Women;s PJ's
 

Commonsense just posted a thread on pj's and I got to thinking and thought I would start this thread.

It would seem that if ones reason for believing that women should not wear pants pivots ons Deu 22:5 then pajama pant are still wrong... hands down.

That thought would necessitate this thought. If one see no problem with a woman weaing pajama pants in her home then they, clearly, do not base their reasoning on on Deu 22:5.

This, to me, would appear to be givens.

That being a given... what scriptures do people base their prohibition of wearing pants on?

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

I just think it's entertaining that we have had so many discussions on women wearing pajama pants. Does anyone thing God cares at all about what I wear in bed?

And I don't think pants are wrong so obviously I think pajama pants are okay.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

My wifey wear PJ pants at home but only skirts in public. You wear clothes for people not God.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

This is more about the inconsistency of claiming one believes wearing pants is wrong because of Deu 22:5 and then turning around and seeing nothing wrong with Pajama pants.

If this scripture applies then it applies inside the house and out.

The scripture leaves no hedge room.

If one sees no problem with it then they need to leave Deu 22:5 out of their repertoire.

The thread is about consistency... or the lack of...

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

Is any of the reasoning based on Deu 22:5?

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

not necessarily, I've been taught the status qou on that scripture. Not sure it means what we say it is or should it just apply to lower half of the body. Some have declared it means mens battle gear as in women shouldn't war.

One thing I do know is we have picked that scripture out aand preach it with passion while negating other scriptures in deut, even many on tithes.

I do believe there's men clothing for gender distinction and vice versa.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

maybe kinda like preaching against makeup but then have her wear some for bedroom moments...:nutso

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

OH good grief... you have got to be kidding.

People do that?

Consistency... thou art a jewel.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

I, personally, don't see the application of Deu 22:5 being what people have touted it as.

My wife & daughters wear skirts outside the home and wear PJ's at the house. If I believed that Deu 22:5 was saying what we are told it says then this would not be the case.

Our reasoning revolves around a desire for modesty.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

The doctrine is based solely on a mis interpretaiton of dt 22:5

There is no other place in the bible that you could even remotely come up with a scripture that bolsters to the no pants doctrine of "legalistic man made doctrines folks"

I refuse to call them "holiness folks"

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

If this scripture meant what we say it means, a women would be an abomination if she draped her husbands coat overher shoulders to keep warm.


She would be commiting an abomination if she wore a ball cap, a tee shirt.

If she wore a shirt to paint in that buttoned on the right instead of the left, another abomination.

If you were to misconstrue this scripture to inforce and impose this rule for woman and pants you MUST inforce it across the board on anythin other clothing article that resembles what a man would wear.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

Indeed... or slipping on her husbands shoes to run out and check the mail.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

From a paper by Robt Sabin


I. What do the words actually say in the Hebrew language according to the scholars? The first phrase - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.

A. The first phrase, that which pertaineth - the phrase that which pertaineth is represented in the Hebrew by one word, the word keli, and it most generally means a manufactured article. It is most often translated as some sort of weapon or armor.

1. Scholarly references for the word keli: Strongs: 3627 kee-lee" something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): --armour [bearer], artillery, bag, carriage + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon (emphasis Strong's) whatsoever.

2. Gesenius (Hebrew words and most references used by the author deleted) properly whatever is made, completed, or prepared...(1) any utensil, vessel. Gen 31:37; 45:20. vessels of gold, of silver, the vessels of the temple, vessels of wandering, outfit for exile. (2)clothing,* ornaments of a bride, also for yokes for oxen. (3) a vessel for sailing. (4.) an implement, a tool, musical instruments, instruments of the indignation of Jehovah (5) arms, weapons Ben. 27:3 ; Jud 18:11,16. more fully, deadly weapons Psalm 7:14. , an armour-bearer 1 Sam.14:1, 6, 7, 31:4,5,6 an armoury Isa 39:2.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 982g vessel, utensil, The basic idea of this root is "to bring a process to completion." The root occurs in all its forms 237 times. Of these 206 are verbal....The idea of being consumed is most commonly applied to violent destruction, often by war...

4. Wigrams, The New Englishman's Hebrew/Aramaic Concordance: k'lee Translated 45 times as armour, or weapons. Most other times as instrument, jewel, furniture, vessels, etc., but never, *not even in Deut 22:5 is it translated clothing.
Conclusion: The word keli most often means a manufactured item, quite often a weapon, or armor. *It is never, except in Deuteronomy 22:5, translated “that which pertaineth,” “clothing,” or “garment.”

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

B. The phrase translated unto a man is also represented in the Hebrew language by a single word - gibbor.

1. Scholarly references for the word gibbor -- Strong's, 1368 gibbor, ghib-bore; from 1397 geber gheh'ber, a valiant man or warrior, powerful: by implication warrior, tyrant: --champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one) strong (man), valiant man.

2. Gesenius 1368 author’s references and Hebrew words omitted (1) strong, mighty, impetuous, used of a hunter, commonly of an impetuous soldier, a hero, a mighty king (Alexander the Great), a mighty hero. [The mighty God: Christ is spoken of] these are the heroes, those who were famous of old; the lion is a hero among the beasts; also used of a soldier generally, a mighty warrior, Used of God, Jehovah (is) strong and mighty, Jehovah (is) mighty in battle....(2) a chief, a military leader, the commander of soldiers and the soldier. Used generally of a chief. (3) in a bad sense, proud, a tyrant, like the Arab.

3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 310 (condensed) (ga bar) prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great. Derivatives, man, mighty man. might. lady, queen. .... The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior....(RSV often translates "warrior") The heroes or champions among the armed forces.

4. Wigrams, p. 289, 290, translated mighty men, mighty one, mighty hunter, mighty, mighty man, mighty men, strong, valiant men, mightiest, mighty of valour, strong man, giant, as a strong man, the Mighty God, the mighty. The only instance it is translated as man is in Du 22:5. Not so translated in any other place.

Conclusion: the word gibbor does not refer to every ordinary man. It refers to a distinct type of man, amighty man, most likely a military man or soldier which matches nicely with the word keli which most often means armour. By this interpretation the scripture speaks against the idolatrous practice of either enticing or frightening demons, something which would, indeed, be an abomination unto the LORD!

C. The third phrase - “neither shall a man put on a woman's garment” is not a matter of much concern to the imposers. It is the dress of women which almost always comes under scrutiny. Women are made to bear the entire burden of this message of false
holiness and separation. That, in itself, is an abomination. Prov. 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. _
__________________________________________________ ___________

So there you have it. The ONLY scripture we use to impose our no pants for woman doctrine is found to be TWISTED to mean what WE say it means.

Thatr in my opinoin translates into false doctrine.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

I find it interesting that we skip over the word "wear" in Deut 22:5. That definition is used only once in the OT - only once. It is not the normal definition for putting on clothing.

Wear:
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass.

I believe this verse goes a lot deeper than simply donning a man's/woman's apparel.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

I think if I am putting on pj pants to look, act, or be like a man, it's wrong.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

Amen!

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

You are so right , digging for truth. who are we living to please anyway? If pants are wrong.God see's us in our homes or bed. lounging pj's are all the go
now. and you will find them on folk's who would not wear regular pant's at all.I am more inclined to go to the scripture's where God made a distinct difference
in the man and woman and scripture's on modesty. And I am not condoning the wearing of pant's I don't do either myself.

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

i do agree. and the fact is, i a m in my home, i do not wear pants outside the home thats just what i beleive, but pajamas, oh my, what a Question to ask,
it is in my own home, i know of a lady who wore a skirt to bed, now that is redicilous, imo,, well if that is so holy explain this one, she ended up having an affair with aguy in her church and she is married and so was he, so tell me how holy that one is, i sure do not want to wear a skirt to bed if i am going to think i am holy, it aint gonna happen.

nothing wrong to wear pants to bed, sometimes we wear nothing is that a sin too,

Re: Women;s PJ's
 

People live in various stages of undress in their own homes and it isn’t sin. I don’t see any issue with a woman wearing pajama pants at home in front of immediate family. If wearing pajama pants when sleeping next to your husband is a sin, then being completely undressed with your husband would be too.

But side note here, the holiness code of Deuteronomy isn’t so much about styles of clothing, but it is about addressing gender class distinction, perversion, and public modesty. I’d say there is no sin in a woman wearing women’s pants, the issue is that they are typically form fitting and are less modest than a modest skirt or dress. Therefore I also see no issue with a woman wearing women’s pajama pants. Now, I guess it would be a sin if a woman’s husband was wearing his wife’s pajama pants because of some strange turn on. LOL I digress.