MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This was a problem?
Without knowing the culture and practices of that time more intimately and in detail, it's impossible to say.

It may be that the command applied in that day in a way that we would never consider or face.

The error, however, is to presume that it has to be applied to any ol' garment that our culture deems "a woman's garment." That's simply not sound biblical exegesis.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Are there any details on what makes a garment appropriate for one gender or the other?
Well, let's start with a visual, and go from there:
DragsFreaks.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic
Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
20,189
16,169
✟1,173,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Well, let's start with a visual, and go from there:
View attachment 252901
How about we start with your scriptures as that’s what you have been referring to. Where does it give the attributes that make a garment masculine or feminine? How do those apply thousands of years later to garments foreign to the Hebrews?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How about we start with your scriptures as that’s what you have been referring to. Where does it give the attributes that make a garment masculine or feminine? How do those apply thousands of years later to garments foreign to the Hebrews?
I answered this, not with references, but rather a summary of where the references point. Pants or not pants, that really is a non issue. What I portrayed in the visual is a clear demarcation in the fact that there is an intentional reversal of one's gender by way of dress and overall look. The one is crossing the line into the other, intentionally conveying a message of alteration from what they are physically.

Providing references will only play on the inherent weaknesses of translations. The Lord is not opposed to rational, reasonable thought applied to clear instructions. There's no right answer to the wrong question, and your question is itself a poisoning of the well, so to speak. I never said there is absolute descriptors in the Bible for what is masculine and what is feminine. That photo I provided gives a very definition for what is stated in the Bible. Therein is my position.

Jr.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Verv
Upvote 0

Verv

Senior Veteran
Apr 17, 2005
7,244
624
서울
✟31,762.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Any time we diverge away from biblical foundations for absolutes, even in dress, we find ourselves mired in the swamps of subjective morality, which is why I brought up the marriage license bull-pucky sqewed from pulpits for more than a century now. Like Jesus said, a little leaven leavens the whole loaf.

Jr.

I admire your stance. It's very strong and robust.

But we have to choose our battles, so to speak.

Because this is something about appearance, it is actually less important than something like the popular concept of marriage, right...

I think when we get back our traditional concepts of marriage and gender roles, these things fall into place by themselves, and our arguments for returning to these things are more persuasive and can be seen as having a direct impact on people's lives.

Here is also something else to consider...

It's easier to do the right thing that you can do and to sustain it then to try to do every single possible right thing and fail to do them properly because of all of the pressure.

... and maybe you can actually do that, but can your 9-year-old daughter? Should we ask our 9-year-old daughters to never wear pants and feel a certain amount of alienation for a religio-cultural struggle that is beyond her? And can she indefinitely sustain this as a youth going forward when there isn't some obvious, total benefit for standign out in this way..?

I worry a lot about sustainability. I have a marathon runners mindset when it comes to ideology. While something might be right, if I can't carry it for 35 years and it's not vital and it's just going to slow me down, I put it down.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SwordmanJr
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Very good... you're the first you actually looked at the Hebrew words under this command and you got it right for the "man's garment."

However, while the "woman's garment" does indeed refer to a garment instead of "armor"... I think we need to go one step further in trying to understand what a "woman's garment" must mean.

The easy "out" is to just presume that it means that men shouldn't wear whatever women's clothing happens to be the norm in their own culture (and this is basically the force of your statement), but I don't think that's how God gives us moral guidelines and commands.

I ask myself this... What would have been considered a "woman's garment" when this command was given?

Well, given the fact that all people basically wore the same style of clothes at that time, it can't have anything to do with the "style."

But there IS one garment which can for all time be considered only a woman's garment... and that would be her menstrual cloth.

And since the Bible already has other laws governing the menstruating woman (don't even sit on the same chair she's sat on!), it makes sense that this may be a similar command for men about the use of a woman's menstrual cloth.

My thoughts...

David

Your answer doesn't make sense.

If the first half of the verse is speaking of warfare, it would make sense to conclude that the second half of the verse is speaking of warfare also.

I've never heard of men wearing "mensuration items"; unless for some reason they were bleeding from the groin; which that would make practical sense. I've never heard of a male wearing a mensural pad for the sake of wearing a mensural pad. Why would a guy do that and how would someone know?

But I have heard of men dressing as women to try and avoid something they are expected as men. (Like trying to pass as a woman during a war; or (I don't know if this is true / really happened) but allegedly, someone on the Titanic dressed as a woman so he could get in a life boat.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Would a no-pants dress code apply to professional attire too? Like this:
There are some denominations that believe every one of those women are going to hell due to wearing pants.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: A Realist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your answer doesn't make sense.

If the first half of the verse is speaking of warfare, it would make sense to conclude that the second half of the verse is speaking of warfare also.

I've never heard of men wearing "mensuration items"; unless for some reason they were bleeding from the groin; which that would make practical sense. I've never heard of a male wearing a mensural pad for the sake of wearing a mensural pad. Why would a guy do that and how would someone know?

But I have heard of men dressing as women to try and avoid something they are expected as men. (Like trying to pass as a woman during a war; or (I don't know if this is true / really happened) but allegedly, someone on the Titanic dressed as a woman so he could get in a life boat.
You're right that it doesn't make much sense... but neither does it make sense to presume that the meaning of the text is "Women shouldn't wear garments that we culturally associate with males and men shouldn't wear garments that we culturally associate with women."

The reason that what I've offered doesn't make much sense is very likely the fact that we have little to no knowledge of how people lived at the time this command was given, so it's very difficult to understand it correctly.

My comments were based upon the meaning and the usage of the Hebrew words used in the passage... because our best shot at understanding it correctly is to start with the original language text.

To my surprise when I delved into this passage, the "man's garment" was not the word for "garment" at all... but rather it was the word typically used elsewhere in the bible as the things a man would wear when outfitting himself for battle.

And as you expressed, you might expect that the word used for "woman's garment" would also mean something different... but it doesn't. It's a word that really means "garment."

So, what can you or I make of that? It doesn't make sense. I can't come up with any really solid and comfortable interpretation. But one thing is for sure, the use of the "warfare" word indicates that it's not just as simple as "men's style of garment."

And since everyone wore the same style of clothing--men and women--at that time, how on earth are we supposed to have any idea what a "woman's garment" is? My guess (yes, it's a guess) is the menstrual cloth... because that's the only "garment" I could imagine that would definitely be gender-aligned. Does that make things clearer? No, it doesn't. There is some weak support for the idea because there are other laws governing a menstruating woman (don't sit where she does, don't have sex with her during her period, she's ceremonially unclean, etc.), but that doesn't prove anything, and it doesn't give any indication about why a man might be told to leave menstrual cloths alone.

So, you're right... it doesn't make much sense.

What do you make of the passage... taking into account the meaning of the Hebrew words used?

David
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your answer doesn't make sense.

If the first half of the verse is speaking of warfare, it would make sense to conclude that the second half of the verse is speaking of warfare also.

I've never heard of men wearing "mensuration items"; unless for some reason they were bleeding from the groin; which that would make practical sense. I've never heard of a male wearing a mensural pad for the sake of wearing a mensural pad. Why would a guy do that and how would someone know?

But I have heard of men dressing as women to try and avoid something they are expected as men. (Like trying to pass as a woman during a war; or (I don't know if this is true / really happened) but allegedly, someone on the Titanic dressed as a woman so he could get in a life boat.
I'm sorry... I didn't realize that you were the author of the post I replied to first.

I went back and read your post again... and I think it deserves more consideration than I originally thought or acknowledged.

You're suggesting that if a guy dressed up and pretended to be a woman so as to get the enemy to "let their guard down," that this is what the law is prohibiting... sort of a "play fair" approach to warfare, right?

That's reasonable, and it's an interpretation based on the context.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I'm sorry... I didn't realize that you were the author of the post I replied to first.

I went back and read your post again... and I think it deserves more consideration than I originally thought or acknowledged.

You're suggesting that if a guy dressed up and pretended to be a woman so as to get the enemy to "let their guard down," that this is what the law is prohibiting... sort of a "play fair" approach to warfare, right?

That's reasonable, and it's an interpretation based on the context.

Yes, your interpretation of what I'm saying is correct. You brought out men wearing women's clothing in an attempt to deceive the enemy; when I'd originally applied it to "doing this to avoid combat". Both could be applicable. And I agree that the context has to do with warfare.
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, your interpretation of what I'm saying is correct. You brought out men wearing women's clothing in an attempt to deceive the enemy; when I'd originally applied it to "doing this to avoid combat". Both could be applicable. And I agree that the context has to do with warfare.
Now here I'll challenge you a bit (just for the sake of iron sharpening iron...)

You say that the context has to do with warfare... but I think that's overstating it.

The surrounding verses in Deut. 22 have nothing to do with warfare. The only thing that may imply a "warfare" context is the word use for that which women are to avoid.

Here's the verse as translated by the ASV:

A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

My suggestion that there might be a reference to a menstrual cloth was based solely on an attempt to understand the concept of "a woman's garment." The only garment I could imagine that would be clearly gender-distinct when this law was given would have been the menstrual cloth.

In other words, both of us are looking at the words used and trying to derive some sort of "context" that could help us make sense of the verse. You see the first word and apply the idea of "warfare" to the entire verse, including the "woman's garment." I saw the warfare implication, but did not assume that that inferred something related with the "woman's garment" word, so I sought further understanding based on what sort of garment it could possibly be.

For both of us, context is weak, but at least we're trying to get something out of what the original words actually are instead of presuming it just means modern men's and women's clothing styles... which we BOTH agree is completely without basis.

I will add this comment... it's sad to me that the modern translations all seem to have gone down the "Men's clothing vs. women's clothing" while it is only the older ASV and KJV that get it a lot closer to correct with "that which pertaineth to a man"... since it is definitely NOT a garment that it's talking about.

David
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Now here I'll challenge you a bit (just for the sake of iron sharpening iron...)

You say that the context has to do with warfare... but I think that's overstating it.

The surrounding verses in Deut. 22 have nothing to do with warfare. The only thing that may imply a "warfare" context is the word use for that which women are to avoid.

Here's the verse as translated by the ASV:

A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

My suggestion that there might be a reference to a menstrual cloth was based solely on an attempt to understand the concept of "a woman's garment." The only garment I could imagine that would be clearly gender-distinct when this law was given would have been the menstrual cloth.

In other words, both of us are looking at the words used and trying to derive some sort of "context" that could help us make sense of the verse. You see the first word and apply the idea of "warfare" to the entire verse, including the "woman's garment." I saw the warfare implication, but did not assume that that inferred something related with the "woman's garment" word, so I sought further understanding based on what sort of garment it could possibly be.

For both of us, context is weak, but at least we're trying to get something out of what the original words actually are instead of presuming it just means modern men's and women's clothing styles... which we BOTH agree is completely without basis.

I will add this comment... it's sad to me that the modern translations all seem to have gone down the "Men's clothing vs. women's clothing" while it is only the older ASV and KJV that get it a lot closer to correct with "that which pertaineth to a man"... since it is definitely NOT a garment that it's talking about.

David

Although you are correct that nothing else in the passage talks about warfare; the rest of the passage is about how you interact with both your neighbors, their animals and the surrounding environment. So how you deal with members of your community in context of warfare is applicable in the overall context of the passage.

Look really carefully too at "not put on what pertains to men" in it's reference to battle armor. (I didn't catch this the first time I'd studied the passage some 20 years ago; but I did catch it looking at it recently.) The passage does not actually say women can not fight in wars. The context is not to use them as human shields; to "deter your enemy".

So I think you are correct too to say not to dress men up as women to deter your enemy - not to do that either. That does make contextual sense, not just for that verse but for the overall construction of the chapter dealing with how you are to interact with your community, the animals, the environment and that verse addressing specifically how you interact with your enemy in warfare.

So I think contextually your military interpretation is more correct than I'd originally suggested as men dressing as women to avoid things expected of them as men. (Like the example I'd given of the man who is alleged to have dressed as a women to get into a lifeboat on the Titanic. (Yet I can not verify if that account was actually true; because there were some men in the life boats - although they were primarily filled with women and children.))

That makes more sense than men wearing menses garments. First off, who would do that and secondly who would know? Yet if your commanders are dressing soldiers as women to prevent the enemy from firing upon you; that is a community observable behavior - just as all the other behaviors in the passage are "community observable".
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Although you are correct that nothing else in the passage talks about warfare; the rest of the passage is about how you interact with both your neighbors, their animals and the surrounding environment. So how you deal with members of your community in context of warfare is applicable in the overall context of the passage.
I'm not sure you can get much help from the type of commands found in the passage... one observation I think can be made about the OT commands is that often (especially in lists of very disparate commands) there may be very little relationship between any two such commands, and there are frequently commands that seem very out of place with those immediately before and after.
That makes more sense than men wearing menses garments. First off, who would do that and secondly who would know? Yet if your commanders are dressing soldiers as women to prevent the enemy from firing upon you; that is a community observable behavior - just as all the other behaviors in the passage are "community observable".

Keep in mind that the reason given for not doing either of these things (men or women) is that they are "an abomination to the LORD"... that means that how it is perceived or observed by others is not part of the equation. To me, that point argues less for "warfare" context and more for a "holiness" requirement.

Again, I have no way of knowing or even guessing what a man might do with a menstrual cloth... it might have been something we have simply no way to even imagine today... although it may have been as simple as using it as a belt.

Remember that during this time, clothing was so valuable a commodity that it was used as collateral for loans (Exo. 22:26-27), fulfillment of debts (like Samson's bet), and the soldiers at Jesus' crucifixion cast lots to see who would get to take home a blood-soaked piece of cloth (something today that would be considered bio-waist). People's attitudes towards cloth and clothing were very, very different during bible times... and very foreign to us today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I'm not sure you can get much help from the type of commands found in the passage... one observation I think can be made about the OT commands is that often (especially in lists of very disparate commands) there may be very little relationship between any two such commands, and there are frequently commands that seem very out of place with those immediately before and after.


Keep in mind that the reason given for not doing either of these things (men or women) is that they are "an abomination to the LORD"... that means that how it is perceived or observed by others is not part of the equation. To me, that point argues less for "warfare" context and more for a "holiness" requirement.

Again, I have no way of knowing or even guessing what a man might do with a menstrual cloth... it might have been something we have simply no way to even imagine today... although it may have been as simple as using it as a belt.

Remember that during this time, clothing was so valuable a commodity that it was used as collateral for loans (Exo. 22:26-27), fulfillment of debts (like Samson's bet), and the soldiers at Jesus' crucifixion cast lots to see who would get to take home a blood-soaked piece of cloth (something today that would be considered bio-waist). People's attitudes towards cloth and clothing were very, very different during bible times... and very foreign to us today.

I looked a little more closely at the Hebrew here. Here is a "word for word" translation (and granted sometimes they don't make a lot of sense - but here it is):

Woman not fulfill of armaments (to prevail above) mighty men (warriors); neither shall a warrior be clothed in women's (his wife's) garments (to take on shape of women): for all who do such are detestable to the Lord your God.

I used "The Blue Letter Bible"; looking both at words and the roots they come from for this interpretation.

So in essence yes - do not use female combatants as human shields and don't dress male combatants as women to avoid attack from the enemy. In other words; if your going to fight wars, fight them like men! Using cowardice tactics is morally abhorrent. Even today, using unarmed civilians to cover military targets is against the Geneva Convention for the rules of warfare.

As per your "menses cloth" interpretation - here is another example where that interpretation would present issues: eunuchs.

Eunuchs:

I don't know how much you know about eunuchs and how men were made eunuchs. Eunuchs were usually employed to protect the king's family and were selected among men who were of honorable service to the king. Sometimes they'd been soldiers.

The traditional custom of Babylon and Africa was to select an honorable man who was mature enough, (yet still young enough to serve as a guard) who often times had already had his own family. Becoming a eunuch was usually a voluntary process. And being a eunuch could mean either castration, or having your entire external genitalia removed.

Now the records of how this was done; we have more from ancient Chinese sources than records from the near east. And usually the "surgery" was performed with a sharp sword after the individual had been somewhat sedated. Usually the shock of the action of the "surgery" knocked the poor soul unconscious.

First order of business was to prevent him from bleeding to death. There are some rather big arteries that supply blood to the penis. So they would pack the area with bandages using direct pressure until the blood clotted. The "hope" was that using a sharp enough sword would make a clean cut that causes the arteries to retract into the body and naturally "shut off", to prevent massive loss of blood. It's the same idea with amputating a limb. If you slice evenly through the flesh fast enough to cause the arteries to retract into the body; the person has a fairly good chance of survival.

Then they'd use some sort of antiseptic to prevent infection, along with inserting a "plug", which was usually made of sliver to prevent urine from coming out. If the poor soul survived the next 24 hours; his chances of surviving improved significantly. If he survived 48 hours; his chances of living were pretty good. The overall survival rate of such surgery was not very high (at least according to 19th century Chinese records); but the ancient world did know a little more about sanitation than the Victorian era did.

The silver plug implement was made specifically for and was now the property of the eunuch. He would need it for the rest of his life to prevent him from urinating on himself. Of which he'd have to wear some sort of "garment" to keep it in place.

Now the more radical form of creating a eunuch was not particularly uncommon for those who were personal guards of the king's family. The reason for such a radical procedure, was that castration alone does not prevent the ability to have sex. And this is why this was not done to just anyone; nor for that purpose of guarding royalty, was it done involuntarily.

To do that to someone involuntarily would only make them more bitter as well as dangerous. So this was not something that would have been commonly done to war captives or manual laborers just for the sake of doing it.

Also, in ancient China; (I don't know if this was a practice in the near east too) the eunuch got to keep his body parts. They were usually stored in a special jar and it was a huge shame to the eunuch if he'd lost his jar; or if someone had stolen it. Stealing or destroying a eunuch's jar was a serious offense in ancient China; punishable by death.

Other than beliefs of being restored in the afterlife - I'm not sure what the significance of the jar was; but it was a type of "commodity", as eunuchs who had their jars were more valuable than ones who didn't. To be a eunuch with a jar was a status symbol that you'd served the king and this wasn't something someone did to you just to be vindictive.

Clothing:

Now you gave the example of clothing being used for collateral and also the soldiers dividing Jesus's clothes. Some of Jesus's clothing was probably still useable (like sandals) and the cloak probably was not bloody.

Jesus would have had a cloak, sandals, a head piece / prayer shawl, a tunic, and a sleeveless undergarment that went to the knees which was called a "kethoneth". It was cold that time of year, so Jesus may have also had at least one other "shirt". (Which were garments layered between the tunic and the kethoneth for warmth. His clothing for that time of year, was probably 100% wool.)

It was not uncommon for soldiers to keep clothing of captives of a certain status. Most people who were crucified did not possess clothing that was of any value. Common criminals who (may have went from flogging) to crucifixion site usually did so naked, seeing how they were crucified naked. Jesus was "redressed" at the very end to stand before the crowd. He'd been "presented" as the soldiers had "dressed Him" (in a horse blanket and briar crown) to the leaders of the nation prior to this and when Pilate could not get anywhere with them; he appealed to the crowd.

Now being flogged before crucifixion is stated to have been "the custom"; yet there are records of crucifixions where the crucified was alive for days. So, "was everyone flogged to hasten their death"; is of legitimate debate historically speaking. (I don't know the answer to this.) According to military records; (which are a bit sparse because military discipline was dealt with differently) it was usually one or the other, not both. If someone was sentenced to death by flogging, they used different implements for said task than what was to be used for "chastisement" alone.

A "chastisement" was not to be fatal and if the "executioner" killed someone they were not suppose to; then they forfeited their own life. The Roman army was very strict about its discipline and that is one example of how. Crucifixion was a public execution for a reason. Where as "flogging until death" was not necessarily public.

Certain people could not be executed via crucifixion; including Roman citizens, females and soldiers. Citizens who were executed were beheaded (considered an honorable death). Suicide was another option (retained burial rights). This was often the choice taken by soldiers who'd served honorably. (I.E. a jailor who's prisoners escaped due to no fault of his own.) Soldiers who showed cowardice were executed by those in their command; usually by being beaten to death; i.e. "running the gauntlet" as was later called in history.

Pilate's idea was to "chastise" Jesus and let Him go. He hoped this would appease the rulers; they'd "feel sorry for" Jesus and not demand that He'd be crucified. Jesus was most likely "chastised" according to Jewish law / tradition (39 stripes) which was of common jurisprudence in Roman law too. This would have been done with a leather implement that did not contain alterations to inflict more damage.

Theologically speaking, for Jesus to endure a just punishment to atone for sin, laws for flogging from Deuteronomy 25:3 would have been followed. Jewish custom became 39 stripes just in case the flogger miscounted. Also, since Rome was the civil authority that governed Judea and you are to obey the civil authority; Jesus had to be executed by them.

Jesus was not flogged as had been depicted in Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". Jesus never would have made it to the crucifixion site had He been whipped like that. Jesus walked from the Praetorium (site of trial) which was in the Antonia Fortress, across the court of the gentiles of the temple complex, through the triple gate, across the red heifer bridge to the Mt. of Olives, which was were He was crucified.

So having been someone of notable reputation. This is why the soldiers divided His clothing and cast lots for His cloak.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
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.

2 Hesitations 3:5

In other words, it's not in the Bible.

A more serious answer:

There are some people who read the following,

"A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." - Deuteronomy 22:5

As meaning that women can't wear trousers because trousers are exclusively "men's clothes". There are several problems with this:

1) The commandments of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) are a set of instructions which were given exclusively to the Jewish people as part of the covenant God made with them through Moses. The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christians are under no obligation to observe the Torah, that's why we don't circumcise, we don't follow kosher dietary restrictions, it's why we don't offer animal sacrifices (etc). So cherry-picking some commandments from the Torah to follow and some to not follow is simply a very poor application of Scripture.

2) There is nothing inherently male about bifurcated garments, i.e. trousers. For one, trousers historically were worn by both men and women in the ancient world. Depictions of Scythians in ancient Greco-Roman artwork shows female warriors on horseback wearing trousers, because as it turns out trousers or other bifurcated garment are super handy if your culture depends on horse-riding. Those who insist that trousers are exclusively "men's clothes" might want to look at the women's clothing section at any department store.

Hence, as I said in the beginning of the post; there simply isn't anywhere in the Bible that says women can't wear pants.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
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, they did--kinda. Just not in that culture. The earliest trousers are many thousands of years old. The thing is that in cultures which did have trousers they were worn by both men and women.

Rothman-Amazon.jpg


-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: HTacianas
Upvote 0