Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
The pants worn during the time of Christ, and before that in the near and Middle East. Were worn by soldiers, calvary, and even infantry. Trousers weren’t worn by the women. Parthian horseman wore trousers, Celtic warriors wore trousers which were adopted by the Romans.
|
We shouldn't take our queues from culture. I believe there are biblical principles that can be applied in any given cultural context. We should stick to Scripture. Pants on women are not specifically condemned in Scripture. In fact, I remember reading how trousers were worn by women under their outer garments in colder regions during colder seasons. Everyday attire worn by both men and women were actually similar in ancient Israel.
But it doesn't matter. For even if they went to the extreme to condemn pants on women, even trousers under the outer garments during colder seasons, it matters little. Because the Jews were known for taking the Scriptures to an extreme beyond what they actually taught.
I still contend that the text speaks of the individual wearing that which pertains to the opposite gender as being an "abomination". This phrase is commonly used in reference to both idolatry and sexual perversions. Therefore, I contend that the text is addressing an idolatrous perversion that was common among the heathen, and is common even today among the "Drag Queen", cross dressing, gender bending, subculture. Who would deny that the perversion of cross dressing and gender bending is an "abomination" on par with homosexuality itself? In fact, one finds the cross dressing community littered with homosexuals and deviants practicing all manner of perversions.
This isn't a shallow condemnation of trousers, pants, pajamas, uniform pants, crotch-knit safety chaps/trousers, or Levi's on women. The rule isn't about a "style". This is the moral condemnation of a perversion, a confusion, a denial of gender that plays to sexual deviancy and perversion. It's far deeper and more serious a matter than Jordache jeans.