The Former Fundys Blog

That’s how Deuteronomy 22:5 would read in the King James Translation of the Bible if every Fundy had their way. Women wearing pants is an abomination against God according to Fundamentalists. Now, this can get tricky, with some Fundys, because some of them have to go to the furthest edges of the extreme to protect the idea that pants are a male garment only. Some Fundy “pastors” will argue that Jesus Christ himself wore pants. Check out the following video from Fundy Pastor Steve Anderson(aka-Blasphemous Nutjob Extraordinaire).

Now, I’ll get back to “Pastor” Steve Anderson’s nuttery in a few moments, it’s time to address Deuteronomy 22:5 here.

Deu 22:5 KJVR 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.
Deu 22:5 ESV “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

What, precisely, is this verse saying? Well, according to other Fundys, it’s making a “Major Premise”. Here’s a blog post by Kent Brandenburg that goes into a bit more detail about that, so click here for more information about how other Fundys see the issue.

Here’s how he demonstrates a point that he’s trying to make here, it certainly gives insight to how the Fundy mindset goes.

Major or First Premise:  The woman who wears the male article is an abomination to God.

Minor or Second Premise:  Pants are the male article.

Conclusion:  The woman who wears pants is an abomination to God.

Now, Kent’s minor premise is already flawed, because pants are no longer exclusively a male garment. In fact, in the third and fourth centuries, pants were worn by Persian women. In India, women have been wearing pants for two thousand years. Pants took hold in European culture during the Sixteenth century, and were predominately worn by men up until about the 1940’s and 1950’s, when women began wearing them. Early pants however, were similar to pantyhose or tights. So does that mean that women should not wear those items(Note: I have yet to see a Fundy honestly answer this question with any rationale that is consistent to their argument against women wearing pants).

Now, in Deuteronomy 22:5, the Hebrew word translated as “pertaineth”(in the KJV), is usually translated as weapon or armor in Scripture. The word translated as “man” means “warrior” or “mighty man of valor”. The word translated as “garment” in the second part of the verse is better translated “cloak” or “mantle”.

Now, Fundys are quite good at dodging arguments put forth against their own interpretation of Scripture and culture, and trying to put the onus back on others to defend their position. Notice how Kent keeps avoiding arguments that others make, without actually addressing their arguments. He makes some noise, yes, but he avoids the substance of an argument with a deft dodge. Let’s take a look.

You talk about fundamentalism building a “dogma.” All Western culture had men in pants and women in skirts from the 1500s and until the mid to late 1900s. This wasn’t a fundamentalism conspiracy, Will. Fundamentalism is a movement that began around 1920 in the United States.

Which was responded to with this:

Kent, you keep bring up Western Culture, as if that’s what we should use to judge our styles of dress by as Christians. Well, it’s not. What European men have done for hundreds of years is not how we decide what is right or proper to wear. But you’re arguing the opposite. Simply because Western men have worn such-and-such for five hundred years doesn’t make it right.

Go a bit farther down to Kent’s second response to me, and he has this to say:

Will,

I clicked on your Persian clothing article. That is missing the point—a pagan culture hasn’t determined what the male article is for our culture. They don’t follow the Bible as an authority—that is their main problem. You don’t look to them to find out how to practice the Bible.

I’ll be awaiting your answer to my questions above about the text of Deut 22:5.

Really Kent? Do tell. Now, question Kent, since you keep avoiding my argument. Who has made historic(I say historic because women wearing pants is now acceptable in European countries and in America) European culture the deciding force in how we as Christians get to dress? What exactly is so holy about white, European culture, that this particular culture gets to decide what’s right and wrong. Furthermore, you’ve entirely skipped over another part of my argument.

Men wore skirts in the Bible. So did women. Men wore robes in the Bible. So did women. Men wore cloaks in the Bible. So did women. The only thing gender specific about their clothing was the style of the clothing, or the colors or ornamentation. Any honest examination of the Bible and Bible archaeology will tell you this. To then turn around and say that “Because in Western Culture for the past 500 years, only men have worn pants, then women are an abomination if they wear pants” is to distort the teaching of Scripture and change it into commandments of men.

We know that Hebrew men wore kilts in Bible times. We know that both sexes wore robes, we know that both sexes wore skirts. We know that both sexes wore clothing that was very similar to what the other sex wore. So how exactly is that different than men’s and women’s pants? In fact, in Genesis 3, God made shirts for Adam and Eve, and we are given no indication that these shirts were gender-specific in their style.

Now if you notice, on that same blog that I linked to, in the comments, one regular reader of this blog argued that God had made pants specifically for men, when God commanded that the priests wear breeches when they did their work in the temple. This is the same argument used by “Pastor” Steve Anderson in the video we watched at the beginning of this post.
Exo 28:42 KJVR And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exo 28:42 ESV You shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh. They shall reach from the hips to the thighs;
I like how the ESV translates this verse, because it’s certainly much more accurate than how either “Pastor” Anderson or Blog-Reader Jerry Bouey translate this verse. These “pants” were nothing more than undershorts.
Here’s the word translated as “breeches” in the KJT.

H4370
מכנס
miknâs
mik-nawce’
From H3647 in the sense of hiding; (only in dual) drawers (from concealing the private parts): – breeches.

The verse after gives us some perspective when we read this verse in it’s context. This entire chapter is giving instructions for priestly garments, not for typical day-to-day garments.

Exo 28:42-43 KJVR And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: (43) And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute forever unto him and his seed after him.

These were nothing more than boxer shorts. Not much else. To claim that this was somehow God’s endorsement on bifurcated garments for men is naught more than sheer ignorance.

Naturally, it’s rather rare that items like “shirts” come up in this discussion. Everybody knows that there’s little differences in most women’s blouses and men’s dress shirts. Other than perhaps design/pattern/color, and the fact that women’s blouses have buttons on a different side than a men’s shirt. In the Fundy high school that I went to, Male students were required to wear a white or blue dress shirt, and female students were required to wear a white or blue blouse. In most cases, the only way to tell the difference between the two was either a rounded collar corner on a blouse, or the side the buttons were on with either the shirt or the blouse. Women’s footwear, is also another area that tends to be overlooked. Women’s sneakers aren’t much different than those of men. And contrary to popular belief in Fundy circles, there are differences between males pants and females pants. For one thing, the buttons are on a different side, there tends to be a lack of a zipper, wider leg openings for women’s pants, more room in the rear, a higher rise, less pockets etc. With men’s pants, there’s usually a six inch difference between waist and hip. With women’s pants, there’s a ten inch difference. So the argument that there is no difference between pants for men and women falls flat.

Now let’s look at what some respected Biblical commentators have to say on the subject.

Preacher’s Commentary

Deu 22:5 –

Transvestism
This short section of Scripture has caused much debate in some Christian circles. What does it mean? Here are some possible explanations:
One explanation is that this practice was associated with the religion of Canaan; therefore, it was “an abomination to the LORD.” Apparently women appeared in male garments and men in women’s clothes when they worshiped their pagan deities. Yahweh wanted His people to be unique and to do nothing that was in any way connected with foreign religions.
Another theory is that this verse could refer to war. A woman was not to put on the trappings of a soldier or dress like a man in order to try to gain admission into the army. Nor were men to attempt to avoid military obligation by dressing as women.
Another explanation often given for this ban is that it obscured the distinction between the sexes and therefore violated an essential part of the created order of life (Gen_1:27). The Hebrew phrase for “pertains to” is used elsewhere in referring to decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. During the days of Moses, garments worn by men and women were very similar (robes); so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness. The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation. This passage does not teach against women’s wearing slacks, hats, shoes, gloves, or other items that are now worn by both sexes, but rather against the wearing of any item specifically intended for the opposite sex. The distinctives of each sex should be maintained and protected in regard to outward appearance. The New Testament instruction in Gal_3:28 that “there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” applied to status in God’s sight and not to dress. While we realize that we are one in Christ, recognition of the differences between the sexes is a principle worth safeguarding.
Still another explanation is that this verse refers to the practice of transvestism, a deviant form of sexual behavior which is often characterized by cross-dressing. The verse says women should not wear things “pertaining to” the male. This phrase includes not only clothing, but also ornaments, weapons, and other items normally associated with men. In the second clause, women’s clothing is explicitly forbidden men.
Transvestism is sometimes associated with homosexuality, and in the ancient world its practice was associated with the cults of certain deities. Whatever the circumstance, the practice of transvestism was “an abomination to the LORD.”

Adam Clarke’s Commentary

Deu 22:5 –
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man – כלי גבר keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word גבר geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor 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 armor before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male’s attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Deu_22:5
As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman’s clothes.” כּלי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction – such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman – was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God.

Kent keeps making an argument based on an idea that historic European Culture should dictate what is acceptable male and female attire today. I reject his argument as being entirely unbiblical. Furthermore, his argument is entirely illogical and contradicts itself. Because Kent keeps pointing to European culture to make his argument. And the way that European and European influenced culture dresses today is quite different. Men and women both wear pants. Men and women both wear pants that are different in style from the other sexes style. Men and women wear pants that have different design features, different placement of buttons and zippers. If Kent wants to point to culture as that being the deciding factor in this argument, then he must concede that his point is no longer valid in today’s culture. In fact, many Fundys would have to do this if they were going to be logically consistent. Today’s world has totally changed. Yesterday’s world is gone. In Biblical times, Godly men wore what many Fundys would consider to be skirts or dresses but that were stylistically different from women’s clothing. In today’s world, many Godly women wear pants that are stylistically different from men’s garments. This Bible verse is obviously not simply referring to just clothing. This is where Bible study needs to come in, digging deeper into the verse and into the culture of the Hebrew people at this time. This argument is getting old, and frankly, ridiculous.