Dressing Up A Woman Preacher
"And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach (Exo. 28:42)."
"And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him (Exo. 28:42)."
"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 (Deut. 22:5)."
The word "breeches" in the above text describes a particular garment that was to be worn by the Priesthood. It was not a new invention. Men had been wearing breeches for many centuries before they were made a necessary part of the wardrobe of the priest.
Anyone who has ever studied archeological findings, has observed that men wore a form of breeches during work and at other times. The breeches were worn without a covering and they were worn with other garments over them. The purpose of these breeches was to hide the pudenda and secure modesty not otherwise protected in wearing the other loose fitting garments. It is true that men did not wear breeches all the time but, they nevertheless were specifically a man's garment. If they were a woman's garment, it would have been an ABOMINATION for a man to have worn them at anytime, and much more while acting as a Priest. Therefore, breeches definitely pertain to a man, because Aaron and his sons are commanded to wear them when they approach the Altar of God.
There have been a number of arguments circulating lately among Apostolics, alleging that women have the right to wear breeches. By "breeches" they mean pants, britches, trousers, slacks, and blue-jeans. They argue that men are not the only ones God allows to wear these types of garments. So they have granted women the right to wear these garments, even to Church. Many Pentecostal women actually preach wearing them. Recently, a man claiming to be Apostolic informed me that he now permits his wife to wear pants while she is preaching. So the disease of abomination has infiltrated even among so-called Apostolics.
I have been cited three reasons why women can wear that which pertained to man and specifically allowed to wear all forms of breeches as worn by the Priesthood:
#1) It is alleged that the Law prohibiting women from wearing men's apparel and from men wearing women's apparel was abolished on Calvary. Therefore, they preach that God erased from his mind the idea of ABOMINATION when he sees a man with a woman's garment on and when he sees a woman with a man's garment on. So both men and women may now be transvestites (cross dressers) and God counts it still as holiness and righteousness.
#2) It is alleged that men and women both wore robes and there was no difference in male and female robes. So therefore, men could not put on a garment that pertains to a woman, and a woman could not put on a garment that pertained to a man. They could each wear one another's robes.
#3) It is alleged that what God was prohibiting men and women from wearing in Deut. 22:5, was military uniforms. They claim that during war, men would often become frightened and put on a female-styled robe and act like a woman to escape going to war as their duty. Women are alleged to have put on men's military clothing and fight in battles doing man's duty. It is alleged that God wanted men to be bold and fight, and considered it an abomination for any of them to run from war dressed in a woman's robe.
You may laugh now or later when you read this nonsense to your friends. Go ahead, have a good hearty chuckle. There are so many contradictions in these three excuses that I can not deal with them in the scope of this little book. But I will sum them up as follows:
Rebuttal to #1) If indeed transvestism, or cross-dressing in the clothing of the opposite sex was abolished at Calvary, and it is now holiness and righteousness before God, why won't they allow a man dressed as a woman to preach in their pulpits? By dress as a woman, I mean, a man having long uncut hair, wearing matching red silk panties, a fake bra, and a slip; over this he is wearing a woman's pin-striped suit having a skirt; he is wearing red high heels and decorative nylons. If God has abolished the idea of ABOMINATION from his mind, then any man could mount a platform so dressed and preach the Gospel of Jesus Messiah, and everyone should shout hallelujah!
But do they practice this absurdity? NO THEY DO NOT! Do they allow men to mount the platform dressed like this? NO THEY DO NOT! But they will allow a masculine transvestite dressed woman, with a dyke hair-cut, wearing men's apparel, on the platform to sing and preach? Why is their doctrine so good for the woman but not the man? Has their god changed his mind? Do they find it repugnant and detestable for an effeminate male to dress like a woman and preach to them? Are not these alleged ministers condemned by their own contradictions? Are they not sexist in their liberal doctrine? Are they not anti-effeminate-male if they do not permit him to dress like a woman? Are they not seeking some favor from one or more women to permit them to wear men's apparel? Until I see EVERY minister who teaches this doctrine, wear long uncut hair like a woman; put on enough makeup to paint the side of a barn; and wearing and preaching in a full woman's skirt-suit with matching red high heels and nylons, on a weekly basis, I will call them all LIARS.
Rebuttal to #2) The idea of unisex robes is silly. Go tell an orthodox Jew that nonsense. The fact is, there were male and female robes. Although they may seem to be somewhat similar, they nevertheless were quite male and female in designs, styles, patterns, and colors. The argument that men and women wore exchangeable robes would contradict God telling the whole house of Israel that there was such an occasion for a man and woman to be an abomination by wearing apparel that pertained to the opposite sex. If there were no opposite sex styles of clothing, the COMMANDMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN A NULLITY! If God said for men and women not to cross-dress, then robes are not the issue here. God is strictly prohibiting the abomination of TRANSVESTISM. This is part of the purpose of this Law. It is a prohibitation against homosexuals and lesbians cross-dressing to attract a person of the same sex in disguise. Wearing the clothing of the opposite sex was a sign of sexual abomination. God hated it then, and he hates it now! Go read for yourself, how many sins God considered an abomination because of a perversion of the sexual orientation.
Rebuttal to #3) God prohibiting military men from dressing in a woman's robe to escape death is a lie. To claim this lie is true, you will notice that the reprobate who proposed it, had previously stated that men and women wore unisex robes and there were no male or female differences. Now he has men hiding from war in women's robes? How would this cowering male know what others would consider a women's robe and pass over him if there was no difference? The idea of zeroing in on robes is a shallow argument that exposes how novice and juvenile these minds are. The assertion that there was a distinction between men's military clothes from that worn by women, proves that at least on two accounts, male and female apparel differs. When we add the apparel to be worn by the priesthood, it makes at least three different types of apparel between male and female, that even these reprobate preachers have identified. If God considered it an abomination for a man of war to put on a woman's garment to hide from his duty, then surely a woman wearing her proper apparel would acknowledge she is performing her duty. A man wearing his proper garments would acknowledge he was also performing his duty. They are condemned by their own argument when it is drawn to its conclusion.
It is easy to deduce from the foregoing, that if a man was an abomination because he dressed in a woman's robe to escape his duty, then likewise, a woman was an abomination if she wore man's breeches to perform his duty of Priesthood.
God ordained the Priesthood to wear breeches under their linen outer garment. These breeches were more than underwear. The Scripture says they were to reach the thigh. The word "reach" in the Hebrew carries with it the idea of "past". In other words, the linen breeches were to reach and could go past the thighs. They were not to rise any higher than the thighs. The area of the thigh extends to the knee. When the outer linen garment of the priest was cast over these breeches, the man's nakedness was covered to his ankles. Thence, it was the will of God that a man be clothed to his ankles.
We do not know when breeches were made to extend to the ankles. We do know that in doing this, the nakedness of man was the issue and equaled wearing the full length robe. Breeches were not designed by God for women. They could therefore, never replace the covering of their thighs and legs with pants, with their robes off.
The idea that we should all return to wearing robes, is another novice and juvenile deduction. The issue here is TRANSVESTISM. The issue is nakedness. The issue is homosexuality and lesbianism. The issue is a perverted spirit. The issue is that men have God-approved holiness clothing when they come before the Lord's altar. It is indeed timely, that just as the Sodom and Gomorrah spirit invaded the land, men who claimed they are of God, begin to permit the homosexual and lesbian spirit of transvestism to enter and take over their Churches and pulpits. This was predicted and prophesied by Jesus Messiah. These men and their Churches cannot hide their identity. What they practice is what they preach. They preach that transvestism and homosexual flavored clothes, are "godly" and privileged upon the platform. You know what they are doing when they are not in Church. Otherwise, their Churches are an example of their lives.
One such minister apostated in like manner. He became a homosexual. When he was asked what caused him to make this switch, he is said to have remarked:
"My wife was a beautiful woman. After I changed my doctrine and allowed her to cut her hair and start wearing pants, I could not ignore and admire how much she looked like a man from behind. When I looked at her in bed, she looked like a man. Before long, I began to fantasize she was a man. It was easy then, especially after we adopted video and started watching sex films in the privacy of our bedroom."
This minister is dead today. He died of AIDS at the young age of 42. He pastored Oneness Churches in Mississippi and elsewhere. At one time he was a wonderful preacher and could write songs, play the organ, and sing as good as any Apostolic I have ever heard. He is lost today because he went back on the Apostolic Doctrine, deceived that he was being liberated from bondage, legalism, and stone-age religion.
The breeches designed by God to be worn by men, qualified Aaron and his sons to Minister before the Lord. If they refused to wear them, they were adjudicated to bear iniquity. Read the text previously cited on page 34 and see it for yourself. At the Lord's altar, with breeches on they were holy, with breeches off they were in iniquity.
What does all this say of women preachers? Precisely that she could have never been a Priestess in the Old Testament because she would have had to wear breeches. Since this was men's apparel, it would have been an ABOMINATION for a woman to minister as a Priestess before the altar of the Lord. If she did wear them, it was an abomination, and if she did not wear them while masquerading as a priest, she would have been committing iniquity. Therefore, in addition to all other things, she was prohibited from priestesshood based upon the wearing of garments.
Although some so-called Apostolics permit women preachers to minister at the altar of the Lord, they have balked at allowing them to preach in pants? WHY? One would qualify and make holy the OTHER!
Was wearing holy britches a sign of Priesthood in the Old Testament? If women can have the office of a New Testament Priesthood, why forbid them the wearing of pants, slacks, or blue-jeans while doing it? WHAT BETTER WAY TO PROVE A WOMAN CAN MINISTER, THAN TO ALLOW HER TO WEAR PANTS, SLACKS, AND BLUE-JEANS? If God permits one, he ordains the other. If he permits women to dress like men, then men may also dress like women. This BISEXUAL, UNISEX apostasy, will automatically open up the pulpits to homosexuals and lesbians. The tri-sexual ministry of Mystery Babylon, of male, female, and homosexuals and lesbians will be complete in our generation!
To dress up a woman priestess and make her into a woman preacher, she must minister while wearing pants. If this is an abomination to God, then she is barred forever from behind the Pulpit.
In our search for the Apostolic Woman, we will not find her wearing men's apparel. Just because they moved the zipper from the front to the side of a pair of britches does not make it women's apparel, any more than moving a zipper from the side of a woman's dress or skirt to the front would change it into men's apparel. Transvestism (cross-dressing) is an abomination. It is an abomination because God said so. There needs to be no question as to why. God, in his sovereign will declared it. Since he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, those Apostolic Women of Faith, will trust their souls to heaven, and refrain from dressing like men. Accordingly, they will stay off the platform and from behind the pulpit, claiming to be a woman preacher called of God. This is the Apostolic Woman!
God drew the line against women in the Priesthood in the Old Testament and we shall see that he kept this doctrine in the coming of the New Testament.
Tribute | Forward | Introduction
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19