Women Wearing Pants

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Can you tell me why καταστολῇ

Revelation 7? Who said anything about glorified believers? All the verses you gave are concerning men. Including the washing of the robes.

Just to clarify, I said Rev 7 was an example of stole, not katastole.
"Glorified believers" is a direct quote from BDAG. Rev 7.9 and 6.11 are scenes in heaven, hence "glorified believers." It does not appear that BDAG limits it to only males.

But as I've thought about what you and Votivesoul have said, I think that you're right, that because of the symbolic nature of Revelation, verses in this book are not that helpful in the discussion of distinction in dress.

The Greek καταστολῇ "again" is a compound word κατα, down, or lowering, and στολῇ (as you pointed out) long robe. The Greek καταστολῇ is a feminine. The Greek στολή is masculine and it means ornaments, equipment, arrangement, articles that men own and wear.

I looked at BDAG again for katastole. I don't see where it precisely says what you and rdp say katastole means. See attached photo. It does mention "something to cover the body, namely attire, clothing." I can understand why you might argue for the meaning you do based on that, but BDAG does not actually say "to the feet," so I can understand why some would not be convinced that it must mean that.

An important thing to note from this entry in BDAG: you have said that katastole is from kata and stole, but BDAG seems to say it is from katastello.

Do I wear a στολή? Of course, I wear male attire, pants, and a 2 inch wide leather belt, with a big silver buckle that says "I'm always right!"

LOL!

***

To me a fundamental thing to consider about stole and other common Jewish and Greco-Roman male clothes from the first century is that they were nothing like men's clothes in our culture; they did not wear anything like trousers of today. Male clothes were skirted. So men and women wore clothes that were similar overall, though with some distinction, but they were not as distinct as between trousers and skirts today. And again, no verses (at least no one has yet presented them) teach that the distinction between male and female clothes must be entirely or radically different. Thus, men's and women's pants can function the same way in our culture--but, as I have stated already, I would prefer women to generally wear skirts.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Costeon,

In Revelation 19:8, we are told about the believers wearing fine linen, which it then calls the "righteousness of the saints".

Fine linen is merely a symbol here. Are believers in the heavenlies actually dressed with linen garments?

Of course not. Anymore than linen garments = righteousness.

Now, it might be appropriate to ask why fine linen garments represent as a symbol the righteousness of the saints, but don't forget it's just a symbol, not a reality.

I think you make a good point. Please see what I said to EB regarding the use of Rev in this larger discussion.

Otherwise, if I go and buy some really nice linen garments, I can be righteous. Right???

Wouldn't that be nice? :-)

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*RDP—and anyone who understands serious lexicography is “so keen” on BDAG.

Indeed. EB seems to respect your posts very much, so I thought it would be good to emphasize something that you, rightly, put so much emphasis on, BDAG.

*EB is absolutely correct in his assertion regarding the compound noun καταστολῇ—it literally defines as “a long flowing garment to the feet (which included the ankles w.in a Judaic paradigm).”

*Here’s one of many sources I could marshal (trying to do this from my iPad):

(CWSB Dictionary): καταστολή katastolḗ; gen. katastolḗs, fem. noun from katastéllō (G2687), to put or let down, appease. A long garment or robe reaching down to the feet (see LXX: Is. 61:3). Apparel, dress in general, a garment, a long robe of dignity (1 Tim. 2:9).

*Cf. also the angel in Mark 16.5 who wore a “long robe” (στολὴν) and many other passages where this noun is defined by virtually every single lexicographer in existence as a “long robe to the feet”—which is intensified by the prepositional prefix κατα, meaning “downward” (cf. prepositional chart), in I Tim. 2.9.

*But, of course, this too will be explained away on AFF .

Please note what I said to EB in my last post. BDAG does not seem to entirely agree with CWSB. Shouldn't we give preference to BDAG?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Indeed. EB seems to respect your posts very much, so I thought it would be good to emphasize something that you, rightly, put so much emphasis on, BDAG.

Please note what I said to EB in my last post. BDAG does not seem to entirely agree with CWSB. Shouldn't we give preference to BDAG?

*BDAG is not as exhaustive w. this noun for some reason (see below). But (and you HAD to know this was coming ), will you equally give preference to BDAG regarding their translation and definition of “shorn” in I COR 11.6 ? Here’s the full list of cognates from the Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament:

καταστολή (katastolē), attire; clothing. Cognate words: ἀποστέλλω, ἀποστολή, ἀπόστολος, διαστέλλω, διαστολή, ἐξαποστέλλω, ἐπιστέλλω, ἐπιστολή, καταστέλλω, στέλλω, στολή, συναποστέλλω, συστέλλω, ὑποστέλλω, ὑποστολή, ψευδαπόστολος. Heb. equiv. fr. LXX: מַעֲטֶה (1×)

*As you can see, there’s numerous cognates to this particular noun. How do we know which one applies to I Timothy 2.9 then? As always—context, which, in this passage is clothing (στολή) contra στέλλω, which denotes a behavior defined as “to avoid, to stay away.”

(BDAG): καταστολή, ῆς, ἡ (s. καταστέλλω; Hippocr.; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 12, 15 [88 B.C.] ‘subjugation’; Is 61:3; EpArist, Joseph.) Like the verb καταστέλλω, the basic idea is keeping something in check, hence the use of this term in the sense of ‘reserve, restraint’ (IPriene 109, 186f [120 B.C.] and EpArist 284f: both texts w. εὐσχημοσύνη; Epict. 2, 10, 15; 2, 21, 11: here personal deportment is certainly meant). The verb στέλλω means to ‘furnish, equip’, a sense that extends itself to the putting on of garments. Hence καταστολή readily serves to express outward attire, either the character one exhibits in personal deportment or someth. to cover the body, namely attire, clothing (Jos., Bell. 2, 126; cp. Is 61:3; Plut., 154 [Pericl. 5, 1] also appears to be used in this sense) ἐν κ. κοσμίῳ dress in becoming manner (REB; dress modestly NRSV) 1 Ti 2:9. The writer skillfully moves from the lit. sense of garments to personal characteristics of ‘modesty and self-control’ as appropriate adornment.–DELG s.v. στέλλω. M-M. TW.

**Here, I am seriously curious why BDAG appeals to the verbal notion of στέλλω to blanket a noun idea (?). Technically, the compound noun consists of κατα and στολῇ—and I am not clear why BDAG and the resources below do not mention this reality when, for e.g., the Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament—and the actual word itself—is στολῇ and not στέλλω. Same w. the sources I paste below:

(A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament): καταστολή, equipment, dress, properly a long garment or robe reaching down to the feet, (from καταστέλλω, to send or let down.)

(A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament): κατα-στολή, -ῆς, ἡ (< καταστέλλω), [in LXX: Is 61:3 (מַעֲטֶה)*;] 1. a letting down, checking. 2. steadiness, quietness in demeanour. 3. LXX and NT (cf. Plut., ii, 65 D; -ίζω = vestire), a garment, dress, attire: 1 Ti 2:9 (but v. Ellic., in l.).

**Above, this manual lexicon even offers the hyphen to break down the differing components: κατα-στολή. Interestingly, I looked at the cognates of στολή. Here’s what I found:

(The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament): στολή (stolē), robe; long flowing robe. Cognate words: ἀποστέλλω, ἀποστολή, ἀπόστολος, διαστέλλω, διαστολή, ἐξαποστέλλω, ἐπιστέλλω, ἐπιστολή, καταστέλλω, καταστολή, στέλλω, συναποστέλλω, συστέλλω, ὑποστέλλω, ὑποστολή, ψευδαπόστολος.

Heb. equiv. fr. LXX: בֶּ֫גֶד (33×), לְבוּשׁ (6×); + 10 more
6.174 (9) long flowing robe Mk 12:38; 16:5; Lk 20:46; robe Lk 15:22; Rev 6:11; 7:9, 13, 14; 22:14.

*Just for grins and giggles I also copied a personal reminder that I found in my notes: See the passages listed above for every mention of this Greek noun beginning w. the LXX account of Jacob’s deception of Isaac in wearing Esau’s “stole”...all the way to the last verses of Revel.! In all of these verses—from very early in Genesis to the end of the eschaton, God’s people are seen wearing this “long, loose, flowing garment.” So much for many of the so-called “conservative” meetings these days .

*As we see demonstrated above these terms are used synonymously (i.e., στολή, στέλλω, and καταστολή). I do (sincerely) appreciate your pointing this out. I was taught to spot compound terms as they appear in context regardless of the root term lest I make the now infamous “root fallacy” (cf. D.A. Carson’s “Exegetical Fallacies” [give me some time and I can post that here from his work]). Will post more info. as time allots.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

what?? You mean in Duet. the women chopped hair and wore pants?

I think he meant the chopped their pants and wore hair.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*BDAG is not as exhaustive w. this noun for some reason (see below). But (and you HAD to know this was coming ), will you equally give preference to BDAG regarding their translation and definition of “shorn” in I COR 11.6 ? Here’s the full list of cognates from the Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament:

καταστολή (katastolē), attire; clothing. Cognate words: ἀποστέλλω, ἀποστολή, ἀπόστολος, διαστέλλω, διαστολή, ἐξαποστέλλω, ἐπιστέλλω, ἐπιστολή, καταστέλλω, στέλλω, στολή, συναποστέλλω, συστέλλω, ὑποστέλλω, ὑποστολή, ψευδαπόστολος. Heb. equiv. fr. LXX: מַעֲטֶה (1×)

*As you can see, there’s numerous cognates to this particular noun. How do we know which one applies to I Timothy 2.9 then? As always—context, which, in this passage is clothing (στολή) contra στέλλω, which denotes a behavior defined as “to avoid, to stay away.”

(BDAG): καταστολή, ῆς, ἡ (s. καταστέλλω; Hippocr.; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 12, 15 [88 B.C.] ‘subjugation’; Is 61:3; EpArist, Joseph.) Like the verb καταστέλλω, the basic idea is keeping something in check, hence the use of this term in the sense of ‘reserve, restraint’ (IPriene 109, 186f [120 B.C.] and EpArist 284f: both texts w. εὐσχημοσύνη; Epict. 2, 10, 15; 2, 21, 11: here personal deportment is certainly meant). The verb στέλλω means to ‘furnish, equip’, a sense that extends itself to the putting on of garments. Hence καταστολή readily serves to express outward attire, either the character one exhibits in personal deportment or someth. to cover the body, namely attire, clothing (Jos., Bell. 2, 126; cp. Is 61:3; Plut., 154 [Pericl. 5, 1] also appears to be used in this sense) ἐν κ. κοσμίῳ dress in becoming manner (REB; dress modestly NRSV) 1 Ti 2:9. The writer skillfully moves from the lit. sense of garments to personal characteristics of ‘modesty and self-control’ as appropriate adornment.–DELG s.v. στέλλω. M-M. TW.

**Here, I am seriously curious why BDAG appeals to the verbal notion of στέλλω to blanket a noun idea (?). Technically, the compound noun consists of κατα and στολῇ—and I am not clear why BDAG and the resources below do not mention this reality when, for e.g., the Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament—and the actual word itself—is στολῇ and not στέλλω. Same w. the sources I paste below:

(A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament): καταστολή, equipment, dress, properly a long garment or robe reaching down to the feet, (from καταστέλλω, to send or let down.)

(A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament): κατα-στολή, -ῆς, ἡ (< καταστέλλω), [in LXX: Is 61:3 (מַעֲטֶה)*;] 1. a letting down, checking. 2. steadiness, quietness in demeanour. 3. LXX and NT (cf. Plut., ii, 65 D; -ίζω = vestire), a garment, dress, attire: 1 Ti 2:9 (but v. Ellic., in l.).

**Above, this manual lexicon even offers the hyphen to break down the differing components: κατα-στολή. Interestingly, I looked at the cognates of στολή. Here’s what I found:

(The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament): στολή (stolē), robe; long flowing robe. Cognate words: ἀποστέλλω, ἀποστολή, ἀπόστολος, διαστέλλω, διαστολή, ἐξαποστέλλω, ἐπιστέλλω, ἐπιστολή, καταστέλλω, καταστολή, στέλλω, συναποστέλλω, συστέλλω, ὑποστέλλω, ὑποστολή, ψευδαπόστολος.

Heb. equiv. fr. LXX: בֶּ֫גֶד (33×), לְבוּשׁ (6×); + 10 more
6.174 (9) long flowing robe Mk 12:38; 16:5; Lk 20:46; robe Lk 15:22; Rev 6:11; 7:9, 13, 14; 22:14.

*Just for grins and giggles I also copied a personal reminder that I found in my notes: See the passages listed above for every mention of this Greek noun beginning w. the LXX account of Jacob’s deception of Isaac in wearing Esau’s “stole”...all the way to the last verses of Revel.! In all of these verses—from very early in Genesis to the end of the eschaton, God’s people are seen wearing this “long, loose, flowing garment.” So much for many of the so-called “conservative” meetings these days .

*As we see demonstrated above these terms are used synonymously (i.e., στολή, στέλλω, and καταστολή). I do (sincerely) appreciate your pointing this out. I was taught to spot compound terms as they appear in context regardless of the root term lest I make the now infamous “root fallacy” (cf. D.A. Carson’s “Exegetical Fallacies” [give me some time and I can post that here from his work]). Will post more info. as time allots.

Thank you for this information, rdp. I really don't know how to best explain BDAG's approach--and the two lexicons you quote here saying that katastole is ultimately derived from katastello. (And regarding my view of BDAG's authority, I know it's been a long time since our debate on keiro, but in the end I was just interpreting BDAG's authoritative information differently than you, not rejecting BDAG--but that's a whole other issue.)

"In all of these verses—from very early in Genesis to the end of the eschaton, God’s people are seen wearing this “long, loose, flowing garment.” So much for many of the so-called “conservative” meetings these days[/I] ."

True, I don't see a lot of loose flowing garments! Now, and this is not facetious in any way, but if God's people are shown to be wearing this kind of garment (and assuming the word is indeed based on stole, a man's garment), shouldn't apostolic men be wearing this kind of a garment?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Thank you for this information, rdp. I really don't know how to best explain BDAG's approach--and the two lexicons you quote here saying that katastole is ultimately derived from katastello. (And regarding my view of BDAG's authority, I know it's been a long time since our debate on keiro, but in the end I was just interpreting BDAG's authoritative information differently than you, not rejecting BDAG--but that's a whole other issue.)

"In all of these verses—from very early in Genesis to the end of the eschaton, God’s people are seen wearing this “long, loose, flowing garment.” So much for many of the so-called “conservative” meetings these days[/I] ."

True, I don't see a lot of loose flowing garments! Now, and this is not facetious in any way, but if God's people are shown to be wearing this kind of garment (and assuming the word is indeed based on stole, a man's garment), shouldn't apostolic men be wearing this kind of a garment?

Well ofcourse they should...

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Costeon

To me a fundamental thing to consider about stole and other common Jewish and Greco-Roman male clothes from the first century is that they were nothing like men's clothes in our culture; they did not wear anything like trousers of today. Male clothes were skirted. So men and women wore clothes that were similar overall, though with some distinction, but they were not as distinct as between trousers and skirts today. And again, no verses (at least no one has yet presented them) teach that the distinction between male and female clothes must be entirely or radically different. Thus, men's and women's pants can function the same way in our culture--but, as I have stated already, I would prefer women to generally wear skirts.

As long as you don't teach your preferences as a salvational issue. So then why do you prefer women to wear skirts?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

So then why do you prefer women to wear skirts?

In my opinion, skirts are generally less revealing, and so are generally more modest, than pants.

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Thank you for this information, rdp. I really don't know how to best explain BDAG's approach--and the two lexicons you quote here saying that katastole is ultimately derived from katastello. (And regarding my view of BDAG's authority, I know it's been a long time since our debate on keiro, but in the end I was just interpreting BDAG's authoritative information differently than you, not rejecting BDAG--but that's a whole other issue.)

"In all of these verses—from very early in Genesis to the end of the eschaton, God’s people are seen wearing this “long, loose, flowing garment.” So much for many of the so-called “conservative” meetings these days[/I] ."

True, I don't see a lot of loose flowing garments! Now, and this is not facetious in any way, but if God's people are shown to be wearing this kind of garment (and assuming the word is indeed based on stole, a man's garment), shouldn't apostolic men be wearing this kind of a garment?

Originally Posted by mizpeh

As long as you don't teach your preferences as a salvational issue. So then why do you prefer women to wear skirts?

Originally Posted by Costeon

In my opinion, skirts are generally less revealing, and so are generally more modest, than pants.

Well good if you preach that men should wear them too. because if skirts are less reveling for a woman, than they certainly are less reveling for a man.

Shouldn't the same standard that is held for a woman be held for a man too.