The Tav Blog

My wife wrote this. I agree with her.

===========================================

This paper should be considered only by those who desire to obey God in every detail, no matter what the cost. If you only want to concern yourself with the major commandments, this is not for you. This command is found in only one place in Scripture. And obeying it is costly. If you become convinced about not wearing pants, you have to have the strength of character that is willing to stand alone and obey God, no matter what everyone else thinks.

We should all come to Scripture with a heart that says to God, “What do You want me to believe and what do You want me to do? I will do it whether I want to or not.”

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.” Deut. 22:5

The plain sense of the verse is straightforward. There are clothes that should be strictly for women, and there are clothes that should be strictly for men. Women should not wear men’s clothes, and men should not wear women’s clothes. If you do, you are an abomination to God.

When people begin with a mind already made up that they don’t want to hear this or do this, and granted, for women, it is costly to implement, they reach for interpretations to explain it away. But the context gives no reason to interpret it differently. It is in a group of miscellaneous laws. The previous verse deals with helping your brother whose donkey has fallen down. The following verse is about birds’ nests.

Sometimes we do not interpret a verse according to its plain obvious sense if that does not comport with the rest of Scripture. But maintaining gender distinction in clothing does agree with the rest of Scripture. There is a great emphasis in the Bible on how males and females, though equally precious in God’s sight, have different and distinct roles. This verse echoes that theme by requiring it to be reflected in distinctive dress. Our present culture does not like the idea of distinctive gender roles. It is no surprise that it does not like the idea of distinctive gender dress. In fact, our culture is trying to blur all distinction in gender, and this is reflected in how we dress.

The two most common interpretations that people use to bypass the plain sense of the verse are that it refers to idolatrous pagan worship or to women wearing armor (meaning women should not be soldiers). Some reputable commentaries, such as John Gill, agree that these are among the many applications of this verse, but they do not exclude the primary basic meaning of the text.

Some people are wary of applying an Old Testament verse to today. As reformed Christians, we have all been taught that there are three categories of Old Testament laws. The ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ. This law is clearly not ceremonial. The civil law was for the nation of Israel only. The moral law is binding for all history. Up until the 20^th century, this verse has always been interpreted to be part of the moral law. For example, John Calvin, Matthew Poole, and Matthew Henry all considered it grounded in the Creation order (“He created them male and female.” Gen 1:27) and therefore of continuing validity.

Commentaries of Famous Bible Scholars on Deut 22:5

• John Gill (1748)

 “Since in nature a difference of sexes is made, it is proper and necessary that this should be known by differences of dress, or otherwise many evils might follow; and this precept is agreeably to the law and light of nature.”

• Matthew Poole (1853)

 “Now this is forbidden that men might not confound those sexes which God has distinguished.”

• Keil and Delitzsch, famous Hebrew scholars (1864)

 “As the property of a neighbor 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 clothes 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.

The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness or to oppose idolatrous practices, 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 is unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God.”

• Albert Barnes (1870)

“The distinction between sexes is natural and divinely established and cannot be neglected without indecorum and consequent danger to purity.”

Until 20^th century western civilization, all cultures have had a distinction between male and female dress, from the Hebrews to the Romans to India. And all cultures have been offended when this distinction is breached. A man wearing a skirt still carries some shock value in western society. However, the shock of seeing a woman in pants has long ago disappeared. It is still present in some underdeveloped places in the world, though, which is why some missionary women wear skirts instead of pants.

It is ironic that everyone brings up the Scots and their kilts. The Scots were proud of being very manly, and if you had told one of them he was wearing women’s clothes, you would probably have ended up in a fistfight. The skirts the Scottish women wore were floor length and were not called kilts.

Okay, so why isn’t it just enough for women to wear women’s pants and men to wear men’s pant? Well, if this is the best we can do, at least it’s a start. But though our egalitarian culture has had some success at eroding our symbols, skirts and dresses are still almost exclusively for women and are a symbol of women. Pants are a symbol of men. Styles in pants have been rather fluid. What was at one time considered a pants style for women, ten years later is worn by men.

If you want to pick something other than skirts vs. pants for your distinction in dress, it should be easily recognizable, consistent over at least a generation, and close to universally understood in your culture. Women’s pants and men’s pants are not dramatically different. They are more similar than different. Skirts and pants are dramatically different. They are more different than similar.

Twenty years ago, when my daughters and I were the only females we knew who never wore pants, some people thought we were crazy. Occasionally, I wondered if we were crazy. I no longer wonder that, in view of the current explosion of confusion about gender in our culture. There are moral implications to our clothing. What we wear makes a statement and has cultural impact. When I wear a dress, I am proclaiming that I am a woman.

If you want to fight the sin in our culture that stems from gender confusion, here are three things that, without a word, you can do. 

1. Pray.
2. If you are a man, wear short hair. If you are a woman, wear long hair. 1Cor 11
3. If you are a woman, wear skirts and dresses.