THAT WHICH PERTAINETH TO A MAN

THAT WHICH PERTAINETH TO A MAN

Hey Ladies!

Listen up!

A couple of days ago, I began a study of one of the doctrines that came to Pentecost from the followers of the Methodist Revival. The Holiness movement, if you will.

Now, I am a firm believer that human beings should dress modestly. What is good for women is also good for the men folks.

But I’m scared to death of making the “Word” say something that it “does not say”. That makes it into a lie, and the penalty for that is like playing with a bolt of lightning.

For a century or more, the ladies have come under condemnation if they wore garments that resembled the garments that men wore.

Of course, we all know that the Bible, as it has been translated into English, seems to condemn such a practice.

But does it, actually, forbid the wearing of articles of clothing that resemble those worn by men?

The answer, from all that I can learn, is a resounding “No, it DOES NOT.”

I went to the ONE place where the Bible mentions the subject, and here is what I found. I’ll import it with the Hebrew numbers, so you can see what I’m writing about.

Deu 22:5 The woman802 shall not3808 wear1961 that which pertaineth3627 unto a man,1397 neither3808 shall a man1397 put on3847 a woman's802 garment:8071 for3588 all3605 that do6213 so428 are abomination8441 unto the LORD3068 thy God.430

The first word we will examine is “PERTAINETH (3627). It is translated in various ways, but NEVER in a way that can be construed to mean articles of CLOTHING worn by a man, e.g.:

ARMOUR 11 TIMES
WEAPONS 4 TIMES
INSTRUMENTS 8 TIMES
STUFF (BAGGAGE) 11 TIMES

The next word I examined is “MAN” (1397). It is used over fifty times as “Man”, but not just ANY MAN.

Predominantly, it designates a member of the ARMED FORCES.

This would explain why the word “Pertaineth” designates instruments of warfare rather than shirts, pants (rags), shoes, and whatever else we might think of.

I THINK I HAVE DISCOVERED THE REASON FOR THIS.

The Children of Israel were destined to enter the Land of Canaan where the women DID put on armour, etc, in an idolatrous ritual at certain times, and stood and worshiped before the statue of Venus. I believe it was Adam Clarke who wrote about this in his Commentary of The Bible

Venus was thought to be BOTH male and female, so the MEN also dressed in the (rags)
clothing that was customarily worn by women when they stood before (worshiped) Venus. Venus, similar to Dianna and Ashtoreth, was a WARRIOR GOD/ESS ) both male and female.

I looked up the word “abomination” (8441), and found that it was used many times in conjunction with the heathen practices of idolatry. The word is used over a hundred times, so I didn’t look them all up. The ones I did examine seemed to set a trend of hatred for idolatry in all forms. I was surprised to learn how many of the heathen idolatrous rituals were an abomination to the Lord, and were forbidden to the Children of Israel

The word that is translated “garment” (8071) is almost ALWAYS referring to clothes (rags, cloth) worn when going into public, both male and female.

We do have men running loose who do now dress up in the rags customarily worn by women (yuk). But we recognize them for what they are, and give them a wide berth. That is disgusting to even me.

Possibly, you would not agree with my analysis of the scripture, and that would be your prerogative. However, if you really think that any of the clothing that is being marketed today for women would be accepted and worn by men who are not queer, give it a try. It is doubtful you would get any “takers”.

If the founders of the Holiness Doctrine could have only known the truth of what God was meaning when He forbid certain things, they would have saved the Christian Community a big bunch of unhappiness and needless concern.

So, ladies, don’t put on an armour and worship Venus or Ashtoreth.

Likewise, men, do not put on a dress, etc. and worship a statue of a female/male idol.