Note: "It is a rule in the UPCI that no licensed Minister may publicly contend for any view that may bring disunity to the organization, the mouths of Prophets within this group are gagged and the pens of scribes are forbidden to write. With this form of ecclesiastical censorship lording over the rank and file of this organization, there will never be a public questioning. Since there can be no publicized dissent of opinions and theories from within the ranks of the UPCI, someone outside of this organization must take up the responsibility to call these prophetic beliefs false." - Pastor Rev. Reckart [sic]
What does the Bible say about women wearing pants?
By Josh Spiers: Formerly Apostolic Pentecostal, always Christian
The
first thing that we must understand when asking this question is that
no one in the Bible wore pants. They did not exist back then—at
least not in the form we have them today. Because of this, the Bible
never dealt with the subject of women wearing pants. [Note: I have
added an
article on what the Israelites did wear when they were in Egypt and
during the Exodus.]
The Mosaic Law does, however, deal with the subject of
cross-dressing. The Mosaic Law says, "A woman shall not wear
man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for
whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God"
(Deut.
22:5 NASB).
The argument against women wearing pants that I always heard when I
was in the UPC was this:
Deut.
22:5 applies
to us today. Even though we are not under the Mosaic Law anymore,
something that is an abomination to God is always an abomination.
(This is based off ofRev.
21:27,
which says that "no one who practices abomination" (KJV)
will enter into the New Jerusalem.)
Since
pants are men’s apparel, and dresses are women’s apparel, it is
an abomination for a woman to wear pants or for a man to wear
dresses.
Notice
that I said that this is the argument that I heard during my time in
the UPC. It is only fair to say that the official position paper of
the UPC uses a different line of reasoning. They say, "[W]e
should avoid…slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the
feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip1."
In
this article I am going to take a look at both views, and then I’ll
wrap up with an important point about hypocrisy.
Edit
(1/2/07): I
found another
position paper from
the UPCI on men and women’s apparel. In this other paper they do
use a modified form of the Deut.
22:5 argument.
Are
Slacks Automatically Immodest?
I
think that it is ridiculous to say that slacks are inherently more
immodest than dresses. Slacks and dresses can be immodest. It is
possible that pants on a woman would have been considered immodest
200 years ago in many Western societies, but that’s pure
conjecture. Either way, I know of no man in Western culture who is
automatically thrown into temptation because a woman wears pants.
What we have to deal with is what is modest today, not what was
modest 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago. The Bible never defined
modesty, it only told us to be modest.
Are
Pants "Men’s Apparel"?
I
do not think that pants can be thought of as only men’s apparel in
modern Western culture. Cultures and dress codes change over time.
They always have. When Deut.
22:5was
written men were probably wearing linen kilts and women were probably
wearing "full-length, light weight, loose-fitting dresses2."
In the mid-19th century men were wearing breeches and women were
wearing dresses that did not show even their ankles. Yet now the
dress code laid by the UPC is that women have to wear dresses but
they can come up to the knee3.
Why did they choose this style of apparel and not the style that was
worn when Deut.
22:5 was
written, or the style that was worn in the 19th century? The reason
is that cultures and styles change, and the UPC apparently picked the
style of apparel that happened to be in fashion when their doctrines
started to develop.
There
is no biblical excuse for taking a girl who is a third-generation
wearer of pants and telling her that she has to only wear dresses. At
some point we have to admit that culture has changed. Again, we’re
concerned with what culture is now, not what it was in the 1800s and
early 1900s.
Hypocrisy?
The
Pants Issue Can Be One Way or the Other, It Can’t Be Both
Let
me talk to the preachers and teachers for a moment.
Many
preachers and teachers in the UPC feel that Deut.
22:5 still
applies to us today. I don’t take that view, but I’m not going to
debate the point. What I will say is that if you are going to
apply Deut.
22:5 to
the pants vs. skirts debate then you have to apply it to everything.
If you believe that it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants
(because you feel that pants are men’s apparel) then you must be
willing to make a complete prohibition against women wearing men’s
apparel. For instance, many women in the UPC wear pajama pants but
they will not wear pants in public. If pants are men’s apparel, and
if it’s a sin for women to wear men’s apparel, then that means no
pajama pants. It also means that a girl can’t put on her
boyfriend’s jacket or her husband’s shirt, or any other article
of clothing that is designed for a man.
It
can be one way or the other, it can’t be both. It must be a
complete prohibition or no prohibition at all. To preach against
women wearing pants, and then allow your wife to wear pajama pants,
is nothing less than total hypocrisy. If you do preach a complete
prohibition against women wearing any men’s apparel then I will
respect your view, even though I will continue to disagree with it.
If you will not do that then I view your teaching as hypocritical in
the extreme.
Conclusion
It
is not safe to end this subject without pointing out that
cross-dressing is almost definitely displeasing to God. When I say
"cross-dressing" this is the usage that I am referring to:
Nearly
every society throughout history has had a set of norms, views,
guidelines, or laws regarding the wearing of clothing and what is
appropriate for each gender. Cross-dressing is a behavior which runs
counter to those norms4.
I
do think that we can extrapolate from Scripture that God would be
displeased with someone deliberately dressing in a manner that
identifies them with the opposite gender. However, I do not think
that a woman wearing pants should be considered cross-dressing. As I
said before, women wearing pants is part of the accepted norm in
modern Western culture.
THE
PANTS ISSUE!
Scriptures
Prohibiting the Wearing of Pants by Women? By Stephen Mann
A)
Verses Teaching No Pants
I
have cut and pasted all five verses prohibiting women wearing pants
from my KJV. Please study the five verses below with an open mind and
you will see what the Bible actually says about women not wearing
pants....
(That's
right, friend, there are absolutely no verses at all that prohibit
pants on women!)
B) Deuteronomy
22:5
Ah,
but you say what about this verse...
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. Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
Well
quite simply, there are four reasons why I have difficulty with the
no-pants interpretation from this passage...
1.
The passage doesn't clearly prohibit pants on women but there are
very clear prohibitions for eating pork, not keeping Friday/Saturday
(Sabbath) holy, not wearing mixed apparel of linen and wool etc., so
even if there was (which there isn't), it still wouldn't mean it is
for us today if it isn't taught to Gentiles in the new covenant.
2.
If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be seen as a law to be obeyed today, then
a consistent interpretation would mean the prohibited mixed threads,
Kosher foods and other laws in the same chapter should also be
followed. Why are anti-pants teachers overlooking these others?
3.
If the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle, it
should also be applicable to prohibit other male garments on women
such as t-shirts, boots, underwear, scarves, gloves, sneakers, etc.
Why is this principle not followed to its natural implications?
4.
Lastly, if the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle
for today (and the previous three points are overlooked), then it
remains to be proved that pants are men's clothing. Culturally they
were on women in China long before the Western men left off wearing
tights (which by the same principle should be called men's apparel!)
and hence fail on historical grounds as well.
C) Hebrew
for the word translated 'garment' Let's look at the
Hebrew word that 'garment' is translated from:
8071 simlah (sim-law'); Strong says: "perhaps
by permutation for the feminine of 5566 (through the idea of a cover
assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress."
Some
would focus in on the word Strong uses above (dress), saying that the
word in this passage teaches that the dress is female attire. They
overlook the fact that Strong goes on to say...
"especially
a mantle: apparel, cloth (-es, -ing), garment, raiment. comp. 8008."
Strong
says the majority of times it is translated raiment, clothes and
garment (as it is here in Deuteronomy 22:5 in the KJV). Not once is
it translated into the English word 'dress'. Rather similar to when
we say men and women's dress sense, we are not talking about only
female attire. The word means clothes, not dresses!
Some
commentators teach the passage is specifically prohibiting women
wearing men's armour, but whether it's apparel or armour there is no
teaching here that pants are for men only.
D) Skirts While
Deuteronomy 22 verse 5 is often quoted, verse 30 is often
overlooked...
"a
man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s
skirt" Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV
If
ladies wanted to legislate doctrine for men, here's a good place they
could have started!
Did
men wear skirts back then?
Is
it Biblical?
Here
in verse 30 you have it straight from the KJV Bible that all you
women wearing skirts are cross dressers! This is really men's
apparel. Consider this verse...
Then
David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily 1 Sam
24:4
There
are many more Bible verses for men wearing skirts than women wearing
them! The Bible speaks of men's skirts twelve times: (Dt 22:30, Dt
27:20, Ru 3:9, 1 Sa 15:27, 1 Sa 24:4, 1 Sa 24:5, 1 Sa 24:11, 1 Sa
24:11, Eze 16:8, Hag 2:12, Hag 2:12, and Zec 8:23).
If
you're really going to follow the Bible literally and get back to
Biblical men's and women's garments, then get those sewing machines
buzzing, men, and stop those women from wearing your skirts!! (Yes I
am joking.)
E) History In
ancient Egypt their normal clothing was a loincloth wrapped around
the hips and girdled at the waist. A cape was worn on the shoulders
and later a long garment called a kalasiris was introduced. Men wore
this as a skirt around their waist; women wore it over their upper
body, or as a full-length garment that sometimes had sleeves.
The
Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians all wore a long, sleeved garment
similar to a nightshirt, with cloaks or kalasiris-like overgarments.
These clothes appear to be stiff, with fringed and tasselled borders
and square or rounded corners.
For
thousands of years in history we don't find pants and it is a
relatively modern and culturally brief period of history where there
was a distinction of pants only on men and dresses only on women.
Even
today in the Pacific and other areas of the world, many continue to
wear a sarong or robe on males and females with only a small
distinction between them.
F) Summary There
is no verse in the Scriptures prohibiting women wearing pants or
saying that a dress was all a female could wear. Instead we find, in
the Bible and in history, men wearing similar garments to women (what
we would call dresses today).
There
is also no Biblical precedent or teaching regarding males alone
wearing pants. Although there may be some cultural norms in some
countries today, there is no prohibition by God and it is never
referred to (as many falsely preach today) as an abomination to God.
This is a sad example of denominational ignorance and eisegesis
(reading meaning into the text) instead of exegesis (reading the
text's meaning).
STANDARDS
FOR MEN Excerpt
from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards ‘ by Ricky Guthrie
The
UPCI teaches standards for men when there is absolutely nothing in
the Bible that deals with dress codes for men except a man should not
wear a woman's clothing.
Many
of the hardliners say men have to wear long sleeved shirts or they
are being immodest. Where they get that teaching I have not the
slightest idea.
In
their manual they say that their young men cannot suit out for gym
because it is immoral or immodest. They say that men cannot bare
their legs in public, like wearing shorts, because it is immodest.
Again
let us look at history.
There
were ancient pictures found in a Babylonian ruin of a Hebrew man
working in the fields. This was after the law was given on Sinai.
This man was wearing only a long tunic that went from his waist to
his knees. Another showed a man wearing a tunic below the knees. Both
men were bare-chested and bare-footed. They were working in the
fields.
It
has been proven that in ancient Egypt, because of the extreme heat,
the Egyptian men wore no shirt. Slaves were only given tunics to wear
as they worked. We know that Joseph was sold into slavery. Do we
contend that he was given special privileges? I don't think so. Does
this mean Joseph sinned against God?
What
about all the Israelite men in slavery in Egypt? Did those who died
in slavery lose their souls?
What
about the fact that King Saul danced so much in the spirit that he
danced his clothing off? The people saw this but none said he
was immodest. The same thing with David. We know he did
the same when bringing the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem. UPCI
contends he sinned and that is why Michal rebuked him, but notice it
was not because he had sinned it was because Michal thought the King
of Israel should be above such displays of emotion.
Then
we have the story of Peter. After Christ rose again, Peter decided to
go fishing. The KJV said he was naked. Other translations say he was
stripped for work, which tells us he was bare-chested. Historically
speaking, we find that Israelite men in the heat of the day when
fishing, stripped down to their tunics. This is what Peter did. It
was old habit and acceptable. UPCI begs to differ because they say he
was embarrassed because when Jesus called, he put on his coat and
jumped into the water.
What
they don't understand that at the time the waters were still cold and
even then a fisherman's coat was expensive and a very valuable part
of their wardrobe. It kept them warm in the winter when they had to
survive. No fisherman would leave their coat in the boat.
If
this was due to the fact that Peter was backslid and sinning, why did
not John write and tell us that Jesus rebuked Peter for being
immodest? He did not because that was not considered immodest or sin.
There
just are absolutely no standards in the Bible for men except the fact
that a man is never to reveal his private parts in public. This is
why God had the priest put on linen breeches when going up to the
altar. Israel came out of slavery in Egypt and when the Egyptians
wore robes they wore no under clothing, so if they climbed something
you could look up their robes and see their private parts.
Are
there rules and regulations in the Bible for us to live by?
Absolutely! These are well documented in the gospels and epistles. We
are told that we are not to lie, steal, cheat, gossip, tell tales. We
are not to abuse one another, be deceitful. We are not to live in
anger and bitterness. We are not to curse or cuss or use profanity.
We are not to tell dirty jokes. We are not to commit adultery,
fornication or homosexuality. Men are to be masculine and women
effeminate. We are to be obedient to man's laws as long as they do
not try to force us to sin against God. We are to love one another as
Christ loved us and to forgive each other immediately of any
wrongdoing.
We
are to live in peace and to owe no man anything. (Which means to pay
our bills) We are not to slander one another. Be obedient to parents.
Wives are to submit to their husbands as the head of the house, but
men are to honor their wives, not abuse them or misuse them. Women
are to dress modestly. These are just some of the rules of the
Christian life.
Women. Pants? See HOLINESS:
The essence of the holiness which every person must strive for is to observe the Covenant in purity. The way to achieve this is by sanctifying the way you speak. You must speak only words of holiness and keep yourself from any lapse into language which is not holy.
Holy Magic Hair "the Power of Angels" Updated
A woman’s long hair symbolizes that she submits to God’s plan and to the family leadership of her husband. It is her glory. It is a sign to the angels of her commitment to God and her power with God. - David K. Bernard, (General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International) Note: There is no power but that of HaShem (God) (GOD)
 |
| Click on Picture for "Holy Magic Hair" |
Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, this doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament either because primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the Judaism from which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman mind began to dominate the Church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the Church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2
When Christendom adopted a triune godhead from neighboring triune religious systems, it spawned a serious conundrum for post-Nicene Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge a first century Christian Bible, which was monotheistic, with a fourth century Church which was not?
Are Slacks Automatically Immodest?
The first thing that we must understand when asking
this question is that no one in the Bible wore pants. They did not
exist back then—at least not in the form we have them today.
Because of this, the Bible never dealt with the subject of women
wearing pants.
I think that it is ridiculous to say that
slacks are inherently more immodest than dresses. Slacks and dresses
can be immodest. It is possible that pants on a woman would have been
considered immodest 200 years ago in many Western societies, but
that’s pure conjecture. Either way, I know of no man in Western
culture who is automatically thrown into temptation because a woman
wears pants. What we have to deal with is what is modest today, not
what was modest 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago. The Bible never
defined modesty, it only told us to be modest. Biblical modesty is
first and foremost centered on HaShem.
The
Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5
By Jason Young
Considering
the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those
things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law
rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if
any, implications for Christians today. Many believe, however, that
this verse still applies to us today because this verse states that
violators of this law are an abomination to God and that which was an
abomination to God in the Old Testament would also be an abomination
to God in the New Testament. However, the usage of the
wordabomination in
Deut 22:5 does not necessarily make it a timeless moral law because
any violation of God’s mandates is an abomination to Him, whether
it is a violation of ceremonial law or moral law. Furthermore, Deut
22:5 is placed squarely in the middle of, and is completely
surrounded by, ceremonial laws. If it is indeed a principle to be
literally followed today, why would God choose to bury this verse in
the middle of what are clearly ceremonial laws?
“
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.” This verse
-- Deuteronomy 22:5 -- is one of the most commonly quoted and debated
verses in the Old Testament.
Some Christians have taken
this verse to mean that Christian women shouldn’t wear pants,
arguing that pants are that which “pertaineth unto a man.” Many
sincere and honest Christians have grappled with this issue, wanting
to be pleasing to God. This teaching, as with all teachings regarding
the scriptures, needs to be carefully examined. It is just as much an
error to teach something that the scriptures don’t say as it is to
ignore what the scriptures do say.
The teaching that it is
wrong for Christian women to wear pants is based upon the following
beliefs:
1) Deut 22:5 teaches that women should not wear that
which pertains unto a man.
2) Pants pertain to a man because
they were not only exclusively invented for men, but they also have
historically been worn only by men.
3) The Bible teaches
separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction
between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and
therefore do not provide adequate separation.
The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy
specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a
man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture,
it is important to read the passage in context and examine the
relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable
Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.
The
phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in
the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew
word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or
utensil.”1 Translators commonly renderkeliy as weapon,
armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The
word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the
Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior
(emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important
to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew.
Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which
is also translated man and means just that – “man, male
(in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses,
when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a
man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior
or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this
verse would be as follows:
“
The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a
warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all
that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam
Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
“
As the word...geber is here used, which
properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable
that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the
worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the
Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to
appear in armour before her.”4
John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire
Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
“
...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as
Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military
habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women;
and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on
her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like
manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a
woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a
woman...'” (sic) 5
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of
Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled
“Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”
“
In another attempt to identify the quintessential
'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited
about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go
forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy
22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on
a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph
kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”
Rabbi Tilsen further states,
“
This same understanding is followed by Midrash
Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in
the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a
sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been
'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law
-- because a sword is a man's tool...”
Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and
the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is
most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean
that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.
Many believe, however, that this verse still applies to us today
because this verse states that violators of this law are an
abomination to God and that which was an abomination to God in the
Old Testament would also be an abomination to God in the New
Testament. However, the usage of the wordabomination in Deut
22:5 does not necessarily make it a timeless moral law because any
violation of God’s mandates is an abomination to Him, whether it is
a violation of ceremonial law or moral law. Furthermore, Deut 22:5 is
placed squarely in the middle of, and is completely surrounded by,
ceremonial laws. If it is indeed a principle to be literally followed
today, why would God choose to bury this verse in the middle of what
are clearly ceremonial laws?
The second argument against
Christian women wearing pants is that pants have historically been
worn by and associated with men and are therefore men’s clothing.
One problem with this view is that it is not a consistently applied
principle among those that advocate it. Many of the articles of
clothing have histories of originating with a certain sex. Consider
t-shirts – these too were invented for men and originally worn
exclusively by men. The t-shirt was introduced to America during WWI
when American soldiers noticed European soldiers wearing them. By
WWII, the t-shirt became standard issue in the American military and
was quickly introduced into American fashion.6 Not only were
t-shirts originally invented for men, but they were invented
specifically for the military. Considering this in light of the true
meaning of Deut 22:5, which seems to be forbidding women from wearing
the habiliments of a soldier, it would logically follow that a woman
wearing a t-shirt would be in much greater violation of this verse
than a woman wearing pants. Furthermore, there is no distinction
between men’s and women’s t-shirts.
If clothing history is
the sole determining factor of what constitutes clothing that
pertains to a man, then t-shirts must be forbidden as well if
consistency is to be maintained. It would seem that in practice,
however, those that teach that it is a sin for women to wear pants
seem to believe that clothing distinctions only apply to what is worn
on the legs while ignoring the obvious about other types of clothing
commonly worn by women. In order for the teaching to be consistent,
the very reasons cited for prohibiting women from wearing pants would
also prohibit women from wearing t-shirts, baseball caps, team
jerseys, work boots and any other article of clothing historically
worn by men. Taking the concept even further, what of the color pink
or blue? Should women also be forbidden to wear blue, or should men
forbidden to wear pink, as these colors have historically been
associated with the opposite sex? How far should this concept be
taken?
Finally, the third argument, which states that God
requires a distinction between men’s and women’s clothing and
that pants provide little if any distinction, must also be weighed in
light of the scriptures. The scriptures, as with most matters,
provide a wealth of information on this issue as well.
It is
curious how those that forbid pants on women, based on their idea of
separation, never seem to consider the clothing norms in the Bible.
Even the most basic study into biblical clothing norms reveals that
there was very little distinction between the articles of clothing
worn by men and women.
In Genesis, we find the first
accounts of clothing mentioned in the Bible. First, we find that upon
recognizing their nakedness, Adam and Eve sewed garments of fig
leaves together to cover themselves (Gen 3:7). This is an interesting
account in that we find humans attempting to clothe themselves, but
obviously God was not pleased with their choices, as later we find
that God made new clothes for them. Gen 3:21 records that God made
“coats of skin” for them to wear. The word coats in
this verse is the Hebrew word kethoneth and means “a long
shirt-like garment.”7 Interestingly, Moses, under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose the exact same word to describe
the specific type of clothing that God made for both Adam and Eve.
Where is the distinction here? If God chose to make so little
distinction between a man’s and woman’s clothes that a single
word can describe the specific clothing worn both by Adam and Eve,
then who are we to require a greater distinction?
Later,
throughout the Old and New Testament, common dress consisted of two
separate pieces. In the Old Testament, the first part of the Jewish
costume was still the kethoneth such as was worn by Adam
and Eve. In the New Testament, this garment is called chiton in
the Greek and is often translated as coat in the King James
Version Bible. According to the International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, the kethoneth/chiton was,
“…
a long-sleeved tunic worn over the sadhin,
likewise a shirt with sleeves... Here the ‘coat’ (Hebrew
‘KThohneth) was the ordinary “inner garment ‘worn by the Jew of
the day, in which he did the work of the day (see Mt 24:18; Mk
13:16). It resembled the Roman tunic, corresponding most nearly to
our ‘long shirt,’ reaching below the knees always, and in case it
was designed for dress occasions, reaching almost to the ground.” 8
Easton’s Bible Dictionary states that this
basic garment was worn by both men and women:
“
The ‘coat’ (kethoneth), of wool, cotton, or
linen, was worn by both sexes.”
Easton’s further states that,
“
The robes of men and women were not very much
different in form from each other.” 9
The second part of the common Jewish costume was the
“outer garment.” Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the outer
garment varied in size, shape and purpose. It is given various names
(both in the original Hebrew and in translation) and is used in a
variety of ways. This outer garment was commonly used to cover the
head of both men and women (cf. Ruth 3:15, 2 Sam 15:30) and was also
commonly wrapped around the shoulders (cf. Isa 3:22). While the outer
garment served many purposes and was at times used in different ways
by men and women, the way it was used was not consistent with either
sex. The garment itself does not appear to have been made
functionally different to any significant degree, and the
distinctions between the male and female outer garments were merely
stylistic (i.e. color, trim, size, etc.).
In light of the
ample information we have on male and female garments in the Bible,
it is hard to justify the radical distinction between men’s and
women’s clothing required by Christians that forbid women from
wearing pants. There is no evidence that such a radical distinction
existed in biblical times. While there was a difference in men’s
and women’s clothing in the scriptures, these differences were
merely stylistic and not functional differences. The differences were
only found in color, trim, size, etc. and not in the actual form or
function of the clothing as is seen in pants and skirts or dresses.
The differences between men’s and women’s pants today are as
great as the differences between men’s and women’s garments in
the Bible. Essentially, Christians today that forbid women from
wearing pants demand a difference in form and function in men’s and
women’s clothing, whereas the Bible only records a stylistic
difference. This amounts to adding to God’s Word and placing
requirements on our sisters in the Lord that the Bible does not
support.
Many that forbid women to wear pants argue that if it
is acceptable for women to wear pants, then it should be acceptable
for a man to wear a dress or a skirt. This is a valid point. However,
there is no inherent sin in a man putting on a skirt-like garment,
which is a common practice in some cultures around the world just as
it was in the Bible. The error would be in the fact that a man
wearing a skirt in modern American society would be deemed as
counter-culture to the very people we, as Christians, are trying to
be examples to -- namely unbelievers. However, women wearing pants is
hardly counter-culture. While there was once a time in our society
when a woman in pants would have been viewed negatively by society,
such is not the case today. Is that because society’s morals have
declined, and it no longer sees women in pants as the sin that it is?
Of course not, it is merely a change in fashion. Just because society
had a particular view in the past, does not mean that such a view was
inherently more moral. Ford once made only black cars and refused to
make any other color. Today, Fords come in every color under the sun.
Was that the result of some sort of moral backsliding? No, it is just
that society's tastes have changed. In Renaissance Europe, silk
hosiery were considered appropriate attire for men, yet today they
are deemed as feminine. Changes in style and fashion aren’t
inherently sinful and most of the time only reflect a change in
taste. Women’s pants are no different. Women did not start wearing
pants as a means of rebellion or to be more “manly” but because
they were more comfortable and functional. Fashion has been moving in
the direction of more function and less style for well over a century
now. This is evidenced most recently by the fact that suits and ties
are much less common in the workplace now, having been replaced by
khakis and button-up shirts. Does that signal some moral decline?
Absolutely not -- it only reflects a trend in fashion for more basic
and functional clothing just as women’s fashions did in moving
toward pants. It is important that we do not have a knee-jerk
reaction to every change in fashion. Clearly, some are indicative of
moral decline, but many are not. As with everything, changes in
fashion must be weighed against biblical truths to make the
determination.
In short, the issue of clothing must always be
carefully, thoughtfully and honestly studied from a scriptural
perspective while allowing the scriptures to be the ultimate
authority on such issues. A thorough study into the clothing norms of
the Bible reveals that there was no distinction between men’s and
women’s clothing in the Bible beyond stylistic differences such as
trim, color and size. In fact, God Himself made clothing for Adam and
Eve that was so similar that one word (kethoneth) could describe the
specific garment he made for each of them. This same word describes
the clothing worn by Godly men and women throughout the Bible from
the Old Testament to the New Testament. Yet today, many Christians
demand much more than even the Bible did by requiring not only a
difference in style but a difference in function and form as well. If
God makes no such clothing demands on His people, then who are we to
make them? Do we know better than God?
source:
Why
Blame Women for Men's Lust?
Sharon Hodde Miller
How 'Modest Is Hottest' Is Hurting Christian Women
What the phrase communicates about female sexuality and bodies.
I
remember the first time I heard the words, "modest is hottest,"
chirped by an eager female college student as we discussed the topic
of modesty. Her enthusiasm was mixed with perk and reprimand,
producing a tone that landed somewhere between Emily Post and a
cheerleader. To be honest, my initial reaction to "modest is
hottest" was amusement. I thought the rhyme was clever and
lighthearted, a harmless way to promote the virtue described in 1
Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3-4. No harm no foul.
Since
then, I’ve heard this mantra of the pure proclaimed many times by
young women and Christian leaders. In conversations the phrase always
elicits chuckles, but my response has changed over time. I still
wholly affirm modesty as a biblical practice for men and women, but
now I hesitate to embrace the “modest is hottest” banner. Those
three words carry a lot of baggage.
The
Christian rhetoric of modesty, rather than offering believers an
alternative to the sexual objectification of women, often continues
the objectification, just in a different form.
"Christian rhetoric of modesty..."
As
the Christian stance typically goes, women are to cover their bodies
as a mark of spiritual integrity. Too much skin is seen as a
distraction that garners inappropriate attention, causes our brothers
to stumble, and overshadows our character.
Consequently, the female
body is perceived as both a temptation and a distraction to the
Christian community. The female body is beautiful, but in a dangerous
way.
This
particular approach to modesty is effective because it is rooted in
shame, and shame is a powerful motivator. That’s the first red
flag. Additionally concerning about this approach is that it
perpetuates the objectification of women in a pietistic form. It
treats women’s bodies not as glorious reflections of the image of
God, but as sources of temptation that must be hidden. It is the
other side of the same objectifying coin: one side exploits the
female body, while the other side seems to be ashamed of it. Both
sides reduce the female body to a sexual object.
Of
course, this language isn’t new. Consider how profoundly the female
identity has been negatively linked to her body throughout church
history. For several decades now, feminist theologians have critiqued
the mind-body dualism by which Christians have equated men with the
mind and women with the carnal body. Citing Eve as the original
“gateway for the Devil,” thinkers such as Tertullian have
peppered Christian tradition with hostility toward the wiles of
femininity. Origen likened women to animals in their sexual lust.
According to author Jane Billinghurst, “Early Christian men who had
to greet women during church services by shaking their hands were
advised to first wrap their hands in robes so as to shield their
flesh against their seductive touch.”
In
response to this aspect of the Christian tradition, Rosemary Radford
Ruether and other feminist theologians have over the past 50 years
rightly challenged the mind-body dualism by which women were thought
to be “modeled after the rejected part of the psyche,” and are
“shallow, fickle-minded, irrational, carnal-minded, lacking all the
true properties of knowing and willing and doing.”
All
this negative talk about the female body may have created a vacuum
for the “modest is hottest” approach to fill. Perhaps the
phrase’s originator hoped to provide a more positive spin on
modesty. I sympathize with that. However, “modest is hottest”
also perpetuates (and complicates) this objectification of women by
equating purity with sexual desire. The word “hot” is fraught
with sexual undertones. It continues a tradition in which women are
primarily objects of desire, but it does so in an acceptable
Christian way.
Making
modesty sexy is not the solution we need. Instead, the church needs
to overhaul its theology of the female body. Women continue to be
associated with their bodies in ways that men are not. And, as a
result of this unique association, women’s identities are also
uniquely tied to their bodies in a manner that men’s identities are
not.
How
do we discuss modesty in a manner that celebrates the female body
without objectifying women, and still exhorts women to purity? The
first solution is
to dispense with body-shaming language. Shame is great at behavior
modification, even when the shaming is not overt. But shame-based
language is not the rhetoric of Jesus. It is the rhetoric of his
Enemy.
Second,
we must affirm the value of the female body. The value or meaning of
a woman’s body is not the reason for modesty. Women’s bodies are
not inherently distracting or tempting. On the contrary, women’s
bodies glorify God. Dare I say that a woman’s breasts, hips,
bottom, and lips all proclaim the glory of the Lord! Each womanly
part honors Him. He created the female body, and it is good.
Finally,
language about modesty should focus not on hiding the female body but
on understanding the body’s created role. Immodesty is not the
improper exposure of the body per se, but the improper orientation of
the body. Men and women are urged to pursue a modesty by which our
glory is minimized and God’s is maximized. The body, the spirit and
the mind all have a created role that is inherently God-centered.
When we make ourselves central instead of God, we display the height
of immodesty.
That
is not to say that godly women will not attract godly men with their
modesty. They might. But that is not the purpose of modesty. If
“modest is hottest” encapsulates the message we communicate to
young women about modesty, then we have missed the mark. “Modest is
hottest” is foundationally human-centered, whereas biblical modesty
is first and foremost centered on God. Source:
TONGUESThe necessity of speaking in tongues for salvation?
