Deuteronomy 22:5 tell us "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."
As with many other commands of God's word it is one that
the devil has attacked and we have seen an attack that has been
mounted to undermine the difference in the sexes. This has been
particularly seen in the feminist movement. The Bible has always
given a very high place to women. In fact the teaching of the
Word of God has revolutionised the way that women have been viewed.
The Bible, for example commands a man to love his wife even as
Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5:25). That means that he should
love her in such a way that he should be willing to lay down his
life for her. The teaching of the Bible is that there is an equality
between the sexes but that there are different roles that each
sex have in life. To deny that the sexes are different is simply
to deny a fact of nature. To deny that the sexes think differently
is also to deny a fact of experience. Rather than seeking to mask
those differences and make men more feminine and women more masculine
we should be glorying in the differences that God has given. But
instead the agenda of today is to try and mask those differences
Part of that agenda has been worked out in the world of fashion
where there has been a definite political agenda at work. In a
B.B. C. Radio 4 "Women's Hour" programme on 19 May 1992,
for example a spokesman stated that trousers for women only came
into style at the start of this century. The Curator of Textiles
at the Victoria and Albert Museum stated how that they were seen
as a threat to men at the start. Chanel was first to get publicity
for designing trousers for women in the 1920's but it was not
until the 1960's that trousers for women really caught on. Those
taking part in the programme spoke of the "politics of Cross
Dressing" and that for women to wear trousers is "certainly
making a political statement". It may not be that women today
see it as much of a political statement but it certainly has been
seen as such in the past.
Again on another BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" programme
on 1 April 1992 there was a report about a campaign going on,
at that time in the University of Pasadena in the United States.
There had been a row about the signs on the women's rest rooms.
They wanted to have signs picturing women in jeans rather than
women in skirts and they argued that the image of women in skirts
was pre - fifties and before the feminist revolution. So the picture
of women in skirts was for them "anti-feminist" Obviously,
then there were people, even in as late as 1992 who could see
the political statement that was being made by the wearing of
trousers for women.
It is often the case that the political fashion of the day is
reflected in the fashions that people wear.
There are those who will argue, of course that the command in
Deuteronomy 22 has passed away with the rest of the ceremonial
law. After all it is in the midst of commands about not sowing
your vineyard with divers seed and of making a battlement on your
roof if you build a new house and making fringes on your garments.
People argue that all these laws have passed away with the ceremonial
law and they argue that if you do take the one about men and women
not wearing the clothes of the other sex seriously then you must
take the others seriously too. Let us look then at the other commands
Verse 6 says, "If a bird's nest chance to be before thee
in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be
young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon
the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:" Certainly
that is a command for today. How cruel it would be to drive a
bird away that is sitting on a nest. Here is God's concern for
animal welfare!
Verse 8 says, "When thou buildest a new house, then thou
shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood
upon thine house, if any man fall from thence." "Surely,"
you say, "You are not arguing that we should all put battlements
on our roof?" But we should remember that the roofs of houses
in the east were flat and so if there was not a parapet (perhaps
a more accurate translation than battlement) around the house,
there was a danger that someone might fall off. So this is God's
concern for health and safety. The Lord was concerned that they
put safety features in their houses. Again surely that is a command
for today!
Verse 9 says, "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers
seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the
fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled" and then it goes on to
prohibit ploughing wit an ox an ass together and having garments
of woollen and linen mixed together. There are also reasons for
these things. For example the reason why an ox and an ass should
not be yoked together is because the step of an ox and an ass
are different and they could not pull together without causing
exertion and weariness to one. So this was an animal welfare issue
and its principles apply today.
The prohibition of wearing a "linsey woolsey" garment.
Possibly had health implications but it was also probably a picture
to the children of Israel that they were to keep a separated position
and they were not to mingle themselves with the heathen. This
was also probably the reason why they were forbidden to sow their
vineyard with different seeds. Andrew Bonar the great commentator,
writing on Leviticus 19:19 where the prohibition of sowing with
different seeds is also stated said,
" being a people familiar with types and emblems, it was
natural to teach them, by common occurrences, spiritual truths
that must always be attended to. Hence they are to testify their
abhorrence of the immoral mixtures of heathen lewdness, by their
mingling of linen and wool in the same garments; by never sowing
two different kinds of seed in one field; and by avoiding mixture
of species among the cattle. Perhaps they thus also expressed
their adherence to the principle of one true God, keeping themselves
separate from idols and idolatry."
Thus the pictures that the children of Israel were being given
are still principles we should adhere to today. I believe that
the principles of a difference made between the sexes should also
be adhered to today and if there is a political agenda to blur
what are legitimate differences we should avoid being part of
that. We have made it clear that the Bible holds both men and
women to be equal. But equal does not men the same.
Go Back to Controverisal Issues