Women Wearing Pants

[votivesoul]

Men, "time" (:heeheehee) to take off your wristwatches:

Originally, the wristwatch was overlooked in America as a fad for women and something of a joke that would eventually pass. They were thought to be impossibly inaccurate because of their size and something as likely for a gentleman to wear as a skirt. but that was changed drastically after the outbreak of WWI, in 1914.

https://gallantry.com/blogs/journal/...ory-of-watches

[aegsm76]

I thought I would add the next words for context...

"American soldiers and aviators, whilst fighting through Europe, realized an intriguing commonality with their European counterparts; they had begun strapping their old pocket watches to their wrists for easier and quicker access. Keeping a close eye on the time was – and still is – a very important thing for an aviator or soldier, as it ensures that they are carrying out their mission as planned. And, as the first major war to incorporate radio transmissions into combat, accurate timing was of the utmost importance."

https://rajvisanghvi.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/history-of-time-keeping-devices/

[Scott Pitta]

Righteousness does not come by obeying the law.

There is a new covenant. I am a part of it. I am not part of the old covenant.

If obedience to Deut. 22:5 is somehow required, then obey all of the law of Moses.

Abstractly obeying some laws and ignoring other laws is lousy hermeneutics.

We are not partakers of both covenants.

[Pressing-On]

Whatever Deut 22:5 prohibited, is either still prohibited, or allowed.

"Because all who do so are abomination to Jehovah." Are they? Or aren't they?

How do we answer that question when you say “Whatever Deut 22:5 prohibited...”

What’s the “Whatever”? What’s the abomination? The clothing or the “Becoming or existing as”?



H1961......(Strong)
הָיָה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):

[votivesoul]

I thought I would add the next words for context...

"American soldiers and aviators, whilst fighting through Europe, realized an intriguing commonality with their European counterparts; they had begun strapping their old pocket watches to their wrists for easier and quicker access. Keeping a close eye on the time was – and still is – a very important thing for an aviator or soldier, as it ensures that they are carrying out their mission as planned. And, as the first major war to incorporate radio transmissions into combat, accurate timing was of the utmost importance."

https://rajvisanghvi.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/history-of-time-keeping-devices/

Yes, that is in the article.

So, let's carry the logic forward:

After watches were invented, they were worn by men as pocket watches. Eventually, someone invented a watch to be worn on the wrist. It was invented for the Queen of Naples in 1812.

https://www.govbergwatches.com/blog/history-of-horology/

So, from the very beginning, wristwatches were invented as an accessory for women. For nearly a century, they were almost exclusively worn by women only. Men wore pocket watches because they could endure the elements of the outside world, where they worked, fought, and lived (compared to women who stayed at home).

When a cultural eruption occurred, and it became convenient for men to wear them on their wrists, men's wristwatches came into existence. We are now a century removed, and there are wristwatches made exclusively for men and women, usually differentiated by their size, with a large number of unisex watches as well (pocket watches still exist, too, but aren't nearly as common or popular).

So, if we apply what some are saying about Deuteronomy 22:5, it is clear that wristwatches were an exclusively female accouterment for their first century of existence. They were specifically invented for women only. But the culture changed and here we are, and almost no one thinks twice or cares one way or the other who wears a watch, male or female.

If you think what pertains to a man is some kind of gear, not just clothing, you must admit that wristwatches originally didn't pertain to a man until after several decades.

If you believe that a woman shouldn't wear anything that has ever pertained to a man first, transcending time, space, and culture, then it must be admitted that only women have the right to wear wristwatches.

Otherwise, to be logically consistent, one would need to admit that something that was designed, created, and given specifically and originally for only one sex to wear can indeed transcend time and space and culture so that it is now acceptable for both sexes to wear.

[Scott Pitta]

Eating lobsters and shrimp is also an abomination. Is it still a sin to eat them ?

The dispensation has changed and along with it changes to what is a sin.

[votivesoul]

There is much disagreement about Duet 22:5 , I don't have everything in front of me, some believe its about gender/role reversal, some believe its about homosexuality and crossdressing such as the story in Sodom. [b]I have read that in those days there was a pagan ritual to the fertility gods and the belief was crossdressing was a way to become fertile.[b]

Dr. Robert Alter's (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0028T8T40/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) translation and commentary on Deuteronomy 22:5 refers to Hittite fertility rites making the use of cross-dressing, particularly of men dressing as women while engaging in sexual acts with women in order to treat impotency. He writes the verse may have been written as a counter to this practice.

If this is the case, it was likely done in honor of the Hittite goddess Šauška, who, in the pantheon, appeared with both gods and goddesses, and wore both male and female garments. She was the goddess of fertility, war, and healing.

Šauška (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0au%C5%A1ka)

[Scott Pitta]

Interesting data, thanks :) Votivesoul.

[votivesoul]

Dr. Robert Alter's (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0028T8T40/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) translation and commentary on Deuteronomy 22:5 refers to Hittite fertility rites making the use of cross-dressing, particularly of men dressing as women while engaging in sexual acts with women in order to treat impotency. He writes the verse may have been written as a counter to this practice.

The New Interpreter's Commentary of the Bible, Volume 1: Introduction to the Pentateuch reads much the same way, without specifying Hititte rites, just generic pagan fertility to acts related to idolatry.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Interpreters%C2%AE-Bible-Commentary-Introduction/dp/1426735782

[votivesoul]

For those who advocate a woman's right to wear pants, how do you feel about shorts?

Many Apostolic women who wear skirts only in public wear them only to the knee, particularly denim or khaki skirts. A pair of denim or khaki shorts for a woman often come to the knee.

Are you copasetic with this?

[votivesoul]

What about children?

When does a boy become a man, and a girl a woman?

Does Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to children who are not yet men or women, as in adults?

If so, how far down, to what age? Even to infants and toddlers?

[votivesoul]

Does the letter of the law in Deuteronomy kill, while the spirit of the law in Deuteronomy 22:5 gives life?

If so, how so? If not, why not?

[votivesoul]

Something else to consider:

Regardless of anyone's view of Deuteronomy 22:5, there are very good reasons to do everything possible to preserve and conserve your culture. People rattle cultural cages to their peril.

[Esaias]

How do we answer that question when you say “Whatever Deut 22:5 prohibited...”

What’s the “Whatever”? What’s the abomination? The clothing or the “Becoming or existing as”?

The abomination is the people who do what Deut 22:5 prohibits.

The command has three phrases or clauses:

A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man

Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment

For all who do such are an abomination to Jehovah

The third clause in an explanatory clause giving the reason for command.

The other two are parallels. One is a command to women, the other is a command to men, connected by "neither". The man is prohibited from putting on (wearing) a woman's garment.

It is rational to conclude the parallel clause is commanding the same for women, that they are not to wear men's garments (clothing etc that pertains to men). A man is not to wear a woman's clothing, and vice versa.

In the absence of any compelling evidence that the two clauses are NOT to be understood as parallels, this is the simplest and most logical understanding of the passage.

The ONLY thing anyone really should be debating is "What constitutes men's or women's apparel?" so that they can obey the command with confidence.

The use of hayah is clearly a Hebraism in this case, because it is clearly impossible for a woman to be transformed into an item or utensil, and the only other way a woman could "become that which pertains to a man" would by becoming a wife, which is clearly NOT prohibited. So what remains is she becomes the wearer of male garments, which is forbidden.

[Esaias]

Does the letter of the law in Deuteronomy kill, while the spirit of the law in Deuteronomy 22:5 gives life?

If so, how so? If not, why not?

The letter of the law kills by pronouncing doom upon violators, the Spirit gives life by empowering knowledgable obedience.

[Pressing-On]

The abomination is the people who do what Deut 22:5 prohibits.

The command has three phrases or clauses:

A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man

Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment

For all who do such are an abomination to Jehovah

The third clause in an explanatory clause giving the reason for command.

The other two are parallels. One is a command to women, the other is a command to men, connected by "neither". The man is prohibited from putting on (wearing) a woman's garment.

It is rational to conclude the parallel clause is commanding the same for women, that they are not to wear men's garments (clothing etc that pertains to men). A man is not to wear a woman's clothing, and vice versa.

In the absence of any compelling evidence that the two clauses are NOT to be understood as parallels, this is the simplest and most logical understanding of the passage.

The ONLY thing anyone really should be debating is "What constitutes men's or women's apparel?" so that they can obey the command with confidence.

The use of hayah is clearly a Hebraism in this case, because it is clearly impossible for a woman to be transformed into an item or utensil, and the only other way a woman could "become that which pertains to a man" would by becoming a wife, which is clearly NOT prohibited. So what remains is she becomes the wearer of male garments, which is forbidden.

No, the ONLY thing that we should be debating is that hayah (become, to exist) shows a transformation that has taken place in the woman that is replicated in the man, which is visibly apparent by all to see. Any parallel should be the connection of Deut 22:5 and Romans 1:26-27.

[Pressing-On]

The letter of the law kills by pronouncing doom upon violators, the Spirit gives life by empowering knowledgable obedience.

Well said!:thumbsup

[Esaias]

No, the ONLY thing that we should be debating is that hayah (become, to exist) shows a transformation that has taken place in the woman that is replicated in the man, which is visibly apparent by all to see. Any parallel should be the connection of Deut 22:5 and Romans 1:26-27.

Then the transformation is that the woman has taken on the appearance of a man by wearing men's clothing.

But as I said, the two clauses are parallel, what is forbidden to the woman is paralleled by what is forbidden to the man. The man is forbidden to put on a woman's garment. The logical conclusion then is that the woman is similarly forbidden, that is, she is forbidden to wear the stuff that pertains to men, which certainly includes the male clothing line.

I already demonstrated WHY hayah is properly translated "wear" in this passage. I showed that the woman does not actually "become" something that pertains to a man, except in appearance: she becomes a person wearing men's appurtenances, which is forbidden to her.

[Costeon]

If we can, let's bring this back to the original post again. I had asserted that Deut 22.5 is ambiguous, which means it's capable of more than one interpretation. We have clearly demonstrated that to be true:

- It has been said that it has no relevance for Christians because it was done away with along with the rest of the Old Covenant.

- It has been said that it is still relevant because it is a moral issue and transcends the Old Covenant.

The majority who have posted have asserted that it is still relevant, but there has been no agreement on what it means.

- It has been said that it may refer to pagan fertility rites.

- It has been said that it (likely) only refers to transvestitism.

- It has been said that it refers to women not wearing pants because pants pertain to a man: men wear pants, and both sexes can't wear the same garment.

- It has been said that it refers to women not wearing anything that men wear, and so no pants, no t-shirts, no button-down shirts, etc.

Several in their replies have seemed to imply that it "clearly" refers to their interpretation. To me this is a classic case of sincere believers being able to understand a verse in different ways. In short, it is ambiguous.

And so, I had asked in the first post for other examples from Scripture that would clearly speak to the issue and help us understand Deut 22.5. As far as I can remember, rdp gave the only example: the passage where the three Hebrew young men were thrown into the fiery furnace and were said to be wearing trousers. I agreed that it appeared that they were indeed wearing trousers, but noted that this was about 900 years after Deut 22.5 was given and that it was not in a Hebrew cultural context, but a Babylonian context and so it is possible, perhaps likely, that this verse refers to Babylonian clothing, and so it can't be said that this definitively shows that the men of Israel in general wore trousers, hence making trousers pertain to men only. So, I think it's fair to say that this is an ambiguous example as well.

Are there any other verses that could be presented that may shine a light on the meaning of Deut 22.5 or that might explicitly show that pant-like garments are only for males and skirt-like garments are only for females?

[JoeBandy]

If we can, let's bring this back to the original post again. I had asserted that Deut 22.5 is ambiguous, which means it's capable of more than one interpretation. We have clearly demonstrated that to be true:

- It has been said that it has no relevance for Christians because it was done away with along with the rest of the Old Covenant.

- It has been said that it is still relevant because it is a moral issue and transcends the Old Covenant.

The majority who have posted have asserted that it is still relevant, but there has been no agreement on what it means.

- It has been said that it may refer to pagan fertility rites.

- It has been said that it (likely) only refers to transvestitism.

- It has been said that it refers to women not wearing pants because pants pertain to a man: men wear pants, and both sexes can't wear the same garment.

- It has been said that it refers to women not wearing anything that men wear, and so no pants, no t-shirts, no button-down shirts, etc.

Several in their replies have seemed to imply that it "clearly" refers to their interpretation. To me this is a classic case of sincere believers being able to understand a verse in different ways. In short, it is ambiguous.

And so, I had asked in the first post for other examples from Scripture that would clearly speak to the issue and help us understand Deut 22.5. As far as I can remember, rdp gave the only example: the passage where the three Hebrew young men were thrown into the fiery furnace and were said to be wearing trousers. I agreed that it appeared that they were indeed wearing trousers, but noted that this was about 900 years after Deut 22.5 was given and that it was not in a Hebrew cultural context, but a Babylonian context and so it is possible, perhaps likely, that this verse refers to Babylonian clothing, and so it can't be said that this definitively shows that the men of Israel in general wore trousers, hence making trousers pertain to men only. So, I think it's fair to say that this is an ambiguous example as well.

Are there any other verses that could be presented that may shine a light on the meaning of Deut 22.5 or that might explicitly show that pant-like garments are only for males and skirt-like garments are only for females?

No

[Esaias]

Every single passage of scripture is interpreted differently, there are differences of interpretation about pretty much every single verse. That does not mean a verse is ambiguous, it only means there are different opinions about the verse's meaning. Each opinion stands or falls on its own actual merit. Some opinions are less accurate and less valid than others, and vice versa. Some opinions are flat out wrong. And so forth.

Each Bible student must weigh the evidence and make their own conclusion. Some will conclude wrongly, others correctly. And some want to frame the discussion exclusively within predetermined limits to support a predetermined outcome.

[Esaias]

Eating lobsters and shrimp is also an abomination. Is it still a sin to eat them ?

The dispensation has changed and along with it changes to what is a sin.

Once again, Scott demonstrates severe error in his Bible knowledge. The New Testament identifies sin as "transgression of the law". Therefore, there are no changes to "what is sin". Rather, many people practice what God forbids, so they come up with a theologucal system that "changes" God's law to allow all the things they want allowed. Convenient, but wrong. In fact, it's not only wrong, but forbidden.

[Costeon]

That does not mean a verse is ambiguous, it only means there are different opinions about the verse's meaning.

True. Are there any verses in the Bible that seem to you ambiguous?

Deut 22.5 seems to be the very definition of ambiguity, as this thread indicates. Because there is nothing in the context to clarify the meaning and apparently no selection of other passages that clearly speak to the same issue that could help clarify the meaning, it is ambiguous in respect to both definitions below:

1 a: doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness
2 : capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambiguous

Each opinion stands or falls on its own actual merit. Some opinions are less accurate and less valid than others, and vice versa. Some opinions are flat out wrong. And so forth. Each Bible student must weigh the evidence and make their own conclusion. Some will conclude wrongly, others correctly.

I agree. So far it does not seem that anyone has produced a lot of evidence to support their view. From what I recall, most of the evidence that has been presented has been regarding the issue of whether or not Deut 22.5 is even relevant to Christians since it comes from the OT.

And some want to frame the discussion exclusively within predetermined limits to support a predetermined outcome.

If Deut 22.5 is unambiguous, it does seem like it should be a simple matter of providing a good amount of verses to support one's view. If we were debating Jesus' name baptism, for example, we could string together quite a few passages.

Potentially many restrictions are placed on women depending on how this verse is interpreted. It seems that we owe it to them to provide strong evidence to support our view of Deut 22.5 if it means they never, for example, can wear pants or t-shirts, etc.

[derAlte]

Every single passage of scripture is interpreted differently, there are differences of interpretation about pretty much every single verse. That does not mean a verse is ambiguous, it only means there are different opinions about the verse's meaning. Each opinion stands or falls on its own actual merit. Some opinions are less accurate and less valid than others, and vice versa. Some opinions are flat out wrong. And so forth.

Each Bible student must weigh the evidence and make their own conclusion. Some will conclude wrongly, others correctly. And some want to frame the discussion exclusively within predetermined limits to support a predetermined outcome.

You have got that exactly right!

[Scott Pitta]

We know the law of Moses is fulfilled.

We know the outcome of the council of Jerusalem.

We know righteousness does not come from obeying the law.

We know the new covenant is better than the old covenant.

We know the context of Deut. 22:5.

Based on what we know, there is no reason to believe this rule from a fulfilled law has any importance for us today. If we feel it is OK to eat lobster, it is OK to not follow this rule, either.

[Michael The Disciple]

My preference is that women wear ankle length skirts or dresses. I knew a woman quite well who prayed along this line.

"Lord if you want me to wear dresses only but not to judge those who dont give me 7 dresses".

The next day a friend dropped by and gave her a bag of clothes she could no longer use. As she went through the bag she found 7 dresses.

[Esaias]

We know the law of Moses is fulfilled.

We know the outcome of the council of Jerusalem.

We know righteousness does not come from obeying the law.

We know the new covenant is better than the old covenant.

We know the context of Deut. 22:5.

Based on what we know, there is no reason to believe this rule from a fulfilled law has any importance for us today. If we feel it is OK to eat lobster, it is OK to not follow this rule, either.

Does fulfilled mean "no longer obligatory"?

Your reasoning results in pure and complete antinomianism.

Too bad you never actually engage in discussion, you might discover how that is, or at least make a reasonable case as to how that isn't.

[Costeon]

My preference is that women wear ankle length skirts or dresses. I knew a woman quite well who prayed along this line.

"Lord if you want me to wear dresses only but not to judge those who dont give me 7 dresses".

The next day a friend dropped by and gave her a bag of clothes she could no longer use. As she went through the bag she found 7 dresses.

That's pretty cool. I appreciate her attitude. It must have been exciting for her to receive such a dramatic answer to prayer about what her personal standard should be.

[Costeon]

We know the law of Moses is fulfilled.

We know the outcome of the council of Jerusalem.

We know righteousness does not come from obeying the law.

We know the new covenant is better than the old covenant.

We know the context of Deut. 22:5.

Based on what we know, there is no reason to believe this rule from a fulfilled law has any importance for us today. If we feel it is OK to eat lobster, it is OK to not follow this rule, either.

Just to be clear, are you ultimately saying Deut 22.5 is not dealing with a moral/ethical issue? If so, how do you know it is not a moral law?

If there are examples of laws in the Law of Moses that deal with morality but are not repeated in the NT, say, at the council of Jerusalem, are they now void?

I'm just trying to understand how you understand the moral laws of the OT. Regarding the food laws, for example, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7.19). But, offhand, I don't recall any moral laws in the OT that are said to be no longer binding, in the sense of, for example, "In the Law of Moses you could not be a soothsayer, but now it's ok in Christ" because all those laws have been fulfilled in Christ.

[votivesoul]

Costeon,

I would argue that Deuteronomy 22:5 is in no way ambiguous. It's meaning is as simple as not sowing two different types of seeds together, blending linen with wool, boiling a lamb in the milk from the mama sheep, and etc. It's all quite clear.

The ambiguity is elsewhere, namely: application and limitation.

Does it apply? If yes, how so, and to what degree?

Does it apply? If not, why not?

But the verse means exactly as it reads.

[Scott Pitta]

So does the verse that teaches eating lobster and shrimp is an abomination. If Deut. 22:5 is to be kept, then keep all the rules described as abominations.

All the rules of the law of Moses are moral laws.

[Scott Pitta]

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Notice believers are not to keep the law of Moses. This includes Deut. 22:5.

[votivesoul]

Costeon,

I would argue that Deuteronomy 22:5 is in no way ambiguous. It's meaning is as simple as not sowing two different types of seeds together, blending linen with wool, boiling a lamb in the milk from the mama sheep, and etc. It's all quite clear.

The ambiguity is elsewhere, namely: application and limitation.

Does it apply? If yes, how so, and to what degree?

Does it apply? If not, why not?

But the verse means exactly as it reads.

Additionally, there existing only one verse of Scripture doesn't make it ambiguous, or unclear in meaning and scope. If you sift the doctrines of the Holy Bible, you can find all sorts of ideas or concepts that are one verse doctrines or concepts. Each verse of the Holy Scriptures is in and of itself complete, and can stand completely on its own merits.

While together, all verses of the Bible create one harmonious whole, they all stand individually as well.

Every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5).

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.

Costeon, bring myself to admit what? I pointed out that you constantly gauge everyone on your own behavior. You struggle with thoughts? I don't, but the Bible doesn't say that thinking about something without acting upon it is sin.


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.

You don't have any idea what I'm talking about, but you posted that I had good arguments at times? Your typical, everyone might be a hero at times as long as they don't disagree with you. :lol




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

I'm impressed, you have actually read all 32,400 posts of mine? :laffatu




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.

Thank you. :)



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.

Not at all, to have someone disagree with an idea, or with a doctrine isn't impossible. But you on the other hand is far from sincere. Just my perception of you, you were entitled to your's. I'm just not a big baby like you. :bigbaby



You think your interpretation of Scripture is clear.

Very clear, but you obviously have an agenda, like you did in the sin thread.


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.

Funny, you don't agree to disagree. Or else you would of moved on long ago. Instead You battle for what you want, and insult those who don't agree with you. Pot calling kettle black? There are none so blind who will not see.



" 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.

All 32,400 posts? Very good Orochimaru. :laffatu


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.

Yep, you are a young kid, you must be the church intellectual? :laffatu

I didn't answer the rest of your post. It was more of the same above. Mostly you wanting to prove to me how right you are. My you get everything worked out with your Norman Bates' thinking. :nod

[Evang.Benincasa]

Additionally, there existing only one verse of Scripture doesn't make it ambiguous, or unclear in meaning and scope. If you sift the doctrines of the Holy Bible, you can find all sorts of ideas or concepts that are one verse doctrines or concepts. Each verse of the Holy Scriptures is in and of itself complete, and can stand completely on its own merits.

While together, all verses of the Bible create one harmonious whole, they all stand individually as well.

Every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5).

:thumbsup

It isn't ambiguous for the separatist movements who employed it for women wearing dresses and men wearing pants. :)

[Evang.Benincasa]

So does the verse that teaches eating lobster and shrimp is an abomination. If Deut. 22:5 is to be kept, then keep all the rules described as abominations.

All the rules of the law of Moses are moral laws.


Leviticus 18:22 , and Leviticus 11:9-12 which one Scotty?

Wilton Manors Florida needs a missionary. ;)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Notice believers are not to keep the law of Moses. This includes Deut. 22:5.

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 11:9-12 you think the Jerusalem council also oked crawfish, and skrimps with your significant other? :laffatu

[Evang.Benincasa]

Once again, Scott demonstrates severe error in his Bible knowledge. The New Testament identifies sin as "transgression of the law". Therefore, there are no changes to "what is sin". Rather, many people practice what God forbids, so they come up with a theological system that "changes" God's law to allow all the things they want allowed. Convenient, but wrong. In fact, it's not only wrong, but forbidden.

Everyone needs to focus on the above. I don't think anyone pointed this out but Esaias.

[Costeon]

Costeon,

I would argue that Deuteronomy 22:5 is in no way ambiguous. It's meaning is as simple as not sowing two different types of seeds together, blending linen with wool, boiling a lamb in the milk from the mama sheep, and etc. It's all quite clear.

The ambiguity is elsewhere, namely: application and limitation.

Does it apply? If yes, how so, and to what degree?

Does it apply? If not, why not?

But the verse means exactly as it reads.

This seems like a reasonable way to look at it, and I would be very interested in more of your input to help me think it through. I think I get what you are saying (all it means is the obvious: men don't wear women's clothes; women don't wear men's clothes), but if the verse's meaning is clear, how can its application be unclear? Is a correct application not rooted in the true meaning of a verse? I guess right now, in my mind, any ambiguity in application points to an ambiguity in actual meaning. The other examples given above seem unambiguous in what they mean and how to apply them. I'm trying to think of a scenario where people could disagree on what it means to not use wool and linen in the same garment and so disagree on how to apply that.

Ultimately, are we not concluding the same thing, that what this verse means for believers today is ambiguous?

In your opinion, can we go to anywhere else in Scripture to get help for how to apply Deut 22.5?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Ultimately, are we not concluding the same thing, that what this verse means for believers today is ambiguous?

Actually, it is ultimately ambiguous for Costeon. :)

[Costeon]

Costeon, bring myself to admit what? I pointed out that you constantly gauge everyone on your own behavior. You struggle with thoughts? I don't, but the Bible doesn't say that thinking about something without acting upon it is sin.



You don't have any idea what I'm talking about, but you posted that I had good arguments at times? Your typical, everyone might be a hero at times as long as they don't disagree with you. :lol




I'm impressed, you have actually read all 32,400 posts of mine? :laffatu




Thank you. :)




Not at all, to have someone disagree with an idea, or with a doctrine isn't impossible. But you on the other hand is far from sincere. Just my perception of you, you were entitled to your's. I'm just not a big baby like you. :bigbaby



Very clear, but you obviously have an agenda, like you did in the sin thread.



Funny, you don't agree to disagree. Or else you would of moved on long ago. Instead You battle for what you want, and insult those who don't agree with you. Pot calling kettle black? There are none so blind who will not see.




All 32,400 posts? Very good Orochimaru. :laffatu



Yep, you are a young kid, you must be the church intellectual? :laffatu

I didn't answer the rest of your post. It was more of the same above. Mostly you wanting to prove to me how right you are. My you get everything worked out with your Norman Bates' thinking. :nod

:-)

[Scott Pitta]

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

[Costeon]

Additionally, there existing only one verse of Scripture doesn't make it ambiguous, or unclear in meaning and scope. If you sift the doctrines of the Holy Bible, you can find all sorts of ideas or concepts that are one verse doctrines or concepts. Each verse of the Holy Scriptures is in and of itself complete, and can stand completely on its own merits.

While together, all verses of the Bible create one harmonious whole, they all stand individually as well.

Every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5).

I know we're focusing on Deut 22.5 right now, but at some point when you have time, could you list some of the ideas or concepts that are essential for NT believers that are based on only one verse?

[Costeon]

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

I appreciate your consistency in your approach, Scott, even when we disagree, and I keep asking you questions because I'm interested in what you have to say. I feel like all this helps my own thinking (and I assume helps all those who may be reading these posts).

Do you think that it is now permissible for men to wear women's clothes and vice versa since the rule against it is now obsolete?

[Evang.Benincasa]

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Scott Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 11:9-12?

Think about it. :lol

[Scott Pitta]

All of the law of Moses is fulfilled. It is, as a code of rules, obsolete.

[Costeon]

All of the law of Moses is fulfilled. It is, as a code of rules, obsolete.

And so, a man can now wear women's clothes and vice versa since there is no NT prohibition against this?

[Scott Pitta]

My focus is on the interpretation, not the application of Deut. 22:5.

Taking a verse out of context is intellectually dishonest. Or, to state it in a more mild way, it is bad hermeneutics.

[Costeon]

My focus is on the interpretation, not the application of Deut. 22:5.

Taking a verse out of context is intellectually dishonest. Or, to state it in a more mild way, it is bad hermeneutics.

I agree. I'm just trying to understand the implications of your view. So, now that Deut 22.5 is obsolete, can a man now wear women's clothes and vice versa since there is no NT prohibition against this? If not, why not?

[Scott Pitta]

It is not a sin to be in violation of the law of Moses.

Work on the sabbath, eat lobster and mix seeds in your fields.

[Evang.Benincasa]

It is not a sin to be in violation of the law of Moses.

Work on the sabbath, eat lobster and mix seeds in your fields.

Scott, therefore logically if we follow your hermeneutics to their obvious conclusions. We also see that you are able to do more in those woods than fishing and testing water samples "Leviticus 18:22."

Also skrimps, crawfish. and oysters are an abomination to YOU, not to God. That is why Peter was told to rise up and eat. Not rise up a put on women's attire. Scott, so heterosexuals can wear women's clothing without liability?

[loran adkins]

And so, a man can now wear women's clothes and vice versa since there is no NT prohibition against this?

It is not a style of clothes that is wrong anyway. As when this scripture was penned both women and men wore robes, or like clothing. Even when God make Adam and Eve Long robes out of animal skins Both were robes not pants and a skirt.

Pants are not and never have been only men's apparel except in the eyes of a few. This verse can only mean that when one of the opposite sex dress to appear as one of the opposite sex that is wrong.

[Scott Pitta]

Right and wrong behavior needs to be based on something other than the law of Moses.

What I wear and how I dress depends on which cultural context I find myself in.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Right and wrong behavior needs to be based on something other than the law of Moses.

What I wear and how I dress depends on which cultural context I find myself in.

Scott tell me, why did God even come up with one, a day of rest, two proabition against bottom feeders, and gender blending?

[Evang.Benincasa]

It is not a style of clothes that is wrong anyway. As when this scripture was penned both women and men wore robes, or like clothing. Even when God make Adam and Eve Long robes out of animal skins Both were robes not pants and a skirt.

Pants are not and never have been only men's apparel except in the eyes of a few. This verse can only mean that when one of the opposite sex dress to appear as one of the opposite sex that is wrong.

Skirts on savages doesn’t constitute a precedence for male wear. If it wasn’t for Western and Eastern European influence. There would be a world of mud huts, bones through the nose and grass skirts.

[Costeon]

Why is clothing unisex in the Book of Revelation (7.9, cf. 1.13) where everyone wears the same white robes (stolas)? Why would this not be an abomination?

[diakonos]

Why is clothing unisex in the Book of Revelation (7.9, cf. 1.13) where everyone wears the same white robes (stolas)? Why would this not be an abomination?

This is what you’ve become?

Is there gender after this life?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Why is clothing unisex in the Book of Revelation (7.9, cf. 1.13) where everyone wears the same white robes (stolas)? Why would this not be an abomination?

Why is everyone males. :lol

Revelation 1:13 why does Jesus have mastos instead of stethos?
It’s a book of symbols. Poetic symbolic prophetic language.

[Evang.Benincasa]

This is what you’ve become?

Is there gender after this life?

Everyone becomes males? :heeheehee

Angels have stethos Revelation 15:16.

[Costeon]

This is what you’ve become?

Could you clarify what you mean?

Is there gender after this life?

I'm not aware of a passage that says that people will be genderless in the afterlife--so, yes, there is gender.

[Costeon]

Revelation 1:13 why does Jesus have mastos instead of stethos?
It’s a book of symbols. Poetic symbolic prophetic language.

Not sure.

I wonder why men and women would be depicted doing something apparently abominable--wearing the same kind of clothes. What might the symbolism be?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Not sure.

I wonder why men and women would be depicted doing something apparently abominable--wearing the same kind of clothes. What might the symbolism be?

No mention of women. But you totally didn’t catch what I pointed out in Revelation 1:13. Jesus wore a priest’s robe. So? Anyway, you aren’t paying attention.

[Costeon]

No mention of women.

I don't see where it mentions only men, just people wearing stole.

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

But you totally didn’t catch what I pointed out in Revelation 1:13. Jesus wore a priest’s robe. So? Anyway, you aren’t paying attention.

Perhaps you could have just stated plainly what you meant regarding "mastos instead of stethos."

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don't see where it mentions only men, just people wearing stole.

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

It just means a large number consisting of nations, individuals, and languages of the non Judeans. No indication of it being males with females. or only females. Yet, the 144,000 are ONLY males, the angels ONLY males, therefore it is safe to say the multitude is ONLY male.


Perhaps you could have just stated plainly what you meant regarding "mastos instead of stethos."

I did. :laffatu

[Costeon]

It just means a large number consisting of nations, individuals, and languages of the non Judeans. No indication of it being males with females. or only females. Yet, the 144,000 are ONLY males, the angels ONLY males, therefore it is safe to say the multitude is ONLY male.

That is only your assumption.

If this "great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues" was only male, then the following are only male:

"10 Then I took the little book out of the angel’s hand and ate it, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth. But when I had eaten it, my stomach became bitter. 11 And he said to me, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings" (Rev 10.10-11). Only males were to be prophesied against?

"9 Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth" (Rev 11.9-10). Only males will see them?

"Then he said to me, 'The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues'" (Rev 17.15). The waters represent only males?

These examples are clearly not only about males. Unless it's stated that a multitude from "peoples, nations, tongues, and tribes" consists of only males, it is obviously referring to a mixed group of males and females.

[Evang.Benincasa]

That is only your assumption.

If this "great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues" was only male, then the following are only male:

"10 Then I took the little book out of the angel’s hand and ate it, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth. But when I had eaten it, my stomach became bitter. 11 And he said to me, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings" (Rev 10.10-11). Only males were to be prophesied against?

"9 Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth" (Rev 11.9-10). Only males will see them?

"Then he said to me, 'The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues'" (Rev 17.15). The waters represent only males?

These examples are clearly not only about males. Unless it's stated that a multitude from "peoples, nations, tongues, and tribes" consists of only males, it is obviously referring to a mixed group of males and females.

Obvious? The book is a book of symbols!

The 144,000 are only males who are all virgins? :laffatu

Stay out of the book of Revelation, it isn't helping your gender blending cause.

Jesus has μαστός, instead of στῆθος, and you want to argue στολή? What a laugh, I throw you a bone and you bury it.

How old are you?

Know it all church kid, who wants to be the church intellectual. :lol

[Costeon]

Obvious? The book is a book of symbols!

The 144,000 are only males who are all virgins? :laffatu

Stay out of the book of Revelation, it isn't helping your gender blending cause.

Jesus has μαστός, instead of στῆθος, and you want to argue στολή? What a laugh, I throw you a bone and you bury it.

How old are you?

Know it all church kid, who wants to be the church intellectual. :lol

I know all this bluster must just be part of your forum persona, that surely you are not like this in person. Your general jackassery, however, does get old because I think it takes away from the points you are trying to make.

So I guess we can leave Revelation--with your Jesus with breasts and an all-male heaven where they don't wear trousers but stole. Now, are you ever going to get around to posting all the other verses that supposedly support the view that women must wear skirts and men pants?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I know all this bluster must just be part of your forum persona, that surely you are not like this in person. Your general jackassery, however, does get old because I think it takes away from the points you are trying to make.

So I guess we can leave Revelation--with your Jesus with breasts and an all-male heaven where they don't wear trousers but stole. Now, are you ever going to get around to posting all the other verses that supposedly support the view that women must wear skirts and men pants?

Costeon, you just can't take any heat. Agree to disagree? Baloney, from a kid, teenager? No, early to late 20s? Probably closer. Calling me a jackass? Only because you have a screen between us. In person? You wouldn't get away with a 1/4 of your garbage and it would be in front of an audience.

What is the neck size of your shirts?

That is not an attempt at humor. :laffatu

[Costeon]

Costeon, you just can't take any heat.

I do wish I could be more like you. You have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to remain cool, calm, and collected--as everyone who reads your posts can attest. You have never exhibited any propensity toward testiness.

Agree to disagree? Baloney, from a kid, teenager? No, early to late 20s? Probably closer.

Again, you have consistently demonstrated such a propensity toward patience and toleration toward views not your own. You never make it personal, but always graciously interact with others.

Oh to be that young again.

Calling me a jackass?

Well, I didn't call you a jackass, but described your behavior as general jackassery, which is apt, since you display a great amount of juvenile foolishness in your posts.

Only because you have a screen between us. In person? You wouldn't get away with a 1/4 of your garbage and it would be in front of an audience.

Now here is a fine example of the christlikeness that you have asserted that you perfectly display in your life. Here you have fully embraced the principle of turning the other cheek.

Again, I just have to believe this is just a persona you effect on this forum. You can't be this deceived about yourself. You really think you never sin in attitude, and yet anyone who reads your posts can see how often you do.

What is the neck size of your shirts?

17 1/2.

That is not an attempt at humor. :laffatu

That's what makes you so funny!

***

Oh, and where are those verses again . . .

[Evang.Benincasa]

I do wish I could be more like you. You have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to remain cool, calm, and collected--as everyone who reads your posts can attest. You have never exhibited any propensity toward testiness.

Costeon, but you are no better than what you describe me to be. Childish? You wish you could be like me? Wee, wee, wee all the way home Costeon. Seriously. :lol

You can't take it, it shows not just with me. But like I have brought up before Esaias asked you to prove your position, and you snapped at him. :lol But, I don't place anyone on an ignore list. I poke back at snotty supposed intellectuals, who claim to be above it all. Yet, when they bite back they are the same as those who they claim are not nice in a discussion. You are baiter, and when no one takes the bait, and turns the tables on you, you get upset. Women wearing pants, is the least of your problems.



Again, you have consistently demonstrated such a propensity toward patience and toleration toward views not your own.

Costeon, you aren't disproving anything, nor are you holding a discussion. You don't understand bigger pictures, need to be spoon fed, and even when we do, you maintain your silliness. Revelation didn't work for you, therefore I disagreed, gave an example of the 144,000 ONLY MALES who were VIRGINS.
Also through in the fact about the ancient of days and how the writer describes Him. Yet, you complained about not understanding the issue, I went further to waste my time to repeat myself. Yet, all you wanted was an echo. No problem, don't blame me. Maybe its those thoughts in your head again?


You never make it personal, but always graciously interact with others.

Hey, Jesus called the religious around Him, serpents, vipers, children of Satan, two more the child of hell, white washed tombs. If my interactions aren't even close to that with you. But, your kettle boils youngster.


Oh to be that young again.

Could be that you are childish.




Well, I didn't call you a jackass, but described your behavior as general jackassery, which is apt, since you display a great amount of juvenile foolishness in your posts.

Own it, don't wimp out. "Dom, you behave like a jackass but I'm not calling you a jackass." Costeon, you are weak. :lol



Now here is a fine example of the christlikeness that you have asserted that you perfectly display in your life. Here you have fully embraced the principle of turning the other cheek.

There goes your thoughts again. We have a screen between us, and you would never be able to get away with a 1/4 of your garbage. All done in front of a watching and note taking audience. Which would be the street Bible study. Anyone who knows me, knows exactly what I meant. You seem to have taken it to mean something else, due to those thoughts you struggle with? Maybe that is your propensity, not mine. You are the one with a forum persona, which in real life you would have to answer, and ditch the snideness.


Again, I just have to believe this is just a persona you effect on this forum. You can't be this deceived about yourself. You really think you never sin in attitude, and yet anyone who reads your posts can see how often you do.

Costeon, it doesn't work. you would rather sit in this thread with you and Scott talking about crossdressing Israelites. Anyone disagrees with you and this is what they get.




17 1/2.

May the force be with you.




That's what makes you so funny!

***

Oh, and where are those verses again . . .

You mean funny like you? Who when we have a discussion and you get caught in the crack, we play pin the tail on Costeon?

Verses? What about all the other stuff I offered that was placed on the pay no mind list? What does κατάστολὰς mean? How is it used in 1 Timothy 2:9, what makes it different from στολὰς you found in Revelation 7:9

[Costeon]

Revelation didn't work for you, therefore I disagreed, gave an example of the 144,000 ONLY MALES who were VIRGINS.

You asserted that the multitudes in Rev 7.9 were only males based in part on the 144,000. I showed you how other passages using parallel language in Rev involved males and females and so Rev 7.9 is speaking of males and females. You did not come back and show how the passages I had listed are not parallels and do not suggest Rev 7.9 included males and females.

You constantly say I don't discuss scripture, but what it really comes down to is, if I don't come back and say, "EB, you were right all along," you accuse me of not being open to discussion.

As I've noted before, it really is in the end futile to engage in lengthy arguments about passages with you. We are never going to agree, at least I don't recall us agreeing on anything before. Ultimately the only ones who may benefit from any of our exchanges (who have the patience to wade through all the bickering) are those who are reading the thread and may have not been aware of some different options on how to interpret certain passages. It may help to sharpen their own understanding.

Hey, Jesus called the religious around Him, serpents, vipers, children of Satan, two more the child of hell, white washed tombs. If my interactions aren't even close to that with you.

Misapplied. As if Jesus rebuking the religious leaders of that day is anything like a forum where fellow believers discuss the Bible, as if it justifies your behavior. Why do people who have a propensity toward anger and rudeness try to justify their behavior by appealing to Christ's behavior in a particular context that he does not ask us to emulate rather than following his teaching to his followers to, for example, love their neighbors as themselves?

Verses? What about all the other stuff I offered that was placed on the pay no mind list? What does κατάστολὰς mean? How is it used in 1 Timothy 2:9, what makes it different from στολὰς you found in Revelation 7:9

You imply I did not respond to any of this. Back in post 132, here is what you had said and how I responded:

YOU:
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.

ME:
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.

***

According to BDAG, a stole is a robe "esp. a long, flowing robe."
It gives as examples the following:

-Luke 15.22 about the prodigal son.
-The example I gave from Rev 7 along with Rev 6.11, noting these refer to "glorified believers"
-Rev 22.14 about believers who have washed their robes and will be permitted to enter the new Jerusalem.
-Mark 16.5 about angels
-Mark 12.38 about scribes

According to BDAG katastole, as noted above, "refers to "attire, clothing," and that 1 Tim 2.9 means dress in a becoming manner or dress modestly.

So, a stole is a specific garment, a robe, worn both by men and women. Katastole is a general word for clothing.

Why don't you wear a stole?

[Costeon]

I checked David Bernard's book A Handbook of Basic Doctrines: A Compilation of Scriptural References to see which verses he lists regarding distinguishing between male and female in dress. Those reading this thread may recall that the purpose of this thread was to have people list all the verses that might be used besides Deut 22.5 to support the traditional teaching that women should not wear pants. The reason for listing verses besides Deut 22.5 is that this verse is open to different interpretations (as demonstrated in this thread).

I can't remember if any besides rdp and Evang.Benincasa submitted verses, rdp mentioning the verses in Daniel where the three Hebrew young men are thrown into the fiery furnace and they are said to be wearing trousers, and EB mentioning 1 Tim 2.9. I had also mentioned a couple of verses in Rev 6 and 7 where people (I think males and females) in heaven are wearing the same kind of clothes, stole or long robes. I also had listed some info from two books that describe male and female clothing in the Greco-Roman world in the first century.

I remembered Bernard's handbook today and was curious if he listed any of the above verses. He does not (though he does list 1 Tim 2.9 under the topic of modesty).

In the preface he says that he quotes in full the most important verses for each topic or lists the verse with an asterisk. Other references listed without an asterisk "offer additional insight and support."

He quotes in full only Deut 22.5. He lists two with asterisks:

1 Cor 6.9-10: "9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Cor 11.13-15: "13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."

He lists 4 additional verses without asterisks: Lev 6.10, Lev 16.4, Rom 1.26-27, Rev 21.27.

Are there any others that might be considered? As it stands, it does not seem that any verses say or suggest that men and women have to wear clothing that is substantially or extremely different in order to meet the requirements of not wearing clothes of the opposite sex. In the books mentioned above they noted that men and women wore similar though distinguishable garments: a tunic (a long shirt basically) and some sort of outer covering, i.e., a cloak or robe. It's understandable why some people would think that something similar could be done with men and women wearing pants.

At any rate, as someone else noted, one principle that must be considered in this discussion is modesty. Though I don't think an air-tight case can be made from Scripture that a woman cannot wear pants, still in general it seems that pants are more likely to be immodest, and so my preference and recommendation would be that women generally wear skirts for normal everyday wear, but if they choose to wear pants they need to seriously consider the issue of modesty. Of course that's just one man's opinion. A woman has to make her own decision. In the end, of course, no one answers to God for other people's choices in this area.

[Scott Pitta]

Det. 22:5 makes no mention of modesty.

[Evang.Benincasa]

According to BDAG, a stole is a robe "esp. a long, flowing robe."
It gives as examples the following:

-Luke 15.22 about the prodigal son.
-The example I gave from Rev 7 along with Rev 6.11, noting these refer to "glorified believers"
-Rev 22.14 about believers who have washed their robes and will be permitted to enter the new Jerusalem.
-Mark 16.5 about angels
-Mark 12.38 about scribes

According to BDAG katastole, as noted above, "refers to "attire, clothing," and that 1 Tim 2.9 means dress in a becoming manner or dress modestly.

So, a stole is a specific garment, a robe, worn both by men and women. Katastole is a general word for clothing.

Why don't you wear a stole?


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. 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. 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!" :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

Det. 22:5 makes no mention of modesty.

Scott, you have already notified us that God doesn't care about crossdressing.

[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.

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

[rdp]

I didn't see that definition in the BDAG lexicon (you know the one your friend rdp is so keen on).

*RDP—and anyone who understands serious lexicography is “so keen” on BDAG. In fact, in a recent course on NT Exegesis Dr. Naselli (the prof.) stated that if he was all alone on a desert island and could only have one book apart from the Bible—it would be BDAG. “Keen” indeed:highfive.

*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 :nod.

[Scott Pitta]

BDAG is the only lexicon I use. It is the one our Greek professor, MaryLou Myrick recommended to us.

[Evang.Benincasa]

BDAG is the only lexicon I use. It is the one our Greek professor, MaryLou Myrick recommended to us.

MaryLou?

[Scott Pitta]

Yes. Professor Myrick taught ed psych and Greek literature at CLC from around 1970-2005.

She was an ordained minister with the UPC.

She actually had a degree in Hellenistic Greek literature.

[Costeon]

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!" :heeheehee

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]

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]

*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 :nod.


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]

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), 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: [I]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]

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

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

[Costeon]

*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), 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 ;)."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

As long as you don't teach your preferences as a salvational issue. 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.

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.

[Costeon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*... 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:heeheehee.

*Shocker, but it means “to wear”:happydance.

*I should have made that clearer :nod.

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/2014/05/30/7-היה-ha-ya-to-be-and-become/

[Costeon]

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]

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.

[Scott Pitta]

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.”

Fantastic quote.

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.”

Fantastic quote.

What?

She was a Greek teacher?

I can understand Cretan hieroglyphics, but koine Greek?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Except that it doesn’t.

Do you wear pants sis?

[Pressing-On]

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.

Thank you. This is probably where the discussion should have started in the first place. I want to break down every word, define it and make sense of it.

I wasn’t looking for photos of gay people, women in pants, or insults because I asked a question. I just wanted to methodically go through it.

Thanks again. You calmly laid that out. Good job!

[Pressing-On]

Do you wear pants sis?

No, Sir. I do not and have no desire to wear them. I want to explain things to women who still do not understand.

[Evang.Benincasa]

No, Sir. I do not and have no desire to wear them. I want to explain things to women who still do not understand.

Sis, forgive me, but what do you mean?

[Pressing-On]

Sis, forgive me, but what do you mean?

I mean that I feel that Costean brought more clarity to the passage. I didn’t know how to explain “wear” in Deut and he did that very well. That may not have been a big deal to anyone else, but it was to me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I mean that I feel that Costean brought more clarity to the passage. I didn’t know how to explain “wear” in Deut and he did that very well. That may not have been a big deal to anyone else, but it was to me.

Ok, so now how does that either change or reinforce your current views? How will you now explain your belief to others just coming into the church?

[Pressing-On]

Ok, so now how does that either change or reinforce your current views? How will you now explain your belief to others just coming into the church?

I believe my response was self-explanatory.

[loran adkins]

I don't get it. Some are so worried about a woman wearing a pair of pants. Yet I hear of so little about the spirit of man being kept in check. With what a man sees everyday when he goes anywhere they should be more worried about their own spirit and not about their women looking like they came out of the early 1900's

[JoeBandy]

I don't get it. Some are so worried about a woman wearing a pair of pants. Yet I hear of so little about the spirit of man being kept in check. With what a man sees everyday when he goes anywhere they should be more worried about their own spirit and not about their women looking like they came out of the early 1900's

I would have to agree!!

[Tithesmeister]

I have noticed that several have declared that a skirt or dress is more modest than pants. I’m not sure that is the case. It seems to me that a woman in a skirt or dress is more attractive. Maybe I’m just thinking about my own preference.

So I wonder, what would a professional man attractor (read prostitute) wear?

I’m thinking that they’re going with the skirt or dress. I’m not sure but it seems that on the occasions that I have seen women that I perceived to be prostitutes, they were wearing revealing dresses. I have to admit, I’m no expert though.

[Apostolic1ness]

I don't get it. Some are so worried about a woman wearing a pair of pants. Yet I hear of so little about the spirit of man being kept in check. With what a man sees everyday when he goes anywhere they should be more worried about their own spirit and not about their women looking like they came out of the early 1900's

This thread is about "women wearing pants". If you want the topic of the spirit of a man, start a thread about it.

[loran adkins]

This thread is about "women wearing pants". If you want the topic of the spirit of a man, start a thread about it.

No problem, you can beat a dead horse so much though. Deut. 22:5 has been gone over on this forum so many times it has because ridicules and only a small percentage of people read it the way that oneness Pentecostals do any way. So all you are doing is trying to keep something alive that does not have meaning to the rest of Christendom any way.

Goes with 1 Corinthians 11 too. The way some read it to mean women are not to cut their hair. Or wear a head covering in our day. But carry on

[Bro Flame]

"Ladies any man that lusts after you will answer to God for his mental adultery, but you will answer to God if you provoked him by the manner in which you are dressed." (Reverend Al Martin)

I know nothing of Brother Martin beyond this quote here that's circulated the web for some time. I don't know if he was holiness, Pentecostal, or neither. I haven't the slightest idea.

However, I do know there's truth to his statement.

His quote doesn't give men a free pass, but it also doesn't give the women the right to dress as they please, either. The Bible talks about a woman maintaining a modest appearance, while it tells us guys to keep control of our thoughts.

The two go hand-in-hand. Modesty is gender plural, applying equally to male and female. We each maintain modest appearances to represent Christ and likewise be a light to a dark and dying world.

Sure, I've seen women that wear pants dress modestly. I don't automatically think that a woman wearing pants is immodest. If they are worn loosely and with the proper tops, modesty isn't necessarily thrown out the window.

HOWEVER, I must say that's only half the commandment Jesus has asked of His ladies. He specifically instructed women not to wear that which "pertaineth" unto a man.

Pants pertain to men. It's that simple.

[JoeBandy]

"Ladies any man that lusts after you will answer to God for his mental adultery, but you will answer to God if you provoked him by the manner in which you are dressed." (Reverend Al Martin)

I know nothing of Brother Martin beyond this quote here that's circulated the web for some time. I don't know if he was holiness, Pentecostal, or neither. I haven't the slightest idea.

However, I do know there's truth to his statement.

His quote doesn't give men a free pass, but it also doesn't give the women the right to dress as they please, either. The Bible talks about a woman maintaining a modest appearance, while it tells us guys to keep control of our thoughts.

The two go hand-in-hand. Modesty is gender plural, applying equally to male and female. We each maintain modest appearances to represent Christ and likewise be a light to a dark and dying world.

Sure, I've seen women that wear pants dress modestly. I don't automatically think that a woman wearing pants is immodest. If they are worn loosely and with the proper tops, modesty isn't necessarily thrown out the window.

HOWEVER, I must say that's only half the commandment Jesus has asked of His ladies. He specifically instructed women not to wear that which "pertaineth" unto a man.

Pants pertain to men. It's that simple.

this is the most ridiculous post on this thread!!!

[Tithesmeister]

Would you feel comfortable wearing hot pink yoga pants?

I’m just curious how far you would take your belief that pants are for men.

[Bro Flame]

Color makes no matter. Pants were intended for men.

[jediwill83]

If your eye offend you....pluck it out. Your own eye. There a lot of responsiblity placed on self in that that ones own lusts are to be dealt with personally.

[mfblume]

Color makes no matter. Pants were intended for men.

I have no dog in this fight, but tell that to ancient Chinese women who wore them before any man did while picking rice in the rice fields.

[diakonos]

I have noticed that several have declared that a skirt or dress is more modest than pants. I’m not sure that is the case. It seems to me that a woman in a skirt or dress is more attractive. Maybe I’m just thinking about my own preference.

So I wonder, what would a professional man attractor (read prostitute) wear?

I’m thinking that they’re going with the skirt or dress. I’m not sure but it seems that on the occasions that I have seen women that I perceived to be prostitutes, they were wearing revealing dresses. I have to admit, I’m no expert though.

In Houston the hookers that walk Bissonet wear thongs. Not skirts.

[Tithesmeister]

In Houston the hookers that walk Bissonet wear thongs. Not skirts.

And not pants either. You kind of made my point. If pants were so attractive, they would be wearing them. I don’t see how they get by with wearing only thongs though. I’ve never seen a woman on the street wearing only a thong. I still don’t see how skirts or dresses are more modest than pants, all else being equal.

[Tithesmeister]

Color makes no matter. Pants were intended for men.

I can’t imagine a company manufacturing hot pink yoga pants with the idea that they will be marketed primarily to (straight) men. You may be comfortable wearing them (I somehow doubt it) but their target would be women. So, not to be argumentative, but they are manufactured and marketed for women. If they intend to sell to men, they’re going out of business pronto.

[loran adkins]

Color makes no matter. Pants were intended for men.

Prove that biblically speaking. in a culture that only wore robes. where does it say anything concerning pants, being only for men, for that matter where does it say anything about pants.

[loran adkins]

And not pants either. You kind of made my point. If pants were so attractive, they would be wearing them. I don’t see how they get by with wearing only thongs though. I’ve never seen a woman on the street wearing only a thong. I still don’t see how skirts or dresses are more modest than pants, all else being equal.

Hookers? It seems they would prefer wearing short skirts, for the reason they would be easy to perform their services without getting completely undressed.

[good samaritan]

Prove that biblically speaking. in a culture that only wore robes. where does it say anything concerning pants, being only for men, for that matter where does it say anything about pants.

We were a culture at one time were men only wore pants. Though we were also a culture at one time that didn't allow women to work outside of the homes. Women weren't allowed to vote, but were heard through the voice of their husband. I find that be more of a biblical culture.

We once drew lines between male and female roles. Our civil rights movement has been good in ways, but harmful in others. Homosexuality and transgenderism is a result of the civil rights movement.

Would you say that it was a sin for that first generation of ladies to take up wearing pants when it was not culturally acceptable?

[Tithesmeister]

Prove that biblically speaking. in a culture that only wore robes. where does it say anything concerning pants, being only for men, for that matter where does it say anything about pants.

Well . . .

The Bible does mention men wearing breeches.

[votivesoul]

There is more to modesty that just attracting lustful/sexual attention from an on-looker.

[Scott Pitta]

Many different cultures and many hundreds of years are covered in the Bible. Very little is said how they dressed, let alone discussions about the similarities and differences in dress between the sexes.

Remembering these facts helps bring perspective to ongoing discussions.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Prove that biblically speaking. in a culture that only wore robes. where does it say anything concerning pants, being only for men, for that matter where does it say anything about pants.

Only wore robes. Was their attire unisex?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Many different cultures and many hundreds of years are covered in the Bible. Very little is said how they dressed, let alone discussions about the similarities and differences in dress between the sexes.

Remembering these facts helps bring perspective to ongoing discussions.

Scott, was their attire unisex?

[loran adkins]

We were a culture at one time were men only wore pants. Though we were also a culture at one time that didn't allow women to work outside of the homes. Women weren't allowed to vote, but were heard through the voice of their husband. I find that be more of a biblical culture.

We once drew lines between male and female roles. Our civil rights movement has been good in ways, but harmful in others. Homosexuality and transgenderism is a result of the civil rights movement.

Would you say that it was a sin for that first generation of ladies to take up wearing pants when it was not culturally acceptable?

If you will think about it. Pants were neither acceptable nor unacceptable on women except by a small minority. Pants became adopted by men quicker by men because of convenience and need. But when deut. 22:5 was penned pants were not in the picture.

[loran adkins]

Well . . .

The Bible does mention men wearing breeches.

Only for the purpose of Priest in the tabernacle wearing them so their nakedness would not be reviled when doing the service to God. One must realize that what the rest of the people must be wearing since that was the case.

[loran adkins]

Only wore robes. Was their attire unisex?

You tell me. Pentecostal and such like, make it sound like there was a drastic difference, but I don't see as much difference as it is made out by some.

[loran adkins]

Would you say that it was a sin for that first generation of ladies to take up wearing pants when it was not culturally acceptable?

It was no more a sin then, then it is now. Except in the heart of the one doing it from their own convictions.

[JoeBandy]

Only for the purpose of Priest in the tabernacle wearing them so their nakedness would not be reviled when doing the service to God. One must realize that what the rest of the people must be wearing since that was the case.

Yep! I think this should spell it out...

[Tithesmeister]

Only for the purpose of Priest in the tabernacle wearing them so their nakedness would not be reviled when doing the service to God. One must realize that what the rest of the people must be wearing since that was the case.

You make a good point. If ALL the men were wearing breeches there would not be a need, it would seem, to specify that the priests would wear breeches to cover their nakedness. It seems that the nakedness was the default assumption (under their outer garments of course) of all the Hebrew men.

It also seems that the breeches described are something akin to boxer shorts as we have today.

I’m just curious, does anyone know if this scripture is the basis for the Mormon doctrine of holy underwear?

[diakonos]

And not pants either. You kind of made my point. If pants were so attractive, they would be wearing them. I don’t see how they get by with wearing only thongs though. I’ve never seen a woman on the street wearing only a thong. I still don’t see how skirts or dresses are more modest than pants, all else being equal.

No. That doesn’t make your point. Hookers wearing thongs revealing all doesn’t make pants more modest than a dress.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You tell me. Pentecostal and such like, make it sound like there was a drastic difference, but I don't see as much difference as it is made out by some.

I don't need to tell you. I'm asking a question, was their attire unisex.

[Scott Pitta]

I do not know. Styles change over the centuries. Different cultures had different styles. There is not a one size fits all approach to the cultures mentioned in the Bible.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I do not know. Styles change over the centuries. Different cultures had different styles. There is not a one size fits all approach to the cultures mentioned in the Bible.

Are you kidding me? Different cultures? Like the Surma people of Ethiopia, with plates in their bottom lip? Or Jain monks running around naked? Scott, we aren't talking about DIFFERENT cultures, cultures which following other religions, or beliefs. Look, Scott, look around you. You live in a world where unisex clothing was introduced in the 70s, and now we are looking down the barrel of Non-binary gender teens. Churches dropped the female attire and male attire situations way back. They thought they were going to get more peeps in the pews. Pastor didn't want to block the Gospel with his clothes line, so he dropped it. Guess what, everything else went down the tubes. Pants on women, even short pants on women. Good grief, now people in the Bible were wearing motel robes. Male and females all looked unisex. Good job. That is why we now have the attire of the native pagan savages creeping in the church. Ear plugs through lobes, tongue anvils instead of speaking in tongues. Guys with fake eyelashes, or mascara. Teenage boys with painted pink and blue fingernails and toenails? Teenage girls with buzz cuts, because the church no longer teaches or preachers against flipped out attires. But, that is justme, obviously you all would put a guy behind the pulpit barefoot with pink toenail polish. He isn't queer, he is a heterosexual, wife and two toddlers. But he believes that Jesus never said anything about how someone should look. Cultures change, so the church culture must change with it. Good night America, you have all just pulled the plug, and we are all circling the drain. Madness. This is Madness!

[rdp]

Are you kidding me? Different cultures? Like the Surma people of Ethiopia, with plates in their bottom lip? Or Jain monks running around naked? Scott, we aren't talking about DIFFERENT cultures, cultures which following other religions, or beliefs. Look, Scott, look around you. You live in a world where unisex clothing was introduced in the 70s, and now we are looking down the barrel of Non-binary gender teens. Churches dropped the female attire and male attire situations way back. They thought they were going to get more peeps in the pews. Pastor didn't want to block the Gospel with his clothes line, so he dropped it. Guess what, everything else went down the tubes. Pants on women, even short pants on women. Good grief, now people in the Bible were wearing motel robes. Male and females all looked unisex. Good job. That is why we now have the attire of the native pagan savages creeping in the church. Ear plugs through lobes, tongue anvils instead of speaking in tongues. Guys with fake eyelashes, or mascara. Teenage boys with painted pink and blue fingernails and toenails? Teenage girls with buzz cuts, because the church no longer teaches or preachers against flipped out attires. But, that is justme, obviously you all would put a guy behind the pulpit barefoot with pink toenail polish. He isn't queer, he is a heterosexual, wife and two toddlers. But he believes that Jesus never said anything about how someone should look. Cultures change, so the church culture must change with it. Good night America, you have all just pulled the plug, and we are all circling the drain. Madness. This is Madness!

*Wow—Bravo👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼! Copy-paste material:thumbsup!

*BTW, we have already demonstrated that men wore “trousers” in the Bible—which women were forbidden to wear (DEUT 22.5)—but, as usual, it’s a waste of time to point this biblical truth out on AFF.

*Excellent post Bro.!

[JoeBandy]

*Wow—Bravo������������! Copy-paste material:thumbsup!

*BTW, we have already demonstrated that men wore “trousers” in the Bible—which women were forbidden to wear (DEUT 22.5)—but, as usual, it’s a waste of time to point this biblical truth out on AFF.

*Excellent post Bro.!


There was demonstration of some men wearing " trousers" ……… but like you said its a waste of time.....

[JoeBandy]

Take a look at some pictures from NAYC and tell me how the female attire aligns with 1 Timothy 2:9...… oh and hair..

[Tithesmeister]

*Wow—Bravo👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼! Copy-paste material:thumbsup!

*BTW, we have already demonstrated that men wore “trousers” in the Bible—which women were forbidden to wear (DEUT 22.5)—but, as usual, it’s a waste of time to point this biblical truth out on AFF.

*Excellent post Bro.!


I don’t believe it is accurate to say that men wore trousers in the Bible. To me trousers are basically long pants. The description of breeches in the Bible regarding length, says that they would cover the loins in one verse, and in another that they would extend unto the thigh. I’ll post those verses.

Exod.28

[42] And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

And,

Ezek.44

[18] They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.

I don’t believe this is referring to pants as we think of them. This sounds more like underwear, possibly boxers.

And consider the source, the Apochropha, but this is a description of the garments of the high priest (Aaron) in

Sirach:45

[7] An everlasting covenant he made with him and gave him the priesthood among the people; he beautified him with comely ornaments, and clothed him with a robe of glory.
[8] He put upon him perfect glory; and strengthened him with rich garments, with breeches, with a long robe, and the ephod.
[9] And he compassed him with pomegranates, and with many golden bells round about, that as he went there might be a sound, and a noise made that might be heard in the temple, for a memorial to the children of his people;

So it appears they wore a long robe over their (short) breeches.

[good samaritan]

If you will think about it. Pants were neither acceptable nor unacceptable on women except by a small minority. Pants became adopted by men quicker by men because of convenience and need. But when deut. 22:5 was penned pants were not in the picture.

What was the significance in the phrase, "I wear the pants in my house". I have heard that phrase more from non Christians than Christians. It is plain to tell that women wearing pants before the 50's and 60's was not accepted by most Americans. It is still understood that by wearing the pants you are the head of the house.

All denomonations use to teach what Pentecostals today call holliness. The way church people dressed back then was the same among all Christian denom. Transgenderism was non exsistent. There may have been closet homosexuals, but nothing to compare to what is prevalant in our country today. If we rewinded and went back to wives giving up their careers, having and raising their kids, and being submissive to their own husbands you would probably see a transformation in the condition of our country. IMO

PS Men need to be real men as well.

[Tithesmeister]

What was the significance in the phrase, "I wear the pants in my house". I have heard that phrase more from non Christians than Christians. It is plain to tell that women wearing pants before the 50's and 60's was not accepted by most Americans. It is still understood that by wearing the pants you are the head of the house.

All denomonations use to teach what Pentecostals today call holliness. The way church people dressed back then was the same among all Christian denom. Transgenderism was non exsistent. There may have been closet homosexuals, but nothing to compare to what is prevalant in our country today. If we rewinded and went back to wives giving up their careers, having and raising their kids, and being submissive to their own husbands you would probably see a transformation in the condition of our country. IMO

PS Men need to be real men as well.

Preach on brother!

[rdp]

What was the significance in the phrase, "I wear the pants in my house". I have heard that phrase more from non Christians than Christians. It is plain to tell that women wearing pants before the 50's and 60's was not accepted by most Americans. It is still understood that by wearing the pants you are the head of the house.

All denomonations use to teach what Pentecostals today call holliness. The way church people dressed back then was the same among all Christian denom. Transgenderism was non exsistent. There may have been closet homosexuals, but nothing to compare to what is prevalant in our country today. If we rewinded and went back to wives giving up their careers, having and raising their kids, and being submissive to their own husbands you would probably see a transformation in the condition of our country. IMO

PS Men need to be real men as well.

*Man—y’all are tearing this thread up w. some EXCELLENT posts! Good preachin’:yourock!

[rdp]

I don’t believe it is accurate to say that men wore trousers in the Bible. To me trousers are basically long pants. The description of breeches in the Bible regarding length, says that they would cover the loins in one verse, and in another that they would extend unto the thigh. I’ll post those verses.

Exod.28

[42] And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

And,

Ezek.44

[18] They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.

I don’t believe this is referring to pants as we think of them. This sounds more like underwear, possibly boxers.

And consider the source, the Apochropha, but this is a description of the garments of the high priest (Aaron) in

Sirach:45

[7] An everlasting covenant he made with him and gave him the priesthood among the people; he beautified him with comely ornaments, and clothed him with a robe of glory.
[8] He put upon him perfect glory; and strengthened him with rich garments, with breeches, with a long robe, and the ephod.
[9] And he compassed him with pomegranates, and with many golden bells round about, that as he went there might be a sound, and a noise made that might be heard in the temple, for a memorial to the children of his people;

So it appears they wore a long robe over their (short) breeches.

*I wasn’t referring to breeches. Though this is the second time I have posted this—here it is once again (remember, women were forbidden to wear garments that “pertain to a man”):


New International Version
So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace.

New Living Translation
So they tied them up and threw them into the furnace, fully dressed in their pants, turbans, robes, and other garments.

Berean Study Bible
So they were tied up, wearing robes, trousers, turbans, and other clothes, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace.

New American Standard Bible
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.

[rdp]

There was demonstration of some men wearing " trousers" ……… but like you said its a waste of time.....

*Yeah—completely agree ;).

Take a look at some pictures from NAYC and tell me how the female attire aligns with 1 Timothy 2:9...… oh and hair..

*I couldn’t agree more—and the church I pastor doesn’t practice such things based upon close analysis and exegesis of the original biblical languages.

[loran adkins]

I would like to quote several people but I will just put down my thoughts on one post.

What seems to be the problem that most of you don't seem to recognize it that the one and only passage in the bible that speaks negatively of both men and women wearing something of the other sexes apparel, has nothing to do with pants in any way or fashion.

First off if one will take a closer look at Deut. 22:5 the women is not told to not wear a mans clothing but that which pertained to a man. While the man is told not to put on a women garment.

In other words the women is not told to not wear clothing that looks like a man but rather not to emulate a man. But a man is told not to wear a woman's garment. I seems that we are putting the focus backwards.

And for the info of the references to the four Hebrew children in the fiery furnace? The mention has no Bering because there is not place that the bible explicitly uses the term pants negatively as apparel for either man or women, but in some mens imagination.

[Bro Flame]

The word "pertaineth", as translated in the King James version, references a liken to, or in reference to.

Pants were made for men. No matter what the world, the culture, or anything else says, it's wrong. Women aren't suppose to wear them.

[diakonos]

The word "pertaineth", as translated in the King James version, references a liken to, or in reference to.

Pants were made for men. No matter what the world, the culture, or anything else says, it's wrong. Women aren't suppose to wear them.

How do YOU address cultures where men wear something similar to a woman’s skirt?

[good samaritan]

The word "pertaineth", as translated in the King James version, references a liken to, or in reference to.

Pants were made for men. No matter what the world, the culture, or anything else says, it's wrong. Women aren't suppose to wear them.

I agree totally, but something we don't address in the church is the role of male and female in the family. Deuteronomy 22:5 to me has more to do with women taking on the role of a man in dress and visa versa. The disney movie Mulan comes to my mind. Mulan tried to spare her aging father from going to war by pretending to be his son instead of his daughter. This sounds like a innocent and even admirable thing to do on the surface, but in real life the doors that are open from things like this have been very destructive.

Women work today while leaving their children with a childcare service (or sometimes unattended). Men no longer have the freedom to make decisions in the home because they have become dependant on their wife as a finacial provider. Instead of two incomes causing the home to be more financially secure, the economy inflates to meet the higher GDI. Isn't it strange that 100years ago one household income could take care of a household of 10, but today 2 household incomes struggle with mantainig a household number of 3 or 4. We have been duped by Rosie the Riveter.

Our homes continue to struggle and worry about finances, but now it just struggles with the absence of parents. School teachers, babysitters, other neigborhood kids, and video games are what is filling the void in these young kids lives.

Ladies need to retire their pants and men need to pull theirs up (metaphorically and literally) and we need to take our country back.

[Tithesmeister]

I agree totally, but something we don't address in the church is the role of male and female in the family. Deuteronomy 22:5 to me has more to do with women taking on the role of a man in dress and visa versa. The disney movie Mulan comes to my mind. Mulan tried to spare her aging father from going to war by pretending to be his son instead of his daughter. This sounds like a innocent and even admirable thing to do on the surface, but in real life the doors that are open from things like this have been very destructive.

Women work today while leaving their children with a childcare service (or sometimes unattended). Men no longer have the freedom to make decisions in the home because they have become dependant on their wife as a finacial provider. Instead of two incomes causing the home to be more financially secure, the economy inflates to meet the higher GDI. Isn't it strange that 100years ago one household income could take care of a household of 10, but today 2 household incomes struggle with mantainig a household number of 3 or 4. We have been duped by Rosie the Riveter.

Our homes continue to struggle and worry about finances, but now it just struggles with the absence of parents. School teachers, babysitters, other neigborhood kids, and video games are what is filling the void in these young kids lives.

Ladies need to retire their pants and men need to pull theirs up (metaphorically and literally) and we need to take our country back.

Let’s start today!

Oh
Wait.

I already have in my household.

[TGBTG]

The word "pertaineth", as translated in the King James version, references a liken to, or in reference to.

Pants were made for men. No matter what the world, the culture, or anything else says, it's wrong. Women aren't suppose to wear them.

Is this accurate globally?

[Tithesmeister]

I agree totally, but something we don't address in the church is the role of male and female in the family. Deuteronomy 22:5 to me has more to do with women taking on the role of a man in dress and visa versa. The disney movie Mulan comes to my mind. Mulan tried to spare her aging father from going to war by pretending to be his son instead of his daughter. This sounds like a innocent and even admirable thing to do on the surface, but in real life the doors that are open from things like this have been very destructive.

Women work today while leaving their children with a childcare service (or sometimes unattended). Men no longer have the freedom to make decisions in the home because they have become dependant on their wife as a finacial provider. Instead of two incomes causing the home to be more financially secure, the economy inflates to meet the higher GDI. Isn't it strange that 100years ago one household income could take care of a household of 10, but today 2 household incomes struggle with mantainig a household number of 3 or 4. We have been duped by Rosie the Riveter.

Our homes continue to struggle and worry about finances, but now it just struggles with the absence of parents. School teachers, babysitters, other neigborhood kids, and video games are what is filling the void in these young kids lives.

Ladies need to retire their pants and men need to pull theirs up (metaphorically and literally) and we need to take our country back.

Is this accurate globally?

I believe that the evidence shows that culture is prominent in determining that men’s and women’s clothing is either pants or skirts. I personally prefer skirts on my wife and daughters but I don’t really base that preference on skirts being more modest. I do believe that they are more feminine, at least in my mind they are.

So I would say they are my preference or perhaps a personal conviction. I think saying that scripture backs up the standard is a stretch.

There are certainly countries that have a tradition of men wearing skirts. In their culture it is certainly not considered feminine. So I know it’s not a global thing. And if you dared to insinuate in those countries that a man was feminine for wearing a skirt, you would probably not fare well at all. They would consider it an insult to, not only their masculinity, but also their traditional culture.

[Tithesmeister]

*I wasn’t referring to breeches. Though this is the second time I have posted this—here it is once again (remember, women were forbidden to wear garments that “pertain to a man”):


New International Version
So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace.

New Living Translation
So they tied them up and threw them into the furnace, fully dressed in their pants, turbans, robes, and other garments.

Berean Study Bible
So they were tied up, wearing robes, trousers, turbans, and other clothes, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace.

New American Standard Bible
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.


Thanks for posting this (again). I guess I missed this the first time. I looked this up in the KJV and it refers to hosen*. It doesn’t call them pants or trousers. It seems that when taken together with the other clothing mentioned that this is referring to underwear and not pants as we would understand them today.

Another thought. It used to be permissible at church camps for young ladies to wear culottes, which were sort of a loose fitting pants? that came to the knee. They certainly seemed to be feminine, at least no self respecting man would wear them in our culture. So what about these?

Women probably wouldn’t wear them anyway, because they are no longer fashionable.

*Dan.3

[21] Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

[good samaritan]

Let’s start today!

Oh
Wait.

I already have in my household.

Fifteen years married and expecting my fourth child. My wife has always been a stay at home mom and I have been a go to work dad. I am not better than anyone else, but have been blessed with the good life and I am not talking about money (because there is usually not much left over). Children are a blessing from the Lord, but money is stronghold that brings no lasting satisfaction.

[rdp]

Thanks for posting this (again). I guess I missed this the first time. I looked this up in the KJV and it refers to hosen*. It doesn’t call them pants or trousers. It seems that when taken together with the other clothing mentioned that this is referring to underwear and not pants as we would understand them today.

Another thought. It used to be permissible at church camps for young ladies to wear culottes, which were sort of a loose fitting pants? that came to the knee. They certainly seemed to be feminine, at least no self respecting man would wear them in our culture. So what about these?

Women probably wouldn’t wear them anyway, because they are no longer fashionable.

*Dan.3

[21] Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

*I have already posted the Aramaic-Hebrew lexicography that plainly affirms they were wearing “pants or trousers” (see earlier in this thread). As usual, the KJV uses a poor rendering of the Aramaic noun most often translated “trousers or “pants” (the more I learn about the disciplines of original languages and textual criticism—the less I use the KJV).


*As it relates to applications, I only have to worry about the church I pastor and who we fellowship. As seen above (Loran Adkins, etc.), it is a an exercise in utter futility to post the biblical data demonstrating that men wore pants in biblical days—something that was outright denied earlier in this thread—and shown to be completely erroneous (not referring to you :)). It will simply be dismissed w. the wave of a hand (as Loran Adkins did above). The very reason I don’t spend a lot of time on here.

*However, I will also say that I have enjoyed your congenial spirit and interaction in this thread. God bless!

[rdp]

The word "pertaineth", as translated in the King James version, references a liken to, or in reference to.

Pants were made for men. No matter what the world, the culture, or anything else says, it's wrong. Women aren't suppose to wear them.

:yourock :highfive

[Costeon]

Thank you. This is probably where the discussion should have started in the first place. I want to break down every word, define it and make sense of it.

I wasn’t looking for photos of gay people, women in pants, or insults because I asked a question. I just wanted to methodically go through it.

Thanks again. You calmly laid that out. Good job!

Thank you! I'm glad the post proved helpful.

[Costeon]

I don't get it. Some are so worried about a woman wearing a pair of pants. Yet I hear of so little about the spirit of man being kept in check. With what a man sees everyday when he goes anywhere they should be more worried about their own spirit and not about their women looking like they came out of the early 1900's

You raise an important point. The reason I have not focused on "the spirit of man being kept in check" is summed up in the first sentence of Apostolic1ness's post:

This thread is about "women wearing pants". If you want the topic of the spirit of a man, start a thread about it.

I would note that I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that they wanted women to look like they "came out of the early 1900's."

[Costeon]

I have noticed that several have declared that a skirt or dress is more modest than pants. I’m not sure that is the case. It seems to me that a woman in a skirt or dress is more attractive. Maybe I’m just thinking about my own preference.

So I wonder, what would a professional man attractor (read prostitute) wear?

I’m thinking that they’re going with the skirt or dress. I’m not sure but it seems that on the occasions that I have seen women that I perceived to be prostitutes, they were wearing revealing dresses. I have to admit, I’m no expert though.

Interesting point. I am one of those who have suggested that skirts are generally more modest than pants, but please note that I did not simply say "skirts" but "modest skirts." A skin tight skirt is obviously immodest. Prostitutes do not wear modest skirts or dresses.

[loran adkins]

The word "pertaineth", as translated in the King James version, references a liken to, or in reference to.

Pants were made for men. No matter what the world, the culture, or anything else says, it's wrong. Women aren't suppose to wear them.

So were panty hose but you don't have a problem with a woman wearing those. How about a T shirt the list can go on. Even the scripture that has been used by rdp about the four Hebrew children is more described as hose rather than what you term pants today.

Again the inconsistency of people that preach against women wearing pants is confounding.

[Costeon]

No problem, you can beat a dead horse so much though. Deut. 22:5 has been gone over on this forum so many times it has because ridicules and only a small percentage of people read it the way that oneness Pentecostals do any way.

I would like to point out that the original post (mine) :-) requested that people list passages other than Deut 22.5 that they think support the teaching that women cannot wear pants. Unfortunately that has not been what this thread has focused on.

So all you are doing is trying to keep something alive that does not have meaning to the rest of Christendom any way.

Are you suggesting that all Christians everywhere have to say a teaching is meaningful for it to be, in fact, meaningful?

[Costeon]

"Ladies any man that lusts after you will answer to God for his mental adultery, but you will answer to God if you provoked him by the manner in which you are dressed." (Reverend Al Martin)

I know nothing of Brother Martin beyond this quote here that's circulated the web for some time. I don't know if he was holiness, Pentecostal, or neither. I haven't the slightest idea.

However, I do know there's truth to his statement.

His quote doesn't give men a free pass, but it also doesn't give the women the right to dress as they please, either. The Bible talks about a woman maintaining a modest appearance, while it tells us guys to keep control of our thoughts.

The two go hand-in-hand. Modesty is gender plural, applying equally to male and female. We each maintain modest appearances to represent Christ and likewise be a light to a dark and dying world.

Sure, I've seen women that wear pants dress modestly. I don't automatically think that a woman wearing pants is immodest. If they are worn loosely and with the proper tops, modesty isn't necessarily thrown out the window.

Good post. It made me think of Luke 17.1:

ESV: "And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!"

NIV: "Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come."

HOWEVER, I must say that's only half the commandment Jesus has asked of His ladies. He specifically instructed women not to wear that which "pertaineth" unto a man.

Pants pertain to men. It's that simple.

I wish it were that simple, but it doesn't seem to me to be so--hence the ongoing debate.

[Tithesmeister]

Interesting point. I am one of those who have suggested that skirts are generally more modest than pants, but please note that I did not simply say "skirts" but "modest skirts." A skin tight skirt is obviously immodest. Prostitutes do not wear modest skirts or dresses.

I think it would be true that modest skirts are more modest than painted on jeans. I’m not sure that modest skirts are more modest than modest jeans though.

I do think skirts are more feminine. And I think that sometimes women may try to make up for the lessened femininity by accentuating the feminine curves.

Because, at the end of the day, I believe that MOST women want to be perceived by men that they are interested in, as being feminine.

[Costeon]

If your eye offend you....pluck it out. Your own eye. There a lot of responsiblity placed on self in that that ones own lusts are to be dealt with personally.

Very true. I think the verse you quote is one part of the issue; the other part is Luke 17.1:

ESV: "And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!"

NIV: "Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come."

[Costeon]

Many different cultures and many hundreds of years are covered in the Bible. Very little is said how they dressed, let alone discussions about the similarities and differences in dress between the sexes.

Remembering these facts helps bring perspective to ongoing discussions.

True. It's unfortunate that more is not said in Scripture about how different clothing must be to help guide our discussion today.

[loran adkins]

*I have already posted the Aramaic-Hebrew lexicography that plainly affirms they were wearing “pants or trousers” (see earlier in this thread). As usual, the KJV uses a poor rendering of the Aramaic noun most often translated “trousers or “pants” (the more I learn about the disciplines of original languages and textual criticism—the less I use the KJV).


*As it relates to applications, I only have to worry about the church I pastor and who we fellowship. As seen above (Loran Adkins, etc.), it is a an exercise in utter futility to post the biblical data demonstrating that men wore pants in biblical days—something that was outright denied earlier in this thread—and shown to be completely erroneous (not referring to you :)). It will simply be dismissed w. the wave of a hand (as Loran Adkins did above). The very reason I don’t spend a lot of time on here.

*However, I will also say that I have enjoyed your congenial spirit and interaction in this thread. God bless!


You are right about one thing, it is an exercise in futility, because the only thing that you have demonstrated is that men wore something that can be thought to be some sort of pants. But more likely something worn under an outer garment rather than an outer garment itself. But what you have not proven, is that this garment was seen by God as a negative apparel or not worn by women. And you have not proven to me that this was what God was meaning when he had Moses pen Deut. 22.5 There is just not any place that list the clothing of Men and women that can be compared to determine what God was speaking of.

[Costeon]

Only for the purpose of Priest in the tabernacle wearing them so their nakedness would not be reviled when doing the service to God. One must realize that what the rest of the people must be wearing since that was the case.

Good point.

[Costeon]

I don't need to tell you. I'm asking a question, was their attire unisex.

I do not know. Styles change over the centuries. Different cultures had different styles. There is not a one size fits all approach to the cultures mentioned in the Bible.

Have there been any cultures that were entirely unisex? I'm not aware of one. It seems that there have been some distinction between male and female dress in all cultures, even if the clothing was not, perhaps, radically different.

[Costeon]

*Wow—Bravo👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼! Copy-paste material:thumbsup!

*BTW, we have already demonstrated that men wore “trousers” in the Bible—which women were forbidden to wear (DEUT 22.5)—but, as usual, it’s a waste of time to point this biblical truth out on AFF.

*Excellent post Bro.!


There was demonstration of some men wearing " trousers" ……… but like you said its a waste of time.....

It seems that what was definitely proved was that men in Babylon at the time Daniel was there wore trousers. But it doesn't seem those verses can be used to say all men in the Bible wore trousers. Of course these men didn't look like men today--the Babylonians also wore robes over their trousers.

[Costeon]

But more likely something worn under an outer garment rather than an outer garment itself.

I think this may be right. That passage explicitly mentions that they were wearing robes as well.

But what you have not proven, is that this garment was seen by God as a negative apparel or not worn by women. And you have not proven to me that this was what God was meaning when he had Moses pen Deut. 22.5 There is just not any place that list the clothing of Men and women that can be compared to determine what God was speaking of.

You may want to read earlier in the thread where rdp and I discuss this passage. Here are the main points I recall making: I noted that Deut 22.5 was written about 900 years before Daniel's time to an exclusively Hebrew cultural context, and the passage about Daniel and the three occurs in a Babylonian cultural context, and since D and the 3 were administrators in this culture it is reasonable to conclude that they were wearing Babylonian clothes. In other words, we can't take this passage from so long after Deut 22.5 and from a foreign context and conclude that Hebrew/Jewish men wore trousers, and from that argue that godly men wore pants and so they pertain only to men for all times.

[rdp]

You are right about one thing, it is an exercise in futility, because the only thing that you have demonstrated is that men wore something that can be thought to be some sort of pants. But more likely something worn under an outer garment rather than an outer garment itself. But what you have not proven, is that this garment was seen by God as a negative apparel or not worn by women. And you have not proven to me that this was what God was meaning when he had Moses pen Deut. 22.5 There is just not any place that list the clothing of Men and women that can be compared to determine what God was speaking of.

*Why, of course it wasn’t “proven”—I would expect absolutely nothing else on the uber-conservative AFF:heeheehee.

*The 3 Hebrew men were so adamant about obeying the Mosaic Law that they would rather die than break YHWH’s Laws—yet the AFF constituency would have us believe they were violating something deemed as “Abomination to Yahweh?” Nahhh, don’t think so.

*God’s Word clearly records that men wore pants or “trousers” (see the Aramaic lexicography I posted earlier, since I know you’re really in search of “truth” on this matter:happydance)—which women were forbidden to wear. Case closed to the honest hearted person.

*Let me guess: “You still haven’t ‘proven’ anything!”...right? At least we agree about one thing, it is indeed an exercise in utter futility to attempt to get the majority of AFF to believe God’s plainly written word ;).

[rdp]

I think this may be right. That passage explicitly mentions that they were wearing robes as well.

*Unless I am overlooking something, I do not see where Daniel 3.21 “explicitly mentions that they were wearing robes” (?). In fact, I looked at the Aramaic text closely and, to my surprise, it actually says these “men” were wearing “trousers/pants” for two separate articles of clothing. See the LEB below, w. lexical quotes following.

Daniel 3:21 (LEB): Then these men were bound with their garments, their trousers and their turbans and their other clothing, and they were thrown into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire.

**The initial Aramaic noun rendered “garments” above is defined as:

סרבל noun סרבלא:
1 Biblical Aramaic: trousers
2 Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: cloak

(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.

(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).

(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 (perhaps the sbst. has a Scythian origin), foreign word.; EmpArm., Pehl. (Junker Frahang 15: 12 ליא‎[י‎]סרב‎ shirt; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.); EgArm. סרבלק‎ (Cowley Arm. Pap. 42: 9, for ק‎ see p. 144; Jean-H. Dictionnaire 197; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 802 s.v srblwn; Sokoloff loc. cit. prefers to read סרחלץ‎); JArm., CTA (Dalman Wb. 300a: סַרְבְּלָא‎, Beyer Arm. Texte 648 s.v. שרבל‎; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.);

MHeb. סַרְבָּל‎ coat, trousers (Dalman Wb. 300a); denom. JArm. סַרְבֵּל‎ to wrap up; MHeb. pt. passive מְסֻרְבָּל‎ wrapped up, corpulent (Dalman Wb. 300a; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.); > Arb. sirbāl coat (Fraenkel 47f with important notes); cf. also Syr. šarbālā (Brockelmann Lexicon 806b);

Latin sarabala, sarabara, [a type of Persian pantaloon] (Lokotsch 1849); Mnd. šaruala (Drower-Macuch Dictionary 445b); NeoSyr. šarwāl and šarwār; Neo-Persian širwāl and šalwār trousers; on the Persian sbst. see especially Vogt 120a; see further Jean-H. Dictionnaire 197; Fraenkel; Commentaries.

**Regarding the next article mentioned, cf. my posts earlier in this thread wherein I pasted numerous Aramaic lexicographers affirming that these are indeed “trousers” or “pants.” I haven’t really taken the time to look at the LXX yet, but HALOT above indicates the same meanings appear there also. This is why I am a sucker for these types of discussion :)!

*Concerning the Babylonian cultural argument, we should remember that it was equally Babylonian culture to embrace their idols and bow before them—which, obviously, is what occasioned this whole unit of passages (i.e., the Hebrew men’s refusal to do so to align themselves w. Yahweh’s laws). In light of this truism, I would have a *REALLY* difficult time believing that they were not wearing something that was known to be exclusively masculine for these Hebrew men.

*I realize no one will change their minds over this issue (which is very perplexing to me), but, it has helped me to see things I was previously unaware of. In revival for the next week, will look in and follow up as time allots:thumbsup. God bless.

[Scott Pitta]

How people dressed in a different culture centuries distant from the exodus from Egypt tells us nothing about the meaning of Deut. 22:5.

Apparently, the writers of holy writ had other more pressing things to spill ink about.

The Bible says very little about what people wore. I cannot think of a single verse that would be similar to Deut. 22:5. Not even the parallel passage in Leviticus mentions the mixing of clothing.

[rdp]

How people dressed in a different culture centuries distant from the exodus from Egypt tells us nothing about the meaning of Deut. 22:5.

Apparently, the writers of holy writ had other more pressing things to spill ink about.

The Bible says very little about what people wore. I cannot think of a single verse that would be similar to Deut. 22:5. Not even the parallel passage in Leviticus mentions the mixing of clothing.

*Ummm, okay Scott. If you say so :banghead.

[loran adkins]

I think this may be right. That passage explicitly mentions that they were wearing robes as well.



You may want to read earlier in the thread where rdp and I discuss this passage. Here are the main points I recall making: I noted that Deut 22.5 was written about 900 years before Daniel's time to an exclusively Hebrew cultural context, and the passage about Daniel and the three occurs in a Babylonian cultural context, and since D and the 3 were administrators in this culture it is reasonable to conclude that they were wearing Babylonian clothes. In other words, we can't take this passage from so long after Deut 22.5 and from a foreign context and conclude that Hebrew/Jewish men wore trousers, and from that argue that godly men wore pants and so they pertain only to men for all times.

Is not this what I have been saying? Again with a closer look at Deut. 22:5 The way the wording is placed and the different words. The woman was not to "wear" that which pertiantath to a man. the word wear does not mean to put on clothing hear. But to exist or become, but the man is instructed not to put on a women's garment.

In other words this passage is not talking about simply taking about a cut in clothing. Rather to emulate the opposite sex in appearance and actions.

But as with other issues this passage has been used to preach against something that has been held as a standard by some. But when it all comes down to it, this passage has no more meaning to preach against pants. Than does Exo 34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Mean that we must eat kosher food.

[Costeon]

*Unless I am overlooking something, I do not see where Daniel 3.21 “explicitly mentions that they were wearing robes” (?).


I'm very short on time today, so I can only partially respond right now. I had mentioned robes because of how the ESV and NIV render the verse. For this post, I checked out some other translations as well to compare:

ESV: "Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics, their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace."

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

NKJV: "Then these men were bound in their coats, their trousers, their turbans, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of 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."

NET: "So those men were tied up while still wearing their cloaks, trousers, turbans, and other clothes, and were thrown into the furnace of blazing fire."

HCSB: "So these men, in their trousers, robes, head coverings, and other clothes, were tied up and thrown into the furnace of blazing fire."

NRSV: "So the men were bound, still wearing their tunics, their trousers, their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the furnace of blazing fire."

Four of these (ESV, NASB, HCSB, NRSV) note that there are uncertainties regarding how the Aramaic should be translated in this verse.

[Costeon]

Is not this what I have been saying? Again with a closer look at Deut. 22:5 The way the wording is placed and the different words. The woman was not to "wear" that which pertiantath to a man. the word wear does not mean to put on clothing hear. But to exist or become, but the man is instructed not to put on a women's garment.

In other words this passage is not talking about simply taking about a cut in clothing. Rather to emulate the opposite sex in appearance and actions.

The wording may be different but every commentary I checked noted the ideas are similar.

Here is something I posted earlier about the wording of this verse:

"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."


But as with other issues this passage has been used to preach against something that has been held as a standard by some. But when it all comes down to it, this passage has no more meaning to preach against pants. Than does Exo 34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Mean that we must eat kosher food.

I know these threads get really long, and a new poster might not be able to go back and read every post, so I'm not sure if you saw this issue discussed at length. The debate was over the fact that Deut 22.5 is specifically said to be an "abomination to Yahweh," while other laws, such as the ones you mention, are never described this way. The point is that by calling it an abomination to Yahweh it seems to be raising the issue to a moral level, in a way that eating kosher food is not.

Of course, even if someone accepts this--that wearing clothes of the opposite sex is hateful to God--it does not settle the issue of whether or not women can wear pants today. Unfortunately, there do not appear to be other verses that clearly speak to this issue, so I just conclude that pants are no longer exclusively male clothing, as they once were, and so women can wear them, provided they are modest, the same for men.

[Scott Pitta]

Eating non kosher food is labelled as an abomination by Moses.

No one in the Bible ever suggests the term abomination indicates a sin is different in any special way.

If abominations are a special class of sin, the type which is still in effect today, create a list of all the abominations and live according to that list.

The discussions at the council of Jerusalem made no mention of abominations at all.

[Costeon]

Eating non kosher food is labelled as an abomination by Moses.

No one in the Bible ever suggests the term abomination indicates a sin is different in any special way.

If abominations are a special class of sin, the type which is still in effect today, create a list of all the abominations and live according to that list.

The discussions at the council of Jerusalem made no mention of abominations at all.

We've gone down this road already, and since there's no need to rehash what was said, I suggested Loran read what has already been discussed.

[Esaias]

*Unless I am overlooking something, I do not see where Daniel 3.21 “explicitly mentions that they were wearing robes” (?). In fact, I looked at the Aramaic text closely and, to my surprise, it actually says these “men” were wearing “trousers/pants” for two separate articles of clothing. See the LEB below, w. lexical quotes following.

Daniel 3:21 (LEB): Then these men were bound with their garments, their trousers and their turbans and their other clothing, and they were thrown into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire.

**The initial Aramaic noun rendered “garments” above is defined as:

סרבל noun סרבלא:
1 Biblical Aramaic: trousers
2 Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: cloak

(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.

(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).

(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 (perhaps the sbst. has a Scythian origin), foreign word.; EmpArm., Pehl. (Junker Frahang 15: 12 ליא‎[י‎]סרב‎ shirt; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.); EgArm. סרבלק‎ (Cowley Arm. Pap. 42: 9, for ק‎ see p. 144; Jean-H. Dictionnaire 197; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 802 s.v srblwn; Sokoloff loc. cit. prefers to read סרחלץ‎); JArm., CTA (Dalman Wb. 300a: סַרְבְּלָא‎, Beyer Arm. Texte 648 s.v. שרבל‎; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.);

MHeb. סַרְבָּל‎ coat, trousers (Dalman Wb. 300a); denom. JArm. סַרְבֵּל‎ to wrap up; MHeb. pt. passive מְסֻרְבָּל‎ wrapped up, corpulent (Dalman Wb. 300a; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.); > Arb. sirbāl coat (Fraenkel 47f with important notes); cf. also Syr. šarbālā (Brockelmann Lexicon 806b);

Latin sarabala, sarabara, [a type of Persian pantaloon] (Lokotsch 1849); Mnd. šaruala (Drower-Macuch Dictionary 445b); NeoSyr. šarwāl and šarwār; Neo-Persian širwāl and šalwār trousers; on the Persian sbst. see especially Vogt 120a; see further Jean-H. Dictionnaire 197; Fraenkel; Commentaries.

**Regarding the next article mentioned, cf. my posts earlier in this thread wherein I pasted numerous Aramaic lexicographers affirming that these are indeed “trousers” or “pants.” I haven’t really taken the time to look at the LXX yet, but HALOT above indicates the same meanings appear there also. This is why I am a sucker for these types of discussion :)!

*Concerning the Babylonian cultural argument, we should remember that it was equally Babylonian culture to embrace their idols and bow before them—which, obviously, is what occasioned this whole unit of passages (i.e., the Hebrew men’s refusal to do so to align themselves w. Yahweh’s laws). In light of this truism, I would have a *REALLY* difficult time believing that they were not wearing something that was known to be exclusively masculine for these Hebrew men.

*I realize no one will change their minds over this issue (which is very perplexing to me), but, it has helped me to see things I was previously unaware of. In revival for the next week, will look in and follow up as time allots:thumbsup. God bless.


The lexical data you posted indicates a range of proposed meanings: mantle/cloak, trousers/pantaloons, and even shoes. How do we determine which is the correct meaning? Usually when I see such disparity in lexical information it suggests to me the lexicographers are essentially guessing, or else that the underlying term is too vague to admit of precise definition (like the English term "apparel", that could mean anything worn, from shoes to hats).

Also, how can it be ruled out the Hebrews were not wearing Medo-Persian-Chaldean attire? Considering they appear to be part of the royal court, and were educated in the Chaldean system, I would expect them to be dressed in a manner conforming to the culture of their captors. I do not find a Mosaic injunction against wearing Eastern attire per se, as if Hebrew attire was wholly different by divine injunction. So, they could refuse to sin against Jehovah while wearing court appointed clothing. In which case the trousers would likely have been foreign attire not native to common Israelites. The common attire of Israelite culture seems to be the ephod, robe, kuttoneth, tunic, mantle, cloak rather than trousers or pants.

So I'm having trouble seeing how the three Hebrews in Daniel are illustrative of distinctively and uniquely male clothing. That is, that they provide evidence that trousers were uniquely male garments. I'm not saying trousers aren't, or weren't, such. Just that I'm not seeing how this particular passage proves such.

[Evang.Benincasa]

We've gone down this road already, and since there's no need to rehash what was said, I suggested Loran read what has already been discussed.

Thank you for pointing that out. :highfive

[Jay]

Essiac, the attire you are describing were priestly garments. The only two individuals not priests that ever adorned the ephod were David and Samuel, and the latter was essentially an adopted son or servant of Eli the high priest.

[Scott Pitta]

That is easy to say, but since we have such very little information about how people dressed back then, we cannot be adamant about clothing selection or attire.

The glimpses of what was worn at a given time, over centuries and cultures should temper any conclusions about the subject.