Women Wearing Pants

[Costeon]

The main verse I have seen used to support women not wearing pants is Deut 22:5. It seems this could be read to be only a prohibition against cross-dressing. If you believe a woman should not wear pants, what other scriptural support do you base your belief on? Since Deut 22:5 is ambiguous--i.e., open to more than one interpretation--more verses need to brought into the discussion to establish what Deut 22:5 means.

[Pressing-On]

I have always found it interesting that the definition for the word “wear”, in Deut. 22:5, is different than all the other definitions for “wear” in the OT. It is also interesting that this particular definition is used only once in the OT, only in Deut 22:5.

I have never had anyone adequately explain that to me. The definition appears to have a more intense meaning.

◄ 1961. hayah ►
Brown-Driver-Briggs
הָיָה3570 verb fall out, come to pass, become, be (SI1; SI6 היה, ib3 הית; parallel form of הוה, Arabic , Aramaic הֲוָא, ; see הָוָה above) —

[n david]

I believe Deut 22:5 is more about women trying to assume the ROLE of a man, not merely wearing a man's garment.

[JoeBandy]

I believe Deut 22:5 is more about women trying to assume the ROLE of a man, not merely wearing a man's garment.

Yep! What he said!!

[Costeon]

I have always found it interesting that the definition for the word “wear”, in Deut. 22:5, is different than all the other definitions for “wear” in the OT. It is also interesting that this particular definition is used only once in the OT, only in Deut 22:5.

I have never had anyone adequately explain that to me. The definition appears to have a more intense meaning.

◄ 1961. hayah ►
Brown-Driver-Briggs
הָיָה3570 verb fall out, come to pass, become, be (SI1; SI6 היה, ib3 הית; parallel form of הוה, Arabic , Aramaic הֲוָא, ; see הָוָה above) —

Interesting. I have not heard this before. I hope someone can comment on this.

[Costeon]

I believe Deut 22:5 is more about women trying to assume the ROLE of a man, not merely wearing a man's garment.

How do you see this primary meaning as speaking to the issue of women wearing pants today? Does it have any relevance?

[Pressing-On]

I believe Deut 22:5 is more about women trying to assume the ROLE of a man, not merely wearing a man's garment.

While I appreciate your view, "hayah" will still have to be explained.

You don't "become" a man by wearing pants, i.e., Laura Bush for example.

[hometown guy]

Women chopping their hair, than started wearing pants..... now look at our world they are totally trying to erase the difference in men and women.

[JoeBandy]

Women chopping their hair, than started wearing pants..... now look at our world they are totally trying to erase the difference in men and women.

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

[derAlte]

Job 38:3
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Job 40:7
Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

The interpretation is that these Scriptures imply that only men girded up their loins. Pants on a woman cause her to do something only men were supposed to do.

[n david]

Job 38:3
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Job 40:7
Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

The interpretation is that these Scriptures imply that only men girded up their loins. Pants on a woman cause her to do something only men were supposed to do.
I don't believe pants on a woman is the same thing as "gird up thy loins" in those verses.

The phrase "gird up thy loins" refers to men readying their tunic/robe for battle. They would tie them up in a way which would allow them to move, run etc.

Again, just as in Deut 22:5, this is a reference to a man in battle or the garment worn in battle.

[n david]

How do you see this primary meaning as speaking to the issue of women wearing pants today? Does it have any relevance?

I don't believe, in general, that woman wearing a bifurcated garment is committing sin. I do believe that a woman trying to assume the role of a man or acting as a man (and vice versa) is committing sin.

[n david]

While I appreciate your view, "hayah" will still have to be explained.

You don't "become" a man by wearing pants, i.e., Laura Bush for example.
You just explained it perfectly.

"You don't "become" a man by wearing pants" ... ie Deuteronomy 22:5 cannot be the verse of reference in prohibiting pants on a woman.

The verse is speaking of the attitude and motive behind wearing a bifurcated garment. It's a woman trying to "become" or "be" a warrior by putting on a man's armor. It's a man trying to "become" or "be" a woman with effeminacy.

Men are to be men and women are to be women. Women simply wearing women's pants, designed for women, does not make the her a man.

[diakonos]

Women chopping their hair, than started wearing pants..... now look at our world they are totally trying to erase the difference in men and women.

The source of all the worlds problems

[JoeBandy]

I don't believe pants on a woman is the same thing as "gird up thy loins" in those verses.

The phrase "gird up thy loins" refers to men readying their tunic/robe for battle. They would tie them up in a way which would allow them to move, run etc.

Again, just as in Deut 22:5, this is a reference to a man in battle or the garment worn in battle.

Also, the loins were not always "girded up" on a man. So was he wearing a woman's garment until it was "girded"? There is a scripture , and I cant remember where , that tells the Israelites to gird up loins and flee. So was there an exception this once so the women would not be in sin???

[Apostolic1ness]

I have always found it interesting that the definition for the word “wear”, in Deut. 22:5, is different than all the other definitions for “wear” in the OT. It is also interesting that this particular definition is used only once in the OT, only in Deut 22:5.

I have never had anyone adequately explain that to me. The definition appears to have a more intense meaning.

◄ 1961. hayah ►
Brown-Driver-Briggs
הָיָה3570 verb fall out, come to pass, become, be (SI1; SI6 היה, ib3 הית; parallel form of הוה, Arabic , Aramaic הֲוָא, ; see הָוָה above) —

what does "a more intense meaning" mean?

[Apostolic1ness]

Gender distinction. God saw 2019 world of transgenders and tried to nip it in the bud 4000 years ago. What ever culture, country, creed, generation, dont wear the opposite sex's clothes.

[Pressing-On]

what does "a more intense meaning" mean?

Simply because the other definitions concerning the word "wear" mean to "put on a garment" as in Deut. 22:11. Deut 22:5 appears to take the action much further.

[Pressing-On]

You just explained it perfectly.

"You don't "become" a man by wearing pants" ... ie Deuteronomy 22:5 cannot be the verse of reference in prohibiting pants on a woman.

The verse is speaking of the attitude and motive behind wearing a bifurcated garment. It's a woman trying to "become" or "be" a warrior by putting on a man's armor. It's a man trying to "become" or "be" a woman with effeminacy.

Men are to be men and women are to be women. Women simply wearing women's pants, designed for women, does not make the her a man.

You use the word "geber" as only meaning a warrior, but it also is defined as simply a "man". It can mean a warrior like man - a man of strength.

In Proverbs, for instance, "A wise MAN is strong."

The passage doesn't make sense to attribute the definition to a soldier as it also speaks of a man wearing a woman's apparel.

To "become" or "exist as" seems to imply either - the woman is already there in her mind and plays that out dressing like a man, or the clothing may possibly move her toward that end.

I tend to settle with the first idea as 95% to 98% of women do not become Lesbians because they are wearing pants.

[n david]

Also, the loins were not always "girded up" on a man. So was he wearing a woman's garment until it was "girded"? There is a scripture , and I cant remember where , that tells the Israelites to gird up loins and flee. So was there an exception this once so the women would not be in sin???

Exodus 12:11 (regarding the Passover) "And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover."

[Scott Pitta]

People read into the Deut 22:5 passage whatever they want.

[Pressing-On]

People read into the Deut 22:5 passage whatever they want.

What do you want it to say? :D

[n david]

You use the word "geber" as only meaning a warrior, but it also is defined as simply a "man". It can mean a warrior like man - a man of strength.
Man, strong man, warrior. I used one example. The key is in the word "clothing" for each sex. The meaning is different for each.

The passage doesn't make sense to attribute the definition to a soldier as it also speaks of a man wearing a woman's apparel.
I respectfully disagree. The "clothing" word used for the women refers article, vessel, implement, utensil, and implement of hunting/war, etc. There is nothing about garments in that meaning. The "clothing" for men specifically is just about garments or covering.

So I do not believe it's out of place to say the verse could refer to women trying to wear armor and be a warrior. The verse actually is very specific as to women trying to use articles, utensils, etc of men and of men wearing women's garments.

To "become" or "exist as" seems to imply either - the woman is already there in her mind and plays that out dressing like a man, or the clothing may possibly move her toward that end.
See above. The "clothing" for the women is not garments, cloth or covering.

I tend to settle with the first idea as 95% to 98% of women do not become Lesbians because they are wearing pants.
There are women with long hair and dresses who have taken the role meant for men.

[Scott Pitta]

I do not know what Moses had in mind when he wrote this passage.

[hometown guy]

Gender distinction. God saw 2019 world of transgenders and tried to nip it in the bud 4000 years ago. What ever culture, country, creed, generation, dont wear the opposite sex's clothes.

Exactly people don’t get this. They want it to say “ women shall only wear skirts “ instead of God sealing with the principles of the act. If he would have been more specific then everyone would find another loop hole.

[Pressing-On]

Man, strong man, warrior. I used one example. The key is in the word "clothing" for each sex. The meaning is different for each.


I respectfully disagree. The "clothing" word used for the women refers article, vessel, implement, utensil, and implement of hunting/war, etc. There is nothing about garments in that meaning. The "clothing" for men specifically is just about garments or covering.

So I do not believe it's out of place to say the verse could refer to women trying to wear armor and be a warrior. The verse actually is very specific as to women trying to use articles, utensils, etc of men and of men wearing women's garments.


See above. The "clothing" for the women is not garments, cloth or covering.


There are women with long hair and dresses who have taken the role meant for men.
It appears the specific word "garment" for Deut 22:5 is a piece of clothing. It is my understanding that BDB gives you the definition attributed to a specific passage.

Brown-Driver-Briggs
שִׂמְלָה noun feminine wrapper, mantle; — absolute ׳שׂ Genesis 9:23 +, construct שִׂמְלַת Deuteronomy 21:13; Deuteronomy 22:5;

Deuteronomy 22:5
HEB: יִלְבַּ֥שׁ גֶּ֖בֶר שִׂמְלַ֣ת אִשָּׁ֑ה כִּ֧י
NAS: on a woman's clothing; for whoever
KJV: on a woman's garment: for all that do
INT: put man clothing A woman's for

[hometown guy]

I do not know what Moses had in mind when he wrote this passage.

Moses had in mind that he was being used by God. The prophets a lot of time didn't even know what they had in mind but were just willing to let God use them.

[n david]

It appears the specific word "garment" for Deut 22:5 is a piece of clothing. It is my understanding that BDB gives you the definition attributed to a specific passage.

Brown-Driver-Briggs
שִׂמְלָה noun feminine wrapper, mantle; — absolute ׳שׂ Genesis 9:23 +, construct שִׂמְלַת Deuteronomy 21:13; Deuteronomy 22:5;

Deuteronomy 22:5
HEB: יִלְבַּ֥שׁ גֶּ֖בֶר שִׂמְלַ֣ת אִשָּׁ֑ה כִּ֧י
NAS: on a woman's clothing; for whoever
KJV: on a woman's garment: for all that do
INT: put man clothing A woman's for
I'm not a scholar, so I could be wrong. I see that there are two different root words used for the word "clothing."

Woman must not wear man's (ḵə·lî-) refers to
1) article, vessel, implement, utensil 1a) article, object (general) 1b) utensil, implement, apparatus, vessel 1b1) implement (of hunting or war) 1b2) implement (of music) 1b3) implement, tool (of labour) 1b4) equipment, yoke (of oxen) 1b5) utensils, furniture 1c) vessel, receptacle (general) 1d) vessels (boats) of paper-reed

Man must not wear woman's (śim·laṯ) refers to
1) wrapper, mantle, covering garment, garments, clothes, raiment, a cloth

[n david]

Exactly people don’t get this. They want it to say “ women shall only wear skirts “ instead of God sealing with the principles of the act. If he would have been more specific then everyone would find another loop hole.
It's not about finding a loophole. It's about correctly applying the principal.

As PO stated, a woman doesn't become a man simply by putting on pants.

[Evang.Benincasa]

What do you want it to say? :D

Scott wants to wear women’s clothes?

Might be on of those guys who wear black fingernail polish?
When you mention something about it they say there is no Bible against it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

It's not about finding a loophole. It's about correctly applying the principal.

As PO stated, a woman doesn't become a man simply by putting on pants.

Sure looks like one.

How about a song leader with eyeliner and yellow (very bright) fingernail polish?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I do not know what Moses had in mind when he wrote this passage.

He sure wasn’t thinking that a woman could wear pants.

[Evang.Benincasa]

It appears the specific word "garment" for Deut 22:5 is a piece of clothing. It is my understanding that BDB gives you the definition attributed to a specific passage.

Brown-Driver-Briggs
שִׂמְלָה noun feminine wrapper, mantle; — absolute ׳שׂ Genesis 9:23 +, construct שִׂמְלַת Deuteronomy 21:13; Deuteronomy 22:5;

Deuteronomy 22:5
HEB: יִלְבַּ֥שׁ גֶּ֖בֶר שִׂמְלַ֣ת אִשָּׁ֑ה כִּ֧י
NAS: on a woman's clothing; for whoever
KJV: on a woman's garment: for all that do
INT: put man clothing A woman's for

I guy kicked his shoes off in worship and had red painted toenails.
But there is no Bible against it, so everyone have fun.

America is doomed.

[diakonos]

I guy kicked his shoes off in worship and had red painted toenails.
But there is no Bible against it, so everyone have fun.

America is doomed.

What??

[n david]

How about a song leader with eyeliner and yellow (very bright) fingernail polish?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaZJ3eZ1XhXX6kwLTRYMo6EezyIPEU_ DkAQxUqcGRRgUyfqALF-w

[Evang.Benincasa]

Moses had in mind that he was being used by God. The prophets a lot of time didn't even know what they had in mind but were just willing to let God use them.

Where were prophets clueless?

America is doomed

[diakonos]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaZJ3eZ1XhXX6kwLTRYMo6EezyIPEU_ DkAQxUqcGRRgUyfqALF-w

Is that the new L’Oreal “girl?”

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaZJ3eZ1XhXX6kwLTRYMo6EezyIPEU_ DkAQxUqcGRRgUyfqALF-w

No Bible against it?

America circling the drain.

[n david]

Is that the new L’Oreal “girl?”
From the "Trending" section of YouTube it's name is James Charles.

[n david]

No Bible against it?

America circling the drain.

Yes there is. The Bible is clear about men being effeminate. :nod

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yes there is. The Bible is clear about men being effeminate. :nod

Where does it say in the Bible men can’t wear eyeliner or paint their fingernails and toenails? Ancient societies men in the Middle East wore eyeliner as well as the women.

[n david]

Where does it say in the Bible men can’t wear eyeliner or paint their fingernails and toenails? Ancient societies men in the Middle East wore eyeliner as well as the women.

:notme :uhoh

[Scott Pitta]

For me, it is all a matter of hermeneutics. How is Deut. 22:5 interpreted correctly ? How is one verse picked out of a chapter while the rest of the chapter is ignored ? Are believers to obey the Law of Moses or not ? How does the Council of Jerusalem come into play ??

[Evang.Benincasa]

For me, it is all a matter of hermeneutics. How is Deut. 22:5 interpreted correctly ? How is one verse picked out of a chapter while the rest of the chapter is ignored ? Are believers to obey the Law of Moses or not ? How does the Council of Jerusalem come into play ??

Scott, the same thing goes for the differences in the hair for men and women.
There is no gender blending in the Bible. The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is about circumcision. Yet, the Gentiles needed to ditch their pagan practices. The problem is that you believe they fabricated a totally new religion after Pentecost. One that would of be unrecognizeble by the first century Judeans. I wonder what Harry Morse would of told you about pants on women?

[Evang.Benincasa]

:notme :uhoh

It’s true, hard but true. This is the little issues that crop their heads up down here in Broward. Guy on fire for God (you would think) but he paints his fingernails and toenails. Wears black eyeliner. I’m sorry, but I just can’t keep my mouth shut. I’m sitting with a group at a Chinese Resturant and they introduce me to Mr Prayer Warrior. I asked him if he was trying out for Twilight. Needless to say that started a impromptu Bible debate.

[Costeon]

I don't believe, in general, that woman wearing a bifurcated garment is committing sin. I do believe that a woman trying to assume the role of a man or acting as a man (and vice versa) is committing sin.

Would you then say that Deut 22:5 cannot really be used to argue that women must not wear pants? That is, as long as a woman is not acting as a man or assuming his role, then modest pants are acceptable?

I've seen this word "bifurcated" several times recently (on another site). What is the origin of that word as a substitute for "pants"? Is there a reason why it is better to say this instead of just pants?

[Costeon]

Gender distinction. God saw 2019 world of transgenders and tried to nip it in the bud 4000 years ago. What ever culture, country, creed, generation, dont wear the opposite sex's clothes.

Who defines what "opposite sex's clothes" are, and can that ever change?

[JamesGlen]

It’s true, hard but true. This is the little issues that crop their heads up down here in Broward. Guy on fire for God (you would think) but he paints his fingernails and toenails. Wears black eyeliner. I’m sorry, but I just can’t keep my mouth shut. I’m sitting with a group at a Chinese Resturant and they introduce me to Mr Prayer Warrior. I asked him if he was trying out for Twilight. Needless to say that started a impromptu Bible debate.


One of thim thar Eunuchs I’d reckon

[Costeon]

People read into the Deut 22:5 passage whatever they want.

I think the verse is ambiguous enough to make this a possibility.

[Costeon]

I respectfully disagree. The "clothing" word used for the women refers article, vessel, implement, utensil, and implement of hunting/war, etc. There is nothing about garments in that meaning. The "clothing" for men specifically is just about garments or covering.

So I do not believe it's out of place to say the verse could refer to women trying to wear armor and be a warrior. The verse actually is very specific as to women trying to use articles, utensils, etc of men and of men wearing women's garments.


See above. The "clothing" for the women is not garments, cloth or covering.
.

I looked at several commentaries tonight, and all said that the word referring to things pertaining to men is broader than the word referring to women. For men the word refers to a variety of things (all those you have mentioned) including clothing, while for women, the word refers explicitly to clothing.

[Costeon]

Where does it say in the Bible men can’t wear eyeliner or paint their fingernails and toenails? Ancient societies men in the Middle East wore eyeliner as well as the women.

Which passages do you think are best for teaching against makeup (on men and women)?

[Costeon]

For me, it is all a matter of hermeneutics. How is Deut. 22:5 interpreted correctly ? How is one verse picked out of a chapter while the rest of the chapter is ignored ? Are believers to obey the Law of Moses or not ? How does the Council of Jerusalem come into play ??

I agree about what you say about hermeneutics. As you allude to, this verse appears in a chapter with a variety of miscellaneous commands that we don't practice. If I recall correctly, v. 5 is the only one that includes the statement that the forbidden practice is detestable to God. That, to me, seems to put it on the moral plane with implications for how we live today. Of course, the verse gives little direct guidance on how to apply the principle. For example, it says nothing about how different men's and women's clothing has to be. In other words, it does not forbid men and women from wearing similar, though distinct, clothing. In one sense, this really isn't an issue; I can't think of any established culture that was or is entirely unisex. Generally there have always been some sort of difference.

Regarding the Jerusalem Council, I think EB is correct in that circumcision appears to have been the main issue--but it was not the only issue. Basically, one Jewish faction was teaching that Gentiles had to in effect become Jews when becoming Christians: “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” As you know, the council said, "No. The following alone is required . . . "

Do you think that, since it was an abomination to God, the principle of v. 5 transcends the Law of Moses and applies to the church as well?

[Costeon]

By way of reminder, I had mentioned in the original post: "Since Deut 22:5 is ambiguous--i.e., open to more than one interpretation--more verses need to brought into the discussion to establish what Deut 22:5 means."

I think what the discussion has shown so far is that the verse is, in fact, ambiguous. So what other passages would you bring forward to teach that women must not wear pants today.

Thanks for everyone's input.

[Scott Pitta]

Deuteronomy 22:5 does have a warning after the rule: “for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this”. ..What does God detest ? ..How is the word “detest” used by other writers of Scripture ? ..Does the word “detest” have a special meaningin Deuteronomy 22:5 ? Moses uses the word detest 17 times in the book of Deuteronomy. ..most of the timeit is used to describe idol worship ..(Deut 7:25, 7:26, 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 20:18,29:17, 32:16, 27:15). ..Certain animals are detestable to eat (14:3). ..Sacrificing defective animals is detestable (17:1). ..Occultic behavior is detestable (18:9). ..Prostitute earnings used in temple worhsip are detestable (23:18). ..Certain forms ofremarriage are detestable (24:4). ..Dishonest weights and measurers are detestable (27:15).So Moses does not use the word detest to describe clothing or to distinguish between the sexes in any other part of Deuteronomy. ..Deut. 22:5 is unique even for Deuteronomy.Detestable practices were not a unique feature of Hebrew culture. ..Moses wrote thatit was detestable to the Egyptians to eat with Hebrews (Ge. 42:32). ..Hebrews shepards were also detestable to the Egyptians (Ge. 46:34). ..Even Hebrew sacrifices were detestable to the Egyptians (Exodus 8:26).Not all prohibited practices listed in the law of Moses were said to be detestable...The best example of this is can be seen in the giving of the 10 commandments. ..Theword “detest” is not used in Exodus 20 or in Deuteronomy 5. .. Detest is used in Genesis and Exodus ..to describe what is detestable to Egyptians. ..Detest is not used at all in the book of Numbers. ..“Detest” is used frequently in the book of Levitucus. ..It is found there some 20 times. ..It is used in close connection with the words “unclean” and “defile”. ..So if a person touches a detestable animal (Lev. 11:10) he becomes unclean (Lev. 11:24) or “defiled” ..(Lev. 20:25). ..Engaging in prohibited sexual relations are said to be “wicked” ..(Lev. 18:17).Fellowship offerings (Lev. 19:5-8) left to eat on the third day are “impure” and willnot be ..“accepted” (Lev. 19:7). ..Doing so “desecrates what is holy to the Lord” (Lev. 19:8). ....To clarify, “detest” is translated as “wicked” in Lev.18:17 and as “impure” in Lev.19:7.Leviticus give us a better understanding of the word “detest” but it offers no clues about distinguishing between men and women in regard to their clothing...Illumination about Deut. 22:5 will not come from Leviticus even though that is the most likely place it would be found.The historical books mention ..the “detestable” ways of the nations that had come before them (2 Kings 16:3). ..“Detestable” ..is the way certain kings are described:..Ahaz (2 kings 16:3), Manasseh (2 Kings 21:2), and Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:8). ..Solomon build high places for Chemosh, ..the “detestable god of Moab” and forMolech, the “detestable god of the Ammonites” (1 Kings 11:7).Saul’s attack on the Philistine outpost made Israel a “stench” to the Philistines (1Samuel 13:4). ..“Detestable” is similarly translated “repulsive” in 1 Chronicles 21:6,where Joab is not happy about the kings command to take a census of the population of Israel.In his prayer, Ezra ..describes the conditions of the land as “polluted by the corruption of its peoples. ..By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity” ..Ezra 9:11. ....

[Scott Pitta]

Job is the earliest book of the Bible to be writen. ..“Detestable” is found once in the book that bears his name. ..Job 15:15-16 reads “ If God places no trust in his holy ones, if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes, ..how much less man, who is vileand corrupt, who drinks up evil like water !” .. Detestible is translated “vile” in this passage.In Psalm 14:1, the “fool” say in his heart “There is no God.” ..Fools are “corrupt andtheir deeds are vile; ..there is no one who does good.” ..Detest is translated here “vile”. ..The same concept is repeated in Psalm 53:1. ..In Psalm 88:8, the sons of Korah lament that God has “taken from me my closest friends and have made me repulsive to them.” .. ..Detest is translated “repulsive” here.Strangely, Solomon uses the word “detest” in Proverbs (18 times) almost as often asMoses uses it in Leviticus ( 20 times). ..But Solomon does not make reference to any aspects of the law of Moses. ..Sadly, Solomon does not shed wisdom on Moses’statement in Deut. 22:5.A comparrison of Leviticus 19 to Proverbs 6 is of value.Leviticus 19 Proverbs 619:1 lying lips .. .. .. .. ..6:1719:11 false witness 6:1919:15 .. .. .. .. pervert justice 6:1719:16 ..slander 6:19Certain themes are to be noted between the 2 chapters. ..But no such comparison canbe made between Proverbs chapter 6 and Deuteronomy chapter 22...Isaiah compares “meaningless offerings” to “detestable incense” (1:13). ..Babylon is called a “rejected” branch in 14:19. ..He maeks a reference to “detestable” idols (44:19). ..Like Moses, Isaiah declares pig meat to be “unclean” (Is. 65:4). ..Using pigs blood in sacrifices a “abomination” (Is. 66:3) and to drive the point home about pigs, he declares the “abominable” in Isaiah 66:17.For Jeremiah, detest and idol worship went hand in hand. ..He mentions detestable things a dozen times. ..In Jer. 2:7 Jeremiah laments that Israel’s sins made her inheritance detestable. ..“Detestable” is translated as “loathsome” conduct (Jer.6:15). ..In chapter 7, Jeremiah describes the practices that made idol worship so vile...Associated with idol worship were theft, murder, adultary and perjury. ..In doing so, Jeremiah mentions 5 of the 10 commandments. ..Ezekiel mentions “detestable” more than any other writer of Scripture. ..It is mentioned 35 times in the book the bears his name. ..He uses it to describe idols and idol worship. ..However, “detestable” is translated as “unclean” food in Ezekiel 4:14. ..In chapter 44:6, Ezekiel ..calls foreigners in the temple as a detestable practice.In Chapter 18, Ezekiel lists the following practices as “detestable”: eating ..at mountain shrine, .. defiles neighbor’s wife, .. oppresses ..the poor and needy, ..robbery, ..does not return pledge, ..looks to idols and .. lends excessive usury interests.Daniel brings us a unique use of the word “detestable”. ..He uses it as a technical term, “abomination of desolation” ( Dan. 9:27, 11:31, 12”11) to describe a specific eschatological event.The same phrase is found in Matt. 24:15, Mark 13:14 in reference to the same..prophetic event.Hosea 9:10 makes a reference to detestable idol worshipMicah 6:10 ..Micah considered dishonest measures to be detestable.Nahum 3:6 ..“Detest” is translated as “contempt”Zechariah 9:7 ..translates “detest” as “forbidden” food.In Malachi 2:1 “detest” is translated as “abomination” against the priests.

[Scott Pitta]

In the New Testament “abomination” or “detestable” is translated by the Greek word “bdelugma”. ..Detest is used 9 times in the New Testament by 5 different authors.Matthew and Mark mention the technical term “abomination of desolation” in their respective books (Matt. 24:15, Mark 13:14).Luke 16:15 states that “What is highly valued amoung men is detestable in God’s sight.”Detest makes an appearance in the Book of Romans (2:22) where it is translated “abhor” idols.“To the pure” Paul says in Titus 1:16, “all things are pure, but to those who arecorrupt and do not believe, nothing is pure. ..If fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. ..They claim to know God, but by their actions, they deny him. ..They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing any good.”Paul contrasts “detest” with purity, as did Moses (Lev. 19:7). ..He grouped in inwith disobedient and unfit.Peter used the word “detest” in connection to idolatry (1 Peter 4:3). ..He uses the same combination that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel did.John uses “detest” 4 times in the book of Revelation (Rev. 17:4, 17:5, 21:8, 21:27).In chapter 17 it is used to describe the harlot of Babylon.In chapter 21 it is used twice. ..Rev. 21:8 reads “But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars...” ..‘Detest” is translated “vile” in this scripture.Rev. 21:27 reads “ Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only whose names are writen in the lamb’s bookof life.” .. ..Detest is translated as “shameful” in this verse.This survey of the use of detestable things give us insight on the range of behaviors that were sinful to the Hebrews and to the Christians. ..But it sheds no more light on Deut. 22:5. ..Both Paul and Peter used the word “detest” in their writing. ..They both wrote about proper apparel for women. ..But neither writer used “detest” when writing about women’s apparel.Moses sometimes used “detest” as “unclean” like the 25 animals that were unclean to eat. ..Solomon used “detest” to describe conditions of the heart that God did not like. ..Prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel could not say “detestable” without saying“idol”. ..So did Paul and Peter. ..But they, like John also used it to describe the sinful fallen condition of sinful man. ..Just as it is used in the book of Job. ..

[n david]

Would you then say that Deut 22:5 cannot really be used to argue that women must not wear pants?
IMO, yes.

That is, as long as a woman is not acting as a man or assuming his role, then modest pants are acceptable?
Yes

I've seen this word "bifurcated" several times recently (on another site). What is the origin of that word as a substitute for "pants"? Is there a reason why it is better to say this instead of just pants?
I don't know about the origin, other than there was a Pastor on here who used to post, especially about standards. He would use the word "bifurcated." Sometimes I use it to see if people know what it is.

[n david]

For me, it is all a matter of hermeneutics. How is Deut. 22:5 interpreted correctly ? How is one verse picked out of a chapter while the rest of the chapter is ignored ? Are believers to obey the Law of Moses or not ?

This is another argument I don't understand.

Here are the verses proceeding verse 5:


When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof

Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds:

Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.


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

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

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

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

[jediwill83]

This is another argument I don't understand.

Here are the verses proceeding verse 5:


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


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

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

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

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


Stop making so much sense with your well reasoned arguments man. Just accept its a slippery slope and you wont have to think so much.

[Esaias]

This is another argument I don't understand.

Here are the verses proceeding verse 5:


When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof

Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds:

Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.


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

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

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

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

The fact that people today choose one and not others does not mean that anyone should dispense with that one command. It simply proves people are inconsistent.

If one believes man is to live by every word of God, as Jesus said, then one believes they are to follow God's instructions as revealed in the Bible. If an instruction cannot be applied directly, as written, then the principle of the command must be discovered and applied to current situations. For example:

The wall on the roof of the house. Houses in Israel were flat topped and the roof served the purpose of a modern porch. A wall was to be contructed around the edge to keep people from falling off. This is why any elevated porches or balconies have fence railings (today), and if you dont have one and someone fell off your second floor unrailed balcony you would likely be sued and found negligent. Just like fencing in an inground pool for the most part. Today, in the US, roofs are peaked and not designed for human occupancy. If a roof is flat and designed for occupancy (as on most commercial buildings) it has a wall or rail.

So the application is as follows: if your roof is flat and people are going to be hanging out there, make sure there is a wall or fence type protective barrier so people dont fall off and injure or kill themselves.

Sowing with diverse seeds. The exact meaning is debatable, and has been debated for almost 2000 years if not longer. The intent seems to be an orderly arrangement of field crops and vineyards. Some suggest it has to do with prevention of unwanted hybridization of food crops which could lead to food shortage in a primarily agrarian society. Some say it has to do with some kind of pagan custom meant to "bless" the crop.

Ox and ass jointly yoked. This is similar to the mingled seed command. Cows and donkeys probably dont work too well together as a yoked team. But beyond practical implications, both instructions are designed to teach the concepts of segregation, where things unlike are separated into their respective and appropriate spheres as a living applied ongoing object lesson in holiness (separation). God is holy, His people are holy, so that principle of holiness is to be seen as a fundamental principle operating in just about every sphere of life.

The prohibition against linsey-woolsey is a particularly interesting subject. One of my daughters spent about a year researching this particular one in an effort to understand what the point of it was. Comparing the Hebrew with the Septuagint Greek and the two places the command occurs we concluded it is a specific prohibition against linen and wool garments, which were actually used by the priests. So the prohibition not only has nothing at all to do with polyester blends, but is directed to prohibiting non priests from wearing priest-like garments. Just like the prohibitions against non priestly use of the priestly anointing oil recipe or incense.

Fringes (tassels). This is technically required for four cornered garments, essentially a poncho or a chiton, common in the ancient near east. So technically shirts and pants arent required to have tassels. Tthere is also some debate about what exactly is being described, the other verse in Numbers which addresses this describes them as wreathen or braided or chain like attachments. There is debate as to whether they are to hang down or instead to follow the hem or edge of the garment. There is also debate as to whether or not this is an instruction for individuals to actually make fringes themselves for their four cornered garments, or just to have them on one's garments. In any event, they are to have a blue thread involved, and the purpose is to remind the wearer of God's commandments. Jesus' words against the Pharisees on the subject indicates the fringes are meant to be seen by the wearer, not the public, and thus ought to be either hidden from public view or else be kept inconspicuous.

The distinction between clean and unclean animals was known in Noah's day long before Sinai, and is affirmed by the apostle Paul in the new testament as valid. I'll just leave that there for now. :)


It should be noticed that all these instructions provide mechanisms for reminding the people of the necessity of DISTINCTION and SEPARATION as a called out peculiar people belonging exclusively to Jehovah. These were mechanisms devised by God for this purpose and therefore should not be denigrated or scoffed at as silly or unimportant. Many of these holiness rules or "standards" are rather insignificant in themselves, but serve as object lessons or opportunities for teaching and reflection on spiritual matters, especially as regards the concept of being called out from among the heathen to be God's specially purchased people.

It is interesting how ready people are to follow man made regulations regarding attire, appearance, and lifestyle, but balk at following actual God ordained and inspired regulations regarding those same subjects.


It is also interesting how most of these regulations contain no corresponding penalty for failure to implement. People often grasp the idea of a rule or standard not being a heaven or hell issue but cant seem to imagine God might have some rules that arent heaven or hell issues. Of course, rebellion or willfull presumptuous disobedience is another matter, and on reflection ought to be self evident. A parent might have a rule for their child, say be home by 10. Getting home at 10:30 may incur no penalty, say if the cause was inadvertent or even a case of forgetfulness. Or it might result in much more severe consequences if the cause is an obstinate stubborn rebelliousness born out of a conscious willful choice to disobey.


Many of the Bible's various instructions may not have an immediately obvious purpose. But the whole point here is STUDY, the very concept of being a disciple is that of study of God's instructiins. Asking "Why?" and "How does this apply?" and similar questions directs the student to ponder and search out God's purposes and His ways. This draws the disciple closer to God by providing opportunity to "learn from God". Too many look at the Bible as a list of mere rules, some to be followed and most to be ignored, usually at will. Rather than looking at it as instructional material from our Father meant to draw us into an ongoing dialogue with Him.

[Scott Pitta]

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

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

[Costeon]

This is another argument I don't understand.

Here are the verses proceeding verse 5:


When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof

Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds:

Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.


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

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

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

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

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

[Costeon]

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

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

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

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

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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Females in pants is cross dressing

[Evang.Benincasa]

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

Ship is sinking boys and girls.

[n david]

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael The Disciple]

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

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

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

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

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

Keen observation.

[Scott Pitta]

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

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

Nor was it an issue at the Council of Jerusalem.

[Evang.Benincasa]

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

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

Nor was it an issue at the Council of Jerusalem.

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

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

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

Scott do deer miscarry when they drink the water? :laffatu

[Scott Pitta]

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

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

[Costeon]

Females in pants is cross dressing

For all cultures at all times?

[Costeon]

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

Ship is sinking boys and girls.

Who is "they"?

[Costeon]

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

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

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

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

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

Good point. I agree with you. I'm pretty sure, though, that one response would be something like this: India is a non-Western nation. They never had the distinction between pants and skirts that Western countries had, so there is no issue with them wearing pants. Western nations no longer have the traditional distinction because feminists and other anti-God forces undermined godly principles in Western nations, and so it wasn't just a benign cultural development but a hostile takeover.

The ultimate problem to me regarding this line of thinking is that proponents seem to arbitrarily decide that pants and skirts must be the traditional Western distinction, as if there have never been any other options in the history of Western civilization. David Bernard I believe asserts that in Western nations, the distinction between pants and skirts arose during the middle ages. So this was an innovation. Why stop there? Why not look to Greece and Rome since they were the fount of Western civ, where men and women wore skirt like garments. The point is, you never can get away from the idea of cultural change. Nothing is set in stone.

[Scott Pitta]

Deut 22:5 says nothing about pants or dresses.

We don't know enough about the cultural context of the setting of Deuteronomy to be adamant about what Moses was referring to.

[Costeon]

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

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

Nor was it an issue at the Council of Jerusalem.

Without a quote from a post, I'm not sure who or what your specifically responding to, but I want to make sure I understand your position.

Do you see no distinction between an abomination to the Lord and one to the Israelites?

Are you saying that the NT writers had no interest in OT moral abominations?

As EB has noted, the primary issue at the council was circumcision, and so many issues--moral issues--were not issues at the council. Are you saying that only the OT laws regarding sexual immorality are still relevant since only those are affirmed at the council?

[Costeon]

Deut 22:5 says nothing about pants or dresses.

We don't know enough about the cultural context of the setting of Deuteronomy to be adamant about what Moses was referring to.

I think this is correct. Unfortunately. I wish there were more details, if anything to eliminate all the various interpretations that are imposed on people.

This idea brings us back to what I've been trying to say in a couple of other posts, including the first one: Deut 22:5 is ambiguous; therefore, other verses have to be put forth to support the no pants on women teaching. As I've thought about it more, I can't recall other verses that might be used.

[jediwill83]

Good point. I agree with you. I'm pretty sure, though, that one response would be something like this: India is a non-Western nation. They never had the distinction between pants and skirts that Western countries had, so there is no issue with them wearing pants. Western nations no longer have the traditional distinction because feminists and other anti-God forces undermined godly principles in Western nations, and so it wasn't just a benign cultural development but a hostile takeover.

The ultimate problem to me regarding this line of thinking is that proponents seem to arbitrarily decide that pants and skirts must be the traditional Western distinction, as if there have never been any other options in the history of Western civilization. David Bernard I believe asserts that in Western nations, the distinction between pants and skirts arose during the middle ages. So this was an innovation. Why stop there? Why not look to Greece and Rome since they were the fount of Western civ, where men and women wore skirt like garments. The point is, you never can get away from the idea of cultural change. Nothing is set in stone.




India was HEAVILY colonized by the West namely the British empire. They got all kinds of exposure to Western culture.

[Scott Pitta]

The idea of "abominations" being a certain type of sin is foreign to the Bible. Abomination simply means "detestable" or "ceremonially unclean". Writers of the NT never made the claim that "abomination" had a special meaning or classification.

The primary issue at the Council of Jerusalem centered around the obligations of gentile believers be circumcised and to obey the Law of Moses. The decision made was no, circumcision is not required and no, believers are not required to obey the law of Moses.

We have no obligations to the law of Moses. The law served several purposes and all of them have been fulfilled.

All the rules in the law of Moses were moral rules. None of them are morally binding today.

Rape is a sin today. But not because it is spelled out in the law of Moses. Theft and lying are a sin today, but not because they are mentioned as such by Moses.

Some of the law has been replaced and the opposite has been taught instead.

"Love your neighbor and hate your enemy" has been replaced by "love your enemies"

"Eye for an eye" has been replaced by "do not resist an evil person"

"Do not break your oath" is replaced by "do not swear an oath at all"

The new covenant is better than the old one.

[Evang.Benincasa]

For all cultures at all times?

Who cares about "cultures?"

There are "cultures" who believe in female circumcision.

Scarification tattooing on female children.

Cultures which wear plates in their bottom lip, and bones through their noses.

The culture we follow is the Judean/Israelite culture which was part of the remnant which is the church. Women look and ACT like women, men look and act like men. You have over 2,000 years of females wearing long loose flowing clothing, and men ONLY being the military. What you have now in this culture is an avalanche of soy boys and butch girls. Also the new advent of genderless teens.

Have fun, while you debate this issue into the ground. Because the "culture:' round your churches have assimilated you into the Borg.

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/kate-hudson-shes-raising-daughter-genderless/story?id=60582252

[Evang.Benincasa]

Deut 22:5 says nothing about pants or dresses.

We don't know enough about the cultural context of the setting of Deuteronomy to be adamant about what Moses was referring to.

Scott you just don't understand Deuteronomy in the light of the New testament. building a parapet? Not disturbing a bird sitting on its nest? Men wearing the long flowing soft garments of a woman, and the woman not wearing that which is MASCULINE. Scott you never cease to bewilder me Proverbs 18:6 :heeheehee

[Scott Pitta]

:)

[Evang.Benincasa]

The whole thing dwindles down to OLD Testament OUT, and New Testament ONLY. If you walk into a Eastern Orthodox church, chances are you only find New testament books. Old Testament was only for the Jews, New Testament is the Church's Bible. This makes for some sketchy theology. An old friend of mine is a pretty sharp Sedevacantist (not sharp enough to be saved, but sharp enough to notice how things got done) He mad this statement, "in the times of the prior to the Reformation the Bible was taken from the people, now the people get rid of the Bible on their own." Also "the communists use to force communist, but now they just use the frog in the kettle. They learned this tactic from the Catholic Church. There are more ways to skin a cat, and churches today don't really understand that the Old Testament complete with deuterocanonical books were the ONLY Bible used by Jesus, Paul, Peter, the apostles, and the rest of the church. The church doesn't understand that the early churches culture was the culture of the first century A.D. Judea. That when a Pharisee passed a Christian they both looked the same. Paul didn't change from looking like a Pharisee to Tommy Bahama at the First Church. He was part of his Judean culture which was the early churches culture. Remember these GENTILES, were exclusively taught by JUDEANS.

[Scott Pitta]

The law of Moses is fulfilled. But there is more to the OT than the law of Moses. There is more theology in the OT than what Moses wrote.

So, for me, it is not OT vs. NT.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The law of Moses is fulfilled. But there is more to the OT than the law of Moses. There is more theology in the OT than what Moses wrote.

So, for me, it is not OT vs. NT.

But actually there is a OT vs NT, because whether you like it or not you were taught by Catholic/Protestant theology. Two sides of the Roman coin. Look, you are a Pentecostal historian correct? So, where did the early Pentecostal ministers come from? Harry Morse? What church was he raised in?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I believe Deut 22:5 is more about women trying to assume the ROLE of a man, not merely wearing a man's garment.

You mean, she wears the PANTS in the family? Female Man Beaters Club? :heeheehee

http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200803/wife_rolling_pin_95ABB372-06CC-13B3-F32F9DD93992AEC2.jpg

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/she-wears-the-pants-150922040541-lva1-app6892/95/she-wears-the-pants-10-638.jpg?cb=1442895138

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/she-wears-the-pants-150922040541-lva1-app6892/95/she-wears-the-pants-2-638.jpg?cb=1442895138

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/she-wears-the-pants-150922040541-lva1-app6892/95/she-wears-the-pants-3-638.jpg?cb=1442895138

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/she-wears-the-pants-150922040541-lva1-app6892/95/she-wears-the-pants-5-638.jpg?cb=1442895138

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/she-wears-the-pants-150922040541-lva1-app6892/95/she-wears-the-pants-56-638.jpg?cb=1442895138

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/she-wears-the-pants-150922040541-lva1-app6892/95/she-wears-the-pants-12-638.jpg?cb=1442895138

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/she-wears-the-pants-150922040541-lva1-app6892/95/she-wears-the-pants-26-638.jpg?cb=1442895138

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/she-wears-the-pants-150922040541-lva1-app6892/95/she-wears-the-pants-15-638.jpg?cb=1442895138

https://pics.me.me/the-soy-boy-starter-pack-imag-is-probably-made-of-34328594.png

America frog in the kettle? No doubt!

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/soyboy20.jpg

Hey! She wears PANTS!!!

https://media.giphy.com/media/l41lPnsw4tL9W8O76/giphy.gif

[Scott Pitta]

This entire discussion is but one impact of WW2 on American Pentecostalism.

[Evang.Benincasa]

This entire discussion is but one impact of WW2 on American Pentecostalism.

No. :heeheehee

The whole discussion crosses into everything in American and European Christianity. It is cultural takeover of a post Christian society. But, what was church was Harry Morse raised in? What did he actually believe? What was his view on the Old testament on how it related to the New Testament? What did he think about females wearing pants?

[Costeon]

No. :heeheehee

The whole discussion crosses into everything in American and European Christianity. It is cultural takeover of a post Christian society. But, what was church was Harry Morse raised in? What did he actually believe? What was his view on the Old testament on how it related to the New Testament? What did he think about females wearing pants?

Are you saying that in 2019 women who wear trousers are consciously and purposefully trying to usurp male authority and roles?

Is there something inherently masculine about trousers and inherently feminine about skirts, so at all times in all cultures men must always wear trousers and women must always wear skirts?

[Costeon]

India was HEAVILY colonized by the West namely the British empire. They got all kinds of exposure to Western culture.

Yes, India was indeed a colony of the British Empire. How did that impact their clothing choices for men and women? And how does that, in your opinion, impact the issue at hand?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Are you saying that in 2019 women who wear trousers are consciously and purposefully trying to usurp male authority and roles?

Is there something inherently masculine about trousers and inherently feminine about skirts, so at all times in all cultures men must always wear trousers and women must always wear skirts?


You currently live in a society where men are getting married to men. Women married to women. Homosexuality the fall of empires. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8438210/Fall-of-Roman-Empire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html)

Yet, if we understand how empires are born, prosper and eventually die. We can see a pattern. Religion naturally shapeshifts in order to stay relevant in the world in which it operates. The problem is with movements is that they are never the same as when they began. Separatist movements use the Bible to form guidelines of separation with the culture or cultures around them. Why were American females and their early European counterparts wearing dresses in the first place? Oh, they were predominantly Christians. Because the Church ran governments in Europe? Sent their zealots over to the colonies? When the Puritans weren't burning witches they held strict separation standards of dress and behavior. Trousers had there start as military attire, long underwear were demanded of the priests of Israel. Masculinity is part of our religion, hence you have men as the leadership in home and in church. Wives submit yourselves to your own husband went down the toilet with Rosie the Riveters 22 inch biceps. bobbing of hair, 1920s, and we see the first glimpses of pants on women.

You mentioned "what if" women don't know the symbolism of pants on women? I'll tell you this, a girl in one of the Bible studies had a Baphomet, under a Pentagram encased in a hexagram. I said why did you get that tattoo? She said she liked the picture, but didn't know anything else about it.
She was pretty surprised when I PROVED to her the significance of the symbol. Now, she was clueless, but did the symbol hold any meaning to anyone else on earth? Of course. Wearing a swastika might be meaningless to the wearer but not to the eye beholder.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yes, India was indeed a colony of the British Empire. How did that impact their clothing choices for men and women? And how does that, in your opinion, impact the issue at hand?

This is part and parcel of empire conquering the people. The influence of the Greeks (since Alexander the Great) gave us an entire Greek New Testament.
So, when the United States placed its military in defeated Japan, some adopted the fashion.Early Americans looking to make dealings with the Japanese in the 1800s brought with them their fashions. Just like the Indian chief below adopted the fashion of the colonists who conquered his land.

https://meijirevolutioninjapan.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/1/6/14168985/2844901.png?361

https://www.jica.go.jp/jomm/newsletter/images/tayori17/ha5.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5b/Teedyuscung.jpg/200px-Teedyuscung.jpg

[Evang.Benincasa]

In Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires, it states, the final stage is an Age of Decadence which noted by frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state and weakening of religion. Let me say this, there is none so blind who will not see. It is about over boys and girls. This country is at the early stages of its trip to the abyss. Pants on women is just a pimple on the tail end of a gnat. Symbols have strong meaning, whether you believe them or not. We in trouble boys, and unless we get some prayer going we might not have enough to scrape together when this whole thing capsizes.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG8OAXMbfYw&ab_channel=DissentView

[Scott Pitta]

Deut. 22:5 has nothing to do with western culture.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Deut. 22:5 has nothing to do with western culture.

No, this does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIlq85dL0C4&ab_channel=TheDailySignal

[Evang.Benincasa]

Deut. 22:5 has nothing to do with western culture.

Scott, let me explain something to you. Western Culture didn't pop out of the head of Zeus. It was formulated by the Bible, as impossible for you to believe that, it was. Because it was Christianity in whatever form was available to them is how their culture formed. Looking at any history of fashion from 1000 A.D. to 1940s we have women in dresses. Deuteronomy 22:5 says exactly what it means men don't dress in female attire, and women don't dress in masculine attire. Oh, while you are at it, don't place a railing around an occupied flat roof, and see if OSHA agrees with Moses.

[Scott Pitta]

Dresses are not mentioned in Deut. 22:5.

[Costeon]

Looking at any history of fashion from 1000 A.D. to 1940s we have women in dresses. Deuteronomy 22:5 says exactly what it means men don't dress in female attire, and women don't dress in masculine attire. Oh, while you are at it, don't place a railing around an occupied flat roof, and see if OSHA agrees with Moses.

I am sympathetic with many of the things you have expressed. I don't, however, think the average person is going to be persuaded. Women whom I know who wear pants aren't trying to be men or rule over their husbands. Nothing could be said to them to convince them that they are the pawns in a great struggle to overthrow traditional morality.

A problem in the quote above is that you're implying women in dresses wasn't the norm before 1000 AD. The point is this: if it is ever conceded that fashions ever changed then there is no justification to fix a particular era as the norm going forward.

Non-Pentecostals with whom I have discussed Deut 22:5 (and perhaps weren't even aware before of the verse) universally have thought it was forbidding crossdressing/transvestitism. That is, it is forbidding the practice of someone trying to pass themselves off as a member of the other gender. That's what I thought when I first read it. Most people are likely going to feel repulsed by this behavior and would naturally understand that Deut 22:5 says it is an abomination to God. The problem is that there is just not enough information to know exactly what is being forbidden. At any rate it is not clearly forbidding clothing that is remotely similar to the other gender's. Yes there must be some distinction and it should not be possible to confuse someone for the opposite gender by the way they are dressed. This can be done with women in pants.

The ultimate point of this thread is there are no other passages in Scripture apparently that would demand that garments be radically different for each gender. At least none have really been put forward.

And why limit this to skirts and pants? If this is wrong then it is wrong for men and women to wear any clothes that are similar. Can a woman wear a t-shirt, a button down shirt?

The bottom line is trousers are no longer exclusively masculine attire, and that has been so for many decades now, so they are no longer forbidden for women as long as she is not trying to actually present herself as a man.

I know we won't agree on this, but I appreciate all the information you have presented.

[Tithesmeister]

No, this does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIlq85dL0C4&ab_channel=TheDailySignal

Well, I watched the whole video. I’d just like to say. Don’t all of you remember those occasions where girls transitioned to boys and were dominating the boys sporting events? Remember?





Yeah, me neither!

[Costeon]

My conclusion regarding Deut 22.5 is that there is no clear scriptural support to say that this verse is forbidding anything but transvestism or cross-dressing to pass oneself off as someone of the opposite gender. I think, in contrast, it is fare to say that there is no clear scriptural support to say Deut 22.5 only means this. The point: this verse is ambiguous, as stated in the first post. I was really hoping someone could bring up other passages that could clarify the issue, but it appears that there aren't any other verses, which seems odd if indeed the issue is so important. It seems to me that one lone ambiguous passage is inadequate to demand that women never wear trousers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I am sympathetic with many of the things you have expressed. I don't, however, think the average person is going to be persuaded. Women whom I know who wear pants aren't trying to be men or rule over their husbands. Nothing could be said to them to convince them that they are the pawns in a great struggle to overthrow traditional morality.

As per usual Costeon is no longer holding a discussion with the poster he is quoting (me :))

If anyone is interested I brought up that it is a symbol of authority and masculinity. Whether Costeon's girlfriends are pious Sadhu with begging bowls, the pants they have on are symbols of masculinity.


A problem in the quote above is that you're implying women in dresses wasn't the norm before 1000 AD. The point is this: if it is ever conceded that fashions ever changed then there is no justification to fix a particular era as the norm going forward.

Here Costeon brings in an assumption of what I believe. Doesn't ask for any clarification. Little reminiscent of ZOGhasfallen :heeheehee

But women in all points of history looked like women, the καταστολή is what Paul describes the female garment to look like 1 Timothy 2:9. The Greek word καταστολή is still used in modern Greek.



Non-Pentecostals with whom I have discussed Deut 22:5 (and perhaps weren't even aware before of the verse)

If they are clueless about the verse, wouldn't they therefore be clueless about its meaning? I mean who cares what the rank and file Bible dabbler thinks about any verse? :lol







universally have thought it was forbidding crossdressing/transvestitism. That is, it is forbidding the practice of someone trying to pass themselves off as a member of the other gender. That's what I thought when I first read it. Most people are likely going to feel repulsed by this behavior and would naturally understand that Deut 22:5 says it is an abomination to God. The problem is that there is just not enough information to know exactly what is being forbidden. At any rate it is not clearly forbidding clothing that is remotely similar to the other gender's. Yes there must be some distinction and it should not be possible to confuse someone for the opposite gender by the way they are dressed. This can be done with women in pants.

People really do need a Bible that has a do and do not list on every page. But, Deuteronomy 22:5 is internal, and external. She wears the pants in the family, weren't just about pants or trousers. It was about the whole female authority over men. Rosie the Riveter strong like bull, and smart like tractor, issues in this country. Where female leadership, all the way up to the presidency is a possible thing. Let's face it, we are in decline and most churches can't crawl out of the cultural tar pit.



The ultimate point of this thread is there are no other passages in Scripture apparently that would demand that garments be radically different for each gender. At least none have really been put forward.

And why limit this to skirts and pants? If this is wrong then it is wrong for men and women to wear any clothes that are similar. Can a woman wear a t-shirt, a button down shirt?

I Timothy 2:9 tells us what the Apostle Paul was looking for in a woman's clothing. But also emphasizes her behavior as in I Peter 3:1-4. You are living in a world where you are at its twilight, there are so many voices which will tell you exactly what you want to hear.



The bottom line is trousers are no longer exclusively masculine attire, and that has been so for many decades now, so they are no longer forbidden for women as long as she is not trying to actually present herself as a man.

Bottom line homosexualityy is no longer forbidden in this country. Matter of fact men can marry men, and women can marry women. High schools must allow transgender students to compete in any sport. Frog in the kettle buddy boy, just plain old frog in the kettle. Pants on women are masculine, everyone knows this especially sinners, but sinners are usually smarter than Christians because they have nothing to hide.


I know we won't agree on this, but I appreciate all the information you have presented.

Yeah, sure.

[Evang.Benincasa]

My conclusion regarding Deut 22.5 is that there is no clear scriptural support to say that this verse is forbidding anything but transvestism or cross-dressing to pass oneself off as someone of the opposite gender.

So, a woman in the police force, the military, carpentry, plumber, riveter, fireman, truck driver, ride a motorcycle, all would be prohibited. Because both have to wear armor, tools, weapons, guy stuff. Deuteronomy is pretty much nailing all that down. Also for all of you who teach that Debra was some sort of warrior women in Judges sticks that on its ear. Come to think of it there was another woman in Judges who was fighting in war, and killed Abimelech by throwing a boulder on his head. This is recorded to show the shameful death he died at the hand of a women. Transvestites isn't what the scripture is implying, it is all about the inward coming out on the outward. While some people would like to make everything dos and don'ts it is a little deeper than that. Hence the reason they join religions that are box churches.
Fast food meets fast church. Within the mind sins are hatched, men look ata women with lustful intent, and a women is masculine on the inside before she ever met Wrangler the one tough customer.



I think, in contrast, it is fare to say that there is no clear scriptural support to say Deut 22.5 only means this. The point: this verse is ambiguous, as stated in the first post. I was really hoping someone could bring up other passages that could clarify the issue, but it appears that there aren't any other verses, which seems odd if indeed the issue is so important. It seems to me that one lone ambiguous passage is inadequate to demand that women never wear trousers.

Ambiguous to you, and the websites you have searched. Paul brings up the attire of women, and so does Peter. But transvestites weren't an issue for them? Homosexuality and Lesbianism was for Paul, therefore he brought it up in Romans 1:26-27. Yet, not one word about transvestites in the New Testament. Yet, we are told how a godly women should look.

Costeon now I know why you are on Esaias' ignore list, :laffatu

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well, I watched the whole video. I’d just like to say. Don’t all of you remember those occasions where girls transitioned to boys and were dominating the boys sporting events? Remember?





Yeah, me neither!

That is crazy stuff. I didn't watch it when it was first sent to me. I pretty much ignored the whole issue. I told myself there is NO WAY that parents will accept any of this. But it has been legislated against them. The axe is being sharpened and it will fall sure enough. I heard there is even a transgender MMA fighter. A guy beating the snot out of female fighters?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Dresses are not mentioned in Deut. 22:5.

Then never tell a heterosexxual boy he can't wear one Scott.

Harry Morse wants to know who are you? :laffatu

[Costeon]

As per usual Costeon is no longer holding a discussion with the poster he is quoting (me :))

If anyone is interested I brought up that it is a symbol of authority and masculinity. Whether Costeon's girlfriends are pious Sadhu with begging bowls, the pants they have on are symbols of masculinity.



Here Costeon brings in an assumption of what I believe. Doesn't ask for any clarification. Little reminiscent of ZOGhasfallen :heeheehee

But women in all points of history looked like women, the καταστολή is what Paul describes the female garment to look like 1 Timothy 2:9. The Greek word καταστολή is still used in modern Greek.



If they are clueless about the verse, wouldn't they therefore be clueless about its meaning? I mean who cares what the rank and file Bible dabbler thinks about any verse? :lol







People really do need a Bible that has a do and do not list on every page. But, Deuteronomy 22:5 is internal, and external. She wears the pants in the family, weren't just about pants or trousers. It was about the whole female authority over men. Rosie the Riveter strong like bull, and smart like tractor, issues in this country. Where female leadership, all the way up to the presidency is a possible thing. Let's face it, we are in decline and most churches can't crawl out of the cultural tar pit.



I Timothy 2:9 tells us what the Apostle Paul was looking for in a woman's clothing. But also emphasizes her behavior as in I Peter 3:1-4. You are living in a world where you are at its twilight, there are so many voices which will tell you exactly what you want to hear.



Bottom line homosexualityy is no longer forbidden in this country. Matter of fact men can marry men, and women can marry women. High schools must allow transgender students to compete in any sport. Frog in the kettle buddy boy, just plain old frog in the kettle. Pants on women are masculine, everyone knows this especially sinners, but sinners are usually smarter than Christians because they have nothing to hide.



Yeah, sure.

I think one of the difficulties with my discussions with you is that so often I really don't know what you're talking about. You mention weird things things like girlfriends with begging bowels. It's like you start raving and I can't follow you. I want to be able to because I think you often offer good arguments.

You said it wasn't till 1000 AD when dresses came in. That means, based on what you wrote, that they hadn't before then. Women have not always worn katastole. It was the garment in that culture at the point when Paul wrote, hence him mentioning it and not, say, Persian women's trousers.

Masculine men have worn skirted garments: Romans, Greeks, Scots, etc. Pants are not essentially masculine. That's only your assumption. Women can also look feminine is pants.

When intelligent people read Deut 22.5 for the first time it is not unreasonable that they would read it as referring to cross-dressing, especially since there are no other details in the surrounding text to suggest this is not what is meant.

"You are living in a world where you are at its twilight, there are so many voices which will tell you exactly what you want to hear." Not sure what that means; is it referring to me?

Unfortunately for your position, you just don't have the Scripture to demand that men's and women's garments be radically different. There needs to be a distinction, but only to the extent that someone would not be confused for the other gender.

"Pants on women are masculine, everyone knows this especially sinners, but sinners are usually smarter than Christians because they have nothing to hide."

As you had written, "Yeah sure."

If you and others who held your position had a stronger argument than one based on one ambiguous passage, more Christians would pay attention.

[Costeon]

So, a woman in the police force, the military, carpentry, plumber, riveter, fireman, truck driver, ride a motorcycle, all would be prohibited. Because both have to wear armor, tools, weapons, guy stuff. Deuteronomy is pretty much nailing all that down. Also for all of you who teach that Debra was some sort of warrior women in Judges sticks that on its ear. Come to think of it there was another woman in Judges who was fighting in war, and killed Abimelech by throwing a boulder on his head. This is recorded to show the shameful death he died at the hand of a women. Transvestites isn't what the scripture is implying, it is all about the inward coming out on the outward. While some people would like to make everything dos and don'ts it is a little deeper than that. Hence the reason they join religions that are box churches.
Fast food meets fast church. Within the mind sins are hatched, men look ata women with lustful intent, and a women is masculine on the inside before she ever met Wrangler the one tough customer.




Ambiguous to you, and the websites you have searched. Paul brings up the attire of women, and so does Peter. But transvestites weren't an issue for them? Homosexuality and Lesbianism was for Paul, therefore he brought it up in Romans 1:26-27. Yet, not one word about transvestites in the New Testament. Yet, we are told how a godly women should look.

Costeon now I know why you are on Esaias' ignore list, :laffatu

Calm down. You're raving. You get in your angry prophet mode and start denouncing and ridiculing people, but you don't make any sense.

I haven't consulted any websites. I've just read several commentaries about Deut 22.5 and have looked at a concordance.

I am devastated about what you have revealed about Esaias. I happily invite you to do the same.

[derAlte]

Regarding whether Old Testament principles have any relevance to us today, when I come to church and raise my hands and begin worshiping my God, He always responds and I feel His Presence. I never want to forget that this Divine Presence Who graciously allows me to be in fellowship with Him, is the same Being who spoke to Moses in the Bronze Age. God does not change. Cultures change but the principles that He spoke to ancient men have not and will not as they are forever settled in heaven. In the fear of God, we had not better allow ourselves to ignore what He has revealed to man in centuries past just because our women don't want to take any heat for standing up for current culturally outmoded customs. When Deuteronomy uses the Hebrew word To'evah which is the strongest word translated "abomination" in the King James Version, if we truly care what God thinks, we should take note and seek His face on how we should interpret it in our lives. Even if every woman from Hillary Clinton on down says its OK for women to wear pants, if He with Whom we have to do doesn't like it, His opinion supersedes anyone else's as far as I am concerned. Anybody bothered to ask Him what He thinks?

[Scott Pitta]

Some of the dietary laws were called abominations. Should we keep all the rules described as abominations ? Why keep one and ignore the others ?

[rdp]

Scott, let me explain something to you. Western Culture didn't pop out of the head of Zeus. It was formulated by the Bible, as impossible for you to believe that, it was. Because it was Christianity in whatever form was available to them is how their culture formed. Looking at any history of fashion from 1000 A.D. to 1940s we have women in dresses. Deuteronomy 22:5 says exactly what it means men don't dress in female attire, and women don't dress in masculine attire. Oh, while you are at it, don't place a railing around an occupied flat roof, and see if OSHA agrees with Moses.

*All very true, but, of course, you’ll likely have more luck baptizing Hillary in Jesus’ Name than you would getting most on here to actually believe what God’s Word says. You know, any verse they don’t like they default to their favorite mantra: “Well, since this verse is ‘ambiguous’ and ‘vague’—we need another one” :heeheehee—(oh, and there ARE other verses teaching that women in the OT did not wear pants, while men did).

*I am sooo tempted to lay aside some time and go at it w. them (I have entire word documents on this topic, replete w. lexical quotes, etc.)—but time is something I DEFINITELY have very little of right now. I do periodically read on here late at night just to relax my mind a bit.

*A quick true story and I’m probably done on this thread (I honesty just don’t have time to devote to it right now...as bad as I want to). I was teaching a Bible lesson on the principles of separation one night in a Home Missions church we were attempting to start. I was not making applications, just wanted to get some new comers accustomed to the concept of sanctification. We did read Scriptures together, but I left it at that. One passage we read was Deuteronomy 22.5. Nothing was said about pants on women—we just read the passage.

*After church my phone rang and it was a lady who had visited a few times on the other end. She immediately apologized to me for wearing pants to church and said, “I didn’t know that was in the Bible!” Hmmm, so much for the idea that “no one would read that passage and consider pants on women” :thumbsup. Oh, my wife was the only other lady there that night so it’s not like she was surrounded by women in dresses (again, this was a HM church). Amazing what God can do w. an honest heart that trembles at His Holy Word.

*Sooo much more I could say. I’m still taking Hebrew so this is right up my alley right now...just can’t devote the time right now (which will undoubtedly depress many on AFF :heeheehee!). Always enjoy reading your posts. God bless.

[Pressing-On]

True to form the Blue Man shows up to drop his insults while patting himself on the back - I am so much more intellectual! I have loads of documents replete, nonetheless, with lexical quotes!!

Alas, and DRAT, the ONLY time I can spend, while being a Hebrew scholar, loaded up with lexical quotes is to periodically pop in to “relax my mind” by reading and insulting people.

Again, don’t forget I have loads of lexical stuff and I am still studying Hebrew! :heeheehee :heeheehee

[Costeon]

Some of the dietary laws were called abominations. Should we keep all the rules described as abominations ? Why keep one and ignore the others ?

I have mentioned a few times that what distinguishes this abomination verse from others is that it is specifically called an "abomination to the Lord your God," whereas, with the dietary laws, they are said to be an "abomination to you," i.e., the Israelites. In short, the former involves a moral issue that transcends a particular covenant while the latter was specifically a part of the Old Covenant that applied only to Israel.

Are you aware of any "abominations to the Lord your God" that don't involve an issue of morality or devotion to the one God?

[Pressing-On]

I am sympathetic with many of the things you have expressed. I don't, however, think the average person is going to be persuaded. Women whom I know who wear pants aren't trying to be men or rule over their husbands. Nothing could be said to them to convince them that they are the pawns in a great struggle to overthrow traditional morality.

A problem in the quote above is that you're implying women in dresses wasn't the norm before 1000 AD. The point is this: if it is ever conceded that fashions ever changed then there is no justification to fix a particular era as the norm going forward.

Non-Pentecostals with whom I have discussed Deut 22:5 (and perhaps weren't even aware before of the verse) universally have thought it was forbidding crossdressing/transvestitism. That is, it is forbidding the practice of someone trying to pass themselves off as a member of the other gender. That's what I thought when I first read it. Most people are likely going to feel repulsed by this behavior and would naturally understand that Deut 22:5 says it is an abomination to God. The problem is that there is just not enough information to know exactly what is being forbidden. At any rate it is not clearly forbidding clothing that is remotely similar to the other gender's. Yes there must be some distinction and it should not be possible to confuse someone for the opposite gender by the way they are dressed. This can be done with women in pants.

The ultimate point of this thread is there are no other passages in Scripture apparently that would demand that garments be radically different for each gender. At least none have really been put forward.

And why limit this to skirts and pants? If this is wrong then it is wrong for men and women to wear any clothes that are similar. Can a woman wear a t-shirt, a button down shirt?

The bottom line is trousers are no longer exclusively masculine attire, and that has been so for many decades now, so they are no longer forbidden for women as long as she is not trying to actually present herself as a man.

I know we won't agree on this, but I appreciate all the information you have presented.

I’d like to point out that I fully understand that you are not discussing this issue for any other reason than to try and receive Biblical clarification on the subject. I see you having no other motive.

Your post seems to explain why the particular definition for “wear” was used in that passage.

I am remembering a response I received from a Hebrew and Greek forum Administrator discussing the issue. I will try to post that response later today or tomorrow. I had forgotten about it until now.

[loran adkins]

Although I was raised being taught that pants were men's apparel, It was ok for a women to wear suit coats, ties, T shirts and a panty hose, and underwear. When we speak about men's clothing why do we only speak about pants?

There is no scripture in the whole bible that talks about pants period. It mentions breeches (shorts) that were worn under the priest robes for modesty purposes but long pants are nowhere spoken about in all of scripture.
And it has only been in the last couple hundred years that it has been even spoken about in a negative way by a small group of people namely ultra conservative churches.

All these misinterpreted scriptures are no different than the religious leaders of the century leading up to Christ, that had made a whole book up of rules that were outside the verse of scripture. Just to make sure they did not do anything that God did not approve of.

[Costeon]

Regarding whether Old Testament principles have any relevance to us today, when I come to church and raise my hands and begin worshiping my God, He always responds and I feel His Presence. I never want to forget that this Divine Presence Who graciously allows me to be in fellowship with Him, is the same Being who spoke to Moses in the Bronze Age. God does not change. Cultures change but the principles that He spoke to ancient men have not and will not as they are forever settled in heaven. In the fear of God, we had not better allow ourselves to ignore what He has revealed to man in centuries past just because our women don't want to take any heat for standing up for current culturally outmoded customs. When Deuteronomy uses the Hebrew word To'evah which is the strongest word translated "abomination" in the King James Version, if we truly care what God thinks, we should take note and seek His face on how we should interpret it in our lives. Even if every woman from Hillary Clinton on down says its OK for women to wear pants, if He with Whom we have to do doesn't like it, His opinion supersedes anyone else's as far as I am concerned. Anybody bothered to ask Him what He thinks?

I appreciate the sentiments expressed here, but if I were say, "Yes, for many years I have prayed to the Lord regarding holiness standards that I would never compromise on what He regarded as true and would never burden people with what He regarded as untrue, and that in the end, through prayer and study, I came to believe that banning women wearing trousers was not true, nobody holding the opposite opinion is going to believe I've heard from God and say, "Oh, well in that case, I respect your point of view."

[Costeon]

*All very true, but, of course, you’ll likely have more luck baptizing Hillary in Jesus’ Name than you would getting most on here to actually believe what God’s Word says. You know, any verse they don’t like they default to their favorite mantra: “Well, since this verse is ‘ambiguous’ and ‘vague’—we need another one” :heeheehee—(oh, and there ARE other verses teaching that women in the OT did not wear pants, while men did).

*I am sooo tempted to lay aside some time and go at it w. them (I have entire word documents on this topic, replete w. lexical quotes, etc.)—but time is something I DEFINITELY have very little of right now. I do periodically read on here late at night just to relax my mind a bit.

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

[/QUOTE]

[Costeon]

Although I was raised being taught that pants were men's apparel, It was ok for a women to wear suit coats, ties, T shirts and a panty hose, and underwear. When we speak about men's clothing why do we only speak about pants?

This is a good point. Yes, why fixate on pants? I have never understood why it has not been demanded that women could not wear anything that was similar to a man's, say, a t-shirt for example.

[Costeon]

I’d like to point out that I fully understand that you are not discussing this issue for any other reason than to try and receive Biblical clarification on the subject. I see you having no other motive.

Your post seems to explain why the particular definition for “wear” was used in that passage.

I am remembering a response I received from a Hebrew and Greek forum Administrator discussing the issue. I will try to post that response later today or tomorrow. I had forgotten about it until now.

Thanks for the kind words. Sometimes I forget that other people are reading these exchanges and, if not necessarily agreeing with me, they might not be agreeing with how I and my views are being characterized by those who disagree with me.

I would be interested to read that admin's response.

[derAlte]

Some of the dietary laws were called abominations. Should we keep all the rules described as abominations ? Why keep one and ignore the others ?

These are really good questions to ask. I was curious about the same things a few years ago and did some digging in my Strong's Concordance.

I discovered that the Jacobean divines back in 1611 let me down! The King James Version translators used the word "abomination" for SIX different Hebrew words in the Old Testament, which obscures a more nuanced understanding of what God was trying to get across to humanity.

I'm sure others on this forum could do a better and more definitive job sorting this out, but here's what I came up with:


I. Ta’ab- a primitive root; to loathe, i.e. (morally) detest:

Job 15:16
16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

1 Chronicles 21:6
6 But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.

This word is used only in reference to loathsome actions of men. Never in reference to the sins themselves. Translated ABOMINABLE in only 3 places.

II. Za’am- a primitive root; properly, to foam at the mouth, i.e. to be enraged:

Micah 6:10
10 Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable?

Micah 6:10
10 Am I still to forget, O wicked house, your ill-gotten treasures and the short ephah, which is accursed? (NIV)

This is the only use of this word in this context...It has reference to an abomination described later.

III. Ba'ash- a primitive root; to smell bad; figuratively, to be offensive morally:

1 Samuel 13:4
4 And all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten a garrison of the Philistines, and that Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines. And the people were called together after Saul to Gilgal.

This is the ONLY time this is used. It has nothing to do with the Laws of God.

THERE ARE THREE MAIN WORDS TRANSLATED AS ABOMINATION OR ABOMINABLE in regards to the law. THEIR CONTEXTS ARE DIFFERENT.

IV. Pigguwl - from an unused root meaning to stink; properly, fetid, i.e. (figuratively) unclean (ceremonially):

Leviticus 7:18
18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

Ezekiel 4:14
14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

Every time this word is used, it refers to offerings that were commanded to be eaten within two days. They were abominable on the third day. Notice the connotation of decay.

V. Shaqats; a primitive root; to be filthy, i.e. (intensively) to loathe, pollute: Sheqets; filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically) an idolatrous object:

See Leviticus 11:1-47

These words are used to denote ceremonially unclean things and also idolatry. The unclean animals are described using this word.

II Kings 23:13
13 And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.

The first two idols are referred to as “shiqquwts”. The last is referred to by our last word. Its worship was worse than the first two.

VI. Tow’ebah; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:

The pattern of words appears to me that those abominations that use this
word are those eternal principles and acts that God will always consider abominable.

THE WORD FIRST APPEARS AS AN ATTITUDE THE EGYPTIANS HAD TOWARDS SHEPHERDS.

Genesis 43:32
32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.

Genesis 46:34
34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.

Exodus 8:26
26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?

Could this be referring to Egyptian attitudes to the Hyksos? Perhaps the last Scripture refers to Apis worship?

BUT WHEN GOD FEELS THIS WAY ABOUT THINGS...WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION! Since He doesn't change, HE STILL FEELS THE SAME WAY!

Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Ezekiel 22:11
11 And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter.


Ezekiel’s use of the word seems to imply that everything in Chapter 18 of Leviticus is abomination!

SOME OTHER PRINCIPLES THAT ARE STILL ABOMINATION (Tow'ebah)

A. IDOLATRY

Deuteronomy 7:25-26
25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

B. SACRIFICING YOUR CHILDREN IN THE FIRE

Deuteronomy 12:31
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

C. BLEMISHED OR ILL-FAVORED SACRIFICE

Deuteronomy 17:1
1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

D. WITCHCRAFT

Deuteronomy 18:9-12
9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there.
10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. (NIV)

E. CROSS-DRESSING

Deuteronomy 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

F. OFFERINGS FROM ILL-GOTTEN PROFITS

Deuteronomy 23:17-18
17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

G. FALSE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Deuteronomy 25:13-16
13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

H. A FEW MORE...

Proverbs 6:16-19
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Proverbs 16:5
5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Proverbs 17:15
15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

I think the key is being able to distinguish between the ceremonial law, which we as Christians are not under, and the eternal moral law, which has never been superseded.

How to apply these ancient principles while living in the modern Gentile culture is the rub. Hence this thread...

[derAlte]

I appreciate the sentiments expressed here, but if I were say, "Yes, for many years I have prayed to the Lord regarding holiness standards that I would never compromise on what He regarded as true and would never burden people with what He regarded as untrue, and that in the end, through prayer and study, I came to believe that banning women wearing trousers was not true, nobody holding the opposite opinion is going to believe I've heard from God and say, "Oh, well in that case, I respect your point of view."

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

[Evang.Benincasa]

I think one of the difficulties with my discussions with you is that so often I really don't know what you're talking about. You mention weird things things like girlfriends with begging bowels. It's like you start raving and I can't follow you. I want to be able to because I think you often offer good arguments.

Costeon, you are thin skinned. One of the difficulties is that I think you are a baiter. In my own humble opinion is that you look at the whole Christian thing on a philosophical level. It was when we were in the "no sin" thread you would run from clear scripture. He who sins is of the devil. Pretty clear. Deuteronomy 22:5 men don't wear women's clothes, women don't wear. I Timothy 2:9 I would like for women to wear modest and sensible clothes. They should not have fancy hairdos, or wear expensive clothes, or put on jewelry made of gold or pearls. Pretty clear, and if you throw in the gifs, nnd excellent video concerning Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empire you may of understood a little more of what I was attempting to do here. But, I had already understood that you are a baiter, and are already solidified in what you believe, so rational discussion isn't really what you are looking for.
Scripture that is crystal clear just gets in the way, Deuteronomy 22:5, is in the same Old Testament (Hebrew Bible solely used by Jesus and the Apostles, sorry no KJV NT yet) as Leviticus 18:8-18. With all the whining about Deuteronomy 22:5 being Old Testament what do you do with incest? Ezekiel 22:10-11 has the prophet pointing towards a time when Israel is religiously declining and showing that sexual sins were on the rise. Same as now, and hence I offered logical outcomes of our gender blender Christian culture, and those who have accepted it who move towards washing the clear scripture away for themselves and neophytes. 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. :lol


You said it wasn't till 1000 AD when dresses came in. That means, based on what you wrote, that they hadn't before then.

Honestly why didn't you ask for clarification? You see, this is why so many of these discussions go sideways. This why people go on the defense, and we end up discussing each other's motives. If you truthfully wanted a discussion they wha=y looking to entrap anyone? Why not just ask for clarification? We are discussing the Bible, do you think I really believe that the Apostle Paul was writing in 100 A.D.? Or wasn't I speaking of Western Europeans?


Women have not always worn katastole. It was the garment in that culture at the point when Paul wrote, hence him mentioning it and not, say, Persian women's trousers.

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

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


Masculine men have worn skirted garments: Romans, Greeks, Scots, etc.

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




Pants are not essentially masculine.

Not essentially or not? What you are saying above means they are not totally masculine anymore in the culture which is your worldview. Yet, you are in a religion which follow manuscripts that are thousands of years old. Written to a people thousands of years ago. Jesus came at the decline of the Judean people and their world. Where Gentile rule had swallowed up their culture for hundreds of years. language, customs, religion, commerce, values all influenced by the Gentile occupations. Moses taught Deuteronomy 22:5 not just to those in the wilderness, but it was sitting in front of Romans and Greek neophytes in the Greek language. Their take away was that women were to be covered down to the floor in a long dress. Paul then follows that with I Timothy 2:9 ωσαυτως και τας γυναικας εν καταστολη κοσμιω μετα αιδους και σωφροσυνης κοσμειν εαυτας μη εν πλεγμασιν η χρυσω η μαργαριταις η ιματισμω πολυτελει


That's only your assumption.

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



Women can also look feminine is pants.

So can men :laffatu





When intelligent people read Deut 22.5 for the first time it is not unreasonable that they would read it as referring to cross-dressing, especially since there are no other details in the surrounding text to suggest this is not what is meant.

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

Anyway, your so called "intelligent people" are as fake as Christopher Robbins' imaginary friends. Which means they are only real to you. We don't know who they are, and we are unable to question them ourselves. You could also get their opinions mixed with your own when you relay to us what these "intelligent people" really believe. Also as we see here, my experience with "intelligent people" may be totally different from your own. My take away may be completely different. Your's could be totally wrong about what these "intelligent people" really said about Deuteronomy 22:5.

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


"You are living in a world where you are at its twilight, there are so many voices which will tell you exactly what you want to hear." Not sure what that means; is it referring to me?

How old are you?


Unfortunately for your position, you just don't have the Scripture to demand that men's and women's garments be radically different. There needs to be a distinction, but only to the extent that someone would not be confused for the other gender.

"Pants on women are masculine, everyone knows this especially sinners, but sinners are usually smarter than Christians because they have nothing to hide."

As you had written, "Yeah sure."

If you and others who held your position had a stronger argument than one based on one ambiguous passage, more Christians would pay attention.

The scripture is ambiguous to know one but you. There are none so blind who WILL not see. Sinners do understand the verse, just like I did before I ever set a foot in a holiness apostolic church. Long hair on man is a shame? Wasn't ancient hieroglyphics to me, and neither was Deuteronomy 22:5.

Costeon, you are a baiter, you no more what to find truth of the matter then Rupaul wants to join the 2020 Arnold Classic. :laffatu

[rdp]

True to form the Blue Man shows up to drop his insults while patting himself on the back - I am so much more intellectual! I have loads of documents replete, nonetheless, with lexical quotes!!

Alas, and DRAT, the ONLY time I can spend, while being a Hebrew scholar, loaded up with lexical quotes is to periodically pop in to “relax my mind” by reading and insulting people.

Again, don’t forget I have loads of lexical stuff and I am still studying Hebrew! :heeheehee :heeheehee

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

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

[Evang.Benincasa]

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

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


Cause I'm here :lol

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

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

[Costeon]

Costeon, you are thin skinned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly why didn't you ask for clarification?

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


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

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

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

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

Irrelevant.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The scripture is ambiguous to know one but you. .

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

Costeon, you are a baiter

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

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

Sigh. Another failed attempt at humor.

[Costeon]

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

Well said and wise.

[rdp]

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rdp]

Cause I'm here :lol

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

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

*I was merely quoting Queen Bee’s earth-shattering argument regarding the verb הָיָה. She keeps asking—and, of course, claiming that no one has “answered” her (sigh)—what the verb “wear” means in Deut. 22.5:heeheehee.

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

*I should have made that clearer :nod.

[Esaias]

What about this?

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

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

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

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

https://www.teefetch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Life-Cover-1942-first-words-printed-on-a-shirt.jpg

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

[Esaias]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://bellatory.com/fashion-industry/A-History-of-Trousers-and-Pants-in-Western-Culture

[Esaias]

Where'd everybody go?

[Costeon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rdp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Where'd everybody go?

To bed. ;)

Good information you posted on underwear. :)

[JoeBandy]

How can anyone deny Duet. 22:5 is part of the Mosaic Law? How can they pick one scripture and take it out of context? An abomination to the Lord our God? OK... why was it worded that way? God created man and woman , 2 genders. So the abomination was to God because the male/female was trying to change what God created. This law was a little deeper than an outward garment. Now lets look at the words, woman, weareth ,pertaineth and man. What does the original text say and mean? If we are to make it simply about outward clothing (pants vs skirts) why is only the bottom half of the body in question (blouses , bras, t shirts ,neck wear etc etc)? Next.. the bifurcated garment. This comes from the biblical term "gird up thy loins". If girding up loins was only meant for males why does several scriptures end that phrase with "like a man"? If it was written as a commandment only to men why end the command with "like a man'? The house of Israel was instructed aleast once to gird up thy loins, I know during the Passover. This was an instruction to both males and females at that time. So if we were to simply read the scriptures as it is written there is no way that the act of girding up loins was a gender related sin.

[JoeBandy]

Whats even more Biblically astounding is the " no pants on women" church take Deut 22: 5 and make it a Heaven/Hell issue and 90% of the females sitting on those pews are in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9 !!??

[Apostolic1ness]

Whats even more Biblically astounding is the " no pants on women" church take Deut 22: 5 and make it a Heaven/Hell issue and 90% of the females sitting on those pews are in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9 !!??

Please explain what you mean by "90% of the females sitting on those pews are in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9".

It sounds like your saying most women that go to churches that still teach that its wrong for women to ware pants are in violation of 1tim2:9.

90% where do you get that number from?

[JoeBandy]

Please explain what you mean by "90% of the females sitting on those pews are in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9".

It sounds like your saying most women that go to churches that still teach that its wrong for women to ware pants are in violation of 1tim2:9.

90% where do you get that number from?

Study that scripture then go survey the females in said churches!! And lets not even start with verse 11....

[Apostolic1ness]

Study that scripture then go survey the females in said churches!! And lets not even start with verse 11....

Not sure I follow you on the comparison of 1 Tim 2:9 with Duet 22:5.
Do you think its OK with God if women ware men's clothes or men to ware women's clothes? Who wares the Pants in your family?

[coksiw]

How can anyone deny Duet. 22:5 is part of the Mosaic Law? How can they pick one scripture and take it out of context? An abomination to the Lord our God? OK... why was it worded that way? God created man and woman , 2 genders. So the abomination was to God because the male/female was trying to change what God created. This law was a little deeper than an outward garment. Now lets look at the words, woman, weareth ,pertaineth and man. What does the original text say and mean? If we are to make it simply about outward clothing (pants vs skirts) why is only the bottom half of the body in question (blouses , bras, t shirts ,neck wear etc etc)? Next.. the bifurcated garment. This comes from the biblical term "gird up thy loins". If girding up loins was only meant for males why does several scriptures end that phrase with "like a man"? If it was written as a commandment only to men why end the command with "like a man'? The house of Israel was instructed aleast once to gird up thy loins, I know during the Passover. This was an instruction to both males and females at that time. So if we were to simply read the scriptures as it is written there is no way that the act of girding up loins was a gender related sin.

Do you have any reference of the difference between woman girding and man girding?
What I know is that the men would do it in between their legs making it effectively like shorts. And they would do that for battle or hard work, something very typical of manhood back in those days.
Maybe women used to do it in a different way. What I have seen before (don’t recall where or when) is the woman picking up her dress to the side (not between her legs). Also, beware that the audience of the scripture, especially the Old Testament is man, so the text is addressed to man for themselves or for them to teach to their household.

Regarding the topic in discussion, the way I see it is that we are to dress under the principle of gender distinction and modesty.
Do pants for women conform to gender distinction? There is an argument that there are woman pants, ... maybe a valid point. I still don’t buy it but let’s get to the next point.
Do they conform to modesty? Definitely no, the fact that we are used to see them in women nowadays doesn’t make it modest for a woman to show her lower body shapes; and they know it. Most women that wear pants wear them very tight. Ask a non-Christian woman what looks more modest: tight pants or a long skirt.

[n david]

Not sure I follow you on the comparison of 1 Tim 2:9 with Duet 22:5.
Do you think its OK with God if women ware men's clothes or men to ware women's clothes? Who wares the Pants in your family?

*wear ... *wear ... *wears

Sorry, but man.

[JoeBandy]

Do you have any reference of the difference between woman girding and man girding?
What I know is that the men would do it in between their legs making it effectively like shorts. And they would do that for battle or hard work, something very typical of manhood back in those days.
Maybe women used to do it in a different way. What I have seen before (don’t recall where or when) is the woman picking up her dress to the side (not between her legs). Also, beware that the audience of the scripture, especially the Old Testament is man, so the text is addressed to man for themselves or for them to teach to their household.

Regarding the topic in discussion, the way I see it is that we are to dress under the principle of gender distinction and modesty.
Do pants for women conform to gender distinction? There is an argument that there are woman pants, ... maybe a valid point. I still don’t buy it but let’s get to the next point.
Do they conform to modesty? Definitely no, the fact that we are used to see them in women nowadays doesn’t make it modest for a woman to show her lower body shapes; and they know it. Most women that wear pants wear them very tight. Ask a non-Christian woman what looks more modest: tight pants or a long skirt.

The scripture says "gird up your loins like a man" …. Now you made a statement that I believe is the whole bowl of wax. "Between her legs"!! Please tell me the difference between a female lower body shape and a males lower body shape in regard to modesty??

[n david]

Please explain what you mean by "90% of the females sitting on those pews are in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9".

It sounds like your saying most women that go to churches that still teach that its wrong for women to ware pants are in violation of 1tim2:9.

90% where do you get that number from?

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"

Modest apparel:
I've seen a lot of skirts/blouses and dresses which weren't modest apparel. But it's okay because they're not wearing pants. I briefly attended a church where the pastor would hammer on standards and his wife taught regular classes on the Jezebel spirit, dealing with dress standards and makeup. But both his teenage daughters dressed like harlots, wearing tight cleavage baring dresses they could barely walk in and 6 in "hooker heels" (their words). Neither one is in church today.

Shamefacedness and sobriety:
Females these days are much more bold and very few are shy or bashful or blush at even the most suggestive comments.

Broided hair:
Have you seen the hairstyles these days? Vine's defines the word as braided and quotes the Vulgate definition as "ringlets, curls." It also speaks of intertwining the hair in an ornament. I haven't been to a conference or convention in years, but I used to attend every year and the most popular item for women at that time were the ornate chopsticks they entwined in their hair.

I'd say 90% is a pretty good estimate.

[Costeon]

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


I understand you not having the time, so I will try to make this brief and uncontroversial. :-) This is definitely an example where communicating via a forum rather than face-to-face can hinder communication because it cannot truly convey the attitude of the writer. In my mind, at any rate, I did not think what you wrote should be dismissed out of hand. I read your post with interest and concluded that you were definitely correct that these young men were wearing trousers. As I thought about it, it then struck me that this was in a Babylonian context.

You may not have time to read this, rdp, but for others who may be reading it, I will try to explain my thinking. The giving of the Law occurred sometime in the 1400s BC (can't remember a more specific date) to the Hebrews, and Daniel and the these three young men were in Babylon in the first part of the 500s BC. (The only specific date I can think of is when the Temple was destroyed in 586 BC.) So around 900 years separate these two, and one of the contexts is not Hebrew but Babylonian. So I personally couldn't confidently conclude that the Hebrew men to whom Deut 22.6 was given were wearing trousers when the example of wearing trousers involves Jews living in Babylon in the service of the Babylonian king. Hence me asking for an example that was in a purely Hebrew/Jewish context.

I wanted to explain this so people wouldn't think that I just dismissed your example out of hand with no thought given to it.

On another note, you mentioned you were studying/taking a class in Hebrew, would you mind sharing what textbook you're using?

God bless.

[JoeBandy]

Not sure I follow you on the comparison of 1 Tim 2:9 with Duet 22:5.
Do you think its OK with God if women ware men's clothes or men to ware women's clothes? Who wares the Pants in your family?

Ok the no pants crowd will take Duet 22:5 and make it "no pants on women" they say its clear as a bell as they take this one scripture completely out of context. The same crowd however, can not tell you with the same certainty what broided hair is, or costly array, or modest apparel!!

[Costeon]

Regarding the topic in discussion, the way I see it is that we are to dress under the principle of gender distinction and modesty.
Do pants for women conform to gender distinction? There is an argument that there are woman pants, ... maybe a valid point. I still don’t buy it but let’s get to the next point.
Do they conform to modesty? Definitely no, the fact that we are used to see them in women nowadays doesn’t make it modest for a woman to show her lower body shapes; and they know it. Most women that wear pants wear them very tight. Ask a non-Christian woman what looks more modest: tight pants or a long skirt.

I think you hit on the major issue: modesty. I agree that women often wear pants immodestly. I do not share your view that pants cannot ever be modest, but in general skirts are more modest (provided they are not tight, which they so often are). I had to attend a non-UPCI church on a particular occasion, and I appreciated the church's efforts to maintain modesty on the platform while still allowing pants: if women chose to wear pants they also had to wear something like a long cardigan sweater or longer shirt or jacket that covered their "lower body shapes."

[coksiw]

The scripture says "gird up your loins like a man" …. Now you made a statement that I believe is the whole bowl of wax. "Between her legs"!! Please tell me the difference between a female lower body shape and a males lower body shape in regard to modesty??

I just posted in this thread for the first time and you wrote to me with double exclamation and double interrogation marks. :throwrock

Regarding your question: Men are tempted by sight.
How old are you Joe? Are you a male or a female (cant tell if it is Joseph or Josephine)?

[Costeon]

Not sure I follow you on the comparison of 1 Tim 2:9 with Duet 22:5.
Do you think its OK with God if women ware men's clothes or men to ware women's clothes? Who wares the Pants in your family?

I understood him to mean that, though the women may be wearing skirts, 90% are not wearing them modestly, or they are wearing expensive clothes, or they are wearing elaborate hairstyles, etc., thus violating 1 Tim 2.9.

[Apostolic1ness]

*wear ... *wear ... *wears

Sorry, but man.

Oh..... sorry professor.

[Apostolic1ness]

Ok the no pants crowd will take Duet 22:5 and make it "no pants on women" they say its clear as a bell as they take this one scripture completely out of context. The same crowd however, can not tell you with the same certainty what broided hair is, or costly array, or modest apparel!!

If Duet 22:5 is not talking about wearing the opposite sex's clothes then what is it talking about?

[JoeBandy]

I just posted in this thread for the first time and you wrote to me with double exclamation and double interrogation marks. :throwrock

Regarding your question: Men are tempted by sight.
How old are you Joe? Are you a male or a female (cant tell if it is Joseph or Josephine)?

Geeez a little thin skinned are we? I am a 48 year old male! The old "men are tempted by sight" argument is null and void. Obviously you have never heard many of my generation and younger women talk. Not only are women extremely visual of men most are even more so toward other women!

[JoeBandy]

If Duet 22:5 is not talking about wearing the opposite sex's clothes then what is it talking about?

it about intent.….

[Apostolic1ness]

it about intent.….

Its a pretty simple command.

speaking of intent. Is it ok for a little boy to dress up like a girl for a joke or to go to a party or event? No intention on actually wanting to trick people into believing he was a girl just "innocent" little Joe dressing up in his sister's dress and blouse for the party. Is that against God's word in Deut 22:5?

[JoeBandy]

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. 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.

[JoeBandy]

Its a pretty simple command.

speaking of intent. Is it ok for a little boy to dress up like a girl for a joke or to go to a party or event? No intention on actually wanting to trick people into believing he was a girl just "innocent" little Joe dressing up in his sister's dress and blouse for the party. Is that against God's word in Deut 22:5?

You are goin off in left field..... I knew this was going to be the response to my comment from you and EB

[JoeBandy]

Its a pretty simple command.

speaking of intent. Is it ok for a little boy to dress up like a girl for a joke or to go to a party or event? No intention on actually wanting to trick people into believing he was a girl just "innocent" little Joe dressing up in his sister's dress and blouse for the party. Is that against God's word in Deut 22:5?

Secondly.. how do you take this one command and ignore the others in the same chapter and same book? Also , if this verse is so simple to you please expound on 1 Timothy 2:9 - 11

[navygoat1998]

Its a pretty simple command.

speaking of intent. Is it ok for a little boy to dress up like a girl for a joke or to go to a party or event? No intention on actually wanting to trick people into believing he was a girl just "innocent" little Joe dressing up in his sister's dress and blouse for the party. Is that against God's word in Deut 22:5?

Hey 1ness not a very Christ like response is it? Asking for a friend.

[Ehud]

...

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

...

This made my morning. :lol

[JoeBandy]

Its a pretty simple command.

speaking of intent. Is it ok for a little boy to dress up like a girl for a joke or to go to a party or event? No intention on actually wanting to trick people into believing he was a girl just "innocent" little Joe dressing up in his sister's dress and blouse for the party. Is that against God's word in Deut 22:5?

is it ok for my wife to wear my snake chaps when we go coon hunting? is it ok for her to put on coveralls to sit in the deerstand? Is it ok for the female blasters/painters I have hired to wear jumpsuits and blast suits? is it ok for the females to wear ski apparel when on vacation? is it ok for the females to wear tights or yoga pants as long as it is covered by a skirt?

[Apostolic1ness]

You are goin off in left field..... I knew this was going to be the response to my comment from you and EB

You cant answer the question? If intent only is what the command is addressing the can Little Joe wear a dress for the party?

[Apostolic1ness]

Hey 1ness not a very Christ like response is it? Asking for a friend.

It's a hypothetical scenario. It's a question dealing with intent. Tell your friend.

[JoeBandy]

You cant answer the question? If intent only is what the command is addressing the can Little Joe wear a dress for the party?

Pot meet Kettle?? you cant seem to answer my questions.

[JoeBandy]

I will simplify this discussion. I believe in gender distinction. I believe in only 2 genders. I believe in modesty as related to amount of skin and tightness of clothing. For you no pants on female crowd please explain to me why only the bottom half of the body is argued?? The bifurcated garment viewpoint has been refuted as has the modesty of skirts over pants stance.

[JoeBandy]

You cant answer the question? If intent only is what the command is addressing the can Little Joe wear a dress for the party?

Your question makes as much since to me as if you ask me if that same child could dress as batman and go to the same party.

[JoeBandy]

Now I will address the abomination unto thee vs an abomination unto the Lord thy God. All the commands and laws in this chapter there is a choice than can be made. One has the choice to plow an ox and mule together or not, to sow diverse seeds or not one has a choice to build a house with a battlement around it or not. If one were to make the choice and go against of these laws it is "an abomination unto thee". There is no choice on your gender. You are born male or female. Genesis says that God created male and female and found that it was good. So in this context if a woman were to '"put on things pertaining to a man" she would be trying to change what God created her as, thus being an abomination to the Lord thy God. This law was a little deeper that a pair of trousers.

[n david]

is it ok for the females to wear tights or yoga pants as long as it is covered by a skirt?
I've seen a lot of Apostolic women who do this. A lot. In several districts and many churches.

[Pressing-On]

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

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

*I was merely quoting Queen Bee’s earth-shattering argument regarding the verb הָיָה. She keeps asking—and, of course, claiming that no one has “answered” her (sigh)—what the verb “wear” means in Deut. 22.5:heeheehee.

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

*I should have made that clearer :nod.

As David stated that he was not a Hebrew scholar, neither am I. However, I can read to some degree (:D) and would like to know...

How did we get from "To Be And Become" to "Wear" in Deut 22:5?

Interesting article:
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-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%94-ha-ya-to-be-and-become/

Strong's Number: 1961
Original Word: hyh

Word Origin: a primitive root [compare (01933)] *

Transliterated Word
Hayah

Definition

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
(Qal)
----- 1a
to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass 1a
to come about, come to pass
to come into being, become 1a
to arise, appear, come 1a
to become 1a
to become 1a
to become like 1a
to be instituted, be established
to be 1a
to exist, be in existence 1a
to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time) 1a
to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality) 1a
to accompany, be with
(Niphal)
to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
to be done, be finished, be gone

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/hayah.html

*Strong's Number: 1933

Original Word
awh

Word Origin: a primitive root [compare (0183)**, (01961)]

Transliterated Word
Hava'
Phonetic Spelling: haw-vaw'
Parts of Speech: Verb
Definition

Qal)
to fall
to be, become, exist, happen
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/hava.html



**
Strong's Number: 183
Original Word: hwa
Word Origin: a primitive root
Transliterated Word: 'avah
Phonetic Spelling: aw-vaw'
Parts of Speech: Verb

Definition:

desire, incline, covet, wait longingly, wish, sigh, want, be greedy, prefer
(Piel) to desire, crave (food and drink)
(Hithpael) to desire, long for, lust after (of bodily appetites)
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/avah.html

[Apostolic1ness]

Your question makes as much since to me as if you ask me if that same child could dress as batman and go to the same party.

Bat Man maybe; Cat Woman I think Duet 22:5 speaks about that.

[JoeBandy]

Bat Man maybe; Cat Woman I think Duet 22:5 speaks about that.

geeeez re read all my post the read the post Pressing-On just made.

[diakonos]

Interrogation marks?

[Truthseeker]

I think dresses are more lady like and promote femininity. I will say most don't believe Deut 22:5 completely, because many wear pajama pants. It didn't say don't wear that which pertains to a man in public only.

[n david]

I saw a former UPC Pastor's wife at a Walmart around 11pm years ago ... she had denim jeans on under a skirt. Looked ridiculous ... but she was wearing a skirt, so it was all good.

[rdp]

I understand you not having the time, so I will try to make this brief and uncontroversial. :-) This is definitely an example where communicating via a forum rather than face-to-face can hinder communication because it cannot truly convey the attitude of the writer. In my mind, at any rate, I did not think what you wrote should be dismissed out of hand. I read your post with interest and concluded that you were definitely correct that these young men were wearing trousers. As I thought about it, it then struck me that this was in a Babylonian context.

You may not have time to read this, rdp, but for others who may be reading it, I will try to explain my thinking. The giving of the Law occurred sometime in the 1400s BC (can't remember a more specific date) to the Hebrews, and Daniel and the these three young men were in Babylon in the first part of the 500s BC. (The only specific date I can think of is when the Temple was destroyed in 586 BC.) So around 900 years separate these two, and one of the contexts is not Hebrew but Babylonian. So I personally couldn't confidently conclude that the Hebrew men to whom Deut 22.6 was given were wearing trousers when the example of wearing trousers involves Jews living in Babylon in the service of the Babylonian king. Hence me asking for an example that was in a purely Hebrew/Jewish context.

I wanted to explain this so people wouldn't think that I just dismissed your example out of hand with no thought given to it.

On another note, you mentioned you were studying/taking a class in Hebrew, would you mind sharing what textbook you're using?

God bless.

*Briefly, (last things first), I am using Van Pelt & Pratico’s Basics of Biblical Hebrew, along w. classes, charts, etc. Man, it is wayyy harder than Greek was (for me at least).

*I would disagree w. your conclusions regarding the Babylonian attire inasmuch as these Jews were so consecrated to YHWH & His Laws against idolatry (which is equally classified as “abomination to YHWH”), that they would never wear anything that was not solely masculine attire (just as they refused to violate Yahweh’s other Laws that He classifies as “abomination” to Him). Hence, we can safely conclude that God’s OT covenant men viewed “pants” as exclusively masculine—and so do I.

*You will no doubt disagree, but, again, simply don’t have time (it’s just mighty hard for me to stay away ;)). Perhaps we can exchange emails at some point and bounce ideas off of one another (PM maybe). I do like your emphasis on exegetical research and original languages. God bless.

[rdp]

I saw a former UPC Pastor's wife at a Walmart around 11pm years ago ... she had denim jeans on under a skirt. Looked ridiculous ... but she was wearing a skirt, so it was all good.

*We have seen this type of stuff also (except it’s usually leggings). Still looks absurd and completely violates the whole principle of Deuteronomy 22.5—which is not to blend what God has clearly delineated relative to His creation. Plumb ridiculous.

[rdp]

Whats even more Biblically astounding is the " no pants on women" church take Deut 22: 5 and make it a Heaven/Hell issue and 90% of the females sitting on those pews are in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9 !!??

*This is completely true. Braided hair, tiered hair, extremely costly apparel, gaudy, flashy gold & silver watches, tight & short skirts....and on & on I could go. Just make sure you don’t have on short sleeves (short skirts are just fine though) or a wedding band (wrist jewelry is a-okay though:banghead).

*I think you get the point:nod.

[Bro Flame]

In discussing Deuteronomy 22:5 solely, the word "pertaineth" --- as per the King James interpretation --- forbids just that: women wearing garments that pertain to men. The world, its fashions, and the spirits acting as controlling forces behind said things have taken men's garments, supposedly "feminized" them and made the acceptable for women to wear.

But that doesn't mean it's okay. Jesus still doesn't like it.

Just because the world and its people have taken to practices that are accepted as "alternative" fashions for ladies, doesn't mean God's people should do the same. We shouldn't. It's wrong. Jesus doesn't like it.

[JoeBandy]

In discussing Deuteronomy 22:5 solely, the word "pertaineth" --- as per the King James interpretation --- forbids just that: women wearing garments that pertain to men. The world, its fashions, and the spirits acting as controlling forces behind said things have taken men's garments, supposedly "feminized" them and made the acceptable for women to wear.

But that doesn't mean it's okay. Jesus still doesn't like it.

Just because the world and its people have taken to practices that are accepted as "alternative" fashions for ladies, doesn't mean God's people should do the same. We shouldn't. It's wrong. Jesus doesn't like it.

You added the word garment... Also how do you justify ignoring 22:4 and 22:6?

[Amanah]

Gill's commentary on the subject.

*women should not wear masculine garments contrary to the modesty of her sex
*women should not wear garments related to trade or war which would be contrary to the her main function which is presiding over her home; neither should men be cowardly and effeminate.
*the sexes should not emulate the opposite sex or cross dress
*false religions incorporated cross dressing in their pagan rites

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/deuteronomy/22.htm

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,.... It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any "instrument of a man" (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family; and so this law may be opposed to the customs of the Egyptians, as is thought, from whom the Israelites were lately come; whose women, as Herodotus (g) relates, used to trade and merchandise abroad, while the men kept at home; and the word also signifies armour (h), as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides (i) illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus (k) explains it,"take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman;''nor is he to be found fault with so much as he is by a learned writer (l), since he does not restrain it wholly to war, though he thinks it may have a special regard to that; for no doubt the law respects the times of peace as well as war, in neither of which such a practice should obtain: but the Targum of Jonathan very wrongly limits it to the wearing fringed garments, and to phylacteries, which belonged to men:

neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; which would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them; to prevent which and to preserve chastity this law seems to be made; and since in nature a difference of sexes is made, it is proper and necessary that this should be known by difference of dress, or otherwise many evils might follow; and this precept is agreeably to the law and light of nature: it is observed by an Heathen writer (m), that there is a twofold distribution of the law, the one written, the other not written; what we use in civil things is written, what is from nature and use is unwritten, as to walk naked in the market, or to put on a woman's garment: and change of the clothes of sexes was used among the Heathens by way of punishment, as of the soldiers that deserted, and of adulteresses (n); so abominable was it accounted: indeed it may be lawful in some cases, where life is in danger, to escape that, and provided chastity is preserved:

for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord thy God; which is a reason sufficient why such a practice should not be used. Some from this clause have been led to conclude, that respect is had to some customs of this kind used in idolatrous worship, which are always abominable to the Lord. So Maimonides (o) observes, that in a book of the Zabians, called "Tomtom", it is commanded, that a man should wear a woman's garment coloured when he stood before the star of Venus, and likewise that a woman should put on a coat of mail and warlike armour when she stood before the star of Mars; which he takes to be one reason of this law, though besides that he gives another, because hereby concupiscence would be excited, and an occasion for whoredom given: that there was some such customs among the Heathens may be confirmed from Macrobius (p), and Servius (q) as has been observed by Grotius; the former of which relates, that Philochorus affirmed that Venus is the moon, and that men sacrificed to her in women's garments, and women in men's; and for this reason, because she was thought to be both male and female; and the latter says, there was an image of Venus in Cyprus with a woman's body and garment, and with the sceptre and distinction of a man, to whom the men sacrificed in women's garments, and women in men's garments; and, as the above learned commentator observes, there were many colonies of the Phoenicians in Cyprus, from whom this custom might come; and to prevent it obtaining among the Israelites in any degree, who were now coming into their country, it is thought this law was made; for the priests of the Assyrian Venus made use of women's apparel (r), and in the feasts of Bacchus men disguised themselves like women (s).

(f) "instrumentum virile", Pagninus, Junius et Tremellius; "instrumentum viri", Vatablus. (g) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 35. (h) "Arma viri", Munster. (i) Hilchot Obede Cochabim, c. 12. sect. 10. (k) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 43. (l) Cunaeus de Repub. Heb. l. 2. c. 22. (m) Laert. Vit. Platonis, l. 3. p. 238. (n) Cunaeus ut supra. (l)) (o) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 37. (p) Saturnal. l. 3. c. 8. (q) In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 2.((r) Jul. Firmic. de Relig. Prophan. p. 6. (s) Lucian.

[Esaias]

So female police officers are an abomination to God and are definitely lost. What other occupations that women have entered into make them an abomination to God?

Considering that university has historically always been for males, I guess women in college are abominable and lost? (Of course, knowing the state of our nation's colleges, it's likely most of the male students are equally abominable and lost, but that's beside the point.)

And it seems then that women who carry a handgun or hunt with a rifle or a bow are lost as well?

[Esaias]

Definitely all female politicians are abominable and lost, too. Female attorneys? Toast.

[TakingDominion]

Definitely all female politicians are abominable and lost, too. Female attorneys? Toast.

Female loggers?

[JoeBandy]

Gill's commentary on the subject.

*women should not wear masculine garments contrary to the modesty of her sex
*women should not wear garments related to trade or war which would be contrary to the her main function which is presiding over her home; neither should men be cowardly and effeminate.
*the sexes should not emulate the opposite sex or cross dress
*false religions incorporated cross dressing in their pagan rites

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/deuteronomy/22.htm

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,.... It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any "instrument of a man" (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family; and so this law may be opposed to the customs of the Egyptians, as is thought, from whom the Israelites were lately come; whose women, as Herodotus (g) relates, used to trade and merchandise abroad, while the men kept at home; and the word also signifies armour (h), as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides (i) illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus (k) explains it,"take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman;''nor is he to be found fault with so much as he is by a learned writer (l), since he does not restrain it wholly to war, though he thinks it may have a special regard to that; for no doubt the law respects the times of peace as well as war, in neither of which such a practice should obtain: but the Targum of Jonathan very wrongly limits it to the wearing fringed garments, and to phylacteries, which belonged to men:

neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; which would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them; to prevent which and to preserve chastity this law seems to be made; and since in nature a difference of sexes is made, it is proper and necessary that this should be known by difference of dress, or otherwise many evils might follow; and this precept is agreeably to the law and light of nature: it is observed by an Heathen writer (m), that there is a twofold distribution of the law, the one written, the other not written; what we use in civil things is written, what is from nature and use is unwritten, as to walk naked in the market, or to put on a woman's garment: and change of the clothes of sexes was used among the Heathens by way of punishment, as of the soldiers that deserted, and of adulteresses (n); so abominable was it accounted: indeed it may be lawful in some cases, where life is in danger, to escape that, and provided chastity is preserved:

for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord thy God; which is a reason sufficient why such a practice should not be used. Some from this clause have been led to conclude, that respect is had to some customs of this kind used in idolatrous worship, which are always abominable to the Lord. So Maimonides (o) observes, that in a book of the Zabians, called "Tomtom", it is commanded, that a man should wear a woman's garment coloured when he stood before the star of Venus, and likewise that a woman should put on a coat of mail and warlike armour when she stood before the star of Mars; which he takes to be one reason of this law, though besides that he gives another, because hereby concupiscence would be excited, and an occasion for whoredom given: that there was some such customs among the Heathens may be confirmed from Macrobius (p), and Servius (q) as has been observed by Grotius; the former of which relates, that Philochorus affirmed that Venus is the moon, and that men sacrificed to her in women's garments, and women in men's; and for this reason, because she was thought to be both male and female; and the latter says, there was an image of Venus in Cyprus with a woman's body and garment, and with the sceptre and distinction of a man, to whom the men sacrificed in women's garments, and women in men's garments; and, as the above learned commentator observes, there were many colonies of the Phoenicians in Cyprus, from whom this custom might come; and to prevent it obtaining among the Israelites in any degree, who were now coming into their country, it is thought this law was made; for the priests of the Assyrian Venus made use of women's apparel (r), and in the feasts of Bacchus men disguised themselves like women (s).

(f) "instrumentum virile", Pagninus, Junius et Tremellius; "instrumentum viri", Vatablus. (g) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 35. (h) "Arma viri", Munster. (i) Hilchot Obede Cochabim, c. 12. sect. 10. (k) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 43. (l) Cunaeus de Repub. Heb. l. 2. c. 22. (m) Laert. Vit. Platonis, l. 3. p. 238. (n) Cunaeus ut supra. (l)) (o) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 37. (p) Saturnal. l. 3. c. 8. (q) In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 2.((r) Jul. Firmic. de Relig. Prophan. p. 6. (s) Lucian.

Thanks for posting this! This is some of the stuff I had read but couldn't put my finger on.

[The Lemon]

Esaias,

Not to go way off track here - but your post provokes the thought process regarding "religion" and "religious practices". It would not be a leap in logic to suggest that there are some leaders and churches that would openly discourage or rebuke a woman who: Joins the military, becomes a police officer, operates heavy equipment, etc.

This also begs the question of how we structure church and who the "audience" is supposed to be. Do we simply create a set schedule to accomidate those who work 9-5 Monday - Friday - Waht about Doctors, nurses, manufacturing shift work, etc. I havge known leaders who encouraged folks in a profession to seek a new one to accomidate the church calendar - seriously.

For as much as I hear that many Apostolics are not "religious", it would seem that there is more tradition and religion attached then many want to admit to. Your post made me think of leaving the 99 and searching for the 1, and the fact that there are inconsistencies in interpretation - I have seen well crafted arguments on both sides in this thread alone. But as you pointed out in another thread - where are the babies being born while this is going on?

[Costeon]

In discussing Deuteronomy 22:5 solely, the word "pertaineth" --- as per the King James interpretation --- forbids just that: women wearing garments that pertain to men. The world, its fashions, and the spirits acting as controlling forces behind said things have taken men's garments, supposedly "feminized" them and made the acceptable for women to wear.

But that doesn't mean it's okay. Jesus still doesn't like it.

Just because the world and its people have taken to practices that are accepted as "alternative" fashions for ladies, doesn't mean God's people should do the same. We shouldn't. It's wrong. Jesus doesn't like it.

What garments would you say pertaineth only to men? Just pants? It seems that rdp in his posts takes the only right and consistent approach, that if women can't wear pants, then they can't wear anything that men also wear: t-shirts, button down shirts, etc. Do you think that this is going to far, or do you agree with this approach?

[Bro Flame]

If justification can be offered for ladies wearing pants, then justification for men wearing skirts and dresses can also be given. And no I'm not talking about Scottish men wearing cultural kilts, but heterosexual American men wishing to wear dresses and skirts.

Tab into Google, Yahoo, Bing, MSN, or any other Internet browser, and search dresses for men. They're out there.

But many will say that heterosexual American men wouldn't be caught dead wearing skirts, dresses, blouses, or anything else found in the women's section of a department store.

And that's true.

Likewise, there was a time when heterosexual American women didn't wear garments pertaining specifically to the masculine gender. All churches, regardless to denominational affiliation, stance on the Godhead or baptism, preached against its ladies wearing breeches, trousers, or pants because they were made for men to wear.

The world has crept in our minds, and we've each allowed it to blur our stance on an issue such as this one. There was a time when I personally struggled with the idea of women being able to wear pants and it being okay in the eyes of God. My church preaches against it, and I accepted and believed that. However, I drifted into a close and personal fellowship with a church that no longer teaches that women wearing pants is sin. It blurred my conception on which was right. Now, I personally prayed and believed that God had told me women wearing pants was wrong, and then it wasn't long that I questioned that confirmation and I searched the Internet over to find some way to prove God wrong.

In short, I came back to my senses. God doesn't want women to dress like men. I understand that these pants made for women today don't appeal to any heterosexual man in the slightest capacity, but in all honesty, they're still pertaining to men.

If women can wear pants, then Deuteronomy 22:5 is urging us not to commit a sin that doesn't even exist.

[Bro Flame]

What garments would you say pertaineth only to men? Just pants? It seems that rdp in his posts takes the only right and consistent approach, that if women can't wear pants, then they can't wear anything that men also wear: t-shirts, button down shirts, etc. Do you think that this is going to far, or do you agree with this approach?
Some things are gender neutral, but others are not. If women can wear pants, then men can wear skirts. But they can't... Why not? Because skirts are women, which means pants are for men.

[Costeon]

*Briefly, (last things first), I am using Van Pelt & Pratico’s Basics of Biblical Hebrew, along w. classes, charts, etc. Man, it is wayyy harder than Greek was (for me at least).

Back when I studied Hebrew (early 2000s), our class used the same textbook (I think the first edition of it), and my experience sounds like it was a lot like yours. Some things that were hard for me were just the mechanics of trying to read from right to left, especially dealing with the vowel points, and the fact that with the vocabulary there are really not any cognates with English. I'm not sure how long you've been studying, but at least for me, in time I came to regard some of the Hebrew grammar and sentence structure as simpler than Greek.

One of my big regrets is that after taking a few Hebrew classes and feeling somewhat confident in being able to use it, I got busy with life and neglected it, and my knowledge of and ability to use it went entirely dormant. I did the same thing with Latin. Bums me. I have kept up with Greek on and off, but feel pretty rusty now.


Perhaps we can exchange emails at some point and bounce ideas off of one another (PM maybe). I do like your emphasis on exegetical research and original languages. God bless.


I probably will PM you at some point to get your take on something. Thanks for the offer!

[JoeBandy]

If justification can be offered for ladies wearing pants, then justification for men wearing skirts and dresses can also be given. And no I'm not talking about Scottish men wearing cultural kilts, but heterosexual American men wishing to wear dresses and skirts.

Tab into Google, Yahoo, Bing, MSN, or any other Internet browser, and search dresses for men. They're out there.

But many will say that heterosexual American men wouldn't be caught dead wearing skirts, dresses, blouses, or anything else found in the women's section of a department store.

And that's true.

Likewise, there was a time when heterosexual American women didn't wear garments pertaining specifically to the masculine gender. All churches, regardless to denominational affiliation, stance on the Godhead or baptism, preached against its ladies wearing breeches, trousers, or pants because they were made for men to wear.

The world has crept in our minds, and we've each allowed it to blur our stance on an issue such as this one. There was a time when I personally struggled with the idea of women being able to wear pants and it being okay in the eyes of God. My church preaches against it, and I accepted and believed that. However, I drifted into a close and personal fellowship with a church that no longer teaches that women wearing pants is sin. It blurred my conception on which was right. Now, I personally prayed and believed that God had told me women wearing pants was wrong, and then it wasn't long that I questioned that confirmation and I searched the Internet over to find some way to prove God wrong.

In short, I came back to my senses. God doesn't want women to dress like men. I understand that these pants made for women today don't appeal to any heterosexual man in the slightest capacity, but in all honesty, they're still pertaining to men.

If women can wear pants, then Deuteronomy 22:5 is urging us not to commit a sin that doesn't even exist.

You are only seeing a "modern " western civilization viewpoint. You need to consider the context of Deuteronomy. Why do you not adhere to the rest of the chapter? How do you justify tiered hair with half of the families pet peacock hanging out of it or the Louis Vuitton handbag with regard to 1 TIMOTHY 2:9?

[The Lemon]

You are only seeing a "modern " western civilization viewpoint. You need to consider the context of Deuteronomy. Why do you not adhere to the rest of the chapter? How do you justify tiered hair with half of the families pet peacock hanging out of it or the Louis Vuitton handbag with regard to 1 TIMOTHY 2:9?

Similar to what I posted earlier - OUR culture and perception. I know preachers who have went to other parts of the world to minister and the men wore what we western folks would call a "skirt" - the pastor's wife chuckled and said, "I would love for some of our American preachers to tell those men they are dressed like a woman".

Like it or not - the majority in the west believe the way we do church, how often, how we apply principles, and etc. is the only RIGHT way do do it...period. Similarly, is the argument of 1 Tim 2:9 and complete forbidding, or dealing with the principle of the heart and motive...again, I have seen both arguments articulated.

[diakonos]

Some things are gender neutral, but others are not. If women can wear pants, then men can wear skirts. But they can't... Why not? Because skirts are women, which means pants are for men.

Gender neutral/unisex. Really?

[diakonos]

All churches, regardless to denominational affiliation, stance on the Godhead or baptism, preached against its ladies wearing breeches, trousers, or pants because they were made for men to wear.
Really? Where did you find this info?

[Bro Flame]

Really? Where did you find this info?
The exact citations would be difficult to locate, but I know that it wasn't uncommon for Baptist churches to preach against women wearing pants as late as the 1990s.

[BrainWashed]

http://i66.tinypic.com/nbtenl.jpg

[Bro Flame]

Gender neutral/unisex. Really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvD1SOnP210&t=833s

About 5:35 into this video, this preacher employs a chart that he uses as an aid to explain the structure surrounding Deuteronomy 22:5.

He's not Apostolic, but his view on a topic such as this one is valid, and his way of explaining it here is effective and simple.

[n david]

I went home for lunch today and saw a "woman" walking down our street, looking in trash cans. "She" had on a skirt, some kind of work boots, a bikini top and trucker cap. When I pulled into my driveway and got out of the car, I had to walk past "her."

"She" was a dude.

In a skirt ...

and bikini top ...

With at least a couple days old facial scruff ...

[JoeBandy]

I went home for lunch today and saw a "woman" walking down our street, looking in trash cans. "She" had on a skirt, some kind of work boots, a bikini top and trucker cap. When I pulled into my driveway and got out of the car, I had to walk past "her."

"She" was a dude.

In a skirt ...

and bikini top ...

With at least a couple days old facial scruff ...

You must live in Florida....

[Amanah]

The way people dress is just the tip of an iceberg, symbolic of a much greater problem.
The real issue being that the family, the fabric of society and foundation of Christianity, has been marred.

[The Lemon]

Good grief...that guy is arrogant, and he is preaching to the choir - does he really think anyone in that crowd is going to challenge him? Skirts - depends on the culture, seriously, from a global perspective - not to mention historical. Now if the soapbox he stands on is isolated to only the U.S., fine (Still a broad brush to make his doctrinal point IMHO).

His attempt to illustrate is weak at best and not consistent at all. Didn't this dude end up on YouTube recently as the preacher of hate? I'd rather sit in a boat with a fishing rod on Sunday at 10a.m. then sit under him for 5min.

[n david]

You must live in Florida....

No. I live in the PHX AZ burbs. It's becoming too common here. I was in Walmart or Target the other day and saw another dude in a skirt with a t-shirt and wearing dark eyeliner.

Tried booking a revival service with him/her, but it was booked up. (That's for EB!) :toofunny

[n david]

Good grief...that guy is arrogant, and he is preaching to the choir - does he really think anyone in that crowd is going to challenge him? Skirts - depends on the culture, seriously, from a global perspective - not to mention historical. Now if the soapbox he stands on is isolated to only the U.S., fine (Still a broad brush to make his doctrinal point IMHO).

His attempt to illustrate is weak at best and not consistent at all. Didn't this dude end up on YouTube recently as the preacher of hate? I'd rather sit in a boat with a fishing rod on Sunday at 10a.m. then sit under him for 5min.

He's from my area. And yes, he's been in the news a lot because of his coarse sermons. He's some type of Baptist.

[navygoat1998]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvD1SOnP210&t=833s

About 5:35 into this video, this preacher employs a chart that he uses as an aid to explain the structure surrounding Deuteronomy 22:5.

He's not Apostolic, but his view on a topic such as this one is valid, and his way of explaining it here is effective and simple.

Can you trust his teaching???? :hmmm

[n david]

Can you trust his teaching???? :hmmm

He is a trinitarian, and doesn't like Pentecostals. I doubt most would use him as a reference. :lol

[The Lemon]

He is a loon...

[Scott Pitta]

If abomination is the key word, make a list of all the abominations and obey them.

Picking out one reference to an abomination at the expense of all the rest is sloppy hermeneutics.

But keep in mind, no one in the NT ever mentioned the term abomination as having special meaning.

[navygoat1998]

He is a trinitarian, and doesn't like Pentecostals. I doubt most would use him as a reference. :lol

How can he not like Pentecostals????? :happydance The Trinitarian thing does not bother me :heeheehee.

[diakonos]

Someone used a Steve Anderson video to make a point? :lol

[Bro Flame]

I'm done.

So long AFF.

[Costeon]

If abomination is the key word, make a list of all the abominations and obey them.

Picking out one reference to an abomination at the expense of all the rest is sloppy hermeneutics.

But keep in mind, no one in the NT ever mentioned the term abomination as having special meaning.

I think several times I have written to you that this particular abomination in Deut 22.5 is specifically said to be to the Lord, while others you have noted dealing with non-moral issues are said to be an abomination to the Israelites. I may have missed it, but could you address this issue? It seems you're treating them all alike, but it appears to me that there is a fundamental difference between something that is an abomination to the Lord and one that is to be one for a particular people, the Israelites.

[n david]

I'm done.

So long AFF.

:reaction

[n david]

Someone used a Steve Anderson video to make a point? :lol

He's looking our way!!!

[Scott Pitta]

Abominations and abominations to the Lord are not distinguished by any writers of the holy writ.

[Pressing-On]

How can he not like Pentecostals????? :happydance The Trinitarian thing does not bother me :heeheehee.

One second after you die, it will. Just sayin’.... :happydance

The word used here for God (Gen 1:1) is Elohim. It is a plural noun. But the word used for created, “Bara” is in the singular. The Torah says “Elohim created” using the singular of the Hebrew verb “create”. If Elohim were plural, it would utilize the plural of the verb. The verb therefore tells us that God is a singular entity.

English provides an example - the word “fish”. It can be used in both the singular and plural: “The fish swim” means “fish” is plural; “The fish swims” means “fish” is in the singular.

Any number of theories have been offered to explain why God’s name is in the plural. The one that makes the most sense to me is that God (Elohim) encompasses all gods. - Dennis Prager.

[Tithesmeister]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulu_(skirt)

The link above is an interesting read. It is about the sulu, a kind of skirt for men and women worn in Fiji. I really don’t like to think so, but perhaps culture should be considered in the case of men and women’s clothes.

I know we like for things, especially doctrine to be black and white. I’m not sure this issue is really that simple. What is interesting to me is that the Fijians (men and women) wore the Sulu (skirt) as a sign that they had converted to Christianity. So we have men wearing skirts as a testimony that they were converts. Evidently they previously wore only loincloths.

In this case it would seem to be a vast improvement from a modestly perspective and I would hesitate to believe that they are lost for doing so. Another point is that even though both men and women wear the sulu, the men’s sulus are not feminine and the women’s are, due to color and styles.

Personally I do not feel comfortable wearing a pink shirt, because in my mind pink is a feminine color. I know men who seem to think otherwise and I don’t try to impose my beliefs on them.

Maybe their wives like them in pink? I dunno.

[diakonos]

He's looking our way!!!


I heard a sermon maybe a decade ago... a visitor was leaving. He told them to leave, didn’t belong there anyway. :nah

There’s a thread around here somewhere where someone left his church over modalism, but the guy was really confused.

Even older where he was beat by CBP. :lol

[diakonos]

I'm done.

So long AFF.

You don’t like questions? You don’t want to be challenged?

[navygoat1998]

One second after you die, it will. Just sayin’.... :happydance

:laffatu

[Costeon]

Abominations and abominations to the Lord are not distinguished by any writers of the holy writ.

Thank you for addressing this directly.

I suppose if all the various things called abominations in the OT were only called "abominations," it could be said that there are no distinctions, but this is not the case. Writers of holy writ say some things are abominations to the Israelites (food laws, for example) and other things are abominations to the Lord (moral issues, idolatry, etc). That, in my mind, points to a clear and fundamental distinction, the former having no bearing on the NT church and the latter doing so.

So if I understand you correctly, an abomination to the Lord is no more significant than an abomination to the Israelites and both are irrelevant to NT believers. Is that an accurate way to sum up your view?

[rdp]

Back when I studied Hebrew (early 2000s), our class used the same textbook (I think the first edition of it), and my experience sounds like it was a lot like yours. Some things that were hard for me were just the mechanics of trying to read from right to left, especially dealing with the vowel points, and the fact that with the vocabulary there are really not any cognates with English. I'm not sure how long you've been studying, but at least for me, in time I came to regard some of the Hebrew grammar and sentence structure as simpler than Greek.

One of my big regrets is that after taking a few Hebrew classes and feeling somewhat confident in being able to use it, I got busy with life and neglected it, and my knowledge of and ability to use it went entirely dormant. I did the same thing with Latin. Bums me. I have kept up with Greek on and off, but feel pretty rusty now.




I probably will PM you at some point to get your take on something. Thanks for the offer!

*Yes, my struggle w. Hebrew is the tons of exceptions—and those dreaded vowel pointings (added by the Masoretes). Really wish I would have started without the vowel points (as is written in Jerusalem). There are many instances that a mere dagesh (.) lene or forte makes allll the diff. in meaning & translation—and they both look identical :banghead!

*Presently on imperfect verb conjugations—but having to take the classes over & over just so it sinks in. As you noted, the lack of etymological roots is also a major hinderance for me inasmuch as there is simply no relations to aid in memorization. I mean, they treat it like it’s a dead foreign language or something :irate. Simply, it’s wayyy harder than I anticipated. Was intending to go on to Aramaic, Ugaritic & Syriac after Hebrew (via Zondervan Academics)—but the salt is losing its flavor rather quickly:nod!

*Tag in anytime. God bless.

[Scott Pitta]

The law of Moses reflected the views and morality of God. All of the law is holy, just and good. It does not have 2 sections, things abominable to God and another of things abominable to men. Most rules are not described as abominable at all.

In the Deut. account of the 10 commandments (Deut. chapter 5) none of the 10 were described as being abominable.

Sometimes, commandments are labelled as abominations without specifying if they are an abomination to God or man (De. 7:26, 13:14, 17:4, 20:18, 29:17, 32:16). The rest of the mentions of abominations in Deuteronomy refer to abominations to God. There are no mentions of "abominations to men" in Deuteronomy.

[JoeBandy]

I wonder, lets say a thousand years from now, how some of our vernacular will be interpreted? I'm too legit to quit, hey homie im down, that guy is lit, im squeezie on my pazezee..

[diakonos]

I wonder, lets say a thousand years from now, how some of our vernacular will be interpreted? I'm too legit to quit, hey homie im down, that guy is lit, im squeezie on my pazezee..

Too legit to quit? Rilly? :nah

[JoeBandy]

Too legit to quit? Rilly? :nah

hey it was on Pandora this morning

[loran adkins]

The law of Moses reflected the views and morality of God. All of the law is holy, just and good. It does not have 2 sections, things abominable to God and another of things abominable to men. Most rules are not described as abominable at all.

In the Deut. account of the 10 commandments (Deut. chapter 5) none of the 10 were described as being abominable.

Sometimes, commandments are labelled as abominations without specifying if they are an abomination to God or man (De. 7:26, 13:14, 17:4, 20:18, 29:17, 32:16). The rest of the mentions of abominations in Deuteronomy refer to abominations to God. There are no mentions of "abominations to men" in Deuteronomy.

I think you might have something here. We say sin is sin and in the eyes of God there is not difference yet the we contradict ourselves and say this sin is greater in the eyes of God because it is an abomination. Now we are stating to sound like the Roman Catholic.

To me there is a big difference when a man dresses up to look like a woman, we call it being in drag. Or when a woman dresses to look like a man we call it butch. But for a women to just put on a pair of pants? She is just a woman putting on a pair of pants. We are just splitting hairs.

[Bro Flame]

You don’t like questions? You don’t want to be challenged?
Not exactly what I meant, but I understand how it could be read that way.

The video I linked, I feel, employed a good chart to explain the basic ensemble attire that distinguish masculine and feminine dress. I am quite aware that these preacher isn't Oneness, and has a strong stance against Oneness and Pentecost in general, but the chart alone, I think, was efficient and explained the Deuteronomy 22:5 topic ideally.

For the record, too, the first time I ever watched the Preacher Anderson video, it was cropped to only the chart part. I didn't see the rest of it until later. I don't watch his videos, but on the basis of his employment of said chart to explain the difference between male and female dress, I think it could be a useful tactic to explain such a scripture.

[Bro Flame]

:reaction
By "done", I mean, I guess, this conversation.

:heeheehee:heeheehee:heeheehee

[diakonos]

By "done", I mean, I guess, this conversation.

:heeheehee:heeheehee:heeheehee

“So long AFF.”

[Apostolic1ness]

“So long AFF.”

It's hard to just stop cold turkey.

[n david]

It's hard to just stop cold turkey.
Hi, my name is david and I'm an AFF'er.

Been through the 12 steps and I'm still here! :toofunny

[Michael The Disciple]

I'm done.

So long AFF.

Please rethink Holy Roller. People on here post non Apostolic videos all the time. You are one of the few holding AFF together.:highfive

[Apostolic1ness]

Please rethink Holy Roller. People on here post non Apostolic videos all the time. You are one of the few holding AFF together.:highfive

How could you put this kind of responsibility on this young man?:foottap

[Michael The Disciple]

[/I]

How could you put this kind of responsibility on this young man?:foottap

Trials make you strong:highfive

[Michael The Disciple]

By "done", I mean, I guess, this conversation.

:heeheehee:heeheehee:heeheehee

Glad to see this:highfive

[diakonos]

Please rethink Holy Roller. People on here post non Apostolic videos all the time. You are one of the few holding AFF together.:highfive

The drama

[Scott Pitta]

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:10-12

Are believers obligated to obey this verse for the same reasons Deut. 22:5 ??

No more lobster or shrimp ??

[Costeon]

The law of Moses reflected the views and morality of God. All of the law is holy, just and good. It does not have 2 sections, things abominable to God and another of things abominable to men. Most rules are not described as abominable at all.

In the Deut. account of the 10 commandments (Deut. chapter 5) none of the 10 were described as being abominable.

Sometimes, commandments are labelled as abominations without specifying if they are an abomination to God or man (De. 7:26, 13:14, 17:4, 20:18, 29:17, 32:16). The rest of the mentions of abominations in Deuteronomy refer to abominations to God. There are no mentions of "abominations to men" in Deuteronomy.

One of the basic principles of editing or revising is to omit needless words. On your account it seems that every occurrence of the word abomination could be deleted without having any effect, because that word is adding nothing and signifies nothing. To say something is an abomination to the Lord was just thrown in for . . . what? At the very least, the Lord is emphasizing the command.

On your account eating shrimp has the same moral status as committing adultery, and boiling a kid in its mother's milk has the same moral status as idolatry--if indeed both reflect the morality of God. I think there is a distinction in the Law of Moses regarding God's moral principles and laws that were only covenantal markers for the Israelites.

I disagree with you; you disagree with me. So I guess that's that. :-)

[Scott Pitta]

Some argue we are required to obey Deut. 22:5 because of the abomination clause. If the clause idea is true, all commandments that have the same clause are also still required.

If the use of abomination does not have a significant theological meaning, then those who argue for obedience to Deut. 22:5 need to find a different reason for doing so.

Deut 22:5 is one of many rules from the Mosaic code which are obsolete.

[Costeon]

Some argue we are required to obey Deut. 22:5 because of the abomination clause. If the clause idea is true, all commandments that have the same clause are also still required.

If the use of abomination does not have a significant theological meaning, then those who argue for obedience to Deut. 22:5 need to find a different reason for doing so.

Deut 22:5 is one of many rules from the Mosaic code which are obsolete.

As far as I can tell, the following verses and what they refer to are where the phrase "abomination to the Lord" occur:

Deut 7.25: idolatry
Deut 12.31: idolatry
Deut 17.1: sacrificing defective or blemished bulls or sheep
Deut 18.9-14: sacrificing children, witchcraft, soothsayers, interpreters of omens, sorcerers, conjurers of spells, mediums, spiritists, those who call up the dead
Deut 22.5: wearing clothes of the opposite sex
Deut 23.17-18: giving offerings from male or female prostitution
Deut 25.13-16: Injustice/false business practices
Deut 27.15: idolatry
Prov 3.32: violent people who are perverse/devious/wicked
Prov 11.1: Injustice/false business practices
Prov 12.22: lying lips
Prov 15.8: the sacrifice or worship of the wicked
Prov 15.9: the way of the wicked
Prov 15.26: the thoughts of the wicked
Prov 16.5: the proud/arrogant
Prov 17.15: injustice/acquitting the wicked and convicting the just
Prov 20.10: Injustice/false business practices
Prov 20.23: Injustice/false business practices

Which of these have no relevance to NT believers? One that stands out that would not be directly applicable is 17.1 since it involves animal sacrifice to the Lord.

[Esaias]

Whatever Deut 22:5 prohibited, is either still prohibited, or allowed. "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment." Either it stands today, or men can put on women's garments.

So, which is it?

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

[Esaias]

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:10-12

Are believers obligated to obey this verse for the same reasons Deut. 22:5 ??

No more lobster or shrimp ??

What? God telling people what they should and should not eat? Oh, the horror! Thankfully, God only has authority to tell you what to do in some areas of your life, not all. Whew! For a moment there it was looking like this Jehovah guy was trying to be... I don't know, God or something...

[JoeBandy]

Whatever Deut 22:5 prohibited, is either still prohibited, or allowed. "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment." Either it stands today, or men can put on women's garments.

So, which is it?

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

I think the true meaning of this is lost in era, cultural, vernacular and translational differences.

[Esaias]

I think the true meaning of this is lost in era, cultural, vernacular and translational differences.

"Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment."

The true meaning of that is lost? Really?

How does that work?

[JoeBandy]

"Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment."

The true meaning of that is lost? Really?

How does that work?

Now cmon Esaiais I have read a many of your post. You are way to intelligent to ask such a dumb question.

[Esaias]

Now cmon Esaiais I have read a many of your post. You are way to intelligent to ask such a dumb question.

You said the meaning of the verse is lost like Will Robinson, and I am asking how that's possible, because it sure looks pretty clear to me: a woman is not to wear stuff that pertains to a guy, neither is a man to put on a woman's garment, because people who do that stuff are gross as far as God is concerned.

So, I disagree that the meaning has been lost.