Women Wearing Pants

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Ahhh yes, queen Bee spewing out her usual liberal venom. Just a question: You didn’t happen to vote for Hillary did ya’? You know, can dish it out but cannot take it paradigm & all. “Oh, and lest everyone forget—no one has told me what the word ‘wear’ means in Deuteronomy 22.5!”

*Let’s see, women can have cut hair, wear pants (I assume you equally think men can now wear dresses—what with your beloved “culture” going where it is & all), jewelry is just fine, etc., etc. Ummm, remind me, why is this place called “Apostolic” again ?

Cause I'm here

The Hebrew verb הָיָה to become, only one time in the Tanakh is it translated "wear."

I hand it over to you, and your point is?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Costeon, you are thin skinned.

I was reflecting on the previous thread on purity where you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you ever sin in thought, word, or deed, because you are a mature believer who walks in perfect obedience and righteousness, and it struck me how this post of yours is perhaps the finest example of the general Christlikeness that you display on this forum daily. Well done.

It's not a matter of me being thin skinned. I literally have no idea what you're talking about at times. Instead of all your attempts at humor and all the mockery, just try to state your ideas plainly.

One of the difficulties is that I think you are a baiter. In my own humble opinion is that you look at the whole Christian thing on a philosophical level.

Please do not use the word humble about yourself. You have never once exhibited any kind of humility on this forum.

You're pretty extraordinary: You're perfect in righteousness. You are never wrong theologically. And, you have perfect discernment of what is going on in my head when I post.

It was when we were in the "no sin" thread you would run from clear scripture. He who sins is of the devil. Pretty clear.

I know it must be hard--even impossible--for someone like you to conceive that another person could simply come to a different conclusion than you. You think your interpretation of Scripture is clear. Sincere Christians can and do disagree with you. Instead of attributing wrong motives or accusing others of running from what is obviously true, just try to think, "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree." But I know how futile it is to ask someone like you that. From how you act on this forum, it is clear you cannot conceive of you being wrong--I, at any rate, have never seen you remotely suggest you could be mistaken.

Regarding what you say is my philosophical approach, the only time I have tried to use philosophy is when I have used reductio ad absurdum arguments to show that the implications of certain interpretations leads to absurd implications and conclusions. Someone was saying in the purity thread that Jesus quits loving someone when they commit even the smallest of sins—that is absurd. You saying that someone could go from being a child of God one moment to being a child of the devil the next if they commit any kind of sin is absurd. I explained what I thought that passage in 1 John means and pointed out all that translations that support my view, and you just replied "good job."

Deuteronomy 22:5 men don't wear women's clothes, women don't wear.

I agree. Trousers, however, are no longer exclusively men's clothes in the West.

But, I had already understood that you are a baiter, and are already solidified in what you believe, so rational discussion isn't really what you are looking for.

On the contrary, I am dying for rational discussion with someone who is not absolutely convinced they are correct in everything--unlike you. You are singularly incapable of controlling yourself and acting rationally. You are tightly wound and wear your emotions on your sleeve. You think in extremes and can't help but break out in mockery or ridicule.

Deuteronomy 22:5 coupled with I Timothy 2:9 shows us nothing vague, but pretty clear what Paul wanted out of his Apostolic sisters. In Isaiah 63:1 the word στολῇ, is translated into costume which is just a set of clothes. In I Timothy 2:9 the words is the compound "καταστολῇ" which is clothes going down to the floor. The Greek κατα downward, or down and στολῇ clothes. They sure weren't pants, Wrangler or Ermenegildo Zegna. They were to be orderly, becoming respectable good behavior, which comes from the root word κόσμος which means organization, adornment, unverse, worldly government, world, o the community of the world. Paul uses the word κόσμιος which means to be in humble arrangement. But this modest humble arrangement is coupled with this Greek word αἰδοῦς which is pretty neat because it says so much "reverence, awe, respect for the feeling or opinion of others or for one's own conscience, and so shame, self-respect." Modesty and shame, the Latin pudens, shameful, bashful, shy. Now we can get an understanding of what Paul is trying to convey to his readers. But alas we are on a one sided conversation, so we only get Paul's side of the story. The culture they were combating was Greek Hellenized Judeans and Romans. If you would of listened to the John Glubb's Fate of Empire vid you would of heard a great quote what the Romans thought of Greek immigration. Anyway, Paul was explaining how women within the Apostolic church needed to be fully covered down to the floor, and sure as shooting wouldn't be in pants. Since pants were horse cavalry, work clothes, warriors, whether they were on males or females in the first century A.D. they were construction and military attire. Oh, save me the Persian prostitutes and soldiers, that wouldn't be thought as pudens to Roman Paul.

This is very interesting. Could you please provide a reference to support the claim that katasole means only going down to the floor? I didn't see that definition in the BDAG lexicon (you know the one your friend rdp is so keen on). It just refers to "attire, clothing," and that 1 Tim 2.9 means dress in a becoming manner or dress modestly.

Does Paul ever say that people everywhere at all times must dress like those in the first-century in the Greco-Roman world? I don't believe he does. A style of clothing is not commanded; a principle is: modesty. Modesty can be accomplished in different styles. Why don't you dress like a first-century man in the Greco-Roman world who wore a long shirt that looked like a dress underneath a cloak?

Paul was writing to a unique culture with a particular style of clothing. It was around long before Christianity showed up. Neither men nor women wore pants. Paul told women in that culture to dress modestly in the style that was current at the time. That was not the case outside of the Greco-Roman world. And it wasn't just Persian prostitutes who wore pants. Persian women in general did. Other women outside of G-R civilization did as well. Nothing in Scripture proves he would have gone to those cultures and demanded that they quit wearing pants. He would have told them to be modest.

This is my view. I know what you think. I don't find your view compelling. It's not that I don't want to believe it. I just don't think you can prove your point. I don't think you are stupid or want to oppress women or any other negative thing because you believe the way you do. You happen to be convinced of the information you have studied. I am not convinced, but maybe you could just accept that and not attribute negative motives to me.

Honestly why didn't you ask for clarification?

I didn't ask for clarification because I thought it was clear what you were talking about.

Costeon, what? OK, the "καταστολῇ" is defined by the other words in the sentence.Good God from Zion!

I guess everyone was running around naked, prior to the 1st Century A.D.

Ha! Indeed. I made a mistake and was thinking of the particular garment (stole) not the word for attire (katastole). Yes we want all people to have clothes on.

So, the men of Rome ran the Lupercalia naked. Scots only wore the rag around their waist, the rest of the body was painted blue. But like I explained above paul isn't talking about shorts skirts. Costeon how old are you? How long you been in an Apostolic church?

Irrelevant.

Moses taught Deuteronomy 22:5 not just to those in the wilderness, but it was sitting in front of Romans and Greek neophytes in the Greek language. Their take away was that women were to be covered down to the floor in a long dress. Paul then follows that with I Timothy 2:9 ωσαυτως και τας γυναικας εν καταστολη κοσμιω μετα αιδους και σωφροσυνης κοσμειν εαυτας μη εν πλεγμασιν η χρυσω η μαργαριταις η ιματισμω πολυτελει

I don't find your view compelling as applying to all women of all cultures. Now, I have been on this forum long enough to know the utter futility and waste of time of going line by line and pointing out what I disagree with. My objections are simply dismissed—after all your view is so clearly true.

What? I'm assuming nothing, How old are you, again you been in this how long? I gave the quote "she wears the pants in the family" did I make that up? No a culture of two continents came up with that phrase, and totally understood it because they were some sort of Christians. Western Europeans dressed in pants and females in dresses. for over a thousand years. Assumption? You don't want a discussion with anyone, you are bringing the old sad arguments which have been pasted on this forum since day one.

Fashions have changed in Europe and all over the world. The principle of modesty can apply in all situations.

I do want discussion--cordial discussion, which anyone who has read this forum at all can see you are simply incapable of. You can keep it together for a bit, but then your true bombastic bullying personality comes out. There has only been one other person on this forum who can almost match your mockery and your sneering and your railing. And the extraordinary thing is that you are so blind to how you are that you think you are perfectly Christlike. It's fascinating, amusing, and appalling all at once.

I haven’t read any other threads on this forum about pants so I am not sure what has been posted.

Here you go Coasteon "when intelligent people" this is mainly employed to alert everyone involved in the discussion. That if they don't see it exactly as you say they aren't "intelligent people?" I can see why Esaias has you on his ignore list.

You misunderstood what I meant. I did not mean that intelligent people would only read the text as referring to cross-dressing. I meant that intelligent people who can read and reason should not be thought unreasonable to read the text as referring to cross-dressing. In other words, people aren't just stupid if they read the text and think it only refers to cross-dressing.

Now to be clear, I couldn't care less what Esaias has done. Do you think I would somehow be embarrassed by you mentioning this twice now? What you or he think about me is immaterial.

Costeon, your posts are pretty much made up of you waxing philosophically, scripture is the last thing on your agenda. Unless we produce for you a shopping list of dos and don'ts. Which obviously doesn't matter either since Mike, Esaias and myself produced clear chapter, and verse which you ignored.

I don't need a long list. Just a few passages would be nice. I have just been asking for some more scriptures to supplement the ambiguous Deut 22.5 and you have been unable to do that till page 13 of this thread.

The scripture is ambiguous to know one but you. .

Nice exaggeration. Well, let's see, there have been a few people in this thread who have disagreed with your point of view. So by definition that means it's ambiguous and subject to different interpretations.

Costeon, you are a baiter

Hi, pot, meet kettle.
And you are childish, what with all your little emojis like you’re some little boy on a playground making fun of someone.

you no more what to find truth of the matter then Rupaul wants to join the 2020 Arnold Classic.

Sigh. Another failed attempt at humor.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by derAlte

You're right, of course. Some folks have zero ability to see another person's point of view. Ultimately, we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I see too many folks trying to do this minus the fear and trembling and without any serious examination of the Scripture. I think it a dangerous thing to throw out teachings that have been subscribed to by the majority of Apostolics without a thorough and prayerful examination. God will judge motives and the heart is desperately wicked and only God can know it. I want to avoid the hubris that says "I know better than thousands upon thousands of Apostolic preachers and saints." Not that I don't think that thousands upon thousands of Apostolic preachers and saints can't get some things wrong at times.

Well said and wise.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Hey, RDP, it's been a while since I've seen you post. I hope all has been going well for you.

It's not a matter of not "liking" a verse. It's a matter of understanding it so it can be applied to the current context.

As far as me asserting that a verse is ambiguous, I am simply using the basic definition of the word that the verse is capable of more than one interpretation by sincere people, which as this thread has shown, it is. Hence, I have asked for other passages to be listed that would support the view the men must wear pants and women must not.

To save you and everyone time, could you just list a few of the passages without the pages of Word documents about them? If the passages you speak of are clear, then pages of explanations are unnecessary.

Men did not wear pants in the Greco-Roman world of the first-century church. What they wore, especially outside of Italy where male Roman citizens wore a toga, was not radically different from what women wore. Both wore some sort of tunic--basically a long shirt--and some sort of outer cloak for men and and a belted outer gown for women. If men and women could both wear a skirted garment then, they can both wear pants now.

Sources:

- The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity by James S. Jeffers.
- Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson

[/QUOTE]

*Gladly—although it will almost certainly be an utter waste of my time. But, one will suffice for now (I really am absolutely pressed right now due to work, church fundraiser, etc.):

(NIV): So these men, wearing their robes, TROUSERS, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace.

(NLT): So they tied them up and threw them into the furnace, fully dressed in their PANTS, turbans, robes, and other garments.

(BSB): So they were tied up, wearing robes, TROUSERS, turbans, and other clothes, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace.

(NASB): Then these men were tied up in their TROUSERS, their coats, their caps and their other clothes, and were cast into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire.

*Lexical definitions of the MASCULINE noun rendered “trousers” and “pants” from the most respected Aramaic (& Hebrew) lexicographers among Semitic linguists. I have capitalized the terms pants and trousers just for ease of reference below:

(BDB) כַרְבָּל] n.[m.] prob. mantle (v. esp. SAC:JPhil. xxvi (1899), 307 f., cf. Andr:M 74*, with conj. as to orig. Pers. form; > TROUSERS. NH; J Aram. id., with both mngs., also shoes; Ar. سِرْبَالُ mantle is loan-word Frä:47; Egypt. Ar. زربول shoe is Gk. loan-word acc. to Vollers:ZMG li (1897), 298, cf. Krauss:ii. 412);-pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן Dn 3:21, 3:27.

(HALOT) סַרְבָּל‎, pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן‎ Da 321.27, an item of clothing, TROUSERS or coat (see now Sokoloff, DSD 7 (2000), 99); Sept. ἱματισμοω" (σὺν τς`/ ἱματισμς`/ αυξτς`ν), Theodotion σαραβαωρα (σὺν τοι`" σαραωβαροι" αυξτς`ν); σαή ἔσθη" Παρσικηω (CTA), also σαραωβαλλα, σαραωπαρα, Pauly-Wissowa 2: R I 2: 2386, Symmachus αξναχυριωδη", Vulgate braccae: long, baggy, ORIENTAL TROUSERS.

(CWSB Dictionary) סַרְבָּל sarbāl: An Aramaic masculine noun referring to a coat, a robe, TROUSERS. It refers to a piece of the extensive outfits that the three Hebrew young men wore none of which was singed by fire (Dan. 3:21, 27).

**Here, very clearly the “men” were wearing “pants”—which the women were forbidden to wear since they definitely “pertain to a man.”

*And, again, I HAVE seen more than one lady read Deuteronomy 22.5 and express shock that they had never seen that in God’s Word—and quit wearing pants. Sooo much more to say on this topic. Should have never even posted. I knew better, but just have a penchant for it I guess .

*Oh, also, I “think” it’s Gesenuis Hebrew-English Lexicon and Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dict. which state that the women’s robes where not cut in the middle as a man’s was—but rather they hung down like a woman’s dress today, whereas the men’s robes had slits in the front equivalent to modern pants. Elder Ensey has a great pamphlet on this very topic wherein he references these sources, but I have no idea where that pamphlet is right now (I STILL have not unpacked my library).

*Incidentally, since you have repeatedly appealed to contemporary western culture, you DO realize that dresses are equally “no longer” isolated to women “in the west” don’t you? Will you equally affirm that “Christian” men can now wear dresses that are specifically designed for men using the identical logic? And, no, our women do not wear ball-caps, ties, leggings, etc. Deuteronomy 22.5 applies to the waste up as well (and they fully understand this concept).

*Again, doubt I can interact much on here right now, but this should keep the fire kindled for a while ��!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Cause I'm here

The Hebrew verb הָיָה to become, only one time in the Tanakh is it translated "wear."

I hand it over to you, and your point is?

*I was merely quoting Queen Bee’s earth-shattering argument 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 .

[Esaias]

What about this?

"The dubbed "T-shirt" surfaced in the United States when they were issued by the U.S. Navy sometime around the Spanish American War. They featured crew-necks and short sleeves and were meant to be worn as underwear beneath the uniform. Soon it was adopted by the Army as part of the standard issue ensemble given to recruits. It got its iconic name from its shape resembling the letter "T". Dockworkers, farmers, miners, and construction type workers also adopted the T-shirt preferring the lightweight fabric in hotter weather conditions.

The inexpensive cotton and easy to clean garment became the shirt of choice by mothers for their sons as outerwear for chores and play. By the 1920's "T-shirt" became an official American-English word in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary."

"Credit of the first printed tee (at least being worn in a photo) often goes to the Air Corps Gunnery School T-shirt featured on the July 13th, 1942 cover of LIFE magazine. Mickey Mouse would follow suit a few years later as an exclusively licensed print for Tropix Togs, a company founded by Sam Kantor in Miami, Florida.

Aside from veterans and blue collar workers, the popularity of the T-shirt skyrocketed to even greater heights when Marlon Brando wore one in A Streetcar Named Desire. It became fashionably cool to wear as an outer garment. "



http://www.teefetch.com/history-of-the-t-shirt/

[Esaias]

Men of medieval Europe wore snug fitting pants or leggings with a short tunic. Women wore a kind of legging or loose britches under dresses in colder weather for warmth.

The snug pants evolved into a tighter form of leg covering, and began to appear more like hose with attached foot coverings.

Some of the pants that women wore were more like 2 joined tubes attached to a drawstring at the waist.

By 1500, men wore voluminous knee breeches with attached hose. Fashionable men wore them in bold colors. The breeches were lined and slashed to reveal a brightly colored lining. By 1550, the breeches became a greatly exaggerated fashion, stuffed to balloon around the upper leg.

The 1600s saw these pantaloons embellished with buttons and ribbons while working men of the lower classes wore ankle length pants.

Large pantaloon styles gradually slimmed into simple knew length breeches that were fastened below the knee. During the French Revolution, breeches came to be seen as an aristocratic conceit and men adapted the longer, ankle length styles of the working class.

Women's pants were, at the time, an undergarment worn beneath the skirt and were called pantalettes.

https://bellatory.com/fashion-indust...estern-Culture

[Esaias]

Where'd everybody go?

[Costeon]

*Gladly—although it will almost certainly be an utter waste of my time. But, one will suffice for now (I really am absolutely pressed right now due to work, church fundraiser, etc.):

(NIV): So these men, wearing their robes, TROUSERS, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace.

(NLT): So they tied them up and threw them into the furnace, fully dressed in their PANTS, turbans, robes, and other garments.

(BSB): So they were tied up, wearing robes, TROUSERS, turbans, and other clothes, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace.

(NASB): Then these men were tied up in their TROUSERS, their coats, their caps and their other clothes, and were cast into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire.

*Lexical definitions of the MASCULINE noun rendered “trousers” and “pants” from the most respected Aramaic (& Hebrew) lexicographers among Semitic linguists. I have capitalized the terms pants and trousers just for ease of reference below:

(BDB) כַרְבָּל] n.[m.] prob. mantle (v. esp. SAC:JPhil. xxvi (1899), 307 f., cf. Andr:M 74*, with conj. as to orig. Pers. form; > TROUSERS. NH; J Aram. id., with both mngs., also shoes; Ar. سِرْبَالُ mantle is loan-word Frä:47; Egypt. Ar. زربول shoe is Gk. loan-word acc. to Vollers:ZMG li (1897), 298, cf. Krauss:ii. 412);-pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן Dn 3:21, 3:27.

(HALOT) סַרְבָּל‎, pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן‎ Da 321.27, an item of clothing, TROUSERS or coat (see now Sokoloff, DSD 7 (2000), 99); Sept. ἱματισμοω" (σὺν τς`/ ἱματισμς`/ αυξτς`ν), Theodotion σαραβαωρα (σὺν τοι`" σαραωβαροι" αυξτς`ν); σαή ἔσθη" Παρσικηω (CTA), also σαραωβαλλα, σαραωπαρα, Pauly-Wissowa 2: R I 2: 2386, Symmachus αξναχυριωδη", Vulgate braccae: long, baggy, ORIENTAL TROUSERS.

(CWSB Dictionary) סַרְבָּל sarbāl: An Aramaic masculine noun referring to a coat, a robe, TROUSERS. It refers to a piece of the extensive outfits that the three Hebrew young men wore none of which was singed by fire (Dan. 3:21, 27).

**Here, very clearly the “men” were wearing “pants”—which the women were forbidden to wear since they definitely “pertain to a man.”

*And, again, I HAVE seen more than one lady read Deuteronomy 22.5 and express shock that they had never seen that in God’s Word—and quit wearing pants. Sooo much more to say on this topic. Should have never even posted. I knew better, but just have a penchant for it I guess .

*Oh, also, I “think” it’s Gesenuis Hebrew-English Lexicon and Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dict. which state that the women’s robes where not cut in the middle as a man’s was—but rather they hung down like a woman’s dress today, whereas the men’s robes had slits in the front equivalent to modern pants. Elder Ensey has a great pamphlet on this very topic wherein he references these sources, but I have no idea where that pamphlet is right now (I STILL have not unpacked my library).

*Incidentally, since you have repeatedly appealed to contemporary western culture, you DO realize that dresses are equally “no longer” isolated to women “in the west” don’t you? Will you equally affirm that “Christian” men can now wear dresses that are specifically designed for men using the identical logic? And, no, our women do not wear ball-caps, ties, leggings, etc. Deuteronomy 22.5 applies to the waste up as well (and they fully understand this concept).

*Again, doubt I can interact much on here right now, but this should keep the fire kindled for a while ��!
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for providing this example. They clearly are wearing trousers. Do you have any examples that don't involve Babylonian clothing, though? The three Hebrew young men were in the service of the Babylonian king and likely would have been provided Babylonian clothing.

As far as skirt-like garments go for men in the United States, no I would not support that. There is nothing inherently wrong with men wearing skirted garments since godly men have done so in the past, e.g., in the first-century Greco-Roman world, but culturally that is not acceptable in the US, and I frankly cannot conceive of there being a mass movement of men wanting to wear skirts. Gay or effeminate men who want to wear skirts is nothing like the straight women beginning in the later 1800s who did not want to be forced to wear only skirts and dresses. In other words I wouldn't imagine that in the West something that is associated with gay men would become something the mass of straight men would want to do.

I respect that you have been consistent across the board regarding applying Deut 22:5. You're the first I've heard do this.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

*Gladly—although it will almost certainly be an utter waste of my time. But, one will suffice for now (I really am absolutely pressed right now due to work, church fundraiser, etc.):

(NIV): So these men, wearing their robes, TROUSERS, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace.

(NLT): So they tied them up and threw them into the furnace, fully dressed in their PANTS, turbans, robes, and other garments.

(BSB): So they were tied up, wearing robes, TROUSERS, turbans, and other clothes, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace.

(NASB): Then these men were tied up in their TROUSERS, their coats, their caps and their other clothes, and were cast into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire.

*Lexical definitions of the MASCULINE noun rendered “trousers” and “pants” from the most respected Aramaic (& Hebrew) lexicographers among Semitic linguists. I have capitalized the terms pants and trousers just for ease of reference below:

(BDB) כַרְבָּל] n.[m.] prob. mantle (v. esp. SAC:JPhil. xxvi (1899), 307 f., cf. Andr:M 74*, with conj. as to orig. Pers. form; > TROUSERS. NH; J Aram. id., with both mngs., also shoes; Ar. سِرْبَالُ mantle is loan-word Frä:47; Egypt. Ar. زربول shoe is Gk. loan-word acc. to Vollers:ZMG li (1897), 298, cf. Krauss:ii. 412);-pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן Dn 3:21, 3:27.

(HALOT) סַרְבָּל‎, pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן‎ Da 321.27, an item of clothing, TROUSERS or coat (see now Sokoloff, DSD 7 (2000), 99); Sept. ἱματισμοω" (σὺν τς`/ ἱματισμς`/ αυξτς`ν), Theodotion σαραβαωρα (σὺν τοι`" σαραωβαροι" αυξτς`ν); σαή ἔσθη" Παρσικηω (CTA), also σαραωβαλλα, σαραωπαρα, Pauly-Wissowa 2: R I 2: 2386, Symmachus αξναχυριωδη", Vulgate braccae: long, baggy, ORIENTAL TROUSERS.

(CWSB Dictionary) סַרְבָּל sarbāl: An Aramaic masculine noun referring to a coat, a robe, TROUSERS. It refers to a piece of the extensive outfits that the three Hebrew young men wore none of which was singed by fire (Dan. 3:21, 27).

**Here, very clearly the “men” were wearing “pants”—which the women were forbidden to wear since they definitely “pertain to a man.”

*And, again, I HAVE seen more than one lady read Deuteronomy 22.5 and express shock that they had never seen that in God’s Word—and quit wearing pants. Sooo much more to say on this topic. Should have never even posted. I knew better, but just have a penchant for it I guess .

*Oh, also, I “think” it’s Gesenuis Hebrew-English Lexicon and Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dict. which state that the women’s robes where not cut in the middle as a man’s was—but rather they hung down like a woman’s dress today, whereas the men’s robes had slits in the front equivalent to modern pants. Elder Ensey has a great pamphlet on this very topic wherein he references these sources, but I have no idea where that pamphlet is right now (I STILL have not unpacked my library).

*Incidentally, since you have repeatedly appealed to contemporary western culture, you DO realize that dresses are equally “no longer” isolated to women “in the west” don’t you? Will you equally affirm that “Christian” men can now wear dresses that are specifically designed for men using the identical logic? And, no, our women do not wear ball-caps, ties, leggings, etc. Deuteronomy 22.5 applies to the waste up as well (and they fully understand this concept).

*Again, doubt I can interact much on here right now, but this should keep the fire kindled for a while ��!

Thank you for providing this example. They clearly are wearing trousers. Do you have any examples that don't involve Babylonian clothing, though? The three Hebrew young men were in the service of the Babylonian king and likely would have been provided Babylonian clothing.

As far as skirt-like garments go for men in the United States, no I would not support that. There is nothing inherently wrong with men wearing skirted garments since godly men have done so in the past, e.g., in the first-century Greco-Roman world, but culturally that is not acceptable in the US, and I frankly cannot conceive of there being a mass movement of men wanting to wear skirts. Gay or effeminate men who want to wear skirts is nothing like the straight women beginning in the later 1800s who did not want to be forced to wear only skirts and dresses. In other words I wouldn't imagine that in the West something that is associated with gay men would become something the mass of straight men would want to do.

I respect that you have been consistent across the board regarding applying Deut 22:5. You're the first I've heard do this.[/QUOTE]

*I appreciate your spirit in this post. But, I truly don’t see the point in continuing to post passages where men wore the equivalent of “pants” or “breeches”—only to have it dismissed and asked for another passage (which will only meet the same fate).

*However, in another vein, the issue of “standards” (a word I don’t care for BTW) is a topic that I do spend a lot of time thinking about and studying inasmuch as I truly want to be right w. God and teach His people according to His Word. In this particular topic, for me, the issue is “abomination to YHWH,” which is not something to take lightly (as you have aptly pointed out already). I have talked to numerous Jews (of differing flavors) about this text and they have provided some solid answers. I am hoping to go to Jerusalem in the next few years—where I will be asking some hard questions of the ultra-orthodox.

*I will say that the double standards from many of my brethren on this topic really-really-really bothers us, but, I do know many pastors who teach the same thing regarding this text (i.e., all inclusive). Our ladies don’t wear PJ’s, etc...nor do they want to.

*In sum, we have both researched this issue and have reached polar opposite conclusions. God will be the eternal Judge. Just don’t have the time right now (have already spent time today that I really don’t have). God bless.