Women forbidden to wear pants?

[Big_Dummy]

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel. For he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?

The men’s clothing in this context is military garb, not pants. In fact, warriors back then did not even wear pants. lol A man wearing woman’s clothes back then would be viewed as an act of cowardness. The scriptures speak of griding ones loins.

media.photobucket.com/image/warrior%20biblical%20times/rahkyt/Misc/chemosh-1.jpg

1 Peter 1:13
Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Ephesians 6:14
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth 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.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,

“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 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…’” (sic) 5

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…”

actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm

 

[Simpleton]

But I thought they both wore fig leaves!

Don’t worry with the fashion trends like they are we will be back to sporting fig leaves in no time. Although we will seriously be regretting that decision come winter…:snowing: (Sorry have always wanted an excuse to use that one haha)

 

[Big_Dummy]

Judges 4 - 5

In short the text forbids a woman to wear military garb and warriors to be a coward by wearing female garb to hide their the fact that they are men of war.

 

[BVM_1221]

But, I never saw a man wearing them unless he was in a parade!

You should have been at my confirmation 5 years ago. I proudly wore the kilt. Also wore it when all us Candidates went to Our Lady Cathedral for a personal meeting with Cardinal Mahoney.

O yes, and the church whereI I wore the kilt, and sometimes still do for festive occasions, has many Samoan males, who proudly wear their cultural skirts:thumbsup:

 

[Catholic90]

I’ve actually seen a few men wearing kilts is regular day to day life in MN.

 

[jmcrae]

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel. For he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?

As long as she is wearing women’s pants, she is fine.

Men’s pants, aside from being inappropriate for women, would also not fit very well.

 

[rainbow1]

But I thought they both wore fig leaves!

I was being so silly the other day when I posted this, but then last night when I picked up a book to read (Max Lucado’s A Love Worth Giving: Living in the Overflow of God’s Love) this is what it said,

We hide. He seeks. We bring sin. He brings a sacrifice. We try fig leaves. He brings the robe of righteousness. And we are left to sing the song of the prophet: “He has covered me with clothes of salvation and wrapped me with a coat of goodness. Like a bridegroom dressed for his wedding. Like a bride dressed in jewels”. (Isa. 61:10)."

Peace and Joy!

 

[Big_Dummy]

nothing like proof texting without exegesis to what the text really means.

 

[CEM5]

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel. For he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?

No. This passage is pertaining to transvetism, and homosexuality.

 

[Zooey]

The Hebrew meaning is “a man’s item shall not be on a woman” and “a man shall not wear a woman’s garment.” The fact that the first admonition uses a different Hebrew word for clothing compared to the second and that the first statement is a passive sentence construction while the second is active have elicited diverse interpretations among the Jewish sages. It is thought by some that the first statement refers specifically to religious articles of clothing, in particular prayer shawls, which women are forbidden to wear. This restriction itself has been contested within Judaism. Others have interpreted the first abomination with respect to a woman disguised as a man for the purpose of committing adultery. The cross-dressing warning seems to apply only to men (the same is true for male homosexuality in that female homosexuality is not explicitly forbidden in the Torah). The term “abomination” also has three meanings in Hebrew scripture, ranging from the most abominable to lesser degrees of abhorrence.

Thank you!!:thankyou: I thought that it must mean something like this.

I have often wondered if some of those who http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/5.gif, http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/11.gif,and http://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gif about women wearing pants would be willing to wear the pants that they think I should not be wearing!! :twocents:

 

[MissRose73]

Times have changed, and the prohibitions Moses gave to the Israelites had to be done then to keep their minds focused on God not false gods & practices.

I would much rather see women come to Mass wearing a nice shirt and a pair of pants (that mother tends to favor) that are not overly tight that are neat, clean & modest compared to a skin tight pair of jeans or leather pants that show off curves. They can save those tight clothes for a bar or dance club, and not for Mass or the work place.

 

[Wardog]

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel. For he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?

Only if they make her look fat.

 

[Kouyate42]

As long as she is wearing women’s pants, she is fine.

Men’s pants, aside from being inappropriate for women, would also not fit very well.

I’m female and I’ve worn men’s pants without too much of a fitting issue.

I’ve likely sinned in doing so.

 

[Mintaka]

Women who can shop in the boys’ department are usually women who are looking for a cheaper price on tougher-wearing jeans, or a better fit. There’s nothing sinful about wearing clothes that actually stay on your bod!

Like my mom. She’s petite, so of course a medium cut boy’s jeans fit her better than pretty much anything else, and it’s at least twice as cheap. She’s very sad that we’ve had such long fits of “saggy jeans” and “super-tight skinny jeans”, but fortunately the Toughskins from back in the day still have a few years left in them.

And don’t forget, the “valiant woman” whose price is above rubies is all about saving money and clothing her household!

 

[razredge]

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel. For he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?

Of course not, Deuteronomy was written by the Israelites, it’s not a divine command of God.

 

[Zooey]

But I thought they both wore fig leaves!

Yes, but Adam wore a kilt, & Eve had an early Versace.