Deuteronomy
 

Hey Guys,
Praise the King!
Jesus is lord!
Amen
Let's discuss about this head banging
verse among the verses of the Bible.
You see one of the major problem in the
church is to rightly divide the word! between NT and OT

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.

What does the verse actually mean??:confused:
with blessing
Ev. Steve

Women are not to go out of their way to look like a man on purpose and man are not to go out of their way to look like a woman.

It doesn't say not to look like the opposite sex, but not to wear clothing that is for the opposite sex - such as men wearing skirts and dresses, and women wearing... pants...

Before anyone says that was OT and no longer applies, do a trace of the word "abomination" (in the context of what is an abomination to God Himself), and show where any of those abominable things/sins are done away with. If they are not, neither is this commandment.

It means that cross-dressing is an abomination to the Lord,

I have to wonder though, does this commandment "bend" regarding one's culture? Does the meaning depend on the social standards one is born into? I mean, in Scotland, men wear kilts, which to us are skirts, but to them, it is what men wear. I really fail to see Scots in cultural sin, when they wear their kilts. Cultural sin is sin nevertheless.
Likewise, in our culture, there is nothing "wrong" with women wearing pants, but do women who wear pants disgust God in cultural sin?

God says for men to wear women's clothing is an abomination - and vice versa. He doesn't say it is an abomination IF it goes against the culture. Study out the history of pants (who wore pants - breeches - in the Bible?), especially in North America. Scotland is a pagan culture (I believe it is wrong for men to wear dresses or skirts or kilts - anything like that, regardless of where they are on earth) - so we shouldn't look to them as examples of how God's people are to live.

actually, i gotta be nitpicky on this one, a traditional kilt is actually a long piece of fabric wrapped around the waist and then over the shoulderand tucked in at the waist. kilts were used for identification of a clan or family, and also as covering likea blanket during storms and cold weather.. it's these modern kilts that are really nothing more than skirts. i'm scottish rooted. i want to get the kilt with the clan tartan my family belonged to. but now that i think of it, i don't because of what is written in this passage of scripture.. but now i wonder one thing..

is this passage the equivelant of effeminate in rom. 1?

from my studies i've found that effeminate reffers to a male prostitute [catamite] kept in pagan temples, but i am willing to admit i am wrong if someone could verify others

I'm not for women wearing pants but I can't make it a doctrine or rule because of the fact that it is old testament, and I don't stand on anything 100% unless it's out of Paul's books. Basically I believe God changes in the way He deals with people but not in His morals or principles. In this verse He wants there to be a distinction between what a woman wears and what a man wears. Pants first started coming out for women to wear during WW1 and especially during WW2 to enable them to take the place of the men in the workplace who were fighting. But the true position and duty of a women is to be as Peter says, "chaste, keepers at home." Also men were the only ones in the Bible who girded their loins to work or fight, which was a picture of pants. Basically I look at it this way, if a woman has to do something she can't do in a skirt she probably shouldn't do it. If that "something" requires her to be immodest in order to complete it, then I say save it for the husband to do.

Then how far can we push the women can't wear pants rule before it becomes legalism? They can't wear slacks either... I know you won't catch me in a slack... My wife you might... but that is considered a pant... and she's a janitor so she has to wear jeans, maybe she could wear dresses while cleaning up toilets... so where do we draw the line?

Where do you draw the line? The same place the Bible does. If it is just preference, then it doesn't matter. However, the passages states that those who disobey on this issue are an abomination to God. Trace out the word abomination - where it specifically states something is an abomination to God (not to others - such as shepherds being an abomination to the Egyptians or unclean foods being an abomination to the nation of Israel). Then see if ANY of those abominable things are now acceptable.

Is God now pleased with divorce? Is prostituting your daughters now acceptable? Is the occult now okay to practice? Is it permissable now to commit incest, sodomy, and other kinds of immorality? Does God now want you to pray to Him and offer spiritual sacrifices with a wicked heart? Is pride now considered a good thing? Does God now overlook the using of unjust weights?

Of course, the answer of all of these is no. God's moral nature has not changed - and if something was abominable to Him in the OT - it still is. Trace the word out and see what else He finds abominable.

again I don't believe we can make it a rule and say that those who don't skirts are wicked, sinful people. I look at it as a personal conviction. Peter said that a woman's attire should be modest. I think people try to make it harder than it actually is. I do not condemn or look down on those who wear pants because again it is just a PERSONAL conviction. Not to say it's not a good thing for people to practice. Another way that I look at it is pants outline a woman's figure very well and I also know that men are very VISUAL people.