[cuppett777]

"Well, preacher, I don't believe that." Well, you can believe what you want, but the fact is simply this, in the Bible days, women did not wear crotched garments. Pants have a crotch. Men in the Bible days wore crotch garments. Not only that, women in any society did not wear pants until close to the middle of this century. Pants are called britches in the Bible, and britches were worn exclusively by men for the first 5,950 years of human existence (which means up until about fifty years ago). Even the garments worn by men and women in Bible days were different. The woman wore a long flowing robe, and men wore a shorter and tighter robe. Underneath the woman's robe would be nothing. Underneath the man's robe would be a pair of short pants that would go down to the knees. Whenever a man would have to do some type of labor, such as to team up an ox, pull a trailer or dig a hole, he would pull up his skirt and tuck it in his pants that were under his skirt, and that was called in the Bible "girding up your loins."



"Well, back in the Bible days all the women and men wore robes." Yes, but they were different robes. Under the man's robe was a pair of pants. The pair of pants was not under the lady's robes. The pants, or britches, were worn only by the men. You will never read in the Bible where britches were worn by women, but will read where they were worn by men.



Another reason we know that pants are a man's apparel and not woman's is common sense. Do you realize that you can get off an airplane in any country in the world, and if they do not speak English and you do not know their language, you will know which bathroom you were supposed to go to. Go in an airport terminal, go to the bathroom and you will see a picture on the bathroom door. It doesn't matter if you are in Russia, France, Portugal, the United States or Mexico, there will be a sign on the door it will have a picture on it. It will either have a picture of someone in slacks or someone in a skirt. Now, if you are a lady, which of those two doors will you walk through? And if you are a man, which of those two doors will you walk through? I doubt that even the rankest feminist would walk into the bathroom that would have the picture of a person in pants. Common sense tells us that pants are a man's apparel. It amazes me that a woman would be appalled of just the thought of a man wearing a dress, but yet, men and women think nothing of a woman wearing pants. There was a fashion designer a few years back who decided he was going to come out with a line of dresses for men. The idea wasn't very popular, so he gets himself an appearance on the Phil Donahue show. Phil brought all these male models out, wearing the dresses designed just for men, they paraded them around the stage on the show, and all the women thought this was vulgar. And, when Phil went into the audience with a microphone, many of the women made statements that they though it was preposterous that a man would want to wear a dress. "Don't these men know any better? Don't they have any self-respect? Don't they have any concept of manhood, that they would parade around in a dress?" And Phil Donahue said something that showed that he had more spiritual discernment than most Baptists do. He said, "Well, they said the same thing fifty years ago, when women started wearing pants."



So the first reason why a preacher says a woman should not wear pants is because they are a man's garment, and the Bible says it is an abomination for a woman to wear a man's garment. The second reason, pants are not, I repeat, not modest. "Well preacher, that is your opinion." Yes, but, I can prove it from the Bible. In First Timothy 2:9, we read that women should adorn themselves in "modest apparel." In the Greek, the word for modest is the word katastolh (katastole), and it means a long flowing garment. Remember I said that in the Bible days, men wore a short tight skirt and women wore a long and flowing robe. That was a katastole. The Bible in First Timothy 2:9 tells women to adorn themselves in a long flowing garment, not a short, tight garment. That is what modest is, long and flowing. Pants do not flow. I have never yet seen a pair of pants that flow. Therefore, even if "long," they do not qualify as a long flowing garment. And since they are not a long flowing garment, they are not a katastole. Katastole is translated modest. Therefore, if a modest garment is a long flowing garment, and pants do not flow, pants are not modest.