ARTICLE EXPANDED: 05 AUGUST 2007
Of Man’s and
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)
In like manner also, that women
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety;
not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; (1Tim.2:9)
Christians are expected to dress right in
the sight of God and man. No doubt it is not a difficult thing for the men to
dress right. But for the women there seems to be "just a little problem"
just what constitutes a "modest apparel" and what apparel constitutes
which pertaineth unto a man" without committing the sin of
There have been much "force" put upon
Asian believers to conform to a "Western Christian standard" of attires. Because
of this, Asian ministers blindly passed the instructions to their flocks and
instructed the men to wear "shirt and trousers" and the women to wear "blouse
and skirt". Anything other than these are an abomination to the Lord.
Is that so?
Several years ago, a German minister
came here and after a meeting he came up to me and said, "Bro. Gan, your
mother-in-law is wearing a man’s garment." [See her photo on the right.]
I said, "Is that so?"
He replied, "Yes, she is wearing
I asked him, "Would you like to dress
exactly like her? Could you dress like her?"
He smiled bewilderedly. I said to him,
"What she is wearing is a woman’s garment, not a man’s. It's called the
"But it’s trousers that she’s wearing!"
he adamantly retorted. Like many believers, he
was looking only at the trousers.
Ha!...trousers! A word that almost every
Message believer associates with a man’s pants; and pants is a man’s trousers! How silly! It is the Western mind (especially the American’s, pardon my saying
so, but it is a fact) that knows only things occidental or American. It is a mind that is so
narrow, thinking that everything that is practiced by the American Christians is
"Christian and Biblical" and is good, and therefore should be taught and adhered to by all
other races of Christians. God forbid! Does Christianity originate from the
The word "trousers" simply means "a
piece of cloth made to wrap around each individual leg of a person, usually
worn under a garment". In English the word " trousers," when it first appears,
was used to describe the leg-garments of the Irish, who wore their breeches or
trunk-hose and stockings in one piece, a custom seen in the 17th-century. Trousers or trousers-like garments are called by different names in different
countries. The Scots call it breeks or trews and the Dutch call it
may have heard of chaps, knickers and breeches. In fact, the preferable term
is pajamas (or pyjamas), a word originated from the Persian "paijamas"
"jama" meaning a garment, or article of clothing, and
leg — garments for legs.
Since ancient Chinese time,
besides the wearing of robes (which obviously are not skirts), the trousers
or trousers-like garments were worn by
both the men and the women, even when they were toddlers. (Trousers is
believed to have originated in China. It is believed that the early
Europeans took the design from the East in as early as some five hundred years
before Christ. The Grecians began also to adopt it. But the Romans fought it
as being barbaric; to them "only Barbarians wear trousers".) The garments were
tailored more like pajamas than the trousers we know today. But what "pertaineth
unto a man" and what was truly a "woman’s garment" was the difference in the
tunic – a garment that covers the top part of the body down to the hips,
thighs or legs. (Some people mistook the long tunic for a skirt
or equated the tunic to a skirt.) It was the design, the colour and the pattern on that piece of
garment that determined whether it was a man's or woman's attire. Look at the
photo on the right and compare the samfoo the man is wearing with that of my
mother-in-law's. The man’s had a bold design and
pattern, and was usually of a single solid color. The woman’s had a
softer color. A wealthy woman's samfoo may have a soft lacy
design, or several decorative colors or just a plain soft color like pink or orange. The two pieces made up a samfoo. They
were never designed to cling to the body to show the human form. China was
effectively the only one of the great cultures of antiquity to wear trousers
but the Chinese were so interlinked with Central Asia that they crossed the
divide. In Europe, trousers as such are a relatively late entry, after hose
and trunk hose and breeches, etc. and then only for men.
The trousers that the Western women wear
today is not the kind that the ancient Asian women wore. The American
moral deteriorated fast after World War II. It was common to hear American
husbands say, "My wife wears the pants/trousers at home," meaning that the
wife is the boss of the home. It is also true and very common for many
American women, even Christians, to wear the trousers, a garment that their
pioneering ancestors did not wear. What's more, they took the blue jeans
and wore them and then slowly altered them to hug their female form. Jeans were the first trousers to put women and men on equal terms.
From that time on, the so-called "female pants" were changing ever so often to
suit the taste of women's fashion. Such changes and alterations do not
justify it being a woman's attire. It is done to either make a woman
look sexy or powerful (like a man). (See advertisement poster and
pantsuit models on the right.) Such attires are an abomination to God. Until 1970 it was not fashionable and sometimes against the law for
women to wear pants in offices, classrooms, and restaurants in the U.S.
From the West the designs of the sexy
looking, tight fitting pants were carried to the East, and soon the simple samfoo
was influenced by the western trousers' designs. The legs of the
trousers were cut narrower and tighter like the jeans
slacks of the American women. Look
at the picture on the left (taken in the 1960s). The woman on the left of the
picture wore a floral-patterned samfoo.
Compare that with the one worn
by my mother-in-law. You will notice that the sleeves had been cut back (an
influence by the West) and the tunic was not as long. Notice the two women on
the right in the same picture. Both wore a corrupt form of the samfoo. The
trousers legs were cut narrower and tapered to the ankles. The women were even
wearing high-heeled shoes to make themselves taller and "leggy" (again an
influence by the West). As a whole, the dress style of the two women is
comparable to many of the seductive and outrageous garments worn by today's
Now look at the pictures on the right. Can anyone disagree that a
proper samfoo is a "modest apparel"? Then compare the
samfoo with the "T-shirt
and jeans", the "shirt and trousers" or the office "pantsuit" that women wear
today. The samfoo is originally a woman's apparel, the "T-shirt and jeans" and the "shirt
and trousers" are originally man's. The women who wear them corrupt themselves
by wanting to be equal with the men. More so, when they power-dress in
"pantsuit". Beside such corruption, an impure woman will dress
extravagantly (either "blouse and skirt" or "shirt and trousers") and adorned
herself with jewelry, simply because such attire fittingly represents her
internal pride and seductive desires. But a "born again" woman will dress with
simplicity and modesty, without jewelry, simply because such apparel fittingly
represents her internal humility and purity.
the Chinese women, many other Asian women, like those in Indo-China and India,
had since ancient time wore trousers too.
Unlike the samfoo, many have a much longer tunic that covers the
thighs or the legs. The common skirt of today was not a garment
known to the Asian women until the occidentals brought them over to the East. When they did, many traditional garments were even fashioned to display a
Western look. For example, instead of the usual tunic, a skirt-like garment is
worn covering the trousers. Look at the picture on the right. Many northern
Indian women still wear the simple colorful traditional Punjabi
dress (shalwar kamitz), a garment consisting of a pair of trousers
and a long tunic as opposed to the sophisticated modern versions seen in the
picture on the far right.
tunic of the Indo-Chinese ao dai looks much like the Chinese cheongsam. But
unlike the ao dai, the cheongsam, which is originally the Manchu bannerman's robe with
broad sleeves, has evolved into many seductive styles since it was first worn
by Chinese women in the Qing Dynasty (1644 -1912). Also known as qipao,
the cheongsam is a one-piece dress with a high collar, a fitting body,
no sleeves, buttons on the front and slits on the sides. Today, one can even see
miniskirt-type cheongsam being worn.
I have heard of "horror tales" from some
believers in India how that the believing sisters had to dispose of their
Punjabi dress because some Caucasian ministers insisted that they were
wearing man's garments because they were wearing a pair of trousers! (Again,
they were looking at "trousers".) It seems that that was all
the ministers knew about
Also, I have heard how some American
believers would want to "convert" all woman believers in Asia, especially the
Chinese, into wearing skirts! (A word of advise: "convert" them only if they
are wearing the so-called "women's trousers" made popular by the American
Any spiritual Christian could see the
modesty in such a traditional dress as the samfoo, the ao dai or the
shalwar kamitz. But the foolish Branhamites could only
quote Branham and say what he said — about trousers being a man's garment! (Is
the culottes trousers? Is the long johns
trousers?) Tell me, if you have wisdom, what TROUSERS was Bro. Branham referring to?
may argue about men in the Old Testament time wore "breeches" from waist
to thighs (just because the priests were commanded to wear "breeches" as an
"undergarment" - Exod.28:42). See picture on the left.
They may argue and presume that the "underwear" was later lengthened even to
the ankles. If the "breeches" of the priests are "trousers", instead of
"underwear" (worn for religious reason during their priestly ministration within
the Tabernacle or Temple), then all women wearing "breeches"
long, short, very short or skimpy (see picture on the right) under their
skirts have committed abomination. That all men wore
breeches/pants/trousers as underwear in Moses time is a lie.
Did Noah, Abraham, Moses, Daniel,
Isaiah, John Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the saints of those days
really wear trousers/pants? Or did they wear a one piece garment wrap
around their waist and their top, or a piece around their waist and legs (like
the sarong or lungi)
and another over their body? We know that many wore long flowing gowns
which covered even the ankles or a piece of garment that is
like a big shirt (tunic) which went right down to the knees and which had
short or long sleeves. This latter garment style was like the multi-colored coat which Jacob gave his son Joseph and the
"coats of skins" which God made for Adam and Eve after their fall).
But what did they wear for underwear? Trousers? Boxer-shorts?
Briefs? A simple loin cloth? Or none at all?
Now, why did God command Moses to make
linen "breeches" for the priests?
And thou shalt make them linen
breeches to cover their nakedness;
from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
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.
The following verses of Isaiah will
throw light on what is associated with
Come down and sit in the dust, O
virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of
the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate.
Take the millstones and grind meal. Remove your veil, take off the skirt,
uncover the thigh,
pass through the rivers.
Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
yes, your shame will be seen; I will take vengeance, and I will not arbitrate
with a man. (Isa.47:1-3,
[Note: The Hebrew word used for
"breeches" is "miknac" – meaning: (only in the dual) drawers (from concealing
the private parts), from the primary word "kamac", "to store away" or
hide". Therefore, to equate the word "breeches" to words like "trousers",
"slacks", "pants" or
"pantaloons" is an error for "miknac" is so designed to only cover the
private area of the loins to the knees – the area of "nakedness", the area of "shame".
Trousers, slacks, pants and pantaloons that men wear today are not "miknac".
They are themselves each an outer garment, not an undergarment.
It is clear that the "breeches"
("drawers") were undergarments and they were so designed to cover the sexual
naked part of the body from the waist down to the knees.
the priests went in to the tabernacle, or to the altar to minister, they had
to put on "breeches". The inside of the tabernacle of the congregation
is holy. For any priest to enter in (to perform their sacred duties) or
to minister at the altar, without wearing "breeches", was to expose their
nakedness to the Lord.
That the priests did not wear
"breeches" until the tabernacle was built is clear from this instruction given
earlier to Moses in Ex.20:26:
"Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto
mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon." As
"breeches" were not yet used, the use of steps to the altar was forbidden.
(Pagans built their altars high with steps so as
to bring their sacrifices closer to their gods.) Because of the distance
between steps, the priests would be in danger of exposing their nakedness,
that part of the body that is considered vile, to the people around and below
them as they stride up and down the steps. Hence, the altar of sacrifice
for the children of Israel was a simple structure during their sojourn in the
Ex.20:24-25). Very likely, it was similar to the one constructed about a
year later for the tabernacle
which length and breadth each measured 5 cubits (about 7.5 feet or 2.28 meters), giving an area big enough to hold a single
beast sacrifice. Its height was 3 cubits (about 4.5 feet or 1.37
meters). Later, in the days of King Solomon, the altar was built larger (20 cubits by 20 cubits)
so as to hold many sacrifices at one time. For that, the height had to
bear a decent proportion to its length and breadth – 10 cubits (about 15 feet or 4.6
meters) high, and the approach was by an inclined plane and not by steps.
Clearly, "breeches" are not "trousers"
per se. Aaron and all the priests certainly did not wear the type of
"trousers" that men wear today. Undeniably, "breeches"
are undergarments and they were specially commanded and designed by God for
the priests only. Therefore, not all men wore "breeches" (in those days)
as the commandment of God was not issued to them. As such, why are some
preachers assuming that "breeches" were "trousers" (like those that men wear
today) when in reality "breeches" were designed to "draw in", to cover, to
hide, the "shame" part of the body of the priests as they minister in the
tabernacle? If, indeed, that "breeches" were not underwear, but men's
garments, then the men of Israel in Bible days would have worn them in various
lengths, from "loin to knees" to "loin to ankles", like what we see among the
male population today. However, there has been no such evidence.
Instead, garments such as tunics (shirt-like) and long flowing gowns were
common and so were long wrap around clothes. Women wore very much the same
The difference between the men's and the women's are somehow indicated by the design
and pattern. And as to the sort of undergarments that men and women
wore, little is known. But it is not uncommon for the people to use a
loin-cloth, a piece of linen that pass between the legs and secured around the
waist. The ancient Greeks are known not to wear underwear.
Deuteronomy 22:5 and Exodus 28:42-43
are so misunderstood and misinterpreted that even a silly argument states
– "breeches" are clothing pertaining to a man
according to the Bible, because they are only mentioned as being worn by a man
(namely the priests and the high-priest), never by a woman.
In the first place, the Scriptures did not mention "men" but rather It
specifically mentions the "priests". To reason so foolishly is to conclude that only
men are allowed to wear "miknac" (undergarments). Next, if the
area from the waist to the knees is "shameful", are women not allowed to cover
that up by wearing "breeches" (seeing that many home chores require much lower
body moments like bending, kneeing, and squatting)?
"breeches" (as mentioned in Ex.28:42-43) are not underwear to cover the
private part of the priests, but are men's "trousers", would it be an
abomination to God for a woman to wear an underwear, such as a "bloomers",
under her long descent dress? [See picture on the right.]
Now, does the wearing of skirt make a Christian
woman Christian? Is that the only type of garment to be worn by Christian
women? Is the skirt truly a woman's garment? Or is it just the American
Christians' dogmatic idea that it is? They should compare their modern
designing styles with that worn by the Amish women. Many of today's blouses
and skirts are tight fitting and body hugging, emphasizing the female form.
There are blouses that have low neckline and skirts that do not cover
you know that the early European men wore skirts? Look at the picture on the
left. Is there a distinct
difference that sets the man's apparel apart from the woman's?
you ever seen a man in the present days wear a skirt? You may say, "Yes,
the Scots wear kilts, but they wear them only on special occasions."
Really? But is not a kilt a skirt? If it is so, then the wearing
of such an apparel would be an abomination to God. Then again, is it
What about the man in the
picture on the right? He is from Bhutan and he is wearing a skirt. Must a
Bhutan Christian man put
away his traditional wear (called the Gho) and put on the
Western type trousers?
What about the men in the picture on the
left? They are native Fijians and both are wearing a skirt. Should
they discard their traditional Pocket Sulu and wear American-style trousers in
order to be considered proper and be accepted in the eyes of Yahweh?
Think seriously and Biblically less you
be wise in your own conceit. Must Asian Christians dress like American
"Message Believing" Christians in order to be True Bible Believers?
Now, let me relate another incident.
This one involved an American minister who came to Singapore a few years ago. Shopping
at the supermarket one day, he suddenly turned and whispered, "Bro. Gan,
there's a man wearing a woman's garment."
Turning towards the direction he was
facing, I saw an Indian man wearing a shirt and a "skirt-like" garment which
we call a sarong. I said to him, "That's not a woman's garment. That's a
"How is that so?" he asked. Well, at
least he asked. I told him that I will answer him later. And I did, as you can see
from the photo taken on the right.
A demonstration is worth a thousand
words. I requested an Indian minister and his wife to put on the Malaysian
traditional apparels, and I put on one too. I asked the American minister to
take a closer look at our apparels and to notice the differences. Can you tell
the difference between a man's and a woman's sarong?
Like the skirt worn by the Bhutan man,
the sarong worn by man is striped or checked. (It can even be plain white
which is worn
commonly by the men of India.) The woman's, however, is not so. Theirs
are printed with flowers and beautiful patterns. If a man were to wear that
feminine sarong, he would have committed an abominable act because he had "put on a
Notice how casually dressed the Indian minister and
myself were with just an undergarment for our top. However, to go outside in
public, a shirt is usually worn with the sarong. (I wore sarong since I was a
youth. To go out in public, shirt and trousers are more appropriate for me,
being a Chinese since most Chinese men rarely wore the sarong.)
The German minister presumed that my mother-in-law was wearing a man's garment
because she had on a pair of "trousers". The American minister thought that a
man's sarong was a woman's "skirt". These two
did not have the slightest inkling about the oriental garments, since they
judged the oriental apparels by the present standard of the occidental's.
I wonder how many more are like them.
A word to the wise and to fellow
Bible believers of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Western world — do not force
your Western Christian cultures, traditions and values upon the Asian
Christians and think to change them. Different races have different norms. Upon greeting, one may shake a
believer's hand, a brother may hug another brother and yet another may
"kowtow" to his fellow brother. Christians should distinguish between racial
and pagan customs and traditions, and keep away from paganism. Some racial
customs and traditions may be offensive, of these we also avoid. Whatever is etiquettely correct is proper. Whatever is proper has its place in
Whatever is truly Scriptural would be found in every race of Christian people
— be they white, yellow, brown or black.
you believe that the apostle Paul understood what Deuteronomy 22:5 actually
speaks about? If so, do you think he forbade the believing men of Rome and
Greece from wearing skirts? If not, why not? The answer is obvious. Just look
at the pictures here. The Romans and the Greeks had almost similar styles. (Note: To the Romans only barbarians wore trousers.) If men are to wear only
trousers, did Moses, Jesus, Paul and other men of God in the Bible wear
trousers? When Moses wrote Deuteronomy (22:5), was he referring that women
should not wear trousers? Obviously not, for trousers was not yet in
existence. But that there was a distinct difference between men's and women's
apparel is clear. Yet, there were Jews in those days who had lost their sexual
orientation and cross dressed causing Moses to write what he did.
The great apostle Paul never sought to
change the customs and traditions of the Christians of other races. Neither did
the other apostles. The teachings of the apostles are clear — that man is to be as man
and woman is to be as woman. The man is the head of the wife and therefore his
hair is to be cut short. The woman is to be subjected to the husband and therefore
her hair is to be kept long (cf. 1Cor.11:14,15). As to apparel, the advice is
to "dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold
or pearls or expensive clothes" (1Tim.2:9, NIV cf.1Pet.3:3). There is
nothing mention of trousers and skirt. Not even Deuteronomy 22:5 speaks of
them, only of GARMENTS as a whole, clothes that affirm the gender identity —
that which has been prepared solely for man and that which has been prepared
solely for woman. Amen!
In writing the above
article, I expected brickbats from some readers of the article. No sooner was
it posted, I saw this post on
. (A few months after this article
was posted, this forum website ceased to exist.)
I happened to notice an addition
that Bro. Gan put on his website and I was utterly shocked to see
where this Message is going to.
I realize that doctrine can be so
elevated that it can have a person run around in circles from those
who attempt to confuse but a woman wearing trousers???
When you do the "reasoning", and you
figure in the "cultures" his doctrine promotes uncertainty and tries
to override the Prophet.
I saw some of the emails you sent
him ( posted on his web page) and if you have the time perhaps you can
explain how this new revelation is in line with the Prophet.
This message believer knows
next to nothing about God's Word. Just read what he said. Notice his mind is
centered on "trousers". As I have written above, this word is all that most
western minds seem to associate with only the man's garments, and as long as a
woman has her legs in two "fabric tubes", she sins.
What does the man know
about "reasoning"? Nothing. He thinks "reasoning" with the wisdom of God is
bad, and all he has is his own "reasoning" about the message of the
prophet...the prophet...the prophet... Beyond that he has no knowledge of the
teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. My bet is that this person is either an
American or European. If he is not, then he must have been "westernized"
by the American culture and tradition. Men like him, if he is made a
missionary to Asia, would definitely seek to get all believing women to
forsake the wearing of their traditional garments to wearing the American
skirts (perhaps, the Amish way, if he is a fanatic).
This person took a potshot
at me in support of the accusation put out by another Forum chatter about me
being an "8th messenger". The following is his post:
You see,if you ask the pope: “Are
you the anti-christ?”, he surely will answer: “NO, not at all”. See,
nobody will answer “yes”, because the answer will be too stupid.
So Richard Gan says: “I am not the
eighth messenger”. But, is it so? Give just a look to his “fruit” (his
teaching) and anybody that has a little revelation of the Message will
quickly recognize that the man is presenting himself as one with a
“worldwide ministry” needed for the Bride. See?
Now, if Gan does not believe he has
a “special ministry”, then why he has a web site full of his books and
teachings on doctrines? Why? Is it not enough, or is it maybe not
clear the doctrine preached by the “seventh” messenger? Do we need
more doctrines, more Bible revelations, more truth to be revealed,
more Bible interpretations, beside that brought to us by the prophet
of God for our age?
Why instead of promoting the
“Message” Gan promotes “his own” teachings? Why? What is the “reason”
he has behind for doing so?
And why is he against the Church Age
Book, telling that the book is not of Brother Branham, when MANY TIMES
Brother Branham tells that it is “his” book? You know why? BECAUSE THE
CHURCH AGE BOOK “DESTROYS” Gan’s teachings.
For any genuine believers the Church
Age Book is the BACKBONE of the entire Message. Once you remove that
Book, you have removed the Best Teaching of Brother Branham. And R.
Gan is doing exactly just that.
Any believer that knows really the
Message in Its entire revelation, if he then reads the books of R. Gan
he will quickly recognize that this man is just presenting “his own
ministry”, and that his teachings are just “dead stinking theology”.
R. Gan says: “How can LOGOS103 tells
that of me, if he does not know me?”. Well, LOGOS103 have read his
books and doctrines in his web site. Is not that enough? Plus, some
time ago LOGOS103 had a e-mail correspondence with Gan and Gan quickly
called LOGOS103 a “branhamite”, only because LOGOS103 was pointing him
the Message brought by Bro. Branham. Is not this enough to judge the
“spirit” of R. Gan?
Plus, LOGOS103 have heard from many
witnesses, even from Singapore itself, that the teaching of R. Gan in
many points is in contradiction with the pure teaching brought by the
prophet and his bringing confusion among Message believers.
Nevertheless, I advice everyone to
find out for himself whether the doctrine of R. Gan is right or not.
Compare it with the Message. If in just ONE point it is contrary, then
you decide for yourself what to do with R. Gan’s doctrine.
Of course, if you do NOT KNOW the
Message very good, if you do not have the Holy Ghost, you maybe agree
with Gan. But if you know the Message, then you will quickly recognize
that in that man there is acting a spirit that is not right. I say a
“spirit”. Maybe the man is a fine man; maybe he is a brother, and a
real one. But we have to judge the “spirit”, the “teaching”, not the
R. Gan says that many preachers are
against him. Surely, it is the “preachers” that mostly check his
doctrine, because they have to “watch over the Flock” God have given
But why R. Gan is putting on
Internet his teachings, “influencing” therefore believers that are not
from his own church? Why? In this way is not he spreading his teaching
to other believers that God HAS NOT given him to take care of? Sure it
If R. Gan is a minister, then he
should be busy to feed the Sheep that are in “his” church. He should
be busy to fulfill his “local” ministry.
But by putting his teaching on
internet, he is teaching OTHER believers, influencing OTHER churches,
INVADING other pulpits. And that
is WRONG! Than puts his ministry ABOVE the “local” ministry. And that
is the “eight messenger spirit”. See?
For this age we have ONLY ONE
ministry that is above the local ministry: the ministry of the
prophet-messenger William Marrion Branham. Any other minister that try
to put influence ABOVE the “local” ministry, is
Read it in the Church Age Book. And Richard Gan is doing just that.
Not openly, of course. But by putting in internet his books to the
public, he is doing just that. See?
Now, why does he teaches his
doctrines to the worldwide public believers? Is it to edify “his”
church members? No, because for his church members he has his pulpit.
Then “for who” are given those teachings in internet? FOR THE
BELIEVERS OF “OTHER” CHURCHES! But for other churches God has the
And “who is he” to INVADE the pulpit
of others message ministers by presenting his teachings to their
believers, stealing in this way respect to the “local” ministry and
bringing confusion among the believers? Who does that, is not an
ANTI-CHRIST spirit? Sure it is an ani-christ spirit.
Why does he not put in his web
site only the Message of Bro. Branham? Why does he not promote ONLY
the Message of Bro. Branham worldwide, like many other brothers and
ministers are doing, included my pastor
Why? You know why? Because Gan believes that those that are presenting
ONLY the Message are “branhamites”, and he is the one to correct their
branhamite doctrine. See, that is the “eighth spirit” ministry.
if by presenting the Message and the
ministry of the prophet of God makes one a branhamite, then I am very
glad to be a branhamite. I
prefer to be a branhamite rather that to be a “gan-anite”. But the
Lord knows if I am a branhamite or one of His beloved children!
I could say more, but I think I have
said even too much.
God bless you.
Reading the post, I could
not help but feel sorry for the man (LOGOS103). The majority of whites think so much
of themselves. Someone once said to me, indirectly: "America produced William
Branham and that's why the Branhamites are proud of it." How silly! An Asian
brother told me, "Tell the Branhamites that Asia produced the Lord Jesus
Christ." I just smiled. America once belonged to the Red Indians, and the
early Red Indians were related to the Eskimos and the Eskimos were people who
came from across the Bering Strait, from Asia. Bro. Branham had Red Indian
blood and he said that the white Americans were the renegades. I am not in a
fight for racial rights. America has fallen because of her filth, immorality,
pride, etc. America is spiritually blind.
Nevertheless, look at the
immaturity of the man. He thinks
that the Pope himself knows that he is the Antichrist and would therefore deny
it when asked. (Did Judas
Iscariot know he was "a devil"?) Therefore, he insinuates in the same manner
of thinking that I was denying myself being the 8th messenger when asked. It just shows
that he is intellectually foolish. It is also apparent that he does not believe in the
Ascension Gift ministry that Christ gave to perfect the Bride (Eph.4). He may
say he does but does he know the works the Spirit does through those Ascension
Gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? (A Branhamite once told me that the ministers of the 5-Fold Ministry are to
feed the sheep of God by teachings from the messages of Bro. Branham.) Like
the other man he is also taken up with the words of the prophet...the
prophet...the prophet... He can not see beyond William Marrion Branham.
Bro. Branham is just too BIG for him to see the Christ, THE WORD of God. He
not see the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why? Because, like all Branhamites, he thinks Branham brought it all. That's why these people do not know the
Notice how a Branhamite's
mind thinks. As I said it is usually not only foolish but very childish and
highlighted some of his thoughts in
green.) He said, "But
by putting his teaching on internet, he is teaching OTHER believers,
influencing OTHER churches, INVADING other pulpits."
Adding to that he said it is "NICOLAITISM"
unless, of course, I do like he questioned: "Why
does he not put in his web site only the Message of Bro. Branham? Why does he
not promote ONLY the Message of Bro. Branham worldwide, like many other
brothers and ministers are doing,..?"
So, any website that is not "Branham/Message" in content is an INVADER of
churches and the webmaster is a Nicolaitan. (Smile!) I wonder where he got
that idea from. Definitely not from the prophet, much less from the Scripture. What's more, to him, such a person who teaches by the revelation of the Spirit
must be the 8th messenger. A very presumptuous person indeed! He has no fear
of God in committing presumptuous sin. Yet he claims to have the Holy Spirit.
When such a man mentioned
witnesses he actually meant "hear-sayers" -- "Plus, LOGOS103 have heard from many
witnesses, even from Singapore itself, that the teaching of R. Gan in
many points is in contradiction with the pure teaching brought by the
prophet and his bringing confusion among Message believers." The Truth here is: I have no close relationship with the Branhamites here in
Singapore. My ministry had been under constant attack from them since the
beginning (in the 1970s) when they failed to proselyte me and my assembly. As
long as Branhamism is lifted up, confusion reigns among the believers of the
message. The original BIG message assembly (of more than 100 believers back in
the 1970s) had a corrupt minister and ministry. Believers led by some
dissatisfied "leaders" in their midst split the assembly. Over a few years the
split groups kept splitting till many of the people are no longer around
today. There are now only a handful of worshippers. Some stay home on Sundays
just listening to the taped messages of the prophet. The majority have
returned to the world or to their denominations. What a shame! And why
am I blamed as a scapegoat when those people had never associated with me nor
had they sat under my ministry? But they certainly have received several
strange accusations against me.
Branhamites, wake up! You
have all brought a reproach upon the name of William M. Branham and his
LOGOS103 may think that having a
website full of the messages of Bro. Branham qualifies the person as a believer
of the message of Malachi 4:4-6. But hasn't he read in the Scripture of
certain people who are full of the prophets and their messages, and yet Jesus
Christ CURSED THEM ALL?
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes of their days were interpreting Abraham, Moses and
the prophets according to their traditions and not according to the
revelations that were inspired and revealed by the Spirit of God. Their
revelations were actually contrary to what was taught by those
holy men of God themselves. "We have
Moses, we have his messages, we have his laws. Oh, we have also Isaiah,
Ezekiel, and all the other ones, too. And on top of that we have Abraham as
our father. But you, Jesus, you are an INVADER. You do not teach and quote the
way we do from those prophets. You are INVADING OUR PULPITS. You are a Nicolaitan. Away with you, you're a devil!"
Jesus answered them, and
said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do
his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I
speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he
that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness
is in him. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the
law? Why go ye about to kill me?" (John 7:16-19).
Jesus even called them vipers,
hypocrites, children of the wicked ones and other unpleasant names. He would
have nothing to do with them. Likewise, I would have nothing to do with the Branhamites.
Like the Pharisees and the Sadducees this man thinks he is "presenting
the Message and the ministry of the prophet of God".
He has no idea that like the Pharisees and the Sadducees he is actually
destroying the very Truth of the messages of the prophet when he takes the
"letter of the Word" of the message of the 7th angel (cf.2Cor.3:6). And like
many cocky Branhamites, he is proud to be a member and part of the "Branhamite"
lodge like others in Christendom who joined the Wesleyan lodge, Lutheran lodge, Campbellite
lodge, etc., and all claiming to have the Holy Spirit.
True saints of God do not belong to a lodge, they belong to Christ
and Christ knows them as God's children because they identified with His
teachings. Christ does not have any relationship with the Branhamites just as
He did not have any relationship with the Pharisees and the Sadducees as
God's children, even though they claimed to have had the message of the prophet
Moses. Jesus said, "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye
believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:45-47). See? They claimed Moses but they did not believe his writings, even though
they stayed with every word of Moses. If they truly believed Moses, they would have believed the teachings of
Christ. The same goes for the Branhamites. They claimed Branham and every word
he uttered but they do not really believe his message. If they do, they would
have believed the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Such people are
extremists in taking Branham's words as those who are extremists in fighting
Branham's words. Hence, there is one that accuseth them, even Branham, in
whom they trust.
One more word to the wise. A "Message Forum" site is like any "chat room" on the NET. It is
often filled with strange characters whose names are like LOGOS103, MYVIU,
ASDFG252, etc. Can one tell whether they are men or women? Some "smart" women
might just login to "teach" doctrines. I do not usually
visited such sites unless I am sent a link to a post. I have no desire to be a part
of the "chatting". It is a place where one will not find the teachings of
Christ, rather one will find "intellectual discussion" on the doctrines of
Branham and plenty of arguments over his statements. And most who gathered
to discuss are Branhamites and if anyone else comes in and says some Truth
that offends them, they will sit on him and even ban him from the "chat"
(if the host is a Branhamite).
Such a place is for the many who do not have the revelation of God concerning
His Plan and Purpose for the Bride according to Ephesians 4. A "Message Forum" site
is also potentially a Rumor Mill or a Gossip Parlor.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I was given this link to a Forum Page:
It is far from Branhamism.]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From the Email Box
I can't help but think about
the 70 who went out with signs and wonders and served the Lord but when it
came to the Word preached they were not able to receive it. Jesus told his
disciples that it was given to them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom and
that is how I see this situation. These people simply are not "given to
know". They have had shepherds that have led them astray in the beginning and
they have been lost since. Without the Holy Spirit, they will never find
their way back to the fold. So they repeat what they have been taught and
lead others astray because often they have a large following. Blind leading
the blind. I can only be thankful that God has "given to me to know" that God
did not stop revealing His Word when he took his Prophet home. And that he
gave his bride a ministry to bring forth that understanding. Like Bro. Sam, I
have no problem being one of the "mighty men" that stands for the truth like
those who served King David. Watching over God's anointed. I have said in
the past, it isn't you as a person, but rather the calling that God has given
that we must respect. And that calling has made you the person you are!!!
Faithful to His Word! Amen. And you encourage us as well to stay faithful in
I have gone back and have been reading Bro. Branham's messages on Hebrews.
Looking into the scriptures about perfection. I don't think we have caught
all that understanding and I think that is why so many have failed in
understanding what that "perfect" is. In Hebrews, it speaks of leaving the
principles of faith and going on into perfection. In other words, we don't
stop doing them, we just shouldn't still be arguing over them!!! Which seems
to be what some are doing. Trying to have some greater revelation, I guess.
Thanks for sharing!
David [USA, 11/25/02]
I notice your article on
garments is making a stir, huh? I like it really. I admit i was not aware of
the common (mis)conception. I do know that different cultures wear different
clothes. In the Philippines, some ethnic groups wear 'sarong' kind of dress.
But 'saya' (skirt) is our cultural dress among women.
I posted your article in the church so the brethren can also get
enlightenment. Thanks and God bless.
Jonathan [Philippines, 11/26/02]
reading what that fellow had to say about you and your website. I feel bad for
him. He had a great deal of cult like ideas. Isn't the Bible the Absolute for
God's people? Didn't they go back to the reformation and realize that the
Bible being the final authority is the first and foremost revelation of the
reformation. It goes for the restoration of the church also. If God has opened
up something to us in the bible then if it is consistent we shouldn't be
ashamed to testify of it. Bro. Branham said his words would fail, but that
God's word (the bible) would never pass away. The bible is the final
revelation of God's word, in other words there are no new revelations beyond
it. However, the truths contained in scripture must come to fruit in the
hearts and minds of believers. Until the Church is raptured the word of truth
will be unfolded to her more and more.
It's struck me lately that it took me a long time to let the purpose of the
message be fulfilled in my life and ever since it did I have had a greater
peace. It has revealed Jesus Christ to me, but now I haven't separated that
from scripture. It has called me out of denominationalism and the spirits
thereof. It has gotten me back to the bible. Before that my heart wasn't
turned to the apostolic fathers' faith. My heart was just turned to the
sermons of bro. Branham instead of letting the sermons of bro. Branham turn me
back to the apostolic fathers' faith. See that
subtle difference that the
devil had accomplished.
JD [USA, 12/08/02]