Jesus Wore Pants, Not a Dress

Many people today have the idea that Jesus Christ while he was on this earth had long hair and wore clothing that looked like a dress. The reason for this is that many people derive what they believe from artwork or the opinions of so-called “theologians” and “scholars” instead of getting their information directly from the Bible itself. First of all, the Bible makes it clear that it is a sin for a man to have long hair:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” – 1 Corinthians 11:3, 4

“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” – 1 Corinthians 11:13-15

According to verse 15, the “covering” referred to is long hair. Therefore, according to this passage, it is a shame and dishonor to Christ for a man to have long hair. There is no place in the Bible that even insinuates that Jesus had long hair. Sodomite homosexuals such as Michelangelo painted Jesus to look effeminate and to have long hair in order to make him fit their own queer image.

These same type of paintings have also given people the idea that “Jesus did not wear pants.” Some have even made utterly ridiculous and bizarre statements such as, “pants had not been invented yet,” or “they didn’t have pants back then.” According to these “scholars,” the men of the past who built the pyramids and Stonehenge just hadn’t thought of pants yet!

What I believe is based upon the Bible, not “historical evidence,” but the historical record also proves that men in the ancient Middle East wore pants. For example, at the famous battle of Thermopylae (480BC), every historian reports that the Persian (Iranian) soldiers were wearing pants down to their ankles, while the homosexual, perverted Spartans were wearing short skirts or even less!

The Bible uses the word “breeches” to refer to pants. Our modern day spelling of this word is "britches", such as in the expression, “he is a little too big for his britches.” Here are several mentions from the Bible of men wearing britches (pants):

“And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:” – Exodus 28:42

According to this verse, the priests needed to wear pants in order to cover their nakedness (their loins and their thighs). The coats or robes that they wore in addition were outer garments worn on the upper body. They did not cover their loins and their thighs completely which is why pants were needed. The pants in Exodus 28:42 went down to the knees.

“And they made coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons, 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

The “linen garment” mentioned above is again referring to the high priest’s outer wear (i.e. his coat). This was worn in addition to his pants, not instead of his pants!

“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

Many centuries later, the priests were still wearing pants:

“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

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are also specifically mentioned as having worn pants:

“Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.” – Daniel 3:21

The word “hosen” is an old Germanic word used in both German and Modern English to mean “pants,” although we do not use the word “hosen” in Contemporary English.

Job was told in Job 38 and Job 40 to gird up his loins “like a man.” This is because a man could gird up his other garments and still be decent because he was wearing pants underneath. A woman, on the other hand, could not gird up her loins “like a man” since she was not wearing pants underneath.

"Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me." - Job 38:3

In summary, the Old Testament contains 6 verses directly stating, and in some verses even commanding, that men wear pants. The Old Testament references “coats” 39 times, “robes” 37 times, and “mantles” 14 times, but these are all words referring to the outer garment worn on the upper body. Think about the definition of the word “coat.” Would it make sense for an man to wear nothing but a coat?! Can you imagine going to work in nothing but a robe?! The Old Testament also uses the words
“clothing,” “garment,” “raiment,” and “vesture” to refer to clothing in general.

There is no indication in the New Testament that the clothing of God’s people had changed. Jesus Christ did not dress any different than his disciples who were working men. He had to be kissed by Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane in order to be identified by the soldiers who arrested him. This indicates that he looked similar to those around him.

The Bible makes it clear that a man who wears a woman’s garment is an abomination:

“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

The universal symbols for a man and for a woman say it all. Have you looked at a bathroom door lately?

Anyone who has not had their mind warped by a so-called theologian or historian knows that a dress is a woman’s garment. The only men I have seen wearing dresses in 2010 are homosexuals, Catholic priests (sorry to be redundant), Islamic clerics, and Buddhist monks. These men are an abomination according to the Bible.

Also, consider the following verses about the second coming of Jesus Christ:

“And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.” – Revelation 19:13, 14

“And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” – Revelation 19:16

The “vesture dipped in blood” is referring to his coat. This is symbolized in Genesis 37:31 by Joseph who was an Old Testament forerunner of Jesus Christ:

“And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood;” – Genesis 37:31

But notice that Jesus’ name is written not only on his vesture (coat), but also on his thigh:

“And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” – Revelation 19:16

Obviously John was not referring to a tattoo he was seeing on Jesus’ naked thigh since Jesus was clothed from head to foot according to Revelation 1:13. He had his name written upon the clothing on his thigh, just as he had his name written upon his coat. When wearing a dress or a “tunic” the thigh is not delineated. Clothing that is worn on each “thigh” is referred to as a pair of pants. Therefore it is apparent that Jesus was wearing pants as he rode in on a white horse to defeat
the antichrist. Apparently “scholars” would have us believe that Jesus was riding to battle on a horse in a dress.

Or maybe they believe he wore a dress back in Bible times, but in Revelation 19 was just taking advantage of the “modern invention” of pants. Wow…