Women Wearing Pants

[Scott Pitta]

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by n david

This is another argument I don't understand.

Here are the verses proceeding verse 5:

• When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof
  
• Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds:
  
• Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
  
• Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
  
• Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

From chapter 14: "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase."

I don't know of any new homes with battlements. I have not seen anyone, even ultra cons, with fringes on the four quarters of their clothes. Most clothing today have mixed fabrics.

And let's not get started on bacon or BBQ pulled pork!

People take one verse and demand it be followed, but sure won't follow or try to enforce the verses surrounding it.

Do you think that maybe one reason why believers don't, say, demand that homes be built with battlements, or demand we follow the other things you have listed, is that none of them besides v. 5. are said to be an abomination to the Lord and seem to involve morality?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

We definitely have to be careful not to impose the Old Covenant on the New.
In a previous post I had asked, "Do you think that, since it was said to be an abomination to the Lord, the principle of v. 5 transcends the Law of Moses and applies to the church as well?"

Did God ever make or establish distinctions between male and female before or after the Law? If so, could v. 5 be seen as being an example of applying this principle? In other words, are things distinguishing male and female only a "Law thing"?

Also, thank you for providing all the data on the use of "abomination" in Scripture. One thing that stands out to me about v. 5 is that it is specifically said to be an abomination to the Lord. In several places in the OT, things are said to be an abomination to the Israelites, but not specifically to God. For example, in Leviticus, several of the forbidden foods are said to be an abomination to the Israelites, and so those kinds of things were done away with with the dawn of the New Covenant. But issues involving idolatry and worshiping other gods and other things that involve morality are said to be an abomination to the Lord God. This seems to point to issues that would transcend the Law. Thoughts?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Females in pants is cross dressing

[Evang.Benincasa]

But don’t worry, they want gender as optional.

Ship is sinking boys and girls.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Females in pants is cross dressing

It's interesting how the UPC standard of dress differs for women in India than in North America or other places, due to an allowance for "culture."

For women in certain areas of India, the traditional dress or culture is Salwaar Kameez -- which are loose trousers that are narrow at the ankles and a tunic.

This is acceptable to the UPC in India and women are not condemned for wearing pants there.

I don't understand this. If it's custom and culture for women in India to wear pants, it's certainly modern culture for women in America to do the same.

If the UPC is pointing to Deut 22:5 as the biblical basis for prohibition of pants on women, then why wouldn't it apply to all women, everywhere?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by n david

It's interesting how the UPC standard of dress differs for women in India than in North America or other places, due to an allowance for "culture."

For women in certain areas of India, the traditional dress or culture is Salwaar Kameez -- which are loose trousers that are narrow at the ankles and a tunic.

This is acceptable to the UPC in India and women are not condemned for wearing pants there.

I don't understand this. If it's custom and culture for women in India to wear pants, it's certainly modern culture for women in America to do the same.

If the UPC is pointing to Deut 22:5 as the biblical basis for prohibition of pants on women, then why wouldn't it apply to all women, everywhere?

Keen observation.

[Scott Pitta]

Make a list of all abominations. Enforce them all. Why just one ?

No one in the NT made a big deal out of the word abomination.

Nor was it an issue at the Council of Jerusalem.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Make a list of all abominations. Enforce them all. Why just one ?

No one in the NT made a big deal out of the word abomination.

Nor was it an issue at the Council of Jerusalem.

Proverbs 6:16-19 was acceptable in the New Testament?

Scott, are in in the UPC? Are you in leadership? Do you drink alcohol on a occasions? There isn't prohibition on alcohol in the Bible. Nothing against cigars or cigarettes.

Since Leviticus 18:22 is in the Old Testament is it also no longer an abomination in the New Testament?

Scott do deer miscarry when they drink the water?

[Scott Pitta]

The NT makes it quite clear we have a new, better covenant. Righteousness does not come by following the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

Since the 22nd chapter of Deut. is part of the law, it is fulfilled and is no longer something we keep.