Serious Pants/ Skirts Question... Not Trying to Debate... Thanks!

[Esther]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

Again, my point that I was trying to make it is the MAN trying to look like a woman? Is the WOMAN trying to look like a man?

It is not about women wearing pants, which was not even an issue 2,000 years ago, as even men didn't wear pants. Both genders wore robes with color distinction.

But that scripture IMO is about MEN/WOMEN not dressing to look like the opposite sex.

We keep saying that scripture is to women, it is too both sexes.

From what I can gather of the scripture, it really relates to a woman going out in the position of a warrior, which was a mans occupation. I see the scripture much more implying the changing of roles than necessarily dress attire itself. That may be a part of it, but it is not the complete understanding of it.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Joseph

From what I can gather of the scripture, it really relates to a woman going out in the position of a warrior, which was a mans occupation. I see the scripture much more implying the changing of roles than necessarily dress attire itself. That may be a part of it, but it is not the complete understanding of it.

That is a recent teaching that I am hearing. But how does that apply to the men wearing women's apparel?

Originally Posted by HangingOut

Been around enough UC's to know that they would play the submission to authority card if you want in certain fellowship circles. What else could they say? When we moved from one state to another many years ago we had come from a very high profile church in the UPCtime known for liberalism.
The incoming pastor (UC) was very polite, but suggested we visit around first. He called back a week or so later. We had been leaning toward that church and ended up there for over 4 years. Left on good note with him and almost the whole congregation. Point being he wasn't so sure he wanted us at first.

Did he tell you this or was that just your interpretation of what he said?

I find his position wise in that he was probably aware that the possibility existed that you might not want them.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?

Originally Posted by Joseph

From what I can gather of the scripture, it really relates to a woman going out in the position of a warrior, which was a mans occupation. I see the scripture much more implying the changing of roles than necessarily dress attire itself. That may be a part of it, but it is not the complete understanding of it.

Wasn't this (the usurping of the man's role by the woman) the thing that was in its infancy when women began to wear pants? I know that it was out of necessity due to the war but when the war was over it just seemed to snowball.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by philjones

Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?

I don't see where one has to do anything with the other. Extremes here.

He asked about the intrepretation of a scripture, not about modesty.

Although I and others have said before, pants and dresses can both be immodest as well as modest.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by philjones

Wasn't this (the usurping of the man's role by the woman) the thing that was in its infancy when women began to wear pants? I know that it was out of necessity due to the war but when the war was over it just seemed to snowball.

Yeah, we found out how comfortable there were.

In fact, the first time I put on a pair of pants due to necessity, I considered myself backslid.

Sad.

Originally Posted by Esther

I don't see where one has to do anything with the other. Extremes here.

He asked about the intrepretation of a scripture, not about modesty.

Although I and others have said before, pants and dresses can both be immodest as well as modest.

Esther,

They are indeed relative. I was also referring to the interpretation of a scripture, just not Deut. 22:5 or whereever it is?

I was speaking of the one that talks about modest apparel. I Tim 2:9. If he is comfortable interpreting one differently and is accepted then it would follow that he would have to be accepted with his interpretation of the other.

I will assure you that there are many OPs on this site that feel it is fine for ladies to run around on the beach in their bra and panties and still be saved. Of course these same folks would be embarrassed if I accidentally walked in on them getting dressed in their REAL bra and panties. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Esther

That is a recent teaching that I am hearing. But how does that apply to the men wearing women's apparel?

The issue would be the same. A man should not take on a womans role in life either. His "garb" should be that of a man, and not that of a woman.