This was an intense study…there’s a lot of controversy on this particular scripture and I even found some of my exact thoughts on a lot of these “crazy rules” have already been written down. I gave serious consideration to just linking up, but wanted to collect my own thoughts as well as sum it up in simpler terms (since some of the articles are quite wordy and a little over my head at times. I’m just a simple lady. :o)
Anyway, the crazy rule (although I’m not entirely ruling out women in skirts, only that the logic is flawed): Women cannot wear pants for any reason because they pertain to men’s clothing, based on Deuteronomy 22:5.
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.
However, this same chapter has another law on clothing: that you shall not wear clothing of mixed materials. In the time of the Mosaic law, God was promoting purity, and that was one way to get the point across. In today’s time, we are pure through Jesus. If this is the case about that law, then that same logic should apply to the law on men and women’s garments.
God wants there to be a distinction between men and women, I totally get that. If a woman puts on a pair of pants for any reason, she’s bound for hell. I don’t get that.
But that is actually what some people think. Just ask Joan of Arc! I stumbled across that in my search today and was shocked. Granted, today, the consequences aren’t nearly so drastic as death by burning at the stake, but there are consequences to face just the same, even if they are as simple as being thought of as a backslidden sinner.
I thought it quite interesting though, that even back then, twenty-five years after her execution for the crime of heresy (because she wore pants), the retrial reversed the conviction based on rehearing all the testimonies and finding that her intent was pure. She wore the pants in prison to prevent molestation (she was not in a separate women’s prison) or because her dress was taken away and she had nothing else to wear (perhaps both). And that verdict of innocence was during a time when women wearing pants wasn’t part of the culture.
Another point that Zeke told me about and I looked up today, was that in the time when Moses wrote Deut. 22:5, the Israelites were battling transvestism from the Canaanites, thus the law about the putting on of women’s things. From what I gather, it wasn’t so much the transvestism that was the issue as much as the fact that in that time, part of the idolatry worship involved male prostitutes and cross-dressing the part (basically the intent was evil). That’s not a direct quote, I’m paraphrasing based on what I understood out of the articles.
This article is very lengthy, but very detailed also. I would quote several paragraphs but like I said, they are very long, so I’ll summarize. If you want more details, you can check out the article.
- The original Hebrew words in the first part of this scripture, seem to be referring to armor or women dressing as warriors.
- The argument of pants being historically a male symbol doesn’t work when you consider that MANY articles of clothing were invented or became popular for a specific gender. T-shirts, baseball caps, work boots…all very male items, but we are still feminine and (can be) modest wearing them. Also, pink and blue are considered gender specific, does this mean females cannot wear blue either?
- As to pants being a distinction of male/female, if you go back to history, the most basic study into biblical clothing shows that there was very little distinction between the articles of clothing worn by men and women. Going all the way back to Adam and Eve and after they attempted to clothe themselves, God wasn’t satisfied and made new clothes for them. “Gen 3:21 records that God made “coats of skin” for them to wear. The word coats in this verse is the Hebrew word kethoneth and means “a long shirt-like garment.”” So Moses used the same word to describe both articles of clothing. That’s distinction of the genders for you. :o)
I also found another site which I won’t link simply because I hear a lot of bitterness in the arguments and while some of it is true and correct, there’s an underlying attitude that comes across, which I’d rather not pull into this. It seems like they could have some grounds for feeling that way, but nevertheless, I’d like to keep my own thoughts and reasoning attitude free. ;o)
Finally, (but don’t relax yet because this is a big finally..haha) this article by Grace McMillan is very well written and Biblically solid. I will probably refer back to it again when I study out some of the other issues. These are selected portions, if you want to read the whole document, the link is up there.
Why is it considered right for men to wear pants? When did they start wearing pants, and when did it become acceptable? When did pants become defined as “clothing pertaining to a man”? Because the Bible just doesn’t address pants that way. Nope. It really doesn’t. The men and women both wore robes in those days and there was very little difference between the attire of a man and the attire of a woman. That’s just historical fact.
The traditional definition of what some have defined as modesty goes back to what some have taught since the 1880s or other time periods. And in this case their teaching was based on the society of their time. Women didn’t WEAR pants in those days! It most certainly was considered by society to be immodest. That’s historical fact. I can’t argue with it. I’m bound by the same rules of logic that I apply to someone else’s argument. BUT, and here’s where folks are going to differ: we have already established that eternal truth is defined by Christ in the Word of God. It’s not defined by the folks in the 1880s … not in an eternal sense, anyway. We’re no longer studying or defending traditions in that time period; rather, we’re studying scripture and history. See the difference? We are to be rooted and grounded and settled in the truth ~ not custom. Not traditions. Not in a time period.
Both men and women wore robes in Bible times. If there is no biblical injunction against a man wearing pants, then I can’t logically find one for the women either. To say that pants define the legs, well, we have to say that pants define the legs for both genders. To say that wearing pants outlines the body, then my logic says that it would be WORSE for a man to wear them than a woman. The question becomes: when did they start wearing them, and why did it become acceptable?
Men started wearing pants around the end of the Roman empire, what was called the Byzantine era, which was about 400 AD. (After googling this myself, wikipedia seems to think that pants originated in Greece earlier than this, but perhaps the author of this article had more reliable sources…either way, the pants were invented out of convenience, whether for riding in the army or working in the fields) The practice of men wearing pants started with the peasants of that era, which actually makes sense. They were the ones working in the fields, and so it just made sense that instead of “girding up the loins” as you bent over, since you were doing that all day every day, why not just invent a garment that had a split already? The practice of men wearing pants was first considered lower class and poor because it was done by the peasants, but I declare if that very practical solution didn’t catch on soon with even the upper class, and soon all men started wearing pants even when they weren’t working in the fields. And somehow, over time, the “custom” of robes changed into the “custom” of pants. And we’ve gotten so used to this “custom” of men wearing pants, that we now call it modest. Note that wearing pants started out as a fad, and it was frowned upon and maybe even considered by some as indecent or fashionable. Over the course of time, that definition of modesty has done a complete 180! A completely opposite perception and definition of modesty exists in the society in which we live, in complete contrast to the society of Bible times. And now we define pants for men as modest.
If we are going to define as “worldly” in today’s society for a woman to wear pants, applying the same consistency of logic, scripture, tradition, history and principle, it is just as worldly for a man to wear them. Actually, using the logic of the legalist, it’s probably WORSE for a man, given the body forms of both genders. Further, I have difficulty with the statement that says that if women wear pants, “there’s just no difference between us and the world!” Shame on us for even thinking that’s logical or spiritual! Since when is the weaker vessel supposed to be the symbol of outward holiness to the world? There’s already no difference between saved men and “worldly” men, and hasn’t been for over a thousand years! Men have been wearing pants for so long, we’ve forgotten that in Bible times they didn’t. And if you look at pictures of Charles or James Wesley, acclaimed revivalists, you would discover shoulder length, curled hair. Again, certain time periods would be shocked.
I can see where the society of the 1880s, given their present-day situation and the hypocrisies of the lingering Victorian era, would be shocked and refuse to consider such women wearing pants “godly.” (Given our knowledge of history, it seemed a little shortsighted to allow men to wear pants without addressing the subject or studying the history, but again, they were limited to the perception of their society). To me, it’s a very similar situation as when Paul told the women of Corinth that, given the society in which they lived, it might be wiser for married women to wear veils, because otherwise they would be mistaken for the prostitutes and worshippers of pagan gods who were freely walking the streets with no shame or modesty. “But,” he hastened to add, “We have no such custom….” (1 Cor. 11:16).
All that to say that we have to come to the conclusion that at least to a certain degree, the society in which we live defines modesty!
So there’s what I’ve found when studying the history and issue of women wearing pants. And I promise, I looked for supporting evidence of not wearing pants, too, there just isn’t much there other than “God told me it was right.” And if God told you, I’d venture to say that makes it a personal conviction?
And now, my personal opinion: I like skirts. I was raised wearing them, and it was drilled into me that anything else was sinful. While I’m pretty sure that the last bit isn’t true, a small measure of guilt that has been ingrained in me still remains. Zeke brings up the point that you don’t often see women wearing modest pants, that it start out that way for a few months or years, but eventually once women start wearing pants, they tend to start leaning toward “fitting better” or following after fashions which goes more toward the excessive instead of “not extreme, not lavish, not excessive” as we’re supposed to be. I can see his point, but I believe that if the heart remains where it’s supposed to be, God can help keep a control on that issue, just as He helps keep a control on all the other issues that we have a tendency to let go to far.
The end of it: I like skirts and they will likely remain a fair part of my wardrobe, but I do not see any Biblical foundation for condemning the wearing of pants (unless of course, it’s a personal conviction, which is totally different).
