What do pants on women have to do with dogs in the OT?

[ThirdGeneration]

Dedicated to Hebrews who asked me to explain my take on Deuteronomy 22:5.

The problem with finding that Deut 22:5 has anything to do with pants on women in 21st Century America are numerous if one wishes to be logical and consistent in their beliefs.

Those that use Deuteronomy 22:5 as justification for the prohibition of women in pants are "barking" up the wrong tree on three accounts.

I. This Scripture logically and consistently relates to cross dressing in idol worship (as was the practice of the Cannanites) rather than teaching the importance of gender distinction in clothing as a great principle (allegedly found through out the Bible).

II. Even IF there was a God given principle of gender distinction in clothing commanded by God; we are totally inconsistent in its application.

III. If I can walk into any department store in America and buy a pair of pants in the women's section of the store it is ludicrous to argue that pants are not women's appearal.

Many have argued points 2 and 3. Today, I wish to address the first issue and show a more logical and consistent interpretation of this OT commandment.

Now for a few questions so that we can see some of the inconsistencies in our approach to looking at this Scripture.

I. Is there ever a time that it is not an abomination for a wife to
wear an item of her husband's clothing?

a. In a chilly restauraunt; would it be wrong for a woman to slip her husband's jacket over her shoulders?

b. Would it be ok for a woman to wear her husband's old shirt or
sweat shirt to rake leaves or paint the house?

c. If a woman became stranded in a winter storm, would it be ok to wear her husband's jacket that was in the trunk of the car? What about other items of clothing since she might otherwise freeze to death?

2. Can any explain where so many Pentecostals find the "great
principle" of gender distinction as it pertains to clothing (other
than Deut 22:5)in the Bible beginning with the OT?

a. Can you tell me why God didn't explain it to Adam and Eve when he made their clothes and why the Scripture did not elaborate what the great distinction in the clothing was?

b. Can you explain why there is no other apparent witness for Deut 22:5 if one interprets it as a gender distinction principle for how one dresses?

I believe that Deut 22:5 addresses the issue of idolatry as practiced by fertility cults. Consider that almost every other culture that Isreal knew of, practiced some type of prostitution as an act of worship to an idol or pagen god. Consider also that such acts often involved cross dressing depending on the god or goddess being worshipped.

We know that Moses spoke of abomination in sexual deviance (Lev 18:22; and Lev 20;13]. We have 2 verses in the OT that collaberate each other and therefore our correct understanding the idea given.

Moses spoke of the abomination of a false weight (Deut 25:13-16) and once again our understanding is verified by other Scripture in the OT (Lev 19:35; Proverbs 11:1, 16:11; Ezek 45:10-11).

Moses spoke of the abomination of witchcraft (Deut 18:12); our
correct understanding confirmed by Ex 22:18; Lev 19:26,31; 20:6.

And finally Moses spoke about the abomination of idolatry (Deut
7:25,26; 12:31; 13:14) which is hardly a surprise to anyone familiar with the Ten Commandments.

So then why can't we find any kind of easy gender identification
collaberation for Deut 22:5?

Because it isn't there to start with! Nor are we able to identify the great principle of gender distinction in clothing anywhere else.

However, if Deuteronomy 22:5 was about the cross dressing involved with fertility cults and temple type prostitution, then we would have a witness in Deuteronomy 23:17-18.

17 There shall be no whore [#6948} of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite [#6945] of the sons of Israel.

18 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 an ABOMINATION unto the Lord thy God (Deut 23:17-18).

Sodomite according to Strongs Exhaustive Concordance refers to Hebrew #6945 taken from #6942 and says "a (quasi) sacred person, i.e.(tech) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry- sodomite, unclean.

Cult prostitutes were often refered to as sodomites according to the Holman Bible Dictionary under the heading of prostitution. "The masculine term is probably also used in a generic sense to refere to both male and female cult prostitues."

Temple prostitution was continually edging into Israel and being
removed during periods of religious reform (See 1 Kings
14:24,15:12,22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).

Thus, I believe that the abomination spoken of in
Deuteronomy 22:5 goes to the issue of idolatry rather than finding that a woman sins by wearing her husband's old sweatshirt when she rakes the leaves.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone else that can show us where to find that all consuming principle of gender distinction in clothing, otherwise.

The ball is in your court Hebrews!

[Goodshepherd]

Did we not have a big debate on this issue? I thought every imaginable angle of this issue was addressed and brought forth by those that think it is Ok and those that think it is not Ok........

[nytxn1971]

Great post, 3rd.

[stmatthew]

Third,

The only problem I see with your term paper above is, if my memory serves me, the wording about apparel in Duet 25 is talking about garments of war. Anybody else get that answer??

If that be the case, then cross dressing for idol worship is out, along with your term paper. hehehehe :laugh: hahahaha

[witness4jesus]

Taking Deuteronomy 22:5 IN CONTEXT, the chapter deals primarily with mingling.

Sowing your field with diverse seed.

Plowing your field with different kinds of cattle.

Your argument about going into a store and buying women's pants means that society, and not God, has the right to determine what is womanly and what is not.

To answer your situational questions:

Why should a woman have to wear her husband's clothing if she has her own? Simple enough. Why on a chilly evening would she not have her own jacket? Why would she not have her own blouse to rake the leaves, work around the house, etc.

You say that cross-dressing is an idolatry issue. Where is that found? I don't find it anywhere.

As to Adam and his wife, let us be logical. Given that He made their bodies different, why would he make the covering for those bodies the same? A woman has a different shape than a man, and what is modest on one is not necessarily modest on the other. While the woman in pants is covered, the pants shows off more of her form, which is not good.

I can see that dress can become our religion, but we have to remember why we are doing it. Culture may try to tear down the distinctions between a man and a woman, but God made them differently, and has a role and a place for both. Tearing down the distinctions in sexes tears down the roles that God made for each. The world is about unisex; God is not.

sis pam

[ThirdGeneration]

Stmatt- Surely you don't think that women normally ran around in garments of war! :D

The premise of the verse and the word "abomination" line up with the idea of temple prostitution as practiced by the Cannanites. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 bears witness to this same idea.

But what witness can we find for the idea that there is a great principle of gender distinction in clothing in Scripture?

Witness- You bring up some points I would have no problem addressing. But, why don't you go first.

I stated that "I would be interested in hearing from anyone else that can show us where to find that all-consuming principle of gender distinction in clothing [outside of Deut 22:5 that I believe has been misinterpreted]."

[ddc101]

Society at large has never been a true indicator of what God expects for men or women.In Genesis when Adam and Eve sinned they made for themselves....Aprons....God made them coats.Big difference in our opinions and Gods.For each individual I say go to the Lord in prayer.He did it for Adam and Eve and he will do it for you.I say let it be settled in your spirit by Jesus Christ.When he convinces you no one can turn you back.

Scene:
Woman just getting out of shower
Door bell rings
Woman yells out....just a minute while I put on my apron.....
Moral....we think we need less coverage...God thinks we need more.Better watch out or we will be like the person in this scripture;
Matt 22:11-13
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(KJV)

[Xerf]

Logical and consistent?? I thought the Bible was a spiritual book. If one was LOGICAL (man's wisdom) with the entire bible and its teachings then one would do away with 2/3 of its content. Once man's wisdom becomes the engine of interpetation then spiritual values fly out the window.

[ThirdGeneration]

Ddc and Xerf- I stated that "I would be interested in hearing from anyone else that can show us where to find that all-consuming principle of gender distinction in clothing [outside of Deut 22:5 that I believe has been misinterpreted]."

Do you have anything to contribute in this regard? The other things have all been touched on before.....

Xerf- You would prefer we took every verse literally? I sincerely doubt it.....

[ddc101]

Hows this for an option:

Jer 6:16-19
16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
18 Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.
19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.
(KJV)

lv sis.c

[ThirdGeneration]

Ddc- Ahhhh..... Does that mean you can't find this great principle of gender distinction in dress?

Actually, Ddc; we are just trying to find out where the old paths are that GOD SAID; not man.

.... because they have not hearkened unto MY words, nor to MY law, but rejected it (Jer 6:19).

Nobody on this board is suggesting that one should reject God's Word. On the contrary!

[BroDane]

I wont even touch if this or that is or isnt in the Bible, I wont read my opinion into this, I prefer to approach Godly living simply...

God Said: 1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

I believe this principle can be applied in many areas in a christians walk.

[Sandy]

Third, if some of the ladies would wear those loose fitting type of slacks that you cannot tell whether they are indeed a long dress or slacks until they walked or crossed their legs, then the men would not have to worry about covering them because their dress flew up when they went out in the Spirit. :o

And I have to tell you, my hubby would not be caught dead in them either, seeing them as womens apparel. :eek:

I would answer your question but I cannot find it either. :confused: But I will keep looking, and if and when I do, will let you know. :D

[servant]

Can't wait to get my new white robe!!!

Serv :)

[Faithchild]

Our "standards" are barely fifty years old! Hardly old paths. Don't believe it? Check out the variance in hemlines and necklines since the '50's. The principle of moderation is timeless but our applications continually vary as fashion does.

[Goodshepherd]

hahaha Sis. Sandy:D .......... that was very funny

".......... if some of the ladies would wear those loose fitting type of slacks that you cannot tell whether they are indeed a long dress or slacks until they walked or crossed their legs, then the men would not have to worry about covering them because their dress flew up when they went out in the Spirit."

[ThirdGeneration]

Sandy! What?? You can't find it either??

One of the holy grails of Pentecost and not one confirming Scripture in sight? How can that be?

Listen, when you see the Emporer's new clothes, please let me know.....

[John Atkinson]

Anyone ever notice the the universal symbols for "Public Restroom" are:

a) stick figure in pants: mens room
b) stick figure in skirt: womens room

Now third, what are you gonna have us do, change all the signs? That will sure mess people up.

:sb:

[ThirdGeneration]

John- You know I was trying to be a good Christian and took my neighbor to the grocery store. You see she broke her leg and was confined to a wheel chair.

Well, I got to the store and tried to find a handicapped parking place, but lo and behold all the spots were marked with those stick figure guys from the mens room; although they were in wheel chairs. So I had to turn around and take my neighbor home.

Well, the very next day; I decided to walk to work. John!!! I had the same problem.... I was at the traffic light waiting to cross the street and I could not!

You see, when the light was red, a hand was shown meaning "stop." But just when the light turned green, up pops the guy from the men's restroom in a walking motion.

John, they never had a stick figure in a dress signal that it was ok for women to cross the street. I don't know what to do. I haven't been to work since.

So my husband said, "Honey, you need to get out and relax. I will take you to a nice restauraunt" (which meant a cut above McDonalds).

Well, we get there, and my husband has to use the restroom. But, he came back to the table and said we had to leave instead. It seems that the pictures on the door were the reverse idea of the stick figures.

Instead of identifying gender by the piece of clothing that men do not wear, these bathroom doors identified gender by the attribute that women (most) do not have- mustaches!

My husband, being a good clean-shaven Apostolic, did not venture into the door with the mustach on it.

Btw John- Are bathroom door symbols really the best you can offer in the way of Scriptural evidence that God ordained gender distinction in dress?

You have got to get back to basics brother! The signs on the public rest room doors are NOT Scripture. They are man made and culturally relevant!

[Xerf]

The problem with deception is the decieved are unaware that they are in deception and they claim their blindness is light and their carnal thoughts as being spiritual minded. This sad situation causes the inability to understand spiritual precepts because the darkness of untuth calls God's wisdom foolishness.
Error is self reinforcing -- the more decieved one becomes the deeper they drop into carnality. Carnal reasoning becomes king and spiritual understanding is mocked.

[ThirdGeneration]

Xerf- Still can't find the precept?

[Xerf]

Third--still can't understand spiritual precepts?

[ThirdGeneration]

Xerf- I still don't see the emporer's new clothes.

Please tell me what Scripture bears witness to the precept that there is a great principle of gender distinction in clothing in Scripture?

[Nathan]

We're funny.

We claim women's pants are men's apparel, yet none of our men would be caught dead in women's pants. Why is that?

It's also funny that, (even though pants are supposedly wrong for a woman to wear) we'll wear pants in private (apparently, it's not an abomination if it's done privately -- does this also apply to abominations like homosexuality?)


Of all the standards, this one is perhaps the most senseless. I'm not trying to be rude, just candid.

Is it wrong for a woman to put on her boyfriend's jacket if it is cold?

Is it wrong for a man or woman to wear unisex shoes?

Is it wrong for a woman to wear a man's dress shirt? (I once knew a girl who denounced me for believing women could cut their hair, yet she wore her dad's dress shirts all the time and said she listened to jazz when her co-workers were around but changed it to Britney Spears/Christina Aguilera when they left. Hypocrites abound!)

My question is: How literal and nit-picky are you going to GET with the application of this scripture?


Jim brought out a GREAT point. The standards are supposed to be derived from PRINCIPLES. The PRINCIPLES are eternal, their APPLICATION is what varies.

When Jesus healed the 10 lepers, only 1 came back to worship Him. Though he had been told to go to the priest by Jesus, he stopped, turned around, and went to worship. He was perceptive enough to realize when he needed to make a change.

Pentecost is still walking in the old word, the old standard that God gave to men long ago. It doesn't know when to let go and when to hold on. That's why we have outdated, irrelevant, inconsistent, illogical holiness standards today.

People equate letting go of some antiquated form of dress with walking away from God.

What is wrong with this picture? Who has instilled all this fear in us? I thought God had given us the spirit of love, of power, and of a sound mind -- not a spirit of fear!


There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman wearing women's pants. If I see a man wearing makeup, dressed up as a woman, I get this sick feeling in my stomach and I KNOW that that is displeasing to God.

Honestly -- do you get that same feeling when you see a woman in a pair of pants?

I guess my major issue with the "pants = abomination" myth is its inconsistency in both logical basis and application.

After all, slits only started appearing in dresses when women wanted to start riding bikes (a *gasp* manly activity!) -- so why don't we preach against slits today? After all, we preach against pants because women started wearing them when men went to war and they had to man the factories ....

And society DOES determine what is normal and proper for dress. Our particular society has deemed that a man doesn't wear a dress. God did not set that up. God did not descend from heaven and say, "Post-modern American culture, men will wear pants and women will wear dresses." That's absurd.

If you find it in the woman's section and it's modest, wear it. There's nothing wrong with it.

[witness4jesus]

I have not had time to get into this, but I believe Deuteronomy 22:5 for exactly what it says, and within the context of mingling of diverse things. There is nothing in that chapter that I found to indicate it is talking about cross-dressing for war or for idolatry.

God did make men and women differently, he gave us different roles in life, I dont see why it is so hard to see the need for a distinction in dress. And one can certainly see the harm in it in our society. The MTV generation loves the blurring of gender. There have been movies surrounding the issue of being unable to tell the difference. And ever since the 60s it has been quite a joke to people: is it a woman, or is it a man? I have dealt with
a masculine spirit in my life, and I know that when Jesus gave me the Holy Ghost, he delivered me from that "liberated" spirit.

I realize that the distinction in dress is not the same in every culture, but I do believe that no matter what the culture, there is a distinction. Even in cultures where men wear robes, there is that distinction.

The problem is, the church has become so heady, and intellectual, and modern in its thinking that it is challenging the old ways. While I admit that some of our standards of holiness are borrowed, and are not biblical, others are not. And people are gonna believe whatever they want to, no matter how hard they have to strain for it. I have seen this with the issue of women preaching. Women want to believe that so badly, they get a magnifying glass to find women apostles, and women preaching where there is none.

I will research it more in the next couple of days.


sis pam

[ThirdGeneration]

Witness- Thanks for taking the time to look into it.

Please note however that the mingling you speak of as being the primary focus of the chapter has to do with only three erses out of the chapter. Also note, that there are other scriptures that say the same thing. In other words; they have verses that bear witness that we understand them correctly.

[Xerf]

"Line upon Line" = verse joined to verse
"Precept upon precept"= the principle that is taught and conveyed throughout the Bible.

Once the "LINE" has spoken, the "PRECEPT" is always true.

God is ONE and that principle never changes.

Jesus Name Baptism stated in Acts 2:38 sets the precept for all future baptisms,

Holiness principles are still true, including the abomination of women dressing in men's apparel.

Fight it all you wish but there is still:
One God
Baptism must be in His Name
and
Holiness in all manner of converstaion is pleasing to Him!

[ThirdGeneration]

Xerf- you stated: "Once the "LINE" has spoken, the "PRECEPT" is always true."

This is utter fallacy. Can you not comprehend why?

I am asking anyone on this board to show where the precept of gender distinctive clothing is taught.

In your own definition of precept you said, "Precept upon precept"= the principle that is taught and conveyed throughout the Bible."

Taking one verse out of the OT doesn't cut it; especially in light of the fact that we do not have any other verse to suggest that we have interpreted it as God intended.

I think God is big enough and smart enough to make things just a litttle more clear if we were suppose to find the principle of gender distinct clothing. Don't you?

[Xerf]

Third, calling "fallacy" is easily done to anoter's view. Do you think it was your logic that Moses rec'd on the mount etched in stone? You are incorrect in your so-called "prove it" theory. Many realize the value of obtaining the principle and seeing it flow throughout the Bible just as sex differential does. However when you refuse to acknowledge such and are blinded then it is apparent that you will never allow a "proof" of that which your heart will never accept.

You seem to want to put the lime on the field to mark the boundaries and only your so-called ruler is acceptable. I say, God is the One and what is abomination to Him is always an abomination to Him. You of course can try to convience Him otherwise--good luck!

[Thelordisone]

Xerf, witness4Jesus, John

Amen!!

God is the one that instills the Fear of the Lord and not only that but he also installs discipline and many other AWESOME things.

"A little leaven lumpens the whole bread!!"

How does the Bible describle Jezebbel and what was her ultimate fate? Not some one you want to immitate!!

Now, if you cant understand that Jesus wants you to be HOLY both INSIDE & OUT...you need to get in to heavy fasting & prayer. Jesus said, "hypocrites first clean the inside of the cup then the outside!!" He needs you CLEAN all over. "Whosover has not peace and holiness shall NOT see the Lord!!"

You better believe Jesus needs you to look like a woman!! "For our whole being, spirit, soul & flesh must be irresprensable at his coming!!"

IN HIS NAME!!

[John Atkinson]

BTW Third and Everyone,
The bathroom sign comment was a wise crack,

I don't put Sis Third in the Jezebel category, If I did and she was teaching others to be ungodly and to rebel, I would do to her just like I did to someone who was here recently who did. They bees gone. Thay ain't coming back.

I put Sis Third in the category of people who are concerned that the outward is given more precedence than the inward. Which is the same category I am in. SUPRISE!

We just live at different ends of that category, I live at the end that the standards are good and godly, skirts, hair, the whole bit, and my perception is that Sis Third is on the end that says fine, I don't think that stuff is required unless you show me Bible why.

I am into the beauty of holiness, which is bigger than any standard.

Clothes and hair have never made a single person holy.

I just believe if we teach the right stuff on the inside the other stuff we won't have to hammer, the outside will fall into place.

BTW II: Using the scripture in Deu 22 to teach about pants on women is taking it so far out of context it isn't worth discussing.

[Nathan]

Witness,

I agree with you -- I don't think Deut. 22:5 is speaking of military apparel.

And you know what? I believe every word of it too!

In fact, I believe it even more than all these hypocrites who yell out over the pulpit that it is a sin for a woman to wear pants, yet their wives and daughters wear them around the house.

You said that "even in cultures where men wear robes, there is that distinction."

In ages past, men and women's clothing has often been of the same form, material, and shape. The distinguishing factor was color.

With pants, the distinguishing factor is the form and shape of the pants. No one addressed any of the facts I presented in my post. Why? Because they're solid.

A man wouldn't wear a pair of women's pants and you know it -- and it's because they are effeminate and look different!


I believe with all my heart in modesty, distinction of sexes, etc. No one is disputing that we need to try to apply Deut. 22:5 to our lives. We're simply disagreeing as to HOW.

As for me, I'm going to be non hypocritical about it. I think it's ridiculous to say that women's pants are men's apparel, and I will be the same in public OR private -- which is more than can be said for most of the "pants = abomination" crowd.

God bless!

[foreverblessed]

Amen Bro. Atkinson, Good post!

[witness4jesus]

As to the issue of "women's pants", they are not a man's garment, they are an emulation of a man's garment, just as a woman with a masculine spirit is emulating a man, and a man with a feminine spirit is emulating a woman.

sis pam

[light]

"Originally posted by Sandy
Third, if some of the ladies would wear those loose fitting type of slacks that you cannot tell whether they are indeed a long dress or slacks until they walked or crossed their legs, then the men would not have to worry about covering them because their dress flew up when they went out in the Spirit. :o


Sis Sandy I've been in church the better part of 52 yrs. In all that time I have never seen anyone "IN THE SPIRIT" do any thing out of order. If you (I don't mean you personaly) "are in the spirit " your loose fitting dress will not come up. If you "are in the spirit" you will not have bumps on you head when it hits the concrete floor before the rest of your body hits the floor.
I have seen people kick holes in walls, fall on gutiars and break them while they were in the SO-CALLED SPIRIT. These people were in a spirit but not the spirit of God

We had a lady filled with the Holy Ghost the other day, and as her husband watched she began to dance in the spirit. When she stoped dancing she fell backwards with her head hitting first.Her husband had a worried look on his face but started to pray. The next day he called me and said when they undressed for bed he examined her body for bumps on the head and bruses on the back portion of her body. There were none. He said they could not horse around because she brused to easily. BTW she was wearing a loose fitting dress which did not need a blanket because it did not come up. She was in the Spirit.

[Nathan]

Bro. Atkinson,

Good post!


Witness,

So then, back to another of my questions ... why not teach against splits in skirts, as they came about when women wanted to start riding bikes like men?

And my step-sister wore a men's baseball cap for a few minutes tonight ... was that detestable to God? :)

And why has the issue of extreme hypocrisy among apostolics not been addressed?

My dad is completely obsessed with the idea that a woman wearing pants is an abomination, but I've seen my step mother wear his own camoflauge outfit while working at the house!

Hypocritical?

[ThirdGeneration]

Bro. John- Doesn't it really scare you sometimes; how we think so much alike and yet different?!? :D

[ThirdGeneration]

Looking at the OT-

Most Pentecostals would agree that we are not bound by OT laws that were not specifically brought into the NT. In fact Christ told us that the the two greatest commandments were to love God and to love your neighbor as yourelf. Jesus said, "On these two laws hang all the law and the prophets" (Mat 22:40).

And yet there are those that insist we are bound by Deut 22:5 because they claim it is an abomination which means that God never changed his mind about it. They argue that an abomination is somehthing so ugly that God abhors it forever.

We have no Scripture that says this, but we do see that items that are abominations #8441 (with the exception of Deuteronomy 22:5) were clearly carried into the NT.

We also find that our understanding of what the abomination is, is indeed, confirmed multiple places in Scripture EXCEPT for Deut 22:5 (if interpretted to be about gender distiction as to clothing).

God's Word is such a rich and beautiful tapstry of line upon line,
precept upon precept; that the the absence of confirmation for a
particular interpretation indicates to me that the interpretation is
missing the mark.

For there is a fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light
(Psalms 36:9).

And the things that thou hast heard among of me among many witnesses, the same commit to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also (2 Tim 2:2).

Consequently, I find that the word abomination is used in Deut 22:5 because the issue went to idol worship which was continually condemmed by God, rather than dress standards for which we can find no additional support.

This view is found among some scholars as well. The New John Gill Expostion of the Entire Bible says, "Some from this clause have been led to conclude, that respect is had to some customs of this kind used in idolatrous worship, which are always abominable to the Lord. So Maimonides F15 observes, that in a book of the Zabians, called "Tomtom", it is commanded, that a man should wear a woman's garment coloured when he stood before the star of Venus, and likewise that a woman should put on a coat of mail and warlike armour when she stood before the star of Mars; which he takes to be one reason of this law, though besides that he gives another, because hereby concupiscence would be excited, and an occasion for whoredom given:
that there was some such customs among the Heathens may be confirmed from Macrobius F16, and Servius F17 as has been observed by Grotius; the former of which relates, that Philochorus affirmed that Venus is the moon, and that men sacrificed to her in women's garments, and women in men's; and for this reason, because she was thought to be both male and female; and the latter says, there was an image of Venus in Cyprus with a woman's body and garment, and with the sceptre
and distinction of a man, to whom the men sacrificed in women's
garments, and women in men's garments; and, as the above learned commentator observes, there were many colonies of the Phoenicians in Cyprus, from whom this custom might come; and to prevent it obtaining among the Israelites in any degree, who were now coming into their country, it is thought this law was made; for the priests of the Assyrian Venus made use of women's apparel F18, and in the feasts of Bacchus men disguised themselves like women F19."

Btw- I will agree that all societies have generally had fashions
(color, texture, style, emphasis, etc.) that easily identified the
sexes. It is part of human sexuality to accent the differences. But
I don't see God mandating it anymore than I see God telling us to
make sure we eat and sleep. It is but a by-product of the human
existence.

[John Atkinson]

I Know, scary isn't it :-)

[Nathan]

Third,

I agree that God detested the cross-dressing that was linked to idolatry (this same phenomenon was also part at work in Corinth and other cities in the new testament), but I do think that the principle still applies to us today.

God wants distinction of the sexes. I don't try to explain Deut. 22:5 away (not saying that's what you're doing), I just realize how absurd it is to derive the "women's pants" doctrine from it.

[ThirdGeneration]

Hey Nathan! We already are distinct!!!

Obviously, you are smart enough to recognize that IF the issue was a great principle in God's kingdom;

1. it would be found in more than one obscure passage in the OT; and

2. Men would not shave the facial hair that God PUT ON THEM. (What an oxymoran)!; and

3. IF something is an abomination to God, there would be absolutely NO circumstance that would justify doing it as the three Hebrew children and the fiery furnace testify.

I do believe looking feminine and masculine as culture defines it is, is a natural part of human sexuality across all cultures and historic time periods. There have always been different dress norms for men and women.

For instance there was a time period when men wore frilly shirts with ruffles on them and had long hair. But during that same time period, women's clothing had more ruffles and their hair was longer.

There was a time in France that men wore wigs and high heels. Converesly women wore bigger wigs.

Consider that when men started to wear ear rings here; the women started wearing six or seven at a time!

Conseqently, history shows that the ideas of what is masculine and feminine are fluid and constantly changing. They were never written in stone.

You will not find such static instructions in Scripture either. You will not find God commanding us to forever hold onto the cultural mindset of masculinity and femininty from the 1940s or 50s American mindset.

People naturally dress as men or women; just as we naturally eat and sleep. No artificial rules are needed in this regard. As you point out; a man is NOT going to wear a woman's pair of pants!

[Xerf]

It is truly amazing to see how far people will go in their quest to justify their errant theology. Once one takes the world as their authority and delete, mock and compromise the divine Word of God they are heading down a path that is as old as "behold your gods O Israel." They will soon cry out "make us a king" like the other nations. They will decry "away with this manna give us meat." They will eventually state, "away with this man, give us Barabas!"

[Thelordisone]

Xerf,

You know the Lord said this would happen. Just his word, nothing more nothing less.

Amen to your post!!

John,

I am not saying that folks are Jezebel I am stating that one can end up like her if you continue to allow the leaven to come thru. Re-read my post if you wish. A little leaven lumpens the whole bread!!

They start with just a little make-up, then shorter and tighter dress and on and on...

Now, this applies to males as well. You should look as clean as possible. No short sleaves to church at anytime. Unless of course you are working around church. Otherwise, you should look as honourable ie long sleave & tie. Again, long sleave at least. Just like woman should dress with honor & shame. So, males should NOT be going place with shorts & the like.

Because this I want to look "good" attitude can get you in seriuos trouble. Both a brother & sister I know backslid and stopped coming to church because they were more interested in "looking good" instead of starting on the inside.

"Physical exertion profitith little but grace profiteth for this life and the one to come!"

And the Lord said all is important not only the inside and outside...EVERYTHING!!

IN HIS NAME!!

[Sandy]

Oh ok Light. Actually, I was just joking anyway. Because anyone can reason out that if you wear your skirt to the floor almost, which is very popular today anyway, that it isn't going to come up anyway. But of course, some women, especially when they first get saved, have not had time to have God deal with them about not wearing those short short skirts anymore, which are also popular today too. And it is these I was thinking about mostly. But if you do not have any new converts dressing this way, then I guess one doesn't have to worry about it anyway. I know when I first began following the Lord, I wore the very short mini skirts to church, that was so popular in the early 70's, for a short time anyway. But suddenly the hem line became much much longer. . And I know I am not the only one that did then, or today either, at first anyway. I guess because God doesn't come down immediately telling that one, now honey, you need to get rid of those short skirts now. With most, these things do take a little time anyway, that is when we let the Lord do the dealing with those that has just come out from doing the things the world does totally that are not becoming anyway. And I believe He does regarding even these issues when they are really important. At least I have found it to be true for me mostly anyway. Of course, you may disagree with me He Has, which is ok too.

But then I remember the first time I got baptized I wore a long skirt, which was also popular then as well. And had to fight it in that water, because it kept trying to come up on me.

I have never seen anyone get hurt going out in the spirit either, no matter how hard they fall. And some have fallen pretty hard, even on cement flooring which ordinarily would cause a person to crack their head open after falling that hard in the natural.

[Nathan]

Third,

Great post. Are you male or female? LOL

Are you UPCI?



Xerf,

I have you on my ignore list, but I did read your last post. I never said I was disregarding anything. I stated that still believe Deut. 22:5 applies to us today.

What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Do you even read the posts you respond to? Evidently not.


Just remember, buddy, that you don't have any right to be such a pompous, arrogant nuisance -- you put your "pants" on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

[light]

Sandy I remember when we had camp meetings at Frazior Park Cal. The floor of the Tabernacle was dirt with a straw covering. The sides of the tabernacle were garage doors. They would open these doors, and cars would pull right up under the open doors.
The dirt was so bad your suit pants would be coverd with dirt to mid calf after walking 10 or 15 steps.
One night the power of the Lord came down and a sister that was wearing a squaw dress with a stand out slip began to dance in the spirt . She fell and her head hit the front fender of a car parked under the door. She then began to roll on the ground.
Not one time did that dress( just past the knees) come up, or was there any dirt on it when she got up. The dress was white with red blue and green rick rack sewn on it. I believe thats what you call that stuff. The spirit makes the difference.There are a lot of good memorys of that camp ground.

[Sandy]

Light,

Well Light, if someone has on some of these mni skirts, your dress doesn't have to fly up, believe me. Which was my point regarding the mini skirts on brand new converts to begin with.

Sorry for saying it now though, even as a joke, because it really has nadda to do with whether it is ok for women to don themselves in womens slacks (pants) according to the scriptures to begin with. Which is really the issue at hand to begin with that Third brought up and asked her question about. But I will admit it is indeed a wonderful issue to get side tracked onto instead.

[Sandy]

Light, speaking of the subject at hand, can you answer her question? I ask because I can't, and thought maybe you would be able to tell me the answer.

[ThirdGeneration]

Hey Sandy- I've got to take some time off the board and finish up some work projects. Maybe while I am gone, somebody will find where that great principle of gender distinction in dress is found (outside of our interpretation of an isolated verse in Deuteronomy).

Keep looking. Surely it is there!!! No?

[Sandy]

Hi Third,

I keep waiting for someone to answer it, but so far nadda.

Please don't be gone to long. In other words,hurry back. :D

[stmatthew]

Sister Sandy!!!

I caint believe you just called Third a hairy back!!! hehehe

[WorDsHines]

Third,

Just as with many other biblical principles, you won't find word for word that men/women should dress distinctively.

I do believe the Bible indicates they should, though. Let me explain.

First of all, I don't think we should dress the way we do for God's benefit---other than to honor and obey him. What I mean is, God sees right through them anyway--he is omniscient and omnipresent, of course.

I think the issue of the way we visibly dress is related to the people around us--both believer and non.

The Bible plainly teaches there is an order of creation--first man, then woman. I believe this is the reason for the scripture "...the woman ought to have power on her head, because of the angels." The reason we ought to dress disctinctively is to show that we are submitted to God's established order. (Please, let's not get into an argument about equality--it has nothing to do with that). We are visibly stating that we are placing ourselves in the correct place in God's chain of authority. And yes, I know that the inward must be clean first, otherwise the outward is just hypocrisy.

An example of a principle being stated for the benefit of other people can be found in Titus 2:5 "[To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." I am not using this scripture to argue the point about dress, but as another example where we are told to do something for the benefit of unbelievers.

Society, custom and culture do play a part in defining how our holiness looks. Otherwise, we would have to wear robes to be truly and literally Apostolic.

I think the main point of moderation and disctinction in dress is to let the world know that our priorities lie in living a moderate, humble, submissive, God-fearing lifestyle------we do not follow after the world like so many lust-ridden, attention-craving, self-serving animals. (I'm not saying a woman who wears pants is like this, just explaining the motivation behind Apostolic dress as I see it. ) We have standards, and don't just settle for what the going morality of society is, though we may do things Apostolics taught 40 years ago were wrong.

Just my 2 cents.

[ThirdGeneration]

Originally posted by WorDsHines
Just as with many other biblical principles, you won't find word for word that men/women should dress distinctively.

WorD- Can you show me these other BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES that we have based on one passage in Scripture (other than the doctrine of uncut hair)?

I agree with much of what you say as far as being concientious of how we are viewed by society. In fact, that is a great reason for my distress at creating artificial man made standards.

In reading your last paragraph I wonder if I understand correctly that you are conceding that the distinction in dress between the sexes is not really a Biblical principle about distinctive garments, but rather in your view, has to do with the way we let "the world know that our priorities lie in living a moderate, humble, submissive, God-fearing lifestyle------ " ?

(Trying hard to stay away from the Cafe so I can get some work done)!

[WorDsHines]

Third,

I will admit it's a tough subject.

No, the Bible doesn't mention specific articles of clothing within this context, but I also don't believe the pants/dress issue is necessarily a faulty principle. I think some traditions/customs are prudent, if indeed it can't be biblically proven.

There is a scripture that tells us to submit ourselves to the traditions we have received (with the unspoken caveat that assumes they are not contrary to God's will). There are lots of things we do/don't do that are not sin/mandatory because our personal convictions tell us it's right to do/not do.

I think this is just one of those issues that one must ask God to show them his will on. Ultimately it's up to him, and not everything He tells you to do/not do are written in the Bible.

I'll have to get back to you on "these other BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES that we have based on one passage in Scripture (other than the doctrine of uncut hair)?" ;)

[foreverblessed]

WorDsHines

Hey, I like your way of thinking!

[Sandy]

And so, what you're saying then WorD, if God isn't dealing with you on an issue that isn't a command in the Word, this should be up to the individual to determine what is right before God as well as man in their own eyes. Assuming on my part that this depends also on what those that have the rule over you for your own good believes you should be doing at least in their presence anyway. As well as first and foremost, what the priest of your particular house believes too, whether it be a father or husband.

I have added those stipulations because of believing they do count.

Because if you are saying this, then I agree with you. But if you are interjecting what you personally believe about this for me and everyone else, then I could not agree with it, unless the Word tells me differently. Which in this case it apparently does not, at least up to this time anyway, as Third has aptly pointed out so far. Hairy or not, right Matthew? :D

[ThirdGeneration]

WorDsHines- I am not sure if you have been on the board before; but this subject has been looked at in all directions except for this "great principle" of gender distinction in dress that has always been assumed.

This is the issue I am seeking to have the best minds on the board consider. Where is it? I can't find it and so far no one else has come forth.

Sandy, who is very well versed in Scripture said that she cannot find it. Witness said she would look into it also. Others teach it and believe it, but haven't come forth with any verses that directly address this holy grail of Pentecost.

Obviously, you are familiar with God's Word and express yourself well. Thus, I am looking forward to hearing more from you.

I will also be interested in finding out what other BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES we hold based on one isolated passage in Scripture (other than the doctrine of uncut hair)....

Welcome to the Cafe!

Stmatt- :goof:

[Sandy]

Hey Stmatt,

Looks to me like all of Thirds hair is on her head by that pic above, and not on her back at all. Not only that, it is a real pretty red too. So better be careful, cuz you do know what they say about redheads don't cha :D