More on Skirts

[Jason B]

Pliny, do you wear shorts?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Pliny, do you wear shorts?

Uh-oh. lol

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Pliny, do you wear shorts?

No.

I scuba dive with a wet suit and do put shorts on over that. Is this what you mean?

[Aquila]

Here's some interesting commentary about what we've been discussing:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Job 1:20 — but on hearing of the death of his children, then he arose; or, as Eichorn translates, he started up (2 Samuel 13:31). The rending of the mantle was the conventional mark of deep grief (Genesis 37:34). Orientals wear a tunic or shirt, and loose pantaloons; and over these a flowing mantle (especially great persons and women). Shaving the head was also usual in grief (Jeremiah 41:5; Micah 1:16).

See, those in the East wore a tunic, loose pantaloons, and over these a long flowing mantle (this is especially true of great persons and women). So, if these pantaloons are "pants", women wore pants as part of their undergarments.

Also, no great distinction between dress between men and women has been found beyond length, color, and embroidery. So, obviously, Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't demand a drastic distinction between dress as it relates to gender. In addition, there was no prohibition against the pantaloons worn with one's under garment for men nor women. General design was the same. But color, length, and decorative additions such as embroidery was all that was necessary to draw distinction.

As it relates to the three Hebrew Captives:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Daniel 3:21 — coats … hosen … hats — Herodotus [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [Gesenius], “their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles.”

Y'all have bashed me for pages over these points. These were Babylonian garments. I assure you, I'm not crazy.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garments ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.

Smith's Bible Dictionary
The costume of the men and women was very similar; there was sufficient difference, however, to mark the sex, and it was strictly forbidden to a woman to wear the appendages, such as the staff, signet-ring, and other ornaments, of a man; as well as to a man to wear the outer robe of a woman. (Deut. 22:5)

Men and women wore the same kind of clothing, but it differed in detail. They both would wear an inner garment and a girdle and an outer garment, but the dress of the woman was more elaborate and ornamented. However, the women wore longer tunics and larger mantles than the men. Also the women would often wear a veil covering their face. Beyond these distinctions, there wasn't much difference in men and women's clothing.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's some interesting commentary about what we've been discussing:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Job 1:20 — but on hearing of the death of his children, then he arose; or, as Eichorn translates, he started up (2 Samuel 13:31). The rending of the mantle was the conventional mark of deep grief (Genesis 37:34). Orientals wear a tunic or shirt, and loose pantaloons; and over these a flowing mantle (especially great persons and women). Shaving the head was also usual in grief (Jeremiah 41:5; Micah 1:16).

See, those in the East wore a tunic, loose pantaloons, and over these a long flowing mantle (this is especially true of great persons and women). So, if these pantaloons are "pants", women wore pants as part of their undergarments.

Also, no great distinction between dress between men and women has been found beyond length, color, and embroidery. So, obviously, Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't demand a drastic distinction between dress as it relates to gender. In addition, there was no prohibition against the pantaloons worn with one's under garment for men nor women. General design was the same. But color, length, and decorative additions such as embroidery was all that was necessary to draw distinction.

As it relates to the three Hebrew Captives:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Daniel 3:21 — coats … hosen … hats — Herodotus [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [Gesenius], “their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles.”

Y'all have bashed me for pages over these points. These were Babylonian garments. I assure you, I'm not crazy.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garments ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.

Smith's Bible Dictionary
The costume of the men and women was very similar; there was sufficient difference, however, to mark the sex, and it was strictly forbidden to a woman to wear the appendages, such as the staff, signet-ring, and other ornaments, of a man; as well as to a man to wear the outer robe of a woman. (Deut. 22:5)

Men and women wore the same kind of clothing, but it differed in detail. They both would wear an inner garment and a girdle and an outer garment, but the dress of the woman was more elaborate and ornamented. However, the women wore longer tunics and larger mantles than the men. Also the women would often wear a veil covering their face. Beyond these distinctions, there wasn't much difference in men and women's clothing.

STILL WAITING for that Biblical verse that demonstrates that godly women wear pants...

[Aquila]

A very good article on the topic:

Does the Bible Say It's a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants?
The Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5
http://www.spiritualabuse.org/actsei...men-pants.html

[Aquila]

If one argues that a woman shouldn't wear pants based on Deuteronomy 22:5, one can easily point out that women's pants pertain to women, not men.

If you argue that history and culture have always held that women don't wear pants, you're now pulling authority from culture, which changes. For example, T-shirts were originally worn by men and were believed to be immodest for women to wear. However, today, women wear T-shirts all the time. Same with hosiery, etc.

If you want to try to appeal to styles of dress in biblical times, you're argument is weak because both men and women wore essentially the same things (including pantaloons and loin cloths) without any great distinction beyond length, color, embroideries.

Ah... but if you abandon the Law keeping and all the trivial non-sense and appeal to Christian modesty, you can indeed make the case that Christian women do well to wear dresses and skirts for the sake of being modest. If one argues that pants are modest, we know that isn't always the case. The most popular pants for women have low waist lines that ride just upon the hips, exposing a woman's body just above her pubic hair, and if she bends over, one can see the top of her bare buttocks. They are also so tight nearly every curve of her body can be seen. Some are so tight so as to allow one to see the curves of her most intimate parts. No Christian woman seeking to please God would knowingly be so immodest. Likewise, a focus on modesty would cause a woman to think twice before wearing any low cut blouse or top, tight dress or skirt, mini skirts, certain styles of shoes, certain styles of pantyhose, etc.

Also, it becomes a part of a woman's devotional life and sanctification. Something she can grow into slowly if abandoning pants, or any other article of clothing, seems overwhelming. And if women continue to wear pants, you can advocate that they wear longer tops, blouses, sweaters, etc. so as to adequately cover her groin and buttocks. Of course the goal is a woman who is radiant in feminine beauty and modesty. But you can allow women to grow at their own pace and to grow as they learn and experience how modesty feels for themselves.

What I found so very amusing throughout this debate is how letter of the Law focused the argumentation regarding the Law was. Instead of arguing over definitions, ancient cultures, customary attire, etc... focus on Christian modesty and allow women to grow in grace and sanctification as the Spirit leads them.

In my opinion this approach is much more truer to the Christian Spirit of Grace to focus on modesty than to exaggerate Deuteronomy 22:5 beyond all bounds so that it can be used as a "clobber text" to scare women into some sort of misguided compliance to the Law.

There's nothing ever wrong with modesty and grace, patience and mercy, encouragement and spiritual discovery through devotion.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If one argues that a woman shouldn't wear pants based on Deuteronomy 22:5, one can easily point out that women's pants pertain to women, not men.

There is no such thing as women's pants. Just like there is no such thing as same gender marriage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

There is no such thing as women's pants. Just like there is no such thing as same gender marriage.

I truly believe that for you, there is no such thing as women's pants. Lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I truly believe that for you, there is no such thing as women's pants. Lol

There is no such thing as same gender marriage.

You don't get it?

I'm not surprised.