Without knowing the culture and practices of that time more intimately and in detail, it's impossible to say.This was a problem?
Well, let's start with a visual, and go from there:Are there any details on what makes a garment appropriate for one gender or the other?
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?Well, let's start with a visual, and go from there:
View attachment 252901
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.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?
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.
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
That is strictly cultural.Are there any details on what makes a garment appropriate for one gender or the other?
There are some denominations that believe every one of those women are going to hell due to wearing pants.Would a no-pants dress code apply to professional attire too? Like this:
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."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.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.
Now here I'll challenge you a bit (just for the sake of iron sharpening iron...)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
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.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.
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".
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 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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?