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 homepage

Go Back to Controverisal Issues