Question:  Dear Greg,

            I have a question that no one seems to want to answer.  We’ve all heard ministers preach at one time or another about women wearing pants because they say, “pants are a man’s garment”.  I would love to remind preachers that pants were not invented until around the 12th century, at the earliest.  When the verse in Deuteronomy 22:5 was written there was no such thing as pants.  At the time Deuteronomy was written, men wore skirts and robes.

 

            I am Scottish and certainly not gay, but I have noticed in society today that women can openly wear pants as well as actual men’s clothing without risk of condemnation from the public.  Yet, if a man chooses to wear a kilt (or skirt) in public he is branded as gay.

 

            Could someone please comment on any of this?  This is the third letter I have written regarding it and until now, “nobody” seems to want to comment on the subject.

 

            Regards,

            Janson

 

Answer:  Dear Janson,

            As you suggest, this question is a no-brainer for those who would read the Bible “for all it’s worth” (as one book is titled that would help those who misunderstand the passage in question).  I don’t know who you have asked that qualifies as “nobody”, but PTM is happy to comment.

 

            Those who cite the old covenant saying that women should not wear clothing that clearly pertains to a man, and then jumps to the conclusion that women should not wear trousers are making many mistakes:

 

1.      Perhaps they have a problem with women and as men they are trying to “control” them and teach other men to do the same.  If this is the case, for starters they misunderstand the biblical teaching about relationships between men and women.

 

2.      They do not understand that there are many cultural concerns in the Bible that do not translate into Christian practice today.  As far as the old covenant is concerned, the list is long--including Sabbath, Jewish holy days, keeping kosher, land Sabbath, wearing phylacteries on one’s garments, accepting and using the practice of slavery, keeping new moons, etc.

 

3.      If they are able to distinguish between the old and new covenant, between Sinai and the cross, then some may say that there is still a “principle” in this admonition for Christians today.  But why don’t we greet each other with a holy kiss?  When we are sick, why do we go to a doctor—why not ask a pastor to pray over a sweat band he uses when he does manual work or exercise and send that to us to heal us (see Acts 19:11-12)?  Or perhaps all men who would forbid women to wear trousers should also pick up snakes as Paul did, for surely God will not allow the snakes to harm them.  To clarify, I am noting the contradiction in logic, not advising people to pick up snakes!

 

4.      Beyond that, those who use the passage as you note fail to distinguish between a local, culturally sensitive issue and a moral issue that is universal and transcends time.  The issue to which the old covenant speaks primarily concerns cross-dressing in whatever clothing the culture mandates as normative for male and female.  Beyond that, ironically, a study of that culture reveals that women in Israel at the time this passage was written may well have worn a trouser-like garment to ensure modesty while stooping and kneeling down as they worked at home and in the fields.  Men, as you note, more commonly wore a loose fitting robe.  So, if literalists persist in not accounting for a historical/cultural understanding of the Bible that will guide their interpretation, then at the very least the passage they cite would prove the opposite of what they rail against!  That is, by such reasoning, women should wear trousers, not dresses, robes, etc.  And men should not wear trousers, for such clothing pertains to a woman, but instead men must wear dresses and robes.

 

            In Christ,

            Greg Albrecht