Deuteronomy 22:5

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

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

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

[KWSS1976]

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

[LUKE2447]

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!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

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!

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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Whats a geber argument luke?

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.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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."

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"

[*AQuietPlace*]

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

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!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

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"

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)

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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)

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.

[Scott Hutchinson]

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