Some Christian women do not wear pants because they have been taught that it is an abomination to wear pants. Some preachers say that pants are clothes of the opposite sex and that God commanded that we should not wear clothes of the opposite sex.
For them I have a simple question, show me any New Testament scripture that says a woman can not wear pants? Go ahead look all the way from Matthew to Revelation. There is absolutely none whatsoever.
For this teaching, those preachers go to the Old Testament and they use Deuteronomy 22:5, which says, "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."
This seems good and apparently that settles the pants issue. But does it? I used to think so, I used to teach it myself, for I read it and I interpreted the same way. But after doing a little research I was forced to conclude that the issue was not as cut and dried as I first thought.
First of all we have to realize that pants are not mentioned anywhere in this scripture. How is that? That is right; there is no mention of pants anywhere in this scripture. And the reason is simple; there were no pants in those times. Pants were not a part of the clothing of the biblical lands. All men and women wore robes; they were similar in form but with enough differences that a woman and a man could be distinguish. Since pants did not existed then it is obvious that this verse does not apply to pants.
Well some anti-pants preachers will say that it is the principle that counts. The fact that there were no pants in biblical times is considered irrelevant by most of them. They say that what is considered as man's clothing is what is prohibited.
Well there are plenty of items that used to be considered man's clothing that are now widely worn by women. How about the historical facts that man used to wear high heels, silk stockings, and wigs. Yes strange but true!  In England judges still wear wigs today.
One thing that is conveniently overlooked by these anti-pants preachers is that Deuteronomy 22:5 is law. It belongs to the body of Jewish regulations. The Bible is quite clear if you want to keep the law then you have to keep the whole law.
Paul the apostle clearly told us that if we want to keep the law, then we have to keep all of it. It is not a cafeteria where you can pick and choose what you want to keep. You can not just pick something that you like from the Old Testament and bring it into the New Testament church in a whim. It doesn't work that way.
If you say that we have to obey Deuteronomy 22:5, you must also obey the other verses in that chapter which say "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof", " Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together",  " Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.".
Just how many of those anti-pants preachers teach any of those verses also? How many of them build their houses with a battlement in their roof? How many of them are going around with garments of divers sorts as woolen and linen together? Just how many of them are going around with fringes upon the fourth quarters of their vestures?
How about the following verse in the next chapter "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD" (Deuteronomy 23:2) How many of them teach that a bastard can not come into the church? Or are bastards themselves? I myself am a bastard, yes I was born out of wedlock, my parents never married, they each went their own way even before I was born. According to this scripture I should not enter into the congregation of the Lord, much less be a preacher. Well it is not my fault that I was born a bastard, but the law clearly said that I could not enter into the congregation of the Lord, so if you are going to teach something from the law, you also have t teach that law and put out of your congregations all the bastards like me.
Listen carefully if you are going to preach the law then you have to teach it all, and you have to keep it all. Since I am a bastard, then obviously I should not even be a Christian much less a preacher. If you say that not all the Law applies then who decides what part applies and what part doesn't apply? Who decides what part we keep and what part we don't?
I have always been an anti-law preacher, because Jesus fulfilled the law and we are free from the law. If we are free why do some preachers want to bring the saints of God back under bondage of just one law, and later on there will be another law added and then another one. The chain of bondage starts with one link.
Another major problem is the wording of Deuteronomy; the Hebrew word for pertained is keliy. This word is commonly rendered as armor or weapon. And the word used for man is geber, which means soldier or strong man.
So the proper translation for this verse should be
"The woman shall not put on the armour of a soldier, neither shall a soldier put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
This is a clear indication that God was prohibiting the Israelites from imitating the heathen canaanites customs.
Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour 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 armour before her.”
Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, agrees with such interpretation for he is quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.
Well if the anti-pants preachers still insist on their interpretation then lets us take the commandment to its ultimate consequences. Let no woman wear what a man wears. Since men wear shoes, then no woman can wear shoes. Since men wear gloves, let no woman wear gloves. Since men wear coats, then no woman may wear a coat. Shall I go on?
Of course the anti-pants preachers do not easily give up and then resort to history, they will say that historically men were the first to wear pants and therefore it is a man's article. Well this reveals their ignorance of ancient history for it was actually women in China who were the first to wear pants. Indian woman were wearing pants in the ten century, in the sixteen century it was well known that Persian women wore pants. Their historical argument quickly falls to pieces, with just a little research into history
Some will say that it only applies if an item was exclusively made for man. Well let's see, the T-shirt was introduced to America during WWI. By WWII, the T-shirt was part of the American soldier official clothing issue, and was introduced into American fashion. Since T-shirts were exclusively invented for military men, then it follows that no woman can wear a T-shirt, yet where are the anti-T-shirts preachers?
Many of the anti-pants preachers have said that in America culture of seventy years ago pants in woman were considered wrong and that some women were even arrested. Well the American culture has changed and now pants in women are not longer viewed as wrong, plenty of women walk the streets wearing woman's pants yet none of them are arrested. Since society has changed its judgment on pants, shouldn't the anti-pants preachers also go along with society? Or does that theory only works when society goes their way?
The culture argument does not fly at all; there was a time when it was not socially acceptable for women to vote; yet now they do. There was a time when a woman was not allowed to work, yet now they do. There was a time when a woman could not preach from the pulpit, yet now some women are preaching from the same pulpits as the anti-pants preachers.  Why do some of the anti-pants preachers allow woman to preach from their pulpits yet not wear pants? Isn't this straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?
What about the everyday clothes of the common people. The robes worn by biblical characters were basically of the same shape, the distinctions between the male and female garments were merely stylistic (color, trim, size, etc.)
Some preachers will say that if a woman can wear pants then a man can wear a skirt. Well that is already done in cultures where skirts are acceptable for men to wear. Yes there are cultures and regions where men wear skirt-like garments.  In America I have seen foreigners wearing their traditional clothes and some of them appear to be wearing garments that look like dresses.
Some preachers have said that there is no such thing as woman's pants. Well if there is no such thing as woman's pants, I would like to challenge any of them to wear some nice slacks to their church and preach from them. Since according to them all pants are man's clothing, I am sure none of them would mind if I choose their pants, I have in mind some nice pretty flowered pink pants, maybe with a couple of rainbows painted on them.
Since all pants are men’s pant no preacher should confine himself to just wearing certain dark colors, come on let me see some of them wearing nice pink, orange or purple pants. Let me see preachers wearing pants with nice flowers, some red hearts or teddy bear designs.
Pants are designed and sold designed for women, therefore they are considered to be women's attire. The shape and style of the pants are made to conform to the woman shape and the style is different than the man. They are separated at the store and put in the woman's clothing department, not the men's clothing department.
Then last but not least there is the argument of modesty. The anti-pants preachers say that dresses are more modest than pants, but are they? In a strong wind the dress must be held down or else there will be a lot of immodesty, but the pants do not need to do anything they are modest regardless of how hard the wind blows.
 If a woman climbs a ladder or goes up some stairs, she is uncovered to those below, quite immodest if you ask me yet a woman with pants can easily climb a ladder or go up the stairs without revealing anything to anyone, so it is obvious that the pants are more modest. A woman wearing a dress is in more danger of exposing herself than a woman who wears pants. If a woman in dress falls down she will make a spectacle.
Let us not forget to mention the already known cases of evil doers who have put mirrors or secret cameras in areas low in the floors, in order to spy up the skirt on women. There was a creep in a mall who had a camera hidden in a paper bag which allowed him to video record under the dress of women, until he got busted by the police. The women with pants were protected against this pervert while the women wearing dresses were victimized.
This is part of a new trend which is called "upskirting". This is a form of voyeurism in which peeping toms either secretly rig up a system of mirrors and hidden video cameras, or simply crouch down with a camera, in order to secretly shoot up a woman's skirt. Such video usually ends up on some of the hundreds of Web sites that feature sex videos.
A Judge in Washington County of the State of Oregon freed a 61 year old man who had taken pictures under the skirt of a 13 year old girl in 2013, because there was no law against such action. Many states have no laws against such actions and perverse men can take pictures of women’s underskirt without fear of being convicted of anything.
Pants are better for a woman for the following other reasons, the woman in pants is warmer in wintertime, while the woman in dress is freezing, kind of cruel on the poor women. Pants protect women against scratches from thorny plants. Pants are harder to take off than dresses this prevents women from being easily victimized by rapists. The woman in pants is also able to run faster and escape in time of danger from a rapist or from some dangerous situation.
What about some women that say they feel convicted of wearing pants, well that is their own personal conviction, they have no right to impose their conviction on other Christian women. If a person feels convicted of drinking coffee or chewing gum, should then that person try to prohibit other Christians from drinking coffee or chewing gum?
What about the fact that most holiness churches have always taught that wearing pants are wrong and are still teaching that? Just because something has been taught as wrong for a long time it does not necessarily makes it so.
Preachers for a time even preached against bicycles, and cars. Since they taught that at one time, why we no longer teach that? Could it be because we now recognize that despite their good intentions those preachers were wrong? Just because something is preached from a pulpit it doesn't make it biblical. Just because a denomination says something is a sin does not make it so.
I could go on and on with many more arguments, but let me ask a simple question. If this was such an important doctrine in the Bible, wouldn't have God confirmed with another scripture? The Bible says that in the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established, so my question really is; where is the other scripture that witnesses to this doctrine?
Where is the exposition or the explanation on the Bible against the wearing of men’s clothing by women? I looked and I see no such exhortation or diatribe against such a “horrendous” practice. Apart from that isolated verse in Deuteronomy the bible is completely silent on such issue.
There is absolutely no scripture that teaches that a woman cannot wear pants, it simply is not there. It seems to me like someone had an idea and went shopping in the Bible trying to find a verse that could be fitted to their personal doctrine.
If we want to be true to biblical dress standards then we all should be wearing robes. Come on let me see how many preachers will say we should follow the Bible by dressing with robes?  Let me know of the number of pro-robe preachers, I would like to know.

Prayer Requests

Due to the amount of prayers requested, it is not possible for us to pray individually for every prayer request, and it would be dishonest to imply that we do. So instead we will add your prayer request to our list, which we will take before The Lord God Almighty.

Yes, I wish for you to include me in your prayer list

Contact Us

Feel free to reach out if you have questions about our books, articles or any other general questions.