Rev. Harlan G. Vanden Einde, pastor of Oakdale Park Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan, is in charge of Our Question Box.
From a reader in Western Michigan
Question: We so often hear the word ‘“kids” used by church people, and also from our pulpits. Is this not slang? The Bible refers to kids as young goats and never as children, and kids never grow up to be sheep as the Bible calls God’s people.
Answer: You are correct that the Old Testament uses the word “kid” to refer to a “young goat” or a “he-goat.” It is not used in reference to children in the Bible. It is another matter, however, as to whether or not it is considered to be “slang” in our language use today. “Slang,” says Webster’s Dictionary, “develops from the attempt to find fresh and vigorous, colorful, pungent, or humorous expression, and generally either passes into disuse or comes to have a more formal status.” To say that a word is slang is almost to say that it is abusive.
A better way to describe the word “kid” when referring to a human child would be to say that it is a “colloquial” expression. “Colloquial” simply means “conversational,” or words and phrases which are characteristic of conversation and informal writings. I would prefer the use of the word “children” or “boys and girls” to “kids” if addressing them in a formal situation, but I would not consider its use to be slang in less formal circumstances. Even the word “kidnapping” is in common usage among us, and we do not consider it slang though it refers to the stealing of a child or person against his will. Several versions of the Bible, including the Revised Standard, the New American Standard, and the New English Bible, translate the word “menstealers” in I Timothy 1:10 as “kidnappers.”
Question: A second question from the same reader is in reference to Deuteronomy 22:5: “A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.” The question: “Does this still apply to our time?”
Answer: Chapters twelve through twenty-six of Deuteronomy contain an exposition of laws intended to regulate the ecclesiastical, civil, and domestic life of Israel in the land of Canaan, in harmony with its calling to be the holy nation of the Lord. It is important in interpreting these passages of Scripture to find the principle involved in the giving of a particular law. For example, in verse eight of this same chapter, we read: “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thy house, if any man fall from thence.” Now that doesn‘t mean that we have to build a “battlement” or a rim around the roofs of our houses, because our roofs are shaped differently than the houses of the Israelites, and we do not normally live on them. The roofs of the Israelitish houses were flat, and they often spent time there. The rim around the roof was for their protection, and the principle involved was that they were not to expose human life to danger through carelessness. Obviously we have to take other kinds of precautions in building our homes so that our lives aren‘t carelessly exposed to danger.
With regard to the directives of God in verse five mentioned above, there is a principle too. The intent is not to prescribe the particular kind of clothes a man or woman is to wear, but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of mall and woman. Every wiping out of that distinction was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God.
That principle is still applicable to us today. To do anything, or to behave in any way as to render the male sex effeminate and the female sex masculine is to do injury to both. God created the one sex different from the other, and ours is not the option to try to obliterate that distinction.
If the reader is hoping that I will read into the question a further implication as to whether women may properly wear the now popular “pantsuit,” I will risk this comment. If my wife puts on a pantsuit for the purpose of warmth and comfort (and even modesty), I do not see that as an attempt to wipe out the difference between our sexes. There is considerable difference between the style of the woman‘s pantsuit and the business suit which I wear. In fact, Paul writes to Timothy that women should adorn themselves in “modest apparel,” and in many circumstances the paintsuit makes for greater modesty than the short skirt.
In any case, remember the principle: God created the sexes different and distinct, and in regard to our clothing styles too, the sanctity of that distinction must be maintained.
