Women were not to wear the clothing of a man or a man the clothing of a woman, a practice that might open the way for immorality, including homosexuality. (De 22:5)
The sim·lah′ was worn by both men and women, the woman’s being distinguishable from the man’s, perhaps in size, color, and decoration such as embroidery. God commanded that a woman should not wear a man’s garment, nor a man a woman’s mantle; this command doubtless being given in order to prevent sex abuses
Doubtless the morally repugnant practice of sodomy was the reason for the severity of the rule declaring the wearing of apparel of the opposite sex to be “detestable.”
2006-11-16 14:12:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by BJ 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have to agree with Jeremy, children are neglected when both parents work.
But I would like to add, in my own opinion, this verse means we are what we are and we should accept ours selves as we are. Women are the natural born caretakers and men are the natural born hunters.
Men are more goal oriented and women are better problem solvers. (Yes men the jury has already decided on that one.) Men are left brained and women are right brained. So they are better at things that require focus and women are better at multitasking.
Like rearing children for instance, men can only focus on one thing at a time but women can cook, clean, work a 9-5, (type up a presentation, send a fax, answer the phones, enter data, put together a mass mailing list and do the mailing, set the bosses appointments, make travel plans for 70 people to fly to a global meeting in Casablanca and set up the hotel rooms and book the conference center from half way across the globe, ((problem solving)) and still get all the vouchers done…) do the laundry, dress the kids, help them with their home work, break up their little fights with their friend, (problem solving), tend to their boo-boos, balance their check books, pay their rent, go to the after school sporting events, attend the PTA Meetings, make sure everyone is happy and the kids feel loved… and still find time to shower, shave, grocery shop, bake cookies and look good doing it!
Lots of single moms are doing it every day!
A man should never even attempt too try to keep up with a women, it will only hurt his poor little ego when he fails.
2006-11-16 12:20:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Feather 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Have you read all of deuteronomy? It is cultural and historical content for that day. People pick a verse out of the bible to build a doctrine on and then churches start fighting over who is right and who is wrong. Does it hurt anyone if a woman wears pants? No. And by the way, what men wore in some places in that day and time would be considered women's apparel in our current day and time. If you want to follow the letter of the law then I respect your right to as long as you don't try to make it the rule for everyone else.
2006-11-16 11:55:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The distinction between the sexes is of divine origin and the law set forth at Deuteronomy 22:5 served to preserve that distinction.
At the time the law was given, both men and women wore robes. But there was a definite difference between the garb of men and that of women. Similarly, in some parts of the earth today both men and women wear slacks. But styles of slacks for women differ from those for men. Accordingly, the principle taught at Deuteronomy 22:5 would not rule out a woman’s wearing slacks or pants.
Moreover, Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 6:14) Insistence on applying the letter of this law would therefore be contrary to Christian teaching. So if a woman were to put on a worn-out pair of her husband’s trousers to do a job around the house or on the farm, she would not be going against the evident purpose of the law, namely, to prevent confusion of sexual identity and sexual abuses.
The fact that Christians are not under the Mosaic law but are guided by its principles calls for them to use discernment, good judgment and to exercise their conscience. A Christian woman appreciates that whether it would be proper for her to wear slacks or pants depends upon factors other than her personal likes. She would not want to be the cause for stumbling others or bring reproach on the Christian congregation. Clothing that may not be looked on with disfavor if worn in the privacy of one’s home or at work may be objectionable if worn at Christian meetings and when publicly proclaiming God’s Word or carrying on other public activity. Attitudes, too, may differ from area to area. The Bible’s counsel is that women “adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, . . . in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works.”—1 Tim. 2:9 10.
2006-11-16 13:26:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by papavero 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Let's see here. Hmmmmm. Let me look into the ancient manuscripts here....
I'd say, based on hermeneutics and the teachings of Judaism and the Early Church, I'm pretty sure this verse means:
"A woman shall not wear men's clothing, neither shall a man put on women's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your Father."
2006-11-16 11:44:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
It means that you should not be crossdressing as the same thing was applied to man in the same verse. At that time there were no female carpenters and such. I do not think a carpenter of either sex would be able to do their job very easily in a skirt nor any other of a gazillion jobs where pants facilitate ease of movement.
2006-11-16 11:51:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by mortgagegirl101 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I have to say that the verse definitely makes a lot of sense. I think that a man in a skirt looks just plain ugly (see http://www.apple.com/getamac/ "Better Results"), and women were not meant for business suits.
I'm going to get a lot of hate mail for this, but God's plan is for the women to stay in the home, not to go out and work. Children are neglected when both parents work. The world was much better off when God's plan for families were still in place. Nowadays people only have one or two kids, and they grow up to be spoiled brats. (I have 9 siblings plus one on the way, and they're much more well-behaved than most other kids I see.)
But that's enough of my preaching for now. In a nutshell, that verse means exactly what it says.
2006-11-16 11:45:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by pianoman.jeremy 4
·
3⤊
4⤋
Men should dress and act like men and women should dress and act like women.
Seems pretty clear. God does not like people being a "drag queens".
Be happy with the gender you were born with.
2006-11-16 11:58:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by JoeBama 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
To an Israelite around 1450 B.C. it meant for men to be men and women to be women. For you today it has no meaning other than that God had rules for His "chosen people" 3500 years ago.
2006-11-16 11:47:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mr Marc 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
But didn't they all wear long flowing gowns back then? How could you tell which was a man's flowing robe, and which was a woman's? I mean, I'm just sayin' ....
:P
2006-11-16 11:48:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by MyPreshus 7
·
1⤊
1⤋