Dedicated To The Men of God Who Preach the Word of God As It
Is To Men As They Are
"Preach The Word"
••••• •••••••••••• •••••••• •••••••••••• •••••••• •
CHAPTER FOUR- THE UNMENTIONABLE
ABOMINATION
••• •••••••••• ••••••••••• •••••••••• ••••••••••••
"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."
(Deuteronomy 22:5)
In fundamental churches in the last 10 years, probably
no one verse in the Bible has been the center of as
much controversy as this one. As fashions, even among
conservative people, have changed drastically, society's
fashion values have also changed the church. Until
recently it was difficult to find an Independent Baptist
Church, Nazarene Church, or Church of God that didn't
preach against pants, slacks, and jeans on women. Now,
it is becoming difficult to find one that does.
As one preacher put it, "Either we were lying to the
people then, or we are lying to them today." One thing
is certain, the Bible didn't change. It seems that a
growing number of fundamentalist preachers spend
more time preaching against Deuteronomy 22:5, than
they do the abomination of Deuteronomy 22:5.
Probably more people have left good soul-winning
fundamental churches over this issue, than any other.
When looking for a church, the question is not, "Does
the preacher believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the
fundamentals of the faith, godly living for God's
people, and the winning of souls?" Today, the deciding
factor for many is, "Does the preacher preach against
pants on women?"
A former member once told me that he could never
attend a church where the preacher smoked. He also
mentioned that he did not agree with my view that
pants on women were wrong. A few weeks later he left
the church over the latter issue and joined a church
where the preacher smoked.
Unfortunately, in many churches, the issue has
become centered around personalities rather than the
Scriptures. It does not really matter who agrees or
disagrees, but what does the Scripture teach? Too
many approach the issue not really caring about what
the Scripture teaches. They know how they feel and
are not going to change, no matter what.
Is there a Bible basis for using Deuteronomy 22:5 today?
Can it be used as "instruction in righteousness"
for the church today? We will look at the Scriptures to
see if there is merit to the teaching of this verse, or
whether we can ignore it.
SOME OBSERVATIONS
At the beginning, two observations need to be made.
First, neither obedience nor disobedience to this verse
has anything to do with getting a person to, or keeping
him or her out of, heaven. Salvation is by grace
through faith. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
life; He that believeth not the Son, shall not see
life..." (John 3:36). As covered in the chapter on
"legalism," to add obedience to this verse as an essential
to being saved, would be preaching a false gospel.
However, to say it is not important would leave the
door open to throw out most of the Scriptures concerning
Christian living with the same excuse.
Second, God used the same term regarding those
who wear the opposite sex's clothing that He did concerning
the homosexuals — abomination. He used the
same term concerning those who sow discord among
the brethren. He used the same term concerning
idolaters. He used the same term concerning the
froward. We are not talking about something which
God feels lightly about. Evidently, we are not talking
about something which makes little difference with
God. Considering the term God used, we had better be
sure as to whether or not this verse is meant for us.
ANSWERING SOME OBJECTIONS
Some have become so paranoid about this subject that
as soon as they hear the words "Deuteronomy" or
"abomination" they begin parroting objections to
Deuteronomy 22:5. "But that's in the Old Testament."
"But what about verses 9-12?" "But didn't they all
wear robes?" "That is legalism." "I'm not convicted
about it yet." "But my pants zip up the side."
Concerning the statement about the verse being in
the Old Testament, they should be commended for their
insight. Yes, it is in the Old Testament. That means it
is part of Scripture. That also means it is part of the
Scripture given for "doctrine, reproof, correction, and
instruction in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16).
Dr. John R. Rice stated in his book Dr. Rice, Here Are
More Questions:
"The New Testament clearly teaches that the Old Testament
laws about the relations of men and women are still
binding. First Corinthians 14:34 says: "Let your women
keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto
them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as also saith the law." Here the law means, of course,
the first five books of the Bible. So the same doctrine of the
Pentateuch is the doctrine of the New Testament, when it
comes to the relationship of men and women.." (Page 484)
Concerning "legalism," you need to reread chapter
two. Concerning the question of whether or not you
are convicted about it yet, you need to reread chapter
three. But, let's discuss some of the other objections.
WHAT ABOUT VERSES 9-12?
"Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers
seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou has
sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
"Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass
together.
"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as
of woolen and linen together.
"Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four
quarters of this vesture, wherewith thou coverest
thyself."
If we must obey verse 5, should we have to obey
these verses as well?
There were three different kinds of laws given to
Israel in the Old Testament: dietary laws, ceremonial
laws, and moral laws. Some would put the dietary laws
under the ceremonial laws, however, a distinction can
be made.
Obviously, dietary laws restricted the items Israel
was allowed to eat. This was mostly for health reasons.
One needs to understand that Israel did not have all
the modern conveniences for insuring the safety of
their food. Neither did they have government agencies
to guard the food quality.
Ceremonial laws were given to teach Israel spiritual
lessons. Not that there was anything inherently evil in
the prohibited practices, but Israel needed to learn
some important Spiritual principles. For instance,
Deuteronomy 22:9,11 taught Israel the doctrine of
separation. They were not to marry the heathen, nor
accept their ways. This principle was carried over to
the New Testament in II Corinthians 6:14, "Be ye not
unequally yoked together with unbelievers."
Moral laws were prohibitions against practices contrary
to the nature of God's holiness. Since God's
nature has not changed, moral laws are still to be
obeyed today. For instance, "Thou shalt not kill" was a
moral law. Since man was made in the image of God,
to kill a man is to strike out against God.
Of the Ten Commandments, 9 were moral laws and
one was ceremonial. How can we know? We can know
by reading the Scripture. Exodus 31:14 clearly states
that the Sabbath was to be a sign between God and
Israel. Verse 17 states, "It is a sign between me and the
children of Israel forever..." Colossians 2:14- 17 informs
the church that the observance of Sabbath days
was blotted out at the cross and is not binding upon
the New Testament Church.
However, man is still to love God with all his heart,
soul, and mind (Matt. 22:39). Man should still keep
himself from the graven images of idolatry (II Cor.
6:16). The Lord's name should not be taken in vain
(Rom. 2:24; Jas. 2:7). When Paul commanded children
to honor their parents (Eph. 6:4) his reason was that it
"is the first commandment with promise." Committing
adultery, lying, and stealing, are still sins because
God's holiness has not changed (Mal. 3:6).
How do we know that Deuteronomy 22:5 is part of the
moral law of God? The answer is found in the verse:
"All that do so are an abomination unto the Lord."
Since God has not changed, that which was an abomination
to Him 3000 years ago is still an abomination to
Him today.
Compare Deuteronomy 22:5 with Leviticus 11:10
and you will discover that the word "abomination" was
used in the dietary laws. However, certain foods were
to be an abomination unto Israel, they were never said
to be an abomination to God.
Deuteronomy 22:5 cannot be set aside when deciding
which clothes are right and wrong. Its principle remains
for the New Testament Church as "correction
and instruction in righteousness."
BUT DIDN'T THEY ALL WEAR ROBES?
No, men and women did not all wear robes. A study
of The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
will clear up the differences in the fashions of men and
women in Bible times. Even a quick look at the pictures
of dress in Bible times reveals obvious differences.
It is interesting to see that Merrill Tenney,
editor of the encyclopedia, has a section entitled
"Men's garments," and another entitled "Women's
garments."
The women's garments resembled floor-length
dresses. These dresses did not accent the figure, and
were even modest when the ladies were bending over,
working in the fields. The men's garments allowed
much freedom of movement. The bottom of the garment
could be brought up and girded about the waist
to allow more freedom for working, running, or battle.
BUT THE ZIPPER IS ON THE SIDE
This argument was common a few years ago, but not
any longer. As women began to enjoy looking more like
men, they have naturally gone to attiring themselves
in men's jeans, showing no concern for the location of
the zipper. However, the same argument would put
our Christian men in dresses, as long as the zipper was
in front.
Unless this seems far-fetched to you, two major
television networks in January of 1984 showed the
latest in men's fashions for the office. You guessed it
— dresses. One designer stated, "In a few years, this
will be the acceptable fashion for the office." Since
women are already wearing their pants (even jeans) to
the office, this latest development is not so surprising.
The Scriptures we explained away, to allow our women
to be more masculine, will make pretty lads out of our
men.
Those who told the women to ignore Deuteronomy
22:5 concerning their dress will be hard pressed to defend
their feelings about men (or whatever) who decide
to wear dresses.
In the Scriptures we are told to depart from evil,
hate evil, and avoid all appearance of evil. Surely, that
which is an abomination to God is evil. Therefore, we
ought to avoid the very appearance of it. There should
be definite distinctions in the fashions of Christian
men and women.
Deuteronomy 22:5 must be one guideline for Christians
when considering clothes. However, there are
many others, too. We will consider those in the next
chapter.
STUDY FROM DR. MIKE ALLISON
