women wear skirts at all times?

Thank you, Thankful! I think you have voiced for all of us who believe pants are OK -- assuming modesty and gender-appropriateness.

I would love to think the thread would be locked at this point, on a note of understanding...

 

I had some miserable years as a young student in
St. Louis, because I was only allowed, by my
parents and their church, to wear dresses. There,
especially in the eighth grade, I was teased and
ridiculed endlessly because only the loose girls
wore dresses. It was said that it was for easier
access, easier clean-up, and more body-
exposure.

Admittedly, what I went through did leave an
impression on me and is likely the real reason I am
so uncomfortable in dresses and why I own none.
Indeed, I do feel exposed; indeed, that concept of
easy accessibility and of being an object has
stayed with me.

I would rather wear pants, and in these ways,
disappear into the background, unnoticed. If this
is what pants cause, then pants are even more
attractive to me, for me to wear. I do not find being
treated differently for wearing a dress to be
appealing. I want men, other than my husband, to
let me open my own doors and do for myself. I
want no special favors from strange men. I do
not need their protection, as I am quite capable
of protecting myself.

If you want to wear dresses, wear dresses, but
please do not try to tell me that I, as a woman, am
sinning for wearing pants. To base this upon
Scripture is to stretch the Scripture until it cries.

 

I've been studying this subject all morning, looking at it from every possible angle, every related word so as to get the most complete biblical meaning of this argument, and found some interesting things.


Deut.22: 5The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment:

I found this in Adam Drake's Commentary of the O.T. (since others are using other books other then the bible)
Deut. 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man- , the instruments or arms of a man. As the word(herbrew word was here) is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor 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 armor before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard.

So I wanted to check this out.
I found that the Hebrew word used her for man(gerber, strong's 1397) menas properly a valiant man, a warrior.
Now there are at least 3 different words used in Hebrew that are translated man.
1. adam, H120 in Strong's means mankind, all peoples,human. As used in Gen. 1:26
2. iysh, H376 in Strong's means a man, a male. As used in Gen. 4:3
3. gerber, H1397 in Strong's means a valient man, a warrior. As used in Deut. 22:5

If the bible were saying women do not wear men's clothing in general(such as pants) the Hebrew word would have been iysh H376, a male, a man. But instead it (the bible) used gerber H1397, a warrior's clothes. According to the bible, with it useing two differt words for men(not mankind, the male sex) it is saying there were men(males) and there were men who were warriors, 2 different kinds of men(males). Which is still pretty much the same in society today. Some emn are warriors(soldiers) and some are not. Taking this verse in context, and useing the actual words used in the bible, it says for women not to wear a warrior's (soldier's) clothing.

Breeches
Strong's H4370, drawers,(from concealing the private parts),
which were not worn by men in general as the bible demonstrates, but only by priests, they are listed as priests clothing in the bible, not men in general.
Ex. 28: 42And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.
Lev. 6: 10And 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.
Lev. 16: 4He 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.
Each instance breeches( modern word would be underware) are used in the bible it is of priests while preforming their priestly duty. When it is said a woman can not wear breeches, if you are using the biblical word, it is in effect, biblically speaking being said a woman can not wear underware.

Also i the O.T. about clothing is Lev. 19:19 which forbids the wearing of more then one fabric at one time, or a fabris which is a blend, made of two differnet fmaterials, such as a poly/cotton blen, a silk/rayon blend, and blend, anything but being 100% of whatever the fiber of the fabric is. All clothing on the body at any given moment was to be all of one fiber of fabric.


1Tim 2: 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

adorn Storng's G2885, to put in proper order
modest G2887, orderly, of good behavior
shamefacedness G127, bashful before men

Apprael, it was previously written in this thread that apparel meant long, loose, flowing. I looked to see what the greek word actually was(a dictionary is noting more then on man's opinion, and yu can find your oopinion no matter what it might be in some dictionary somewhere as there are quite a few of them)
The Greek word for apprael used in 1 Tim.2:9 is "katastoleô " (specifically) costume:-apparel.
, it means exactly what it looks like it means. Clothing, not a specific type.(long, loose, flowing, not found in this verse in scripture). As was said, God ahs not changed His mind, but man has tried to change God's mind by changing scripture.


But often forgotten companion verse. Speaking of women, wives specifically.
1 Pet. 3: 3Do not let your adornment be merely outward-arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel-4rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God

Not letting you outward appearence be your beauty, but the inward man(the hidden person), be your spiritual beauty. It appears here the focus is not on the outward, but the inward. If a woman is modestly dresses, then the focus is to be inward. It does not mention what piece of clothing is to be modest. I think part of the problem comes from people thinking when women want to wear pants they are talking about skin tight form fiting pants, and we are not. Theres no way I would dress like that. I think most of the other women on here would feel the same way about wearing pants.
taking all that the bible does say in context, and I think most of you want the bible to be incontext, then it does not say women should wear dresses only, and never wear pants. That is interjecting personal opinion into scripture till it becomes a part of scripture, when in fact it is not. I do not have a problem with women who want to wear dresses only, I ahve never said they were wrong to do it, I don't recall that anyone has said that. What we object to is when it is said that the bible says women are to wear dresses only, and that women who wear pants are not being disobedient, and are ungodly, along with a few other things not so nice

 

I have presented you with scripture, in english and in it's origianl laungages, what you do with what the bible says is up to you. But by all means lets take it in context. I don't think anyone here wants to take scripture out of context, then it becomes mear opinion, and not God. God does not hide anything from us in scripture, He puts it there so our less then finite minds can see and concieve it's meanings, when taken as it is, without opinion added to sway scripture.

 

And yet many times it has been presented in context. I'm just a bit confused though . . . how exactly am I, and others, taking the word of God out of context? If you could pinpoint for me exactly what I'm doing wrong, I'll go from there.

Again, here is a quote from a tract that will soon be added to my web page:

Notice how God says that a man shall not wear a woman’s garment, but a woman is not to wear anything that even pertains to a man. Garments in the bible and throughout history were always gender specific. The Israelite men of that time wore breeches and/or robes that came to the knee. Women also wore robes, but of a completely different cut and length. Breeches were specifically male attire both in the bible and throughout history.

There are many words used for clothing in the bible, including raiment, garments, attire, array, and apparel. It is important to point out the use of apparel in this passage. It is a common mistake of some to emphasize the word "modest" in this passage as if it were the subject. But if you read it, the passage is not a command to be modest. The word modest here is only the adjective. It is there to modify "apparel." So it is "apparel" that the Lord is stressing here, which must also be modest. You might consider this to be of little importance until you understand what this word "apparel" means in the better English from when our bible was published. We commonly use the term "apparel" nowadays to describe any article of clothing. But originally apparel, whether worn by men, women or angels, meant "loose, long flowing outer garment." You will find proof of this in the volume of the Old Oxford English Dictionary, which retains archaic definitions. If you look in the Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words or a Young's Analytical Concordance, you will see this term comes from the word "katastole." This word Katastole is an exacting term used only in this particular text directed at how a woman should dress. It differs from the general terms used such as those translated "garments, attire, clothing, etc." Note what is says in the Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine.

From Article on Apparel, p.63 "KATASTOLE Greek spelling), connected with katastello, to send or let down, to lower (kata, down, stello, to dens), was primarily a garment let down; hence, dress, attire, in general (cp. stole, a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank, --Eng,. Stole); 1Tim 2:9, "apparel." From p.199-200 STOLE (greek spelling), Eng., stole), denotes any stately robe, a long garment reaching to the feet or with a train behind."

Julia

 

It is quite unfortunate that people would act in such a way as they obviously have. I can't imagine calling people names and mocking them in the manner that some have been treated. I guess I missed all those unkind posts in the last discussion.

At any rate, I think we should be able to discuss our differing thoughts on this manner just as we would any other issue facing a Christian.

Julia

 

I'm sure I am putting my membership with the BB in serious jeopardy by saying this, but after this has been discussed to death SEVERAL times, why has this thread not been locked? Is it maybe that the powers that be enjoy a good cat fight?

Cindy

 

Because there are several new members who are apparently interested in this discussion; and the tone of the discussion has remained civil.

As long as both sides are presenting their cases in a non-offensive manner, the thread will remain open. If there are those who no longer wish to participate, you are free to avoid this thread.

It is interesting that since this thread, two others on basically the same topic have been started.

 

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Because there are several new members who are apparently interested in this discussion...

Pastor Bob, after the initial post by girla, it looks to me like the BB regulars. We have not heard back from girla since her post.

Cindy

 

Comments, such as this one from Abby_the_IFBaptist on page (3) of this thread indicate that even BB regulars can benefit from these same discussions as long as they remain civil.

That is why I choose to keep this thread open. However, if my co-Moderator deems it appropriate to close this thread, he may do so with my understanding and support.

 

Helen, maybe those who are convinced that they are OK should no longer log on to the thread rather than close it down. Let those who disagree or that are still searching for an answer continue to discuss it.

 

Julia, if you'll compare what the bible says with what has been posted in the guise of scripture you'd see it.
Breeches were not worn by all men, but in the bible priests only.(look it up please, only references are for priests) That which pretainth to a man is not pants or breeches.Since non priestly men did not wear them. So if this verse is used to say women can not wear pants it is being taken out of contest of the rest of scripture. So one muct ask what is it that was being spoken of in that verse, what is, that which pretainh to a man? When I looke dup the word man as used in this verse, it was not any man, anyone of the male sex, but a warrior, a soldier we'd call him, which is not the ordinary, common man. So they were being told not to wear warriors clothing, I believe in effect saying do not go to battle and leave your home, as your name says telling them to be a keeper of the home.
After further research I found that men's and women's clothing were much the same, with only few differences seperating the two, one of which being and I quote "sufficent difference in embossing, embroidery and needlework, so that in appearence the line of demarcatin between men and women could be readily detected". They worn the same clothing styles, embllishemnts were the only difference, and I also found that the color of the gurdle/belt may have been different, plain for men,and colored strips for women.

 

And yet . . . only men were priests, correct? It was an office to be held only by men.

Julia

 

So one muct ask what is it that was being spoken of in that verse, what is, that which pretainh to a man? When I looke dup the word man as used in this verse, it was not any man, anyone of the male sex, but a warrior, a soldier we'd call him, which is not the ordinary, common man.

other examples of the use of 'gever' (01397):

Job 3:3 Let the day 03117 perish 06 wherein I was born 03205 , and the night 03915 [in which] it was said 0559 , There is a man child 01397 conceived 02029 .

Job 34:34 Let men 0582 of understanding 03824 tell 0559 me, and let a wise 02450 man 01397 hearken 08085 unto me.

Job 4:17 Shall mortal man 0582 be more just 06663 than God 0433? shall a man 01397 be more pure 02891 than his maker 06213 ?

should all of these instances be translated as 'soldier' instead of 'man'?

 

Julia, now thast what I mean taking bible information out of context. Breeches are priestly clothing, they are not pants, they are underware. Noone but priests were to wear them, you really have to misuse scripture to say this proves women are not to wear pants.

 

You put words in my mouth, I did not say it should be translated soldier, I said the meaning of the word in hebrew is warrior. Check it out if you want to. I'm only telling what scripture says.

 

Wow, we do end up having alot of these conversations. I have a hard time with this subject, and here is my opinion/story.

I think that a lady should be modest AT ALL TIMES!!! If you were to ever see me, yes it would be in a skirt. When I first got saved, wow, talk about researching about this topic!! Around my house, I wear like pajama pants and stuff that way I can just "veg out" and be really confortable. Right now, as I am typing, I have cullotes on. Cullotes are great too, because they are modest, looking like a skirt, but yet, easy to play around in. People have their own opinions on this topic, but what I really think is the basis of this topic and people is their own convictions that the Lord gives to THEM. At my school, we have a dress code with skirts, dresses, or jumpers in modest apparel with no slits. I don't see anything wrong with slits, as long as they are not above the thigh where the Bible would consider to be nakedness. At times that I am not in school, yes, I wear skirts with modest slits in them. People have their own choices about me and how I dress. I believe that I dress modestly, in a dress and as long as a lady is dressing modestly and the way that the Lord has convicted her to, dress like that. The Lord has convicted me to dress in a skirt when I am in public because that is the proper way for ME to dress. I do not want to be attracting any attention of young men to my body, they should be attracted to my personality and ME!!! I also don't want any DOUBT in my mind that my testimony for me and my church would be at stake because of my dress!!

Jamie

 

Back in about 1960 i was in High School
and was waiting for some people to watch
the basketball game. I listened to
the car radio of somebody else. I heard
a pentacostal preacher say: "If you can't
tell men's pants from women's pants then
you got way more problems than i can help
you with.

His opinion on women using makeup was:
"If the barn needs painting -- then paint it!"

Today in Centraly Oklahoma the wind was
blowing 35-40 Miles Per Hour (MPH).
Modest women wore pants

 

Kate, no where in this thread do I see anyone misusing Scripture or or offering any thing "in the guise" of Scripture. All that is being done is people offering their findings on the Scriptures involved with this topic. Please do not imply that members are intentionally being deceptive while quoting Scripture.

No one said that the Deuteronomy passage or the passages that speak of breeches "prove" that women are not to wear pants. What we do know is the Deuteronomy passge tells us that God wants a distinction between men's and women's clothing. If is our job to search the Scriptures and see what those distinctions are.

The fact that breeches were worn by men only, be they priests, soldiers, farmers, whatever tells us that they were intended to be worn by men only. Soldiers were instructed to "gird up their loins." That is, they were to pull up their robve and tuck it in to their belt so they could run and fight. Are we to believe that God wanted them to expose their nakedness? I feel it is a safe assumption to say that all men who may be required to fight wore breeches under their outer garments. That would include just about all men in OT times.

To say that breeches are equal to modern day underware is suspect at best. The breeches were to cover from the loin to the thigh. Today's underware does not even come close to that.

No one has stated that any one verse says that women should not wear pants. Although the verse in I Timothy settles it for me, it may not settle it for you. No one is saying, "Kate, you are not supposed to wear pants!" What myself and others are saying is that we have concluded that the Bible teaches how a man and a woman are to dress. It you have arrived at a different conclusion, that is perfectly acceptable to me. You have to do what you feel God would have you do.

It takes a certain amount of strength to stand for what you believe the truth to be. If you have found what you believe the truth to be, then give others the freedom to arrive at their own conclusions even if that conclusion disagrees with your's.

For the most part, this thread has been simple statements about what both sides believe the Bible teaches. I have a good notion that neither side has market on complete understanding in this area.

The bottom line is, don't take it personal; allow others to disagree; if someone gets out of line, they will be dealt with in quick fashion. Above all else, do not accuse the other side of being deceptive in their use of Scripture.

 

Kate B...007: "I've been studying this subject
all morning, looking at it from every
possible angle, every related word so as
to get the most complete biblical meaning
of this argument, and found some interesting
things."

Thank you, Sister Kate.
I appreciate you sharing your study with us.