Women Wearing Pants

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by loran adkins

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.

Good question. Men and women both should wear modest clothing. Women, at least in all the places I have lived, do not seem to generally wear pants like men do. Though at times I may see a man who is wearing pants tight enough that, well, not much is concealed, this seems rare. In contrast, I often see women do this, probably everyday, including, at times, at church. As I have said in previous posts, woman can wear pants modestly, but since in my experience this frequently does not happen, I generally would prefer women to wear skirts.

Regarding men in particular, no, I don't think that men should exchange modest pants for modest skirts. Pants can be worn modestly, and men in skirts would violate Deut 22.5, because in our culture skirts are associated only with women.

Any thoughts on why Paul directs his teaching on modesty in 1 Tim 2.9 only to women?

[Scott Pitta]

Not a clue why he focused on women in 1 Ti. 2:9.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Any thoughts on why Paul directs his teaching on modesty in 1 Tim 2.9 only to women?

There is a greater context, addressed to both men and women.

Verse 8 is about praying in every possible location and situation with hands lifted up (this is addressed to men, by the way, not to women).

Then, Paul writes that when men pray everywhere with hands raised, they should do so without wrath or dissension.

Wrath and dissension are two of, if not the two greatest issues men deal with and struggle against.

Women are then told in verse 9, that they should be modestly dressed and discreet. These are two of the biggest issues that women face. Women have a natural urge and inclination toward wanting a man, someone to care for them, protect them, lead them, to give them children, and in a carnal mind, giving one's self away physically just to acquire a man is the custom and norm for many women. And that plays out in immodest apparel and lack of discretion.

These injunctions then are limitations the Holy Spirit places on men and women to help them avoid their otherwise natural, and carnal, tendencies.

Dressing modestly and being discreet takes careful consideration and wisdom. It takes an understanding of one's own weaknesses and temptations, and a love for others to not be a stumblingblock before people. The physical action of choosing out and putting on modest apparel has a phenomenological effect upon the conscious mind of the one dressing in such a way. For men, lifting holy hands and praying everywhere literally TRAINS our minds to be less aggressive, less antagonistic, less angry, because praying often and in such a way is a sign of surrender and a desire for mercy.

Dressing modestly and being discreet in appearance literally TRAINS a woman's mind to be careful and conscientious in regards to the opposite sex, to be on guard, and consider wisely what type or kind of man she ought to try to attract, for her welfare, protection, leadership, and the siring of her children.

The last thing a woman needs is an angry, verbally, emotionally, and mentally combative man. And the last thing a man needs is an oversexed floozy.

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Good question. Men and women both should wear modest clothing. Women, at least in all the places I have lived, do not seem to generally wear pants like men do. Though at times I may see a man who is wearing pants tight enough that, well, not much is concealed, this seems rare. In contrast, I often see women do this, probably everyday, including, at times, at church. As I have said in previous posts, woman can wear pants modestly, but since in my experience this frequently does not happen, I generally would prefer women to wear skirts.

Regarding men in particular, no, I don't think that men should exchange modest pants for modest skirts. Pants can be worn modestly, and men in skirts would violate Deut 22.5, because in our culture skirts are associated only with women.

Any thoughts on why Paul directs his teaching on modesty in 1 Tim 2.9 only to women?

Not necessarily dresses or robes are worn by men in the middle east all the time. Which by the way is where this scripture was written in the first place. So if any thing, our culture goes against Deut. 22.5

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There is a greater context, addressed to both men and women.

Verse 8 is about praying in every possible location and situation with hands lifted up (this is addressed to men, by the way, not to women).

Then, Paul writes that when men pray everywhere with hands raised, they should do so without wrath or dissension.

Wrath and dissension are two of, if not the two greatest issues men deal with and struggle against.

Women are then told in verse 9, that they should be modestly dressed and discreet. These are two of the biggest issues that women face. Women have a natural urge and inclination toward wanting a man, someone to care for them, protect them, lead them, to give them children, and in a carnal mind, giving one's self away physically just to acquire a man is the custom and norm for many women. And that plays out in immodest apparel and lack of discretion.

These injunctions then are limitations the Holy Spirit places on men and women to help them avoid their otherwise natural, and carnal, tendencies.

Dressing modestly and being discreet takes careful consideration and wisdom. It takes an understanding of one's own weaknesses and temptations, and a love for others to not be a stumblingblock before people. The physical action of choosing out and putting on modest apparel has a phenomenological effect upon the conscious mind of the one dressing in such a way. For men, lifting holy hands and praying everywhere literally TRAINS our minds to be less aggressive, less antagonistic, less angry, because praying often and in such a way is a sign of surrender and a desire for mercy.

Dressing modestly and being discreet in appearance literally TRAINS a woman's mind to be careful and conscientious in regards to the opposite sex, to be on guard, and consider wisely what type or kind of man she ought to try to attract, for her welfare, protection, leadership, and the siring of her children.

The last thing a woman needs is an angry, verbally, emotionally, and mentally combative man. And the last thing a man needs is an oversexed floozy.

Good stuff

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by loran adkins

Not necessarily dresses or robes are worn by men in the middle east all the time. Which by the way is where this scripture was written in the first place. So if any thing, our culture goes against Deut. 22.5

In biblical times, from what I understand, the basic garments for men and women were a tunic--basically a long shirt--and some sort of outer robe or cloak (Roman male citizens, in Rome in particular, wore a toga). Men and women's clothes were, therefore, similar overall but distinguishable in some way.

The Bible does not mandate a particular style of clothes regardless of culture, but stipulates that there is to be some distinction between male and female and that they should be modest and not costly (unfortunately not explicitly defining any of these things), so I wouldn't say that our culture overall is violating Deut 22.5, though no doubt there are many individual instances where people do violate it.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There is a greater context, addressed to both men and women.

Verse 8 is about praying in every possible location and situation with hands lifted up (this is addressed to men, by the way, not to women).

Then, Paul writes that when men pray everywhere with hands raised, they should do so without wrath or dissension.

Wrath and dissension are two of, if not the two greatest issues men deal with and struggle against.

Women are then told in verse 9, that they should be modestly dressed and discreet. These are two of the biggest issues that women face. Women have a natural urge and inclination toward wanting a man, someone to care for them, protect them, lead them, to give them children, and in a carnal mind, giving one's self away physically just to acquire a man is the custom and norm for many women. And that plays out in immodest apparel and lack of discretion.

These injunctions then are limitations the Holy Spirit places on men and women to help them avoid their otherwise natural, and carnal, tendencies.

Dressing modestly and being discreet takes careful consideration and wisdom. It takes an understanding of one's own weaknesses and temptations, and a love for others to not be a stumblingblock before people. The physical action of choosing out and putting on modest apparel has a phenomenological effect upon the conscious mind of the one dressing in such a way. For men, lifting holy hands and praying everywhere literally TRAINS our minds to be less aggressive, less antagonistic, less angry, because praying often and in such a way is a sign of surrender and a desire for mercy.

Dressing modestly and being discreet in appearance literally TRAINS a woman's mind to be careful and conscientious in regards to the opposite sex, to be on guard, and consider wisely what type or kind of man she ought to try to attract, for her welfare, protection, leadership, and the siring of her children.

The last thing a woman needs is an angry, verbally, emotionally, and mentally combative man. And the last thing a man needs is an oversexed floozy.

Great post.

I agree that this is why Paul addressed his comments about modesty in clothing specifically to women.

I have always said that modesty is just as important for men, but is it accurate to say it this way? In light of all the passages on modesty being directed specifically to women, would it be more accurate to say that it is important for men, but more important for women (for the reasons you mention in your post)? Are there any passages that support the idea that modesty is equally as important for both? I couldn't think of any.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rdp

*... regarding the verb הָיָה. She keeps asking—and, of course, claiming that no one has “answered” her (sigh)—what the verb “wear” means in Deut. 22.5.

*Shocker, but it means “to wear”.

*I should have made that clearer .

Except that it doesn’t.

7. היה [HA-YA] – TO BE AND BECOME
The next word on our list is היה. This is the past tense of the verb להיות – to be. The present tense of this verb is הווה [ho-ve] and the future is יהיה [ye-he-ye]. The equivalents in English are ‘was’, ‘is’ and ‘will be’. Since past, present and future play such a big role in our lives, the verb להיות appears in almost every sentence we speak.
https://myhebrewwords.wordpress.com/...be-and-become/

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Except that it doesn’t.

7. היה [HA-YA] – TO BE AND BECOME
The next word on our list is היה. This is the past tense of the verb להיות – to be. The present tense of this verb is הווה [ho-ve] and the future is יהיה [ye-he-ye]. The equivalents in English are ‘was’, ‘is’ and ‘will be’. Since past, present and future play such a big role in our lives, the verb להיות appears in almost every sentence we speak.
https://myhebrewwords.wordpress.com/...be-and-become/

I don't know Hebrew well enough to look at it unaided, but I looked at the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, and at a Hebrew interlinear.

The Septuagint reads: "The items of a man will not be on a woman." I compared this to the interlinear. The Greek is just a literal rendering of the Hebrew. The Greek has a future form of the verb "to be" to translate the Hebrew verb "to be." I would not see the use of the verb "to be" as significant, but just as another way of communicating the idea of a women not wearing, using, or having men's things.

One way of expressing possession in Greek is to use the verb "to be" and say that something is to someone. "A horse is to the man," meaning "the man has a horse." So maybe the Greek of Deut 22.5 is communicating something similar, that a woman is not to have, that is, to use things that are exclusive to a man.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Except that it doesn’t.

*Though this is likely an utter waste of my time, I did happen to pop in & see this—so here goes (I have to be right to the point—church tomorrow):

*Here’s the actual Hebrew terms as they appear in this particular text (the hyphen below is what’s called a Maqqef accent mark binding the terms together as one unit):

(BHS Parsed Bible): לֹא־יִהְיֶ֤ה

*This is literally translated “shall not be”—then the words “wear, put (on)” are supplied by translators for euphony (https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-5.htm). This is simply a “to be” verb—equivalent to “eimi” in Greek—that’s here conjugated as a qal, imperfect, 3rd person, masculine, singular. Your link is merely identifying this as the Hebrew “to be” verb irregardless of context or conjugation. In Hebrew the imperfect in the Qal stem (as here) denotes future action (contra Greek).

*See here the LEB (Logos): “The apparel of a man shall not be PUT ON, and a man shall not wear the clothing of a woman, because everyone who does these things is detestable to Yahweh your God” (caps added).

*If I were to copy the entirety of the potential meanings of this verb—it would take up numerous pages (I checked my Hebrew lexicons & grammars), so I will only post a couple of relevant portions below:

(HALOT): Imperfect: יִהְיֶה‎ (Sec. ιειε), תִּהְיֵה‎ Jr 1717 (text error, Arm.) יְהִי‎, יֶֽהִי‎, וִיהִי‎, וַיְהִי‎, וַיֶּֽהִי‎; אֶהְיֶה‎ (CTA eye), וָאֶהְיֶה‎, וָאֱהִי‎, יִהְיוּ‎ (CTA yeyū), תִּהְיוּ‎ (Sec. θου, Brönno 44) ןָ‎/תִּהְיֶ)י(נָה‎ (Gn 4926 cj. *תִּהְיַן‎ energic sg., Cross-F. JBL 67:207), תִּהְיוּן;

(Hebrew for Reading Comprehension; 1st Year Grammar): הָיָה was, were [past]; will be [future] (he was); היה ל tends to mean became.


*In conclusion, as one of my Greek professors once told me, “If you ever arrive at a translation that no one else has ever arrived at, you’re likely mistranslating the passage due to doctrinal bias.” The reason all of these professional linguists have independently arrived at essentially the same rendering of this verb in this passage is both the immediate context and grammar (esp. the waw conjunctive preformative וְלֹא of 22.5b [also with the Maqqef hyphen]).

*Honestly hope this helps. Gotta’ run. God bless.