More on Skirts

[good samaritan]

EB, made a good point that if the person's intent is all that made cross dressing wrong, then if the intent was changed cross dressing would be o.k. I would like to say that the majority of women that wear pants don't have that wrong intent. Most women that wear pants do for more practical purposes and cultural relevance. But, do people not see that pants have gained popularity in a season of moral and spiritual decline.

It is the little foxes that spoil the vines. At the beginning of the 20th century, our country was considered a Christian nation. American culture may not have been perfect, but Christianity was what we were in some flavor or another. We have seen prayer banned in schools while handing out contraceptives. The industrial age introduced our mothers into a workplace that was not acceptable in generations before.

Mothers have left their families in trust to daycare and school systems for more money. People have more today than they did back then. More cars, bigger houses, technology, more and nicer clothes...... We have forsaken the fountain of living water for cisterns that can hold no water.

People can keep excusing behavior for cultural relevance, but all the while, our culture stinks in the nostrils of God. I am not saying that a woman well go to hell over pants, but I will also not tell a woman that she is o.k. either. Jeff Arnold preached a sermon a while back that the title has stuck with me, "The thing that matters most, we must please God". Where is God ranked in our list of people to please.

People don't seem to even care if they please God. We can argue back and forth on if De 22:5 applies to ladies in jeans. Yes, to me it does, but the question is what is shaping our interpretation. Are we allowing culture to interpret the scripture or are we truly seeking what is God's desire.

If culture makes a move that is moral or godly we should join, but if culture makes a move that is ungodly or questionable then we should stay where we are. When ladies began wearing pants was that something we think that raised the spiritual bar?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Seeing that pants weren't worn by the average Israelite when Deuteronomy was written, the scholars may have a point. The text reads...

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Again, it should be stressed that this isn't about cultural clothing styles. Because there was never much difference between male and female dress in ancient Israel during the time of this writing. It should also be stressed that pants were not in view here seeing that they were not part of the common attire of men nor women in ancient Israel.

Oh brother, here we go again... Holiness is not up for a vote. It is not dependent upon universal appeal or popularity. It does not matter if "pants" were the fashion fad of the day or not. What matters is whether or not men or women could wear them. It has been demonstrated ad-infinitum that godly mean wore pants. This has been agreed to by Aquila. I have asked ad-infinitum for evidence of godly women wearing pants. So far there has been a conspicuous lack of evidence provided that any godly woman ever wore pants. Popularity is not the question and is a red herring in order to ignore providing real evidence.

Since God never rebuked the nation for the fact that male and female attire was so similar, we have to assume that similarities in every day common attire wasn't an issue in the eyes of God. So, our ultra-conservative brethren don't really have much grounds to condemn women to hell merely over them wearing women's jeans or pants which is only a cultural development and presents a similarity comparable to that found among the ancient Israelites.

This is patently false. For example, Deu. 22:5 tells the nation that men should wear men's apparel and ladies should wear women's apparel. It is understood why assumptions are made. They have to be because there is a conspicuous lack of any evidence. Therefore, assumptions are demanded to take the place of real evidence.

Aquila owes me another apology for misrepresenting me. I do not condemn anyone to hell. They do that themselves my their actions not my words. I am to teach and preach. After that, it is between them and God. I do not sit on the judgement seat.

This view takes several things into consideration that the ultra-conservatives on this position are ignoring.

- The Hebrew meaning of the text itself.
- The cultural & historical context wherein the Israelites were confronted with Canaanite practices.
- The cultural norms of the day in which it was written.
- The cultural norms that continued throughout Israel after it was written.

Let's talk about ignoring things shall we? It has been asked ad-infinitum for evidence of a godly woman wearing pants. After several pages and posts here are the top 3 examples of the responses to this request:
1)
2)
3)

That is correct. There has been NO response to the request. I and others have not ignored the meaning of the text. In fact I have quoted several times the text and provided definitions from the Masoretic text and the Greek text. The truth is, Aquila just does not like the response so he falsely claims it has been ignored. Neither has the cultural or historical context been ignored or the cultural norms of the day. On the latter, Aquila seems to believe that holiness is up for a vote thus, he continues to claim pants were not popular therefore cannot be used as an example for clothing. This thought process limits holiness to a popularity contest. Anything goes until it becomes popular and commonplace. Then, maybe it should be stood against. This is absurd. If Noah teaches us anything, it is that God does not put holiness up for a vote neither is it a popularity contest. The fact remains as it has for multiple pages and posts that godly men wore pants. God women did not. Aquila has and continues to ignore this fact.

In essence, the ultra-conservatives on this topic are drawing their conclusion in a vacuum wherein this text is used as a proof text and associated with other unrelated proof texts found in passages of Scripture that are from different writers, separated by nearly 1,000 years, and were written under an entirely different cultural context.

Oh brother, again with the "vacuum". A vacuum is a space in which there is nothing. So I ask, have there been scriptures given that demonstrate godly men wore pants? The answer is yes and Aquila has agreed to this. So the next question is, how many scriptures have been given that demonstrates godly women wore pants. Answer: ZERO, nada, nothing. Which of these answers fits the description of the proverbial vacuum? Answer - Aquila's inability to provide ONE Biblical source of evidence. His evidence is found to be in his own proverbial vacuum.

Aquila follows up by stating "unrelated proof texts found in passages of Scripture that are from different writers, separated by nearly 1,000 years, and were written under an entirely different cultural context". This implies that scripture is not in harmony due to different writers and cultural contexts being separated a millennium. This is absurd. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, correction and instruction in righteousness. This is one of the beauties of the Bible. Although there are indeed multiple writers from many different walks of life and time periods, it remains a remarkable witness to harmony of thought. This is because that although there are multiple writers there remains ONE singular author - God. Apparently, Aquila does not believe this or he would never have made such a ludicrous statement. However, in light of the conspicuous lack of evidence he has presented he must attempt to provide some kind of rationale for his ignoring of scriptural fact. Godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.



Therefore, I conclude that the ultra-conservative interpretation on this text isn't biblically accurate.

LOL! Really? Have scriptures been presented where godly men wore pants? Answer: yes!
Have scriptures been presented where godly women wore pants? Answer NO.
Yet, we are to believe that the Biblical evidence is wrong and the "vacuum" of evidence is correct? Really? Incredible!


What applications can be drawn from this text?

- The admonishment to avoid participation in pagan ritual.
- The admonishment against allowing women to serve in combat (a virtue among the Canaanites).
- The admonishment against the effort of males trying to avoid military service through cowardice means (a characterization of males among the Canaanites).
- The admonishment to avoid any sexual practice wherein gender roles are abandoned to satisfy perverted lusts such as the cross dressing fetish, including any practice wherein women might wear a phallus and engage in lewd acts with submissive men (also common among the Canaanites who practiced dawning opposite gender attire in ritual).

When the ultra-conservatives apply this text strictly to pants, they are actually not only ignoring a complete exegesis of the text, they are also selling themselves short on the broad spectrum of practices the text would actually address.

Once again, Aquila is wrong. He has made so many logical blunders it is impossible to keep track. From ignoring the harmony of scripture to presenting a argument void of and Biblical evidence such as answering the simple question, where did godly women wear pants? Since he refuses to answer this question, he is forced into a myriad of logical fallacies and red herrings to try to argue that godly women can wear pants even though the evidence for it is found in his proverbial "vacuum" - his evidence does not exist in any Biblical fashion.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The word geber is used to show masculinity. Job 3:3 Job speaks about his birth. The word geber is used. We are never told in the Bible that Job was a warrior, a man of war. This is the simplest example of the use of geber. But reader you will find that some people don't want simple, they just push agenda. "May the day of my birth perish, and the night that said, 'A boy is conceived!' Sorry, but Job was speaking of a healthy strong male. Deuteronomy is stressing masculinity, and for the female femininity. Therefore pants, trousers, and breeches were male attire, katastole was for females.



Again, here is the argument that Deuteronomy 22:5 is religious. That it is concerning pagan rituals of pagans gender blending. Therefore we can draw the logical conclusion that God has no problem with crossdressing if your intent is righteous? Again, flawed logic, also Aquila argues that they Hebrew children who were tossed into the fire were wearing BABYLONIAN ONLY clothing. Yet, previously the rejected pagan foods, and they are being thrown into the fire because they REFUSED to be involved in pagan rituals. Yet, here they are in pagan attire "which is used in pagan rituals" being thrown to their punishment? No, the garments of these three boys were already in use back home in Jerusalem. But, Aquila uses this argument as it even is still viable to the discussion. He therefore believes that if he says something enough times it by proxy becomes truth. Also military excuse is because of one word, the word geber. This also has been refuted, do a word study, look it up in the Hebrew, and in the LXX Deuteronomy 22:5 the word used is ἀνδρὸς. If there was such an issue to denote military usage of the verse, then the Diaspora Judeans would of had issue with the Greek ἀνδρὸς . Which never happened.
Men dawning female attire pretending to be females? Like Aquila who constantly beat the drum for pants to be mentioned in the verse, homosexuality isn't spoken of in the verse. You see a virtual hodgepodge of different meanings of this one verse from Aquila, because readers he is doing this on the fly. Dedicating more time to Google, then to the verse itself. We don't see anything concerning intent, pagan rituals, military purposes, men wanting to be women. Women wanting to be WARRIORS! Well Sister Alvear loses Warrior Deborah. Even though I don't believe Deborah led armies into battle, we have no Biblical record of females fighting with ancient Israeli military. A woman throwing a millstone over a parapet and killing a man was thought to be disgraceful. Yet, last of all if crossdressing was just about someone's perverted intent, then if we can remove the wrong intent, then the crossdressing is no longer an abomination. That my friends and foes, is called logic.



Never much difference? Then where's really the crossdressing? Aquila states archeological evidence. The oldest pair of clothing found on the planet is a pair of oriental calvarymen pants. Since pants were the primary tool for riding horses into battle. Hence Jesus' wearing embroidered pants in Revelation 19:16. Yet, we aren't dealing with anyone trying to come to a truthful conclusion. This whole discussion isn't even about clothing good or bad. It is about agenda. Plain and simple, if Jesus preached and David played his harp Aquila wouldn't change his mind. Because it is all about a group of bad people who MAKE other people to bad things? How gross, and I'm the one who is being insulting?



Never rebuked a nation for similar attire? Deuteronomy 22:5 itself says there attire wasn't similar? You have a law book which has a verse that speaks solely about objects which are NOT similar.



Cultural norms were under Deuteronomy 22:5 they wore different clothing. the Hebrew meaning is the same as the Greek meaning found in their Greek Old Testament. Which was used throughout the Hellenized Judean world. If the verse was to specifically mean WARRIOR? Then no one had an issue with the Greek usage in Deuteronomy 22:5 it just means MAN. Canaanite ritual practices in the entire Bible we are never once shown anything about rituals, involving clothes. Or crossdressing rituals. Not saying there wasn't there most certainly was as in Corinth. Yet, the logical conclusion to that is if your intent is pure you can crossdress. Also the pagan crossdressing argument refutes the three Hebrew children's attire hands down.




I would just be repeating myself at this point, because Aquila is pounding this into the dirt. Aquila's position is that crossdressing is fine if intent is pure. That is conclusion I have drawn. If it is religious pagan practice or perversion then if your intent is godly then crossdressing is righteous.

Aquila, that is your world?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by UnTraditional

I have known women who wear pants, who have been baptized in Jesus name, filled with the Holy Spirit, to be the most humble I have ever met. Again, I have known some to be so prideful and arrogant that they think themselves as seated on the left hand of God. IN regards, I have seen some sisters wearing dresses and holding very conservative standards who exhibited wonderfully every fruit of the Spirit, and some the exact opposite. I usually deal with the issue with one word...

Modesty.

When a woman wear clothes that are a frame for her face, and not her body, then it is godly. When a woman wear clothes that draw attention to her body and is sensual, I believe that is outside the will of God and shames her. The same with men's clothing as well. I know men who wear skinny jeans, and I know they need some hands laid on them ( ). I have seen women wear pants that I wonder how in the world they are breathing. The entire issue of skirts versus pants on women comes down, and I may be wrong, but to the issue of modesty.

Do I think women are cross-dressing by wear women's pants? Nope. Do I think men are cross-dressing by wearing skinny jeans? They NEED hands laid on them! But, let all things be done to the glory and honor of Jesus alone. Let us therefore be modest as well, both men and women, brothers and sisters.

Modesty is an excellent point. We must be modest in our appearance. We may disagree on the "pants" issue but we certainly agree on the modesty issue.

Thank you for adding this point to the discussion. I doubt you will find anyone who disagrees with this.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Jason B

A serious question, I'm sure its been asked before, but I can't recall the answers given.

To the people who believe a female wearing a bifurcated garment is sin, yea ABOMINATION, would that not mean that women out not even to wear pajama pants?

I ask because if a man cross dresses, even if the privacy of his own home, and even if a heterosexual, we would all agree that behavior is sinful. So then, if you honestly believe that a woman who wear pants, slacks, capris, culottes, etc is sinning, then how do you justify women wearing pajama pants? Does the time of day or physical location somehow change what is sinful and abominable?

Now, I understand that there are women who will not wear pj pants for this reason, at least they are consistent. I also know that its not really uncommon for all these uc women who'd never wear pants in public, who do so daily in private overnight? Its quite common.

So how do you guys justify this? Or are all those women who wear pj pants also sinning?

I think some things should be left personal. How people dress in their bed should be between them and God alone. No offence.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

EB, made a good point that if the person's intent is all that made cross dressing wrong, then if the intent was changed cross dressing would be o.k. I would like to say that the majority of women that wear pants don't have that wrong intent. Most women that wear pants do for more practical purposes and cultural relevance. But, do people not see that pants have gained popularity in a season of moral and spiritual decline.

It is the little foxes that spoil the vines. At the beginning of the 20th century, our country was considered a Christian nation. American culture may not have been perfect, but Christianity was what we were in some flavor or another. We have seen prayer banned in schools while handing out contraceptives. The industrial age introduced our mothers into a workplace that was not acceptable in generations before.

Mothers have left their families in trust to daycare and school systems for more money. People have more today than they did back then. More cars, bigger houses, technology, more and nicer clothes...... We have forsaken the fountain of living water for cisterns that can hold no water.

People can keep excusing behavior for cultural relevance, but all the while, our culture stinks in the nostrils of God. I am not saying that a woman well go to hell over pants, but I will also not tell a woman that she is o.k. either. Jeff Arnold preached a sermon a while back that the title has stuck with me, "The thing that matters most, we must please God". Where is God ranked in our list of people to please.

People don't seem to even care if they please God. We can argue back and forth on if De 22:5 applies to ladies in jeans. Yes, to me it does, but the question is what is shaping our interpretation. Are we allowing culture to interpret the scripture or are we truly seeking what is God's desire.

If culture makes a move that is moral or godly we should join, but if culture makes a move that is ungodly or questionable then we should stay where we are. When ladies began wearing pants was that something we think that raised the spiritual bar?

Most commentators I've read on Deuteronomy don't explain it as addressing normal every day attire, and most wrote their commentaries on the meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 before women's' pants became popular.

Plus, I think we often romanticize the "good ol' days", you know, back when grandpa beat grandma or slapped her if she were out of line and no one thought it was an issue. Incest and molestation was far more common in families. Drinking was rarely even mentioned... even if dad drank himself silly every night.

Things were not perfect back then. But the image of perfection was rather important. I believe most of what is in the open today was with us then, there was just more discretion. They hid it better.

As for the church, yes, I can see the church's influence dropping. People are abandoning it. I believe it is because churches are becoming increasingly less relevant to their lives. In addition, the religious political agenda of the church isn't something a lot of people agree with.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

The way you guys approach scripture totally dumbfounding, its like talking to 7th Day Adventists about the Sabbath. It's sad really. Do you have a scripture showing a godly man who shaved his beard, or who wore long sleeves?

The fact that you are so hung up on the need for a scripture where God inspired the writer to go out of their way to tell us such and such a godly woman wore a pair of pants, is not only ridiculous, but also shows just how out of touch your measurement of holiness is with that of God himself. You simply cannot get past the exterior.....

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1 Peter 3:1-5 KJV

Or to make it a little more plain, a modern dynamic translation....
Don't be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God.
1 Peter 3:3-4 NLT

The ideas of shaving beards and wearing long sleeves are their own discussion. Therefore, a red herring as it relates to the discussion at hand. However, I will tell you, in summary, what I believe. If you want to start a thread on those issues please do so. I may or may not chime in.

In short I do not teach wearing a beard is "sin". I teach being clean shaven because in this society research has found that a clean shaven person is more readily accepted and trusted. These are important aspects in witnessing to the lost. We must be accepted and trusted and we must be found trustworthy. I do not find anywhere in scripture that being clean shaven is a sin; therefore, I teach men to shave.

As to wearing long sleeves, yes there is Bible for that but I will not get into that here.

Wow! I am "hung up on wanting scripture". Yeah, I guess I like taking a Biblical stand. Apparently you do not. That shows just how far removed you are from God's Holy Spirit for the Bible is God's written expression of Himself. This explains a lot.

FTR I believe holiness begins on the inside and migrates to the outside. So do you believe a woman can wear a bikini to church? Can a man wear a skinny bathing suit to church? If you answer yes to these questions then there is little that I can say that can help you. If you answer no then you admit that you have a standard as well. You just draw the line differently than I and someone who is further left than you would make the same arguments you use to tell you you cannot get past the exterior. That is just one reason why the Bible is important. We need a Biblical standard so once again I will ask for a single passage where a godly woman wore pants.

Since you cannot provide any Biblical evidence I must conclude, after several pages and posts, you have NONE. I will stick with the Bible.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Jason B

The way you guys approach scripture totally dumbfounding, its like talking to 7th Day Adventists about the Sabbath. It's sad really. Do you have a scripture showing a godly man who shaved his beard, or who wore long sleeves?

The fact that you are so hung up on the need for a scripture where God inspired the writer to go out of their way to tell us such and such a godly woman wore a pair of pants, is not only ridiculous, but also shows just how out of touch your measurement of holiness is with that of God himself. You simply cannot get past the exterior.....

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1 Peter 3:1-5 KJV

Or to make it a little more plain, a modern dynamic translation....
Don't be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God.
1 Peter 3:3-4 NLT

Yet people from the camp you are arguing for paint their faces, finger nails, go to tanning beds to toast their skin, change the color of their hair, adorn themselves with Jewels and probably enjoy clothes shopping as much or more than any op. The reason most of the OP women that I know personally struggle with the whole pants vs skirts is because of pressure to look like everyone else. So which side is really more consumed about the outward.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Once again, Aquila is wrong. He has made so many logical blunders it is impossible to keep track. From ignoring the harmony of scripture to presenting a argument void of and Biblical evidence such as answering the simple question, where did godly women wear pants? Since he refuses to answer this question, he is forced into a myriad of logical fallacies and red herrings to try to argue that godly women can wear pants even though the evidence for it is found in his proverbial "vacuum" - his evidence does not exist in any Biblical fashion.

I did answer that question. Neither men nor women are recorded as having worn pants in ancient Israel. In fact, what they did wear were tunics, girdles (belts) about the waist, and a larger outer tunic, sandals, veils, etc. And the general cut and styles were such that there wasn't much difference between male and female attire. If you saw someone in a field wearing full attire in the colder season, at 50 yards you'd not be able to tell if they were a male or female.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

A serious question, I'm sure its been asked before, but I can't recall the answers given.

To the people who believe a female wearing a bifurcated garment is sin, yea ABOMINATION, would that not mean that women out not even to wear pajama pants?

I ask because if a man cross dresses, even if the privacy of his own home, and even if a heterosexual, we would all agree that behavior is sinful. So then, if you honestly believe that a woman who wear pants, slacks, capris, culottes, etc is sinning, then how do you justify women wearing pajama pants? Does the time of day or physical location somehow change what is sinful and abominable?

Now, I understand that there are women who will not wear pj pants for this reason, at least they are consistent. I also know that its not really uncommon for all these uc women who'd never wear pants in public, who do so daily in private overnight? Its quite common.

So how do you guys justify this? Or are all those women who wear pj pants also sinning?

You answered your own question. When you come to my church we can have a more detailed discussion. I have answered this to a degree already. I am to teach and preach. After that people musty make up their own minds and God is their judge not me. I do not want to go off on a tangent. I would rather "settle" the issue first. Pants first, PJ's second. If a person refuses to accept the "pants" issue there is no point in moving on to PJs.

Just like witnessing to some people. If they cannot accept Jesus Name baptism, there is little point in pressing the need for the Holy Ghost.