Very interesting topic. I wear dresses or skirts that are between my knees and ankles. I wear modest leggings under the skirt/dress. It keeps me warm and modest. (I like long dresses but i get tangled in them and end up falling. Bad for a senior lady.) I wear heavy duty work pants when i am using heavier equipment for cutting long grass or weeds. A dress could get tangled in the equipment. Dangerous. We have a small farm and i keep the weeds or grass cut down because i am not allergic to them like my husband is. Besides, i love working outdoors. We also love the Torah and study it daily. Thank you for your message. Shalom.
Thank you Bro. Matthew for an eye opening message. I came out of Pentecostalism and this has haunted me because I wear women's pants and I look very much like a woman because YHWH created me a woman. 😀. Now I see it... dresses are westernized Pentecostalism. They look very nice on us women, but what the Bible is really talking about is a woman looking like a woman and a man looking like a man. Not transgendered. Which is the real abomination to our Father. ❤️
This is about clothing because different cultures around the world wear different things. This Bible verse is obviously speaking about transgenderism. If a man were to go to the women's section and buy pants and a shirt, everyone would know he was wearing women's clothes. Just because they're pants doesn't mean there's no distinction between women's and men's fashion. If I, as a woman, went to the men's section and bought pants and a shirt, people would know I was wearing men's clothes. We are called to be modest and not try to appear as the opposite sex. So, if I wear a women's dress suit and women's pants, that doesn't mean I'm cross-dressing.
The only time breeches are mentioned in Scripture are in relation to the Levite priests, and they’re underwear. So are we going to say that only Levites can wear underwear? I go over this in detail in the lessons, please watch.
Overall the best commentary on the style subject I've found. That men's legs must be in two separate tubes of fabric is mere conformity to its origin in equestrian tradition. It is not "Jesus PLUS pants!" You can make a great argument against men wearing bras. If a man wants to "dress like a man," he should shave less.
Awesome teaching... thank you. It's true that the more recent history of clothing/the fashion industry etc is what has developed our associations of dresses/skirts with females and pants/trousers more so with men (or, to the current day perhaps more so pants for both sexes but dresses only really for women). A question I've thought on many times, with a perspective such as what is presented here, is what should be worn while swimming, if one chooses to swim in the sea or other body of water? Should a tunic or longer garment be worn in the water even though it's very different from the material of modern swimwear (not speaking of immodest swimwear but modestly designed swimwear like long swim dresses the length of tunics, are still made of synthetic materials). I realise that's not the point of the teaching nor to point us back to a different time period, but if we think about what would have been worn in the water by men and women in times mentioned here with tunics/robes as the common clothing? Their daily garment if they had just the one or even if they had more than one? In John 21:7 we read that Peter put *on* his outer garment when he heard that it was Yeshua on the shore, before he jumped in the water. Any thoughts on why this was? John 21:7 That disciple whom Yeshua loved therefore said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was naked, and threw himself into the sea. May not be as relevant to the topic (I don't believe he was shirtless but wearing garments under that one he put on, though of what kind I do not know, maybe I'm wrong) but still, interesting to think about as I wonder what is optimal to wear while in the water with all considered. I'm sure they were baptised in their usual clothing and today many of us would consider going in the water with such materials impractical... but looks like they managed fine for what was needed :) I'm sure since you've written a lot on this subject you've thought on this brother Matthew? ^.^
That’s a great question sister. I just swim in the same thing I wear to work. 😆 Sometimes I might wear knee length shorts but still a tunic overtop. I do think Peter was probably in his undergarments, and maybe topless, but he was fishing with men (no women around). My sons and I have bathed in a lake before with no women around. It’s different when it’s just men or just women, or if it’s a husband and wife. If we are swimming together I encourage everyone to keep their clothes on. For the teens at least wear shorts and shirt, because it’s a bit difficult to always get them into a tunic! 😃
@@emjmnc thank you for taking the time to reply ^.^ the knee length shorts underneath are a good idea for sure. I've worn swim trousers under a swim dress in the past but I kind of just want to wear the normal material of my clothes now in the water 😅 True also about Peter, perhaps he was topless but since he was only around other men it was a different situation. I'm not in community with many teenagers currently but I can imagine! Most do things so differently and we are set-apart. HalleluYah :)
"only really for women" not very charitable, are you? No reciprocity on your part! 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause---all must be treated the same before the law. Read what PSYCHIATRY said about women in pants!
@@charlessavoie2367 Hi there, I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment fully in response to your quote of me. The point of the part you are quoting was that I recognise, like Matthew pointed out in the video, our modern day associations of dresses and skirts being for women but not for men is relatively new historically. It was not a point advocating that long garments/tunics should only be for women (if my comment is read correctly). Both in the scripture, and historically in general as far as I know, men used to wear long robes (and not trousers only) as an outer garment as well as women. Shalom!
As the law of Moses was given do you think the dress issue was because God was warning then about pagan temple worship. They trans clothing men dressed like women and women dressed like men…..
No, I believe it’s a general command for men to always look like men and women to always look like women. That has nothing to do with pants, but with a purposeful attempt to try and be/dress like the opposite sex.
Misused Pants Verse About pants/undergarments: *So, what about leggings? Leggings don’t have zippers on the front but are tailored to woman’s body* *T-Shirts, collar shirts etc too, even though women still wear them?* *Women and men BOTH have clothes are designed to tailored to their body* *This was written when NO man or woman wore "pants" then. ALL people wore robes, cloaks etc from Ancient times/Biblical times etc.* *As far Deuteronomy 22:5…that verse is taken OUT of context:* - The word for *“PERTAINETH”* was the word kĕliy כְּלִי which meant armory/amour-bearer/object/weapons. -The word for “MAN” within that verse was the word geber גֶּבֶר which meant warrior/fighting man/man of war. This verse is talking about other Pagan nations because they practiced a form of idolatry, where the females would dress up as warriors to worship their Pagan gods. i.e.The depiction of the goddess Athena/Minerva with the entire armor that males wore (helmet, shield, armor etc). So, that verse was not talking about a dress. Also, note: if it was talking about the male gender and not a specific type of male, it would have used the word ‘iysh אִישׁ to which would mean the male gender. There were no women amour back then. Lol. - The word for *GARMENT* was simlah שִׂמְלָה Which it does not mean just "clothing". The word is referring to the type of clothing called a mantle/raiment. If you break down the word in Hebrew and etymology of the word in Hebrew - you will see this. This type of clothing ( a loose covering, a cloak - which went over the top, the upper body) was a trend for women during those times. - The word for *BREECHES* was the word miknac מִכְנָס which meant undergarment/drawers/to cover private parts. There were no pants back then, they wore cloaks - both men and women. - The word for *“HOSEN”* was the word pattiysh פַּטִּישׁ which was a garment/coat/tunic. - *Men who promote this can never tell you WHY they took those SAME garments (what they attempt to call "pants") off in the utter courts. The priests suppose to wear those undergarments/(what they try to call pants) when dealing with act of consecrating.* *(Exodus ch.28/42)* 42.And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: - *Ironically, they were told to take off those "undergarments (what people attempt to call "pants" - SAME word in the original language) when going to minister to the utter courts* *(Ezekiel ch.44/18-19)* 18.They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causeth sweat. 19.And when they go forth into the utter court, even into the utter court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments.
I'm all for tunics, and feel odd with shirts that don't hang long. however, I'm from the 21st century, and I'm wearing pants too. {smile}. You can't hang tassels on the wings of your garment if your garment doesn't have wings.
So how do we get around this: If your pastor came to Church next Sunday with a dress on, then you shouldn't even say or think a word. The main subject for the New Testament Church is "Modesty" and the average woman with a pair of pants on CANNOT be described as modest. If we attempt to remove culture from this subject we do a disservice to the spirit of the text. It is important to God that in any culture the Male is clearly distinct from the Female and vice versa. There is even to be distinction with the length of the hair that is taught in 1 Cor. chapter 11. A woman is forbidden to shave or cut her hair short. And a man is forbidden to allow his hair to grow long but to shave or cut it short. God Bless
If women can’t be modest in pants neither can men. I think the idea to be modest in pants is the concept of a tunic for both. If a woman is wearing pants then she should wear a long shirt to cover. Why shouldn’t that be the same for man?
@@MsJaneSi I said the "average woman". Look around you, and just be honest: Do men normally wear pants in a modest way? Do women normally wear pants in a modest way? However, I am seeing the trend of men wearing pants tighter and tighter which is just wrong and sinful.
If we are going to say that it is okay for a woman to wear Pants, then we should also say, that it is okay for a man to wear a Skirt, or a Dress. Right? However, NO ONE has EVER says that. Just saying!
@@emjmnc We can't make the Robe, or Tunic argument. Because then men and women should be able to wear a Dress. Since a Robe and a Tunic resemble a Dress.
Yes they both wore tunics, but as time went by, clothing styles changed, men wore pants snd women wore dresses/skirts. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, so this still applies today. In fact pants were not introduced to women until mid 1800’s.
"TUNIC" what a LAUGH! Any ploy, any strategy, to sidestep using the word "DRESS." It's like the Scots hollering "it's a kilt not a skirt." And someone from Paraguay can scream "I'm not a South American, I'm a Paraguayan!"
That's the argument I use to refute the idea that many employ to say there are men's pants and women's pants. That's known as the fallacy of nominalism. Changing the name of something does not alter its essence. This goes all the way back to Aristotle and Socrates. A thing is what it is, not because of its particulars, but because of its essentials. A triangle is a triangle whether it's large or small, green or red. A skirt is a skirt whether it's plaid ( a kilt) or solid color, whether or short or long, blue or green, etc. Same as pants. Pants are a bifurcated garment made for each leg to fit into separately. It does not matter whether they are tight or loose, short or long brown or orange. Nominalism is the anti-realist philosophy that has brought about the whole transgender epidemic.
Great teaching, but with all do respect plz research more into the chosen. It is created by ppl that don't believe in Christ and much more details that are very alarming and not accurate
@@emjmnc ty for all u do! Could u help me with answering some ?s on biblical circumcision? I know u have boys, I also have a son of 3. I don't agree with the modern day hospitals n treatments for the most part n biblical circumcision seems to b much different. How did u do it
@@davidaldis2441 We hired a medical professional to circumcise all three of our sons on the 8th day of their life. He even came in on a Sunday one time. I actually do believe proper circumcision is a complete removal of the skin around the head of the penis.
Amein Amein HalleluYah
This was such a gentle approach to a much needed generation conversation.......
Love ya brother 🙏🏼❤🙏🏾
Very interesting topic. I wear dresses or skirts that are between my knees and ankles. I wear modest leggings under the skirt/dress. It keeps me warm and modest. (I like long dresses but i get tangled in them and end up falling. Bad for a senior lady.) I wear heavy duty work pants when i am using heavier equipment for cutting long grass or weeds. A dress could get tangled in the equipment. Dangerous. We have a small farm and i keep the weeds or grass cut down because i am not allergic to them like my husband is. Besides, i love working outdoors. We also love the Torah and study it daily. Thank you for your message. Shalom.
I've always wondered about this. Thank you for your gentle spirit regarding All matters.
What a blessing this was brother thank you. Shalom 🙏
Thank you so much for this teaching 📖
Thank you Bro. Matthew for an eye opening message. I came out of Pentecostalism and this has haunted me because I wear women's pants and I look very much like a woman because YHWH created me a woman. 😀. Now I see it... dresses are westernized Pentecostalism. They look very nice on us women, but what the Bible is really talking about is a woman looking like a woman and a man looking like a man. Not transgendered. Which is the real abomination to our Father. ❤️
Sir you are speaking of people who are trying to be and live opposite of what they are by nature.
Daniel 3:21 men wore pants
Yes they did
This is about clothing because different cultures around the world wear different things. This Bible verse is obviously speaking about transgenderism. If a man were to go to the women's section and buy pants and a shirt, everyone would know he was wearing women's clothes. Just because they're pants doesn't mean there's no distinction between women's and men's fashion. If I, as a woman, went to the men's section and bought pants and a shirt, people would know I was wearing men's clothes. We are called to be modest and not try to appear as the opposite sex. So, if I wear a women's dress suit and women's pants, that doesn't mean I'm cross-dressing.
It was definitely going on back then. They were more scandalous then they are these days, but sadly people these days are catching up.
What about every time breeches mentioned it's masculine?
The only time breeches are mentioned in Scripture are in relation to the Levite priests, and they’re underwear. So are we going to say that only Levites can wear underwear? I go over this in detail in the lessons, please watch.
Overall the best commentary on the style subject I've found. That men's legs must be in two separate tubes of fabric is mere conformity to its origin in equestrian tradition. It is not "Jesus PLUS pants!" You can make a great argument against men wearing bras. If a man wants to "dress like a man," he should shave less.
Awesome teaching... thank you. It's true that the more recent history of clothing/the fashion industry etc is what has developed our associations of dresses/skirts with females and pants/trousers more so with men (or, to the current day perhaps more so pants for both sexes but dresses only really for women).
A question I've thought on many times, with a perspective such as what is presented here, is what should be worn while swimming, if one chooses to swim in the sea or other body of water? Should a tunic or longer garment be worn in the water even though it's very different from the material of modern swimwear (not speaking of immodest swimwear but modestly designed swimwear like long swim dresses the length of tunics, are still made of synthetic materials). I realise that's not the point of the teaching nor to point us back to a different time period, but if we think about what would have been worn in the water by men and women in times mentioned here with tunics/robes as the common clothing? Their daily garment if they had just the one or even if they had more than one?
In John 21:7 we read that Peter put *on* his outer garment when he heard that it was Yeshua on the shore, before he jumped in the water. Any thoughts on why this was? John 21:7 That disciple whom Yeshua loved therefore said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was naked, and threw himself into the sea.
May not be as relevant to the topic (I don't believe he was shirtless but wearing garments under that one he put on, though of what kind I do not know, maybe I'm wrong) but still, interesting to think about as I wonder what is optimal to wear while in the water with all considered. I'm sure they were baptised in their usual clothing and today many of us would consider going in the water with such materials impractical... but looks like they managed fine for what was needed :) I'm sure since you've written a lot on this subject you've thought on this brother Matthew? ^.^
That’s a great question sister. I just swim in the same thing I wear to work. 😆 Sometimes I might wear knee length shorts but still a tunic overtop. I do think Peter was probably in his undergarments, and maybe topless, but he was fishing with men (no women around). My sons and I have bathed in a lake before with no women around. It’s different when it’s just men or just women, or if it’s a husband and wife. If we are swimming together I encourage everyone to keep their clothes on. For the teens at least wear shorts and shirt, because it’s a bit difficult to always get them into a tunic! 😃
@@emjmnc thank you for taking the time to reply ^.^ the knee length shorts underneath are a good idea for sure. I've worn swim trousers under a swim dress in the past but I kind of just want to wear the normal material of my clothes now in the water 😅 True also about Peter, perhaps he was topless but since he was only around other men it was a different situation. I'm not in community with many teenagers currently but I can imagine! Most do things so differently and we are set-apart. HalleluYah :)
"only really for women" not very charitable, are you? No reciprocity on your part! 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause---all must be treated the same before the law. Read what PSYCHIATRY said about women in pants!
@@charlessavoie2367 Hi there, I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment fully in response to your quote of me. The point of the part you are quoting was that I recognise, like Matthew pointed out in the video, our modern day associations of dresses and skirts being for women but not for men is relatively new historically. It was not a point advocating that long garments/tunics should only be for women (if my comment is read correctly). Both in the scripture, and historically in general as far as I know, men used to wear long robes (and not trousers only) as an outer garment as well as women. Shalom!
As the law of Moses was given do you think the dress issue was because God was warning then about pagan temple worship. They trans clothing men dressed like women and women dressed like men…..
No, I believe it’s a general command for men to always look like men and women to always look like women. That has nothing to do with pants, but with a purposeful attempt to try and be/dress like the opposite sex.
Misused Pants Verse
About pants/undergarments:
*So, what about leggings? Leggings don’t have zippers on the front but are tailored to woman’s body*
*T-Shirts, collar shirts etc too, even though women still wear them?*
*Women and men BOTH have clothes are designed to tailored to their body*
*This was written when NO man or woman wore "pants" then. ALL people wore robes, cloaks etc from Ancient times/Biblical times etc.*
*As far Deuteronomy 22:5…that verse is taken OUT of context:*
- The word for *“PERTAINETH”* was the word kĕliy כְּלִי which meant armory/amour-bearer/object/weapons.
-The word for “MAN” within that verse was the word geber גֶּבֶר which meant warrior/fighting man/man of war. This verse is talking about other Pagan nations because they practiced a form of idolatry, where the females would dress up as warriors to worship their Pagan gods. i.e.The depiction of the goddess Athena/Minerva with the entire armor that males wore (helmet, shield, armor etc). So, that verse was not talking about a dress. Also, note: if it was talking about the male gender and not a specific type of male, it would have used the word ‘iysh אִישׁ to which would mean the male gender.
There were no women amour back then. Lol.
- The word for *GARMENT* was simlah שִׂמְלָה Which it does not mean just "clothing". The word is referring to the type of clothing called a mantle/raiment. If you break down the word in Hebrew and etymology of the word in Hebrew - you will see this. This type of clothing ( a loose covering, a cloak - which went over the top, the upper body) was a trend for women during those times.
- The word for *BREECHES* was the word miknac מִכְנָס which meant undergarment/drawers/to cover private parts. There were no pants back then, they wore cloaks - both men and women.
- The word for *“HOSEN”* was the word pattiysh פַּטִּישׁ which was a garment/coat/tunic.
- *Men who promote this can never tell you WHY they took those SAME garments (what they attempt to call "pants") off in the utter courts. The priests suppose to wear those undergarments/(what they try to call pants) when dealing with act of consecrating.*
*(Exodus ch.28/42)*
42.And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
- *Ironically, they were told to take off those "undergarments (what people attempt to call "pants" - SAME word in the original language) when going to minister to the utter courts*
*(Ezekiel ch.44/18-19)*
18.They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causeth sweat.
19.And when they go forth into the utter court, even into the utter court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments.
I'm all for tunics, and feel odd with shirts that don't hang long. however, I'm from the 21st century, and I'm wearing pants too. {smile}.
You can't hang tassels on the wings of your garment if your garment doesn't have wings.
That story of Adam and Eve makes no sense.....how could they realize that they were "Naked" when they had NO CONCEPT OF CLOTHES ?
they felt shame
You are missing something they had a concept of being covered that’s why they went and covered them self same thing as clothing. It’s to cover
@@MsJaneSi They would not of had and such concept......no animals or plants were covered......that would have been entirely foreign to them
@@harlow743 yea they felt shame after they had sinned
The double standard of your experience at the courthouse is simply ridiculous!
So how do we get around this: If your pastor came to Church next Sunday with a dress on, then you shouldn't even say or think a word.
The main subject for the New Testament Church is "Modesty" and the average woman with a pair of pants on CANNOT be described as modest.
If we attempt to remove culture from this subject we do a disservice to the spirit of the text.
It is important to God that in any culture the Male is clearly distinct from the Female and vice versa.
There is even to be distinction with the length of the hair that is taught in 1 Cor. chapter 11. A woman is forbidden to shave or cut her hair short. And a man is forbidden to allow his hair to grow long but to shave or cut it short.
God Bless
If women can’t be modest in pants neither can men. I think the idea to be modest in pants is the concept of a tunic for both. If a woman is wearing pants then she should wear a long shirt to cover. Why shouldn’t that be the same for man?
@@MsJaneSi
I said the "average woman". Look around you, and just be honest:
Do men normally wear pants in a modest way?
Do women normally wear pants in a modest way?
However, I am seeing the trend of men wearing pants tighter and tighter which is just wrong and sinful.
If we are going to say that it is okay for a woman to wear Pants, then we should also say, that it is okay for a man to wear a Skirt, or a Dress. Right? However, NO ONE has EVER says that. Just saying!
Men and women wore robes or tunics in Scripture.
@@emjmnc We can't make the Robe, or Tunic argument. Because then men and women should be able to wear a Dress. Since a Robe and a Tunic resemble a Dress.
@@gamecrusher2024It’s a fact based on Genesis 3:21 that both male and female were given a tunic to wear. Ketoneth is the Hebrew word. Don’t fight it.
Yes they both wore tunics, but as time went by, clothing styles changed, men wore pants snd women wore dresses/skirts. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, so this still applies today. In fact pants were not introduced to women until mid 1800’s.
"TUNIC" what a LAUGH! Any ploy, any strategy, to sidestep using the word "DRESS." It's like the Scots hollering "it's a kilt not a skirt." And someone from Paraguay can scream "I'm not a South American, I'm a Paraguayan!"
That's the argument I use to refute the idea that many employ to say there are men's pants and women's pants. That's known as the fallacy of nominalism. Changing the name of something does not alter its essence. This goes all the way back to Aristotle and Socrates. A thing is what it is, not because of its particulars, but because of its essentials. A triangle is a triangle whether it's large or small, green or red. A skirt is a skirt whether it's plaid ( a kilt) or solid color, whether or short or long, blue or green, etc. Same as pants. Pants are a bifurcated garment made for each leg to fit into separately. It does not matter whether they are tight or loose, short or long brown or orange. Nominalism is the anti-realist philosophy that has brought about the whole transgender epidemic.
Great teaching, but with all do respect plz research more into the chosen. It is created by ppl that don't believe in Christ and much more details that are very alarming and not accurate
Thanks brother, I appreciate the encouragement too.
@@emjmnc ty for all u do! Could u help me with answering some ?s on biblical circumcision? I know u have boys, I also have a son of 3. I don't agree with the modern day hospitals n treatments for the most part n biblical circumcision seems to b much different. How did u do it
@@davidaldis2441 We hired a medical professional to circumcise all three of our sons on the 8th day of their life. He even came in on a Sunday one time. I actually do believe proper circumcision is a complete removal of the skin around the head of the penis.
@@emjmnc ty so much brother Matt! They came to ur house to do it? That's awesome. I need to find someone to do it. Ty sir
@@davidaldis2441 You’re welcome brother. No, we took our sons to a private practice. We were blessed to know this doctor.