More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Right, the word "wear" has nothing to do with clothing except when you are explaining the clothes your family WEARs. Good grief.

Would it be an abomination for a man to wear a pair of form fitting ladies Jordache jeans with pretty pink sequins up the leg and pretty pink hearts stitched into the back pockets? If so, why? If not, why?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Are you saying that we should dress exactly as they did in biblical times? Or are you saying that we should dress appropriately in relation to what our culture identifies as pertaining to male or female?

Really? How many pages and posts have been made and you still cannot figure out the simple language of Deu. 22:5?
Show me biblical evidence of a single godly woman wearing pants and I will seriously consider your position. Until then you are just ignoring the Bible and trying to fling as much mud as you can and hope something sticks. It doesn't because the Bible is the standard.

So, you're saying that Deuteronomy isn't specifically saying pants (or any other articles of clothing) but rather is speaking of a principle.

It encompasses pants

You have the example of the Levites being commanded to wear shorts under their robes, and Babylonian hosen being worn by three Hebrew captives who were serving in the court of the king of Babylon. That's hardly "positive evidence" that God commanded that only men wear hosen or breeches. As I said. I'm currently looking into if women in ancient Israel wore any form of hosen or breeches under their tunics in the Winter months. We know that the Jews disbursed through Central Asia wore a Persian style of breeches under their garments. I'm trying to nail it down into at least the first century or prior. I'll let you know if I find anything.

Three godly Hebrew men who stood in the face of death to maintain their Jewish identify in obedience to their deity IS positive evidence. I am STILL waiting for the silence to be broken concerning your lack of evidence. Please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. Hint - you can't. All you can do is impugn the faith of three men who stared death in the face in obedience to their God.

No one has yet to answer this question for me. You're being pretty bold and straight up here, maybe you'll be willing to answer it.

Would it be an abomination for a man to wear a pair of ladies Jordache jeans with pretty pink sequins up the leg and pretty pink hearts stitched into the back pockets? If so, why? If not, why?

The question reveals a simple attempt to justify your rebellion while ignoring the Bible and the precedents and principles found therein.

However, I will say I think it would be stupid. Somehow you want me to sit on God's judgement throne and declare what is a abomination to Him. You may pretend to know as much as God but I do not. Modesty is certainly one component to clothing yourself. A woman in a dress can be immodest and a man in pants can be immodest as well.

The abuse of a drug doesn't make it a sin. For example, I was a medic in the Army. It wasn't a sin to administer morphine to the wounded. However, it is a sin to use morphine for any purpose that isn't medicinal. This is where intent determines sin... not the "thing" being talked about.

Drug abuse is not a sin? LOL!

The Bible is not a list of do's and don'ts. However, the OT has 613 mitzvahs (commandments). Some are positive, that is there are things that should be done and some are negative, that is some things should not be done. These and other passages provide a baseline for determining principles upon which a godly life should be built. For example, the Psalms says:

(Psa 101:3 KJV) I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes:

This is a principle that in conjunction with other passages such as, Php. 4:8 that begin to paint a word picture of the care we should take in allowing things before our eyes. Philippians gives us a positive example of what should be approved.

(Php 4:8 KJV) Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Thus, Deu. 22:5 provides us with a guiding principle to help us discern right from wrong.

I agree, Deuteronomy can be a guiding principle. And that leads me back to my yet unanswered question:

Would it be an abomination for a man to wear a pair of ladies Jordache jeans with pretty pink sequins up the leg and pretty pink hearts stitched into the back pockets? If so, why? If not, why?

See my response above

Sure...

2 captives wearing Babylonian hosen.
1 Priest wearing shorts under his robe.

Three men verified to have worn bifurcated garments.

Still waiting for the silence to be broken concerning your "evidence" that godly women wore pants. Nothing new here. Just more of the same argument from silence.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Well... let's see... context:

Exodus 28 English Standard Version (ESV)

The Priests' Garments

28 “Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests—Aaron and Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 2 And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. 3 You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron's garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. 4 These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. 5 They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen.

6 “And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and of fine twined linen, skillfully worked. 7 It shall have two shoulder pieces attached to its two edges, so that it may be joined together. 8 And the skillfully woven band on it shall be made like it and be of one piece with it, of gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen. 9 You shall take two onyx stones, and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel, 10 six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the remaining six on the other stone, in the order of their birth. 11 As a jeweler engraves signets, so shall you engrave the two stones with the names of the sons of Israel. You shall enclose them in settings of gold filigree. 12 And you shall set the two stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephod, as stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel. And Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord on his two shoulders for remembrance. 13 You shall make settings of gold filigree, 14 and two chains of pure gold, twisted like cords; and you shall attach the corded chains to the settings.

15 “You shall make a breastpiece of judgment, in skilled work. In the style of the ephod you shall make it—of gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen shall you make it. 16 It shall be square and doubled, a span[a] its length and a span its breadth. 17 You shall set in it four rows of stones. A row of sardius,[b] topaz, and carbuncle shall be the first row; 18 and the second row an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond; 19 and the third row a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst; 20 and the fourth row a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper. They shall be set in gold filigree. 21 There shall be twelve stones with their names according to the names of the sons of Israel. They shall be like signets, each engraved with its name, for the twelve tribes. 22 You shall make for the breastpiece twisted chains like cords, of pure gold. 23 And you shall make for the breastpiece two rings of gold, and put the two rings on the two edges of the breastpiece. 24 And you shall put the two cords of gold in the two rings at the edges of the breastpiece. 25 The two ends of the two cords you shall attach to the two settings of filigree, and so attach it in front to the shoulder pieces of the ephod. 26 You shall make two rings of gold, and put them at the two ends of the breastpiece, on its inside edge next to the ephod. 27 And you shall make two rings of gold, and attach them in front to the lower part of the two shoulder pieces of the ephod, at its seam above the skillfully woven band of the ephod. 28 And they shall bind the breastpiece by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, so that it may lie on the skillfully woven band of the ephod, so that the breastpiece shall not come loose from the ephod. 29 So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment on his heart, when he goes into the Holy Place, to bring them to regular remembrance before the Lord. 30 And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron's heart, when he goes in before the Lord. Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the Lord regularly.

31 “You shall make the robe of the ephod all of blue. 32 It shall have an opening for the head in the middle of it, with a woven binding around the opening, like the opening in a garment,[c] so that it may not tear. 33 On its hem you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, around its hem, with bells of gold between them, 34 a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, around the hem of the robe. 35 And it shall be on Aaron when he ministers, and its sound shall be heard when he goes into the Holy Place before the Lord, and when he comes out, so that he does not die.

36 “You shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, ‘Holy to the Lord.’ 37 And you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue. It shall be on the front of the turban. 38 It shall be on Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.

39 “You shall weave the coat in checker work of fine linen, and you shall make a turban of fine linen, and you shall make a sash embroidered with needlework.

40 “For Aaron's sons you shall make coats and sashes and caps. You shall make them for glory and beauty. 41 And you shall put them on Aaron your brother, and on his sons with him, and shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests. 42 You shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh. They shall reach from the hips to the thighs; 43 and they shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they go into the tent of meeting or when they come near the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest they bear guilt and die. This shall be a statute forever for him and for his offspring after him.

The entire passage is about the priest's garments, not common Israelite attire. Please remember, we aren't to call the holy things common.

Perhaps you can point out where they were prohibited from wearing them any other time. While your at it, point out where other men were prohibited from wearing them.

More of the same. Nothing new here. More argumentation from silence.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, this is an argument from silence.

There is no commandment commanding males in general to wear breeches or not to wear breeches. Therefore, I'd assume that if the Levitical garments became all the rave among the ancient Hebrew men, they would only be optional attire.

I agree. You are arguing from silence by trying to say the Levites were restricted from wearing breeches any other time except in temple service. There is no prohibition from them wearing them at other times and no prohibition against other men from wearing them. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to demonstrate once again the complete lack of evidence for your argument.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Additionally, the argument is that Deut 22:5 prohibits women from wearing things that "pertain to a man", pants are described in the Bible as only being worn by men, thus pants are Biblically something that "pertains to a man".

It is a very simple and straightforward argument. In fact, it is a simple syllogism:

No women can wear men's clothing.
Pants are men's clothing.
Therefore, women cannot wear pants.

No A is B.
C is B.
Therefore, no A is C.

A is "women can wear".
B is "men's clothing".
C is "pants".
Therefore, "no women can wear pants."

In order to refute the argument, it would have to be shown that either one or both of the premises are wrong, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if the premises are in fact true.

So far, A cannot be refuted, because it is a plain statement from Scripture.
B has not been refuted because only men in the bible wore pants and no women in the Bible are seen to be wearing pants.
The conclusion cannot be refuted because it follows necessarily from the two premises.

For example:

No cats are dogs.
Chihuahuas are dogs.
Therefore, no cats are chihuahuas.

Given the two premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be otherwise. If no cats are dogs, and if chihuahuas are dogs, then it necessarily follows that no cat is a chihuahua. EVERY syllogism with this form: No A is B, C is B, therefore no A is C, must necessarily be correct and valid.

Corrections to the syllogistic diagramming appreciated.

[n david]

I'm not going to argue the issue. I've been on the sidelines most of this debate because I believe both sides are missing the point. The point isn't how an article of clothing will/won't make a woman Godly; the point is modesty. Again, I've seen numerous apostolic/Pentecostal women who wear skirts and dresses and are the most immodest and ungodly women I've met.

No, Deu 22:5 is not about pants. No, dresses/skirts do not a Godly woman make. And no, I don't know Paul's motivation for not mentioning that a woman should wear only one type of clothing, and neither do you. You can claim that the reason he did so was because there weren't any women wearing pants then, but that's just an assumption which could only be proven had you a time machine to go back to that time period.

I would mention the customs of the day versus the customs today, but I'm not going to argue about it. Nor will I argue the hypocrisy of applying only one part of the law while ignoring the other parts of the law, and doing so while claiming we are not under Moses' law.

I find it odd that the outspoken authority on holiness standards, DK Bernard, has responded to the question of UPCI women in India wearing pants as "it's their custom," while yet condemning American women for the same. Either it's okay or it's not. There cannot be exceptions for certain countries because of custom, especially when in the US it's been the custom since the mid-1900s.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Let me get this right: you want me, a person 3200 years removed from Moses, to believe Deuteronomy 22:5 is just about pants? Really?

Please demonstrate where I said Deu. 22:5 is only about pants.
You cannot even get the question right.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I agree. You are arguing from silence by trying to say the Levites were restricted from wearing breeches any other time except in temple service. There is no prohibition from them wearing them at other times and no prohibition against other men from wearing them. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to demonstrate once again the complete lack of evidence for your argument.

Um, how am I arguing from silence when I gave you the actual texts that speak of these "breeches" being a specific article of clothing incorporated into the priest's attire, and the very verse where God informs them that they are to wear this when administering in the tabernacle????

Now, if you're saying they hung out all day in their priestly attire and kicked it with their buddies at the bowling alley over beer and pizza, well... I have no evidence against it. However, you have no evidence for it either.

But what we DO know is that the breeches were part of the priestly attire to be worn while ministering in the tabernacle.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Still waiting for the silence to be broken concerning your "evidence" that godly women wore pants. Nothing new here. Just more of the same argument from silence.

Meanwhile, there's nothing in scripture which says they did not. And around and around we go!

[Aquila]

One must remember that in biblical times, clothing for males and females was different only in styles and details, not in kind. While it undoubtedly is true that God wants some sexual distinction apparent in men’s and women’s garments, it is not legitimate to say that all women’s “pants” are wrong, or, for that matter, that Scottish “kilts” are sinful for the men of that culture.