Can women wear pants?

[Dave-W]

I know that some Christian denominations do not let women wear pants and I was wondering where that was found in the Bible. I've tried research but haven't gotten a clear answer.

In the days when Deuteronomy was written, both men and women wore rectangular "sheets" wrapped around the body. How it was wrapped, and the color and texture of material determined if it was a male or female garment.

So there is NO WAY those verses can be applied to any kind of tailored clothing. But it CAN be taken as to not confuse someone by the clothes. Men should dress like men and women like women. That is the point.

What makes legalists uneasy is that has to be determined by the culture.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I've done a few studies on this.

Dresses or pants?
People who advocate women only wearing skirts / dresses; usually have no answer for the fact that if you define "woman's garment" as being "open at the bottom" than you could technically argue that Christ wore a dress. LOL

That being said though, and the fact that most garments be they for males or females were technically "dresses". Not withstanding though, pants did exist in the ancient world. Of course people in arctic climates (out of necessity) have worn pants for millennia.

In Leviticus, the priests were told to wear linen breeches / type undergarments that covered from waist to knee, so that when they ascended the stairs to perform the sacrifices, those of the congregation (standing on the ground) would not see... more of the priesthood than they wanted to. LOL

God also commanded this so He would not see more of them than He wanted to either.

So yes, there were pants in the ancient world. Roman soldiers wore leather pants at times; (went to the knee). That though was usually when they were out on campaign in wilderness areas.

Mens' garments?
If you look at the Hebrew in those verses in Deuteronomy 22 though; they are actually talking about warfare. The word sometimes translated "garment" is a reference to battle armor. Yet the verse is not saying woman shouldn't got to war either. Women have also been combatants in wars for millennia. The Roman army had "female auxiliary forces" who protected the family encampments when the male soldiers were out fighting.

So what do these verses mean?

A woman is not to "put on above and beyond (battlements) pertaining to a man" and a man "is not to wear women's clothing".

Now when we take the two halves of this verse together in context of warfare; women are not to be stuck out on the front lines as human shields is what this actually means (as trying to deter the enemy). And men are not to dress as women; by implication being to avoid combat.

Now this of course makes more ethical sense than quibbling over what constitutes male verses female garments.

 

[Tanj]

I've done a few studies on this.

Dresses or pants?
People who advocate women only wearing skirts / dresses; usually have no answer for the fact that if you define "woman's garment" as being "open at the bottom" than you could technically argue that Christ wore a dress. LOL

That being said though, and the fact that most garments be they for males or females were technically "dresses". Not withstanding though, pants did exist in the ancient world. Of course people in arctic climates (out of necessity) have worn pants for millennia.

In Leviticus, the priests were told to wear linen breeches / type undergarments that covered from waist to knee, so that when they ascended the stairs to perform the sacrifices, those of the congregation (standing on the ground) would not see... more of the priesthood than they wanted to. LOL

God also commanded this so He would not see more of them than He wanted to either.

So yes, there were pants in the ancient world. Roman soldiers wore leather pants at times; (went to the knee). That though was usually when they were out on campaign in wilderness areas.

Mens' garments?
If you look at the Hebrew in those verses in Deuteronomy 22 though; they are actually talking about warfare. The word sometimes translated "garment" is a reference to battle armor. Yet the verse is not saying woman shouldn't got to war either. Women have also been combatants in wars for millennia. The Roman army had "female auxiliary forces" who protected the family encampments when the male soldiers were out fighting.

So what do these verses mean?

A woman is not to "put on above and beyond (battlements) pertaining to a man" and a man "is not to wear women's clothing".

Now when we take the two halves of this verse together in context of warfare; women are not to be stuck out on the front lines as human shields is what this actually means (as trying to deter the enemy). And men are not to dress as women; by implication being to avoid combat.

Now this of course makes more ethical sense than quibbling over what constitutes male verses female garments.

Dude. Seriously. Mind Blown.

 

[Rubiks]

I thought underwear was knickers.

I guess it sounds too much like a racial slur.

 

[jayem]

Knickers are more often than not referred to as pants here in the UK.

I shouldn't go off-topic, but British vernacular is very interesting. On my first trip across the pond many years ago, we rented a car. I kept asking hotels if there was a garage. They kept asking me if there was problem with the car. I just wanted to know if there was a place to park. Which apparently, in the UK, is properly termed a car park. A garage is where you get your car repaired.

 

[ripple the car]

I know that some Christian denominations do not let women wear pants and I was wondering where that was found in the Bible. I've tried research but haven't gotten a clear answer.

Yes, dear. Christian women are asked to dress modestly. Imho a pair of loose-fitting jeans does that a lot better than a short or tight skirt, you know?

 

[Dave-W]

Yes, dear. Christian women are asked to dress modestly.

Modest dress in the bible was about economics, not sexuality.

 

[FireDragon76]

Everyone wore robes and sandals.

Pants actually came from Asian horse culture, and arrived in Europe through the Turks. In fact the word itself comes from Turkish.

In the middle ages, most people, men and women, wore a long shirt called a chamise, which was similar to the Roman or Greek tunic. They didn't have any pants unless they were part of the aristocracy and rode horses, which is where the practice began.

 

[comana]

Nothing wrong with women wearing pants. I have never understood the thinking that women wearing pants is somehow more immodest than men wearing pants.

In grade school I attended a conservative Christian school where the dress code did not allow girls to wear pants unless it was very cold or windy. It seemed highly unfair when we girls were expected to to wear only dresses/skirts and then try to run around and play on the slides/monkey bars, etc. during recess without exposing our undies to the world.

 

[Hank77]

Pants actually came from Asian horse culture, and arrived in Europe through the Turks. In fact the word itself comes from Turkish.

In the middle ages, most people, men and women, wore a long shirt called a chamise, which was similar to the Roman or Greek tunic. They didn't have any pants unless they were part of the aristocracy and rode horses, which is where the practice began.

When women were still wearing long dresses they came up with the split riding skirt so women could ride horses astride rather than sidesaddle.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's also why ladies' bicycles used to be different from men's. Now days the trend is towards unisex bicycles.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I know that some Christian denominations do not let women wear pants and I was wondering where that was found in the Bible. I've tried research but haven't gotten a clear answer.

Women who don't have at least one leg may not want to try wearing them, especially if they have no legs at all.

Jr.

 

[Dave-W]

Pants actually came from Asian horse culture, and arrived in Europe through the Turks. In fact the word itself comes from Turkish.

In the middle ages, most people, men and women, wore a long shirt called a chamise, which was similar to the Roman or Greek tunic. They didn't have any pants unless they were part of the aristocracy and rode horses, which is where the practice began.

All of that was more than a thousand years after Moses penned Deuteronomy.

 

[durangodawood]

It's an old testament prohibition against women dressing as men. It has nothing to do with pants, as pants didn't exist at that time.

Well later, when pant did become male associated thing, then what...?

 

[durangodawood]

....The word sometimes translated "garment" is a reference to battle armor.....

This happens all the time when discussing Bible issues: "we're using the wrong word"!

Well, why dont we use the right words instead???

 

[Tinker Grey]

This happens all the time when discussing Bible issues: "we're using the wrong word"!

Well, why dont we use the right words instead???

I think one of the stronger arguments against a god's omniscience is its inability to communicate.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I think one of the stronger arguments against a god's omniscience is its inability to communicate.

Yep. When pagans march around some nasty piece of rock in the desert, bow down before their images, praying to them or the one they represent, and they don't ever hear from their man-made gods, the silence is absolute.

But, what about you? It sounds like you want a god that is lower than a cockroach.....one that acts and reacts the way that YOU want rather than a Being who is sovereign deity. Your god is a no-god because there doesn't exist one who will do as YOU think he should do. You can't even force a cockroach to do what is against its own instinct, and yet you would believe in one who acts according to your dictates? When you come face to face with the One who is actually sovereign (not subject to how you or I think He should conduct Himself), you will finally have an insight at realities outside that tiny, little box of yours.

What a day that will be.

Jr.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If your god is pretending to communicate, it seems a god worthy of the title should succeed. My 'wants' have no bearing on this.

 

[Tinker Grey]

When you come face to face with the One who is actually sovereign (not subject to how you or I think He should conduct Himself), you will finally have an insight at realities outside that tiny, little box of yours.

What a day that will be.

Oh, and take your threats elsewhere. "Wait til my daddy gets home" doesn't impress anyone.

 

[HTacianas]

Well later, when pant did become male associated thing, then what...?

Someone invented women's pants.

 

[durangodawood]

Yep. When pagans march around some nasty piece of rock in the desert, bow down before their images, praying to them or the one they represent, and they don't ever hear from their man-made gods, the silence is absolute.....

Is it?

I dont know what they heard, or didnt hear. Certainly lots of other religions have recorded things allegedly said by their deities.