Aquila
I question even this reasoning. From my studies I believe that what others are calling pants were in fact underclothes, that when
Deut. 22:5 was written both men and women wore robes without anything under them in the way of breeches. That God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest for the purpose he directed in
Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exo 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.
In
Exodus 20 God is instruction his people on offering a sacrifice on an alter, and commands that they are not to go up steps when offering a sacrifice, that their nakedness be not discovered. The point being that everyone wore robes without underwear if you please.
The question I ask is if God had the priest wear underwear to cover their nakedness at certain times, why is it wrong for a women. Follow that with men have taken off their robes and now walk around in long underwear, albeit we now call them pants. But if it is ok for a man to wear underwear as common attire why do we not give a women the same latitude?
We say it is immodest, if it is immodest than so is a man walking around in a pair of pants instead of a robe!
Threaded Mode
