1|Page

Does the Bible Say It's a Sin for Women to Wear Pants?
The Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment for all that !o so are abomination unto the "#$D thy %o!&' This (erse )) Deuteronomy ** + )) is one of the most commonly ,uote! an! !ebate! (erses in the #l! Testament& Some -hristians ha(e ta.en this (erse to mean that -hristian women shoul!n/t wear pants, arguing that pants are that which pertaineth unto a man&' 0any sincere an! honest -hristians ha(e grapple! with this issue, wanting to be pleasing to %o!& This teaching, as with all teachings regar!ing the scriptures, nee!s to be carefully e1amine!& It is 2ust as much an error to teach something that the scriptures !on/t say as it is to ignore what the scriptures !o say& The teaching that it is wrong for -hristian women to wear pants is base! upon the following beliefs 34 Deut ** + teaches that women shoul! not wear that which pertains unto a man& *4 Pants pertain to a man because they were not only e1clusi(ely in(ente! for men, but they also ha(e historically been worn only by men& 54 The Bible teaches separation of the se1es an! since there is so little !istinction between men/s an! women/s pants, they are essentially unise1 an! therefore !o not pro(i!e a!e,uate separation& The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbi!s the wearing of that which pertaineth unto a man,' !eser(es careful stu!y& 6s with the stu!y of any scripture, it is important to rea! the passage in conte1t an! e1amine the rele(ant wor!s an! their meanings in the original te1t& 6 reputable Bible !ictionary or le1icon can be an in(aluable ai!& The phrase that which pertaineth,' or simply the wor! pertaineth in the 7ing 8ames 9ersion of the Bible, is translate! from the :ebrew wor! keliy, which means article, (essel, implement, or utensil&'3Translators commonly ren!er keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the #l! Testament& The wor!man, in both the first an! last part of Deut ** +, is the :ebrew wor! geber meaning man, strong man, or warrior ;emphasi<ing strength or ability to fight4&'* It is important to note that this is not the only wor! forman in :ebrew& 9erse 35 of this (ery same chapter uses the :ebrew wor! 'iysh, which is also translate! man an! means 2ust that = man, male ;in contrast to woman, female4&'5 It is apparent that 0oses, when writing Deut ** +, was ,uite intentionally not tal.ing about a man in general, but a (ery specific .in! of man = namely, a warrior or sol!ier& -onsi!ering this, perhaps a better translation of this (erse woul! be as follows The woman shall not put on >the weapons?armor of a warrior@, neither shall a

2|Page

>warrior@ put on a woman's garment for all that !o so are abomination unto the "#$D thy %o!&' 0any scholars agree with this translation& 6!am -lar., commenting on Deuteronomy, states, 6s the wor!&&&geber is here use!, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is (ery probable that armour is here inten!e!A especially as we .now that in the worship of 9enus, to which that of 6starte or 6shtaroth among the -anaanites bore a stri.ing resemblance, the women were accustome! to appear in armour before her&'B 8ohn %ill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in ** + &&&an! the wor! >keliy@ also signifies armour, as #n.elos ren!ers itA an! so here forbi!s women putting on a military habit an! going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern womenA an! so 0aimoni!es illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her hea!, an! clothing herself with a coat of mailA an! in li.e manner 8osephus e1plains it, 'ta.e hee!, especially in war, that a woman !o not ma.e use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman&&&'' ;sic4 + $abbi 8on)8ay Tilsen of The Cnite! Synagogue of -onser(ati(e 8u!aism writes in an e1cerpt from an article entitle! -ross Dressing an! Deuteronomy ** +,' In another attempt to i!entify the ,uintessential 'men's items,' $abbi Dlie<er ben 8acob, ,uote! in the Talmu! ;e!ite! about EFF -&D&4, says, GWhat is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?/ :e then cites our (erse >Deuteronomy ** +@, which he rea!s this way G6 warrior's gear may not be put on a woman/ ;B& Ha<& +Ia4& :e rea!s .li ge(er >geber@ as the homograph .li gibbor, meaning a Gwarrior's gear/&' $abbi Tilsen further states, This same un!erstan!ing is followe! by 0i!rash 0ishlei ;Pro(erbs4 which conten!s that the Biblical character Jael in the Boo. of 8u!ges .ills %eneral Sisera with a tent pin instea! of a swor! in or!er to comply with this law& It woul! ha(e been 'unla!y)li.e' for her to use a swor! )) worse, a (iolation of the law )) because a swor! is a man's tool&&&' -onsi!ering the sheer specificity of Deut ** + an! the precise nature of those things that are forbi!!en, Deut ** + is most li.ely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which woul! mean that it woul! ha(e little, if any, implications for -hristians to!ay& 0any belie(e, howe(er, that this (erse still applies to us to!ay because this (erse states that (iolators of this law are an abomination to %o! an! that which was an abomination to %o! in the #l! Testament woul! also be an abomination to %o! in the Hew Testament& :owe(er, the usage of the wor! abomination in Deut ** + !oes not necessarily ma.e it a timeless moral law because any (iolation of %o!/s man!ates is

3|Page

an abomination to :im, whether it is a (iolation of ceremonial law or moral law& Kurthermore, Deut ** + is place! s,uarely in the mi!!le of, an! is completely surroun!e! by, ceremonial laws& If it is in!ee! a principle to be literally followe! to!ay, why woul! %o! choose to bury this (erse in the mi!!le of what are clearly ceremonial laws? The secon! argument against -hristian women wearing pants is that pants ha(e historically been worn by an! associate! with men an! are therefore men/s clothing& #ne problem with this (iew is that it is not a consistently applie! principle among those that a!(ocate it& 0any of the articles of clothing ha(e histories of originating with a certain se1& -onsi!er t)shirts = these too were in(ente! for men an! originally worn e1clusi(ely by men& The t)shirt was intro!uce! to 6merica !uring WWI when 6merican sol!iers notice! Duropean sol!iers wearing them& By WWII, the t)shirt became stan!ar! issue in the 6merican military an! was ,uic.ly intro!uce! into 6merican fashion&L Hot only were t)shirts originally in(ente! for men, but they were in(ente! specifically for the military& -onsi!ering this in light of the true meaning of Deut ** +, which seems to be forbi!!ing women from wearing the habiliments of a sol!ier, it woul! logically follow that a woman wearing a t)shirt woul! be in much greater (iolation of this (erse than a woman wearing pants& Kurthermore, there is no !istinction between men/s an! women/s t)shirts& If clothing history is the sole !etermining factor of what constitutes clothing that pertains to a man, then t)shirts must be forbi!!en as well if consistency is to be maintaine!& It woul! seem that in practice, howe(er, those that teach that it is a sin for women to wear pants seem to belie(e that clothing !istinctions only apply to what is worn on the legs while ignoring the ob(ious about other types of clothing commonly worn by women& In or!er for the teaching to be consistent, the (ery reasons cite! for prohibiting women from wearing pants woul! also prohibit women from wearing t)shirts, baseball caps, team 2erseys, wor. boots an! any other article of clothing historically worn by men& Ta.ing the concept e(en further, what of the color pin. or blue? Shoul! women also be forbi!!en to wear blue, or shoul! men forbi!!en to wear pin., as these colors ha(e historically been associate! with the opposite se1? :ow far shoul! this concept be ta.en? Kinally, the thir! argument, which states that %o! re,uires a !istinction between men/s an! women/s clothing an! that pants pro(i!e little if any !istinction, must also be weighe! in light of the scriptures& The scriptures, as with most matters, pro(i!e a wealth of information on this issue as well& It is curious how those that forbi! pants on women, base! on their i!ea of separation, ne(er seem to consi!er the clothing norms in the Bible& D(en the most basic stu!y into biblical clothing norms re(eals that there was (ery little !istinction between the articles of clothing worn by men an! women& In %enesis, we fin! the first accounts of clothing mentione! in the Bible& Kirst, we fin! that upon recogni<ing their na.e!ness, 6!am an! D(e sewe! garments of fig lea(es together to co(er themsel(es ;%en 5 M4& This is an interesting account in that we fin! humans attempting to clothe themsel(es, but ob(iously %o! was not please! with their choices, as later we fin! that %o! ma!e new clothes for them& %en 5 *3 recor!s that %o! ma!e coats of s.in' for them to wear& The wor! coats in this (erse is the :ebrew wor! kethoneth an! means a long shirt)li.e

4|Page

garment&'M Interestingly, 0oses, un!er the inspiration of the :oly Spirit, chose the e1act same wor! to !escribe the specific type of clothing that %o! ma!e for both 6!am an! D(e& Where is the !istinction here? If %o! chose to ma.e so little !istinction between a man/s an! woman/s clothes that a single wor! can !escribe the specific clothing worn both by 6!am an! D(e, then who are we to re,uire a greater !istinction? "ater, throughout the #l! an! Hew Testament, common !ress consiste! of two separate pieces& In the #l! Testament, the first part of the 8ewish costume was still the kethoneth such as was worn by 6!am an! D(e& In the Hew Testament, this garment is calle! chiton in the %ree. an! is often translate! as coatin the 7ing 8ames 9ersion Bible& 6ccor!ing to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the .ethoneth?chiton was, Na long)slee(e! tunic worn o(er the sa!hin, li.ewise a shirt with slee(es&&& :ere the Gcoat/ ;:ebrew G7Thohneth4 was the or!inary inner garment Gworn by the 8ew of the !ay, in which he !i! the wor. of the !ay ;see 0t *B 3EA 0. 35 3L4& It resemble! the $oman tunic, correspon!ing most nearly to our Glong shirt,/ reaching below the .nees always, an! in case it was !esigne! for !ress occasions, reaching almost to the groun!&' E Eastons Bible Dictionary states that this basic garment was worn by both men an! women The Gcoat/ ;.ethoneth4, of wool, cotton, or linen, was worn by both se1es&' Eastons further states that, The robes of men an! women were not (ery much !ifferent in form from each other&' I The secon! part of the common 8ewish costume was the outer garment&' Throughout the #l! an! Hew Testaments, the outer garment (arie! in si<e, shape an! purpose& It is gi(en (arious names ;both in the original :ebrew an! in translation4 an! is use! in a (ariety of ways& This outer garment was commonly use! to co(er the hea! of both men an! women ;cf& $uth 5 3+, * Sam 3+ 5F4 an! was also commonly wrappe! aroun! the shoul!ers ;cf& Isa 5 **4& While the outer garment ser(e! many purposes an! was at times use! in !ifferent ways by men an! women, the way it was use! was not consistent with either se1& The garment itself !oes not appear to ha(e been ma!e functionally !ifferent to any significant !egree, an! the !istinctions between the male an! female outer garments were merely stylistic ;i&e& color, trim, si<e, etc&4& In light of the ample information we ha(e on male an! female garments in the Bible, it is har! to 2ustify the ra!ical !istinction between men/s an! women/s clothing re,uire! by -hristians that forbi! women from wearing pants& There is no e(i!ence that such a ra!ical !istinction e1iste! in biblical times& While there was a !ifference in men/s an! women/s clothing in the scriptures, these !ifferences were merely stylistic an! not functional !ifferences& The !ifferences were only foun! in color, trim, si<e, etc& an! not in the actual form or function of the clothing as is seen in pants an! s.irts or !resses& The !ifferences between men/s an! women/s pants to!ay are as great as the

5|Page

!ifferences between men/s an! women/s garments in the Bible& Dssentially, -hristians to!ay that forbi! women from wearing pants !eman! a !ifference in form an! function in men/s an! women/s clothing, whereas the Bible only recor!s a stylistic !ifference& This amounts to a!!ing to %o!/s Wor! an! placing re,uirements on our sisters in the "or! that the Bible !oes not support& 0any that forbi! women to wear pants argue that if it is acceptable for women to wear pants, then it shoul! be acceptable for a man to wear a !ress or a s.irt& This is a (ali! point& :owe(er, there is no inherent sin in a man putting on a s.irt)li.e garment, which is a common practice in some cultures aroun! the worl! 2ust as it was in the Bible& The error woul! be in the fact that a man wearing a s.irt in mo!ern 6merican society woul! be !eeme! as counter)culture to the (ery people we, as -hristians, are trying to be e1amples to )) namely unbelie(ers& :owe(er, women wearing pants is har!ly counter)culture& While there was once a time in our society when a woman in pants woul! ha(e been (iewe! negati(ely by society, such is not the case to!ay& Is that because society/s morals ha(e !ecline!, an! it no longer sees women in pants as the sin that it is? #f course not, it is merely a change in fashion& 8ust because society ha! a particular (iew in the past, !oes not mean that such a (iew was inherently more moral& Kor! once ma!e only blac. cars an! refuse! to ma.e any other color& To!ay, Kor!s come in e(ery color un!er the sun& Was that the result of some sort of moral bac.sli!ing? Ho, it is 2ust that society's tastes ha(e change!& In $enaissance Durope, sil. hosiery were consi!ere! appropriate attire for men, yet to!ay they are !eeme! as feminine& -hanges in style an! fashion aren/t inherently sinful an! most of the time only reflect a change in taste& Women/s pants are no !ifferent& Women !i! not start wearing pants as a means of rebellion or to be more manly' but because they were more comfortable an! functional& Kashion has been mo(ing in the !irection of more function an! less style for well o(er a century now& This is e(i!ence! most recently by the fact that suits an! ties are much less common in the wor.place now, ha(ing been replace! by .ha.is an! button)up shirts& Does that signal some moral !ecline? 6bsolutely not )) it only reflects a tren! in fashion for more basic an! functional clothing 2ust as women/s fashions !i! in mo(ing towar! pants& It is important that we !o not ha(e a .nee)2er. reaction to e(ery change in fashion& -learly, some are in!icati(e of moral !ecline, but many are not& 6s with e(erything, changes in fashion must be weighe! against biblical truths to ma.e the !etermination& In short, the issue of clothing must always be carefully, thoughtfully an! honestly stu!ie! from a scriptural perspecti(e while allowing the scriptures to be the ultimate authority on such issues& 6 thorough stu!y into the clothing norms of the Bible re(eals that there was no !istinction between men/s an! women/s clothing in the Bible beyon! stylistic !ifferences such as trim, color an! si<e& In fact, %o! :imself ma!e clothing for 6!am an! D(e that was so similar that one wor! ;kethoneth4 coul! !escribe the specific garment he ma!e for each of them& This same wor! !escribes the clothing worn by %o!ly men an! women throughout the Bible from the #l! Testament to the Hew Testament& Jet to!ay, many -hristians !eman! much more than e(en the Bible !i! by re,uiring not only a !ifference in style but a !ifference in function an! form as well& If %o! ma.es no such clothing !eman!s on :is people, then who are we to ma.e them? Do we .now better than %o!?