women The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

[Pastorj]

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. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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. 

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.)

[heartstrings]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

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.)

 

[2bLikeJesus]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

[heartstrings]

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 May 31, 2018 by heartstrings

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

[Pastorj]

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.

[heartstrings]

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.

[Pastorj]

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.

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 9:44 PM, heartstrings said:

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:

Deut 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.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.

Brother Wayne,

I mentioned earlier my desire to post a commendation and thanks unto you for a previous posting that you had made.  The previous posting for which I commend and thank you is that which I have quoted above.  In that posting you pointed out the grammatical distinction between the "abomination unto you" statement in Leviticus 11:10 and the "abomination unto the Lord thy God" statement in Deuteronomy 22:5.  Your posting thereof compelled me to do a full Biblical study on all of the "abomination" passages in Scripture.  Being an individual who ever presses (hard) the importance of grammatical precision, I found through my study that Leviticus 11 is the only "abomination" passage wherein the grammatical "unto you" reference is made.  I found that the other "abomination" passages speak concerning abomination in general or concerning abomination unto the Lord in specific.  I myself found this to be instructive.  Thus I commend and thank you for posting the above.  Furthermore, I believe that sometime in the not too distant future, I shall be preaching a series of message on the "abomination" passages of Scripture.  Although you and I have not stood in full agreement concerning the primary discussion of this thread, I still wish to thank you for being used of the Lord unto my edification in this regard.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling

[Pastor Scott Markle]

9 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

Immodesty has overwhelmed our churches and a lot of the time, the woman is in a dress.

Sad to say, but that one statement is a GRIEVOUS truth.

[heartstrings]

4 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

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.

I did not say nor intend to convey that the transgender movement had any impact on women wearing pants;  but I would suspect the other way around. No we do not base Bible doctrine on a country, but a country SHOULD base it's doctrine on the Bible. Again, I did'nt base it on a sign and I told you that.The Bible does not say that God declared "pants"an abomination; it says "wearing what pertains to a man" is an abomination. I agree with the immodesty statements.

[heartstrings]

21 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

I mentioned earlier my desire to post a commendation and thanks unto you for a previous posting that you had made.  The previous posting for which I commend and thank you is that which I have quoted above.  In that posting you pointed out the grammatical distinction between the "abomination unto you" statement in Leviticus 11:10 and the "abomination unto the Lord thy God" statement in Deuteronomy 22:5.  Your posting thereof compelled me to do a full Biblical study on all of the "abomination" passages in Scripture.  Being an individual who ever presses (hard) the importance of grammatical precision, I found through my study that Leviticus 11 is the only "abomination" passage wherein the grammatical "unto you" reference is made.  I found that the other "abomination" passages speak concerning abomination in general or concerning abomination unto the Lord in specific.  I myself found this to be instructive.  Thus I commend and thank you for posting the above.  Furthermore, I believe that sometime in the not too distant future, I shall be preaching a series of message on the "abomination" passages of Scripture.  Although you and I have not stood in full agreement concerning the primary discussion of this thread, I still wish to thank you for being used of the Lord unto my edification in this regard.

Brother Scott, No need for a commendation; it was just an observation. You will also notice, for what it's worth, the Biblical mention of "shepherds" being an "abomination" to the "Egyptians". And another thing I noticed is that Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't appear to have been a stoning offense, even though it was an abomination to the Lord..

Edited May 31, 2018 by heartstrings