Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.....

Recently a young girl of 16 wrote about feminine modesty on a blog.

"My mother and I were looking through the JCPenney fall/winter catalogue we got in the mail today. It was so saddening seeing beautiful females cover up their femininity in men’s clothing! There was a beautiful lady wearing a jacket that looked like it could have come from my father’s closet along with cargo pants that looked like men’s as well. It was really sad! This women had beautiful feminine hair and a pleasant face. But when you looked at her clothing, that’s where all the gorgeous beauty ended, because her femininity wasn’t there. She looked androgynous-her hair was feminine, her clothes weren’t. This is why I’m so passionate about this subject. It was tragic to see women cover up their God-given beauty of femininity. Likewise, it would be tragic to see a man walking down the street in a floor-length gown! This is not the way God designed it. In whatever culture or country you’re in, He wants women to be feminine and men to be masculine, whatever that looks like in that particular country."

It was really sad? I could hardly say that this is a reasonable reaction to this picture. Sad? No, not so much.

I wanted to see what she was referring to so I got out my Fall/Winter JCPenney Catalogue and looked for the picture of the beautiful woman wearing men's clothing.

I don't know. That is an outfit I would wear. Actually, I wouldn't mind getting it if the jacket weren't so much money.

I sure hope her dad wouldn't wear the jacket because it is quite feminine...3/4 sleeves, notched cuffs, short cut. At least I would hope he wouldn't wear such a jacket. I really don't think any man would dare to be caught dead in it.

And, cargo pants, depending upon the occasion and setting, could be very appropriate. I personally like them and I have never been accused of being androgynous (indeterminate sex) and I hardly think it is accurate to say that about this model.

Now, look at the picture. Is this an androgynous looking person? Would she be the next "Pat" in the Saturday Night Live sketch? Does her "gorgeous beauty" end at her neck? Is she covering up her God-given femininity? Is it really anyone's business to foist upon others their own personal definition of what a female should look like?

When I look at the picture, I think that this woman likes the outdoors and that she is adventurous. She is beautiful and sporty and she is every ounce a woman even in her cargo pants and her houndstooth jacket.

Deuteronomy 22:5 says this:

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.

When looking up the Hebrew, it is not talking about clothing. In that time, men and woman both wore robes. The Hebrew seems to be using words that mean "instruments, utensils, apparatus" when it says "that which pertaineth" and the Hebrew word for "man" is not the usual word for man but it is "geber" which means "warrior". And when this verse speaks to the man, it is speaking more in terms of putting on actual clothing. It is not saying that pants belong to a man, especially since pants weren't even around when this verse was written.

Basically, it is saying that the woman should not be taking up arms and becoming a warrior in battle and a man should not be putting on the garments of women. It is not saying that there are no similarities between the garments of men and women, either. Also, there is nothing wrong with a woman using an "implement" in order to protect herself and her family. I believe the general gist of this verse was speaking against cross-dressing (for men) and women going out and picking up implements in order to be warriors. Darn! That means no more Xena, Warrior Princess for me?????

The mindset among some is that this verse is forbidding a woman from wearing pants. And as we know Scottish men have worn kilts and still wear them. This same young lady claimed that if all the men in Scotland wore kilts, then the women cannot wear skirts/dresses. She said that they would have to wear pants in order to not be "sinfully androgynous". So, according to her understanding (one has to wonder whose teaching she has been sitting under????), it is a man and the culture NOT the Bible that dictates to women what she may or may not wear. As we all know that is a totally false understanding of Scripture.

Labels: , ,


At July 16, 2008 3:07 PM , Blogger Mrs W said...

While I've never interpreted Deuteronomy 22:5 the way you do, I think if God meant that women couldn't wear pants, He would have said so. Ironically, if you look up the word "skirt" in the Bible, you'll see that the person wearing the skirt that is mentioned is ALWAYS male.

At July 16, 2008 3:14 PM , Blogger Lin said...

My mom told me the story of how she got her mom to finally relent and allow her to wear pants. Keep in mind, this was the 1930's. They had gone downtown and had passed a woman working in her garden...the woman stooped over to pick something up and mom took the opportunity to say, See, mama, wouldn't it be better if she were wearing pants? My mom was 16 at the time.

Can you imagine my mom played basketball in high school competively in a skirt? She skated, played golf, did chores, etc., in dresses and skirts. She was also a big time tomboy.

Her godly mom had to admit it was just legalism and bought her some pants that very day.

My mom was real big on pants suits. She thought there was nothing more elegant than a tailored pantsuit with heels. And she was quite elegant.

Isn't it sad how much in bondage these people are to works, roles and rules?

BTW: My missionary cousin swears by cargo pants in the field. She needs all those pockets! She also wears a photographers vest when she is traveling in the bush in case the vehicle breaks down so she can stuff it with the incidentals she will need.

At July 16, 2008 3:22 PM , Blogger Corrie said...

Hi Mrs. W,

That is an interesting point. I didn't know that.

How do you interpret that verse? I think it is open for interpretation, especially because of the chapter it is found in. I would be very curious to hear your thoughts on it and I am not thinking that I have a full understanding of the true meaning of it.

I just re-read the whole Chapter and it is quite interesting. If vs. 5 is still in effect today then that would mean the stoning of the damsel not found to be a virgin would still be in effect. Also, the father-gets-to-decide-whether-or-not-his-daughter-has-to-marry-the-rapist clause would still be in effect.

But, this I found to be highly comical:

"Deu 22:30 ¶ A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt."

LOL! I guess that means skirts are "that which pertaineth to a man"????

In Eze. 16:8 it says that God will spread His "skirt" over Jerusalem in order to cover her nakedness.

I would think that we could do the same things with these verses as those who claim skirts are for women do.

At July 16, 2008 3:27 PM , Blogger Corrie said...


I love cargo pants because of the pockets. It is totally perfect for a mom of little ones. Also, I love photography and with the many lenses, caps, filters, cards, etc, lots of pockets come in handy.

It really is sad. That is what is truly sad not a woman wearing clothing MADE FOR women. These people make up the rules as they go along and they are not consistent in their use of the Scriptures. They actually do USE Scripture for their own agendas. And that, to me, is a breaking of the commandment that tells us we shall not use the name of the Lord our God in vain.

At July 16, 2008 3:29 PM , Blogger Cindy said...


This post is better than most of the articles in most Christian magazines!


I think I had an outfit very much like this when I was young and single. I was called anything but androgenous. I wore a tweed jacket much like this one with a velveteen collar, and it was quite sweet. I would be happy to wear a nice outfit like this, too.

At July 16, 2008 3:35 PM , Blogger thatmom said...

Oh, that jacket is so cute! I am not a big fan of cargo pants however. I don’t need any extra layers that make a shelf booty, or shelf thighs, or shelf anything else!

I have a friend who is an investment banker and she wears the most beautiful and lovely pantsuits with heels. She also wears feminine blouses with them and her trademark is cute purses to match. She has shoulder length curly hair and if anyone thinks she is a boy they need glasses.

This whole discussion makes me tired. Why are these people on a crusade to put all Christian women in dresses? Why is this so important? Some say it is because pants aren’t modest. Others say that pants are androgynous. At least they need to get their stories straight. I find the whole thing so bizarre and, frankly, a little obsessive.

And did you know that now girls can even wear jeans on campus at Bob Jones? They’re all going to hell.

At July 16, 2008 5:29 PM , Blogger Lin said...

"Why are these people on a crusade to put all Christian women in dresses?"

Money and power.

Follow the money? There has to be books, clothes, patterns, material, etc., for sale somewhere. Didn't I read somewhere that someone had a business selling clothing to the Pat women?

At July 16, 2008 5:35 PM , Blogger simplegifts3 said...

Those women look very feminine to me, and very modest, also. What more does anybody want?

At July 16, 2008 5:36 PM , Blogger Organizing Mommy said...


The cargo pants are a little "big around the bottom" for my tastes, but I like a tailored jacket. I struggle with these issues too. In order to do all the Proverbs 31 tasks, it takes more than a skirt. Glad for freedom in this area.

At July 16, 2008 8:47 PM , Blogger Richard D said...

Deu 22:30 ¶ A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

So - is the proper interpretation of this that a man should not go through his father's private stash of women's clothing because his dad might be embarrassed when his son discovers his cross-dressing ways?

I'm so confused.

At July 16, 2008 9:23 PM , Blogger Corrie said...


Uhhh....errrr....mmmmm....I suppose???? ROFLOL

Organizing Mommy,

You ALWAYS look lovely in your tailored outfits. The cargo pants have too many pockets for my taste but I do like that style. They have some other lovely pants in the Fall/Winter catalogue, too. The tailored kind that have the wider pant leg. Very nice!


I understand about the "shelf". :-)

At July 16, 2008 9:25 PM , Blogger Corrie said...

Indelible Grace,

I don't know what they want, at least consciously.

I would really like to some someone making an EFFORT to rightly divide the scriptures instead of this slipshod, sloppy, inconsistent usage.

At July 16, 2008 9:53 PM , Blogger Corrie said...


Thank you for your kind words.

I guess I was just very curious after reading her words and I needed to have a look-see for myself in the JCPenney catalogue. Actually, the outfits in the catalogue are lovely and there are so many very feminine and modest outfits. I remember looking through it before I read this online and I had marked a few outfits that I was interested in.

I didn't see anything that was "tragic" or "saddening", that is for sure.

Anyone have a good idea what the passage in Deut. 22:5 is talking about? I just threw out what I found when I looked in my Hebrew lexicon but I am very interested to hear what you all have to say.

At July 16, 2008 10:49 PM , Blogger Kathleen F. said...

The girl said:
"It was tragic to see women cover up their God-given beauty of femininity."

No, it's sad and tragic to see oppressed women having to wear the same plain, long, drab dresses in the FLDS cult, though they are the prescribed "feminine" garb.

It's sad to see them have to wear hand-me-downs from the 1st wives, or the girls have to wear them from their "kin" in the 1st wives families.

It's tragic when a woman in Muslim countries is beaten and perhaps killed because she was not guarding her feminine ankles or face.

It's sad to see so much legalism in such young minds.

And, on a lighter note:

It's sad that I don't have the cash to buy me some nifty new pants and a tweed jacket. ;)

At July 17, 2008 12:12 AM , OpenID adventuresinmercy said...

What is tragic is spending time looking at the JCPenny's catalog thinking that that woman is tragic. What is tragic is thinking that any shred of androgeny is tragic. What is tragic is that a couple hundred babies died while I was writing this comment. THAT is what's tragic.

At July 17, 2008 1:46 AM , Blogger Andrea said...

Oooh, I love those boots she's wearing! I also love the cut of her blazer, although I suspect my curves might be a bit too much for it to cope with. I also like the straight the lines of her trousers though I am personally not tall enough to pull them off with the external pockets . . . in all, I think she looks like a lovely and confident woman (maybe that's the problem? She's confident enough to be there by herself? To DRIVE?). I also have to say I like the way they seem to have made an effort to NOT glamorize her overmuch, but have made her look rather natural.

And Molly, I agree. The sickest, most tragic part of this is that while people sit self righteously picking apart what a woman in a magasine is wearing (or even while we sit here admiring her outfit), people are dying. Puts a bit of perspective on the thing, doesn't it?

(Incidentally we don't have a JC Penney where I live, but I like to look at the Mark's Work Wearhouse catalogue, myself. I always joke to my sister that when I am mum to a few kids and maybe making soccer runs I am going to shop there-- in addition to carrying a large selection of clothes for the industrial and healthcare industries, they also they carry everyday wear for men and a nice line of lovely, comfortable women's clothing. Lots of pretty, practical trousers. No androgyny)

At July 17, 2008 8:08 AM , Blogger Eileen said...

Amen! Great post Corrie! I am so glad to have found you and your blog again!

At July 17, 2008 8:38 AM , Blogger Corrie said...


LOL! My 17 year old daughter, after I asked her to look at the picture and tell me what she thought, said that the problem was that the woman was daring to get into the driver's seat of the car! :-)


I agree. I can think of a lot more tragic things than a woman who wears a twead jacket and pants.


I am so glad that you found me, too! Long time no see. Your girls are beautiful and I can't believe how big your son has gotten. I still remember him crawling through the hamster tubes at McD's with my girls! :-)

At July 17, 2008 3:09 PM , Blogger Cindy said...

And it's a blessing that the model is not wearing ARMY boots. The boots look quite fashionable. (Can PM's wear any kind of boots?)

At July 17, 2008 5:16 PM , Anonymous Kathy said...

I just discovered your site and I'm so glad to have stumbled upon it. My 20 year old daughter said "No guy I associate with would wear that."
I actually think that they are far more attractive and feminine than so much of what the "skirts only" crowd wears. Some of those denim skirts have a difficult time being defined as feminine and pretty. Practical, maybe, modest, well yes, pretty, no.

At July 17, 2008 5:53 PM , Blogger Mike Hutchison said...

Great post Corrie.

You pose an excellent question as to how much of Dueteronomy 22 is applicable under the New Covenant.

If you ask 100 adherents to Covenant Theology, they will give you 100 different answers. Does verse five fit into what they call the "ceremonial law" or the "Moral law"?

The good news is that it is a non-issue.

Scripture indicates that Christ nailed the Mosaic Law to the cross and abolished it, making it of no legal binding affect.

The Law of Christ simply states that women should dress modestly so as not to be a stumbling block to their brothers in Christ.

Yes, once again the "Law" that is binding on us now is motivated by love for one another.

The clothing in the ad appear to be stylish and modest to me.

And the young lady who wrote the post can stop worrying, men are rarely confused about the gender of women who are wearing pants.

At July 17, 2008 6:41 PM , Blogger Anne2 said...

Jacket looks like one Jennie Chancey designed and sells.

At July 17, 2008 10:30 PM , Blogger Psalmist said...

"Why are these people on a crusade to put all Christian women in dresses? Why is this so important?"

IMO, it's because they're obsessed with outward appearances and conformity. I suspect there's also a kind of satisfaction in focusing on these invented sins of others, because the more one does that, the less one focuses on one's own shortcomings. And finally, I think there's no small element of "majoring in the minors," as in getting all worked up about other people's attire, rather than being on fire about connecting other people with Jesus Christ. It's pretty much impossible to be reaching people for Christ if you never look past whether you've judged their clothing as "feminine" enough.

At July 19, 2008 5:27 AM , Blogger Richard D said...

What is tragic is that a couple hundred babies died while I was writing this comment.

Molly - you're right on the money. Perhaps the reason Satan is clouding the minds of these folks is so they won't have time to try to overcome the truly tragic.

At July 19, 2008 11:21 AM , Blogger madame said...

We all know you are just looking for excuses to wear pants. (lol)

You are so right, Molly, Richard and Psalmist, it's all about selling their stuff and they are probably so blinkered they can't even see how ridiculous their claims are.

The tragedy is just how small an issue women's dress is if you look at what all is happening in the world. It becomes a non-issue.

At July 19, 2008 11:24 AM , Blogger madame said...

And it is sad how so many theologians will spend so much money, time and energy on researching secondary "Biblical" issues...
I wonder what Jesus would have to say if he came now and saw how some people use His word to make strange laws that He never made in the first place.

At July 19, 2008 12:39 PM , Blogger simplegifts3 said...

Some of these men look awfully feminized.


At July 19, 2008 2:19 PM , Blogger TheNormalMiddle said...

At first blush, my comment to all of this is:

Isn't there a war going on?
Arent' there starving children all over the globe?

Surely, surely there are more important "wars" to fight than the cargo-pants & blazer war?

Oh to be that pampered, that my only concern is how women should or should not dress. Too bad I have other things to deal with, like mortgages to pay and children to feed, and what not.

At July 19, 2008 2:47 PM , Blogger Jennifer said...

Corrie, your article is excellent and I hope you sent a copy of it to Rebekah! On another note, though, I was very alarmed to see the possibility that the Bible was forbidding women from taking up arms! I've been a supporter of female soldiers for a long time now. It was a relief, then, to see the suggestion that this particular passage, along with fellow OT passages, might not be relevant to today.

At July 20, 2008 9:07 PM , Blogger Corrie said...


I truly do not know exactly what the passage is referring to but I do know it isn't saying that pants are men's wear. I would love to have any input anyone has on this passage and what they think it is saying.


You are right. There are wars and mortgages and starving children but it looks like some think that a nice looking woman wearing a jacket a man wouldn't be caught dead in is right up there with all those other tragic things. Weird.


Yes! They do look a bit effeminate. :-)


You caught me! ;-)

At July 20, 2008 9:13 PM , Blogger Corrie said...


Thank you.

You are right that the New Covenant teaches us that we should dress modestly but the patrios would like to tell us exactly what that means. They want to add on burdens when Christ came to set us free to be governed by the Holy Spirit and to have liberty.

Anne 2,

You are right. That jacket does look a little Spencerian or something. Maybe it is the tweed/houndstooth and that makes it the cloth that pertaineth unto men?


I am glad you found us. I am missing in action around here most of the time but there are many great blogs attached to the people who are posting under this post. Follow the links!

At July 23, 2008 7:08 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, Corrie, I think I know you from other venues.

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that Christian teenaged girls are being socialized to look down their noses at people? We wouldn't be discussing this issue here if a young girl wasn't judging models in a catalog rather harshly.

We are called to be modest (which the models were modest,) We are also called to love one another and not spend our time gossiping and casting judgement against one another (taps toes wondering when that will ever happen.)

We were never called to be prarie muffins although that seems to be the gold standard in some circlces.

At July 25, 2008 8:45 PM , Anonymous Anne2 said...

While on the subject of Prairie Muffins. Is this supposed to be a proud self-humbling slur? First thing I think of is what we used to use for pucks in the winter when we had no pucks, if you kwim?

At August 04, 2008 10:00 PM , Blogger qb said...

Corrie, over at JesusCreed you had asked why I used the spelling "womyn" instead of "women."

Mainly, it's because I'm one of the enlightened, emasculated, intimidated few. See for example:

Or Google the term "womyn," and you'll see that qb is a card-carrying femynist in good standing.

From scanning your blog, it would appear that you and I have much more in common than our exchange at JesusCreed might suggest! All the best to you and yours.

Cheerfully from right of center,


At August 09, 2008 12:15 AM , Blogger Corrie said...

Hi QB,

Thanks for stopping by. And thanks for explaining why you spell women that way. It is new to me. :-)

At August 13, 2008 11:01 AM , Blogger One Who Has Been Burned said...

If one would just take the time to look at the clothing women/men have worn through time, it would become readily apparent that women during ancient civilizations wore pants.

Galatia was settled by Celts. These Celtic women wore a type of tunic over some slacks. Yet, none of the apostles or disciples corrected the Celts—male or female—for females wearing pants.

As I look about today, even conservative congregations do not see men wearing togas or their men going to work in togas like the ancient Romans.

Culture is important. I enjoy the Christian culture that I claim as my heritage.

Clearly, this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with Christian women wearing slacks. It has more to do with transvestites.

It is clearly immodest for a female to wear a dress or skirt when touring a navy boat (as the sailors will look up the stairs and ... well, need I say more?)

There are numerous examples that demonstrate that in many situations dresses/skirts are clearly immodest.

At August 18, 2008 2:07 PM , Blogger believer333 said...

Corrie, can you give the exact word you are referring to.

In looking it up in my Dictionary of OT Theology they say that it is alluding to the external symbols involved in a pagan fertility rite. Thus it would be correct that it is forbidding homosexuality including cross-dressing and also pagan cultic rituals. But it would not include taking up arms in a war. Even though warriors are primarily men for good reason, there is nothing inherently sinful about a woman warrior as there is homosexuality.

At August 18, 2008 3:51 PM , Anonymous Dawn Wilson said...

Believer 333, you just made the point I was going to make - it is NOT sinful or against God's Word for a woman to take up or bear weapons of warfare.

In fact Psalm 68:11(Complete Jewish Bible) Adonai gives the command; the women with the good news are a mighty army.

Psalm 68: 11 (Kings James Version) The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

The word company as used in the King James Version is “tsaba” in the Hebrew language. Tsaba is a feminine form of the word
“tsbaah,” which means “a mass of persons especially organized for war, an army, soldiers.”

At August 19, 2008 9:37 AM , Blogger CJ said...

"This whole discussion makes me tired. Why are these people on a crusade to put all Christian women in dresses? Why is this so important?.... I find the whole thing so bizarre and, frankly, a little obsessive."

It is obsessive, and it all goes back to the female-submission thing. Not to be crude, but skirts are all about easy access. A woman in skirts is "ready" at a moment's notice, without undressing, should her husband desire sex.

In societies where women have traditionally worn pants for centuries, pants are seen as being more chaste than skirts, and for good reason; and, in ancient times, pants were seen as barbaric for both sexes, and some of the missionaries to places where pants were common articles of attire caused a stir by insisting that folks should wear "civilized" Mediterranean style clothing. By 866 AD, (this was prior to the Reformation OR the schism between Orthodox and western Christianity) the resultant uproar made its way all the way to the Pope in Rome, who wrote that it didn't matter what people wore, or whether men OR women wear pants; the Pope noted, however, that pants were more suited to the needs of men, since they "restrain the seat of lust" -- IE, pants hamper the sexuality of the wearer by preventing easy access to the genitals; obviously the Pope thought that men needed hampering in that area, moreso than women, LOL:

Chapter LVIIII.
We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue. Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God's gift, we could say many more.

At October 02, 2008 4:39 PM , Anonymous From the Middle East said...

Sister Corrie,

While I know little of men's fashion and even less of women's, I do wonder what this young lady thinks of Jesus wearing a dress. Personally I find dresses in the Middle East much more comfortable than men's clothing in the West!

His mercy be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East

At October 10, 2008 11:48 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

That would make sense. I have a great pastor that preaches very well but somehow the leadership desires their wives to be in dresses while allows for those who are laity to dress more casually. I will have to forward this on.

At November 12, 2008 12:41 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Corrie,

I totally agree with your blog. I am 25 years old I was raised in Apostolic churches all my life. We do not or should I say now days some of us do not wear pants, shorts,capris, ect. We also do not cut our hair or color it and also don't wear makeup. I just realize these days we do not have these standards anymore. I guess time has changed is what people say but I don't think God has changed. So if you feel this look is wrong in this cataloge then stand your ground on your belief. Don't change for anyone you have to work out your own salvation. But for me and my house we have our beliefs and standards. Good luck and take care.

At August 28, 2010 8:04 PM , Blogger apostolicfamily4 said...

The bible says " Wherefore Come out from among them and be ye seperate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you" 2 Corinthians 6:17... also "Love not the world neither the things that are in the world, if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" 1John 2:15... Just because the bible doesnt specify "men wear pants or woment wear skirts" doesnt mean thats not what is meant.. We ( being born again christians) are to appear different to those in the world, therefore, I wont be walking around town wearing pants of any kind nor will I be wearing revealing clothing, just because I am covered doesnt mean I am covering up my God-given beauty, it means I have enough respect for God and my husband to be covered. I am for my husband only. not for the world to see,
We aim to please our God, for He is a Holy God, Follow peace with all men and holiness WITHOUT WHICH NO MAN SHALL SEE THE LORD(heb 12:14)...even the angels in heaven cover their feet, bodies and faces with their wings crying "holy holy holy unto the Lord". Heaven will be cheap at any cost......for there is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.

At August 28, 2010 8:06 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly Apostolic, wearing pants can put us in danger of hell and share our bodies with the world.

I don't think so.

At April 01, 2014 12:14 AM , Anonymous Womens Leather Jacket said...

Nice post love reading it
Womens Leather Biker Jacket
Womens Leather Blazer


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home