Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

[StMark]

Originally Posted by AbundantGrace

I got tickled when I read the title of this thread concerning the age-old Pants On Women Sin! lol...

After my wife and I came out of UPC a number of years ago and she began wearing pants, we were reminded of Deuteronomy 22:5. I had preached from that text myself in the past. Of course, that was prior to our coming to a much clearer revelation of the freedom from that Old Law which Jesus gave us through the power of the Cross and by the Grace of God. I'll never forget a dear lady who called me and gave me the reminder of the 22 & 5 Rule and asked how could I no longer preach that women should live according to that scripture?

Well, first of all, Christ set us free through the work of the Cross, which is made very clear to us in the New Testament. But even beyond that, how can we preach that WOMEN should obey Deuteronomy 22:5 and even go so far as to make it into a "MAN-MADE SALVATION ISSUE" and then neglect to live according to the rest of the chapter or the book for that matter.

For those who are preaching that women should live according to 22:5, please allow me to ask a couple of questions.

1) For those of you who farm or garden - Do you plant more than one kind of seed in your crop or in your garden? I certainly hope not, because Deuteronomy 22:9 says plainly, Don't Do It!!! If you do, your fruit will be defiled! There may be some getting under conviction even now!

2) For all of you fashion experts - Surely you've never worn any sort of a garment that was made out of a wool and linen blend of material? Again, I hope not, because Deuteronomy 22:11 again plainly says, Don't Do It!!! We may need to check our clothing tags. It may be time for some closet cleaning!

3) And of course, this could go on and on, but for time's sake, I'll simply utilize only one more example. Still going along the clothes line - I pray that all of your cloaks do have tassels on all four corners, because Deuteronomy 22:12 says that you must have tassels on all four corners of the cloaks that you wear.

Now, of course, I'm being a little sarcastic in my scenarios, but the point is correct nonetheless. If we are going to preach 22:5 TO WOMEN (they always seem to get the brunt of the man-made rules) and bind them to that one lone scripture and in MANY churches even make it a Heaven or Hell issue, then how can we just neglect all of the rest of the Chapter?

Can somebody please explain that? (And please don't say "Because it's in the UPCI Manual") Yes, I've actually heard that from quite a number of my UPC Preacher friends. And I've even heard from some non-UPC Preacher friends who believe that, that that's the way their parents did it, so...

Paul taught us to dress modesty, but he never preached Deuteronomy 22:5 as a dress code for women or men for that matter, at least not as far as we know. So why do some?

Just a few questions I have...

Thanks for the opportunity to share...

If we can Do away with Duet 22 then whose to say we can do away with the scripture in Lev. that says that lying with man and man is an abomination???

Isn't there a difference between the civil laws of Israel and moral laws that are timeless ??


.

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by StMark

If we can Do away with Duet 22 then whose to say we can do away with the scripture in Lev. that says that lying with man and man is an abomination???

Isn't there a difference between the civil laws of Israel and moral laws that are timeless ??


.

It is proper interpretation of Scripture. How did Isreal apply this teaching that was given to them. They both wore robes. The differences were that the women dressed in a more ortamental style -- but it was still the same basic robe. The same is true today -- women wear pants like men and they have differences. The principle was not to confuse the sexes.

My wife does not do away with that principle. My wife does not seek to look like a man.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

It is proper interpretation of Scripture. How did Isreal apply this teaching that was given to them. They both wore robes. The differences were that the women dressed in a more ortamental style -- but it was still the same basic robe. The same is true today -- women wear pants like men and they have differences. The principle was not to confuse the sexes.

My wife does not do away with that principle. My wife does not seek to look like a man.

When one examines the fact that in OT times they both wore the same basic garb w/ gender distinctions ... the ultracon argument falls apart.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by StMark

If we can Do away with Duet 22 then whose to say we can do away with the scripture in Lev. that says that lying with man and man is an abomination???

Isn't there a difference between the civil laws of Israel and moral laws that are timeless ??


.

Mark, you have to do away with the belief that Deut 22:5 is about women wearing pants. It's not. Not even close. Nobody is doing away with that scripture because it still applies to everyone today.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Mark, you have to do away with the belief that Deut 22:5 is about women wearing pants. It's not. Not even close. Nobody is doing away with that scripture because it still applies to everyone today.

Okay, now we are making a little progress.

If a man wore a dress made ONLY for women, say the fabric is made from burlap and has litte spikes coming out of it to make it more masculine, wouldn't it still "PERTAIN" to a female's garment since it's a Dress ???

HO, when did pants AND a dress both become a woman's garment but only pants are for men ??

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by StMark

Okay, now we are making a little progress.

If a man wore a dress made ONLY for women, say the fabric is made from burlap and has litte spikes coming out of it to make it more masculine, wouldn't it still "PERTAIN" to a female's garment since it's a Dress ???

HO, when did pants AND a dress both become a woman's garment but only pants are for men ??

What about Scottland's kilts or even Greece? those are not dresses but are a man's garment, and looks very much like a skirt. Grant it many do not wear them now days but still was made for men.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

What about Scottland's kilts or even Greece? those are not dresses but are a man's garment, and looks very much like a skirt. Grant it many do not wear them now days but still was made for men.

Those are worn for ceremonial purposes only or for some types of cultural festivities that celebrate their past.

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by StMark

Those are worn for ceremonial purposes only or for some types of cultural festivities that celebrate their past.

Have you been to Scotland lately? not all wear them for ceremonial.
They are making a big come back these days in daily dress and fashion over there. As I stated though not all wear them all the time but there is a trend towards more men wearing them all the time.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

Have you been to Scotland lately? not all wear them for ceremonial.
They are making a big come back these days in daily dress and fashion over there. As I stated though not all wear them all the time but there is a trend towards more men wearing them all the time.

That is the culture. I don't believe that if we had the opportunity to go to Arabia, we sould try to change them from wearing robes because it's the culture. UNLESS the culture was ungodly. In heathen cultures, we have to instruct them in a better and more biblical way.
In our western culture, Men do not wear dresses period. women are wearing whatever they want. the lines have been blurred.

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

I hate this thread. Every time I read something where peole have responded to StMark they simply use Mark and that is my first name also and I have to stop and remind myself I did not start this. Besides as many differences as Dan and I have on some of our beliefs this is not one of them.
Isn't there a post on AFF somewhere that someone stated about one of the Targum's that had been written so that the OT could be understood by those that did not understand Hebrew, back all those years ago, show that the scripture got translated as women not wearing the fringe like the men and men not shaving to look like a woman? Just one of the old translations from before all our times but since we have the Holy Ghost living in us now days I am sure we have a better understanding of it all now.

Originally Posted by StMark

How are they using me ??? I'm just trying to understand your point.

which Dan are you talking about?

why do you hate this thread?

Do not really hate it. Just a figure of speach. My first name is Mark ALSO and ever time I see them respond to YOU they are using just the Mark part and since it is my name I of course have to REMEMBER it is not ME they are talking to. Not that it is a big deal.
DANIEL A is the Dan I was talking about.