New Page 1

Let My Women Go

(Do Godly Women Wear Pants?)

Chuck Burke

This book is dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ, whose name is above all names, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, without whom eternity in the Lake of Fire is my portion. All credit, all honour, all praise, and all glory be His alone, forever and ever. Amen.

More precious than my own life, is my gem of a wife, without whom I would most assuredly be a failure in life and in the ministry. The very universe could not contain the rubies to value her.

All Scripture quotations are from the Authorized King James Bible. Copyright 1611, The Lord Jesus Christ, who will "freely give us all things."

Introduction

After pastoring in my current position for a couple of years, I happened to be in the company of a young woman that I had known for quite some time, but had not spoken with since I had been pastoring. After the initial pleasantries, she began to inquire about the state of my church. She asked me if it was an Independent Baptist church and I answered that of course it was. Then she asked me if it was a "real" Independent Baptist church.

I was very intrigued by the question, not because I don't consider myself a "real" Independent Baptist, but because I wasn't sure what she meant. I replied, "what is a 'real' Independent Baptist church?"

Now, let me state emphatically that this young woman is one of the finest, brightest, godliest young women I have ever known. If one of my sons wanted to marry a young lady just like her I would be thrilled to give my permission.

But, her question struck a chord within me. I was curious. I assumed a "real" Independent Baptist church to be one that stood on the King James Bible. Or maybe one that believed in eternal security. Or even one that was pre-trib and pre-mill. Or possibly one that was literally independent and autonomous, not belonging to any affiliation nor association whatsoever. Sadly, I was not even close.

She lowered the boom on me: "I mean, do your women wear pants?"

Now I understand why she asked. I even believe she said it without any hostility or ill intent towards me. I should have expected it, but I just didn't. I honestly thought some of these aforementioned elements were critical in defining a "real" Independent Baptist church. Certainly, I believed (and still do) that they were many times more necessary to the virtue of a church than "Do your women wear pants?"

Even though we ended up semi-debating the subject for the next few minutes I knew I would not convince her of my position, nor was that my intent. I just thought it was ludicrous to define a "real" Independent Baptist church, or any other church for that matter, by whether the women wore pants, when there are so many other issues that are critical to being a "real" church. That is one reason I have written this book.

There was a young lady who visited our church one Sunday. She filled out a visitor's card and one of my men and I went to see her the following Tuesday night. Upon dispensing with pleasantries I asked her what brought her to our church. She replied that she had been an Independent Baptist for some years before but had for the last few years been attending another affiliated Baptist church. She commented at how much she enjoyed the preaching and the teaching at our church and how she had missed the hard preaching that she used to get. She asked me if she might ask a couple of questions. "Of course you may," I replied, "what would you like to know?"

"Do you believe that it is OK for a woman to wear pants?" she asked rather hesitantly and a little sheepishly.

"Yes," came my reply.

There was a pause and then a, "You do?"

"Absolutely."

"But, you are an Independent Baptist preacher, aren't you supposed to believe that women must be in dresses only?"

"It's not scriptural," I said, "and therefore I reject it. You see, ma'am, I believe the Bible. This one right here in my hand. If this Bible says that you can't wear pants, then I am obligated to tell you that. But, it doesn't, so I wouldn't dare tell you that."

She sighed like a deflating balloon. "Where have you been hiding all these years," she asked. "How could I have missed you?"

She went on to tell me how she had attended a good local Independent Baptist church for a number of years. They were soul-winning, bus-running, fire and brimstone-preaching, fried chicken-eating Baptists. She loved the church. But, she hated the fact that she was forced to wear dresses all the time. She hated even more the fact that it was never revealed scripturally, to her satisfaction, why this was being imposed upon her and the other women. Even when she asked the pastor he never pointed her to where the Bible says a woman should never wear pants. There was an appeal made to the "eyes of a man," or the "revealing of the shape of the body," or to "modesty," but never to the scriptural proof that she needed. It was just supposed to be accepted and "understood" as you "grew spiritually."

This is the second reason for this writing. There are far too many women in Independent Baptist (and other conservative though non-Baptist) churches that are in the same dilemma as this precious young lady.

She eventually left that church, being forced to go overseas for a few years and upon her return had the choice to return to that same Independent Baptist church. She would not. She could not. She did not. Why not? Because of the "bondage" she felt due exclusively to the "dresses-only code" followed in the church. Because of this, she languished in a rotten, liberal, NIV-reading church, unwilling to put herself under the dress code again. (The liberal pastor of this church was not long before this writing arrested for soliciting an undercover police officer whom he mistakenly believed was a prostitute.)

My experience has been that her story is not so nearly unique. It is repeated over and over by women all over America. And most of those ladies that feel "stuck" in dresses-only churches are miserable. Many others simply solve the problem by not adhering to the code unless they are at a church function or event.

Many would like to speak out, but even when the subject is broached they are almost always silent, being afraid to stand against their peers and the church establishment, for fear of being branded "rebellious" or "weak" spiritually. This is the state of many women in conservative, fundamental churches today; they feel just like the Israelites under Egyptian bondage.

I consider myself a Bible-believer, as do most people who know me. I believe the Bible. I believe it word for word, letter for letter, jot for jot, and tittle for tittle. The Word of God today is the King James Bible. There is nothing else. Where Scripture is used or consulted, it is with the King James Bible alone that I will make my case. I will not appeal to any "greek," be it helpful or hurtful to my case, for to do so is not only unnecessary, but inconsistent as well. If God wrote His Word perfectly in English (and He did) then that is good enough for me. And if it is perfect in English (and it is) then how can it be improved upon or corrected by some outmoded, dead language? It can't.

This book will deal with the issue of women and pants from a number of different perspectives in order to attempt to cover the entirety of the subject. I endeavor to present a complete analysis of the controversial issues. But, no matter which side of this issue the reader finds himself on at this point, would he or she please pause and pray, asking the Holy Ghost for His wisdom and guidance before we begin to search this matter.

Finding God's Answer

To some people this topic will seem superfluous. Why is he writing on such a non-issue some may ask? While some may not personally understand the magnitude of this subject, to many this issue literally dominates their everyday life. Be assured that in churches all over America it is a very separatist doctrine.

Please understand before we begin, that God either permits women to wear pants today or He does not. There is really no middle ground. I pray the reader will agree that the answer lies solely with the Lord, as all answers do.

My question to you, dear reader, is this: Do you really want God's answer or not? If God says "women must never wear pants" would you accept that wholeheartedly as God's answer and abide by it? And, if God says "women may wear pants" would you accept that just as readily?

Why do I ask this? Simply put, the Bible says that if you want an answer from God on anything, you must be willing to accept that answer, whatever it is, when it is given, and act upon that answer faithfully in your life. Otherwise, God will not answer.

You see, God knows your heart:

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. [Jeremiah 17:10]

He knows your mind:

The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. [Psalms 94:11]

He knows what you are going to think before you think it:

Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. [Psalms 139:2]

He knows every thing that comes into your mind, no matter how large or small, and no matter how long it resides:

And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them. [Ezekiel 11:5]

God also knows your intent:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. [Hebrews 4:12]

You will not be able to "fake God out."

You must have a willing mind first, if God is going to give you an answer:

For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. [2 Corinthians 8:12]

Without a willingness to act upon God's answer, whatever it happens to be, regardless of the consequences, you will never receive that answer.

David understood this concept:

I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart. 33 Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end. 34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. [Psalms 119:32-34]

Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear. [Psalms 119:38]

Thou art my portion, O LORD: I have said that I would keep thy words. [Psalms 119:57]

I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. [Psalms 119:100]

The key to getting the wisdom and understanding of God is accepting what He gives and applying it to your life. God will not waste His time answering someone He knows does not really want His truth, nor would that person be willing to act upon it. If you come looking for your pet answer, that's just what you'll get. If this sounds like you, don't expect God to answer you.

And God does want to give his sincerely searching children the answers they seek:

Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. [Ephesians 5:17]

Dear reader, please be honest with yourself and with the Lord right now. Do you really want God's answer? Are you willing to act upon it, whatever it happens to be? I pray that God, who knows the thoughts and intents of the heart, will answer you according to your willingness to submit unto His answer.

That brings us to an interesting problem, one I feel the Devil is using to devour and divide God's people today. Most people today do not believe the Bible. Rather, they want to interpret the Bible. These are not the same thing. God is not amused with "private interpretation."

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [2 Peter 1:20]

Man is not at liberty to interpret the Bible his way. No "private interpretation" is acceptable to the Lord, no matter whose it might be. God didn't write Scripture for man to interpret, He wrote it for man to believe. Interpretation is necessary when a language is being used that is not understood by the hearer. When the hearer is perfectly able to understand the language being spoken (or as in this case written) no interpretation is necessary. The hearer (or reader) need only decide whether or not to believe that which was spoken.

Daniel acknowledged this:

And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you. [Genesis 40:8]

Pharaoh attempted to ascribe power to Joseph to interpret and likewise Joseph also denied that he had any power to interpret:

And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it. 16 And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace. [Genesis 41:15-16]

Daniel reacted in exactly the same way:

The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? 27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king; 28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; [Daniel 2:26-28]

The problem that causes frequent doctrinal collisions today is glaringly evident when examining these passages. Interpretation doesn't belong to men, but to God alone. People want to ascribe interpretation to men (themselves mostly) when it does not belong there. "That's just your interpretation" is the biggest cop-out this side of a strike by the New York City police force. It is God's interpretation that matters, and not man's. So, I contend that the real issue is:

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. [Galatians 4:30]

Notice it is not what meaneth the Scripture, but what saith the Scripture. The problem for men is not in understanding the Bible. It is most times quite easy to understand. The problem comes when it is time to believe it.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. [Acts 17:11]

It is time for God's people to follow the example of the Bereans. It is time to put away "well I think," and "well I feel," and "that's just your interpretation." It is time to search the Scriptures to see if they say these things be so.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. [2 Timothy 2:15]

Why should we study? To show ourselves "approved unto God"! So, let's find out what He wants. Christian, are you willing to let God give you His interpretation?

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. [Romans 3:4]

Notice the little overlooked phrase "as it is written." God's truth is written! Man is a liar with impure motives, thoughts, and words. When man speaks, no matter what he says (unless he is directly quoting Scripture), there is always the possibility (and most times the probability) that he is lying. The critical question for every Christian is this: Can you believe the Bible "as it is written" or do you need man's interpretation to help God out?

Doctrine

Question Number One: Is it doctrinally wrong, and therefore unscriptural, for a woman to wear pants?

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. [Deuteronomy 22:5]

This single verse is almost the entirety of the scriptural argument against a woman wearing pants. If not the entirety of the scriptural case, then certainly the bulk and the cornerstone. This is inevitably true because this command is nowhere repeated in Scripture and certainly not in the New Testament; it stands by itself. Although every Bible verse is true (as is this one), certainly one verse is a very shaky foundation for such a "critical" doctrine, especially one that makes a church a "real" Independent Baptist church. Why aren't there 10 or 50 or even 100 references to point to, like there are for eternal security? The fact is we do not stand so strongly on any other single verse in the Bible, when that verse bears no other scriptural support, especially New Testament scriptural support. Only cults do this (see baptism of the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 as used by the Mormons). Deuteronomy 22:5 literally stands alone as the beginning and ending of the "women should not wear pants" argument.

Knowing this, the inference is made by some today that pants are clothes for men only and hence for a woman to wear them makes her an abomination unto the Lord. Is a woman that wears a pair of pants, regardless of the level of her spiritual maturity or the closeness of her walk with the Lord, automatically and unequivocally an "abomination unto the Lord"? Let's examine what the Bible says.

Notice the word "pertaineth" in Deuteronomy 22:5. What does pertaineth mean? It is critical because understanding this word will help us determine what God says a woman shall not wear.

Listed are the first seven Bible references to the word pertain or one of its variants, excluding our study text.

But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. [Leviticus 7:20]

- This seems to have the meaning of belonging or property.

Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. [Leviticus 7:21]

- This has the same meaning.

This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing. [Leviticus 14:32]

- This seems have the meaning "is necessary for."

And to the office of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest pertaineth the oil for the light, and the sweet incense, and the daily meat offering, and the anointing oil, and the oversight of all the tabernacle, and of all that therein is, in the sanctuary, and in the vessels thereof. [Numbers 4:16]

- This seems to agree with the first two mentions.

(Now the half that pertained unto the congregation was three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep, [Numbers 31:43]

- This seems to agree with the first two also.

And Eleazar the son of Aaron died; and they buried him in a hill that pertained to Phinehas his son, which was given him in mount Ephraim. [Joshua 24:33]

- As does this. The hill 'belonged to' Phinehas.

Notice that each time the word is mentioned it is used in conjunction with the word "to" or "unto," thereby specifying ownership. In fact, in each case you will notice that the ownership is definite and exclusive. That which "pertained" to the Lord certainly didn't "pertain" to anyone else. And Phinehas' hill didn't "pertain" to anyone else either, as he was the owner.

And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abi-ezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites. [Judges 6:11]

This oak was on the property which belonged to (pertained unto) Joash the Abi-ezrite.

So, our word "pertain," defined Biblically, means "to be the exclusive property of or belong solely to." Let's see what the Webster's 1828 Dictionary says...

PERTAIN, v.i. 1. To belong; to be the property, right or duty of.

Pretty accurate I would say. Isn't the Bible amazing?

So, we can conclude expressly that what God said and meant in Deuteronomy 22:5 is that a woman should not wear that which is the exclusive property of or belongs solely to a man.

That brings up an interesting dilemma. Are pants the "exclusive" property of men?

Let's see what the Bible says.

A search for the word "pants" or "pantaloons" (of which pants is a shortened form) turns up no references. Trousers (or trowsers) also turns up no references.

Hence, the appeal is made to the word "breeches." Breeches is found in the Bible as an article of clothing five times. Let's examine them.

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 for ever unto him and his seed after him. [Exodus 28:42-43]

And they made coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons, 28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen, [Exodus 39:27-28]

And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. [Leviticus 6:10]

He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. [Leviticus 16:4]

They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat. [Ezekiel 44:18]

The argument goes something like this..."Seeeeee, they are only for men."

Noooooo, they are only for priests.

"But, the priests were always men."

True, but normal men are never, ever, not even once mentioned in the Bible as wearing breeches. These were not men's clothes at all, they were priestly garments. Therefore, these garments do not "pertain to" (are not the exclusive property of) men, but rather "pertain to" (or are the exclusive property of) priests. This is called letting God give His interpretation, instead of using any pet "private interpretation." This is what the Bible says. This is otherwise known as truth. That still small voice is God speaking. I wonder how many are actually listening?

The garments also had several specific characteristics. (See the verses above.)

1) They were holy garments. (Normal men did not wear holy garments.)

2) They were to prevent, or collect, sweat.

3) They were worn "upon his flesh." In other words, they were worn over nothing. They were the first garment put on and closest to the skin.

4) They were to cover the nakedness.

5) Lastly, let's see the length of these "breeches." They were from the loins even unto the thighs. They ran from the waist down through the thighs. (They had to cover the thigh to cover the nakedness.)

Have you realized yet what these breeches really were? They were underwear! They were never an external garment to be seen by anyone. Breeches, by a strict Biblical definition, are underwear. Anyone looking at this honestly, for the truth, will have to admit this.

I have a question. Do women wear underwear? Of course they do. Well, what are they doing wearing underwear? These are "men's clothes"!

One will surely say, "there is a difference between men's underwear and women's underwear!" I'm glad he said that. Because, by saying that, he just admitted that there is a difference between men's breeches and women's breeches today. Furthermore, in logical conclusion, he just admitted there is such a thing as women's breeches today. If he disagrees, then he'd better get his ladies to remove their underwear and promise God they will no longer wear them. Do you think that will be the next thing to stand against, ladies in underwear?

But, the argument persists, "pants were invented for men." (Show me that in the Word of God. It can't be done.) While I may in principle agree with that, the Bible does not say that. But, also please realize how many other things in this world were "invented for men." Do you know that voting was invented for men? When was the last time a woman you knew voted? Does the Bible teach women not to vote? Is that doctrine thundering from our pulpits today? The driver's license was also originally intended for men. Have you ever seen a woman driving? (If you do, assume she has a license and never ask to see it, for a true lady never allows the picture on her license to be seen!) Working outside the home was intended for men also. Do you know women who do that? In fact, God has kept up with that one, reminding us in the New Testament that women should be "keepers at home" according to Titus 2:5. Where is the preaching against the ungodly practice of women working outside the home? Where are the "women in dresses" that are "keepers at home"? Oh, there are certainly some, but not most. Most women work outside of the home today. Hark, do I hear cries of "foul! Things are different today. God understands that a woman has to work sometimes"? Is that what men think, or is that what God says? Hmmmm.

It is admitted that Noah Webster defined "pantaloons" this way in his 1828 dictionary...

PANTALOON, n. 1. A garment for males in which breeches and stockings are in a piece; a species of close long trousers extending to the heels.

Notice, that pantaloons are defined as being for males. Also notice that they are not just breeches, but breeches plus stockings in one piece. Things that are different are not the same! How many understand that with no further explanation needed?

If the reader believes the criteria for the determining of what a man or woman may or may not wear today, be the old definition from 1828 (or 1611 or whenever), then I have a few questions for him.

1) Have you ever seen a man in a "bonnet"?

BONNET, n.1. A covering for the head, in common use before the introduction of hats. The word, as now used, signifies a cover for the head, worn by females, close at the sides, and projecting over the forehead.

Did you notice that they are worn by females? If "pantaloons" are "for men only" then "bonnets" are "for women only." Funny thing though, God has certainly seen men in bonnets:

And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty. [Exodus 28:40]

Uh oh. These "bonnets" are Biblically worn by men, yet Noah Webster says they are for women. Is that abomination, or did something change? I doubt seriously many churches consider women that wear bonnets an abomination to God. I think maybe something has changed.

Notice that Mr. Webster uses the phrase "the word as now used." This is exactly what has occurred with respect to pants. The word as now used signifies a man's or a woman's garment, regardless of what it used to mean.

2) Do the godly men you know wear girdles? God's did.

And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons. [Exodus 29:9]

I think some things have changed. Do you think God is upset that men aren't wearing any girdles today and that women are? Is a woman that wears a girdle an "abomination" for wearing "that which pertaineth unto a man"? Of course not.

Jonathan, David, and Elijah, all wore girdles.

And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. [1 Samuel 18:4]

And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite. [II Kings 1:8]

3) Do the godly women you know wear shirts?

SHIRT, n. A loose garment of linen, cotton or other material, worn by men and boys next [to] the body.

Whoa, are you saying that shirts are only for men and boys? No, I'm not. Noah Webster is. My question is, why then do the women of today wear them when they were clearly invented for men and boys only?

I can almost hear the chorus "Oh, but our ladies don't wear shirts, they wear blouses." The problem is that blouses did not exist in 1828. The word "blouse" did not even exist in 1828. Neither is blouse a Bible word.

To wear a man's shirt and simply change its name to a blouse does not fool anybody. One could simply rename women's pants as "purls" (pants for girls) and wear them. Picture a woman wearing pants to a "no pants" church one Sunday morning. Suppose that one of the "faithful ladies" in the church confronts her (which we all know never happens). She could just say, "Silly, these aren't pants, these are purls." Do you think for one instant that her "purls" would be acceptable to that church? Can a pig fly? Neither is God fooled by the word blouse.

Here comes the next plea, "But, they button differently than men's shirts!"

I'm sorry, I never really seem to notice that right off. How closely does one have to look to be sure that the "blouse" buttons correctly? And can we use that for the international bathroom door picture instead of the dress-clad stick figure? What? You mean it isn't quite that easy to see the difference? I'm sorry, I thought I heard someone say once or twice that God wanted a clear difference. I thought we were supposed to immediately be able to tell the difference between a man's and a woman's garment, even from a distance. Isn't that what is parroted by the dresses-only crowd? When do we hire the "shirt police," replete with magnifying glass and search warrants? And we'd better hire a bunch of them, because I know some boys that'll be mighty upset when one of those magnifying glasses gets close to his wife! Talk about your high-risk occupation! Kamikaze pilots had a safer job!

4) Do the godly men in your church wear skirts? God's men did.

Here is the first Bible mention of the skirt. It is a man's skirt.

A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt. [Deuteronomy 22:30]

Ruth told Boaz:

And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman. [Ruth 3:9]

Samuel wore a skirt.

And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. [1 Samuel 15:27]

So did Saul.

And it came to pass afterward, that David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul's skirt. [1 Samuel 24:5]

So did God, and He is a male!

Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. [Ezekiel 16:8]

This one is even modern!

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you. [Zechariah 8:23]

Do women wear skirts? Of course they do. Are skirts for women or men? Well, they are only worn by men in the Bible.

The typical dress-defense quote goes something like this; "there is not one instance of a woman wearing breeches in the Bible, therefore they are men's clothing." If that is your argument, then hear this: There is not one verse in the entire Bible about a woman wearing a "dress" or a "skirt" and yet you claim they pertain to women. Show me that in the Book. You can't. (Lam 1:9 is talking about Israel and not a woman.) In fact, by a Bible definition similar to the one used for "pants," "skirts" are exclusively men's clothing and yet ladies wear them all the time! Is this abomination too?

SKIRT, n. 1. The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle. 1 Sam.15. 2. The edge of any part of dress. 3. Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town. 4. A woman's garment like a petticoat. 5 The diaphragm or midriff in animals.

How did a skirt become exclusively that which pertaineth to a woman today? Did God change that? Nope, man did. "But, they are different skirts," she says. I'm glad she said that. NOW HEAR THIS: Bible "breeches" are not the "pants" of today either! If you try to apply the "no pants doctrine" today without abiding by all of this other Scripture also, then, my friend, you are a hypocrite.

5) Do your women wear vests? Is it OK for a woman to wear a vest?

VEST, n. 1. An outer garment. 2. In common speech, a man's under garment; a short garment covering the body, but without sleeves, worn under the coat; called also waistcoat.

6) Do you know women that wear coats?

COAT, n. 1. An upper garment, of whatever material it may be made. The word is, in modern times, generally applied to the garment worn by men next over the vest.

Where is the "men's clothing" crowd on these items? How can anybody stand on just the single statement from Deuteronomy 22:5, applying it to pants alone, and ignore all this other evidence? It must be that they have never seen these things (as I had not). Other than that single excuse, I'm not sure I want to know.

Answer Number One: The Bible never, not in any verse, not in any book, not in any testament, claims that pants on a woman is doctrinally wrong. Therefore the "interpretation" that they are, is based on man's motives, man's mind set, and man's interpretation. God is truth. Man is a liar. Whom will you believe?

Application

Question Number Two: Is Deuteronomy 22:5 binding upon the Church today?

Who is this verse written to? Is it written to me in the 21st century church age? Let's see. Let's examine the context for some other things we should be doing if Deuteronomy 22:5 is binding upon us today.

When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. [Deuteronomy 22:8]

When was the last time you saw a new house built with a battlement? (A roof wall so nobody can climb over nor fall off.) Why aren't all Christian houses built that way today? One will surely say, "well brother, people don't utilize their roof the same way today. We don't put people on the roof any more unless they are roofers." Ohhhhhh I see. Then things have changed a little bit since this was written. Good, I'm glad we agree.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. [Deuteronomy 22:11]

Do men today wear garments of divers sorts? Like maybe, denim? "Well," one says, "that doesn't apply to us." Good, I'm glad you agree.

Let's quickly address one of the favorite replies to this verse. It goes something like this: "There is a chemical reaction that is present when certain fabrics are mixed together and God didn't want his people to get sick from it."

Uh huh. Chapter and verse please. Now reader, certainly you've known someone infected by the dreaded, deadly "blue jean flu"! You haven't? Me either. Although a guy told me he saw an alien in jeans once. He was with Elvis. And they both had the blue jean flu.

Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself. [Deuteronomy 22:12]

Do we have those fringes on all our clothing today? Certainly not. "But," she says, "this was written to them back then and pertained to them." Good, I'm glad she agrees.

Here it comes, the last-ditch defense mechanism of the "real" Christians kicks straight in. "Oh, but those are only the 'ceremonial law'. We are still bound by the 'moral law'." Okay, if they insist, but I have some relevant questions.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. [Deuteronomy 22:22]

Does that apply in the church? That's the moral law! Do we kill the adulterous offenders? Of course not, we discipline them. That is the New Testament way. Notice that God says this was intended for Israel and not for the church.

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: [Deuteronomy 21:15]

How many men in our churches have two wives? "That's polygamy," one says, "and God doesn't allow that today." True, but isn't that the moral law? Well? Shhhhhhh, listen carefully. Is that stammering one hears? Or just silence?

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. [Deuteronomy 21:18-21]