By William R. Cunningham
June 4, 2000

One of the most common "laws" in the church community is that women are not allowed to wear pants or makeup in church. This church law is derived from 1 Timothy 2:8-10 along with other such scriptures. Let’s examine this church law now to see if it is really a Christian doctrine to be followed by all women. I will quote the scripture for convenience.

It appears that Paul is addressing two problems here; one dealing with the men of the church and the other dealing with the women. The men seem to have been quarreling with each other or possibly with the women too. The word doubting should be understood as meaning discussion, debate or dispute.

The women seem to have had a problem with propriety in public worship, that is, seeking to turn others’ heads. Most Jewish teachers allowed wives to adorn themselves for their husbands, but both Jewish and Greco-Roman moralists ridiculed women who decked themselves out to turn other men’s eyes. Jewish writings warn especially of the sexual temptation involved in such adornments; Greco-Roman writers also condemn wealthy women who show off their costly array. Hair was sometimes braided with gold, which Paul might have in view here; men were especially attracted by women’s decorated hair. Like most other writers who condemned such gaudiness, Paul should be understood as attacking excess, not as ruling against all adornment.

Greco-Roman moralists often stressed that it was inward adornment rather than outward adornment that would please a good husband; Paul concurs. See also 1 Peter 3:3-4.

Paul is not stating that women should not wear pants or even that all Christian women should refrain from wearing certain clothes to public worship except those that would attract attention to themselves. For example, we could apply this today by saying that women shouldn’t wear mini skirts or tight jeans to church if at possible.

The specifics Paul mentioned (braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes) are not wrong in themselves, but become inappropriate when they indicate misplaced values (see 1 Peter 3:3). In the Ephesian church these styles may have been associated with the local temple prostitutes or other undesirable entities. Though the specifics are not applicable for all times, the principle of Paul’s instructions are applicable for all time. Worship time is not a time for show or excess. The purpose of coming together is to worship God and have instruction in the faith and not to show off the new clothing, hair designs, etc.

Many churches have a rule that women are not supposed to wear pants to church. I recall that one reason for this is another rule that says that women shouldn’t wear men’s clothing. Let’s look at pants to see if this is really true or even biblical.

First of all, I have found no such rule in the New Testament. However, the Old Testament does contain such a restriction, or seemingly so at first glance.

Many people use this verse as the reason why women should not wear pants. They say that pants are men’s clothes and therefore if women wore pants then they would be breaking this commandment. Keep in mind that the commandment includes men not putting on women’s clothing as well. We will discuss that aspect later. Let’s examine this verse more closely with the use of various commentary that I have, which include the Believer’s Study Bible, New Commentary on the Whole Bible, Nelson Study Bible, and Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Old Testament.

• Slacks? This verse has sometimes been taken to rule out the wearing of slacks by women. Hardly. In biblical times both men and women wore loose-fitting robes—but designed differently for each of the sexes. The point of the verse is that we are not to confuse the sexes; each person is to gladly identify himself or herself as a man or woman. Each is to take pride in the person he or she is.

• The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man—��� ��� keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word ��� geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armor before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male’s attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.

• This verse is not primarily a reference to principles of fashion, as one clearly notes in the final clause. Rather this refers to the practice of transvestitism, i.e., a deviant sexual behavior which is exhibited in the adoption of dress and behavior unnatural for one’s own sex. The danger, perhaps, lies in its close association with homosexuality (cf. Lev 18:22 and 20:13, where the same word "abomination" occurs; see also Rom 1:24, note) and in the fact that such practices were often associated with the worship of pagan deities. God considers sacred the distinction of the sexes, as shown in His creative design of man and woman, who, though both in the image of God, are also uniquely and differently designed (cf. Gen 1:27). Any attempt to erase that distinction is labeled an "abomination."

• Cross-dressing was forbidden by God in ancient Israel. In the ancient Middle East, dressing in the clothing of the opposite sex was a magical practice intended to bring harm to people. For example, a transvestite male would predict that the soldiers of another army would be as weak as females.

A note from the American Heritage Dictionary states:

The following are yet more facts about the history of pants (trousers).

1. In Asia both women and men have always worn pants for warmth, comfort, and convenience. In Rome and Greece women and men wore tunics.

2. In the fourth century, women in the Western world wore pants, which they adapted from the Persians. At that time, pants were considered unmanly.

3. By the Middle Ages in Europe women were wearing dresses and men were wearing breeches.

4. After the French Revolution, men took off their high heels, silk stockings, and wigs and began wearing trousers.

5. In the nineteenth century women put on trousers to ride horses, but they hid them by wearing full skirts on top.

6. All trousers were pull-ons until the nineteenth century, when front closures using buttons were introduced.

7. Jeans were the first trousers to put women and men on equal terms.

8. Until 1970 it was not fashionable and sometimes against the law to wear pants in offices, classrooms, and restaurants in the U.S.

Of even more importance in understanding Deuteronomy 22:5 is to know the type of clothing that men and women wore. It just so happened that Hebrew men and women wore very similar clothes. The both wore tunics and cloaks. However, there were differences in the details of the design. For example, men’s tunics were normally short and colored and the women’s tunics were ankle-length and blue with embroidered edges on the V-neck. The tunic, as you may have deduced, is more akin to a dress then a pair of pants. Therefore, with the aforementioned logic of women not permitted to wear pants, we would have to exclude women from wearing the dress since men wore "dresses" at the time of this scripture and in Bible times in general.

First of all we find that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not a law that prohibits women from wearing pants. To interpret any scripture that deals with culture, customs, or social events at a particular time and apply them directly and literally to current times is very dangerous and will mostly lead to the wrong application or interpretation of that scripture. Such is the case here.

The primary assumption or dogma is that pants are men’s clothing. It is also assumed that Deuteronomy 22:5 is merely referring to cross-dressing. Since both of these assumptions are incorrect, it follows that the interpretation of this scripture using those assumptions would also be incorrect, which is the case here. I have always preached that we should understand some background information to help us better understand and interpret a passage of scripture. Without that background information, we are likely to apply 20th century thinking to something that happened thousands of years ago, which would prove to be disastrous.

Deuteronomy 22:5 might also refer to the practices involving transvestitism, which is believed to be part of a pagan ritual or magical ritual. It is also believed that this practices was also related to homosexuality, which was forbidden and dealt with very harshly.

Therefore, we can confidently say that women are not forbidden from wearing pants by an Old Testament law or a New Testament doctrine. We also found that pants are not intrinsically men’s clothing. It all depends on the region of the world that you live in. In some cultures, women wear pants and in others men wear pants, and in yet others men and women wear pants.

I have discovered another argument for the prohibition of women wearing pants. It was argued that women wearing pants would generate unnecessary attraction by men because of a number of things. It was argued that pants would reveal the shape of the women, among other things (the frontal "V") whereas a dress would not. This, it was argued, violated the teachings of modest dress in the New Testament.

This argument is very weak and does not hold up very well to even a superficial scrutiny. Wearing a dress does not preclude a man from looking at a women and becoming stimulated. There are many types of dresses that will show off a women’s figure just as well and even more than a pair of pants. This is especially true if the women’s leg is showing. Furthermore, speaking from the perspective of a man, a pair of pants will not necessarily keep a man from being stimulated by a woman. Sometimes he is stimulated by her perfume, general looks, size, hairstyle, and the list goes on. Furthermore, even a baggy pair of pants may be stimulating when the imagination is used. I don’t want to get too far into this segment but suffice it for me to say that arguing that women should not wear pants in order to not be sexually stimulating to men is simply very weak.

If you would look at the converse of this argument you would see how quickly it breaks down. What if a man is wearing a tight pair of jeans or a tight fitting suit? Wouldn’t he be just as stimulating to some women? Therefore, we could just as well argue that the man should not wear pants and that he too should wear a dress. After all, there is no law that says a man should not wear a dress specifically! Of course I am being ridiculous however this argument is just as ridiculous and very superficial. It is one of those church rules that is based on dogmatic logic instead of facts and truth.

What about the other part of Deuteronomy 22:5, which is that men shouldn’t wear women’s clothing? Now a lot of trouble arises with the logic of those that say women shouldn’t wear pants because they are men’s clothing. We said that Europeans at one time wore stockings, wigs, and even skirts (called kilts). Those were men’s clothing so women shouldn’t wear stockings, wigs, or skirts! Now we have a problem as you can see. Of course if you go to different parts of the world you will find that men and women wear different types of clothes. So you can’t pinpoint an article of clothing and say it is a man’s clothing or a woman’s clothing.

Let’s look at an illustration. Is a hat man or woman’s clothing? What about gloves? Are socks man’s or woman’s clothing? What about robes—are they men’s or women’s clothing? Perhaps you see where I am going. The fact is that there are men’s hats and women’s hats. There are men’s gloves and women’s gloves. There are men’s coats, sweaters, shirts, shoes, and watches. There are also women’s coats, sweaters, shirts (blouses), shoes, and watches. Women’s clothing is made differently then men’s clothing. Likewise, men’s pants are made differently then women’s pants. A pair of women’s pants simply would not fit right on a man and vice versa. However, to say that pants in general are men’s clothing is, as we know from the facts given previously, a show of ignorance and a blind acceptance of church dogma.

We have found that there is no restriction on particular clothing that women can wear except for respectability. For example, a woman shouldn’t wear short skirts to church or possibly in public as well. There is definitely no Christian doctrine that forbids a woman from wearing pants. The principle here is that women shouldn’t wear clothes that will attract too much attention to themselves, especially in church services. We also have to consider the culture and the customs of the people that are around us.

<<< Previous  |  Next >>>