Deuteronomy 22:5

[HappyChristian]

"So sorry! It was late when I posted that, although that is no excuse! Thanks for the catch."

No prOBlem, we have all been there.

"vs.5 is teaching the principle of gender identification, a principle that is continued in the NT in various places."

For the most part I don't have trouble identifying the gender of an individual based soley upon them wearing pants. I have had to take a double-look based on their hair length.


"vs. 11 is teaching the principles of separation and of purity, principles that are also continued in the NT."

I don't believe we can separate this verse from the rest. Begining at verse 1 up to verse 11, God states "thou shalt not'.


Dealing with these type of verses, some believe that God will convict an individual's heart on whether its right or wrong. I do not believe God will convict one that it is wrong(sin) and then not convict others who are dealing with the same subject.

Some believe that we change from generation to generation; ie, how we dress, how we conduct church services, etc. This is true; however, God tells us that He is God and he changes not and his Word is forever settled in heaven.

Just like everyone else, I have My little checklist which I believe everyone should adhere to. BUT I do not condemn others who do not meet what I think is right. For example: If a man wears a suit on Sunday morning, he should wear it Sunday evening, Wednesday night, revival time, etc. A man's hair should not be as long as to cover his ears or his shirt collar.

My conclusion is this: If I judge myself as much as I judge others (I know the Bible says Judge Not), I will be 100% better off.

God Bless

Ah, but you assume here that those who believe women shouldn't wear pants are condemning. I in no way have (but you forget: God says man looks on the outward appearance. Yes, God judges the heart...but our appearance portrays our heart). God's Word speaks for itself - He is the One Who stated that a woman wearing that which pertains to a man is an abomination to Him, and vice versa.

[HappyChristian]

I hope this is of interest: From the book The Rise and Fall of Christian Standards

An effective means to discern scriptural scriptural application on any issue is to ask three questions:
1. Is there a command to OBey?
2. Is there a principle to apply?
3. Is there a pattern to follow?
Clearly, the Bible doesn't specifically advise us on every conceivable fashion design, but by asking these three questions we can at least begin to develop a biblical rationale for how we should dress...Immorality, divorce, and the emotional scars of permissiveness are often the rewards of attempting to live the Christian life in the devil's clothes. Nowhere is the allegiance of the heart more evident than in the clothing styles we adopt, except perhaps upon the face. Those are harsh words. Solomon tells us that the wounds of a friend are faithful. This is bitter medicine for many fellow believers, perhaps even offensive...While there may be no straightforward biblical commands giving specific and detailed dress standard guidelines, that fact alone reflects the magnificent wisdom of God, who in his omniscience knew that styles would be forever changing and cultural norms varied. Thus, he gave the world plain instruction by principle which can be applied in all times and in all societies regardless of what the current fashion or cultural norms may be.

Where the idea ever came from that we are only OBligated to submit to the teacing of scripture if we are convicted is anybody's guess. Of the many arguments for conitinuing in patterns which contrast with basic biblical principle, this has to be one of the most amazing...At the root of this thinking is a feeling-oriented faith which OBligates God to manifest his will to us in some mystical way outside of, or in addition to, what the Bible says. Whether by clear command, or basic principle, OBedience is not contingent upon how we feel. If a woman feels perfectly at ease in her blue jeans, or a man with acquiring a new tattoo, that in no way nullifies or supersedes biblical principles of modesty, identity, gender distinction and separation. Whether or not we feel convicited is totally irrelevent...It may sound spiritual to say, "God is not leading me to change the way I dress. As soon as I am convicted about it, I will change." But when we look at ourselves in the mirror, and see upon out body the styles that are peculiar to the world's standards and which cannot be scripturally defended, nor in any way serve to announce Christ as Lord of our life, neither does it distinguish us from an unregenerate world, then pick up our Bible and read, "And be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed...", upon what logical, biblical reasoning can we say, "OK, God, I understand what your Word says, now if you convict me about my dress, I'll know that you really mean for me to change?"
No parent would accept this argument from a child who claims freedom not to OBey because he or she did not "feel convicted" to OBey. Yet, many Christian adults continue in following culturally derived patterns...Relying upon a feeling of conviction as a prerequisite for OBedience to what the scripture teaches is not only an evasion of responsibility, but a reversal of divine order. OBedience is not the result of conviction. Conviction is the product of OBedience. This pattern is seen repeatedly in the lives of patriarchs, prophets and apostles throughout both the OT and NT.

[Bro K]

Ah, but you assume here that those who believe women shouldn't wear pants are condemning. I in no way have (but you forget: God says man looks on the outward appearance. Yes, God judges the heart...but our appearance portrays our heart). God's Word speaks for itself - He is the One Who stated that a woman wearing that which pertains to a man is an abomination to Him, and vice versa.

I try not to assume anything; and I most certainly do not condemn anyone. (ie; A Christian might believe its alright to drink wine; I believe it is a sin. I would never opening condemn that person; however if I present him the Word and the Word condemn him... so be it.) The act of condemning one of God's children should be left up to God and the Pastor.


"but our appearance portrays our heart": This can very well be true; and it can very well not be true. It all depends on who is doing the looking. Only God can see the heart. I believe many attends church in the very best; but their heart is far from God.

When dealing with people, I keep this thought as a guide: "You can talk your talk..but your walk will reveal truth"

"God's Word speaks for itself - He is the One Who stated that a woman wearing that which pertains to a man is an abomination to Him, and vice versa."

He is also the One who stated "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together"

God Bless

[HappyChristian]

I try not to assume anything; and I most certainly do not condemn anyone. (ie; A Christian might believe its alright to drink wine; I believe it is a sin. I would never opening condemn that person; however if I present him the Word and the Word condemn him... so be it.) The act of condemning one of God's children should be left up to God and the Pastor.


"but our appearance portrays our heart": This can very well be true; and it can very well not be true. It all depends on who is doing the looking. Only God can see the heart. I believe many attends church in the very best; but their heart is far from God. Yep. Only God sees the heart. Man looks on the outward appearance, though. And because that is what we see, it is vital. After all, we are the temple of the Living God: should the temple of the living God look like the temple of the devil?

When dealing with people, I keep this thought as a guide: "You can talk your talk..but your walk will reveal truth" And your appearance is part of your walk

"God's Word speaks for itself - He is the One Who stated that a woman wearing that which pertains to a man is an abomination to Him, and vice versa."

He is also the One who stated "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together" Yep. But He never said it was an abomination to do so.

God Bless

[HappyChristian]

More quotes from the book:

Since Katherine Hepburn, one of the first women in Hollywood to regularly appear in pants, to the present day, Christians have debated whether women should wear this traditionally made male attire. As time distances us from the first occurrences of this once shocking revolution in women's fashion, gradually the church has lowered its defenses, succumbing to what seemed to be the inevitable. Pants for women, including Christians, now enjoys a grandfathered status. Questioning it seems nearly absurd, What does the Bible say?

Deuteronomy 22:5 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.

Sometimes people will say, "The Bible is just so hard to understand." The fact that many scholars differ over meanings of certain passages is testimony to that fact. In this passage, however, the wording is so clear that it leaves little doubt about what is meant. Depsite its plain instruction however, there are three ways which many Christians seek around it to justify women wearing pants.
1. This is OT law which we are not OBligated to OBey under the freedom we have in NT grace.
2. Women's pants are women's apparel and therefore do not violate the meaning of this passage.
3. This refers to cross-dressing, where men or women literally dress to look like the opposite gender.

First, are OT laws which God gave to Israel relevant to us in this age of grace? Without question, some OT laws have been done away with. Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees with a woman caught in adultery. OT law said she should be stoned. Jesus said to her, "Go, and sin no more."...Some things have changed in the NT age.
The queston is not even whether this prohibition of women wearning men's apparel is repeated in the NT, but is it altered in the NT, as many OT laws are? It is not! In fact, not only is it unaltered, but it is expanded upon and defined more clearly in 1 Tim 2 and Titus 2.
The second escape route from Deut. 22:5 is to simply accept a modern redefinition of what is men's clothes and what is women's clothes. Not other passage in scripture speaks to the issue of women wearing pants as clearly as this one, particularly for our western culture and despite the fact that in Bible times neither men nor women wore trousers. Customs change, biblical principles do not. Nevertheless, Christianity has now thoroughly adjusted to and adopted this once shocking innovation...
"But my pants are ladies pants," the Christian woman protests. Do you remember when "lady's pants"first came out/ They zipped up the side. Today you would be hard pressed to find a pair of jeans, or an other pants in the ladies department that did not zip up the front...
Would the same argument many women use to justify their lady's" jeans be accepted if their husbands used its reverse as a defense for wearing a skirt or a dress? Don't laugh. Way back in the 1980's, a popular afternoon talk show host had a guest on his tv program who was modeling and marketing a man's skirt, complete with a zipper in the front and pockets in the back. My dear Christian lady, if you will defend your ladies pants, upon what basis will you OBject to a man's dress?
The normalization of ladies in pants in western society, including Christian churches, provides fodder for just such a dilemma. Encouraging men to reject trousers for skirt-like kilt garments, a group called "Bravehearts" offes the following argument:

"During the 20th century, women's fashion underwent a revolution. Women freed themselves from the confinement of the long, bulky skirts and dresses of yesteryear & switched to styles that gave more freedom and comfort. Next, women demanded-and-won-the right to wear trousers. Today, in the US, it is much more common to see women and girls wearing slacks or jeans than to see them in skirts and dresses. Nowadays, a man can no longer prove his masculinity by putting on a pair of jeans because this is now standard female attire! Now that women in western society have won the right to wear whatever they want, what justification remains for a rule that arbitrarily restricts men to wearing trousers? Trousers no longer distinguish men from women." (www.kiltmen.com)

I could go on quoting the book, but it takes a long time to type! As to the argument about Deut. 22:11...where is that reinforced in the NT? Oh - in the command for separation...hmmmm...

Personally, just that quote from Bravehearts would end any pants wearing for me!!

[Bro K]

"but our appearance portrays our heart": This can very well be true; and it can very well not be true. It all depends on who is doing the looking. Only God can see the heart. I believe many attends church in the very best; but their heart is far from God. Yep. Only God sees the heart. Man looks on the outward appearance, though. And because that is what we see, it is vital. After all, we are the temple of the Living God: should the temple of the living God look like the temple of the devil?

A temple signifies an abode. If a woman wears pants, is she therefore abiding in the temple of the devil? IF so, then she must be unsaved.


He is also the One who stated "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together" Yep. But He never said it was an abomination to do so.

True, he never used the word 'abomination' in vs 11; but He did say 'THOU SHALT NOT'. Just as he did in vs 5.

Needless to say we could keep this going for some time. So let me give my final statement:

"When God says "Thou shalt not" and one does what God says "Thou shalt not": HE HAS SINNED AGAINST GOD." He instructs in II Tim 2:15 to rightly divide the word of truth.

I have not stated in this thread whether I believe that wearing pants is a sin or not. I've found it very helpful to keep an open mind to both sides of the discussion and not cloud it up with only MY opinions. I know of many godly women who wear pants and are highly respected. Many of those are pastor's wives. So to keep myself out of trouble, I keep my opinions to myself.

Thanks for the conservation' but its time to move on.

May God richly Bless You and Yours

[DennisD]

Thank you very much for your good counsel. I have thought of this situation when reading Romans 14:14, as well. (I liked your comment about not "eating" pants and short skirts). I also agree that it is best to leave conviction to the work of the Holy Spirit so I do not try to compel other people to adopt my form of dress. I'm actually rather quiet about such matters at the office because I do not wish to cause controversey, but my beliefs are rather OBvious for anyone who has eyes to see because of the long dresses/skirts and long hair (which I do not wear down--too impractical--I braid it and wrap it around and around the back of my head). I do occasionally get questions about what church I belong to or why I dress as I do. Someone once asked me if I was an Orthodox Jewish woman! It made me smile because I'm a blue-eyed, red-headed Irishwoman--I don't think I really look or sound particularly Jewish at all! It seems quite strange and rather sad to me, though, that a woman who seeks to dress and behave modestly is so unique that it causes comment.

Again, thank you for your good counsel and encouragement. May God richly bless you this day!

The bolded above happened to our Church members when we all went out to a Christmas market here in Germany. It was amazing and what showed my wife without a doubt that she should be in a skirt/dress. A German woman came up and asked us what Church we belonged to since all of our women had skirts on, it was very uplifting and showed that our dress truly can and does glorify God (take note anime )

[Miss Linda]

The bolded above happened to our Church members when we all went out to a Christmas market here in Germany. It was amazing and what showed my wife without a doubt that she should be in a skirt/dress. A German woman came up and asked us what Church we belonged to since all of our women had skirts on, it was very uplifting and showed that our dress truly can and does glorify God

It really can be a silent but powerful witness to living a life apart from the "nations around us". I think when a woman dresses and behaves modestly while she is out interacting with the world, it is (unfortunately) so unique that people take notice. It does become a way of glorifying God in a non-verbal way, as you said, DennisDurty.

LuAnne, thank you for the excellent quotes from The Rise and Fall of Christian Standards I am definitely going to order that book! Edited July 28, 2010 by Miss Linda

[nucreature]

May I humbly ask a question concerning this? I have had second thoughts about culottes, t-shirts, and ladies blazers...as well as ball caps, cammo colors, etc... I guess we all are at a different point in our walk with the Lord, but I don't want to just brush off the Holy Spirit when He points out something in my life. I know pants define that area of a woman's body that will cause a man's eyes to zero in, and also a tight fitting "anything" will do that. But I am talking about garments pertaining to a man. A t-shirt, for example, even a big sloppy one, is a t-shirt a man's garment? Culottes are two-legged like pants, blazers have the cut and lapels like a man's sport coat, etc. Do you understand what I'm asking about? When we talk about a man's garment, are we talking about their original use? Or are we talking culture here?

[John81]

May I humbly ask a question concerning this? I have had second thoughts about culottes, t-shirts, and ladies blazers...as well as ball caps, cammo colors, etc... I guess we all are at a different point in our walk with the Lord, but I don't want to just brush off the Holy Spirit when He points out something in my life. I know pants define that area of a woman's body that will cause a man's eyes to zero in, and also a tight fitting "anything" will do that. But I am talking about garments pertaining to a man. A t-shirt, for example, even a big sloppy one, is a t-shirt a man's garment? Culottes are two-legged like pants, blazers have the cut and lapels like a man's sport coat, etc. Do you understand what I'm asking about? When we talk about a man's garment, are we talking about their original use? Or are we talking culture here?

I didn't respond earlier, hoping one of the ladies would address this...I still hope one does!

[speerjp1]

Hi, all!

For Mitch:

The Bible does indeed give at least one differentiation between men and women's attire: men are often told to have thier "loins gird" in all sorts of various daily activities. Women in the Bible are never commanded to do so. The one passage where this apparently occurs is in Proverbs 31. However, since it is also apparent that this chapter has more to do with church typology than the supposed "Proverbs 31 Woman," it is more figurative and pertains to the church, the Bride of Christ.

So there is your consistent difference between men and women's attire according to the Bible.

For everyone else:

If the command in the Old Testament is not typical of a New Testament fulfillment of foreshadowing or if it is reiterated in the New Testament, then there is no reason to assume that it would have any less bearing in the lives of God's people now than it did before the time of Christ.

[chev1958]

Once again, I'm going against my better judgment by responding, but since you're posting to me directly, here goes. I never said that men's and women's clothes weren't supposed to be different. My point was - and is - that the insistence that women wear dresses/skirts and men wear pants is not commanded in Scripture.

I enjoy reading your posts because I know you take great care in your responses. However, this particular post surprises me, because it lacks your usual diligence. To address your point about women not being commanded to gird their loins, I'll present you with

Exodus 12:11 - And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover.

I'm sure God was telling all of Israel to be ready to go in an instant, not just the men. And even if the Proverbs 31 woman is a typology of the church, then why did God tell "the bride" to dress like a man? Would God then be contradicting Deut 22:5? What about:

Isaiah 32:11 - Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.

Eph 6:14 - Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

1 Peter 1:13 - Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sOBer, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Isaiah specifically addresses women. I think it's safe to assume that Ephesians and 1 Peter include women.

I agree that girding loins was practical for some activities. Girding loins for battle was essential for better mOBility. Since God spoke mostly to men, then it stands to reason that He would tell men to gird their loins. But if girding up loins was common for men, then why did God have to remind them to do it? It was said more for a sense of urgency than actually girding.

Some activities women might be involved in could be better accomplished by girding their loins. If a woman had to get water from a river instead of a well, she would prOBably gird her rOBe around her loins to keep it from getting wet. Even though you say that God never commands women to gird their loins - which I have disproven - I would also point out that God never prohibits women from doing so either.

[HappyChristian]

May I humbly ask a question concerning this? I have had second thoughts about culottes, t-shirts, and ladies blazers...as well as ball caps, cammo colors, etc... I guess we all are at a different point in our walk with the Lord, but I don't want to just brush off the Holy Spirit when He points out something in my life. I know pants define that area of a woman's body that will cause a man's eyes to zero in, and also a tight fitting "anything" will do that. But I am talking about garments pertaining to a man. A t-shirt, for example, even a big sloppy one, is a t-shirt a man's garment? Culottes are two-legged like pants, blazers have the cut and lapels like a man's sport coat, etc. Do you understand what I'm asking about? When we talk about a man's garment, are we talking about their original use? Or are we talking culture here?

I'll take a stab at trying to answer...

The verse in Deut specifically addresses clothes that pertain to a man or a woman. And what would that be? I've heard people get snarky and say that underclothing started out as men's, so women shouldn't wear any. That is just plain foolishness. (especially since there's really no definitive proof of that)

So, what pertains? Well, what's always been a major delineation between the sexes here in America? Pants and dresses/skirts. Trading those is exactly what Deut 22:5 is talking about. Trading? Yep. America is full of cross-dressers, transgenders, etc., who dress like the opposite sex. It is actually considered quite acceptable in a great deal of society now. (Remember the recent post about the young man trying on miniskirts...) And when did this kind of activity begin? When women began wearing pants...

Some have stated that culottes were designed for men...however - culottes were worn by men during the French Revolutionary period. But when you examine pictures of those, they are not like the culottes worn by Christian women today. They in fact more resemble pants that have been rolled up or gathered just under the knee or mid-calf. Women's culottes today (at least, the majority) are more like skirts that have a joining stitch in the middle - usually full like a skirt.

Personally, I don't wear culottes for everyday activities. I know many women who do, and that's fine. I don't because through the years I have noticed how many young ladies sit like men while wearing them or sitting so immodestly, one could see their nether regions). I do, however, have a special pair I wear when I am in the pool. I do not believe a woman should show her thigh even when it's just other women (I know many people disagree, and that's fine and dandy...I'm just talking about myself). But I need to exercise, and due to arthritis, the pool is the best place for it. So - I had a special pair made that will not ride up when I am in the pool and that are very full.

T-shirts: Again, this is personal, but I don't wear t-shirts, either. Because they have a masculine look to them (even the ones with flowers...). I had a couple several years back, but both my hubby and I felt that I shouldn't wear them. Blazers would, to me, be the same. There are a lot of pretty, feminine sweaters...

Camo would, to me, fall under the pertaining to men. I know there are many women in the military, but that doesn't make it right. My son wore a lot of camo growing up (no wonder he's in the Guard... ), but had we had a daughter, she wouldn't have.

I hope that helped - and, John (or anyone!) feel free to add to here. I know some will disagree with me, but that's not going to hurt my feelings.

[irishman]

I'll take a stab at trying to answer...

The verse in Deut specifically addresses clothes that pertain to a man or a woman. And what would that be? I've heard people get snarky and say that underclothing started out as men's, so women shouldn't wear any. That is just plain foolishness. (especially since there's really no definitive proof of that)

So, what pertains? Well, what's always been a major delineation between the sexes here in America? Pants and dresses/skirts. Trading those is exactly what Deut 22:5 is talking about. Trading? Yep. America is full of cross-dressers, transgenders, etc., who dress like the opposite sex. It is actually considered quite acceptable in a great deal of society now. (Remember the recent post about the young man trying on miniskirts...) And when did this kind of activity begin? When women began wearing pants...

Some have stated that culottes were designed for men...however - culottes were worn by men during the French Revolutionary period. But when you examine pictures of those, they are not like the culottes worn by Christian women today. They in fact more resemble pants that have been rolled up or gathered just under the knee or mid-calf. Women's culottes today (at least, the majority) are more like skirts that have a joining stitch in the middle - usually full like a skirt.

Personally, I don't wear culottes for everyday activities. I know many women who do, and that's fine. I don't because through the years I have noticed how many young ladies sit like men while wearing them or sitting so immodestly, one could see their nether regions). I do, however, have a special pair I wear when I am in the pool. I do not believe a woman should show her thigh even when it's just other women (I know many people disagree, and that's fine and dandy...I'm just talking about myself). But I need to exercise, and due to arthritis, the pool is the best place for it. So - I had a special pair made that will not ride up when I am in the pool and that are very full.

T-shirts: Again, this is personal, but I don't wear t-shirts, either. Because they have a masculine look to them (even the ones with flowers...). I had a couple several years back, but both my hubby and I felt that I shouldn't wear them. Blazers would, to me, be the same. There are a lot of pretty, feminine sweaters...

Camo would, to me, fall under the pertaining to men. I know there are many women in the military, but that doesn't make it right. My son wore a lot of camo growing up (no wonder he's in the Guard... ), but had we had a daughter, she wouldn't have.

I hope that helped - and, John (or anyone!) feel free to add to here. I know some will disagree with me, but that's not going to hurt my feelings.

I totally agree with you.

[JerryNumbers]

May I humbly ask a question concerning this? I have had second thoughts about culottes, t-shirts, and ladies blazers...as well as ball caps, cammo colors, etc... I guess we all are at a different point in our walk with the Lord, but I don't want to just brush off the Holy Spirit when He points out something in my life. I know pants define that area of a woman's body that will cause a man's eyes to zero in, and also a tight fitting "anything" will do that. But I am talking about garments pertaining to a man. A t-shirt, for example, even a big sloppy one, is a t-shirt a man's garment? Culottes are two-legged like pants, blazers have the cut and lapels like a man's sport coat, etc. Do you understand what I'm asking about? When we talk about a man's garment, are we talking about their original use? Or are we talking culture here?

I think this is the verse your looking for with you haveing doubts about culottes.

Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

If your in doubt on something, them do it, them its sin, so when in doubt, its best not to do it.

I might add, this T-shirt fad is terrible, I'm tired of seeing both men and women wearing t-shirts. I've noticed that many of the t-shirt wears loves t-shirts advertising their favorite beer, so sad.

I might add, I do wear t-shirt here at home, I can think of only 2 times I've wore them out in the public, one of those times was going to get some gas for my lawn mower where I could finish up mowing.