gods Word you are. The bible is full of robes and tunics on men all over the OT and NT. I prove it here in this audio:
https://www.dontperish.com/uploads/4/4/2/8/44282867/biblical_saints_always_wore_tunics_and_robes.mp3
There is no command in Genesis 3:21.
**** Tracy/Allan like many other heretics make the mistake of saying since it is not a direct command like "thou shall" ... it is not for us to follow. Do you realize their are about 1050 instructions in the NT word for us to follow that are not "thou shalts" but we are to keep them to obey. We are to keep the ways and pattern we see in its pages as our example. To show you what a hypocrite Tracy is... he wont obey tunics as it was not a "thou shall" but he keeps quoting just be modest and were was that ever a "thou shall" command by God? Hypocrite! He is picking and choosing to keep what he wants as he is probably afraid to dress biblical as it will call him out of the culture. Fearful cowards will not inherit the kingdom per Rev 21:8 Tracy. Not dressing biblical is denying God in a way as we are His creation and He by His hand dressed us.
I will point out something else for you to consider. The Hebrew word that Jim points to as a man’s tunic. Cannot mean that specifically. It would contradict other scripture. Here’s why. The actual Hebrew is כֻּתֹּנֶת. In this verse, it is translated as coats, plural. This is accurate because this word is repeated. Actually written as כֻּתֹּנֶת כֻּתֹּנֶת. In Hebrew, like many other languages. When a word is displayed twice like this. It can usually mean one of two things. Either it is referring to something large in size, or it is referring to something in plural. Context dictates which one. The context here is clothing for both Adam and Eve, So plural is the right application. Notice the Hebrew word is the same one repeated. If this only means a man’s tunic. Are we to believe God clothed a man, and a woman in the same style of clothing? To be consistent, that is what that reasoning would mean. God sees that as an abomination. It is disgusting, and abhorrent to God for men, and women to be dressed in the same style of clothing. 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. So the coats that God gave to Adam and Eve could not both have been exactly the same. Which is likely why the translators chose the word coat, instead of the word tunic here. Since coats is a more general choice. It allows for the idea that Adam got a man’s coat, and Eve got a women’s coat. If we assert they both were exactly the same, it would violate Deuteronomy 22:5.
*** Tracy/Allan goes way out on a weak theological limb here.
1)That word is plural as God made TWO tunics...one of Adam and one for Eve. Even a brand new novice can easily see that.
2) The command for men and women to dress different did not come into play until Deut 22:5 and the Torah law. God put men in breeches (our pants today) in Leviticus before Deut. So men were wearing breeches and a robe or tunic and woman wore a long dress and most likely a head covering as well as we see it in the OT. If you go to our dress articles you will see God wanted womens legs to be covered but men had no such instruction but only no thigh to show. Mens tunics wear most likely shorter past the knee about and ladies robes were longer. That is the clothing difference we see in that makes biblical sense.
God never contradicts Himself. Sometimes we humans just get things wrong some times.
**** God does not but context matters and the command for no cross dressing was way way after Genesis 3:21 ...study in context Tracy is truth is your goal.
So I believe the correct understanding of Genesis 3:21 is simple. God clothed them, because their aprons weren’t good enough.
**** At last a solid statement to agree with 100% .... God clothed us and like today mans ways are NOT good enough.
He gave them clothes that matched their gender.
**** More lies Tracy/Allan ...we have no evidence of that but they each got a coat or tunic that we know.
It doesn’t prove tunics specifically.
*** Another lie Tracy/Allan? ... the Hebrew word means tunic or robe and Tracy/Allan even admitted it earlier! He said quote: "Even though, I agree these people wore tunics, and robes". So God put them in robes and tunics, they all wore robes and tunics but Tracy wont see it was robes and tunics???? He is very confused and that is not of God per 1 Cor 14:33.
God did not give a command that what he gave them was to be the same exact style of dress which He ordained.
*** If we do not follow what God gave us by standard and example then we can toss out a lot of the bible and not obey it at all. That is heresy!
If it were. Don’t forget. Their clothes were made from animal skins. Jesus wore linen, not animal skins. Jesus would not contradict Himself. Since Jesus is God. If it were ordained from Adam, and Eve. It wouldn’t be partial. God is not partial. It would have included every detail. Including the animals used. Those details aren’t there.
*** Tracy/Allan in love, you are void of deep Christ-ology... you miss God used animals to SHED BLOOD as a archetype of Jesus blood covering us. I have a good audio on that here:
http://spiritandtruthdiscernment.blogspot.com/2020/02/majorchrists-blood-to-so-called.html
*****It is the covering up that matters not the fabric or skin. I fear for Tracy's/Allans house with this kind of lack of discernment.
The Bible is silent to this supposed command. Which also means God was silent. We need to also be silent. It wasn’t ordained.
**** One last lie for you Tracy/Allan? Supposed command? God was NOT silent on clothing nor is the bible. Robes and tunics are all over the OT and NT for Gods people. And theology like Tracy's leaves him wide open for for this: Anyone can say well, since we have NO command for clothing not even to be MODEST.... I think I will go with hot shorts and a bra or men can show up in religious services in speedo's/little skimpy swim wear. (not one verse mentions not be sexual directly as a command) Tracy/Allan has NO way to teach what is God honoring or modeled in scripture at all. As the culture gets more wicked; Tracy/Allan is and his house is swept down in sin with them. But Gods people have a standard and the sure Word that DOES teach how God wanted us dressed. It was and is robes or tunics with head coverings for ladies.
I hope this finds you well.
*****Repent Tracy/Allan ... your ways could stumble a young brother and I do not take kindly to that! You are not a teacher so why are you teaching vs asking? As I have shown you are far off the mark here. If you do repent on this topic we are happy to help you in other areas as well that could lead to 1 Cor 1:10 unity.
God be praised / Tupos / Dontperish.com