Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I'd go as far as to say that not only does Deuteronomy 22:5 not mention pants, but not one of the 613 "mitzvahs" (as you put them) mention pants either. If it was indeed that important, you know, there is language for specifying pants. But the language isn't there. Deuteronomy 22:5 is about the cross dressing perversion... not a specific style and cut of clothing.
Transvestism in Ancient Israel
https://claudemariottini.com/2009/01...ncient-israel/ |
The logic postulated here suggests that since "pants" are not "specifically" mentioned then, pants must not be intended. therefore, women can wear pants.
The problem with this polemic is that it demands an unreasonable standard. For example, if the Bible MUST be specific for something to be wrong then, pedophilia is okay under this standard.
The truth is there are timeless principles in God's word. The principle found in
Deu. 22:5 is that men and women are to remain distinct in their clothing (what they wear). Since pants are worn then they must be understood Biblically.
As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - godly men wore pants and godly women did not. This principle holds true today.
To argue that it is okay to wear pants because Deu. did not specify that article of clothing opens the door for pedophilia and anything else not specifically mentioned in the Bible. In short, this "logic" does violence to the very nature of scripture. God never intended the Bible to be an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. He provided the principle and we must use those principles to discern right from wrong. Since the Bible never records a godly woman wearing pants then, it is certain that there is a reason why it is not there...
Threaded Mode
