What does the Bible say about women wearing pants?
The first thing that we must understand when asking this question is that no one in the Bible wore pants. They did not exist back then—at least not in the form we have them today. Because of this, the Bible never dealt with the subject of women wearing pants. [Note: I have added an article on what the Israelites did wear when they were in Egypt and during the Exodus.] The Mosaic Law does, however, deal with the subject of cross-dressing. The Mosaic Law says, "A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Deut. 22:5 NASB). The argument against women wearing pants that I always heard when I was in the UPC was this:
- Deut. 22:5 applies to us today. Even though we are not under the Mosaic Law anymore, something that is an abomination to God is always an abomination. (This is based off of Rev. 21:27, which says that "no one who practices abomination" (KJV) will enter into the New Jerusalem.)
- Since pants are men’s apparel, and dresses are women’s apparel, it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants or for a man to wear dresses.
Notice that I said that this is the argument that I heard during my time in the UPC. It is only fair to say that the official position paper of the UPC uses a different line of reasoning. They say, "[W]e should avoid…slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip1."
In this article I am going to take a look at both views, and then I’ll wrap up with an important point about hypocrisy.
Edit (1/2/07): I found another position paper from the UPCI on men and women’s apparel. In this other paper they do use a modified form of the Deut. 22:5 argument.
Are Slacks Automatically Immodest?
I think that it is ridiculous to say that slacks are inherently more immodest than dresses. Slacks and dresses can be immodest. It is possible that pants on a woman would have been considered immodest 200 years ago in many Western societies, but that’s pure conjecture. Either way, I know of no man in Western culture who is automatically thrown into temptation because a woman wears pants. What we have to deal with is what is modest today, not what was modest 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago. The Bible never defined modesty, it only told us to be modest.
Are Pants "Men’s Apparel"?
I do not think that pants can be thought of as only men’s apparel in modern Western culture. Cultures and dress codes change over time. They always have. When Deut. 22:5 was written men were probably wearing linen kilts and women were probably wearing "full-length, light weight, loose-fitting dresses2." In the mid-19th century men were wearing breeches and women were wearing dresses that did not show even their ankles. Yet now the dress code laid by the UPC is that women have to wear dresses but they can come up to the knee3. Why did they choose this style of apparel and not the style that was worn when Deut. 22:5 was written, or the style that was worn in the 19th century? The reason is that cultures and styles change, and the UPC apparently picked the style of apparel that happened to be in fashion when their doctrines started to develop.
There is no biblical excuse for taking a girl who is a third-generation wearer of pants and telling her that she has to only wear dresses. At some point we have to admit that culture has changed. Again, we’re concerned with what culture is now, not what it was in the 1800s and early 1900s.
Hypocrisy? The Pants Issue Can Be One Way or the Other, It Can’t Be Both
Let me talk to the preachers and teachers for a moment.
Many preachers and teachers in the UPC feel that Deut. 22:5 still applies to us today. I don’t take that view, but I’m not going to debate the point. What I will say is that if you are going to apply Deut. 22:5 to the pants vs. skirts debate then you have to apply it to everything. If you believe that it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants (because you feel that pants are men’s apparel) then you must be willing to make a complete prohibition against women wearing men’s apparel. For instance, many women in the UPC wear pajama pants but they will not wear pants in public. If pants are men’s apparel, and if it’s a sin for women to wear men’s apparel, then that means no pajama pants. It also means that a girl can’t put on her boyfriend’s jacket or her husband’s shirt, or any other article of clothing that is designed for a man.
It can be one way or the other, it can’t be both. It must be a complete prohibition or no prohibition at all. To preach against women wearing pants, and then allow your wife to wear pajama pants, is nothing less than total hypocrisy. If you do preach a complete prohibition against women wearing any men’s apparel then I will respect your view, even though I will continue to disagree with it. If you will not do that then I view your teaching as hypocritical in the extreme.
Conclusion
It is not safe to end this subject without pointing out that cross-dressing is almost definitely displeasing to God. When I say "cross-dressing" this is the usage that I am referring to:
Nearly every society throughout history has had a set of norms, views, guidelines, or laws regarding the wearing of clothing and what is appropriate for each gender. Cross-dressing is a behavior which runs counter to those norms4.
I do think that we can extrapolate from Scripture that God would be displeased with someone deliberately dressing in a manner that identifies them with the opposite gender. However, I do not think that a woman wearing pants should be considered cross-dressing. As I said before, women wearing pants is part of the accepted norm in modern Western culture.
References:
- United Pentecostal Church International, Position Paper on Modesty, Accessed 2006-12-30 21:10:16 [↩]
- Nelson’s Bible Manners & Customs: How the People of the Bible Really Lived, "5.2 The People of God Wandering In the Wilderness", ed. Howard F. Vos [↩]
- United Pentecostal Church International, Position Paper on Modesty, Accessed 2006-12-30 21:10:16 [↩]
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Cross-dressing, Accessed 2006-12-30 23:20:05 [↩]
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
As far as the pants isuue is concerned, I would say that not all women’s pants can be considered immodest, men wear pants that are loose fitting and that would be acceptable, however if the man wore pants two sizes to small or big that definately would be beyond the bounds of proper appearal as it pertains to a Christian.
Because our culture has changed so much it concerns me as to the style of a wide majority of womens pants which are very form fitting. However, the wearing of proper clothing is always taught as it is a benefit to you, edifying you, but is it not so as to not allure a member of the opposite sex?
Sure, proper fitting clothing does provide for a good testimony, but if you are wearing dresses and no jewlery as part of your outward sanctification, then would you not be basing your relationship with God upon your works, and be as guilty as the person wearing flashy clothing to attract attention?
My problem is with those that feel they are better or closer to God than someone else because of thier clothing or lack of flashy outward appearal.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Thankfully I was delivered from the cultic Apostolic/Penetecostal churches.
I could tell so many horror stories that people would think I was making it up
Its child abuse on the kids especially
November 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I agree that there should be consistency in regard to cross dressing & often teach this at my church. God doesn’t apply this verse (which I certainly believe applies to us today) only from the waist down! They did have pants in Bible days, called breeches, which is probably why the 1st pants were knickers, emulating the style of breeches. Significantly, it was only the priests/men who wore these breeches…women were forbidden to wear breeches in the Bible. Yes, cultures change, but what’s an abomination to God doesn’t (i.e., homosexuality, beastality,etc.). What about men wearing dresses today? Surely you’ve heard about the man who sued his workplace for them disallwoing him to wear a skirt. What about when culture begins to swing this way? What Scriptural injunction will you appeal to? History, as well as word studies indicate that the womens apparel (simlah) was a wrapper styled garment enveloping the body so as not to reveal the shape thereof. But the man’s garment contained a split between the legs, so as to free them up to work & stride as a man. Interestingly, in orthodox Judaism even today women do not wear pants based upon this verse. I have numerous newspaper articles from Israel that explicitly state/demonstrate this. These people probably understand the OT nuances far better than us today in America. At any rate, those who truly fear God should be very concerned w/ what He designates as “Abominable” to Him. We need to do SOMETHING w/ such a matter, at the very least. [EDIT: Phone # removed]
November 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Roger, the comments you made are simply incorrect. I will not let this Web site degenerate into a debate forum, so I am going to briefly refute each one of your points. After this comment, you will have said your piece and I will have responded, so I reserve the right to delete future comments of yours on this thread. Again, I will not let this site turn into a place for people to fight and debate.
I do not expect to change your mind through refuting any of your points. I am writing this for the benefit of others.
1. Women began to wear knickers in the 19th century. There is absolutely no relation to knickers and anything worn by women in “the Bible days” (”The Bible days,” by the way, covered 4,000 years of various customs and cultures, so please be specific about exactly which Bible days you are talking about. I have already written an article talking about what people wore in the Wilderness when the Mosaic Law was given. That is the only period that we need to be concerned about when discussing Deut. 22:5.).
2. I’m sure some culture, somewhere, in between 4,000 B.C. and 90 A.D., had a custom where women wore breeches or pants or split robes or whatever. It’s irrelevant, though, because the only period we are concerned with is what the Israelites wore when the Mosaic Law was given.
3. Women could not be priests, so it’s pointless to bring priestly apparel into the discussion.
4. Men in cultures throughout history have worn kilts and robes. It is not common for men in Western culture to wear “dresses,” so, until it becomes a problem, I’ll consider debating the issue a waste of time.
5. The garments of men did not contain a split between the legs when the Mosaic Law was given. And that is the only period we need to be concerned with when discussing Deu. 22:5. What the Orthodox Jews of today do is their business, not mine.
6. I disagree that the Orthodox Jews “understand the OT nuances far better than us today in America.” Christians have plenty of Old Testament scholars too.
If you would like to dialogue more on this point then please email me. I will respond as I have time. The comments area is not intended as a place for debates. Thanks.