women The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

[Pastor Scott Markle]

14 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

It says "that which pertaineth to a man" . If you're an Eskimo, you wear a man-styled "parka". If you're a 'bronze age" Jew, you wear whatever men wore back then. But there was a DISTINCTION in the clothes of the sexes.  In our culture, "Pants" "leggings" or "breeches" have long "pertained" to the men, and likewise dresses or skirts to women. But then you should already know that; right?

Certainly, Brother Wayne, I am aware of the cultural element to this issue, which is the very reason for my series of questions above.  In the present-day Fundamental Baptist movement, this issue is being preached with such statements as -- "Men wear pants; pants-wear IS men's wear."  Yet such statements are NOT precisely accurate.  It would be somewhat more accurate to say something like -- "For the last few hundred years, in European and American culture, pants-wear has been men's wear."  However, if we actually acknowledged the cultural element to this issue, then we would also have to acknowledge that culture itself can change, and even has changed from past times.  For example, hosen was originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear hosen today.  For another example, high heels were originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear high heels today.  For yet another example from a different perspective, culottes are defined in a dictionary as "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the leg to resemble a skirt;" yet although many in the Fundamental Baptist movement declare that pants-wear (trousers) are men's wear and are therefore an abomination for a woman to wear, they still allow (and even recommend) females to wear culottes.

Now, let us consider another point.  It is taught that the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still has application today, and I FULL-HEARTEDLY AGREE.  It is further taught that the application of that principle for today is to forbid women from wearing pants-wear (except possibly culottes).  However, it is my understanding that we should NOT seek to apply a principle unto our present situation until we FIRST understand the original meaning of that principle in its original Biblical context.  So then, I am compelled to ask -- What did the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 originally mean when it is was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel?  Do we even know?  (By the way, having done a fairly extensive word study JUST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES concerning Deuteronomy 22:5, I am prepared to contend that the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto a man," did NOT originally refer unto a piece of clothing (a garment made from clothe) AT ALL.)  For example, an argument was made in an above posting that if an individual cannot discern whether someone is a male or a female from 200 yards away, then a line has been crossed.  Well, I am compelled to ask -- During the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel, when BOTH males and females wore a robe-type garment, could an individual discern whether someone was a male or a female from 200 yards away simply from the type of clothing that was being worn?

Yet another thought - I have a pastor friend who often makes fun of the Roman Catholic priest for his priestly garment, claiming that the priest's robe-garment is a dress (since that would be somewhat accurate within present-day American culture), and thus that the priest is wearing woman's wear.  Now, if that pastor friend is correct that a robe-garment is equivalent to a dress and thus to women's wear, then our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wore women's wear when He engaged in His ministry on the earth.  To me, implying any such thing is highly offensive.  Maybe, just maybe, we need to be a little more precise and a little more accurate with our arguments and our declarations about this issue.

[swathdiver]

10 hours ago, Saved41199 said:

Yes, men wear pants...however, in certain situations, it's a safety matter.

For example?  

[heartstrings]

13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Certainly, Brother Wayne, I am aware of the cultural element to this issue, which is the very reason for my series of questions above.  In the present-day Fundamental Baptist movement, this issue is being preached with such statements as -- "Men wear pants; pants-wear IS men's wear."  Yet such statements are NOT precisely accurate.  It would be somewhat more accurate to say something like -- "For the last few hundred years, in European and American culture, pants-wear has been men's wear."  However, if we actually acknowledged the cultural element to this issue, then we would also have to acknowledge that culture itself can change, and even has changed from past times.  For example, hosen was originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear hosen today.  For another example, high heels were originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear high heels today.  For yet another example from a different perspective, culottes are defined in a dictionary as "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the leg to resemble a skirt;" yet although many in the Fundamental Baptist movement declare that pants-wear (trousers) are men's wear and are therefore an abomination for a woman to wear, they still allow (and even recommend) females to wear culottes.

Now, let us consider another point.  It is taught that the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still has application today, and I FULL-HEARTEDLY AGREE.  It is further taught that the application of that principle for today is to forbid women from wearing pants-wear (except possibly culottes).  However, it is my understanding that we should NOT seek to apply a principle unto our present situation until we FIRST understand the original meaning of that principle in its original Biblical context.  So then, I am compelled to ask -- What did the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 originally mean when it is was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel?  Do we even know?  (By the way, having done a fairly extensive word study JUST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES concerning Deuteronomy 22:5, I am prepared to contend that the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto a man," did NOT originally refer unto a piece of clothing (a garment made from clothe) AT ALL.)  For example, an argument was made in an above posting that if an individual cannot discern whether someone is a male or a female from 200 yards away, then a line has been crossed.  Well, I am compelled to ask -- During the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel, when BOTH males and females wore a robe-type garment, could an individual discern whether someone was a male or a female from 200 yards away simply from the type of clothing that was being worn?

Yet another thought - I have a pastor friend who often makes fun of the Roman Catholic priest for his priestly garment, claiming that the priest's robe-garment is a dress (since that would be somewhat accurate within present-day American culture), and thus that the priest is wearing woman's wear.  Now, if that pastor friend is correct that a robe-garment is equivalent to a dress and thus to women's wear, then our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wore women's wear when He engaged in His ministry on the earth.  To me, implying any such thing is highly offensive.  Maybe, just maybe, we need to be a little more precise and a little more accurate with our arguments and our declarations about this issue.

Deuteronomy 22:5  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.

Nobody is questioning whether it was "cloth" or animal skins or whatever. The point is; it was a "garment".  It's really very simple.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

Deuteronomy 22:5  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.

Nobody is questioning whether it was "cloth" or animal skins or whatever. The point is; it was a "garment".  It's really very simple.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a mam, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Brother Wayne, do you know why the first phrase is translated as "that which pertaineth" and why the second phrase is translated as "garment"?  The answer is because these two very DIFFFERENT English phrases are translated from two very DIFFERENT Hebrew words that each have two very DIFFERENT meanings from each other.  Now, the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" means "something made of (woven) clothe, clothing."  However, that is NOT what the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" means.  Rather, that Hebrew word means "something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin)."  Furthermore, a word study of the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" throughout the entire Old Testament will show that this Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament over 300 times, yet that it NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, refers to something made of (woven) clothe."  (By the way, when my oldest son wanted to discuss this subject with me, I required him to look up all 300+ Old Testament passages BEFORE I would engage in the discussion, because his position needed to be rooted in actual Bible study, rather than in his dad's thoughts and opinions.)  Yet Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is speaking about something that a woman might "wear."  So then, what was it originally, if it was not clothing?  Maybe it is not so simple after all.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle
numeric correction

[heartstrings]

25 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a mam, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Brother Wayne, do you know why the first phrase is translated as "that which pertaineth" and why the second phrase is translated as "garment"?  The answer is because these two very DIFFFERENT English phrases are translated from two very DIFFERENT Hebrew words that each have two very DIFFERENT meanings from each other.  Now, the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" means "something made of (woven) clothe, clothing."  However, that is NOT what the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" means.  Rather, that Hebrew word means "something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin)."  Furthermore, a word study of the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" throughout the entire Old Testament will show that this Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament over 200 times, yet that it NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, refers to something made of (woven) clothe."  (By the way, when my oldest son wanted to discuss this subject with me, I required him to look up all 200+ Old Testament passages BEFORE I would engage in the discussion, because his position needed to be rooted in actual Bible study, rather than in his dad's thoughts and opinions.)  Yet Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is speaking about something that a woman might "wear."  So then, what was it originally, if it was not clothing?  Maybe it is not so simple after all.

 "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment".  Just by implication, that phrase tells us that men weren't wearing women's "garments", correct? So if they weren't already wearing women's fashions they must ahve been wearing 'men's duds" right?.  Brother, it is talking about wearing the clothes(or things if you must) of the opposite sex. If you want to add a sword, a sling or anything else a "man" might "wear" on his person, I'm sure that could be included too. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by heartstrings

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Two DIFFERENT phrases in translation:

1.  "that which pertaineth unto a man"
2.  "a woman's garment"

Two DIFFERENT Hebrew words:

1.  כְּלִי ("kaliy," Strong's #3627)
2.  שִׂמְלָה ("simlah," Strong's #8071)

Two DIFFERENT meanings:

1.  Something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin).
2.  Something made of (woven) clothe, clothing.

Two DIFFERENT Biblical uses when applied to an individual's attire:

1.  With 325 occurrences in the Old Testament, it NEVER once refers to clothing itself, but does refer to something a man might wear - and that is . . . (yes, I have an answer).
2.  With 29 occurrences in the Old testament, it always refers to clothing (made from clothe) of some kind.

So, that which is DIFFERENT is NOT the same, right?  I did not choose these differences.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired these DIFFERENCES.  I wonder if He had a reason.  I wonder if we should consider His reason.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[heartstrings]

Ok, do you know the reason?

[Jim_Alaska]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  With 325 occurrences in the Old Testament, it NEVER once refers to clothing itself, but does refer to something a man might wear - and that is . . . (yes, I have an answer).
_____________________________________________________________

Possibly armor and not clothing at all.

Unlike Bro. Scott, I am not well versed in Hebrew. But I am not, nor have I ever been in the camp that earnestly contends that "that which pertaineth unto a man" must be pants.

As I said early in this thread, this is a non-issue for me. I consider it very much in the same line as folks that make a big deal about other pet peeves like women must wear a hat because Scripture says that a woman praying must have her head covered.  

 

[No Nicolaitans]

I will try to tread carefully, for I don't want to cause offense to any of my dear brothers or sisters here.

Why do we not hear preachers get up and scorn the congregation for eating things like...lobster, shrimp, catfish, calamari (squid), crayfish, etc. According to God's word in Leviticus, eating such is an abomination.

We are free from the law. We are free from the law that God gave to...Israel.

We have a new testament, and despite those animals being labeled an abomination in the old testament, the new testament says that we can eat whatever as long as it's done with thanksgiving...God has made them all clean.

We have a new testament, and all that the new testament says is that women should wear modest clothing...period. Is a dress more modest than pants? Possibly. Are pants more modest than a dress? Possibly. Modesty is modesty...

However...

Just once...I'd still like to hear a preacher get up and lambaste people with something like..."You bunch'a heathens...eatin' your catfish! You're not right with God! God says that's an abomination, but you're gonna do what you wanna do, and you're gonna follow the world and eat your ol' bottom-dwellin', algae-scarfin', yucky-scavengin' catfish, aren't you! YOU'RE NOT RIGHT WITH GOD!!! A CHILD OF GOD SHOULDN'T BE EATIN' NO CATFISH!!!"

 

[heartstrings]

Slight difference there  brother

 

Lev 11:10

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

 

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.her

 

Should we go ahead and do all of those other "abominations unto the Lord" listed in the OT, simply because they were addressed to Old Testament Israel too? What about bestiality, homosexuality, incest, idolatry, witchcraft or cheating with weights and measures? There's nothing inherently sinful about eating a catfish or a crawdad, but being a "transvestite" or "crossdresser" is a whole different matter. The NEW Testament still condemns things like being "effeminate" and what do effeminate folks do? They try to act, look and dress like girls don't they? And I agree with the "modest" aspect too.

[No Nicolaitans]

Perhaps, yet if God wanted Israel to view those things as an abomination unto themselves...how much more did God view them as an abomination? Either way, the Bible plainly calls eating them an abomination...there's no way around it. Why do we separate that from clothing when the new testament has clearly given us guidelines for both?

My fear is this...the Lord Jesus Christ was quick to condemn the Pharisees who laid more on the people than God did. I've seen it first-hand...modern-day Pharisaical tendencies; in which, the "Pharisees" require people to look and act a certain way...otherwise, they're not right with God. I've seen the hate-filled darts being stared at people who don't "measure up".  I've seen the pride. I've seen the arrogance. I've seen the devastation it brings. I've also seen the Pharisaical hypocrisy of those in "authority" who lay more on people than they can bear...

I'm not saying that you're that way Bro. Wayne, because I don't believe for one minute that you are. 

From my own studies, I think I know where Pastor Markle is going with this, and I would ask everyone to please consider what he has to say.

As a final note...if someone is convicted that they should wear only skirts and dresses, then I support that. It's when those in authority "require" it...that's what I have a problem with...

Take care Bro. Wayne. I love you brother.

 

 

[heartstrings]

10 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Perhaps, yet if God wanted Israel to view those things as an abomination unto themselves...how much more did God view them as an abomination? Either way, the Bible plainly calls eating them an abomination...there's no way around it. Why do we separate that from clothing when the new testament has clearly given us guidelines for both?

My fear is this...the Lord Jesus Christ was quick to condemn the Pharisees who laid more on the people than God did. I've seen it first-hand...modern-day Pharisaical tendencies; in which, the "Pharisees" require people to look and act a certain way...otherwise, they're not right with God. I've seen the hate-filled darts being stared at people who don't "measure up".  I've seen the pride. I've seen the arrogance. I've seen the devastation it brings. I've also seen the Pharisaical hypocrisy of those in "authority" who lay more on people than they can bear...

I'm not saying that you're that way Bro. Wayne, because I don't believe for one minute that you are. 

From my own studies, I think I know where Pastor Markle is going with this, and I would ask everyone to please consider what he has to say.

As a final note...if someone is convicted that they should wear only skirts and dresses, then I support that. It's when those in authority "require" it...that's what I have a problem with...

Take care Bro. Wayne. I love you brother.

 

 

Absolutely! 

[Alan]

Bro. Wayne is not the only person here on OnLineBaptist, and in some fine churches, with the personal conviction about  women wearing pants at church.

To call those who have that conviction, out of a heart to develop holiness in their lives, and to cleanse themselves from the worldliness in the church, "Pharisees," and having modern day "Pharisaical tendencies," or "legalistic," or "under the Law," is not the best way to have a brotherly discussion on this, or other issues in the church.

Some of the brethren have a sincere desire to develop holiness in their household that they develop their own convictions about the clothing issue and not because somebody "requires" it.

 

[Alan]

On 5/2/2018 at 5:10 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

Hello! Welcome!

You will receive differing views here on that subject.

My view is that there's nothing wrong with women wearing pants as long as the pants are modest...the same with dresses, skirts, blouses, shirts, etc...

Modesty of the apparel in how it adorns a lady is the essential key...not the make of the apparel.

(1 Timothy 2:9-10) 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;

 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Excellent.

Some folks develop convictions concerning the covering of the body due to personal holiness and not Deuteronomy 22:5.

Furthermore, to insinuate that all such persons, or pastors, are harsh in their preaching in this matter, is just not true. Yes, some of the brethren go overboard, but, to use those brethren as an example to all those who hold such convictions is not totally correct.

[No Nicolaitans]

27 minutes ago, Alan said:

Excellent.

Some folks develop convictions concerning the covering of the body due to personal holiness and not Deuteronomy 22:5.

Furthermore, to insinuate that all such persons, or pastors, are harsh in their preaching in this matter, is just not true. Yes, some of the brethren go overboard, but, to use those brethren as an example to all those who hold such convictions is not totally correct.

 

If my words were misconstrued, I apologize. I thought I was careful in saying...

 

Quote

if someone is convicted that they should wear only skirts and dresses, then I support that.

 

Also, if my words were misconstrued, I apologize. I also thought I was careful in saying...

 

Quote

It's when those in authority "require" it

 

To me, that's not an "all-inclusive" phrase (as I think you took it?). It only applies to those in authority who require it of others...it in no way reflects on those who have a personal conviction about the issue. My statements regarding "Pharisaical" issues...I don't apologize for...sorry. I've seen too many leaders/pastors who require that members look and act a certain way if they want to be a part of "the ministry"...but they are Pharisaical themselves. That doesn't imply that all leaders/pastors are that way...or if my words were misconstrued, it wasn't meant to imply that all leaders/pastors are that way.

Again, I ask that folks consider what Pastor Markle says when he responds...

I apologize if I offended you or anyone else.