Adventist Online

Is it sin for women to wear trousers?

Deu 22:5  A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

Views: 487

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes Daniel quite true and there is a blurring of the borders indeed, as with other things about the borders between men and women. I see this as another sign of our times.  

......When told of their mistake, many will immediately exclaim, ‘Why, such a style of dress would be old-fashioned!’ What if it is? I wish we could be old-fashioned in many respects. If we could have the old-fashioned strength that characterized the old-fashioned women of past generations, it would be very desirable. I do not speak unadvisedly when I say that the way in which women clothe themselves, together with their indulgence of appetite, is the greatest cause of their present feeble, diseased condition. There is but one woman in a thousand who clothes her limbs as she should. Whatever may be the length of the dress, their limbs should be clothed as thoroughly as are the men’s. This may be done by wearing lined pants, gathered into a band and fastened about the ankle, or made full and tapering at the bottom; and these should come down long enough to meet the shoe. The limbs and ankles thus clothed are protected against a current of air. If the feet and limbs are kept comfortable with warm clothing, the circulation will be equalized, and the blood will remain pure and healthy because it is not chilled or hindered in its natural passage through the system.” {1T 460.3}

God designed that there should be a plain distinction between the dress of men and women, and has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it; for the same dress worn by both sexes would cause confusion and great increase of crime.34 {CG 427.3}

Then we have to ask what constitutes men's versus women's attires.  Both wore robes at the time.  Trousers can be a very practical thing, rather than a gender thing.

 Yes, for women, pants can be very practical under the dress. If a women is doing something that will not allow for a dress perhaps bull riding is for men. 

Even the world acknowledges the difference in gender apparel. Notice the symbol on the bathroom doors at the restaurants. Women's is with a dress and men's with pants. Today everything is blurred together.

I wish we would not ask the question in regard to things like this "is it a sin?" This tends to approach the matter from a minimal standard stand point. In other words, The view tends to be, "well, it may be not be wise but if it is not a sin I will do it anyway because I like to"

I think the symbols on the doors do their best to help the illiterate, and are more socially acceptable than images of the distinct genitalia of a particular gender on the door.

The fact remains that the dress is the apparel that most clearly differentiates the sexes. 

 It is interesting that there were " britches" in the Bible but women never wore them.

I know there were robes and tunics.  Britches are a new one on me.

Breeches are a part of priests' garment.  

"And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

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 for ever unto him and his seed after him." (Ex.28:42-43)

Jesus wore regular clothes, a robe, tunic and sandals, just like the the rest of His disciples and that is why Judas had to kiss Him to identify Him from the rest.

: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him. (Ex.28:42-43)

Thanks Stewart...

   Perhaps it is. Is someone trying to confuse the issue of women in jeans ? It is a sin to cross dress. The Bible is clear about that. Pants have clearly been established as men's clothing and they cloud the difference between the sexes. 

If kilts have been established as woman's dress in Scotland then yes it would definitely be a sin for a man to wear such. Even if it has not been, not all that culture does is correct. Consider a nudest colony. 

Is it a sin for a man to wear a dress ?

 The coin is two sided. It is not just about men. Part of the real issue is women wearing men's clothing and baiting at the same time. Your idea that they can do everything possible to seduce men and come away innocent is foolishness and it is not Biblical.

Wrong on comment #2 as well. There are plenty of women that also define this and it is not humorous.

You base correct apparel from what the Persian Empire did ? 

You say there is no sin in the clothing one wears. This is opinion alone. Scripture says otherwise as well as the SOP you hardly regard.

 The idea  that tempting another to sin is not sin is way off. It is true that men cannot excuse themselves  because they are tempted. Neither can women excuse themselves for being tempters and seducing men.

Are you sure you are not a woman in men's clothing ? You sound entirely one sided and I think you are Winging it.

 

     The SOP is only a stumbling stone for those who drag their feet.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service