|>> || Do you not know that tee shirts, baseball caps, belts, HIGH-HEELED SHOES, SCARVES, and STOCKINGS ALL started out EXCLUSIVELY as menswear and that tee shirts and high-heeled shoes were specifically engineered as military wear for MEN ONLY? Do you realize that men's own PANTS began as UNDER-WEAR, the same as women's PANTALETTES and PANTALOONS in olden times (that apparently were not Scripturally-forbidden nor legally contested in early Europe/America)? Do you realize that men slowly began dis-ROBE-ing themselves (quite literally) and finally decided that they could just wear their undies in public and call them pants? (But somehow women are forbidden from doing the same thing--being conveniently brow-beaten by Deut. 22:5.) And do you realize that as far back as you can take the origin of pants (roughly 3,000+ years ago in the East), women wore them also as a norm? That the Roman soldiers wouldn't even wear them (they were wearing SKIRTS, remember?) because they considered them effeminate? |
God NEVER created a bifurcated garment for men that was biblically designed to be worn outside of a modest, discreet OUTER covering. [And the priestly "breeches" only reached from the waist to the thigh, indicating underwear--not pants. Regardless of the actual length, they were still UNDER-wear.] He also NEVER declared that men and women should NOT wear the same "cut" of clothing. (Look it up in Hebrew. Deuteronomy 22:5 specifically forbids a woman from putting on a warrior's habiliments/armor or a warrior from wearing a woman's simlah [robe], and so feigning himself as a woman. This reportedly has more to do with the pagan worship of the day and/or women going to battle/men resisting battle (i.e. "dodging the draft") than it does the sexes wearing the same "cut" of clothing. Research it at length. The word for MAN in Hebrew in Deut. 22:5 is not
the usual word used for "man" but the word typically used for "warrior, strong man, war hero.") Men also wore simlahs of their own and LOOKED JUST LIKE WOMEN IN THEIR OUTER APPAREL in Bible days when they wore their simlahs! (As far as "cross dressing" is concerned. Color/embroidery may have been different, but both sexes wore dresses/robes.) What did GOD HIMSELF create for Adam when driving him and Eve out of the Garden? Blue jeans?? Slacks? Knickerbockers? Sweat pants? No. He put them BOTH in COATS of skins and they looked IDENTICAL in their attire from all we can assume--as dressed by GOD HIMSELF. We have no record of God dyeing Eve's coat pink or adding a touch of lace to distinguish.
GOD HIMSELF started both sexes out in a "ROBE" (which resembled a modern dress) and fully sanctioned men in DRESSES and SKIRTS, for all practical purposes. The Old Testament is REPLETE with evidence of men wearing skirts, robes,
tunics, dresses, etc. JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF NEVER WORE A PAIR OF PANTS IN HIS LIFE (certainly not outwardly!) and ALWAYS had His private region modestly covered with loose apparel--not anatomically-revealing pants that Every. Single. One of you men wear today. Sorry--just sayin'. We can see your stuff!! And that ain't biblical! It's rather offensive, if you ask me. (But women are "causing you to lust" when they wear pants??? And yet you've likely never once registered what we go
through day in and day out with your snugly-clad tushes and blatant "junk" bulges around us 24/7.)
Have you considered what Jesus will be returning in? Pants? I trow not. For He hath "on His VESTURE [Gr. #2440, "a dress"] and on His thigh . . . " What does the Almighty wear? Pants? No, "....His TRAIN filled the temple." And what does He dress EVERY overcomer in? Pants? No--ROBES of white.
I am not for "cross-dressing" as it relates to our culture; and by cross-dressing, I mean women wearing male suits/ties, grungy dude wear, etc. or men wearing lady-like dresses and looking like drag queens, etc. It is a mingling of the sexes per the norms of our culture and I find it disturbing. (But go ask them in Eastern countries if men are cross-dressing by wearing robes, dresses, and skirts. They look perfectly fine and are, quite frankly, in keeping with biblical standards.) But this does not mean that because European men decided several hundred years ago to defrock themselves of their cumbersome robes and parade around with anatomically-revealing pants (front and back!) that if women follow suit we are cross-dressing and are guilty of
the abomination described in Deut. 22:5. What were men doing before pants ever existed, pray tell? Personally, I find men more guilty of blatantly disrobing than I do women for following their lead. But I can't seriously believe that modern man shall be judged by God for how our society now dictates he dress. And if I must grant that clemency to men, then I'm going to have to do the same thing for women.
This is not an assault on all men who wear pants. This is an irony-revealing highlighter to emphasize that your publicly-worn pants aren't even biblical to start with, yet you'll wear them for your own comfort and convenience (and because it is now an established social norm). Then you'll tell women that they CAN'T do this (although it is also THEIR now-established norm) or they are biblically-inaccurate and guilty of abomination before God. Huh?
While we're at it, what about your beard? What about the fact that according to OT law, men were FORBIDDEN from trimming their beards/going beardless and were required by law to let them grow naturally? In fact, that whole beard thing was clumped in with the same group of Scriptures as warnings against enchantment and witchcraft, and to trim the beard was to MAR (destroy, ruin, pervert, corrupt) the beard. So if women are to keep the "no pants" thing in 2016 [even though pants was unheard of/did not apply to the Israelites] consistent with a misinterpreted mention from 3500+ years ago, what about your beard and your "Jewish" robes?
Young man, I applaud your faithfulness and your sincerity and your stance on many issues. But on this I vary. I spent years in a no-pants-for-women church that was legalistic in every way. Upon studying the Scriptures (per the original Hebrew) in depth, I realized that Deut. 22:5 is grossly misapplied and misinterpreted by our modern (religious) society. Such misinterpretation licenses men to wear near anything they please (specifically, pants!) and condemns women from doing the same thing--based on some "anti-cross-dressing" philosophy that couldn't be proven per Old Testament dressing habits if you bet your life on it. Deut. 22:5 forbids a woman from wearing a warrior's "k'liy" (utensils, jewelry, vessels, armor, etc.)--a word never otherwise associated with clothing--or from a man feigning himself as a woman, as these practices were common among idolators and worshippers of Ashtaroth. The idea was that either sex did not represent/feign itself as the other--not that the "mold" of their clothing be different. Again, tee shirts, high heels, baseball caps, scarves, stockings, hose, belts ....... Do your homework, good fellow. If your wife is wearing ANY of these, she is wearing articles that originated as men's clothing. (Belts might be questionable, but even Wikipedia reports that they were documented as male clothing since the Bronze Age.)