Should Women Wear Pants?

[MountainChristian]

James 2:2 ...... there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

What would this look like? Would pants on a woman be considered vile?

[Ukulelemike]

15 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

James 2:2 ...... there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

What would this look like? Would pants on a woman be considered vile?

I suspect vile raiment would more be considered dirty, of poor quality, damaged. Like a hobo. Or is that not a PC word anymore? Sorry, I stick with Hobo.

 

What about overalls? Can a woman wear overalls? Overalls aren't very attractive, unless worn without a shirt, (unless they're worn without a shirt by myself, which should NEVER be done, EVER).

[heartstrings]

18th Century American clothing (most likely the same for you folks in Canada, UK, Australia, etc.

[heartstrings]

19th Century

Early to Mid 20th

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. Deuteronomy 22:5

[weary warrior]

If we choose to answer the original poster's question strictly using scripture, "what does the Bible say", and then the only scripture we have is Deuteronomy 22:5, we have a problem. No, it is not necessarily a dispensation problem, nor a "rightly dividing the word" problem. Although those would have to be addressed. It would be a hypocrisy problem of those quoting that passage and beating their brethren up with it. 

Because immediately after Deut 22:5 comes...

Deu 22:8  When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

I've never heard a preacher preach that. As doctrine. As NT law.

Deu 22:11  Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What is that preacher wearing when he bullies women wearing pants based on this one scripture? When a loudmouth, ignorant bully stands up in the pulpit and starts frothing at the mouth over Deuteronomy 22:5 while wearing a wool / cotton blend suit, a cotton shirt and a silk tie, I turn him off. He is handling the word of God deceitfully.

Deu 22:12  Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Where are his fringes around his pants leg? Has he marred the corners of his beard? Where are his phylacteries? Why must the man insist that women keep one Jewish law that they think applies to women, yet ignore all of the Jewish law that applies clearly and definitely to men?

Or how about these little tidbits of domestic instructions ...

 

Deu 22:13  If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

Deu 22:14  And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:... (my editing of 6 verses for brevity follows. )

Deu 22:20  But if this thing be true, and the tokens ofvirginity be not found for the damsel:

Deu 22:21  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

 

Are we going to start executing the daughters of church members who get married and are found to no longer be virgins? Of course not. Yet you want to hold the free people of God to one OT mosaic law just 16 verses above this on, in the same chapter? This is not a question of modesty, I don't care how you frame it. Modesty was never in question. If jeans a simply a question of modesty, in and of itself for a woman, they are for her husband as well. Nor is it a question of cross-dressing in perverted sexual practices. It is a question of CULTURE. We IFB are the muslims of the Evangelical world, for we take a cultural phenomenon of our wept-for bygone golden era, the Victorian Age, and turn it into a doctrinal stand, and then an obscure verse out of context and twist it into a club to beat back our own fear of loss in the face of modernism . Thus, we have created our own burqas, have we not?

 

Just for clarity, I fully support any woman who wishes to be a lady and dress in skirts and dresses at all times. It is a blessing to see, and I applaud it. But it is their CHOICE. That doesn't make the weather-worn, calloused-handed rancher's wife in North Dakota who is wearing jeans while helping her man calve in the freezing winter and put up hay in the scorching summer any less of a lady, any less Godly.

 

I admit I might get a little prickly regarding this subject, and if I came across ugly and offensive in tone to anyone, I apologize. For the tone. Not for the sentiments. I stand by those.

 

 Jas 2:10  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

12 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

If we choose to answer the original poster's question strictly using scripture, "what does the Bible say", and then the only scripture we have is Deuteronomy 22:5, we have a problem. No, it is not necessarily a dispensation problem, nor a "rightly dividing the word" problem. Although those would have to be addressed. It would be a hypocrisy problem of those quoting that passage and beating their brethren up with it. 

Because immediately after Deut 22:5 comes...

Deu 22:8  When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

I've never heard a preacher preach that. As doctrine. As NT law.

Deu 22:11  Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What is that preacher wearing when he bullies women wearing pants based on this one scripture? When a loudmouth, ignorant bully stands up in the pulpit and starts frothing at the mouth over Deuteronomy 22:5 while wearing a wool / cotton blend suit, a cotton shirt and a silk tie, I turn him off. He is handling the word of God deceitfully.

Deu 22:12  Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Where are his fringes around his pants leg? Has he marred the corners of his beard? Where are his phylacteries? Why must the man insist that women keep one Jewish law that they think applies to women, yet ignore all of the Jewish law that applies clearly and definitely to men?

Or how about these little tidbits of domestic instructions ...

 

Deu 22:13  If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

Deu 22:14  And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:... (my editing of 6 verses for brevity follows. )

Deu 22:20  But if this thing be true, and the tokens ofvirginity be not found for the damsel:

Deu 22:21  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

 

Are we going to start executing the daughters of church members who get married and are found to no longer be virgins? Of course not. Yet you want to hold the free people of God to one OT mosaic law just 16 verses above this on, in the same chapter? This is not a question of modesty, I don't care how you frame it. Modesty was never in question. If jeans a simply a question of modesty, in and of itself for a woman, they are for her husband as well. Nor is it a question of cross-dressing in perverted sexual practices. It is a question of CULTURE. We IFB are the muslims of the Evangelical world, for we take a cultural phenomenon of our wept-for bygone golden era, the Victorian Age, and turn it into a doctrinal stand, and then an obscure verse out of context and twist it into a club to beat back our own fear of loss in the face of modernism . Thus, we have created our own burqas, have we not?

 

Just for clarity, I fully support any woman who wishes to be a lady and dress in skirts and dresses at all times. It is a blessing to see, and I applaud it. But it is their CHOICE. That doesn't make the weather-worn, calloused-handed rancher's wife in North Dakota who is wearing jeans while helping her man calve in the freezing winter and put up hay in the scorching summer any less of a lady, any less Godly.

 

I admit I might get a little prickly regarding this subject, and if I came across ugly and offensive in tone to anyone, I apologize. For the tone. Not for the sentiments. I stand by those.

 

 Jas 2:10  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize vs 5 though is the only one that uses the word ABOMINATION.

a friend of our Pastor had a transsexual attending his church, they confronted him about wearing dresses and told them that he had to repent of his lifestyle and submit to God and stop wearing dresses. the Pastor of the church made a statement along the lines of "the only person who's ever been to my church that had a conviction against women wearing pants is a man who wants to dress like a women". 

[weary warrior]

3 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

You do realize vs 5 though is the only one that uses the word ABOMINATION.

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?

Leviticus 11:10 lists catfish specifically as an ABOMINATION. That word abomination does not change the nature of the mosaic law, and our responsibility to place it in proper context according to the entire book of Galatians regarding it's place in the life of a New Testament saint.

[Salyan]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 5:32 PM, weary warrior said:

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?.

Um, better check your context there. In context, the 'dog' it is referring to is a male prostitute (in that culture, likely a sodomite). That verse is saying not to bring the proceeds of prostitution to God.

[swathdiver]

Many old homes with flat roofs or having parts of their roofs flat do have them fenced so as to honor the Lord in Deuteronomy 22:8.

There are parts of the Old Testament that no longer apply and parts that do, such as cross dressing men and women.  It is referred to in the New Testament.  But as always said, that is not the only reason for ladies not to dress in men's clothing, there is also the issue of modesty, among others.

[Jordan Kurecki]

On 1/4/2017 at 6:32 PM, weary warrior said:

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?

Leviticus 11:10 lists catfish specifically as an ABOMINATION. That word abomination does not change the nature of the mosaic law, and our responsibility to place it in proper context according to the entire book of Galatians regarding it's place in the life of a New Testament saint.

 

 

 

Lev 11:10 says they shall be an abomination to you (the Jew). it does not say that doing so is an abomination to God.Not to mention: " First, Peter was taught that the Old Testament dietary restrictions are no longer in effect for the New Testament believer (Acts 10:9-16). The truth of this was emphasized in that the command to rise, kill, and eat was repeated three times. " -David Cloud

 

On 1/6/2017 at 10:08 AM, Salyan said:

Um, better check your context there. In context, the 'dog' it is referring to is a male prostitute (in that culture, likely a sodomite). That verse is saying not to bring the proceeds of prostitution to God.

 

 

 

Yeah I looked that verse up as well and wondered if weary warrior even read that verse before referencing it.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Jordan Kurecki

[busdrvrlinda54]

I know that I'm probably going to be torn up for posting this, but as long as we're talking about abominations,

Deuteronomy 22:5 says" 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."  

This says that the person who does this is an abomination unto the Lord thy God, not that it's an abomination to wear the garments of the opposite sex. I don't know about you all, but I never want to be an abomination to God. Now, let the castigating begin. 

 

[Pastor Matt]

Here is a question that must be asked when talking about gender clothing. Does culture decide what is a man's clothing and what is woman's clothing?

[Saved41199]

This is a topic I am really struggling with. I will say that when I go to church I do wear nothing but skirts, modest tops, hose and shoes. At home (I'm a part time teacher) I wear whatever, pajama pants, tank tops. IF I go out (like to the store), I will wear jeans and tops. I have to dress reasonably professionally when I'm teaching so switching to skirts while teaching isn't a problem. Switching my wardrobe for everything else...well...that will be hard. 

I guess it's hard to change the habits of a lifetime...

[Pastor Scott Markle]

11 hours ago, BroMatt said:

Here is a question that must be asked when talking about gender clothing. Does culture decide what is a man's clothing and what is woman's clothing?

Well, for me -- I find nothing, nothing at all whatsoever, in Scripture that defines pants-wear as being inherently man's wear.  Therefore, I must ask -- Upon the foundation of what authority has it been determined that pants-wear IS inherently man's wear ("that which pertaineth unto a man")?  Pants-wear certainly was NOT man's wear (or, anyone's wear) among the children of Israel in Moses' day, when the command was originally given.  Pants-wear was NOT man's wear (or, anyone's wear) among the children of Israel in Jesus' day.  In fact, pants-wear was NOT even man's wear among the Roman and Greek cultures in the first century, since they held the viewpoint that only "those Barbarians" (primarily, of northern Europe) wore pants.  So then, when DID pants-wear become the defining element of man's wear ("that which pertaineth unto a man"), since it was NOT so even a few thousand years after the command of Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally given?
 

15 hours ago, busdrvrlinda54 said:

I know that I'm probably going to be torn up for posting this, but as long as we're talking about abominations,

Deuteronomy 22:5 says" 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."  

This says that the person who does this is an abomination unto the Lord thy God, not that it's an abomination to wear the garments of the opposite sex. I don't know about you all, but I never want to be an abomination to God. Now, let the castigating begin. 

Amen, and AMEN!  Certainly, Sister Linda, you should NOT want to be an abomination in the sight of God in any manner, including in the matter of this subject.  However, the question within this discussion is whether pants-wear is actually the definition for "that which pertaineth unto a man," since Deuteronomy 22:5 does not actually reference pants-wear in any direct manner (and since it could NOT have originally applied to pants-wear among the children of Israel at that time, since no one, neither men nor women, wore pants-wear as an outer garment in that time).  Furthermore, there is a question as to consistency for those who do hold that pants-wear is inherently man's wear, since by definition ANY garment with a split leg is pants-wear, including culottes, hosen, pajama pant-bottoms, etc.   

[busdrvrlinda54]

Pastor Markle,

Thank you, sir. I totally agree that there is nothing in the Bible that states that pantswear is strictly menswear. There are, however, some hints in the Bible that suggest what modest dressing is. For instance, Isaiah 47:1-3 says "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate ² Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.³ Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." This says that it is shameful for a woman to show her legs, and that God considers the showing of, at least the thighs, to be nakedness. Now, I know that this is old testament, but 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: "  In Matthew 5:28,Jesus talks about men lusting after women being adultery, and I don't want to be even partially responsible for causing that sin. Romans 14:15, 16 says " But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of:" So, we are somewhat responsible for causing others to sin. And then there is 1 Tim. 2:9 "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;"  The question, of course, is "what is modest apparel?" I see it to be clothing that is distinctly feminine, but would not cause a Christian man to stumble. Since most pants for women these days are skin tight, I choose that to be long, loose skirts. However, I do believe that what a woman wears is between her and God.