Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Ok, I am curious about this standard, which I perhaps have seemed to take for granted, and that is that the sisters should always wear skirts and dresses. It seems reasonable to me that the sisters should dress this way for modesty and gender distinction, however, there seem to be many here in disagreement. Would anyone have a study that could explain your position on this? I am also curious in that I think I remember when either Peter or Paul were speaking on modest dress for the sisters, the term for the dressing of the sisters was some sort of a garment that would hang down, thereby for some, requiring that women not wear pants...

What say ye?...

-Bro. Alex

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Ok think about it did they do this back when this was wrote...NO... and the whole thing about women not putting on a mans garment is not refering to clothes..it cannot be cause they all wore the samething back then when the scriptures were wrote.....

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Sept5savedteen show me where this is in the bible as you quoted...

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

This is about the most twisted up portion of scripture in my opinion...LOL

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

See even after Deuteronomy was wrote everyone still wore the same thing so the scripture means something more than dressing...

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

oh of course..... it was all the same thing.... Where do you come up with this logic? The scripture is clear and I have argued the points before and it is what it is. How to apply it is another issue we can argue but distinction of clothing is clear in the text no matter how you want to cut it.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Deuteronomy 22:30 I think men need to wear the skirts not women...LOL

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

yawn...

Also the geber argument is poor and I have detroyed that pathetic argument before. Structure and thought process does not allow it.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

One must consider and find why Deut.22:5 was originally written,and then figure out how it fits in with the culture and society one is apart of.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

I am sorry if the truth hurts Luke.....

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

nothings hurting me.... Not sure why you think anything you said effects my beliefs.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Is a skirt and blouse really OK? I mean, isn't that a bit too close to the way men dress, with pants and a shirt? Better safe than sorry, ladies: better stick with dresses. ;)

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

I think the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 deals with cross dressing, and of course an off shoot of that may be to deliberately look distinct from one another. However, as has been pointed out, there were times in history when men and women wore similar styles, so I think the main idea is that we aren't to try to pass ourselves off as the opposite gender. (e.g., cross dressing)

As for Paul talking about modest dress, what he said was, "...that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;" (I Tim. 2:9)

According to Strong's, "modest" means "orderly, decorous,...of good behavior", and "apparel" simply means "a deposit; costume; apparel."

I don't know of any other reference to modest apparel in the NT. In Peter it talks about how our adornment shouldn't be "that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, ...of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel."

In THAT verse, "apparel" means "a dress, apparel, cloke, clothes, garment, raimant, robe, vesture." It's a pretty generic term, referring to nearly any type of garment. PLUS, you can't interpret that verse to be speaking against women braiding their hair and wearing gold, and then turn around and say that it shows they SHOULD be wearing dresses. (If you choose to narrowly interpret apparel as "dress.") :coffee2

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

I have always wondered why it is that when you bring up any other old testament law i.e. Sabbath, diet, etc - we are told that old testament laws do not apply to us today - but for some reason this one still applies - anyone know?

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

All Scripture is profitable for instruction --

While I certainly don't believe Deut 22:5 is referring to pants, it is telling us what God likes/doesn't like. He appreciates gender distinction, and in the New Testament, we are exhorted toward modesty. If you can be modest in your britches, then wear them. If not, don't. Is there really more to this?

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Can you say pick and choose....LOL

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Many who argue against pants, talk about the history of pants in our time. They claim (except for the Chinese) pants weren't worn on women until the Feminist Movement and the 1st and 2nd World Wars, where women wanted to escape their domestic roles. This is all true -- and shows them getting rid of their long gowns was a symbol of their equality to men. I find all that true. But, I'm just not sure it's enough groundwork to discourage saints not to wear pants in the church. Our culture today has no qualms about women in pants (although I did find it interesting the Hillary vs. Laura Bush saga about who wore pants more often equated with their femininity).

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

There is picking and there is certainly choosing, though not arbitrary :)

If the law has been carried over into the NT writings, it's safe to say it still applies. If the law is moral (as opposed to ceremonial or civil), it's safe to say it still applies. More than anything though, the OT was a shadow of the real thing to come. So the OT tells us much about the character and nature of God, what our God likes and doesn't like. He's a very particular God, but we miss the point when we over-analyze on his particulars and miss his principles.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

I don't remember who, but I think someone researched and in that time as part of idol worship men and women would cross dress and commit adultery and that was the abomination (the idol worship and adultery), not the type of clothing.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

There is likewise still distinction in the category of denim jeans, between men's and women's.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Scholars (surprise, surprise) have no agreement on this -- but we have enough information to understand some basics from the Text.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

:blahYawn, Yawn.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

What a man thinks in his own mind about what he destroyed may not truly have been destroyed at all by him.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

What is the "geber argument?"

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

that is correct....

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Whats a geber argument luke?

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

that the context of Deut 22:5 is talking about weapons "keliy" of war and the reference to man = warrior "geber" etc... THe context though shows otherwise and the second part makes no sense at all if the first part is warrior. It also shows KWS point above that clothes in part are the issue but not the only issues. It doesn't lighten the point it makes it more full in the lives of God's servants not less effective. Which you would expect but most want to minimize it's use which effectively makes way for do what you want as usual with no rational thought for today just a lot of gray area so everyone is "ok"! Just to put is mildly and short!

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

show me the reference that points to this? Not guess work but the context in the passage that says so.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

modesty from a historical stand point of form fitting on women and what it reveals says otherwise. JMHO Would never have been acceptable what I see on women today... How will God judge it? Not sure, but I don't want to find out on me or my family.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Yep, as it's guess work and the text says nothing or even hints to it as reference to idol worship.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Some of Lukes2447 kin folk...LOL j/k

http://epguides.com/LittleHouseonthePrairie/cast.jpg

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

missing a few things but hey what a family! The right number too! LOL need some boys though!! Calling it a day on that note!

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Oh, okay! :)

I think the whole context of the verse states that dressing as the opposite gender is wrong. Especially in the sense of "becoming" or passing oneself off as the opposite sex. That's what makes sense to me.

I do not believe the verse teaches that men and women cannot wear any clothing that is similar in appearance, style or fabric. It's a bit deeper than that.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

The question arises about the kind of apparel men and women should wear as Christians. Much tradition, again, has claimed that men alone can wear slacks and trousers or pants, and women should only wear dresses and skirts. The verse such Christians resort to is as follows:

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV 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.

The English words, “that which pertaineth” come from one Hebrew word, “keliy”. “Unto a man” is one Hebrew word, “geber”.

"Keliy geber" is translated as “that which pertaineth unto a man.”

Adam Clarke in his commentary noted that the two Hebrew words imply the arms or the instruments of a man. Geber is usually used to speak of a strong man or a soldier. Therefore, armor was likely the intended point here. Amongst the worship to the false goddess Venus, or Astarte, women often wore armor of a man. Women we required to appear in such armor before this goddess. Clarke noted that it certainly would not simply refer to a change of clothing so as to have men pass for women and women pass for men, for the clothing of men and women were so similar that a man wearing a woman’s apparel would not cause him to be seen as wearing women’s clothing. However, if men are mistaken to be women and women mistaken to be men, this would be wrong.

Since Moses always repeated everything he ever wrote as Law, and since there is nothing at all ever repeated about mere difference in men's and women's clothing, but there is a very much repeated note of idolatry, it seems the mere difference of apparel is not Moses' point for this Law of God. If it were mere difference of appearance then Moses would have clearly defined those differences for such an important law, as they are all important. But we find no such detailed address of the distinctions at all.

That is the argument, sister.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

The word 'modest' is in the Bible only one time.

In my opinion, that one time is not even referring to the amount of skin shown, but is referring more to being seemly, not flashy: "orderly, decorous,...of good behavior"

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

Why are pants modest on a man? Bo and Luke Duke could forevermore make a pair of jeans look nice. :D

So you'll say - well, they wore them too tight. Same argument for women, no? My mother-in-law wears pants and NO ONE would say she looks immodest in them!

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

I Timothy 2:9 also uses the term "shamefacedness", which means "bashfulness, that is, (towards men), modesty or (towards God) awe: - reverence, shamefacedness."

While I agree with the idea of moderation in dress, as it relates to not being "flashy", I also conclude from the context that showing a great deal of skin/flesh is out of line with being "shamefaced", or modest. (especially towards men)

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

True, definitely. But in our modern day, we say - 'The Bible says to dress in modest apparel!!' - and WE mean how much flesh is showing. We overlook his complete meaning.

As I've said before, I think "cover up!" (what we mean by modesty) comes under the heading of loving your neighbor. So I definitely believe it is a Biblical principle.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5
 

This would be of interest here.
http://www.beki.org/crossdress.html