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.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
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.")
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
Linear Mode
