The Message Dress Code: Difference between revisions

    From BelieveTheSign
     
    (18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
    Line 1: Line 1:
    Legalism is to fall back into rule-keeping - we lose our freedom. Falling into permissiveness means we abuse our freedom.  
    {{Top of Page}}
    [[Image:Girls hair.jpg|thumb|250px|right]]
    {{Template:The Message}}
    People that follow William Branham's message can be recognized by the way that their women dress - long dresses and [[Long Hair or Uncut Hair|long hair]].  Additionally men are not permitted to wear [http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/William_Branham%27s_Double_Standard#William_Branham_in_Shorts shorts (even though William Branham did)].


    Gospel freedom is freedom that both takes away the guilt of sin and eats away at the motivation to sin.  
    This is because William Branham taught a "clothes line" religion.


    The gospel neither leads us to live a guilty life (since God has lovingly accepted us), nor an unholy life (since the God who has accepted us is perfectly holy). To forget the first is to fall into legalism, and lose our freedom; to forget the second is to abuse our freedom. Both mean we lose grasp of the gospel.
    =William Branham's teaching=


    =Legalism=
    William Branham referred to Deuteronomy 22:5 as providing the scriptural basis for women not wearing pants:


    *Legalism kills love for God (Revelation 3:14–22).
    :''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.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Deut 22:5.</ref>
    *Legalism places human tradition above God’s Word (Mark 7:5–9).
    *Legalism hinders our vision of God (Matthew 23:13–15).
    *Legalism overlooks the needs of others (Luke 10:25–37).
    *Legalism is a source of selfish pride (Matthew 18:1–4).
    *Legalism produces rivalry and deception (Luke 20:9–20).
    *Legalism causes us to view others with contempt (Luke 18:9–14).
    *Legalism denies our freedom of conscience (Mark 2:23–28).
    *Legalism emphasizes externals (Mark 12:38–40).
    *Legalism makes us Pharisees and hypocrites (Mark 10:1–12).<ref>Bill Bright, Written by the Hand of God (Orlando, FL: NewLife Publications, 2001), 77–78.</ref>


    Here is an examples of William Branham's teaching on the subject:


    :''The Bible said that it's wrong. And get out on a afternoon and put them little bitty old short clothes on to mow the yard. It's wrong. '''It's a sin in the sight of God to do that. And you say, "No, I don't wear shorts; I wear slacks." The Bible said, "A woman that'll put on a garment that pertains to a man, it's an abomination in the sight of God."''' God doesn't change.<ref>William Branham, 58-0316A - As The Eagle Stirs Her Nest And Fluttereth Over Her Young, para. 41</ref>


    '''Religious Legalism''' refers to a complex set of attitudes and beliefs organized around the conviction that certain laws must be obeyed in order to establish and maintain a relationship with God. These laws are usually considered divine in origin and therefore immutable. They may encompass any area of life, with no aspect of human activity considered too insignificant or private to warrant possible exemption from regulation.
    =What does the Bible teach on this subject?=


    A belief in a moral code is not ipso facto religious legalism. However, legalism results from such a belief when strict obedience to the code is conceived as being the sole or primary means of gaining and keeping the favor of the deity. Legalism thrives on a distorted sense of obligation.
    Does the Bible agree with William Branham's dress code?


    The theological roots of modern-day religious legalism may be traced to the intertestamental period, when a fundamental change occurred in the role of Old Testament law for the Jews. The concept of the covenant as the condition of membership in the people of God was replaced by that of obedience to the law. This obedience became the basis of God’s verdict of pleasure or displeasure toward the individual. The sole mediator between God and humans became the torah, and all relationships between God and people, Israel, or the world became subordinated to the torah. Justification, righteousness, and life in the world to come were thought to be secured by obeying the law (Ladd, 1974).
    ==What does the New Testament say?==


    This attitude was prevalent during the time of Christ and influenced the biblical precursors of twentieth-century legalism: Pharisaism, judaizing theology, and Gnosticism.
    The New Testament repeatedly warns against trying to import Old Testament laws into the Christian church:


    Pharisaism attempted to represent the true people of God by obeying the law and in doing so hoped to prepare the way for the Messiah. The Pharisees observed all the legal prescriptions of Scripture in fine detail; they also held to the authority of the halakah, the body of legal descriptions that interpreted the law. The regulations increased in number and complexity to the point of pedantry. For example, because food could not be cooked on the sabbath, a debate arose between two groups as to whether water alone or both water and cooked food could be placed on a previously heated stove without committing a violation (Muller, 1976). The regulations became so difficult to obey that they proved a stumbling block to those who could not keep them all and who thus felt they were outside the kingdom of God. Christ spoke to that tragic situation in his scathing denunciation of Pharisaical legalism (Matt. 23:4).
    :''Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ga 3:2.</ref>


    A variant of this form of legalism was introduced into the churches in Galatia, prompting Paul to write his famous letter on Christian liberty to the congregations in that province. The Judaizers, as they became known, infiltrated the churches, claiming that full salvation was impossible apart from observance of Jewish law and ritual. They were especially adamant that Gentile Christians be circumcised, since this was the symbol of membership in the new Israel. Paul’s theological and emotional antipathy toward this form of legalism is quite evident in his sarcastic suggestion that those who argue for the necessity of circumcision should take the next logical step and castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12).
    :''For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ga 3:10.</ref>


    The apostle also had to combat legalism in the form of incipient Gnosticism at Colosse. This syncretistic heresy taught that the goal of life for gnostic adherents was to obtain true knowledge (gnosis), which would eventually allow them to leave the prison of the body and merge with the composite whole. A number of Colossian Christians apparently were seeking heavenly visions as part of their rite of passage into a knowledge of the divine mysteries. They were informed that such visions could come about only by a rigorous discipline of asceticism and self-denial. Abstinence from food and drink, observance of initiatory and purifactory rites, and possibly a life of celibacy and mortification of the human body (Col. 2:21, 23) were all prescribed as part of the regimen necessary to obtain fullness of life (Martin, 1978).
    :''...but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ga 5:13–15.</ref>


    While each of these ancient forerunners of present-day legalism differed from the other in certain respects, all three attempted to legislate certain behavior as the primary means of obtaining “salvation,” whether that was defined as hastening the advent of the Messiah, gaining membership in the new Israel, or seeking the eventual release of the soul from the confines of the body.
    :''For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down tin his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Eph 2:14–16.</ref>


    These forms of legalism did not die; they merely altered their appearance and continued to plague the church throughout the centuries. A study of church history suggests that too often religious legalism has been the norm rather than the exception. Evangelicalism in the United States continues to wrestle with legalistic tendencies within its ranks, partly due to its Puritan roots and fundamentalist legacy. The Puritans, for example, at one time decreed that one could dress a baby on the sabbath but not kiss it; they also allowed that a man could comb his hair on that day but not shave his beard (Brinsmead, 1981b). Fundamentalism, while it is usually not as extreme, continues in a similar legalistic framework with its absolutizing prohibitions that do not have sufficient scriptural warrant.
    The apostles did not require Gentiles to follow the law. This is clearly outlined in the Book of Acts:


    An examination of the phenomenon of religious legalism reveals some striking similarities to obsessive-compulsive disorder (which includes characteristics of both obsessional neurosis and obsessional personality disorder; the former is usually more dysfunctional).
    :''Therefore my judgment is that '''we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God''', but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ac 15:19–20.</ref>


    Religious legalism often infects the practitioner with a sense of moral superiority and a concomitant critical, condemning attitude toward those who do not conform to the same standards of conduct. This type of attitude is graphically illustrated in the biblical story of the Pharisee who stood in the temple thanking God that he was not like the terrible sinners around him. Christ warns that this type of self-exaltation can prevent a person from being justified before God (Luke 18:10–14). Similarly the obsessive-compulsive individual claims moral superiority and will often show an air of condescension to those around him or her. The manifestation of moral superiority most often hides feelings of inferiority and self-hatred that are then projected onto those who are deemed inferior. Just as the legalist must obey all the laws perfectly, so too the obsessive-compulsive person strives for perfection, avoiding tasks that might cause him or her to fail. Failure for the obsessional is equivalent to breaking the law for the legalist. Absolute perfection is the minimum acceptable standard for both.
    :''They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:


    Both types of persons have great difficulty with the gray areas of life. The legalist wishes to legislate every area of life and thus tends to concentrate on behavioral and religious minutiae. The obsessive-compulsive is characterized by aversion to ambiguity and a tendency to put all of life into neat, black-and-white categories.
    ::''“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. '''For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements''': that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ac 15:22–29.</ref>


    Anxiety and fear are primary motivators for both the legalist and the obsessive-compulsive. The practitioner of legalism is driven to obedience by an overwhelming fear that God will punish or reject those persons who do not obey perfectly. The person caught in obsessive-compulsiveness is driven to obey rules, obsessions, and compulsions by the unceasing threat of internal punishment meted out by the perfectionistic and hypercritical superego. Although the rules of conduct may differ for both types of person, they serve a similar function of assuring that catastrophe, whether spiritual or psychological, may be averted as long as the laws are obeyed or the compulsions followed.
    :''Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. '''But as for the Gentiles who have believed''', we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ac 21:24–25.</ref>


    Legalism is caused by biblical and doctrinal distortions and misunderstandings. Obsessive-compulsiveness can be traced in theory to a basic anxiety (Horney, 1950), defined as a feeling of profound insecurity, apprehensiveness, and helplessness in a world conceived as potentially hostile. Thus they are not the same phenomenon. However, the affinities between the two are such that they can exist closely with each other. The intertwining of legalism and obsessive-compulsiveness creates a hybrid that is resistant to alteration through counseling or psychotherapy.
    So if the Apostles specifically exempted the Gentiles exempted from the laws of Moses and Old Testament law, what gives William Branham the right to bring those laws back into effect in the New Testament church?


    Counseling of the legalist/obsessive-compulsive must be grounded in the therapeutic triad of empathy, genuineness, and unconditional acceptance on the part of the therapist. The importance of acceptance cannot be overstated. By accepting the client just as he or she is, the therapist models, although imperfectly, a loving, accepting Christ whose love is not contingent on one’s being perfect, since he died for us while we were yet sinners (Rom. 5:8). At the same time this unconditional acceptance will help mitigate the destructiveness of the critical, perfectionistic superego.
    ==What does the Old Testament teach?==


    An examination of the cognitive elements of the disorder will decrease their power over the person as he or she learns to look at the world, self, and God in a new light. Individuals with this type of problem usually have negative concepts of God stemming from doctrinal distortions and/or an equation of the heavenly Father with the person’s punitive, rigid earthly father. Helping a person to gain insight into these aspects of the problem can prove both spiritually and emotionally liberating.
    There are two different Hebrew words in Deuteronomy 22:5 that must be differentiated:


    Lastly, the Reformation principle of sola fide, justification by faith alone apart from works or obedience to the law, can provide an antidote to the poison of legalism/obsessive-compulsiveness. Bruce (1977) notes that Paul’s statement that Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4) means that since Christ has come law has no place whatsoever in one’s approach to God. “According to Paul,” he adds, “the believer is not under the law as a rule of life—unless one thinks of the law of love, and that is a completely different kind of law, fulfilled not by obedience to a code but by the outworking of an inward power” (p. 192).
    :''The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto ''(kelî)'' a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment ''(śimlâ)'': for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Dt 22:5.</ref>


    The New Testament does not make appeal for proper behavior on the basis of Old Testament rules. Christians’ behavior throughout the New Testament is shaped and colored by what Christ has done. The law of Christ demands that believers forgive as they have been forgiven (Col. 3:13), accept one another as Christ has accepted them (Rom. 15:7), and place the same value on people that the blood of Christ places on them (Brinsmead, 1981a).
    The range of meanings for "''kelî''" extends beyond “clothing” to vessels and receptacles, utensils, tools and implements, furniture and furnishings, and jewelry. But the second term (śimlâ) is more specific, referring to the outer wrapper or mantle.<ref>Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 512.</ref>


    As Luther observed, no good work helps justify or save an unbeliever. Thus the person who wishes to do good works should begin not with the doing of works but with believing, which alone makes a person good; for nothing makes a person good except faith or evil except unbelief.<ref>David G. Benner and Peter C. Hill, eds., Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology & Counseling, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 1030–1032.</ref>
    One explanation is that this practice was associated with the religion of Canaan; therefore, it was “an abomination to the LORD.”  Apparently women appeared in male garments and men in women’s clothes when they worshiped their pagan deities. Yahweh wanted His people to be unique and to do nothing that was in any way connected with foreign religions.
     
    Another theory is that this verse could refer to war. A woman was not to put on the trappings ''(kelî)'' of a soldier or dress like a man in order to try to gain admission into the army. Nor were men to attempt to avoid military obligation by dressing as women.
     
    Another explanation often given for this ban is that it obscured the distinction between the sexes and therefore violated an essential part of the created order of life (Gen. 1:27). The Hebrew word ''kelî'' is used elsewhere in referring to decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. During the days of Moses, garments worn by men and women were very similar (robes); so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness.  The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation. This passage does not teach against women’s wearing slacks, hats, shoes, gloves, or other items that are now worn by both sexes, but rather against the wearing of any item specifically intended for the opposite sex.
     
    Still another explanation is that this verse refers to the practice of transvestism, a deviant form of sexual behavior which is often characterized by cross-dressing. The verse says women should not wear things “pertaining to” the male. This phrase includes not only clothing, but also ornaments, weapons, and other items normally associated with men.
     
    Transvestism is sometimes associated with homosexuality, and in the ancient world its practice was associated with the cults of certain deities. Whatever the circumstance, the practice of transvestism was “an abomination to the LORD.“<ref>John C. Maxwell and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Deuteronomy, vol. 5, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1987), 241–242.</ref>
     
    In today's world of fashion there are men's pant's and there are women's pants.  A man would never wear pants designed for a woman and it would be rare to find women wearing men's pants.  Why?  They are designed differently. Thus the point made by William Branham and message followers is not relevant in today's society.
     
    ==So what is the standard?==
     
    Paul's advice to Christian women with respect to their appearance is recorded in 1 Timothy 2:9-10:
     
    :''I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.<ref>The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Ti 2:9–10.</ref>
     
    Appropriate apparel was necessary for signaling modesty and respectability, inappropriate outer adornment — flouting the acceptable dress-code — was sure to raise suspicions of promiscuity and immoderation.  Apparently the pre-Christian Roman republic had passed laws meant to discourage ostentation and encourage frugality. It naturally dwelt on the various ways in which ostentation might be shown, including the dress and adornment of wealthy women.
     
    Paul lists four items.
     
    #First to be mentioned is “elaborate hairstyles.” The term that means literally “braiding” refers to the complex and fancy styling of hair—plaiting and piling it on top of the head—preferred by fashionable wealthy women of a certain sort. This style presented the exact opposite to the modest, simpler styles traditionally associated with the model imperial women as displayed in the statuary. The modest imperial style was meant to set the cultural trend, but many women of means did not follow suit.47
    #After referring to hairstyles, Paul shifts to jewelry.  Jewelry was regarded as emblematic of the shameful woman. “Gold” was the most valuable of metals and the precious metal of choice by women who practiced ostentation and men who desired to bring attention of this sort to their wives. It came further to be linked with the dress code of highly paid prostitutes.
    #“Pearls” also occupied a place in the caricature of imprudent ostentation.
    #“Expensive clothes” completes the profile of the immodest Roman wife. Modest clothing associated with propriety and respectability was simple and full. What is envisioned by this description, found widely in the literature, is the showy expensive apparel that came to be associated with the woman drawing attention to herself—the prostitute and the promiscuous woman.  The critique is precise. It prohibits the kind the dress and adornment that would associate Christian women with the revolutionary “new woman” already in evidence in the East. Were that connection to be made, the church would be open to allegations of endorsing this departure from traditional values.
     
    Paul’s language implies that the standard was known and generally accepted. At first sight, the shift from apparel to conduct (“good deeds”) seems abrupt, but as already pointed out, in this kind of ethical discourse “adornment” was code for behavior. The shift allows a fuller description of the modest adornment encouraged for Christian women in v. 9.
     
    First, he characterizes Christian wives as “those who profess to worship God.” The language of “professing” suggests a serious and perhaps public claim to be believers. The content of the claim is expressed with the term theosebeia. It is equivalent to the term eusbeia that defines authentic Christian existence as the integration of faith in God and the behavior that demonstrates this (2:3 and Excursus). Its choice selection here over the more frequently used term may correspond to the specific reference to wives (or to the language of the claim they were making), but in any case it indicates a claim to be authentic worshipers of God.
     
    Second, he redefines appropriate adornment (the infinitive “to adorn” is still in effect) in terms of “good deeds,” which is shorthand for the visible dimension of authentic faith—action done as the outworking of faith to benefit others. In Paul’s formulation of the concept the inner reality (knowledge of God, faith) and outer action come together in a life of service in accordance with God’s truth. The sphere in which wives/women are to perform these deeds of faith is not limited to the worship setting, but would include the household and more public places of life.
     
    The whole of verses 9–10 thus forms a challenge to a group of well-to-do Christian wives for whom the emerging trend of the new Roman woman, with its emphasis on outer show and rejection of cultural norms of modesty, was becoming a potent attraction. The language of the prohibition identifies this cultural trend rather specifically. Equally, reference to modesty and self-control identifies the dress codes and symbols of modesty and chastity that the new women were spurning, though as Christian virtues they have been deepened by the Christ event. Ultimately, Paul calls these Christian wives to give proof of their claim to godliness (1) by dressing modestly, (2) by living a life characterized by modesty and self-control and (3) by doing works of Christian service.<ref>Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 208–210.</ref>
     
    It is clear that the New Testament contains no prohibition against women wearing pants.  However, women were required to dress respectfully and modestly but that did not mean they could not wear pants or any other specific type of attire.
     
    =Arguments used by Branham's followers=
     
    Message believers state that because the Bible classifies a women wearing a man's garment as an abomination, it is something that God hates and is therefore still an abomination today.
     
    The problem with this approach is that it require other abominations in the Old Testament to be obeyed as well:
     
    :''And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in '''abomination'''.  Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
     
    :''And these are they which ye shall have in '''abomination''' among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,  And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
     
    :''All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.  Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;  Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.  But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an '''abomination''' unto you.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Le 11:10–23</ref>
     
    :''You shall not eat any abomination.  These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Dt 14:3–5.</ref>
     
    :''A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Dt 25:15–16</ref>
     
    '''Horoscopes are out too!'''
    :''There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Dt 18:10–12.</ref>


    =Quotes=
    =Quotes=


    Oh, I thought, what a thing for Christianity! Women, stop that wearing them clothes like that! Man, stop that telling them smutty jokes and all that stuff! We are sons and daughters of the King. Dress like a queen, dress like a--a lady. Act like a gentleman, don't let your hair grow down like this. The Bible said, "It's wrong (nature teaches you) for a man to have long hair. And it's a disgrace and a common thing for even a woman to pray with her hair cut." And how about these? "It's a--it's an abomination for a woman to put on a garment that pertains to a man." The great unchanging God doesn't change.<ref>DOORS.IN.DOOR_  FLAGSTAFF.AZ  V-17 N-3  SATURDAY_  65-0206</ref>
    Oh, I thought, what a thing for Christianity! Women, stop that wearing them clothes like that! Man, stop that telling them smutty jokes and all that stuff! We are sons and daughters of the King. Dress like a queen, dress like a--a lady. Act like a gentleman, don't let your hair grow down like this. The Bible said, "It's wrong (nature teaches you) for a man to have long hair. And it's a disgrace and a common thing for even a woman to pray with her hair cut." And how about these? "'''It's a--it's an abomination for a woman to put on a garment that pertains to a man." The great unchanging God doesn't change.'''<ref>DOORS.IN.DOOR_  FLAGSTAFF.AZ  V-17 N-3  SATURDAY_  65-0206</ref>


    How could a bobbed-haired woman ever come through this Filter? How could a woman with shorts on ever come through It, or slacks, when the Bible says, "It's an abomination to God, for a woman to put on a garment that even pertains to a man"? And how can a man that thinks anything of himself, get out here and dress like the women, let his hair grow out like a woman, down in his eyes, with bangs, and twirled up like that? He is wearing his wife's underneath clothes. She is wearing his outer clothes. A thinking man's filter? A thinking man won't do that, or a thinking woman won't do it. God's Word won't let it pass through. <ref>GOD'S.POWER.TO.TRANSFORM_  PHOENIX.AZ  V-16 N-5  SATURDAY_  65-0911 </ref>
    How could a bobbed-haired woman ever come through this Filter? '''How could a woman with shorts on ever come through It, or slacks''', when the Bible says, "It's an abomination to God, for a woman to put on a garment that even pertains to a man"? And how can a man that thinks anything of himself, get out here and dress like the women, let his hair grow out like a woman, down in his eyes, with bangs, and twirled up like that? He is wearing his wife's underneath clothes. She is wearing his outer clothes. A thinking man's filter? A thinking man won't do that, or a thinking woman won't do it. God's Word won't let it pass through. <ref>GOD'S.POWER.TO.TRANSFORM_  PHOENIX.AZ  V-16 N-5  SATURDAY_  65-0911 </ref>


    "Blessed are they that do all the commandments of God, that they might have a right to enter in." Do all God said, and It said for women to have long hair.  You say... A man told me not long ago, said, "'''I don't preach a clothes-line religion.'''"
    "'''Blessed are they that do all the commandments of God, that they might have a right to enter in.'''" Do all God said, and It said for women to have long hair.  You say... A man told me not long ago, said, "'''I don't preach a clothes-line religion.'''"
    '''I said, "Then you're not preaching the Gospel."''' Yeah.
    '''I said, "Then you're not preaching the Gospel."''' Yeah.


    God laid it out there, He said what to do. And you either do it... That's your natural, reasonable thing. What little thing... what... the little insignificant. Jesus said, "Blessed are they that would take all the little thing, do the little things." And a woman to let her hair grow, that's just a... why, it's just something she can do, and she won't even do that. She won't even do that.
    God laid it out there, He said what to do. And you either do it... That's your natural, reasonable thing. What little thing... what... the little insignificant. '''Jesus said, "Blessed are they that would take all the little thing, do the little things.'''" And a woman to let her hair grow, that's just a... why, it's just something she can do, and she won't even do that. She won't even do that.
    <ref>GOD'S ONLY PROVIDED PLACE OF WORSHIP SHP.LA  65-1128M</ref>
    <ref>GOD'S ONLY PROVIDED PLACE OF WORSHIP SHP.LA  65-1128M</ref>


    How could you ever draw a denomination through God's Filter? How could you do it? How could you draw a bobbed-hair woman through that Filter? Tell me. How could you ever draw a woman that wears slacks through There, when "It's an abomination for her to put on a garment pertains to a man"? See, God's Filter would catch her out there, It wouldn't let her come in. (But the church has got their own filters.) So I say that there is a thinking man's Filter, that's God's Word, and It suits a holy man's taste. That's right, a holy man; not a church man, but a holy man's taste. Because It's pure, holiness, unadulterated Word of God! There is a thinking man's Filter. And church member, I advise you to use That one.
    How could you ever draw a denomination through God's Filter? How could you do it? How could you draw a bobbed-hair woman through that Filter? Tell me. '''How could you ever draw a woman that wears slacks through There, when "It's an abomination for her to put on a garment pertains to a man"?''' See, God's Filter would catch her out there, It wouldn't let her come in. (But the church has got their own filters.) So I say that there is a thinking man's Filter, that's God's Word, and It suits a holy man's taste. That's right, a holy man; not a church man, but a holy man's taste. Because It's pure, holiness, unadulterated Word of God! There is a thinking man's Filter. And church member, I advise you to use That one.<ref>LEADERSHIP_  COVINA.CA  V-7 N-7  TUESDAY_  65-1207 </ref>
    Because it brings in the world, and one lump of it is death. One lump leavens, the one little leaven leavens the whole lump. "Whosoever shall take one Word out of This, or add one word to It, his part will be taken from the Book of Life." <ref>LEADERSHIP_  COVINA.CA  V-7 N-7  TUESDAY_  65-1207 </ref>
     
    =References=


    <References/>
    {{Bottom of Page}}
    [[Category:Doctrines]]
    [[Category:Legalism]]
    [[Category:William Branham and Women]]
    [[Category:The Message]]
    [[Category:Critical analysis of William Branham‏‎]]

    Latest revision as of 22:13, 29 July 2018

    Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.
    Girls hair.jpg

    This article is one in a series on the Message of William Branham - you are currently in the article that is in bold:


    People that follow William Branham's message can be recognized by the way that their women dress - long dresses and long hair. Additionally men are not permitted to wear shorts (even though William Branham did).

    This is because William Branham taught a "clothes line" religion.

    William Branham's teaching

    William Branham referred to Deuteronomy 22:5 as providing the scriptural basis for women not wearing pants:

    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.[1]

    Here is an examples of William Branham's teaching on the subject:

    The Bible said that it's wrong. And get out on a afternoon and put them little bitty old short clothes on to mow the yard. It's wrong. It's a sin in the sight of God to do that. And you say, "No, I don't wear shorts; I wear slacks." The Bible said, "A woman that'll put on a garment that pertains to a man, it's an abomination in the sight of God." God doesn't change.[2]

    What does the Bible teach on this subject?

    Does the Bible agree with William Branham's dress code?

    What does the New Testament say?

    The New Testament repeatedly warns against trying to import Old Testament laws into the Christian church:

    Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?[3]
    For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”[4]
    ...but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[5]
    For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down tin his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.[6]

    The apostles did not require Gentiles to follow the law. This is clearly outlined in the Book of Acts:

    Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.[7]
    They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
    “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”[8]
    Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”[9]

    So if the Apostles specifically exempted the Gentiles exempted from the laws of Moses and Old Testament law, what gives William Branham the right to bring those laws back into effect in the New Testament church?

    What does the Old Testament teach?

    There are two different Hebrew words in Deuteronomy 22:5 that must be differentiated:

    The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto (kelî) a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment (śimlâ): for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.[10]

    The range of meanings for "kelî" extends beyond “clothing” to vessels and receptacles, utensils, tools and implements, furniture and furnishings, and jewelry. But the second term (śimlâ) is more specific, referring to the outer wrapper or mantle.[11]

    One explanation is that this practice was associated with the religion of Canaan; therefore, it was “an abomination to the LORD.” Apparently women appeared in male garments and men in women’s clothes when they worshiped their pagan deities. Yahweh wanted His people to be unique and to do nothing that was in any way connected with foreign religions.

    Another theory is that this verse could refer to war. A woman was not to put on the trappings (kelî) of a soldier or dress like a man in order to try to gain admission into the army. Nor were men to attempt to avoid military obligation by dressing as women.

    Another explanation often given for this ban is that it obscured the distinction between the sexes and therefore violated an essential part of the created order of life (Gen. 1:27). The Hebrew word kelî is used elsewhere in referring to decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. During the days of Moses, garments worn by men and women were very similar (robes); so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness. The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation. This passage does not teach against women’s wearing slacks, hats, shoes, gloves, or other items that are now worn by both sexes, but rather against the wearing of any item specifically intended for the opposite sex.

    Still another explanation is that this verse refers to the practice of transvestism, a deviant form of sexual behavior which is often characterized by cross-dressing. The verse says women should not wear things “pertaining to” the male. This phrase includes not only clothing, but also ornaments, weapons, and other items normally associated with men.

    Transvestism is sometimes associated with homosexuality, and in the ancient world its practice was associated with the cults of certain deities. Whatever the circumstance, the practice of transvestism was “an abomination to the LORD.“[12]

    In today's world of fashion there are men's pant's and there are women's pants. A man would never wear pants designed for a woman and it would be rare to find women wearing men's pants. Why? They are designed differently. Thus the point made by William Branham and message followers is not relevant in today's society.

    So what is the standard?

    Paul's advice to Christian women with respect to their appearance is recorded in 1 Timothy 2:9-10:

    I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.[13]

    Appropriate apparel was necessary for signaling modesty and respectability, inappropriate outer adornment — flouting the acceptable dress-code — was sure to raise suspicions of promiscuity and immoderation. Apparently the pre-Christian Roman republic had passed laws meant to discourage ostentation and encourage frugality. It naturally dwelt on the various ways in which ostentation might be shown, including the dress and adornment of wealthy women.

    Paul lists four items.

    1. First to be mentioned is “elaborate hairstyles.” The term that means literally “braiding” refers to the complex and fancy styling of hair—plaiting and piling it on top of the head—preferred by fashionable wealthy women of a certain sort. This style presented the exact opposite to the modest, simpler styles traditionally associated with the model imperial women as displayed in the statuary. The modest imperial style was meant to set the cultural trend, but many women of means did not follow suit.47
    2. After referring to hairstyles, Paul shifts to jewelry. Jewelry was regarded as emblematic of the shameful woman. “Gold” was the most valuable of metals and the precious metal of choice by women who practiced ostentation and men who desired to bring attention of this sort to their wives. It came further to be linked with the dress code of highly paid prostitutes.
    3. “Pearls” also occupied a place in the caricature of imprudent ostentation.
    4. “Expensive clothes” completes the profile of the immodest Roman wife. Modest clothing associated with propriety and respectability was simple and full. What is envisioned by this description, found widely in the literature, is the showy expensive apparel that came to be associated with the woman drawing attention to herself—the prostitute and the promiscuous woman. The critique is precise. It prohibits the kind the dress and adornment that would associate Christian women with the revolutionary “new woman” already in evidence in the East. Were that connection to be made, the church would be open to allegations of endorsing this departure from traditional values.

    Paul’s language implies that the standard was known and generally accepted. At first sight, the shift from apparel to conduct (“good deeds”) seems abrupt, but as already pointed out, in this kind of ethical discourse “adornment” was code for behavior. The shift allows a fuller description of the modest adornment encouraged for Christian women in v. 9.

    First, he characterizes Christian wives as “those who profess to worship God.” The language of “professing” suggests a serious and perhaps public claim to be believers. The content of the claim is expressed with the term theosebeia. It is equivalent to the term eusbeia that defines authentic Christian existence as the integration of faith in God and the behavior that demonstrates this (2:3 and Excursus). Its choice selection here over the more frequently used term may correspond to the specific reference to wives (or to the language of the claim they were making), but in any case it indicates a claim to be authentic worshipers of God.

    Second, he redefines appropriate adornment (the infinitive “to adorn” is still in effect) in terms of “good deeds,” which is shorthand for the visible dimension of authentic faith—action done as the outworking of faith to benefit others. In Paul’s formulation of the concept the inner reality (knowledge of God, faith) and outer action come together in a life of service in accordance with God’s truth. The sphere in which wives/women are to perform these deeds of faith is not limited to the worship setting, but would include the household and more public places of life.

    The whole of verses 9–10 thus forms a challenge to a group of well-to-do Christian wives for whom the emerging trend of the new Roman woman, with its emphasis on outer show and rejection of cultural norms of modesty, was becoming a potent attraction. The language of the prohibition identifies this cultural trend rather specifically. Equally, reference to modesty and self-control identifies the dress codes and symbols of modesty and chastity that the new women were spurning, though as Christian virtues they have been deepened by the Christ event. Ultimately, Paul calls these Christian wives to give proof of their claim to godliness (1) by dressing modestly, (2) by living a life characterized by modesty and self-control and (3) by doing works of Christian service.[14]

    It is clear that the New Testament contains no prohibition against women wearing pants. However, women were required to dress respectfully and modestly but that did not mean they could not wear pants or any other specific type of attire.

    Arguments used by Branham's followers

    Message believers state that because the Bible classifies a women wearing a man's garment as an abomination, it is something that God hates and is therefore still an abomination today.

    The problem with this approach is that it require other abominations in the Old Testament to be obeyed as well:

    And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.  Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
    And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,  And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
    All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.  Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;  Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.  But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.[15]
    You shall not eat any abomination.  These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.[16]
    A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.[17]

    Horoscopes are out too!

    There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD.[18]

    Quotes

    Oh, I thought, what a thing for Christianity! Women, stop that wearing them clothes like that! Man, stop that telling them smutty jokes and all that stuff! We are sons and daughters of the King. Dress like a queen, dress like a--a lady. Act like a gentleman, don't let your hair grow down like this. The Bible said, "It's wrong (nature teaches you) for a man to have long hair. And it's a disgrace and a common thing for even a woman to pray with her hair cut." And how about these? "It's a--it's an abomination for a woman to put on a garment that pertains to a man." The great unchanging God doesn't change.[19]

    How could a bobbed-haired woman ever come through this Filter? How could a woman with shorts on ever come through It, or slacks, when the Bible says, "It's an abomination to God, for a woman to put on a garment that even pertains to a man"? And how can a man that thinks anything of himself, get out here and dress like the women, let his hair grow out like a woman, down in his eyes, with bangs, and twirled up like that? He is wearing his wife's underneath clothes. She is wearing his outer clothes. A thinking man's filter? A thinking man won't do that, or a thinking woman won't do it. God's Word won't let it pass through. [20]

    "Blessed are they that do all the commandments of God, that they might have a right to enter in." Do all God said, and It said for women to have long hair. You say... A man told me not long ago, said, "I don't preach a clothes-line religion." I said, "Then you're not preaching the Gospel." Yeah.

    God laid it out there, He said what to do. And you either do it... That's your natural, reasonable thing. What little thing... what... the little insignificant. Jesus said, "Blessed are they that would take all the little thing, do the little things." And a woman to let her hair grow, that's just a... why, it's just something she can do, and she won't even do that. She won't even do that. [21]

    How could you ever draw a denomination through God's Filter? How could you do it? How could you draw a bobbed-hair woman through that Filter? Tell me. How could you ever draw a woman that wears slacks through There, when "It's an abomination for her to put on a garment pertains to a man"? See, God's Filter would catch her out there, It wouldn't let her come in. (But the church has got their own filters.) So I say that there is a thinking man's Filter, that's God's Word, and It suits a holy man's taste. That's right, a holy man; not a church man, but a holy man's taste. Because It's pure, holiness, unadulterated Word of God! There is a thinking man's Filter. And church member, I advise you to use That one.[22]


    Footnotes

    1. ↑ The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Deut 22:5.
    2. ↑ William Branham, 58-0316A - As The Eagle Stirs Her Nest And Fluttereth Over Her Young, para. 41
    3. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ga 3:2.
    4. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ga 3:10.
    5. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ga 5:13–15.
    6. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Eph 2:14–16.
    7. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ac 15:19–20.
    8. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ac 15:22–29.
    9. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ac 21:24–25.
    10. ↑ The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Dt 22:5.
    11. ↑ Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 512.
    12. ↑ John C. Maxwell and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Deuteronomy, vol. 5, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1987), 241–242.
    13. ↑ The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Ti 2:9–10.
    14. ↑ Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 208–210.
    15. ↑ The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Le 11:10–23
    16. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Dt 14:3–5.
    17. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Dt 25:15–16
    18. ↑ The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Dt 18:10–12.
    19. ↑ DOORS.IN.DOOR_ FLAGSTAFF.AZ V-17 N-3 SATURDAY_ 65-0206
    20. ↑ GOD'S.POWER.TO.TRANSFORM_ PHOENIX.AZ V-16 N-5 SATURDAY_ 65-0911
    21. ↑ GOD'S ONLY PROVIDED PLACE OF WORSHIP SHP.LA 65-1128M
    22. ↑ LEADERSHIP_ COVINA.CA V-7 N-7 TUESDAY_ 65-1207


    Navigation

    Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=The_Message_Dress_Code&oldid=23316"