Should Women Wear Pants?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

6 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?).

Sorry.  Proverbs 22:6 has also been a recent study for me (due to your own thread on the subject), and I merged the two references in my head by accident.  I should have actually checked the reference, rather than just take it from "memory."

[No Nicolaitans]

9 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

 

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing.

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

[HappyChristian]

2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

NN - I began with a book titled Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. It is, to me, an invaluable look into the Oriental mind and so into the meanings of so many things that westerners don't always completely grasp - because our minds do, indeed, work differently.

Here is a quote from the book (and I actually found the full text online - I will add the link so you can spend hours and hours browsing =D ):

2OO. DISTINCTION IN DRESS. 

XXII, 5. 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. 

The distinction between the dress of the sexes being less than with us, 
there was the greater need of this regulation. There is reason to believe 
that the law was made not merely to preserve decency, but because the 
heathen were in the habit of pursuing a different course as a part of their 
idolatrous worship. Maimonides says: "In the books of the idolaters it is 
commanded that when a man presents himself before the Star of Venus, he 
shall wear the colored dress of a woman ; and when a woman adores the 
Star of Mars, she shall appear in armor." Pagan idols were frequently 
represented with the features of one sex and the dress of the other, and 
their worshipers endeavored to be like them. It is not at all unlikely that 
this custom was as old as the time of Moses, and was a partial reason for 
the enacting of this law. 

https://archive.org/stream/handbookofbiblem00freeuoft/handbookofbiblem00freeuoft_djvu.txt

Then, when we go into the NT and see that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, it strikes me that we should be even more concerned about gender distinction (and not just in our apparel - although apparel is ofttimes where the distinction begins). If God was concerned enough about it to warn Israel away from it, how much more concerned would He be for the living temples in which the Holy Spirit resides to be distinct?  (notice, too, that he begins with the idea that the distinction of dress is less with them that with us - westerners...and yet, now, that distinction is slowly going away; women are wearing pants and men are beginning to wear dresses/skirts)

I think the comment regarding Deut. 22:5 from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary (I know many people don't like commentaries, but I do...and JFB is often a good one) is pretty spot-on with where this verse is actually going:

"Though disguises were assumed at certain times in heathen temples, it is probable that a reference was made to unbecoming levities practiced in common life. They were properly forbidden; for the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the other is an outrage on decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in the woman as well as levity and hypocrisy in both; and, in short, it opens the door to an influx of so many evils that all who wear the dress of another sex are pronounced "an abomination unto the Lord."

I would venture to say that there isn't one among us who would say that there has not been a grossly softening and effeminacy in men and an impudence and boldness in women that has grown exponentially. This is where Romans 1 links to Deut. 22:5. Where there is a softness and effeminacy in men and a boldness and impudence (I would venture to use the word masculization  [not really a word, but sums up what I mean] of women as an explanation of what boldness and impudence would mean), there is the leaving of the "natural use of the woman..."  

Thank you, Dave, for your comment. I'm glad you found my post cogent. As I was heading into sleep last night, I re-worded things in my mind, wondering where I could have been more clear...=D

I would like to add a couple of thoughts to the idea that I presented re: conviction/preference.  Modesty is indeed a conviction. I believe God shows us His desire for us to be modest clear back in Genesis, when He covered Adam and Eve. Gender distinction (I mistakenly called it identity a couple of times, although distinction does show identity) is also something I believe God shows us He desires. Deut. 22:5  is a verse that can be used for that, but so, too, are any verses in which God discusses what a woman is to do/be and what a man is to do/be (for instance, Prov. 31). And then there is Christian identity. The identity of Christians is being blurred more and more as we allow ourselves to be swallowed up by the philosophy of the world in all aspects of our lives. So, my conviction is that I must be modest, distinct in my gender, and show my Christian identity. And my preference is to do that - outwardly - by my clothing choice.   Does that make sense?

Bro. Markle - I figured it was a typo, but I'm glad to know you're looking at Prov. 22:6. I actually have been hoping to hear your input on that verse!

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

37 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Bro. Markle - I figured it was a typo, but I'm glad to know you're looking at Prov. 22:6. I actually have been hoping to hear your input on that verse!

Sister DePriest,

I thank you for your encouragement on the matter of Proverbs 22:6.  I have indeed presented two postings of word study research on that verse, but my full study thereof is not yet complete.  More shall follow as I am able.

Concerning your above posting "when you were half-asleep," I also found it well communicated and thoughtfully developed.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

Brother McWhorter,

I thank you much for your comment above concerning the Hebrew.  Until that comment I had not examined the specific Hebrew terminology of Deuteronomy 22:5.  Your comment motivated me to do so, and I believe that this examination has provided a significant advancement of my understanding concerning the verse.

[Jim_Alaska]

The original missionary pastor that I was saved under taught the explanation that HC supplied in her reference material, " Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. " Although he taught it, I never remember him giving any reference for it.

So far I have not commented on this thread because although I believe this is in reference to armor, I had no supporting evidence for it.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

13 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

The original missionary pastor that I was saved under taught the explanation that HC supplied in her reference material, " Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. " Although he taught it, I never remember him giving any reference for it.

So far I have not commented on this thread because although I believe this is in reference to armor, I had no supporting evidence for it.

Brother Jim,

Having now looked at the Hebrew terminology in Deuteronomy 22:5 (as per Brother McWhorter's mention), I intend as the discussion continues and time permits to present Biblical evidence for that reference (not just historical).

[No Nicolaitans]

6 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman

First, thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed answer...it's very much appreciated. I have a Manners and Customs... on my Bible Software, but it's not that one. I'll definitely look at that link and see if I can purchase one on Amazon (or somewhere). Thank you.

I've known of the "armor" for several years, yet ashamedly, I've never taken the time to delve deeper into it. My belief has been that it centered around the armor somehow, but I couldn't pin down a reason, so I generally remain silent on this topic. Yet, knowing how many of the commands deal with worship and not modeling the worship of God after the pagans...I should have made the connection. Hindsight...

Now, let me try to briefly give my general view of these types of topics. I don't claim to be right, but after "experience", I think I could handle certain topics better. I personally believe that topics such as this are best handled as a result of growth. In other words, as a Christian grows and matures, they will hopefully (and should be) more open to conforming to God's word. Some may enter that "phase" quicker than others. However, in the day in which we live, the general Christian is worldly. I'll leave it at that.

Now to tell on myself. Where I live, when a young man or man announces that he's been called to preach, every Baptist church within a 25 mile radius will invite him to come preach. After I'd been preaching for about a year...that's when I basically became an IFB. I was raised in Southern Baptist churches but was attending an Independent Missionary Baptist Church when I started preaching. At the time, I didn't know the difference between Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Independent Fundamental Baptists, etc. I thought a Baptist was a Baptist. After being exposed to the preaching of some of the big-names in the IFB movement, nothing else seemed right to me...I became IFB.

I was a young buck...mid-20's. Churches would invite me, and I'd rip 'em up one side and down the other about pants on women, watching TV, movies, smoking, etc. You know...all the major sins that Christians shouldn't be doing. I probably called a lot of them "beer-drinkin' Baptists" at some point too. Well...I know I did. LOL! After all...I was preaching God's word, and they just needed to accept it and change the way they lived...whether they liked what I was preaching or not...they just needed to get right with God.

The preaching invitations started dwindling for some reason...before long, I wasn't being asked to preach anywhere except in the church that I belonged to. In fact, I've only preached in one church (by invitation) in probably the last 5-6 years.

They weren't ready for it, and they couldn't handle it. All they saw was this angry preacher calling them a bunch of heathens, hypocrites, and pharisees.

I'll be 50 soon, and though I've grown, and it's been a long time since I've preached in those churches...I still have that characterization applied to me as a preacher.

Was what I was preaching right? Yes, I believe so. Was my "preaching" right? No...

People need to grow, and a lot of them aren't ready to grow when we think they should.

Is it wrong to preach about such things? No...but it doesn't help to beat them over the head with it. Allow God to change them...not the preacher.

Anyway, I wrote too much and exposed myself as "Dan...the angry preacher".

I just think now, that a lot of these topics are things that come with growth...and just like plants, a little "fertilizer" will help them grow...but too much "fertilizer" will kill 'em.

Know how to fertilize...

 

[Genevanpreacher]

2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

First, thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed answer...it's very much appreciated. I have a Manners and Customs... on my Bible Software, but it's not that one. I'll definitely look at that link and see if I can purchase one on Amazon (or somewhere). Thank you.

I've known of the "armor" for several years, yet ashamedly, I've never taken the time to delve deeper into it. My belief has been that it centered around the armor somehow, but I couldn't pin down a reason, so I generally remain silent on this topic. Yet, knowing how many of the commands deal with worship and not modeling the worship of God after the pagans...I should have made the connection. Hindsight...

Now, let me try to briefly give my general view of these types of topics. I don't claim to be right, but after "experience", I think I could handle certain topics better. I personally believe that topics such as this are best handled as a result of growth. In other words, as a Christian grows and matures, they will hopefully (and should be) more open to conforming to God's word. Some may enter that "phase" quicker than others. However, in the day in which we live, the general Christian is worldly. I'll leave it at that.

Now to tell on myself. Where I live, when a young man or man announces that he's been called to preach, every Baptist church within a 25 mile radius will invite him to come preach. After I'd been preaching for about a year...that's when I basically became an IFB. I was raised in Southern Baptist churches but was attending an Independent Missionary Baptist Church when I started preaching. At the time, I didn't know the difference between Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Independent Fundamental Baptists, etc. I thought a Baptist was a Baptist. After being exposed to the preaching of some of the big-names in the IFB movement, nothing else seemed right to me...I became IFB.

I was a young buck...mid-20's. Churches would invite me, and I'd rip 'em up one side and down the other about pants on women, watching TV, movies, smoking, etc. You know...all the major sins that Christians shouldn't be doing. I probably called a lot of them "beer-drinkin' Baptists" at some point too. Well...I know I did. LOL! After all...I was preaching God's word, and they just needed to accept it and change the way they lived...whether they liked what I was preaching or not...they just needed to get right with God.

The preaching invitations started dwindling for some reason...before long, I wasn't being asked to preach anywhere except in the church that I belonged to. In fact, I've only preached in one church (by invitation) in probably the last 5-6 years.

They weren't ready for it, and they couldn't handle it. All they saw was this angry preacher calling them a bunch of heathens, hypocrites, and pharisees.

I'll be 50 soon, and though I've grown, and it's been a long time since I've preached in those churches...I still have that characterization applied to me as a preacher.

Was what I was preaching right? Yes, I believe so. Was my "preaching" right? No...

People need to grow, and a lot of them aren't ready to grow when we think they should.

Is it wrong to preach about such things? No...but it doesn't help to beat them over the head with it. Allow God to change them...not the preacher.

Anyway, I wrote too much and exposed myself as "Dan...the angry preacher".

I just think now, that a lot of these topics are things that come with growth...and just like plants, a little "fertilizer" will help them grow...but too much "fertilizer" will kill 'em.

Know how to fertilize...

 

Amen!

Nice to meet you, fellow earthling.

Seems we all have similar experiences in life. May we all continue to get past ourselves and be what we need to be.

I will be praying in detail for you NN as I hope you will for me brother.

[swathdiver]

2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

They weren't ready for it, and they couldn't handle it. All they saw was this angry preacher calling them a bunch of heathens, hypocrites, and pharisees.

I'll be 50 soon, and though I've grown, and it's been a long time since I've preached in those churches...I still have that characterization applied to me as a preacher.

Was what I was preaching right? Yes, I believe so. Was my "preaching" right? No...

People need to grow, and a lot of them aren't ready to grow when we think they should.

Is it wrong to preach about such things? No...but it doesn't help to beat them over the head with it. Allow God to change them...not the preacher.

Anyway, I wrote too much and exposed myself as "Dan...the angry preacher".

I just think now, that a lot of these topics are things that come with growth...and just like plants, a little "fertilizer" will help them grow...but too much "fertilizer" will kill 'em.

Know how to fertilize.

The lesson is that they should have been fed milk and not meat, sadly when we're young we have more vinegar running through us than wisdom!  But you know all this now and the Lord will use you again when the time is right.  However, while you may not have been invited back, God's Word doesn't return void and surely some mended their ways and were brought closer to the Lord because of your preaching.  Good work!

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To those who may be interested,

Thus far in this discussion I have asked various "thought-provoking" questions concerning the subject of the thread, but I have not directly expressed my position concerning that subject.  I may have already dropped enough "hints" as to my position; however, with this posting I wish to express directly that position.

I myself respect those who hold to the position (which I recognize as the common "party line" among many Fundamental Baptist circles) that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear and that therefore it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pants-wear."  I do wish that those who hold to this position would be more consistent in their application thereof.  Yet I DO respect the position itself.

On the other hand, I myself have NOT yet been convinced, either through Biblical, natural, historical, or cultural evidence, that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear.  Therefore, I am not honestly able to hold the position that it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear a form of "pants-wear."  I am compelled to acknowledge that in some cases for some historical times, the cultural argument would carry some weight in regard to the matter.  However, I do not presently believe that it carries such weight in the present case of our present time.

Since I have indicated previously in this discussion that I shall present some further thoughts on particular matters, I intend to do so with future posting.  Indeed, with such future posting I intend to communicate some Biblical reasons as to the position which I have taken on the matter.

[Jim_Alaska]

24 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

To those who may be interested,

Since I have indicated previously in this discussion that I shall present some further thoughts on particular matters, I intend to do so with future posting.  Indeed, with such future posting I intend to communicate some Biblical reasons as to the position which I have taken on the matter.

Brother Markle,

It's not nice to "tease", just come out and say it.  

[Ukulelemike]

The armor issue is interesting and worth a look. However, in the Hebrew, the word "armor" is used only a very small amount (10) of times, whereas the term 'vessel' is the translation 166 times.  That being said, the word seems to have a pretty wide application, 'vessel', 'instrument', 'weapon', 'jewel', 'armourbearer', 'stuff', 'thing', 'furniture', etc. so it could refer to this.  The one things that makes me wonder, however, is that the context in which it is found has nothing to do with worship, and everything to do with regular, everyday life. in context it is just general life commandments, dealing with neighbors, responsibility toward one another and their possessions, and such. If this was referring to a particular activity of the pagan worshippers, I would expect to see it in that context, unless, of course, the Lord is referring to that, BUT makes it clear that it applies to ALL of life, not just worship, which would make sense as well.  But I don't disagree, just saying.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To those who may be interested,

As I have mentioned previously, I was challenged by a comment from Brother McWhorter to consider the Hebrew construction for Deuteronomy 22:5.  In so doing, I found that the Hebrew construction for the two prohibitions of the verse are a bit different from one another.

In the prohibition against a man's putting on "a woman's garment," the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" is "simlah' ."  This Hebrew word is employed in the Old Testament 29 times, and in every case it refers to something made of cloth.  In particular it is used for a piece of cloth twice, and every other time it is used for a garment of clothes.  Yet when the word is used for a garment of clothes, it can be used equally concerning a man's or a woman's garment.  Thus the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 would indicate that a man should not put on himself a garment that is distinctly recognizable as a woman's garment.

In the prohibition against a woman's wearing "that which pertaineth unto a man," the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," is the single word "keliy."  The primary meaning for this Hebrew word is not a reference unto clothing per se.  Rather, that primary meaning for this Hebrew word refers to "something which is made or prepared."  This Hebrew word is employed in the Old Testament over 300 times.  As such, this Hebrew word is variously translated with a reference to "jewels," "weapons," [household] "stuff," [material] "stuff," "sacks," "a bag," "vessels" [of various and sundry types], "instruments" [of war], "instruments" [of work], "instruments" [of the temple], "instruments" [of music], "furniture," "a pot," [any] "thing made of" [wood], [any] "thing made of" [skin], "a thing" [sat upon], "carriages," "wares," and "armour."  Among this usage this only thing that is for wearing is that of "armour."  Even so, this Hebrew word is translated in the Old Testament as a reference unto "armour" 27 times (Judges 9:54; 1 Samuel 14:1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14; 16:21; 17:54; 31:4, 5, 6, 9, 10; 2 Samuel 18:15; 23:37; 2 Kings 20:13; 1 Chronicles 10:4, 5, 9, 10; 11:39; Isaiah 39:2).  On the other hand, this Hebrew word is never used anywhere else throughout the Old Testament for a garment of clothing.  Thus if we take the basic meaning of the Hebrew word, the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 would indicate that a woman should not wear something which is distinctly made for a man.  Furthermore, if we take the primary usage of the Hebrew word throughout the Old Testament in relation to that which is worn, the prohibition would indicate that a woman should not wear a man's armor.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[No Nicolaitans]

5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

The one things that makes me wonder, however, is that the context in which it is found has nothing to do with worship, and everything to do with regular, everyday life.

I'm persuaded that this particular verse had to do with worship/service; in that, they weren't to model themselves or their worship/service after the surrounding pagans and their idolatry...

Leviticus 19:27
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Yet, it too, is surrounded by verses that have nothing to do with worship/service.

NOTE TO SELF: When combining worship/service, be sure to indicate that you are referring to worship and/or their service unto the Lord...not a "worship service". LOL!