Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

  • 0
Katherine Solarte

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

Question

The question that I would like to raise is whether or not it is considered sinful for Christian women to wear pants, and why that is the case.

The controversy within this community regarding women's apparel has manifested itself countless of times whether it be in small local churches, such as my own, or large scale conventions and conferences where the attire of an individual, typically a woman's, is criticized or condemned. Personally, I believe that one should place more emphasis on behavior/actions and our faith than in the triviality of appearances. However, I am aware of the fervent stance that many of us have regarding this issue and I would like to hear/see our opinions on the matter, and whether they differ at all.

Edited by Katherine Solarte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

 

Graphic1.jpg

Indeed, Brother Wayne,

The program that you are using above does claim that the Hebrew word can mean "clothing, ornaments."  Yet it provides one, and only one, example for the possible meaning of "clothing."  That example is Deuteronomy 22:5 itself, which is the VERY instance under dispute.  Furthermore, that program translates that phrase of the verse as follows, "a man's clothing."  However, the King James translation does NOT so translate that phrase of the verse.  Rather, the King James translation translates that phrase as, "that which pertaineth unto a man."  On the other hand, the modern translation DO translate it differently.  The NIV gives, "A woman must not wear men's clothing."  The ESV gives, "A woman shall not wear a man's garment."  The NASV gives, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing."  The New Living Translation gives, "A woman must not put on men's clothing."  The Good News Translation gives, "Women are not to wear men's clothing."  The Message gives, "A woman must not wear a man's clothing."  You will notice that all of these modern translations translate the Hebrew word either with the English word "garment" or with the English word "clothing."  So, now I wonder if the King James translators had a reason why they did NOT translate the Hebrew word with the English word "garment" (just as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word) or with the English word "clothing."  I wonder if we trust the King James translators more than the modern translations.  If we do trust the King James translators more, then I wonder if we should seek to discern the reason for their translation choice, and for the fact that they did not choose the word "garment" even as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word.

As for myself, having done the word study of the Hebrew word throughout the entire Old Testament, actually looking up ALL 325 occurrences, I stand with trust upon the phrase which the King James translators employed in the King James translation.  Furthermore, I believe that this full word study has granted understanding as to the reason why they chose the translational phrasing that they did.

As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in the King James translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," is used 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As such, it is translated as the following within the King James translation:

 1.  166 times - "vessel(s)"
 2.  39 times - "instrument(s)"
 3.  21 times - "weapon(s)"
 4.  21 times - "jewel(s)" (as in, jewelry)
 5.  18 times - "armourbearer" (when added with the Hebrew word for "bearing, bearer," providing the "armour" side of the meaning)
 6.  14 times - "stuff" 
 7.  11 times - "thing(s)"
 8.  10 times - "armour"
 9.  7 times - "furniture"
10.  3 times - "carriage"
11.  2 times - "bag"
12  13 times - miscellaneous phrasing (such as, "that which pertaineth unto")

It should be noted that the words for "clothe," "clothing," "garment," etc. are not on this list even a single time.  The fact is that the Hebrew word does NOT mean "that which is made of clothe, clothing."  On the other hand, Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is referencing something that a man might wear.  So then, what do we find on this list of 325 occurrences that is something which a man might wear?  We find two options, being "jewels" (jewelry) or "armour."  As such, we may understand that in the immediate context of the time wherein the Lord God gave this instruction through Moses unto the children of Israel, He was indicating that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's jewelry (wouldn't that be interesting to preach in a Fundamental Baptist church), or that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's armor.  I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.  (Please note that this conclusion is based upon an ACTUAL word study throughout the Old Testament.)  If this is correct, then this would mean that a women was NOT breaking this command if she put on a man's shirt, cloak, coat, belt, hat, etc., but only if she put on a man's ARMOR.  On the other hand, a man would be breaking his side of this command if he put on any number of clothing pieces that would be recognized as women's (feminine) clothing.

So then, with such an understanding for the MEANING of this instruction, what is the point and PRINCIPLE of this instruction whereby we may make APPLICATION of this instruction unto our present day?  (Note:  I believe that understanding the meaning of an instruction is necessary BEFORE we can discern the principle, and that understanding the principle of an instruction is necessary BEFORE we can discern correct applications.)

(Another side note:  As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," occurs 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As I have also mentioned in a previous posting, I REQUIRED my oldest son to look up ALL 325 occurrences BEFORE I would discuss this matter with him.  I wonder how many here felt any need to do the due diligence of that complete word study.  If my experience with the Fundamentalist movement is a gauge (having grown up therein from baby-hood, and being committed by conviction to the foundational principles thereof), I would guess that there were only a few.,  If I may bare one of my heart's ongoing burdens at this point - This lack of diligence in Bible study is one of the things that grieves and burdens my heart deeply about the Fundamentalist movement.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

(Another side note:  As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," occurs 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As I have also mentioned in a previous posting, I REQUIRED my oldest son to look up ALL 325 occurrences BEFORE I would discuss this matter with him.  I wonder how many here felt any need to do the due diligence of that complete word study.  If my experience with the Fundamentalist movement is a gauge (having grown up therein from baby-hood, and being committed by conviction to the foundational principles thereof), I would guess that there were only a few.,  If I may bare one of my heart's ongoing burdens at this point - This lack of diligence in Bible study is one of the things that grieves and burdens my heart deeply about the Fundamentalist movement.)

I agree completely with you. I grew up in the IFB and am still part of it. I am shocked at what can be said from the pulpit and everyone say Amen, when they should be saying "Heresy". I used to hold to this position and my wife and daughter wore nothing but dresses, culottes, skirts, etc until I was challenged to study it out and realized it was based on misuse of the Word of God. I applaud you for your study and challenge others to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

I agree completely with you. I grew up in the IFB and am still part of it. I am shocked at what can be said from the pulpit and everyone say Amen, when they should be saying "Heresy". I used to hold to this position and my wife and daughter wore nothing but dresses, culottes, skirts, etc until I was challenged to study it out and realized it was based on misuse of the Word of God. I applaud you for your study and challenge others to do the same.

Brother "PastorJ,"

I believe that you understood this, but your comment allows me to add a further explanation - I did not give the additional side note above about my heart's grief and burden just concerning the subject matter of this thread, but concerning so many Biblical matters of doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Brother Markle, If a man was not to "put on a woman's garment", that means men had to have been wearing something else, correct? Unless they were going around naked but we know that wasn't the case.. So, whatever they were wearing "pertained" to men.  The word you mention as being "something else" DOES cover a lot more than just clothing. BUT, clothing IS part of what is WORN which "pertains" to men. Today, men don't normally wear a sword, dagger, a quiver of arrows, etc. but even in our culture today there are clothes readily associated with "women" and "men".

image.jpeg.7da2a69af6b8a57accd838432caec4e7.jpeg

Both history and archaeology prove that things "which pertained to a man" covers more than just clothes, brother, and no one disputes that. There's a much longer list here for men's "wear", than for women... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_clothing  But Deuteronomy 22:5 makes it perfectly clear that there was a distinction between men's and women's clothes; otherwise it would not say "neither shall a man put on a woman's garment". 

 

 

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I must confess that I am possibly one of the "many" that Bro. Scott indicated may not have done a diligent word study on this subject.I am not well educated and find it very difficult to reference the Hebrew with any measure of accuracy.

Having said that I would remind those following this thread that early on in the thread, in reference to one of Bro. Scott's early posts I suggested that that, "that which pertaineth to a man", might be armor. I did not arrive at this conclusion by myself. Many years ago my first missionary pastor taught that this phrase  most likely meant armor, rather than clothing.

I trusted this man of God like I have trusted no other since and believed that he would not lead us wrong. He was one of the earlier breed of pastors that had a heart for god and God's word and studied diligently long before there even were computers. I am not saying he was perfect or without any error, but he was  man that would not just "go with the flow". He made it his life's work to study and teach others in a manner that I have not seen since.

Please understand that I am not putting this man up on a pedestal, I am simply saying that I learned that I could trust him to tell me the truth over many years as his student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "PastorJ,"

I believe that you understood this, but your comment allows me to add a further explanation - I did not give the additional side note above about my heart's grief and burden just concerning the subject matter of this thread, but concerning so many Biblical matters of doctrine.

I understand and agree. This is an area that is lacking in all of Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in the King James translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," is used 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As such, it is translated as the following within the King James translation:

 1.  166 times - "vessel(s)"
 2.  39 times - "instrument(s)"
 3.  21 times - "weapon(s)"
 4.  21 times - "jewel(s)" (as in, jewelry)
 5.  18 times - "armourbearer" (when added with the Hebrew word for "bearing, bearer," providing the "armour" side of the meaning)
 6.  14 times - "stuff" 
 7.  11 times - "thing(s)"
 8.  10 times - "armour"
 9.  7 times - "furniture"
10.  3 times - "carriage"
11.  2 times - "bag"
12  13 times - miscellaneous phrasing (such as, "that which pertaineth unto")

Allow me to reiterate --

It should be noted that the words for "clothe," "clothing," "garment," etc. are not on this list even a single time.  The fact is that the Hebrew word does NOT mean "that which is made of clothe, clothing."  On the other hand, Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is referencing something that a man might wear.  So then, what do we find on this list of 325 occurrences that is something which a man might wear?  We find two options, being "jewels" (jewelry) or "armour."  As such, we may understand that in the immediate context of the time wherein the Lord God gave this instruction through Moses unto the children of Israel, He was indicating either that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's jewelry (wouldn't that be interesting to preach in a Fundamental Baptist church), or that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's armor.  I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.  (Please note that this conclusion is based upon an ACTUAL word study throughout the Old Testament, and the actual communication of the Old Testament Scriptures supersedes ANY guess-work that anyone might make.)  If this is correct, then this would mean that a women was NOT breaking this command if she put on a man's shirt, cloak, coat, belt, hat, etc., but only if she put on a man's ARMOR.  On the other hand, a man would be breaking his side of this command if he put on any number of clothing pieces that would be recognized as women's (feminine) clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
36 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Allow me to reiterate --

It should be noted that the words for "clothe," "clothing," "garment," etc. are not on this list even a single time.  The fact is that the Hebrew word does NOT mean "that which is made of clothe, clothing."  On the other hand, Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is referencing something that a man might wear.  So then, what do we find on this list of 325 occurrences that is something which a man might wear?  We find two options, being "jewels" (jewelry) or "armour."  As such, we may understand that in the immediate context of the time wherein the Lord God gave this instruction through Moses unto the children of Israel, He was indicating either that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's jewelry (wouldn't that be interesting to preach in a Fundamental Baptist church), or that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's armor.  I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.  (Please note that this conclusion is based upon an ACTUAL word study throughout the Old Testament, and the actual communication of the Old Testament Scriptures supersedes ANY guess-work that anyone might make.)  If this is correct, then this would mean that a women was NOT breaking this command if she put on a man's shirt, cloak, coat, belt, hat, etc., but only if she put on a man's ARMOR.  On the other hand, a man would be breaking his side of this command if he put on any number of clothing pieces that would be recognized as women's (feminine) clothing.

I just looked at all instances of "pertain" in the Bible and they all mean the same thing.  Brother, if a man is prohibited from wearing women's clothes, whose clothes is he wearing? it would have to be "men's clothes" wouldn't it? Then do not men's clothes "pertain to a man"? It can't be that hard to understand. The verse (in the kjv) don't say 'armor" brother BUT "armor" is mentioned many times in the KJV. If it were specifically 'armor" wouldn't it say so? Maybe, since it doesn't specifically say "garments" or 'armor" it is referring to ANYTHING that a man wears. A woman, apparently just wore "garments" but a man wore numerous other things including "armor", a quiver of arrows, a sword, "tassels" and "girdle" for "girding up is loins" or whatever. So by saying "that which pertaineth to a man" it covers it all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I wonder if we trust the King James translators more than the modern translations.  If we do trust the King James translators more, then I wonder if we should seek to discern the reason for their translation choice, and for the fact that they did not choose the word "garment" even as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word.

As for myself, having done the word study of the Hebrew word throughout the entire Old Testament, actually looking up ALL 325 occurrences, I stand with trust upon the phrase which the King James translators employed in the King James translation.  Furthermore, I believe that this full word study has granted understanding as to the reason why they chose the translational phrasing that they did.

<snip>

 I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.

Hi Pastor Markle, I've just read your summary of your word study and I found it edifying and inspirational. Hope you don't mind me jumping in with a question, actually I guess a repeat of something you posed near the beginning: what do you think is the specific reason for the translator's choosing the phrase "that which pertaineth unto" in Deut 22:5 and not any of the eleven words you have listed, including 'armour'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

It should be noted that the words for "clothe," "clothing," "garment," etc. are not on this list even a single time.  The fact is that the Hebrew word does NOT mean "that which is made of clothe, clothing."  On the other hand, Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is referencing something that a man might wear.  So then, what do we find on this list of 325 occurrences that is something which a man might wear?  We find two options, being "jewels" (jewelry) or "armour."  As such, we may understand that in the immediate context of the time wherein the Lord God gave this instruction through Moses unto the children of Israel, He was indicating either that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's jewelry (wouldn't that be interesting to preach in a Fundamental Baptist church), or that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's armor.  I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.  (Please note that this conclusion is based upon an ACTUAL word study throughout the Old Testament, and the actual communication of the Old Testament Scriptures supersedes ANY guess-work that anyone might make.)  If this is correct, then this would mean that a women was NOT breaking this command if she put on a man's shirt, cloak, coat, belt, hat, etc., but only if she put on a man's ARMOR.  On the other hand, a man would be breaking his side of this command if he put on any number of clothing pieces that would be recognized as women's (feminine) clothing.

6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, with such an understanding for the MEANING of this instruction, what is the point and PRINCIPLE of this instruction whereby we may make APPLICATION of this instruction unto our present day? 

As we consider this matter, we need to recognize, even as the fashion world acknowledges and regularly communicates, that clothing and attire communicates a message.

First then, let us consider the point and principle of the instruction unto the men -- "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment."  Since this instruction specifically references the "GARMENT" of a woman, we understand that it DOES apply unto the matter of clothing itself.  Yet this instruction does not reference any specific form of clothing, nor does the rest of God's Word appear to make any such specification.  Thus we might understand that this instruction applies unto clothing that was readily recognized within the Israelite culture as the clothing of a woman.  Finally, this instruction describes the clothing as belonging unto a woman, "a woman's garment."  Thus we understand that this instruction would have applied unto any form of clothing that would have communicated womanliness (femininity) within the Israelite culture.  Even so, we are able to discern the principle of this instruction -- It is a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a man in any given culture at any given time and place to wear any clothing (whether by specific piece, specific cut, or specific decorative design) that would be readily recognized in that culture as being feminine.  Certainly, the specific elements of clothing that are recognized as feminine may be different from culture to culture and from one era in a culture to another era in that same culture; however, the principle itself remains absolute.  Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a man in present day American culture to wear any clothing (whether by specific piece, specific cut, or specific decorative design) that is readily recognized in this culture as being feminine.

Second, let us consider the point and principle of the instruction unto the women -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man."  Since our word study through the Old Testament has revealed that this instruction did NOT refer unto clothing in the time when it was originally given by the Lord God through Moses unto Israel, but refers rather unto a man's armor, we must consider what a man's armor would have communicated within the culture of Israel at that time.  Furthermore, since this matter was more specific in that time than simply a reference unto masculine clothing, I conclude that a man's armor would have culturally communicated, not masculinity in general, but masculine AUTHORITY in specific.  Many things might have communicated masculinity, but the armor would have more specifically communicated AUTHORITY.  If I am correct, then we are now able to discern the principle of this instruction -- It is a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in any given culture at any given time and place to wear that specific form of attire that would be recognized in that culture as representing male AUTHORITY.  Certainly, the specific element of attire that is recognized as representing male authority may be different from culture to culture and from one era in a culture to another era in that same culture; however, the principle itself remains absolute.  Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in present day American culture to wear that specific element of attire that is recognized in this culture as representing male authority.  Now, it is historically true that the particular element of attire that represented male authority in American culture through a significant number of years has been a pair of pants.  Furthermore, it is also true that the subculture of Fundamentalism within present day American culture continues to view a pair of pants as the element of attire which represents male authority.  Yet the question may be asked whether the changes in American culture have at all altered what element of attire now represents male authority within American culture at large.

(Side Note:  Because we are involved by committed conviction within the subculture of Fundamentalism, my home holds the general standard that my wife does NOT wear pants outside the home in the public arena, and that she rarely wears them within the privacy of our home.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
17 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

Hi Pastor Markle, I've just read your summary of your word study and I found it edifying and inspirational. Hope you don't mind me jumping in with a question, actually I guess a repeat of something you posed near the beginning: what do you think is the specific reason for the translator's choosing the phrase "that which pertaineth unto" in Deut 22:5 and not any of the eleven words you have listed, including 'armour'?

Brother Carl,

I believe that they did so in order that the principle of the verse might be applied more readily unto all cultures at all times and in all places, rather than to be focused strictly upon the idea of armor itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 8:57 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

I guess even that depends on where you live huh?  Scotland for example.

Or San Francisco, Boston, or any other city where Satan has so confused people they don't know if they are men or women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is a typical outfit for men and women in Bible times. The man is wicked because he is wearing women's clothing? No, there is a distinct difference between the man and women. 

warddrobe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Pastorj said:

This is a typical outfit for men and women in Bible times. The man is wicked because he is wearing women's clothing? No, there is a distinct difference between the man and women. 

warddrobe.jpg

Indeed, the teaching (or even implication) that pants-wear is INHERENTLY (by created nature) man's wear is one of the FALSEHOODS that I have been seeking to demonstrate as a falsehood through actual Bible study.  It is interesting that most of the support for the doctrine that pants-wear is inherently man's wear is through cultural evidences.  Yet throughout the actual revelation of God's Holy Word, we do not find any place wherein God Himself designed or instructed pants-wear as outer wear for men OR women.  (Actually, when God Himself has designed clothing for men, He has designed skirt-wear as outer wear for the lower half of the man, just as in the picture above.  It was not God, but was ungodly, pagan, Satan-lead culture that designed pants-wear for men.  Furthermore, when God Himself is portrayed in Scripture as wearing clothing, He is portrayed as wearing skirt-wear as outer wear for His lower half.  I wonder if these Biblical facts should at all influence our doctrinal position on this matter.)

Does the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still stand with absolute authority today?  I would contend that it DOES.  Does the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5 indicate that pants-wear is inherently man's wear?  I would contend that it does NOT.  Does the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 encompass the cultural reality of pants-wear as man's wear within certain cultures at certain times and places of culture?  I would contend that it DOES.  Indeed, I would contend that the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5 presents the following:

1.  A principle of absolute truth.
2.  A principle of cultural application.
3.  A prohibition against men wearing any clothing that culturally communicates FEMININITY.
4.  A prohibition against women wearing that piece of attire  which culturally communicates male AUTHORITY.  (Note: In referring unto a "piece of attire," I am contending that this piece may be a piece of clothing that men wear regularly, or may be a piece of accessory that men wear less commonly, or may even be a piece of attire that men wear more rarely.  I would contend such because in the time wherein the Lord God delivered the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 through Moses unto the children of Israel, the men would not have worn their armor on a common basis every day, or even necessarily as a form of accessory, but on more rare occasions of martial purpose.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the teaching (or even implication) that pants-wear is INHERENTLY (by created nature) man's wear is one of the FALSEHOODS that I have been seeking to demonstrate as a falsehood through actual Bible study.  It is interesting that most of the support for the doctrine that pants-wear is inherently man's wear is through cultural evidences.  Yet throughout the actual revelation of God's Holy Word, we do not find any place wherein God Himself designed or instructed pants-wear as outer wear for men OR women.  (Actually, when God Himself has designed clothing for men, He has designed skirt-wear as outer wear for the lower half of the man, just as in the picture above.  It was not God, but was ungodly, pagan, Satan-lead culture that designed pants-wear for men.  Furthermore, when God Himself is portrayed in Scripture as wearing clothing, He is portrayed as wearing skirt-wear as outer wear for His lower half.  I wonder if these Biblical facts should at all influence our doctrinal position on this matter.)

Does the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still stand with absolute authority today?  I would contend that it DOES.  Does the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5 indicate that pants-wear is inherently man's wear?  I would contend that it does NOT.  Does the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 encompass the cultural reality of pants-wear as man's wear within certain cultures at certain times and places of culture?  I would contend that it DOES.  Indeed, I would contend that the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5 presents the following:

1.  A principle of absolute truth.
2.  A principle of cultural application.
3.  A prohibition against men wearing any clothing that culturally communicates FEMININITY.
4.  A prohibition against women wearing that piece of attire  which culturally communicates male AUTHORITY.  (Note: In referring unto a "piece of attire," I am contending that this piece may be a piece of clothing that men wear regularly, or may be a piece of accessory that men wear less commonly, or may even be a piece of attire that men wear more rarely I would contend such because in the time wherein the Lord God delivered the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 through Moses unto the children of Israel, the men would not have worn their armor on a common basis every day, or even necessarily as a form of accessory, but on more rare occasions of martial purpose.)

Brother Scott, Are you admitting That Deuteronomy 22:5 includes prohibiting women from wearing men's clothes as opposed to just "armor"?

And for the record, I for one, never said that "pants wear" was "inherently man's wear": I thought that I made it clear that the style or construction of "men's wear" and women's wear depends on the CULTURE.  Our culture just happens to associate pants on men....at least until recently.

image.png.dfe00a24049cb966457feb7094a318e4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Brother Scott, Are you admitting That Deuteronomy 22:5 includes prohibiting women from wearing men's clothes as opposed to just "armor"?

18 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As we consider this matter, we need to recognize, even as the fashion world acknowledges and regularly communicates, that clothing and attire communicates a message.

First then, let us consider the point and principle of the instruction unto the men -- "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment."  Since this instruction specifically references the "GARMENT" of a woman, we understand that it DOES apply unto the matter of clothing itself.  Yet this instruction does not reference any specific form of clothing, nor does the rest of God's Word appear to make any such specification.  Thus we might understand that this instruction applies unto clothing that was readily recognized within the Israelite culture as the clothing of a woman.  Finally, this instruction describes the clothing as belonging unto a woman, "a woman's garment."  Thus we understand that this instruction would have applied unto any form of clothing that would have communicated womanliness (femininity) within the Israelite culture.  Even so, we are able to discern the principle of this instruction -- It is a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a man in any given culture at any given time and place to wear any clothing (whether by specific piece, specific cut, or specific decorative design) that would be readily recognized in that culture as being feminine.  Certainly, the specific elements of clothing that are recognized as feminine may be different from culture to culture and from one era in a culture to another era in that same culture; however, the principle itself remains absolute.  Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a man in present day American culture to wear any clothing (whether by specific piece, specific cut, or specific decorative design) that is readily recognized in this culture as being feminine.

Second, let us consider the point and principle of the instruction unto the women -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man."  Since our word study through the Old Testament has revealed that this instruction did NOT refer unto clothing in the time when it was originally given by the Lord God through Moses unto Israel, but refers rather unto a man's armor, we must consider what a man's armor would have communicated within the culture of Israel at that time.  Furthermore, since this matter was more specific in that time than simply a reference unto masculine clothing, I conclude that a man's armor would have culturally communicated, not masculinity in general, but masculine AUTHORITY in specific.  Many things might have communicated masculinity, but the armor would have more specifically communicated AUTHORITY.  If I am correct, then we are now able to discern the principle of this instruction -- It is a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in any given culture at any given time and place to wear that specific form of attire that would be recognized in that culture as representing male AUTHORITY.  Certainly, the specific element of attire that is recognized as representing male authority may be different from culture to culture and from one era in a culture to another era in that same culture; however, the principle itself remains absolute.  Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in present day American culture to wear that specific element of attire that is recognized in this culture as representing male authority.  Now, it is historically true that the particular element of attire that represented male authority in American culture through a significant number of years has been a pair of pants.  Furthermore, it is also true that the subculture of Fundamentalism within present day American culture continues to view a pair of pants as the element of attire which represents male authority.  Yet the question may be asked whether the changes in American culture have at all altered what element of attire now represents male authority within American culture at large.

(Side Note:  Because we are involved by committed conviction within the subculture of Fundamentalism, my home holds the general standard that my wife does NOT wear pants outside the home in the public arena, and that she rarely wears them within the privacy of our home.)

Brother Wayne,

As per my above posting (which I have quoted just above), I acknowledge, NOT that the contextual MEANING of Deuteronomy 22:5 is a reference unto any form of clothing, but that the PRINCIPLE of Deuteronomy 22:5 in prohibiting women from wearing the piece of attire in any given culture that represents male AUTHORITY does indeed encompass a piece of clothing IF that piece of clothing is that piece which represents male AUTHORITY in the culture of that time and place.  As I have mentioned previously, I would contend that the contextual MEANING of the verse MUST be discerned BEFORE the PRINCIPLE of the verse can be discerned, and that the PRINCIPLE of the verse MUST be discerned BEFORE the present-day APPLICATION of the verse can be determined.  Therefore, I do contend that the contextual MEANING of the verse has NO reference whatsoever AT ALL to clothing, but only to a man's ARMOR.  From that MEANING, I discern that the PRINCIPLE of the verse concerns that piece of attire (whatever it may be, whether a piece of common clothing, or less common accessory, or more rare attire) which culturally represents male AUTHORITY.  From that PRINCIPLE, I seek to determine what that piece of attire may be in our present-day (of 2018) American culture.
 

16 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

And for the record, I for one, never said that "pants wear" was "inherently man's wear": I thought that I made it clear that the style or construction of "men's wear" and women's wear depends on the CULTURE.  Our culture just happens to associate pants on men....at least until recently.

image.png.dfe00a24049cb966457feb7094a318e4.png

Indeed, that is quite true, Brother Wayne.  You have from the beginning acknowledged the cultural aspect of the principle in Deuteronomy 22:5.  I make NO accusation against you in this regard.  In fact, I respect you highly for your acknowledgement thereof.  (By the way, as I have time, maybe later today, I wish to post a commendation and thanks unto you for one of your previous postings, by which you drove me to a deeper study on the abomination passages of Scripture.)  Yet others have at least implied otherwise.  

I myself also have acknowledged that pants-wear has been historically that piece of attire which represents male authority for quite some within American culture.

18 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Even so also, we are able to discern the application of this principle for our present day -- It would be a sinful abomination before the Lord our God for a woman in present day American culture to wear that specific element of attire that is recognized in this culture as representing male authority.  Now, it is historically true that the particular element of attire that represented male authority in American culture through a significant number of years has been a pair of pants.  Furthermore, it is also true that the subculture of Fundamentalism within present day American culture continues to view a pair of pants as the element of attire which represents male authority.  Yet the question may be asked whether the changes in American culture have at all altered what element of attire now represents male authority within American culture at large.

(Side Note:  Because we are involved by committed conviction within the subculture of Fundamentalism, my home holds the general standard that my wife does NOT wear pants outside the home in the public arena, and that she rarely wears them within the privacy of our home.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If you believe that changing American culture may no longer mean that pants are recognized as men's attire, then please tell me what has replaced pants as men's attire? In not pants, then what?  If you are going to say that "cut" is what distinguishes men's pants and women's pants, then you are asking men to closely look at a woman's shape (in areas that should only be examined closely if she is your wife) to make the determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 minutes ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

If you believe that changing American culture may no longer mean that pants are recognized as men's attire, then please tell me what has replaced pants as men's attire? In not pants, then what?  

The suit coat and neck tie.

12 minutes ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

If you are going to say that "cut" is what distinguishes men's pants and women's pants, then you are asking men to closely look at a woman's shape (in areas that should only be examined closely if she is your wife) to make the determination.

I myself would NOT say that per se.  Yet even if I did, your complaint against it is a false complaint.  The instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 does NOT instruct me to examine whether every OTHER woman is wearing appropriate clothing.  Thus it does NOT give me any need or responsibility to look closely at the cut of her clothing.  Rather, the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 gives the responsibility unto men to be certain that they do not wear the clothing that culturally communicates femininity; and the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 gives the responsibility unto women to be certain that they do not wear that piece of attire which culturally communicates male authority.  (Note: The only women for which I would have direct responsibility to closely examine the cut of their clothing would be my own wife and daughters.)  Please explain to me wherein the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 indicates the responsibility that I myself need to be out and about closely examining other women's clothing and attire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
20 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The suit coat and neck tie.

I myself would NOT say that per se.  Yet even if I did, your complaint against it is a false complaint.  The instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 does NOT instruct me to examine whether every OTHER woman is wearing appropriate clothing.  Thus it does NOT give me any need or responsibility to look closely at the cut of her clothing.  Rather, the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 gives the responsibility unto men to be certain that they do not wear the clothing that culturally communicates femininity; and the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 gives the responsibility unto women to be certain that they do not wear that piece of attire which culturally communicates male authority.  (Note: The only women for which I would have direct responsibility to closely examine the cut of their clothing would be my own wife and daughters.)  Please explain to me wherein the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 indicates the responsibility that I myself need to be out and about closely examining other women's clothing and attire.

I have to agree with the 'not examining women's clothing' part. But is 'armor" the only thing that "communicated male authority" back in Deuteronomic times?

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

I have to agree with the 'not examining women's clothing' part. But is 'armor" the only thing that "communicated male authority" back in Deuteronomic times?

Brother Wayne,

From the word study, it is the only piece of attire that I am able to conclude from Scriptural revelation itself.  If there was anything else, I have not yet found any Scriptural indication for it.  Now, I would certainly acknowledge that there were probably pieces of attire that communicated KINGSHIP authority (such as a crown or scepter) or that communicated HIGH PRIESTHOOD authority (such as the High Priest's various accessories); but I am not aware that Scripture reveals anything else concerning general MALE authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As stated before - I doubt anyone here will change their position on this so I will bow out after this comment.

A bathroom sign does not determine culture, especially when those symbols were created over 100 years ago. If you sit in the mall and simply look at people, what do you see. Can you clearly distinguish between a man and woman that are walking towards you. If the answer is yes, then the woman is wearing clothes that pertain to a woman and the man is wearing clothes that pertain to a man. Let's stop basing our Biblical positions on signs. This passage is teaching a principle that can be used for thousands of years, not just the 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

As stated before - I doubt anyone here will change their position on this so I will bow out after this comment.

A bathroom sign does not determine culture, especially when those symbols were created over 100 years ago. If you sit in the mall and simply look at people, what do you see. Can you clearly distinguish between a man and woman that are walking towards you. If the answer is yes, then the woman is wearing clothes that pertain to a woman and the man is wearing clothes that pertain to a man. Let's stop basing our Biblical positions on signs. This passage is teaching a principle that can be used for thousands of years, not just the 21st century.

Of course a "bathroom sign" does not determine culture. But you know which one to use by looking at the sign don't you? That's because our culture determined the bathroom signs. Now, thanks to the "trans-gender' movement, that will soon be a thing of the past. Carry on.

Image result for transgender bathroom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Of course a "bathroom sign" does not determine culture. But you know which one to use by looking at the sign don't you? That's because our culture determined the bathroom signs. Now, thanks to the "trans-gender' movement, that will soon be a thing of the past. Carry on.

Image result for transgender bathroom

Hate to tell you that the transgender movement had no impact on women wearing pants. That started in the 40's our of necessity when women went to work in factories. Which is when pants on women became acceptable. By the 60's and 70's it was normal. Now in 2018, women wearing dresses has become the abnormal. And that is only in the US, which we do not base Bible doctrine on a country either. If you look in Europe and other countries, the culture changed years ago, unless you are basing it on a sign. Go sit in a mall and you will see the change in culture. If God wanted to declare pants an abomination, he would have made it clear. Instead he used a principle of distinction between the sexes. In the New Testament, God makes it about modesty. Hence Christians should look distinctly their sex and be modest. It's also one of the biggest problems in Christianity. Immodesty has overwhelmed our churches and a lot of the time, the woman is in a dress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×