Does the Bible Say It's a
Sin for Women to Wear Pants?
The Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5
by Jason Young
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither
shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination
unto the LORD thy God." This verse -- Deuteronomy 22:5 -- is one
of the most commonly quoted and debated verses in the Old
Testament.
Some Christians have taken this verse to mean that Christian women
shouldn't wear pants, arguing that pants are that which "pertaineth
unto a man." Many sincere and honest Christians have grappled with
this issue, wanting to be pleasing to God. This teaching, as with all
teachings regarding the scriptures, needs to be carefully examined. It
is just as much an error to teach something that the scriptures
don't say as it is to ignore what the scriptures do say.
The teaching that it is wrong for Christian women to wear pants is based
upon the following beliefs:
1)
Deut 22:5 teaches that women should not wear that which pertains
unto a man.
2) Pants pertain to a man because they were not only exclusively
invented for men, but they also have historically been worn only by men.
3) The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little
distinction between men's and women's pants, they are
essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.
The
first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of
"that which pertaineth unto a man," deserves careful study. As
with the study of any scripture, it is important to
read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original
text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.
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..."
Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of
those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely
ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would
have little, if any, implications for Christians today.
Many believe, however, that this verse still applies to us today because
this verse states that violators of this law are an abomination to God
and that which was an abomination to God in the Old Testament would also
be an abomination to God in the New Testament. However, the usage of the
word abomination in Deut 22:5 does not necessarily make it
a timeless moral law because any violation of God's mandates is an
abomination to Him, whether it is a violation of ceremonial law or moral
law. Furthermore, Deut 22:5 is placed squarely in the middle of,
and is completely surrounded by, ceremonial laws. If it is indeed a
principle to be literally followed today, why would God choose to bury
this verse in the middle of what are clearly ceremonial laws?
The second argument against Christian women wearing pants is that pants
have historically been worn by and associated with men and are therefore
men's clothing. One problem with this view is that it is not a
consistently applied principle among those that advocate it.
Many of the articles of clothing have histories of originating with a
certain sex. Consider t-shirts - these too were invented for men and
originally worn exclusively by men. The t-shirt was introduced to
America during WWI when American soldiers noticed European soldiers
wearing them. By WWII, the t-shirt became standard issue in the American
military and was quickly introduced into American fashion.6 Not only
were t-shirts originally invented for men, but they were invented
specifically for the military. Considering this in light of the true
meaning of Deut 22:5, which seems to be forbidding women from
wearing the habiliments of a soldier, it would logically follow that a
woman wearing a t-shirt would be in much greater violation of this
verse than a woman wearing pants. Furthermore, there is no distinction between men's and women's t-shirts.
If clothing history is the sole determining factor of what constitutes
clothing that pertains to a man, then t-shirts must be forbidden as well
if consistency is to be maintained. It would seem that in practice,
however, those that teach that it is a sin for women to wear pants seem to
believe that clothing distinctions only apply to what is worn on the legs while ignoring
the obvious about other types of clothing commonly worn by women. In order for the teaching to be consistent,
the
very reasons cited for prohibiting women from wearing pants would also
prohibit women from wearing t-shirts, baseball caps, team jerseys, work
boots and any other article of clothing historically worn by men. Taking
the concept even further, what of the color pink or blue? Should women
also be forbidden to wear blue, or should men be forbidden to wear pink, as
these colors have historically been associated with the opposite sex?
How far should this concept be taken?
Finally, the third argument, which states that God requires a distinction between
men's and women's clothing and that pants provide little if any
distinction, must also be weighed in light of the scriptures. The
scriptures, as with most matters, provide a wealth of information
on this issue as well.
It is curious how those that forbid pants on women, based on their idea
of separation, never seem to consider the clothing norms in the Bible. Even the most basic study into
biblical clothing norms reveals
that there was very little distinction between the articles of clothing
worn by men and women.
In Genesis, we find the first accounts of clothing mentioned in the
Bible. First, we find that upon recognizing their nakedness, Adam and
Eve sewed garments of fig leaves together to cover themselves (Gen 3:7).
This is an interesting account in that we find humans attempting to
clothe themselves, but obviously God was not pleased with their choices,
as later we find that God made new clothes for them. Gen 3:21 records that God made "coats of skin" for them to wear.
The word coats in this verse is the Hebrew word kethoneth
and means "a long shirt-like garment."7 Interestingly, Moses, under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose the exact same word to
describe the specific type of clothing that God made for both Adam and
Eve. Where is the distinction here? If God chose to make so little distinction between a man's and woman's clothes that a single word
can describe the specific clothing worn both by Adam and Eve, then who
are we to require a greater distinction?
Later, throughout the Old and New Testament, common dress
consisted of two separate pieces. In the Old Testament, the first part
of the Jewish costume was still the kethoneth such as was worn by
Adam and Eve. In the New Testament, this garment is called chiton
in the Greek and is often translated as coat in the King James
Version Bible. According to the International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, the kethoneth/chiton was,
"...a
long-sleeved tunic worn over the sadhin, likewise a shirt with
sleeves... Here the 'coat' (Hebrew 'KThohneth) was the ordinary
"inner garment 'worn by the Jew of the day, in which he did the work
of the day (see Mt 24:18; Mk 13:16). It resembled the Roman tunic,
corresponding most nearly to our 'long shirt,' reaching below the
knees always, and in case it was designed for dress occasions, reaching
almost to the ground." 8
Easton's
Bible Dictionary states that this basic garment was worn by both men
and women:
"The
'coat' (kethoneth), of wool, cotton, or linen, was worn by both
sexes."
Easton's
further states that,
"The
robes of men and women were not very much different in form from each
other." 9
The second part of the common Jewish costume was the "outer garment."
Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the outer garment varied in size,
shape and purpose. It is given various names (both in the original
Hebrew and in translation) and is used in a variety of ways. This outer
garment was commonly used to cover the head of both men and women (cf.
Ruth 3:15, 2 Sam 15:30) and was also commonly wrapped around the
shoulders (cf. Isa 3:22). While the outer garment served many purposes and was at
times used in different ways by men and women, the way it was used was
not consistent with either sex. The garment itself does
not appear to have been made functionally different to any significant
degree, and the distinctions between the male and female outer garments were merely
stylistic (i.e. color, trim, size, etc.).
In light of the ample information we have on male and female garments in
the Bible, it is hard to justify the radical distinction between men's
and women's clothing required by Christians that forbid women
from wearing pants. There is no evidence that such a radical distinction
existed in biblical times. While there was a difference in men's and
women's clothing in the scriptures, these differences were merely
stylistic and not functional differences. The differences were only
found in color, trim, size, etc. and not in the actual form or function of
the clothing as is seen in pants and skirts or dresses. The differences
between men's and women's pants today are as great as the
differences between men's and women's garments in the Bible.
Essentially, Christians today that forbid women from wearing pants
demand a difference in form and function in men's and women's clothing,
whereas the Bible only records a stylistic difference. This
amounts to adding to God's Word and placing requirements on our
sisters in the Lord that the Bible does not support.
Many
that forbid women to wear pants argue that if it is acceptable for women
to wear pants, then it should be acceptable for a man to wear a dress or a
skirt. This is a valid point. However, there is no inherent sin
in a man putting on a skirt-like garment, which is a common practice in
some cultures around the world just as it was in the Bible. The error would
be in the fact that a man wearing a skirt in modern American society would be deemed as counter-culture to the very people we,
as Christians, are trying to be examples to -- namely unbelievers. However, women wearing pants is hardly
counter-culture. While there was once a time in our society when a woman in pants
would have been viewed negatively by society, such is not the case
today. Is that because society's morals have declined, and it no longer
sees women in pants as the sin that it is? Of course not, it is merely
a change in fashion.
Just because society had a particular view in
the past, does not mean that such a view was inherently more moral. Ford
once made only black cars and refused to make any other color. Today,
Fords come in every color under the sun. Was that the result of some
sort of moral backsliding? No, it is just that society's tastes have
changed. In Renaissance Europe, silk hosiery were considered appropriate
attire for men, yet today they are deemed as feminine. Changes in
style and fashion aren't inherently sinful and most of the time only
reflect a change in taste. Women's pants are no different. Women
did not start wearing pants as a means of rebellion or to be more
"manly" but because they were more comfortable and functional.
Fashion has been moving in the direction of more function and less style
for well over a century now. This is evidenced most recently by the fact
that suits and ties are much less common in the workplace now, having
been replaced by khakis and button-up shirts. Does that signal some
moral decline? Absolutely not -- it only reflects a trend in fashion for
more basic and functional clothing just as women's fashions did in
moving toward pants.
It is important that we do not have a knee-jerk
reaction to every change in fashion. Clearly, some are indicative of
moral decline, but many are not. As with everything, changes in fashion
must be weighed against biblical truths to make the determination.
In
short, the issue of clothing must always be carefully, thoughtfully and
honestly studied from a scriptural perspective while allowing the
scriptures to be the ultimate authority on such issues. A thorough study
into the clothing norms of the Bible reveals that there was no
distinction between men's and women's clothing in the Bible beyond
stylistic differences such as trim, color and size. In fact, God Himself
made clothing for Adam and Eve that was so similar that one word (kethoneth)
could
describe the specific garment he made for each of them. This same word describes the clothing worn by Godly men and women
throughout the Bible from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Yet today, many Christians demand much more
than even the Bible did by requiring not only a difference in style but
a difference in function and form as well. If God makes no such clothing demands
on His people, then who are we to make them? Do we know better than God?
Bibliography:
1 - Brown,
Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Keliy"
( Strong's # 3627). "The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
2 - Ibid. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Geber". Strong's # 1397.
3 - Ibid. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for 'iysh."
Strong's # 397.
4-
Clark, Adam. "Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:5".
"Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible".
5
- Gill, John. "Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:5". "The New John Gill Exposition
of the Entire Bible".
6 - "History of the American T-Shirt." http://
www.t-shirtking.com
7 -
Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Kethoneth"
(Strong's # 3801). "The KJV
Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
8 - Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for
'DRESS'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia".
1915.
9 - Easton, Matthew George.
"Entry for Dress". "Easton's Bible Dictionary".
Third Edition. Thomas Nelson, 1897.
This writing is the copyright of Jason Young and is reprinted on this site by permission as actseighteen.com has closed. View all of his available articles here.
You will find many more articles, as well as videos, on standards here.
Page added July 26, 2015
|