More on Skirts

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Question for Bible teachers and students (Aquila, that means you aren't being addressed here):

It is true that Deut 22:5 does not specifically identify pants, dresses, robes, hose, turbans, or any other specific items of clothing. So what is the hermeneutic for doctrine here?

What I mean is, we have a command that is nonspecific. To get to specific applications, we need either a necessary inference, or we are left with approved examples.

Can it be shown by necessary inference from Deut 22:5 that pants are only men's attire? I'm not sure that can be done.

So then, what about approved examples? What is the hermeneutic here? "That which has no approved example is forbidden"? I think that would be too broad (no pun intended), for then it could be argued "there are no approved examples of using the internet" or some other silly thing. So it must be narrower than that. If it is "approved example renders the exampled behavior beyond reproach", then all that could be said is it is permissible for men to wear breeches. But the negative corollary (women are not permitted) would not thereby be necessarily true.

So, what is the doctrinal hermeneutic being used here?

For the readers:

A necessary inference is something that necessarily must be true in a given case. "A conclusion that is dictated by a fact or premise. If the underlying fact or premise is true, then the necessary inference is an unavoidable conclusion that must be drawn." ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/necessary_inference ) For example, if we are commanded to sing to one another in a corporate sense, it is a necessary inference that some kind of melody, tune, harmony, etc must be used, because singing cannot by definition be done without some kind of melody, tempo, rhythm, harmony, etc.

An approved example is an example in Scripture of a specific act or behaviour, practice, or belief that is not condemned in Scripture (in the particular text, or elsewhere) or (better) that is specifically given approval in Scripture by God's representatives. For example, Peter and company went in to the house of an uncircumcised Gentile, and this was approved by God in multiple ways. Therefore, Christians are permitted to enter gentile homes to preach the Gospel to them, and if said gentiles become Christians, there is no need to circumcise them, nor is their gentile status a bar to fellowship. Another example: Paul and Silas were in jail for preaching, therefore going to jail for preaching Christ is perfectly acceptable and not to be reproached. Another example: Paul and Silas sang and prayed in the prison in the hearing of the other prisoners, therefore under certain conditions it is acceptable for Christians to pray knowing they will be heard by non Christians.

A command, of course, is an express command by God (through Christ, His apostles, prophets, etc) where God says "do this" or "do not do that".

When a command is non-specific, we must determine how to apply it. If a situation pertains that is not directly or specifically addressed in Scripture by a divine command, we must determine what command WOULD be given if one HAD been given. This means we must look to necessary inferences and approved examples in the text to determine if the particular case before us can be decided using principles found in Scripture. For example, there is no specific command in Scripture forbidding the use of marijuana. However, there are commands against intoxication (drunkenness), excess, riotous behaviour, revelling, and so forth. The approved examples in Scripture of Christ, the prophets, and the apostles indicate personal temperance and self control, self-sacrfice, denial of personal desires, and avoidance of "entertainments" are all godly and approved. Furthermore, there are commands, as well as necessary inferences drawn from those commands, of not practicing heathen customs, avoiding even the appearance of evil, avoiding reproach, and so forth. Therefore, by necessary inference and approved example, we can say Christians are not to use marijuana as an intoxicant. (Using cannabinols for medical purposes which have nothing whatsoever to do with getting high, which do not produce an intoxicating effect, etc would not fall under this proscription. Likewise, using cannabinols for extreme emergencies such as in treatment of glaucoma and nausea for chemotherapy victims would possibly not fall under the proscription either, as exampled by the Hebrew midwives and David's men eating the shewbread which show that in some cases where preservation of health and life may require bending the "letter of the law" in order to accomplish a greater good. However, we should always remember that while there are exceptions to the rules, the exceptions prove the rule, and are not an excuse for abandoning the rule.)

So then, as applied to Deuteronomy 22:5, and the issue of women's pants, how do commands, necessary inferences, and approved examples inform us of God's judgment on this matter?

[Scott Pitta]

I suggest Deut. 22:5 be interpreted in the context of the passage. It is one of many rules than constituted the law of Moses.

Hermeneutically, context determines meaning.

Make sense ?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I suggest Deut. 22:5 be interpreted in the context of the passage. It is one of many rules than constituted the law of Moses.

Hermeneutically, context determines meaning.

Make sense ?

Okay, so hermenuet the text.

[Esaias]

Did I kill yet another thread?

lol

[Sister Alvear]

Dishonesty (Proverbs 12:22).
Arrogant pride (Proverbs 16:5).
Ignoring God’s law (Proverbs 28:9).
Devising evil and sowing discord (Proverbs 6:16-19).
Eating what the Bible calls “unclean” animals (Leviticus 11:8; Leviticus 11:11; Leviticus 11:13; Leviticus 11:23).
The act of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22).

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Dishonesty (Proverbs 12:22).
Arrogant pride (Proverbs 16:5).
Ignoring God’s law (Proverbs 28:9).
Devising evil and sowing discord (Proverbs 6:16-19).
Eating what the Bible calls “unclean” animals (Leviticus 11:8; Leviticus 11:11; Leviticus 11:13; Leviticus 11:23).
The act of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22).

I'm confused, would you please include commentary?

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'm confused, would you please include commentary?

Just posting other things that the Bible calls an abomination...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Dishonesty (Proverbs 12:22).
Arrogant pride (Proverbs 16:5).
Ignoring God’s law (Proverbs 28:9).
Devising evil and sowing discord (Proverbs 6:16-19).
Eating what the Bible calls “unclean” animals (Leviticus 11:8; Leviticus 11:11; Leviticus 11:13; Leviticus 11:23).
The act of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22).

Sister Alvear why didn't you also included Deuteronomy 22:5?

[Aquila]

So far EB... you've only proven that the Bible illustrates that the priests wore bifurcated clothing. Beyond this, men and women's clothing were rather similar in design. However, some differences were seen with regards to length, fabric, and color. However, women did wear veils. (see attached image).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So far EB... you've only proven that the Bible illustrates that the priests wore bifurcated clothing. Beyond this, men and women's clothing were rather similar in design. However, some differences were seen with regards to length, fabric, and color. However, women did wear veils. (see attached image).

Nice picture, headcoverings? Is that what they really looked like? The picture you posted was from about the 1940s to the 50s? More like Arabs, bedouins? Bro, studying history, archeology, all the ancient mechanics on how they actually got things done is left up to detective work. Showing me a picture from a Bible dictionary doesn't actually help. Did they wear headcoverings? Yes, indeed they did. Both Romans as well as the Roman Judeans wore them. What they actually looked like? That takes a little more research, more than a dictionary picture of what an artist had to work with at the time.

What is the picture I posted?