women The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

[heartstrings]

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet that is just what I am contending is not precisely accurate.  Rather, it is an issue of women's CLOTHING vs. men's SOMETHING ELSE.

Deuteronomy 22:5 -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, nether shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

 

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 May 30, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastorj]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

[heartstrings]

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".

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 May 30, 2018 by heartstrings

[Jim_Alaska]

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.

[heartstrings]

Yes, armor would certainly be one of the things which "pertaineth to a man". 

[Pastorj]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

[heartstrings]

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!

[Pastorj]

This is a great topic, but my experience is people have made up their minds on this.

[Alimantado]

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'?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

[1Timothy115]

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.