Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Deuteronomy 22:5


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Unfortunately, many Christians don't want to consider, much less discuss this topic or see for themselves what Scripture says. As I've posted elsewhere, earlier this year Nancy Leigh DeMoss did a series on this topic on the radio. What she put forth was solid Scripture and presented so I don't see how anyone could not see the truth unless they were actively fighting against it. Nancy received a great deal of positive feedback from women who were trying to live by Scripture even though they were being attacked by other Christians for their stance. At the same time, many Christian women gave feedback which was negative and for the most part clearly showed they put their own wants above others and above Scripture.

Most professing Christian women in America want to dress how they please and most professing Christian men won't point them to Scripture; either out of fear, because they don't care or even because they like the immodest dress of these women.

I've seen Christian women flaunting their sexuality right in church! And Christian men panting over them! I know of a fine Christian woman who took biblical modesty seriously, as well as no sex before marriage. She determined after she came to Christ to only look to church men as potential mates. Sadly, what she discovered is that the men from church treated her just like the wordly men she had encountered prior to salvation.

We can't neglect one area of Scripture without it adversely affecting other areas. We can't ignore commands women might not like in order to not "offend" them without there being a ripple effect which leads to further ignoring of Scripture and more acceptance of sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

How about: Deut 22:11 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sort, as of woolen and linen together."
This was a spiritual picture as were many OT laws. Indeed nearly all if not all of the ceremonial laws were a picture. So many Christians act as if the OT law is worthless today since Christ fulfilled the law(don't know if your of that persuasion or not) but in reality through pictures it gives a detailed account of what God expects from NT believers. The NT truth this particular law is picturing is that Christians should not allow the world to be mixed into their lives.

If this verse is a "spiritual picture"; should not verse 5 be also a "spiritual picture"? Or is the entire OT a "spiritual picture"?

If the OT was worthless; then God would not have preserved it for us today.

Edited by Bro K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Duet. 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."

Duet. 22:11, "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

I do see a significant difference in these two verses. One, verse 11, is clearly for Israel and pertains to the Law. Verse 5, though it came about in the dispensation of the Law and OBviously it's primary application under the Law, is a little bit different. The difference is in verse 5 God goes so far as to say women wearing men's clothing and men wearing women's clothing is an ABOMINATION. That's a pretty strong word. God didn't take it lightly, He saw it as being outright wicked.

Typically, and correct me if I'm wrong, but things that God views as being extremly wicked stay wicked over dispensational lines. While God didn't want them to wear garments of divers sorts, He never went so far as to call it an abomination. You can debunk what I'm saying here, and OBviously feel free to, if you can show something in the Old Testament that was an abomination that is clearly made "ok" in the New.

Does God ever refer to breaking any dietary laws as an abomination?

Does God ever refer to breaking the sabbath as an abomination?

Why is my avatar so messed up and truncated, and will BroMatt ever fix it for me?

That's my :twocents:

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

No matter what anyone says, the other laws there are no abominable to God, which is a very strong word. I believe that Deut. 22:5 and the lack of practicing it as it is written, without all those fancy interpretations, is the embryo of the homosexual movement. Perhaps that is why it's an "abomination" to God.

Right on, irishman. The very fact that God used the word "abomination" should make us sit up and take close notice. Again, I reiterate what I said earlier: God says that it is the individual who is the abomination - not the act! I think that is very telling! I certainly do not want to be considered an abomination to God: and, just as Seth mentioned regarding hair length, I don't want any question as to whether I am dressed in men's or women's apparel.


I also agree that disregarding Deut. 22:5 is the embryo of the homosexual movement. I remember hearing a preacher several years ago pointing out the natural progression of ignoring Deut. 22:5...we see the results in Romans 1.

It's interesting to note that the old time commentators tied Deut. 22:5 in with the verses in 1 Cor. 11 regarding hair lenght...with the emphasis being gender distinction. I know, I know, there are "women's pants" and "men's pants," so it is easy for us to rationalize that pants on women are okay (please, again - I am not bashing any woman who wears them, nor their men for allowing it). Usually that argument is based on the fact that our culture has changed and this form of dress has become acceptable (because, after all, the Bible doesn't expressly forbid pants on women). But...culture is still changing, and now there are men's skirts. There is a movement to "free" men from the confines of pants, just as women were "freed" from the confines of dresses...Some people (Christians) say that, should skirts on men become acceptable (and it is, more and more), then...

TheBible doesn't expressly forbid pants on women;it also doesn't expressly forbid men to wear skirts. I just wonder how many men would find skirts on men acceptable?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I just wonder how many men would find skirts on men acceptable?


A man, other than a Scot, wearing a skirt is pretty gay. I've never heard of such a movement, and that's prOBably because most American males would have nothing to do with it. Internationally, there are plenty of guys who'd do something like that though.

Here's a list of a few things I'd do before I'd put on a skirt:

1. Name a star after another guy.
2. Share a single root beer float with two straws with another guy.
3. Ride on the back of a motorcycle with another guy driving.
4. Rub sunscreen on the hairy back of another guy.
5. Share a blanket and a bowl of popcorn with another guy while watching a chick flick.
6. Share a picknic lunch on a quilted blanket with another guy on sunny afternoon in the park.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

A man, other than a Scot, wearing a skirt is pretty gay. I've never heard of such a movement, and that's prOBably because most American males would have nothing to do with it. Internationally, there are plenty of guys who'd do something like that though.

Here's a list of a few things I'd do before I'd put on a skirt:

1. Name a star after another guy.
2. Share a single root beer float with two straws with another guy.
3. Ride on the back of a motorcycle with another guy driving.
4. Rub sunscreen on the hairy back of another guy.
5. Share a blanket and a bowl of popcorn with another guy while watching a chick flick.
6. Share a picknic lunch on a quilted blanket with another guy on sunny afternoon in the park.
Ewww. :icon_mrgreen: I'm guessing you won't be wearing a skirt anytime soon.

Actually, the movement is widespread and growing even here in America. One term that is used is "femulate" - men emulating women.

The thing to remember, though, is that before women began wearing pants as part of the culture, it was not socially acceptable for women to be in pants. But the women who were determined to change that wore them nonetheless...until it became a part of acceptable society. Don't kid yourself, it's gonna happen with men in skirts, too. A total confusion of the genders...we already have women with shorter hair than their husbands, women who have no modesty and can get "turned on" by sight (something that wasn't the norm not too many years back), men who are effeminate in nature, women who are uber masculine in nature, etc. The last remaining difference is the dress. But it's coming...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Duet. 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."

Duet. 22:11, "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

I do see a significant difference in these two verses. One, verse 11, is clearly for Israel and pertains to the Law. Verse 5, though it came about in the dispensation of the Law and OBviously it's primary application under the Law, is a little bit different. The difference is in verse 5 God goes so far as to say women wearing men's clothing and men wearing women's clothing is an ABOMINATION. That's a pretty strong word. God didn't take it lightly, He saw it as being outright wicked.

Typically, and correct me if I'm wrong, but things that God views as being extremly wicked stay wicked over dispensational lines. While God didn't want them to wear garments of divers sorts, He never went so far as to call it an abomination. You can debunk what I'm saying here, and OBviously feel free to, if you can show something in the Old Testament that was an abomination that is clearly made "ok" in the New.

Does God ever refer to breaking any dietary laws as an abomination?

Does God ever refer to breaking the sabbath as an abomination?

Why is my avatar so messed up and truncated, and will BroMatt ever fix it for me?

That's my :twocents:


Right, but there be many that do not understand the part I put in bold letters and take Duet. 22:11 out of context to try and prove women can wear anything they so chose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wading in very carefully here, but what's generally left out of the discussion is who defines men's and women's clothes. Scripture certainly doesn't. As was stated earlier, we know from history that both men and women wore rOBes prior to and during Jesus' time, but the rOBes were distinctly different in how they were made. In other words, the average person in those times could tell which type of rOBe was for men and which for women.

Sometime in Western history, rOBes gave way to dresses and pants. Society determined men wear pants and women dresses; however, Scottish men wear kilts, and there's been a resurgence in its popularity. Show a photo of a man wearing a kilt to an American 5th-grader, and he'll tell you that man is wearing a skirt; but calling it a skirt in front of a Scotsman, and them's fightin' words. The uniform of Roman soldiers had skirt-like characteristics, and Roman women still wore rOBes.

So, if society determines what men and women should wear, then the Scriptural command would be to wear what is gender-specific to that society, within Scriptural modesty principles, of course. Western society is "allowing" pants for women nowadays, and there are pants specifically designed for women. Women are entering more masculine jOBs today (that's another discussion), and wearing dresses/skirts is impractical. Imagine a female naval officer wearing a uniform skirt aboard ship - not practical, nor modest, nor safe.

My wife wears dresses or skirts 99.99999% of the time. She's believes that's what God wants her to wear, and I personally prefer it. I think a woman is more lady-like in an appropriately fitting dress/skirt. The only times she doesn't wear a skirt or a dress are when she's gardening, climbing a ladder, or riding with me on the motorcycle. In fact, I insist she wear blue jeans during those times. A dress would be impractical and immodest, and could actually cause her additional injury in an accident (think road rash). Plus, a woman wearing a skirt on a ladder, well, you understand. When she's finished with her project, she puts a skirt on.

My wife's jeans were designed specifically for women. They fit her properly and modestly, and she bought them at a women's clothing store. They are OBviously women's jeans, because no self-respecting man would wear them. I would be opposed to her buying jeans from the men's department, because men's jeans are not cut for women. Just like rOBes were, pants can be distinctive for gender.

Scripture doesn't define what men's clothes are and what women's are, and we're not as dogmatic about the issue as we purport to be. It seems to be OK for women to wear culottes, which were originally a man's garment and are pants by definition (look it up). When our little girls go out to play, we insist they wear pants or shorts underneath their dresses for modesty. What kind of message is that sending?

What Scripture does teach is modesty. We hear so much about women wearing skirts/dresses, but very little from the pulpit about the modesty of those skirts/dresses. And modesty standards have dramatically changed in the last 100 years. It appears that we're OK with a woman showing some leg, and it doesn't really matter that the rest of her outfit leaves very little to the imagination. I think we need to re-focus on modesty, and leave the wearing of specific items of clothing to the convictions of the wearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, I really don't feel right wearing pants of any kind (but I sincerely hope my saying so does not offend anyone who has posted on this thread). If I want to dress casually I wear a casual skirt. I don't wear jeans but I have made a couple of denim skirts--I make almost all my clothes now because it is so very difficult to find modest ready-to-wear clothing. For a long time now I have only worn dresses and skirts. I think it is particularly important for me to dress modestly because I do work in an office and I do interact regularly with both men and women from various backgrounds. In a situation like that I think it is particularly important to pay careful attention to modest dress and deportment not just for the sake of living my faith but also for the protection of my person and my reputation. What good would my long skirts do me, if I behaved in a flirtatious manner or if, although I didn't wear pants, I behaved aggressively or assertively as if I were a man? As other, wiser people have noted in this thread, I see dress and deportment as equally important in seeking to be modest.


Praise the LORD!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Unfortunately, many Christians don't want to consider, much less discuss this topic or see for themselves what Scripture says. As I've posted elsewhere, earlier this year Nancy Leigh DeMoss did a series on this topic on the radio. What she put forth was solid Scripture and presented so I don't see how anyone could not see the truth unless they were actively fighting against it. Nancy received a great deal of positive feedback from women who were trying to live by Scripture even though they were being attacked by other Christians for their stance. At the same time, many Christian women gave feedback which was negative and for the most part clearly showed they put their own wants above others and above Scripture.

Most professing Christian women in America want to dress how they please and most professing Christian men won't point them to Scripture; either out of fear, because they don't care or even because they like the immodest dress of these women.

I've seen Christian women flaunting their sexuality right in church! And Christian men panting over them! I know of a fine Christian woman who took biblical modesty seriously, as well as no sex before marriage. She determined after she came to Christ to only look to church men as potential mates. Sadly, what she discovered is that the men from church treated her just like the wordly men she had encountered prior to salvation.

We can't neglect one area of Scripture without it adversely affecting other areas. We can't ignore commands women might not like in order to not "offend" them without there being a ripple effect which leads to further ignoring of Scripture and more acceptance of sin.


Excellent post! However, how could said radio host, give a scriptural talk on this? Um, the last time I heard her, she didn't use scripture!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Right on, irishman. The very fact that God used the word "abomination" should make us sit up and take close notice. Again, I reiterate what I said earlier: God says that it is the individual who is the abomination - not the act! I think that is very telling! I certainly do not want to be considered an abomination to God: and, just as Seth mentioned regarding hair length, I don't want any question as to whether I am dressed in men's or women's apparel.


I also agree that disregarding Deut. 22:5 is the embryo of the homosexual movement. I remember hearing a preacher several years ago pointing out the natural progression of ignoring Deut. 22:5...we see the results in Romans 1.

It's interesting to note that the old time commentators tied Deut. 22:5 in with the verses in 1 Cor. 11 regarding hair lenght...with the emphasis being gender distinction. I know, I know, there are "women's pants" and "men's pants," so it is easy for us to rationalize that pants on women are okay (please, again - I am not bashing any woman who wears them, nor their men for allowing it). Usually that argument is based on the fact that our culture has changed and this form of dress has become acceptable (because, after all, the Bible doesn't expressly forbid pants on women). But...culture is still changing, and now there are men's skirts. There is a movement to "free" men from the confines of pants, just as women were "freed" from the confines of dresses...Some people (Christians) say that, should skirts on men become acceptable (and it is, more and more), then...

TheBible doesn't expressly forbid pants on women;it also doesn't expressly forbid men to wear skirts. I just wonder how many men would find skirts on men acceptable?


Another excellent post LuAnne!!!

It's so amazing to read the sermons and writings of Chrisitans over the centuries and how they stood on the Word of God as compared to those today who prefer to ignore, twist or water down the Word in order to appease certain people or simply to draw larger crowds.

Much of this comes down to pride and self-centeredness. Unless we are truly ready to give up our own wants and actually OBey the Word of God, we will find excuses not to. I could make many excuses to wear well above the knee shorts and a tight tank top while letting my hair grow longer. That wouldn't make it right and it would certainly show my unwillingness to subject myself to Christ, casting aside my own desires in order to OBey His perfect commands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Excellent post! However, how could said radio host, give a scriptural talk on this? Um, the last time I heard her, she didn't use scripture!


I don't know what you heard so I can't comment on that. The programs I've heard she based everything upon Scripture and cited and read various verses and passages regarding the topic at hand. I've never yet heard a program of hers that doesn't begin with the Scriptural foundation and expound upon that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Right on, irishman. The very fact that God used the word "abomination" should make us sit up and take close notice. Again, I reiterate what I said earlier: God says that it is the individual who is the abomination - not the act! I think that is very telling! I certainly do not want to be considered an abomination to God: and, just as Seth mentioned regarding hair length, I don't want any question as to whether I am dressed in men's or women's apparel.


I also agree that disregarding Deut. 22:5 is the embryo of the homosexual movement. I remember hearing a preacher several years ago pointing out the natural progression of ignoring Deut. 22:5...we see the results in Romans 1.

It's interesting to note that the old time commentators tied Deut. 22:5 in with the verses in 1 Cor. 11 regarding hair lenght...with the emphasis being gender distinction. I know, I know, there are "women's pants" and "men's pants," so it is easy for us to rationalize that pants on women are okay (please, again - I am not bashing any woman who wears them, nor their men for allowing it). Usually that argument is based on the fact that our culture has changed and this form of dress has become acceptable (because, after all, the Bible doesn't expressly forbid pants on women). But...culture is still changing, and now there are men's skirts. There is a movement to "free" men from the confines of pants, just as women were "freed" from the confines of dresses...Some people (Christians) say that, should skirts on men become acceptable (and it is, more and more), then...

TheBible doesn't expressly forbid pants on women;it also doesn't expressly forbid men to wear skirts. I just wonder how many men would find skirts on men acceptable?


Excellent post!
June 8, 2003, I preached, for the last time, at a church I used to preach at very often! I mentioned this very subject, in passing! During said mention, I said something to the effect of, can you see Pastor (never mind his name) in a dress? After that, was a lot of laughter! I said, did I miss something? Well, I've never been back and said pastor hasn't talked to me much, unless he's had to, sense!
BTW, the reason I remember the date so well, is because I met the young lady, who's now my wife, two days later! LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...