The woman shall not wear...

[DaPastor]

Since a discussion began in "Introductions", I decided that we should discuss this topic here. Does the Bible really say that a woman cannot wear pants, but only a dress? The Scripture that is used by those who believe that a woman is only allowed to wear a dress comes from Deuteronomy 22:5:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1. LINGUISTICS: Does Linguistics support this contention?

No! In fact, the normal Hebrew word for man is"'îysh". It means "man, male, husband, etc". However, the Hebrew word used in the above verse is "geber". This word means more than a mere "male". The definition of this word is "a strong man, warrior, a soldier". What idea is Moses trying to convey here? Let us first rewrite the verse with the exact Hebrew definition in mind:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a soldier, neither shall a soldier put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

What a difference a word makes! To prove that this is the way the Jews looked at this verse, one only needs to read Josephus (a contemporary with Apostle Paul). When he quoted Deuteronomy 22:5, he paraphrased it this way in Book 4, 8:43:

Take care especially in your battles, that no woman use the habit of man, nor man the garment of a woman.

Clarke's Commentary explains the idea further:

...keli geber, the instruments or arms of man. As the word geber is here used, which properly signifies a 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 of 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.

Why did the men and women do this when worshiping their false God's. Historians that I have read do not have a clear answer, but it seems to be related to some "good luck" aspect of their false worship. The real point I am trying to get to is that this verse is there to prevent Israel from a false religious practice, not to prevent women from wearing pants.

2. CONSISTENCY ONE: It seems to me that the Bible suggests that men always wore "skirts". So, if women are not to wear that which pertains to men, they should wear pants then, right?

(Deuteronomy 22:30) A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

(Deuteronomy 27:20) Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.

(Ruth 3:9) And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.

(1 Samuel 15:27) And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.

(1 Samuel 24:4) And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily.

(1 Samuel 24:5) And it came to pass afterward, that David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul's skirt.

(1 Samuel 24:11) Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it.

(Psalm 133:2) It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments

3. CONSISTENCY TWO: If this "law" is to be practiced in the way some maintain, then the following should be practiced as well:

A. When a house is built, it needs to be built with a "battlement", that is, a guard rail, on the roof. Does your house have a battlement on the roof?

Deu 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

B. Make sure that your clothes have fringes upon the four corners. In other words, "tassels". Do you have tassels on all your clothes?

Deu 22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

I could go on with this one for days. The point is that not only is Deuteronomy not even apply to the general wearing of clothes, but those who usually apply it do not apply the rest of the chapter. They merely rip the verse out of context in their attempt to get women to wear dresses.

Now concerning "breeches" for men. In the Bible these were not "pants" as we know them. These were "long underwear". Only the Priests were to wear them? Why? Because when they would go up the stairs of the altar to make offerings, their body parts would be exposed. Hence, the reason for these "pants" were for modesty, which establishes a principle that modesty is for covering their private parts. Hence, women wearing pants may be esteemed as being modest (if they are not wearing tight pants that tend to expose private parts) because if they fall down, or go up stairs, they would be less likely to expose their private parts.

Now, so that I am not misunderstood. I believe Scripture does speak about dressing modestly, but this does not necessarily mean that a women wearing pants is immodest.

One last thought: What Scripture tells us that pants are men's clothing? It wasn't too long ago that all men wore robes. Who decided that only men could wear pants when they began to be made?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Pastor and everybody else. I want to bring up some points here. It specifically says in that part of deuteronomy that it is an abomination. Few of the other parts of deuteronomy say something is an abomination. They say it about certain food laws and idol worship, male homosexuality, etc. Not every rule in deuteronomy mentions that not doing it is an abomination. I think an abomination to God is always an abomination, right? Anyway I think the different hebrew words for skirts (if indeed there are different ones) should be studied as well as the ones for male. I think the question out of history that you brought up is important. When did man start wearing pants and when was it designated just for men. I think that women back in hebrew times did not wear any underwear (should this be in the women only section! ) I think panties are a relatively modern thing. So were women not modest then cause they didnt wear underwear? What I know is that in our cultural context the women who started wearing pants (turn of the century?) were rebellios feminists who wanted to be like men in every way even as a "soldier". Do you then say that it is not ok for a woman to be in the military according to Deuteronomy? (I tend to think so). Anyway, I don't have all the answers about this either but women in the church were not the first to start wearing "unisex" clothes. They followed women of the into it. I am going to study this further and would like anybody's rebuttal.

 

[Chaplain]

I agree with Brother Randy on his take. If you look back at the clothing that was worn, and to a point still worn in the middle east, then men and women all dressed alike. There were some differences between the daily clothing to distinguish a man from a woman. such as head wear, the way the clothing was made to fit, face coverings, etc. I do believe that women should dress in a manner ( pants, dress or skirt )that shows not only respect for themselves, but to the Lord as well.

As a side note....I, along with my Scottish ancestors, would take offense :evil: if you told us that we were wearing a skirt when we have our KILTS on

 

[DaPastor]

Hi Pastor and everybody else. I want to bring up some points here. It specifically says in that part of deuteronomy that it is an abomination. Few of the other parts of deuteronomy say something is an abomination. They say it about certain food laws and idol worship, male homosexuality, etc. Not every rule in deuteronomy mentions that not doing it is an abomination. I think an abomination to God is always an abomination, right? Anyway I think the different hebrew words for skirts (if indeed there are different ones) should be studied as well as the ones for male. I think the question out of history that you brought up is important. When did man start wearing pants and when was it designated just for men. I think that women back in hebrew times did not wear any underwear (should this be in the women only section! ) I think panties are a relatively modern thing. So were women not modest then cause they didnt wear underwear? What I know is that in our cultural context the women who started wearing pants (turn of the century?) were rebellios feminists who wanted to be like men in every way even as a "soldier". Do you then say that it is not ok for a woman to be in the military according to Deuteronomy? (I tend to think so). Anyway, I don't have all the answers about this either but women in the church were not the first to start wearing "unisex" clothes. They followed women of the into it. I am going to study this further and would like anybody's rebuttal.

Hello Maria,

Yes, the act mentioned above was called an abomination. The reason it was called an abomination is the "intent". If they acted this out, they were in essence practicing idolatry - following the example of false religious practices. This is always an abomination!

Actually, "skirts" were part of the robe.

There is a lot of history about pants. It is easy to find information about pants on the internet.

Modesty is not about what one wears underneath their outer garments. Modesty has to do with what is "revealed". This is why the priests were told to wear "breeches". It was so that those watching the priests go up the staircase to sacrifice animals would not get a glimpse from underneath of the priest's private parts. Sometimes some women think that if they merely wear a dress it is automatically modest. This is not the case: 1. The dress may be real tight, revealing the very form of her private parts - leaving nothing to the imagination. 2. The dress may be too short, thus not covering her private parts very well when she sits. 3. The dress may be too short for walking up staircases, thus, revealing her private parts to those below. 4. The dress may be cut too low, thus revealing to much of her private parts. I know women who wear pants that are very modest in their presentation - covering everything very adequately without emphasizing any of their areas.

It is true in some cases that women wore pants in an act of rebellion historically. During this time in history it may have been good for Christian women to abstain from changing her appearance. This is based upon the Biblical principle of "identification", that is, Christians should not identify with the rebellious. However, today, this is not the case. However, it should also be noted that many women wore pants to help the War effort during WW2. They were much needed.

Concerning "unisex" ideology, I will ask you one question: "When everyone, both men and women, wore robes in the Bible days, would you consider this "unisex"?

 

[DaPastor]

I agree with Brother Randy on his take. If you look back at the clothing that was worn, and to a point still worn in the middle east, then men and women all dressed alike. There were some differences between the daily clothing to distinguish a man from a woman. such as head wear, the way the clothing was made to fit, face coverings, etc. I do believe that women should dress in a manner ( pants, dress or skirt )that shows not only respect for themselves, but to the Lord as well.

As a side note....I, along with my Scottish ancestors, would take offense :evil: if you told us that we were wearing a skirt when we have our KILTS on

From one Scottsman to another

 

[Doc]

Of course, I should mention the old time radio preacher that I heard say one time on his broadcast, and I quote:


"You rebellious women wearing pants, you need to take them off in church!"



Doc

 

[familyminded]

This is a difficult topic because there is no specific instruction on pants or dresses in the Bible. However there are a few things to seriously consider.
God said a woman should dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9
"in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,") Note modesty is pertaining here to women.
If we men and women are truly honest with ourselves we have to admit that pants on a woman are plain rude and revealing. They show a womans figure and other things that should be for her husband alone to appreciate. True, women wore dresses similar to robes worn by men. But, where the women modest? Yes. Are pants modest on a women? No infact you could describe slacks or whatever on a woman as simply oversize underware!
I declare that women in pants look rude, and either seductive or ugly (depending on the case). Why, if men are not supposed to look at a woman in the wrong way (with wrong thoughts) why then make it hard for ourselves?
Why do we have to conform to the world? Look, wherever the world goes we christians follow just a couple of steps behind (quite often). Can't we make a stand. Can't we just accept God's judgements without questioning everything. We accept Polygyny....we can not be partial.
You say "but then we have to follow God's other rules" (not word for word) Well I say GOOD let's follow ALL God's instructions. We won't be perfect but let's at least give it a go! My family and I accept God's ruling on these things. What is wrong with putting a railing around your roof (if you have a flat roof that you can walk on) or around your veranda. What is wrong with wearing tassles...it hasn't hurt me. I would do anything God asked me to...wouldn't you? If God asked you to travel to a distant land ...you would. If God asked you to put your life in danger to help someone...... you probably would. Why then do we baulk at obeying the little things. God doesn't ask much of us really.
We know God want's a seperation between men and women so we don't have this unisex mess we have today. Where you can hardly tell a man and owman apart...and even they themselves don;t know sometimes! God said a man should not cut his beard. God said a man should have short hair. God said a woman should have long. God said that a woman should not wear clothing that pertains to man and likewise men should not wear that which pertains to women. Let's not look for outs. Technicalities won't justify us before God. Let's look at what God is trying to get us to do here. He is making a distinction between men and women. So let's just accept it! Why do we have always walk so close to the line? We men should enjoy being men, being male, and manly. Chovenist-gentlemen. And treat our ladies with tenderness and understanding. And ladies why rebel, why be tempted by the tempter to follow the way of the world. If you present yourselves as modest flowers then you will be treated with respect like you have not known. God want men to be men and women to be women. Let's accept that and learn to love it. The unisex way is the feminist way. Feminism is akin to Rebelion. And rebelion is akin to whitchcraft (1st Samuel 15:23) . And you shall not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22:18). Let's not walk so close to the line and tempt God in so doing.

1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.”

Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

 

[DaPastor]

Of course, I should mention the old time radio preacher that I heard say one time on his broadcast, and I quote:


"You rebellious women wearing pants, you need to take them off in church!"



Doc

Doc, wouldn't that be immodest...lol

 

[DaPastor]

Hello,

This is a difficult topic because there is no specific instruction on pants or dresses in the Bible.

Wouldn't you think that where Scripture is silent, we should be too? There is a big difference between having a personal opinion about women wearing dresses and attempting to teach others that women are "commanded" to wear dresses. If one says that one believes women should wear dresses all the time, great! One is entitled to that opinion. If a husband desires for his wife/wives to wear dresses all the time, great! There is nothing wrong with having a personal family/community standard. However, this is quite different than saying that the Scripture teaches that women are to wear dresses all the time - this is speculation. Some might even suggest that it is adding to the Scriptures!!

This topic is not that difficult at all if we allow the Scriptures to be the final authority and not our cultural understanding, don't you think? There is a concept known as eisegesis that must be avoided at all costs when studying Scripture. Eisegesis is when we in our modern way of thinking attempt to interpret Scripture through the lens of our own time, thereby, "reading into" Scripture what we want it to say.

However there are a few things to seriously consider. God said a woman should dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9
"in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,") Note modesty is pertaining here to women.

Yes, I agree that women are to dress modestly.

If we men and women are truly honest with ourselves we have to admit that pants on a woman are plain rude and revealing.

I must not be honest with myself, then. "Pants" are no more "rude and revealing" than many dresses. This is your personal opinion, and I do not condemn you for having it, but I would suggest that not every male thinks that pants, in and of themselves, are always rude and revealing. I for one, do not! Have I seen women wear pants that are "rude and revealing"? Yes! However, I have seen pants that are not "rude and revealing.

They show a womans figure and other things that should be for her husband alone to appreciate.

I have been many places in my short 50 years, and I will testify very straight forward that I have seen many, many, many dresses that show a woman's figure and "other things" that only her husband should appreciate. It isn't limited to pants by any means. Therefore, whether it be pants or dresses, both are equal depending on the style and how a woman wears them. [/quote]

True, women wore dresses similar to robes worn by men. But, where the women modest? Yes. Are pants modest on a women? No infact you could describe slacks or whatever on a woman as simply oversize underware!

Again, you are free to have your personal opinion on this matter. I am just concerned about using the Bible to justify it. Moreover, I spoke of the first men wearing "breeches" in the Scriptures, they were nothing more than underwear.

I declare that women in pants look rude, and either seductive or ugly (depending on the case). Why, if men are not supposed to look at a woman in the wrong way (with wrong thoughts) why then make it hard for ourselves?

Actually, most pants do not cause me to look at women in a wrong way. However, I would suggest, from my limited experience, that most men would have a tendency to look at women in the wrong way when they see a woman in a tight fitting dress.

Why do we have to conform to the world? Look, wherever the world goes we christians follow just a couple of steps behind (quite often). Can't we make a stand. Can't we just accept God's judgements without questioning everything. We accept Polygyny....we can not be partial.

Men wearing pants would be conforming to the world the way you seem to be using the statement. After all, historically, originally, Christian men did not wear pants. They wore robes! Women wore robes too! Women began to wear dresses sometime around the Renaissance to follow fashion - not to follow Scripture! Moreover, Nomadic Eurasian horsemen/women were the first to wear trousers at the same time. Men in the West began wearing trousers around the 15th century, and in the 19th century, women wore trousers throughout the American West when riding horses - not to rebel! They also wore trousers in Victorian society to work in the coal mines.

You say "but then we have to follow God's other rules" (not word for word) Well I say GOOD let's follow ALL God's instructions. We won't be perfect but let's at least give it a go! My family and I accept God's ruling on these things. What is wrong with putting a railing around your roof (if you have a flat roof that you can walk on) or around your veranda. What is wrong with wearing tassles...it hasn't hurt me. I would do anything God asked me to...wouldn't you? If God asked you to travel to a distant land ...you would. If God asked you to put your life in danger to help someone...... you probably would. Why then do we baulk at obeying the little things. God doesn't ask much of us really.

The problem is not obeying God, in my thinking. The problem is thinking we are obeying God with man made rules. This was the problem the Pharisees had, right? They saw what the Scripture said and decided to fit it into what they personally liked or disliked.

We know God want's a seperation between men and women so we don't have this unisex mess we have today. Where you can hardly tell a man and owman apart...and even they themselves don;t know sometimes!

Let me ask you a question. If you were watching a crowd of people come towards you during the time of Christ, would you be able to tell the difference between the men and women based upon their clothing? I think not!

God said a man should not cut his beard.

When I grew up, it was considered by most conservative Christians, that a beard was a sign of out and out rebellion. This was not based upon the Word of God. It was their culture influencing their concepts. Why? Because during those days if one had a beard, he was usually a druggie, dropout, or hippie. Unfortunately, their opinion was more important then the Word of God on the subject.

God said a man should have short hair.

Yes, God's Word does say that... and it is clear! The only opinion that would be involved here is how short is truly short? To make one's opinion to over ride Scripture is where we get into trouble.

God said a woman should have long.

This is true! However, we should be careful here too. The clear teaching of Scripture is that women should have long hair. It is opinion to suggest a certain length.

God said that a woman should not wear clothing that pertains to man and likewise men should not wear that which pertains to women. Let's not look for outs. Technicalities won't justify us before God. Let's look at what God is trying to get us to do here. He is making a distinction between men and women. So let's just accept it!

Actually, one who does not study the true meaning of the passage may be the one who is looking for an out. The Hebrew, the history, and the culture does not back up that this verse has anything to do with men and women's clothing day to day. We should not play with God's Word. We should always be those who study to show ourselves approved unto God. We should not make a passage say something that the original author never intended for it to say.

Why do we have always walk so close to the line? We men should enjoy being men, being male, and manly. Chovenist-gentlemen. And treat our ladies with tenderness and understanding. And ladies why rebel, why be tempted by the tempter to follow the way of the world. If you present yourselves as modest flowers then you will be treated with respect like you have not known. God want men to be men and women to be women. Let's accept that and learn to love it. The unisex way is the feminist way. Feminism is akin to Rebelion. And rebelion is akin to whitchcraft (1st Samuel 15:23) . And you shall not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22:18). Let's not walk so close to the line and tempt God in so doing.

Feminism is rebellion. Wearing pants has nothing to do with rebellion today, any more than wearing a beard! Dresses were first worn to be carnal fashion statements, not femininity, and pants were worn by women long before feminism arose.

The goal of a true Biblical interpretation should be to find the original author's intent, not read our own understanding back into the text, don't you agree - lest we be guilty of adding to God's Word!

 

[Chaplain]

" 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."

OK, I am gonna give this a shot from my limited, simple ole country learning. NO where in this verse does it say ANYTHING about a dress or pants. It only mentions GARMENTS. Now whether or not men wore pants, robes, etc or women wore dresses, panties, robes, etc IMHO is moot here. The fact that a man is commanded to NOT wear womens clothing and a woman are like wise commanded to not wear mens clothing IS the point. We are commanded NOT to dress in a manner that portrays us as the opposite sex than what we are. If you are a man, you are to dress as a man and the same for a woman, be that wearing pants, dress, panties, kilts, robe...whatever. We are not to become like those who, as a means to hide there actual sex, become like the transvestites, sex changers, etc. We are to be that which Yahweh created and not something different. If, in your opinion, women are to wear dresses and only dresses..... cool......but if I or others have no problem with women wearing pants, as long as they are modest about it.....then I see no problem here. I agree with Brother Randy when he wrote "If you were watching a crowd of people come towards you during the time of Christ, would you be able to tell the difference between the men and women based upon their clothing?" I would have to say in most cases that one would not be able to do so, especially at a distance where a face could not be made out. But again IMHO, this scripture deals with how one portrays ones self more than what one wears as everyday cloths.

 

[GivenMercy]

I agree heartily, Chaplain & Pastor Randy. In Romans 14 Paul is addressing a few different issues - but the principles apply in all cases where people have individual convictions --- We are not to judge each other - nor be a stumbling block -- before God each of us will stand. The kingdom of God is NOT based on the external - but is "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost" which is INSIDE of us! He closes with a reminder that if something "is sin" to somone (they believe it is wthin their own heart) then to THEM it is sin (not necessarily to everyone else). Clearly, our walk is more about motives than following "the letter of the law".

When we are TOO caught up on outward appearances - we sometimes lose sight of that which matters most - which is the condition of our hearts!

Shari

 

[sweetlissa]

Thank you all for your opinions. My opinion is this.

God commands me to honor my husband.
If my husband asks me to wear dresses, I will.
If he doesn't then I will wear what is modest and appropriate for the situation.

I asked for help here because I felt that others were condemning me for wearing slacks. "If a lady can't do it wearing a dress, then she shouldn't be doing it." felt very judgemental to me.

I ask that we all judge ourselves. My husband approves of what I wear. If he doesn't like something for ANY reason, I no longer wear it. I believe this has to do with a family standard, not with biblical command.

Lissa

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Lissa,

I agree that what you should wear should be a family standard and in accord with your Godly conviction and your husband's standards (hope those jive for most christians!). I wanted to say that I didn't see when this post started (back in introductions??) how you were being judged? I hope it wasn't anything I had said. I (and I believe the other guy, patriarchyminded guy) were saying that it is actually easy to wear modest shirts and do virtually anything easily. I was trying to expound the joys of it, not trying to make it harder for you. Anyway I do believe God does care what you wear and why you wear it because it reflects your heart. Having said that I know people are in different places when it comes to this (and lots of things)! I myself am still eveolving in this area(think I always will be!) Anyway I also think clothing manufacturers and designers (mostly gay guys) make it harder every time for honest decent women to find clothes that is decent. Even if it is a little modester (word?) then there has to be something wrong! If it's covering the legs then it has to show cleavage and vice versa. Anybody can relate? i need to learn to SEW!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Lissa,

I wanted to add a side note. When I met you I thought you were a very snappy dresser! I would never think you had any fashion issues. I think it's cool how you seemed to coordinate outfits with Theresa beautifully. Was that delibrate?

 

[Doc]

Not to be outdone, Pastor Randy, I thought you did a great job coordinating your outfits with Theresa and Lissa.

Doc

 

[sweetlissa]

Theresa and I do not coordinate our wardrobes. In fact we have only been shopping together a few times and that was mostly at Christmas time and her birthday. But we do tend to have similar tastes. We also know what Randy's standards are and we both try to uphold our family values. One thing we will always do is wear a dress or skirt to church. Even in the casual environment of the retreats, because it reflects on Randy.

Maria, thank you for your compliments. I do tend to be sensitive and I not to be. But Randy, Theresa and I have talked about this issue a lot and we feel that we are fine. So I felt a little threatened when that other man said what he did about a lady not doing stuff that she can't wear a dress for. Anyway, it was a fun discussion. I enjoyed it and now feel even more sure of myself in most situations.

My job is extremely casual. Because Texas is hot and humid, most of us wear capris or knee length shorts. As long as we are neatly dressed, it is allowed. If I wore a dress, nylons and heals every day, I would stand out and appear that I felt I was better than others there. I would also melt from the heat.

Anyway, I think it was fun and I believe that when Randy gets involved we will have lots of these indepth studies to look forward to. He really puts his heart into studying the truth.

Love Lissa

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Lissa again,

Well yes I think you have a very valuable husnad and you are lucky you can bible study with someone like that everyday!! That is enviable! I need somebody to sat me straight sometimes.
Well I understand about the heat. To tell you the truth I like the outfits that those ladies in Texas mormon ranch wear but try finding that at Sears!! Anyway it seems like they are hot but those women don't wear pantyhose and that stuff is all made of cotton which is very forgiving in the heat. I don't need the upswept hair as I have an immense forehead to help me in that area.. :roll: lol. Anyhow I think that its so simple to get up everday and say should i wear the pastel blue today or the pastel pink. lol
Anyway talk later..I have some bible studying to get to on this..

 

[WomanSeekingGod]

I love this subject, mostly because I wear skirts just about 24/7.

I have to agree with Lissa, it's about modesty, about respecting God, and about respecting your husband. If you can do all of those while wearing pants, wear pants!

The abomination, as I understand it, is about trying to be something you are not meant to be. Women are not meant to be men and men are not meant to be women. When someone from the OT times put on those clothes, it wasn't because they were going to a "rockin' Halloween party"! When a person says, "I'm not supposed to be the sex I am." they are saying God made a mistake, that there is an error in His creation. This is wrong, an abomination.

The reason I wear skirts is partly because John prefers women to look like "traditional" women and partly as a way to kind of go against some of the newer fashion fads. Sometimes, though, a pair of pants are the very best thing to have (like when running a weed eater!).

Respectfully yours,
Onna

 

[^_^]

I probably shouldn't say much about the results of my probing into Biblical modesty after reading what some folks had to say, but since people are expressing opinions, I probably should share mine. Don't worry, I'll put my helmet on for the resulting hailstorm :lol:

Basically, I did word studies on the clothes, and tried to include all context of the surrounding commentary, and could find no item of clothes longer than mid thigh. That's right, mid thigh, not mid-calf. So, combine the clothing description with the pictures in the Egyptian tombs showing slaves working, and what they were wearing, I suspect the minimum standard of scritpural modesty is actually a loincloth. And people say Torah is restrictive........

Now, before you beat me up too bad, please consider the fact that I do not walk around wearing a loincloth (although I've considered it for statement making purposes, plus, some of them are very attractive if you like the Tarzan look, lol), mostly I tend to wear jeans and t-shirts. Anyway, that's my perspective on this, I think the 'dressing modestly' thing is used more as a control tool than actual modesty anymore. Face it guys, if we used our heads on our shoulders instead of following our zippers, then there would be no need for women to feel the need to cover up so much. It's ourselves we try to protect, not so much the women. Get the heart right, even nudity wouldn't be an issue. Of course that's an idealistic statement, that's the point, I know we live in a fallen world, and suffer the consequences because of it, but at least we should be working on our hearts, not making regulations outside of scripture that cause way bigger burdens than are necessary.

 

[WomanSeekingGod]

Anyway, that's my perspective on this, I think the 'dressing modestly' thing is used more as a control tool than actual modesty anymore. Face it guys, if we used our heads on our shoulders instead of following our zippers, then there would be no need for women to feel the need to cover up so much. It's ourselves we try to protect, not so much the women. Get the heart right, even nudity wouldn't be an issue.

What you've said reminded me of an article that I read years ago in a Mennonite magazine. The author of the magazine was telling us how she had to explain modest dress to her daughter. Her explanation of it was that we should do all we can to keep men from lusting after our bodies, therefore we should always dress in modest dress. This was an eye opener for me in regards to modest dress and the reasoning behind it. It made me rethink the reason for wearing long skirts and dresses.

This is what I have come to the conclusion of: God made men and women attracted to one another for a reason. It's not a sin to find the opposite sex beautiful. It's not a sin to want to join with someone of the opposite sex. It IS a sin, though, if you continue in your pursuit of that person after finding out she is not available. I don't think it's a sin for a woman to dress in a way that is flattering to her, unless she is using it to lure men into engaging or thinking they will be able to engage in sexual relations with her (likewise for men). If we were not attracted to each other, there wouldn't be people to populate this beautiful planet!

Also, it is too lofty an idea to think that by dressing in one way or another you will be able to control the thoughts of others. That is between them and God.

There are some cultures out there where the people wear little to none, and they are doing just fine that way. It's a "modern" idea that we are only pure and holy if we cover everything up. As my husband has said, "Sometimes it more exciting when things are covered up." No matter how we are dressed, someone is going to be attracted. As long as we stay within the boundaries set up by God (no adultery and sick stuff like that) we should be good, or at least that's my thought on it.

Respectfully yours,
Onna