And I can, well, except for that time that I was sitting in a Vietnamese restaurant in Oakland, and looked over my chopsticks at the next table, and on the other side from one beautiful lady was a woman with a crewcut. I mentally grimaced. Then the gorgeous creature turned around and she was a man with long, thick, breck-girl, jet-black hair. I mentally sickened. Then last week I took rapid transit into San Francisco to pass out gospel tracts at the Gay Pride festivities. Their celebration includes dozens of booths selling food, magazines, paraphernalia, and men's skirts. Yes. You exclaim, "Men's Skirts?!?!" I ambivantly reply, "Yes, and what of it? They weren't woman's skirts." They were uniquely male skirts, you see. And plenty of men with another man by his side were wearing a male skirt. And I could tell that they were both men. Well, I would have known if they were men if they had even worn women's skirts. Some sort of detection ability reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes, I have. Several of these men in skirts did remind me of an old Fred Flinstone cartoon, where Fred was dressed in drag. It didn't take rocket science, folks; not even Barney for that matter. But the men in San Francisco were scooping up these skirts like former President Clinton at an intern convention.
But I digress. I announce to all men (microphone feedback). You are (even more feedback) free to wear dresses! (Stunned silence) All of you John Waynes, Teddy Roosevelts, and Lyle Alzados? Go get your dresses. (Pin drop) Only one stipulation: (Light Murmur) It must be a male skirt or dress! (Cheers) Why? In the Bible in Deuterononomy 22:5, God said this:
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.At this time, I want to break to give you some vital and important fashion history. Men and women at that time, when Deuteronomy was written, both wore robes. They had not yet invented lycra or blue suede shoes. The sewing machine was not right around the corner. They (hush) had male robes and female robes. So do you know what that means? That means that today we get to wear the same kind of clothes as each other! That's what that mainly means. Yes! And if it doesn't mean that, it means: Don't be a transvestite! (This latter interpretation provided so that your bases will be covered.) (You're welcome.) But what it really means to you men is: Go out and get a male dress or skirt!
Now what it doesn't mean is: Women go put on pants. Why? You've already done that (giggle). Emilia Bloomer started you down that path, followed by Rosie the Riveter, and then the bell bottom. Pants are now female dress. Don't even worry about wearing "woman's pants." That doesn't mean anything anyway, unless you are debating some unsophisticated, neanderthal who wants to keep you in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Then you need to tell him (it) that you get women's pants in the women's department and everyone knows that they are different than men's. Did you ever see a man try to put on a pair of woman's pants? (ILOL [infinite lots of laughs]) They're shaped different. "You mean women?" No silly (three stooges poke in both eyes), the pants are shaped different. They make them different for women. "Yer kiddin!?!" Yes, Einstein. Everyone knows that women's pants are different than men's. "They're tighter?!?" (three stooges cuff on both ears) Yes!! I mean, No!! See what you've done; you've got me all confused now. They aren't tight. Well, you can get them tight, but you can get them loose too. I'm really through talking to you anyway. This really isn't a forum for people from the looney fringe. Women are already wearing pants, so Deuteronomy 22:5 means, "Men wear male skirts."
Nuff said.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteAre you taking exception to kilts, then?
Well, they didn't say "kilt" on their sign. They said "Men's Skirts," which I thought was quite fitting. They didn't look like the Scottish kilt.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that Scottish kilts are from a society based on paganism... It doesn't matter where or when it came from, I can guarantee it wasn't created by Bible-believing Jews or Christians who were living separated from the paganism and cross-dressing around them.
ReplyDeleteYes, I find it so ironic that Christians say they want to live by the Bible, but then ignore what it says when it doesn't fit their lifestyles.
Just yesterday, we had a pastor's wife visit our church from another IFB church - and I noticed how short her hair was, almost as short as the men in my IFB church! I certainly don't find 1 Corinthians 11 a vague passage of Scripture, so what is up with her? (And when I say her hair is short, I mean it is above the neck, not long enough to be a covering in any sense, except for perhaps the ears - what I would probably term short to medium length for a man - not a buzz cut, but not long either.) This bothers me because we have had her husband preach in our church before many times - and they come out every six months or so. This time she came by herself. I don't know if her hair has always been that length - but for some reason I noticed it this time. I wonder what my pastor (who was out of town) would think if he saw that? I know he does preach on hair lengths. No one else seemed to bat an eye though - she was such a regular visitor from such a solid church that I think many just ignored it - but since when does that make it right?
Oh yeah, I forgot the chapter states,
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a Corinthian woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature (ie. the nature of Corinth) itself teach you, that, if a Corinthian man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a Corinthian woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."
Good thing that God didn't mean this passage to be applicable to all believers at all times! Or did He?
A little bit of sharper irony there... ;)
Can I say CSL, seriously. I am at work right now, just south of "boystown" last weekend was gay pride week and can I say gross. I mean really gross. I see nice looking men as I was coming into work then I looked and they were holding hands, enough to make me spew.
ReplyDeleteSo anyway, can I make a request? Please if men are going to start wearing skirts and dresses, please, please, please make sure you have the legs for it. :P
San Francisco extremes aside, you seem to be using that as an illustration to jump off onto a larger issue.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem, within the context of things, that a Scottish kilt could conceivably fall under the descriptor of a "male skirt." Would you take exception to them under Deut. 22:5, or no?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGreg,
ReplyDeleteIf our culture designed an article of clothing for men distinct from woman's clothing, I would support it, because presently there is none. We have no symbol of masculinity any longer remaining in our culture. In our culture, I think most would agree that the kilt would not be that choice. Almost all professing Christians, except for a fairly small minority are silent on the issue, however. The majority of these professing have been most responsible for the disappearance of designed gender distinction, even fighting as hard as they fight for anything, for continued violation of Deut. 22:5.
Joel,
Deuteronomy 23:18 is saying that any monies made in the act of prostitution or sodomy were never to be brought to the tabernacle or temple as a payment of a vow because both practices were an abomination to God. Chapter 23 is a general section regarding the sanctity of the family. The price of a dog is not the price paid for the sale of a dog but a figurative expression used to describe the dog-like manner in which the male debased himself.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteWe have been over this ground before elsewhere, but again, many Christians would contend designed gender distinction is possible and can be evident on a pair of ladies' pants, just as it can be on a coat when comparing one designed for a man vs. a lady.
Take another cultural stereotype as an example- the apron. The cliché of being tied to apron strings is an obvious implication to being tied to a female, usually one's mother but sometimes also used to describe a domineering wife. We could make the case that culturally, it has been known as a distinct gender article of clothing (similar to the "pants in the family" cliche you refer to in your arguments.
Would you put the same kind of concern over a man wearing an apron at the BBQ grill, even if it is not a frilly pink one?
I understand that you may think this illustration preposterous- and maybe it is. As I've also told you previously, my wife does not wear pants in public, and hasn't owned any (other than some sweatpants she occasionally wears in the privacy of our own home) for several years- so I've got no huge axe to grind.
However, I understand the reason many of my fellow believers struggle so much with the issue. The principle of Deut 22:5 is clear, but the application that you draw so definitively is not. I respect your right to make that application for you and your family- but I would stop short of saying that the principle universally applies to the conglomeration of cultures we have in present-day America- just as I don't think we could universally condemn traditional Scottish culture for men's skir... er, kilts.
Everytime I see a guy wearin' a kilt, I think he looks like a really ugly Catholic school girl.
ReplyDeleteWhat under the O.T. dispensation was condemned by God is not necessarily condemned now. The knee jerk reaction that God said it was an abomination so it must be sin
ReplyDeleteTrace out the word abomination throughout the Old Testament - every single thing God says was an abomination to Him specifically is still an abomination - He has not changed. A majority of those things are restated in the NT for us - which leaves us to assume that even though some other things are not mentioned, God is still against them.
The passage you are referring to about dogs is regarding sodomites - God was saying it was wrong to bring a harlot's or a sodomite's wage as an offering - He is still offended by that today! He does not want any of us bringing in money that we earned through sinning and using that to support His work - whether that money was from selling ourselves sexually, money we won while gambling, from selling pornography, etc.
God is still against sin - what Peter's vision was referring to was that he was not to disregard a particular people when presenting the Gospel - it had nothing to do with the type of sins in their life. Though the Bible quite clearly states that a sodomite cannot be saved until they repent of their sodomy (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Joel, study out the passage please - God is not referring to a literal dog, right in the context itself He states that the dog is referring to a sodomite - this can easily be determined by comparing verses 17 and 18 and seeing the terms used. He isn't changing his thoughts, just using a different term in the next verse:
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Greg,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your concern on this issue. You said, "Many Christians would contend designed gender distinction is possible and can be evident on a pair of ladies' pants." People just ignored the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:5 when I discussed this before. That verse says that women are not to put on the article of clothing designed for a man. This is not making male articles look more feminine for women. And if we are going to design those distinctions then our culture should know what they are. What are they Greg? We at least have to look at the language of the verse. This is not generalizing anything, but is very specific. I at least am glad you haven't bowed to the no-transvesticism view.
I don't think your apron example is preposterous. I think if the apron is an article of clothing designed for a woman, then a man should not wear it. Have we designated this as such? For instance, the article a butcher wears in the front of him, and has for quite awhile, to keep the blood, etc. off him; is that article of clothing a woman's garment? Or is it male?
I haven't condemned the Scots for the kilt if they have designated it a male garment. The kilt is probably something akin to what the old Roman warrior wore that was designed distinct for the male, different than any female clothing. I do think the kilt illustration is preposterous in the U.S., however, because we haven't worn kilts.
Joel,
Figures of speech are part of a literal interpretation. When someone says the price of a whore and then the price of a dog, those two are incongruous if one understands "dog" as the canine species. Also look at the previous verse as a clue, v. 17. Literal interpretation is grammatical and historical, so we understand figures of speech and the history of expressions. Look at Revelation 22:15. Are these "dogs," literally or something else?
As far as your dispensationalism, Christ did not do away with the law (Mt. 5:18). He did not do away with the moral law, and this is a moral law, since it is an abomination to Him. Neither is it knee-jerk, something emotional and personal, not thought out or studied.
And I agree that we don't determine our beliefs based on social acceptance, which is why this whole blog was satirical.
Thanks.
Maybe I am thick here, but I really don't understand the distinction you are making about designed differences. A pair of women's pants bought in a dept. store are not garments brought in from the men's department and altered to tailor to a woman's figure. They were produced for women- intended for her to wear. How is that dsitinguished? Well, several factors are possible- color, cut, material, and so on.
ReplyDeleteTaking our kilt illustration another step- how does the design of a quilt differ signicantly from a woman's skirt? I don't know the answer, but you seem to imply there is a designed difference.
Designed difference means that one garment was designed uniquely for a man. You're right. Kilts look kinda like skirts so they wouldn't be good in our culture. But they didn't look like the ankle length, robe-like women's clothes of ancient Scotland. The point is that one particular article of clothing is male, you know, like pants. Ooops, that's right. They're not male anymore, and we have replaced that with....um....nothing. Why not? Because we could care less about Deuteronomy 22:5. We turn it into a "principle," when it doesn't read like a principle at all.
ReplyDeleteIn 1 Cor. 11, women wore the veils and men didn't. They didn't make men's veils and women's veils. Wearing the veil meant submission, not wearing it means headship. These articles pertain to one or the other.
The word "pertaineth" is where it is at---think "designed exclusively for." This is not a new intepretation at all. This is why men wore pants and women skirts. This is why Bible teachers and preachers went against this. It isn't a matter of looking different. It is an abomination to God because it is not respecting His design.
Thanks for this insightful article.
ReplyDeleteIn 2004, I learned something interesting while visiting Kensington Palace in London. This palace, once frequented by Princess Di, houses the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection, which includes ceremonial outfits dating from the 18th century and educates visitors about the royal clothing worn before the king and queen. For men and women of the court, clothing was quite an ordeal: just the right under and outer garments had to be in place before the monarch could be approached.
I find it interesting that to go before a human ruler, such care was taken for what was worn. But as kings and priests before a holy God, many believers assume that Deuteronomy 22:5 really does include “female slacks” (as distinguished from male slacks) because, of course, “they all wore robes back then.”
Is it possible that the robe—a modest covering for both genders—had some sort of distinguishing quality for men and women? Because why would God, in essence, command women not to wear men’s robes, if there was not some intrinsic distinction between the two? And in Western society, in which about a millennium of history indicates that we do have two distinct garments for two distinct sexes, it would seem that we, as Bible-believing Christians, would seek to carefully maintain this gender distinction, instead of watering it down.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn Bible times - OT as well as NT - robes were never some unisex outfit worn by both genders - and studying them out shows them to be something placed over other articles of clothing (like we might wear a bathrobe over our pjs). In the Bible, there were different types of robes, they were used in special occasions, and not everyday articles for both sexes. Some examples, are what warriors wore, the prodigal son given a robe for that celebration, kings in their ceremonial garb, etc. (Trying to go from memory here...)
ReplyDeleteIt is a worthwhile study to trace the word robe throughout Scripture, see the disctinctions made with each Hebrew and Greek word (Strong's does show this), and see the context of each time a robe was worn. I agree with Heather and others - God certainly never meant them to have some unisex robe - He was making a necessary disctinction.
As I have noted before, if gender distinction is the true concern, the blending of articles of clothing goes well beyond pants and skirts. Take sneakers (or whatever you call them in your corner of the country) and t-shirts. Male and female articles are virtually indiscernable from one another at first glance.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the real problem is the loss of formality in our culture- which goes far beyond a simple pants/skirt issue. I mean, let's face it- what is particularly feminine and graceful about the stereotypical Fundy teen girl in a t-shirt and worn-down culottes? All the talk about "dressing for the presence of the King of Kings" seems rather empty and hypocritical when the accepted application in the segments of Fundamentalism that value this standard is just as frumpy (if not more so) than their secular counterparts, only instead of jeans and t-shirts, it's denim skirts and t-shirts, or ratty old, poorly constructed culottes and t-shirts. We may have a sense of what passes for "modesty," but in many cases, we have sacrificed feminine elegance and grace in dress and deportment as much as our secular and evangelical counterparts.
Lest I be misunderstood, I'm not calling for eliteness in our appearance. It does seem, however, that what the overzealous application of the “no slacks on women” standard ends up being an opportunity to promote external self-righteousness and a sort of Christian elitism that can be just as immodest as midriff-bearing blouses and skintight jeans. Both are capable of drawing undue attention (though admittedly not always the samekind of attention).
When this kind of conversation gets out of hand is when we lose sight of the need for Christian ladies to distinguish themselves by good works rather than outward appearance. I'm not arguing for immodest apparel- but I am saying that our American culture (even, or perhaps especially, our American Fundamentalist sub-culture) has far greater inherent problems than women's pants and men's skirts.
Excellent job on this, Pastor B. It sounded like something from Sharper Irony. By the way, I'm one of those who make the knee jerk reaction Joel was talking about. I'm still making it. Knee jerk reaction? Come on, Joel. There just might be another knee jerk coming.
ReplyDeletePastor Mallinak you are right it is well said. I whole heartedly agree with Pastor Brandenburg on this.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I see that so many inconsistency arises because of this. Women wearing pants under skirts to keep warm or do things they ought not be doing. If the whole issue is about gender distinction and obeying God with not wearing that which pertaineth to a man and vice versa, and not about modesty, then why do so many Pastor's wifes that believe in what we are discussing wear, pants under their skirts/coullotes.
Do they not understand why it is that women are not to wear pants?
Just because a woman can physically do anything a man can do, doesn't mean they should. Yes, girls can go ride in a go cart, but if they can't do it modestly, should they be doing it all anyway?
my 2 cents
When this kind of conversation gets out of hand is when we lose sight of the need for Christian ladies to distinguish themselves by good works rather than outward appearance.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible teaches both are necessary - it is not one or the other.
Just because a woman can physically do anything a man can do, doesn't mean they should. Yes, girls can go ride in a go cart, but if they can't do it modestly, should they be doing it all anyway?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Cathy. I do not know how many times I have heard statements like this: "Me, switch wear dresses? I can't bull ride, bungee jump, or skydive in a dress!" So I think (and sometimes say), "If you can't be feminine and modest in those situations, maybe God really doesn't want you doing that!" - of course, they don't like hearing me say so. (Slight exaggeration above, except for the skydiving - that was a real conversation.)
But it seems today's average Christian woman is more concerned with her fun, with what she wants to do, with fitting in, than she is about pleasing God...
Praise the Lord there are still some women out there that do want to glorify the Lord in their apparel and demeanor.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't. Even in the OT, women were not to distinguish themselves by a standard of clothing- it was the norm. Those who were distinctive were the ones who put on "the attire of an harlot" and so on.
1 Peter 3:1-4 is a good passage that talks about how Christian wives, in contrast to the women around them, were not to be singled out because of apparel (and yes, I understand this is speaking of finery and gaudiness).
However, don't you find it somewhat intruiging that the NT doesn't go into near the amount of detail that we often have in modern-day American Fundamentalism? In contrast to Judaism, the Gentile converts surely had to have had issues in this area- think Greek marathon runners. Yet Paul and Peter leave things more amibiguous, reminding instead of the need to maintain distinctions between the sexes in both roles and appearance (such as 1 Cor. 11:1-16). When details are given (such as in 1 Tim. 2:9-15), what is detailed to be avoided is elaborate, extravagant jewelry. The woman is instead to "draw attention" to herself, as it were, by her good works (1 Tim 2:10). Modesty is present, it is true- but it is left to be applied in cultural context.
BTW, if the issues of modesty we are facing and combatting are "Pastors wifes" wearing pants under cullotes, then I would contend 1. we have really lost sight of a Biblical understanding of modesty, and 2. we have no understanding of the idea of form and formality in the American Fundamentalist sub-culture.
I was posting this on another blog today and thought it would be good to post here too, as this blog entry is dealing with the same verse.
ReplyDeleteHere is a list I compiled (through an online search - which sometimes doesn't list all the passages, so please excuse this if some were unintentionally overlooked) of OT passages that state what was an abomination to God Himself - most would agree that all of these listed below are still applicable and against God today:
Idolatry, witchcraft, sodomy, bestiality, incest (Leviticus 18), occult practices (Deuteronomy 18), A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren (Proverbs 6), offering sacrifices (whether physical or spiritual with a wicked heart (Proverbs 15:8), hypocrisy (Isaiah 1), child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31), bringing in the wages of a prostitute to God (Deuteronomy 23:18), someone remarrying their divorced spouse that had already been remarried with someone else after the divorce (Deuteronomy 24:4), being froward (stubbornly perverse and rebellious toward God - Proverbs 3:32), speaking wickedness (Proverbs 8:7 - in this chapter Christ is personified as wisdom), a false balance (Proverbs 11:1), the way of the wicked (Proverbs 15:9), the thoughts of the wicked (Proverbs 15:26), justifying the wicked and condemning the just (Proverbs 17:15), turning away your ear from hearing the law (God's Word - Proverbs 28:9), adultery (Ezekiel 22:11).
In light of all these passages that portray those things that were an abomination to God in the OT - and I am sure are still an abomination to Him in the NT (and always), I fully believe Deuteronomy 22:5 is still applicable to all believers today. It is still an abomination to God to wear that which pertains to the opposite gender.
For clarification: One point cultists like to trip people up on is the clean and unclean foods - but they were never stated to be an abomination to God, just to the people (see Leviticus 11:10-12; 20, 23) - so that does not conflict with this law being done away with in Christ.
"but I am saying that our American culture (even, or perhaps especially, our American Fundamentalist sub-culture) has far greater inherent problems than women's pants and men's skirts"
ReplyDeleteMr. Linscott I beg to differ. The start of our problems is excusing something as simple as appropiate dress as something minor. In reality it is a major problem amoung churches. It is an act of rebellion and it is still an abomination, just like homosexuality is an abomination. As Christians we shouldn't have the mentality that we can pick and choose our fights, we should fight and follow the WHOLE Word of God, not what is convinient, and what doesn't make waves.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteWhy forgive me for posting? I don't get that.
Greg,
Why the moral equivalence? Dressing like a harlot is wrong (do we really know how harlots dress, and should we point that out if we see it, Greg?), and so is trying to draw attention to our dress. But, a woman putting on an article of clothing that pertains to a man is an abomination to God. I know why it is controversial. It fits in with the issue of worldliness and conforming to worldly standards. We don't want to be oddballs, or peculiar people or something like that.
Good comments Jerry and Cathy.
Ok, so now you folks are saying pants on women is an issue on the same lines as homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteI can't argue with that. Homosexuality is painted as God's judgment on a culture in Romans 1 and so on. Making those kind of reckless comparisons displays a lack of willingness to evaluate and weigh behavior against Scripture, which I have tried to do with you.
So folks, I'm done. All I can say is I am very concerned with following the whole Word of God- which is why I don't preach against women wearing garments designed for women, whether they be skirts or pants. If you do not believe that, then I believe you must follow your conscience before God and obey him in that area. For my family and I, we will strive to obey Him to the best of our understanding as well, and I will teach my congregation the same. As I have noted before, being peculiar people has much more to do with our character and behavior than it does our clothing- otherwise, why not just get a "uniform" like the Amish?
I did find it interesting that no one wanted to respond to my observance of loss of formality in our culture and subculture. However, perhaps the silence illustrates the point.
Good day, all.i
I went to public school all my K through 12 life here in the Bay Area of California. I remember having a school uniform in Elementary school. Girls wore the little blue dresses, boys wore the little blue pants. I mention this because in 4th grade I remember a girl walking into the classroom wearing the regulation blue pants. I distinctly remember my teacher asking the girl why she was wearing what she was wearing. The girl responded that she had stayed at her mom's house the night before (Her parents are divorced and she usually stayed with her dad) and that's what she made her wear. My teacher sent her to the office. She (my teacher) then turned to the class and told us to line-up outside to deliver one of the greatest lessons I have ever learned. She marched us down the walk-way to the bathrooms and pointed at the doors. On them were to symbols. A little girl with a triangle skirt on and a little boy with straight pants on. She then asked us how we think the "kindy kids" (That was the school nick-name for the kindergartners) could know which bathroom to go in. I think a valuable lesson was learned. By the way, I don't ever remember that little girl coming back to school in pants again either. I hope this had something to add to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteOK, Greg, no one answered your formal dress comments. I wrote on this in my book, and I agree with you. I don't think it relates directly to this issue. You look at old pictures of baseball games and everyone is in a suit, and women wore formal dresses to the park, and on airplane trips, everyone dressed up. This is a worldly trend toward casualness, part of the me first, my comfort first philosophy. I deal with it in the book. By the way, I appreciate you coming over here and interacting with us.
ReplyDeleteFilosofo, thanks for popping in with some comments. We have a clear OT and NT passage on designed gender distinction. Pants are the article designed for the man. Now it is not. It was the article to clearly communicate to God and the angels that we agreed with God's design. We erased that distinction because we didn't care about having it. We replaced it with nothing. Today, Filosofo, what is the article of clothing that you put on every day that is uniquely male, I don't mean differences in the same article of clothing, but a different article altogether, designed for this purpose. This was very clear and very serious, even as it was an abomination to God. 1 Cor. 11:3-16 is one of the most ignored passages in the Bible. The head covering was solely female, and showed submission to the husband. It was a symbol. We got rid of this symbol in our culture, one that we had because we were a Judeo-Christian culture, but now we have moved to something totally secular, which many rejoice in.
or perhaps the 1st, when no one in the civilized world wore pants.
ReplyDeleteHm, seems to me, the first books of the OT referred to men wearing breeches 3500 years ago - that is way before the first century.
Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exodus 39:28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen,
Leviticus 6:10 And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
Leviticus 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
Granted, the passage does not state ALL men wore breeches, however it is clear that it was only men that wore breeches in this Biblical context. You might want to trace the word "robe" out throughout the Bible - not everyone wore robes in Bible times, and there was no unisex robes for both genders to wear.
Greg, in case you are still reading, let me pipe up for you on the one thing that "nobody commented on yet". On that issue, I think you are exactly right. Truth must be adorned (decorated). Beauty is a part of truth, or it isn't really truth. This is a problem that we must work through. When I look at some of the outfits our girls wear, which meet all the technical requirements, and yet fail to meet the requirements of beauty, I think that we are failing in our teaching.
ReplyDeleteBut really, isn't the problem our failure to meet and defeat the sins of our culture. Slobbishness and casualness are sins of our culture. The current trend towards always casual all the time is a form of rebellion against any kind of standard. The rebellion is the natural course our society has taken since we through out norms of dress for men and women. If you don't think that the "pants on women" issue was a rebellion of women, at least in the beginning, then you should read "You Forgot Your Skirt, Amelia Bloomer", published by Scholastic Press. It gives the history.
The point: yes, we must do better at teaching our kids to dress with dignity, and to think of others when they dress. I have enjoyed some of Douglas Wilson's writings on this, particularly his emphasis on dressing for comfort, but not your own comfort - rather, dress for everyone else's comfort... they have to look at you. But throwing out Biblical distinctions does not answer the problem of sloppy dress. BOTH are sins.
By the way, I hope you won't be done over here. I've enjoyed watching the discussion.
Filosopho,
ReplyDeleteCould you clarify these two statements? Those two statements were surrounded by a whole lot of other statements to clarify them. They seem to contradict when they are taken out of their context. A godless, pagan culture has removed them from being the designed distinction, the symbol of authority, and replaced them, pants, with nothing for men. I don't think it MUST be one item only, but it must be ONE. There is presently NONE. I only capitalize for emphasis; I'm not screaming. Although it is worth screaming about. In 1 Cor. 3 we see the head covering being the item that was being abused, and Paul spends half a chapter in the NT on the subject. Other places show the shame of being without the item that symbolized submission for the woman. There are items that pertain ONLY to a man. Skirts and dresses are that for women, but for men there is no item. Everything people item people mention is not exclusive for manhood any longer. Just be culture vetoes Scriptural teaching, doesn't mean believers follow along.
Do you mean pants were designed for men, but now they're not? They are not designed exclusively for men any longer. In that case, why does it matter what they used to be? Because they had a purpose and now that purpose, which is what is important, is lost. This is not a matter of looking different, but a matter of making articles exclusively distinguish masculinity. Taking those out of play is rebellion against God.
Finally, would you mind answering the question I brought up about the difference between pants and shoes? Shoes might be different, but there are not exclusively male shoes in play as an article exclusively designed for men. People just don't care. Man and women wear the same shoes regularly, especially for jogging, walking, etc. I do think shoes should be considered too, but pants were the obvious item, the one that removed ended this era of American history, where we respected God's Word on this abomination to Him.
Why not say the same about pants? I don't think this is that hard to figure out, except for those who don't like the mockery they receive from the world for believing in different male and female roles, and indicating that publicly through the dress, something God wants.
1 Cor 3 should be 1 Cor. 11:3-16
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFilosopho,
ReplyDeleteI think what you are asking for regarding me giving you a reason why we believe there should be at least one article that is exclusively male would be both passages, Dt. 22:5 and 1 Cor. 11:3-16.
1 Cor. 11:4-7 says, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." Here we have one article of clothing, the head covering that was an article the woman was to wear and the man was not to wear.
Dt. 22:5 says, "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." "That which pertaineth to" is an article exclusively designed for. The text doesn't say "looks like." Certain articles were masculine and certain articles were feminine. Certain articles were common. But the man was not to put on the female article and the woman was not to put on the male article.
This is difficult today, Filosopho, because it is ignored now in our culture with compliance of professing Christiainity.
Filosopho,
ReplyDeleteI don't endorse Daniel Wallace, but I agree with his exposition of 1 Cor. 11:2-16, and he is the author of the Greek grammar used in most seminaries in the US. Here is the study: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1202
Also consider this by someone with whom I don't agree on several issues, Douglas Wilson: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Actionfiltered=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2489
Women in the church at Corinth knew they were equal with men in essence, treated more equally than the world at large, and they weren't wearing their head covering on these specific occasions. Paul told them they needed to keep the symbols.
On Deuteronomy 22:5, the language in the Hebrew or the English doesn't read like a prohibition against cross-dressing. It simply says women don't have on a male article of clothing, then vice versa. You are basically making it a euphemism when you read it your way. There is no historic evidence, none, to back up the cross-dress view. That is mere speculation. The old commentaries, pre 20th century don't take the transveticism view. People have latched ahold of that to debunk the Scriptural practice.
This is what you are saying. We get rid of the symbol of masculinity and headship, replace it with nothing, and then argue that it isn't a symbol any more because it isn't being practiced. That doesn't work. We don't live in the closet where we can't know history. You're vote Lincoln parallel was not in the same ballpark as this.
Filosopho,
ReplyDeleteOne question I might throw in (before you throw me out) would be this: we know how men cross-dress. But in our culture today, can we really point out a woman who is cross-dressing? What would she be wearing? How would you know she was cross-dressing?
By the way, Douglas Wilson also applies Deut 22:5 to forbid women in the military. I thought that was interesting, because he doesn't take a position against pants on women.
Maybe in the 19th Century, pants pertained only to men. They don't anymore, they certainly didn't during the 1st Century, and I doubt they did for the ancient Hebrews.
ReplyDeleteDo a study on the word breeches - those were worn by men - and yes, that would be ancient Hebrews...
I really do think that you are using the ostrich-with-head-in-sand argument, Filosopho. You act like there has been some constant, amoeba-like shifting and changing in this culture from decade to decade. This is how its gone and this is what is agreed upon by every fashion historian that isn't writing a parody. No disrespect, but what you are writing seems like one.
ReplyDeleteThe first colonists came to the U.S. in 1607, Jamestown. The other group came to Plymouth in 1620. Both groups had a strong Bible influence coming from England. The women ALL wore skirts/dresses, which went down to their ankles. The men wore pants or knickers, which are shorter pants to the knees. They brought this from Europe/England where this same thing was happening. This continued from 1607 to at least 1900. Before that, you will see that men had separate garments than women. Some were common, but at least one major one was distinct. At that time a few ladies would wear bloomers out of rebellion. The bloomers wouldn't be worn by men and were exclusively worn by women, but still this was an attempt at a blurring of the distinction between the male and female garments.
The world eroded this standard through the 20th century; Christians, however, hung on for the very Scriptural reasons I have given, and still there is a percentage that has not given into the loss of this male symbol. As the world widdled away at this, our society, culture, just gave in, because it didn't care. Christians have a responsibility, no matter what the world does, to keep the male symbol, the male article, or replace it with something else.
You are not giving almost anything substantial, Filosopho, just employing some kind of attack-mode on what we're saying. I say this with complete calmness, although I know this is a serious issue since "abomination to God" is at stake.
A male article of clothing is determined by the culture. A female article of clothing is determined by the culture. The symbol of headship is determined by the culture. When the culture doesn't care about the roles of men or women or about headship and submission, then the culture is not careful to preserve these based on Scripture.
ReplyDeleteA horse and buggy is based on what passage of Scripture? How does it fit any Scriptural presupposition? Where is the anti-non-animal transportation verse?
I don't know what point you are making from 1 Cor. 11:3-16 and Deut. 22:5, the passages in this "discussion."
breeches." I'm no Hebrew scholar (that's why I'm using Strong's), but that sounds an awful lot like underwear.
ReplyDeleteSounds like isn't the same thing as being like. This is what Noah Webster said the word meant about 200 years after the KJV used it.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary gives this definition of "breeches":
A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.
To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.
He gives this definition for trowsers (and we still use the term "trousers" today to mean pants):
A loose garment worn by males, extending from the waist to the knee or to the ankle, and covering the lower limbs.
Filo, you should try a logic class sometime. It might cure you of your bad analogies. Where did God dictate modes of transportation, calling one abominable?
ReplyDeleteWhen you answered my question, you did a nice dodge. You must be good at dodge ball. I asked what would be considered cross-dressing for a lady in our modern culture, and you answered that it wouldn't really be anything. It would be lots of things, but nothing specific. That makes sense Filo.
Filo, you should try to meet Sofo sometime. It would do you good.
"Considering that Scottish kilts are from a society based on paganism" - - If following a Pagan based system bothers you this much then you should take a long, close and open look at todays Christian churchs and doctorine. Seeking the true history of almost all churchs have designed the basics of thier faith around many Pagan beliefs in order to bring Christianity to the masses.
ReplyDelete