"The Woman Shall Not Wear That Which Pertaineth Unto A Man, Neither
Shall A Man Put On A Woman's Garment: For All That Do So Are
Abomination Unto The LORD Thy God." This Verse-- Deuteronomy 22:5-- Is
One Of The Most Commonly Quoted And Debated Verses In The Old
Testament.
Some Christians Have Taken This Verse To Mean That Christian Women
Shouldn't Wear Pants, Arguing That Pants Are That Which "Pertaineth
Unto A Man." Many Sincere And Honest Christians Have Grappled With
This Issue, Wanting To Be Pleasing To God. This Teaching, As With All
Teachings Regarding The Scriptures, Needs To Be Carefully Examined. It
Is Just As Much An Error To Teach Something That The Scriptures Don't
Say As It Is To Ignore What The Scripture Do Say.
The Teaching That It Is Wrong For Christian Women To Wear Pants Is
Based Upon The Following Beliefs:
1) Deut 22:5 Teaches That Women Should Not Wear That Which Pertains Unto A Man.
2) Pants Pertain To A Man Because They Were Not Only Exclusively
Invented For Men, But They Also Have Historically Been Worn Only By
Men.
3) The Bible Teaches Separation Of The Sexes And Since There Is So
Little Distinction Between Men's And Women's Pants, They Are
Essentially Unisex And Therefore Do Not Provide Adequate Separation.
The First Assertion, Which States That Deuteronomy Specifically
Forbids The Wearing Of "That Which Pertaineth Unto A Man," Deserves
Careful Study. As With The Study Of Any Scripture, It Is Important To
Read The Passage In Context And Examine The Relevant Words And Their
Meanings In The Original Text. A Reputable Bible Dictionary Or Lexicon
Can Be An Invaluable Aid.
The Phrase "That Which Pertaineth," Or Simply The Word Petaineth In
The King James Version Of The Bible, Is Translated From The Hebrew
Word Keliy, Which Means "Article, Vessel, Implement, Or Utensil," 1
Translators Commonly Render Keliy As Weapon, Armor Or Instrument In
The Old Testament. The Word Man, In Both The First And Last Part Of
Deut 22:5, Is The Hebrew Word Geber Meaning "Man, Strong Man, Or
Warrior (Emphasizing Strength Or Ability To Fight)."
2. It Is Important To Note That This Is Not The Only Word For Man In
Hebrew. Verse 13 Of This Very Same Chapter Uses The Hebrew Word "Iysh,
Which Is Also Translated Man And Means Just That- "Man, Male (In
Contrast To Woman, Female)."
3• It Is Apparent That Moses, When Writing Deut 22:5, Was Quite
Intentionally Not Talking About A Man In General, But A Very Specific
Kind Of Man- Namely, A Warrior Or Soldier. Considering This, Perhaps A
Better Translation Of This Verse Would Be As Follows:
"The Woman Shall Not Put On [The Weapons/Armor Of A Warrior], Neither
Shall A [Warrior] Put On A Woman's Garment: For All That Do So Are
Abomination Unto The LORD Thy GOD."
"As The Word... Geber Is Here Used, Which Properly Signifies A Strong
Man Or Man Of War, It Is Very Probable That Armour Is Here Intended;
Especially As We Know That In The Worship Of Venus, To Which That Of
Astarte Or Ashtaroth Among The Canaanites Bore A Striking Resemblance,
The Women Were Accustomed To To Appear In Armour Before Her."
4• John Gill In His Exposition Of The Entire Bible Sees A Similar
Meaning In 22:5:
"...And The Word [Keliy] Also Signifies Armour, As Onkelos Renders It;
And So Here Forbids Women Putting On A Military Habit And Going With
Men To War, As Was Usual With The Eastern Women; And So Maimonides
Illustrates It, By Putting A Mitre Or An Helmet On Her Head, And
Clothing Herself With A Coat Of Mail; And In Like Manner Josephus
Explains It, 'Take Heed, Especially In War, That A Woman Do Not Make
Use Of The Habit Of A Man, Or A Man That Of A Woman...' "
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen Of The United Synagogue Of Conservative Judaism
Writes In An Excerpt From An Article Entitled "Cross Dressing And
Deuteronomy 22:5,"
"In Another Attempt To Identify The Quintessential 'Men's Items; Rabbi
Eliezer Ben Jacob, Quoted In The Talmud (Edited About 800 C.E.), Says,
'What Is The Proof That A Woman May Not Go Forth With Weapons To War?'
He Then Cites Our Verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], Which He Reads This Way:
'A Warrior's Gear May Not Be Put On A Woman' (B. Naz. 59a). He Reads
Kli Gever [Geber] As The Homograph Kli Gibbor, Meaning A 'Warrior's
Gear' ."
Rabbi Tilsen Further States,
"This Same Understanding Is Followed By Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs)
Which Contends That The Biblical Character Yael In The Book Of Judges
Kills General Sisera With A Tent Pin Instead Of A Sword In Order To
Comply With This Law. It Would Have Been 'Unlady-Like' For Her To Use
A Sword--- Worse, A Violation Of The Law--- Because A Sword Is A Man's
Tool..."
Considering The Sheer Specificity Of Deut 22:5 And The Precise Nature
Of Those Things That Are Forbidden, Deut 22:5 Is Most Likely
Ceremonial Law Rather Than Moral Law, Which Would Mean That It Would
Have A Little, If Any, Implications For Christians Today. Many
Believe, However, That This Verse States That Violators Of This Verse
States That Violators Of This Law Are An Abomination To God And That
Which Was An Abomination To God In The Old Testament Would Also Be An
Abomination To God In The New Testament. However, The Usage Of The
Word Abomination In Deut 22:5 Does Not Necessarily Make It A Timeless
Moral Law Because Any Violation Of God's Mandates Is An Abomination To
Him, Whether It Is A Violation Of Ceremonial Law Or Moral Law.
Furthermore, Deut 22:5 Is Placed Squarely In The Middle Of, And Is
Completely Surrounded By, Ceremonial Laws. If It Is Indeed A Principle
To Be Literally Followed Today, Why Would God Choose To Bury This
Verse In The Middle Of What Are Clearly Ceremonial Laws? The Second
Argument Against Christian Women Wearing Pants Is That Pants Have
Historically Been Worn By And Associated With Men And Are Therefore
Men's Clothing. One Problem With This View Is That It Is Not A
Consistently Applied Principle Among Those That Advocate It. Many Of
The Articles Of Clothing Have Histories Of Orginating With A Certain
SEX. Consider T-Shirts- These Too Were Invented For Men And Originally
Worn Exclusively By Men. The T-Shirt Was Introduced To America During
WWI When American Soldiers Noticed European Soldiers Wearing Them. By
WWI, The T-Shirt Became Standard Issue In The American Military And
Was Quickly Introduced Into American Fashion.
6• Not Only Were T-Shirts Orginally Invented For Men, But They Were
Invented Specifically For The Military. Considering This In Light Of
The True Meaning Of Deut 22:5, Which Seems To Be Forbidding Women From
Wearing The Habilments Of A Soldier, It Would Logically Follow That A
Woman Wearing A T-Shirt Would Be In Much Greater Violation Of This
Verse Than A Woman Wearing Pants. Furthermore, There Is No Distinction
Between Men's And Women's T-Shirts.
If Clothing History Is The Sole Determining Factor Of What Constitutes
Clothing That Pertains To A Man, Then T-Shirts Must Be Forbidden As
Well If Consistency Is To Be Maintained. It Would Seem That In
Practice, However, Those That Teach That It Is A Sin For Women To Wear
Pants Seem To Believe That Clothing Distinctions Only Apply To What Is
Worn On The Legs While Ignoring The Obvious About Other Types Of
Clothing Commonly Worn By Women. In Order For The Teaching To Be
Consistent, The Very Reasons Cited For Prohibiting Women From Wearing
Pants Would Also Prohibit Baseball Caps, Team Jerseys, Work Boots And
Other Article Of Clothing Historically Worn By Men. Taking The Concept
Even Further, What Of The Colour Pink Or Blue? Should Women Also Be
Forbidden To Wear Blue, Or Should Men Forbidden To Wear Pink, As These
Colours Have Historically Been Associated With The Opposite Sex? How
Far Should This Concept Be Taken?
Finally, The Third Argument, Which States That God Requires A
Distinction Between Men's And Women's Clothing And That Pants Provide
Little If Any Distinction, Must Also Be Weighed In Light Of The
Scriptures. The Scriptures, As With Most Matters, Provide A Wealth Of
Information On This Issue As Well.
It Is Curious How Those That Forbid Pants On Women, Based On Their
Idea Of Separation, Never Seem To Consider The Clothing Norms In The
Bible.
Even The Most Basic Study Into Biblical Clothing Norms Reveals That
There Was Very Little Distinction Between The Articles Of Clothing
Worn By Men And Women. In Genesis, We Find The First Accounts Of
Clothing Mentioned In The Bible. First, We Find That Upon Recognizing
Their Nakedness, Adam And Eve Sewed Garments Of Fig Leaves Together To
Cover Themselves (Gen 3:7). This Is An Interesting Account In That We
Find Humans Attempting To Clothe Themselves, But Obviously God Was Not
Pleased With Their Choices, As Later We Find That God Made New Clothes
For Them. Gen 3:21 Records That God Made "Coats Of Skin" For Them To
Wear. The Word Coats In This Verse Is The Hebrew Word Kethoneth And
Means "A Long Shirt-Like Garment."
7• Interestingly, Moses, Under The Inspiration Of The Holy Spirit,
Chose The Exact Same Word To Describe The Specific Type Of Clothing
That God Made For Both Adam And Eve. Where Is The Distinction Here? If
God Chose To Make So Little Distinction Between A Man's And Woman's
Clothes That A Single Word Can Describe The Specific Clothing Worn
Both By Adam And Eve, Then Who Are We To Require A Greater
Distinction? Later, Throughout The Old And New Testament, Common Dress
Consisted Of Two Separate Pieces. In The Old Testament, The First Part
Of The Jewish Costume Was Still The Kethoneth Such As Was Worn By Adam
And Eve. In The New Testament, This Garment Is Called Chiton In The
Greek And Is Often Translated As Coat In The King James Version Bible.
According To The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, The
Kethoneth/Chiton Was,
"...A Long-Sleeved Tunic Worn Over The Sadhin, Likewise A Shirt With
Sleeves... Here The 'Coat' (Hebrew 'Kethoneth) Was The Ordinary "Inner
Garment' Worn By The Jew Of The Day, In Which He Did The Work Of The
Day (See Mt 24:18; Mk 13:16). It Resembled The Roman Tunic,
Corresponding Most Nearly To Our 'Long Shirt,' Reaching Below The
Knees Always, And In Case It Was Designed For Dress Occasions,
Reaching Almost To The Ground,"
8• Easton's Bible Dictionary States That This Basic Garment Was Worn
By Both Men And Women:
"The 'Coat' (Kethoneth), Of Wool, Cotton, Or Linen, Was Worn By Both Sexes."
Easton's Further States That,
"The Robes Of Men And Women Were Not Very Much Different In Form From
Each Other."
9• The Second Part Of The Common Jewish Costume Was The "Outer
Garment." Throughout The Old And New Testaments, The Outer Garment
Varied In Size, Shape And Purpose. It Is Given Various Names (Both In
The Original Hebrew And In Translation) And Is Used In A Variety Of
Ways. This Outer Garment Was Commonly Used To Cover The Head Of Both
Men And Women (Cf. Ruth 3:15, 2 Sam 15:30) And Was Also Commonly
Wrapped Around The Shoulders (Cf. Isa 3:22). While The Outer Garment
Served Many Purposes And Was At Times Used In Different Ways By Men
And Women, The Way It Was Used Was Not Consistent With Either Sex. The
Garment Itself Does Not Appear To Have Been Made Functionally
Different To Any Significant Degree, And The Distinctions Between The
Male And Female Outer Garments Were Merely Stylistic (i.e Colour,
Trim, Size, e.t.c).
In Light Of The Ample Information We Have On Male And Female Garments
In The Bible, It Is Hard To Justify The Radical Distinction Between
Men's And Women's Clothing Required By Christians That Forbid Women
From Wearing Pants. There Is No Evidence That Such A Radical
Distinction Existed In Biblical Times. While There Was A Difference In
Men's And Women's Clothing In The Scriptures, These Differences Were
Merely Stylistic And Not Functional Differences.
The Differences Were Only Found In Colour, Trim, Size. E.t.c. And Not
In The Actual Form Or Function Of The Clothing As Is Seen In Pants And
Skirts Or Dresses. The Differences Between Men's And Women's Pants
Today Are As Great As The Differences Between Men's And Women's
Garments In The Bible. Essentially, Christians Today That Forbid Women
From Wearing Pants Demand A Difference In Form And Function In Men's
And Women's Clothing, Whereas The Bible Only Records A Stylistic
Difference. This Amounts To Adding To God's Word And Placing
Requirements On Our Sisters In The Lord That The Bible Does Not
Support.
Many That Forbid Women To Wear Pants Argue That If It Is Acceptable
For Women To Wear Pants, Then It Should Be Acceptable For A Man To
Wear A Dress Or A Skirt. This Is A Valid Point. However, There Is No
Inherent Sin In A Man Putting On A Skirt-Like Garment, Which Is A
Common Practice In Some Cultures Around The World Just As It Was In
The Bible. The Error Would Be In The Fact That A Man Wearing A Skirt
In Modern America Society Would Be Deemed As Counter- Culture To The
Very People We, As Christians, Are Trying To Be Examples To-- Namely
Unbelievers. However, Women Wearing Pants Is Hardly Counter Culture.
While There Was Once A Time In Our Society When A Woman In Pants Would
Have Been Viewed Negatively By SOCIETY, Such Is Not The Case Today. Is
That Because Society's Morals Have Declined, And It No Longer Sees
Women In Pants As The Sin That It Is? Of Course Not, It Is Merely A
Change In Fashion. Just Because Society Had A Particular View In The
Past, Does Not Mean That Such A View Was Inherently More Moral. Ford
Once Made Only Black Cars And Refused To Make Any Other Colour. Today,
Fords Come In Every Colour Under The Sun. Was That The Result Of Some
Sort Of Moral Backsliding? No, It Is Just That Society's Tastes Have
Changed. In Renaissance Europe, Silk Hosiery Were Considered
Appropriate Attire For Men, Yet Today They Are Deemed As Feminine.
Changes In Style And Fashion Aren't Inherently Sinful And Most Of The
Time Only Reflect A Change In Taste. Women's Pants Are No Different.
Women Did Not Start Wearing Pants As A Means Of Rebelion Or To Be More
"Manly" But Because They Were More Comfortable And Functional. Fashion
Has Been Moving In The Direction Of More Function And Less Style For
Well Over A Century Now. This Is Evidenced Most Recently By The Fact
That Suits And Ties Are Much Less Common In The Workplace Now, Having
Been Replaced By Khakis And Button-Up Shirts. Does That Signal Some
Moral Decline? Absolutely Not-- It Only Reflects A Trend In Fashions
Did In Moving Toward Pants. It Is Important That We Do Not Have A
Knee-Jerk Reaction To Every Change In Fashion. Clearly, Some Are
Indicative Of Moral Decline, But Many Are Not. As With Everything,
Changes In Fashion Must Be Weighed Against Biblical Truths To Make The
Determination•
In Short, The Issue Of Clothing Must Always Be Carefully, Thoughtfully
And Honestly Studied From A Scriptural Perspective While Allowing The
Scriptures To Be The Ultimate Authority On Such Issues. A Thorough
Study Into The Clothing Norms Of The Bible Reveals That There Was No
Distinction Between Men's And Women's Clothing In The Bible Beyond
Stylistic Differences Such As Trim, Colour And Size. In Fact, God
Himself Made Clothing For Adam And Eve That Was So Similar That One
Word (Kethoneth) Could Describe The Specific Garment He Made For Each
Of Them. This Same Word Describes The Clothing Worn By Godly Men And
Women Throughout The Bible From The Old Testament To The New
Testament. Yet Today, Many Christians Demand Much More Than Even The
Bible Did By Requiring Not Only A Difference In Style But A Difference
In Function And Form As Well. If God Makes No Such Clothing Demands On
His People, Then Who Are We To Make Them? Do We Know Better Than GOD?
No comments:
Post a Comment