Monday, July 06, 2009

History and Deuteronomy 22:5 (part one)

Writing on Deuteronomy 22:5 isn't my favorite activity. However, it is one of the those truths under attack in our culture. It becomes a practical squeaky wheel. Therefore, I keep applying the oil. As it applies to this particular issue, I like this quote from Martin Luther (Luther’s Works, St.L. ed., vol. 9, pg. 825):

When the devil has persuaded us to surrender one article of faith to him, he has won; in effect he has all of them, and Christ is already lost. He can at will unsettle and take all others, for they are all intertwined and linked together like a golden chain so that if one link is broken, the entire chain is broken and can be pulled apart. There is no article which the devil cannot overthrow once he has succeeded in having reason dabble in doctrine and speculate about it. Reason knows how to turn and twist Scripture in a masterly fashion into conformity with its views. This is very agreeable, like sweet poison.

This isn't a difficult issue. Deuteronomy 22:5 isn't hard to understand. It isn't even hard to apply in our culture. However, like many other issues, it becomes difficult because of the pressure of this world system in which we reside. What men have done to Deuteronomy 22:5 reminds me of what they also do with 1 Corinthians 11:3 among other verses. Theologians go back into history and etymology to define "head" as "source" instead of "authority over" (an article that deals with this issue, and another). They do this to support an egalitarian society without male headship, removing distinctions in role between men and women.

In the case of Deuteronomy 22:5 men use the same types of arguments . I think they're even worse. They simply speculate the intention of the biblical text. God prohibits women from putting on the male garment and men from putting on the female garment, but instead the intention was to avoid Canaanite worship rituals or to stop women from impersonating men for purposes of seduction, or if those don't work, to keep women from attempting to join the military. All of those read into the text something that isn't there.

I believe that the intention of the text of Deuteronomy 22:5 is interesting. However, what we're guessing was the intention could not be the intention if it changes the plain meaning of the words and syntax of the verse itself. You can't start getting into intention until you understand what the verse is saying. Nothing in the surrounding context of the verse will help us understand the intent. Explaining a probable intention after understanding the meaning of the verse could help someone who doesn't wish to obey the verse. It could help someone comprehend why God would say someone is an abomination. However, we shouldn't allow possible intent to alter the clear meaning of the verse. I believe what men are doing is what Jesus warned the Pharisees about in Mark 7:13:

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The Pharisees didn't just teach for doctrines the commandments of men (Mk 7:7). They also made the Word of God of none effect. Many professing Christians want to make Deuteronomy 22:5 of none effect. They don't like the law. It embarrasses them before the world. So they nullify it with all sorts of strained hermeneutical ploys. Know what? You can chop the verse up however you want to. You're still responsible to keep it. And don't tell me you love God if you won't.

How Men Have Understood Deuteronomy 22:5

Here are some commentators and their understanding of this plain verse.

Barnes' Notes were published in 1884-1885, and it states,

[D]istinctions between sexes is natural and divinely established, and cannot be neglected without indecorum and consequent danger to purity (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3-15).

Keil and Delitzsch, foremost Hebrew scholars, wrote:

As the property of a neighbor was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothes peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. There shall not be man's things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman's clothes.

Pulpit Commentary states,

[T]his is an ethical regulation in the interest of morality. . . . Whatever tends to obliterate the distinction between sexes tends to licentiousness, and that the one sex should assume the dress of the other has always been regarded as unnatural and indecent.

Lange's Commentary reads,

The distinction between the sexes is natural and established by God in their creation, and any neglect or violation of that distinction, even in the externals, not only leads to impurity, but involve (sic) the infraction of the law of God.

Louis Entzminger wrote in 1936,

Notice v. 5 (Deuteronomy 22), forbidding women to wear male attire. This law was given to preserve the distinction of the sexes which was established at the creation of male and female.

Joseph Excell wrote in 1849, as recorded in The Biblical Illustrator: Deuteronomy:

God thought womanly attire of enough importance to have it discussed in the Bible. Just in proportion as the morals of a country or an age are depressed is that law defied. Show me the fashion-plates of any century from the time of the Deluge to this, and I will tell you the exact state of public morals. Ever and anon we have imported from France, or perhaps invented on this side of the sea, a style that proposes as far as possible to make women dress like men. The costumes of the countries are different, and in the same country may change, but there is a divinely ordered dissimilarity which must be forever observed. . . . In my text, as by a parable, it is made evident that Moses, the inspired writer, as vehemently as ourselves, reprehends the effeminate man and the masculine woman.

In a sermon entitled, "The Sinfulness of Strange Apparel," Puritan preacher Vincent Alsop said in the mid 17th Century:

Nothing can justly pretend to be lawful ornament, which takes away the distinction which God has put between the two sexes.—That law, Deut xxii. 5, is of moral equity and perpetual obligation: . . . That which pertaineth, keli—The word signifies any "vessel, instrument, utensil, garment, or ornament," military or civil, used for the discrimination of the sex: so Ainsworth (In Pentateuchum). . . . God therefore will have the distinction between the sexes inviolably observed in the outward apparel. . . . What particular form of apparel shall distinguish the one sex from the other, must be determined by the custom of particular countries; provided that those customs do not thwart some general law of God, the rule of decency, the ends of the apparel, or the directions of scripture.

Matthew Poole wrote in 1560,

Now this (a woman wearing a man's garment) is forbidden, partly for decency's sake, that men might not confound nor seem to confound those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest umbrage or sign of softeness and effeminacy in a man, of arrogance and impudency in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both, and partly to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, which this practice opens wide door unto.

Jewish scholar Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote in 1966:

It seems to us that it is clear that, according to this way of taking the prohibition, is not so much disguising one's sex by dressing in female clothes as forbidding each sex that which is more specifically pertaining to the nature of the opposite one. A man is just as little to get himself up with powder and paint and lipstick, etc.; which is all quite in order for women to do, and is in accordance with feminine nature, as a woman is to appear in a profession which belongs to the nature of men.

The Jewish Publication Society Commentary: Deuteronomy, states,

"Put on a man's apparel," Literally, "a man's keli may not be on a woman." The translation "apparel" makes this clause synonymous with the second part of the verse; it is based on the fact that the plural of keli means "clothing" in rabbinic Hebrew. . . . The halakhah combines both views: women may not wear armor or clothing, hairdos, or other adornments that are characteristic of men, not may men wear what is characteristic of women (what is characteristic of each sex is defined by local practice).

Walter C. Kaiser, who has a tremendous handle of the Old Testament law, writes concerning Deuteronomy 22:5,

The maintenance of the sanctity of the sexes established by God in the created order is the foundation for this legislation, and not opposition to idolatrous practices of the heathen. The tendency to obliterate all sexual distinctions often leads to licentiousness and promotes unnaturalness opposed to God's created order. Such a problem can arise in contemporary culture when unisex fashions are aimed at producing the bland person in a progressive desexualization of men and women. Thus, this provision aims mainly at one's clothes as an indication of one's sex.

Baptist Commentary says,

The text teaches that Israel was to maintain a clear-cut distinction between the sexes. It was, thus, necessary that clothing, as well as other things, which pertained to one, must not be utilized by the other.

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary says,

It is this fundamental principle which underlies the opening requirement of this section (i.e., of Deut. 22) that the distinction between man and woman should not be blurred by the one's appropriating the characteristic articles of the other (Deut. 22:5).

Davis' Dictionary of the Bible reads,

By the Mosaic law a man was forbidden to wear a garment that pertains to a woman, and a woman to wear that belonging to a man (Deut. Xxii.5; cp. 1 Cor. Xi. 6, 14).

J. Ridderbos in the Bible Student's Commentary: Deuteronomy, states,

The wearing of clothes of the opposite sex is forbidden.

Fred H. Wright in Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, writes,

The law of Moses forbade a man to wear a woman's clothing and a woman to wear a man's clothing (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Merrill Unger says,

While the costume of men and women was very similar, there was an easily recognizable distinction between the male and female attire of the Israelites, and accordingly Mosaic law forbids men to wear women's clothes, and vice versa (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Jack S. Deere on "Deuteronomy" in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, writes,

The same Hebrew word translated "detests" (toebah, lit., "a detestable thing;" KJV, "an abomination") is used to describe God's view of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). . . . Since this law was related to the divine order of Creation and since God detests anyone who does this, believers today ought to heed this command.

For those who try to make "intention" guide the actual meaning of the verse, we have these commentators.

Jewish rabbi, Rabbi Tilson, reports what the Jewish literature says about this position:

Some commentators have noted, however, that this understanding as explained by Rashi and the Shulhan Arukh does not seem to be based on the language of the verse. If the Torah had wanted to prohibit men from going out among women in women's dress it could have said that. This context of social mixing of men and women is imposed on the verse.

Earl S. Kalland writes in the Expositor's Bible Commentary:

The prohibition against a woman wearing the habiliments of a man and of a man wearing the clothing of woman can scarcely refer to transvestism . . . evidence for religious transvestism in ancient Canaanite religion is not conclusive.

For more information on this topic, read the study here.

More to Come. I'll be showing that this is the historic application of Deuteronomy 22:5.


philipians2511 said...

I for one really appreciate this Brother Brandenburg.

I too really do believe that the Bible makes it clear that we are to be gender distinct.

You present a clear and logical argument without having to resort to ad hominem attacks.

I can't wait to see what your detractors have to say in rebuttal to your appeals. Sounds sick I know. But, they (your detractors) are pretty hilarious. Makes for cheap entertainment. Sorry.

Thanks Pastor.

Respectfully Submitted,

Bro Steve

Gal. 2:20

Anonymous said...

Hello Pastor,

I was curious on how long a skirt or dress must be and why? Also, are tank tops(not the spaghetti strap ones) immodest?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hello Anonymous,

I haven't dealt with the issue of modesty here. This is about the designed gender distinctions in dress. If you want to talk about something different than the post, email me at betbapt at flash dot net.

gary said...


My main comment is on your other Deuteronomy article, but I just wanted to say that you need to stop saying that those who disagree with your interpretation are in disobedience. You first need to prove your position. Then you can judge.

Bro Steve,

If you ask nicely, I'll bet pastor Kent will give you his autogragh.

I'm glad that you think the other side is hilarious. I've found a few from your side that are pretty funny too.

That is why I like pastor Kent, he is one of the very few from your side that talks with some wisdom and not pure women in pants are going to hell hate. I've got to go for now, so God bless.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Don't you think that your "autograph" comment is inappropriate? Perhaps Steve just agrees with the position.

I don't have it in me to laugh at any position that contradicts a scriptural position. Maybe I should be able to laugh. God will laughs at his detractors in the end.

The position I take is a historic one that has already been proven for centuries. It has not been replaced or shown to be found wanting. It is what the passage says. Most just ignore it today and usually mock those who practice it. I believe that anyone violating it is disobeying it. I can't believe it and think otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Gary, I think Dr. Brandenburger has more than proven his point, both from Scripture and from history. Further, I think that you just don't want to see it, and therefore don't.

This being said, a woman wearing pants and cutting her hair short is in disobedience to God, regardless of whether you chose to believe this or not.

philipians2511 said...

Perhaps a re statement is in order here. I read the blog a lot. I side with Dr Brandenburg because he happens to be (IMO) the most well versed/read individual regarding these issues.

The reason why is simple. He states his case provides supporting arguments and doesn't resort to personal attacks as some of his detractors commonly do.

I am not trying to inflate Dr Brandenburg. He is as much a sinner as I am, probably not as bad a one as I but the fact remains. If anything I glorify God because He saved and sanctified the man.

If I laugh, it is in astonishment. I am surprised at how hard some people work to justify the way they live despite the fact that it runs contrary to the Bible. If I were in the same position as one of his detractors and read what he posted, then I would at least do some "leg work" to find out whether or not he was in error. Most ,and I do say most, choose against this. They'd rather fling mud. Don't get me wrong there are those on this side of the camp that are guilty of the same.

Finally Titus stated it just as well.

I love you in the Lord Gary and I hope that I have not offended you in any measure.

Respectfully Submitted

Bro Steve

Gal. 2:20

Gary said...


Buuut dad, he called me hilarius. Just kidding. I think that Bro Steve and I may not agree on this issue, but we have a mutual brotherly love toward each other. We might even have the same bad sense of humour. If I try and fail to make a joke. Please forgive me. I never seek to offend.

I'm looking forward to your part two were you bring in the historical applications.


I say this respectfully, because I think that you are getting this blog confused with another. Dr. Kent has not proven anything from scripture or history or even mentioned anything on this site yet. Only commentators. I think that the proving will be in part two.

If you want to honestly see where I'm coming from, take a look at his June 8th Deuteronomy 22:5 post.
I think that Dr. kent started the article, because of that discussion.

To all,

Let's try something different. Let's look at the text in plain English and not try to assume anything. No Idolitry, sexual sin's, specific garments ( because that would be assuming), etc.

A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all those that do so are abomination unto the LORD your God.

Now let's look at 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
For though I be free from all men,
yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law,(being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak become as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Ok, we are ambassador here on Earth in a country called America.
In this culture the costomary clothing for man is male pants and suits. The females in this country wear dresses, and a garment called women's pant's which are slightly different from the male's, but you can tell the two sexes apart.

Without assuptions this becomes clear doesn't it? God Bless.

Gary said...


One more thing. I was
looking over our past discussion and realized that you said plain meaning, not plain text.
As I showed before and that you admitted to, you are assuming what the meaning is. You don't know 100% what the meaning is. Since you are taking an educated guess just like the other bible scholars from the other side who use scripture to back up what they say. Why do you alude that scripture only agrees with your interpretation. The others have solid scriptual points.
Remember God and his words are infallible, your conclusions are not.
I really think that you need to be more humble and stop calling those who honestly seek the Lord disobedient when your interpretation is far from flawless. God bless.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I'm making no assumptions on the meaning. The meaning is clear. The only way to avoid it is to read into the text. I believe the application is clear too. With that in mind, I believe many disobey the verse. It isn't more humble to say otherwise.

Gary said...


You are making an assumption on the meaning and you are reading into the text. You think(not know)
that pertaineth means a specific distinct garment. a lot of Jewish scholars with as much if not more Hebrew knowledge, disagree with you. You mention on the other blog a number of commentators that share your opinion, but it is not a majority opinion. You mentioned that only two of them link 1 Cor. 11 with Deuteronomy 22:5, so there goes your authority/clothes argument. The Job argument doesn't work, because the male and female garments themselves
could be simular, but not distinct. The difference could be in the belt (pertaineth connection)that the man used to gird up. Maybe it was immodest for the woman to gird up.

You have not put out your historical part two yet, but I think that your history is going to go back only a few centuries, due to the fact that ancient history does not support your opinion.

Let's look at just a few of the Church's infalllible positions of the past:

Church assumes that because because of Genesis that the universe rotates around the Earth.

I guess John Calvin was showing his "loving his neighbor" compassion when he shed tears as his victims were burned.

Churches used Scripture to justify slavery.

Churches took scripture out of context to say that marriage between to ethnic groups (even when both were Christian) to be wrong. I thought that we all came from Adam and Eve, thus we are the same race.
Those Churches were wrong.

I could give many more examlpes, but you get my point.

Once again you have to admit that your interpretation of the meaning and application is not without assumptions. The scriptures and history do not fully support your opinion.

To all,

Did I stump you guys on my ambassador example. I have not seen a response. God Bless.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I'm going to be really up front with you. Awhile ago, you entered the realm of the ridiculous in this discussion. If someone doesn't comment on your so-called 2 Cor 5 argument, it is from sheer exhaustion. It doesn't make any sense. 2 Cor 5 doesn't say anything about dress. Let me give you another example.

I told you that only two of the commentators I quoted did not say anything in particular about a particular distinct, distinguishing garment. And in this comment you tell me that I said that only two of my commentators make a connection between 1 Cor 11 and Deut 22. I've never said that. I haven't looked at those commentators to see if they have made that connection. I remember other men making the connection. I haven't look to see who. Why would they? It's easy to see that both passages are about distinctions in specific articles of clothing between men and women.

Another example is your John Calvin "argument," when you wrote, "I guess John Calvin was showing his 'loving his neighbor'. . . ." above. Nobody has said anything about John Calvin here or has justified anything he has done wrong. It relates zero to this issue.

Deut 22:5 indicates that male and female garments were distinct. It isn't a verse about their similarity. The point isn't to wear something similar.

The Job verses do work because God Himself says that a certain type of dress is "as a man," showing the existence of a particular, male-only dress. That backs up what we see in Dt 22:5 and 1 Cor 11:3-14.

I'll put up the historic application material and that will be it for awhile on this subject.

Gary said...


I seem to be anoying you, so out of respect to you, unless you or anyone else has any questions or comments for me, this will probably be my last post here.

I don't have a so called argument with 2 Cor 5. I've never used this verse. The verse was in 1 Cor 9 and my example using it makes perfect sense in light of this discussion.

I apoligize for misreading your commentators comment to me. Like I said before, I'll be looking at them this weekend.

Since in the last blog you did not have supporting ancient historical evidence for your position and only mentioned that when pants first came out for women that the church was against it. That is why I brought up some of the mistakes that the church has made and John Calvin. I honestly thought that you would see what I was doing there.

Here are a few final comments:

1. Job 38:3 the girding up is an action of the man, not dress of the man. You can read the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary to help understand this verse.

2. Sorry to repeat,but their is no male garment mentioned in 1 Cor. 11, only his uncovered head, thus proving my point in regards to authority. (refer to the June 8th article for new people.)

3. I honestly don't understand how you can still say that you are not assuming and that scriptures support you. Dr. Kent, honestly you cannot say that their is no assumptions on your part in regards to the meaning. I have shown your assumptions and the scriptures that you use are not that supportive. ( I say this with respect) Having a closed mind is not a sign of righteousness. Saying something is obvious and clear, does not make it so. I do not think that your argument would hold up in a court of law here on Earth or in Heaven.

I showed that on the other blog that I was honestly seeking and how I searched. When I thought I was wrong I made the necessary changes within my family. When in the end I did not reach the same conclusions as you, I allowed my girls to wear pants again. I would hope that you would be as open in your studies.

I thank you for your time this past month. May God bless you and your family.

Bill Schell, Jr. said...

God clearly wants a distinction between the sexes in how they dress. God uses the word "abomination." If God HATES something AND if we love God, then we are not going to see how close we can play the line. We will stay away from it entirely, if He is our Lord. There is this issue about women's pants being different than men's pants. What I have observed is that women's pants are tighter and in other ways more immodest than men's pants. (Of course dresses can be immodest also.) The question is this: If I love God, how close do I want to come to offending my Lord and Savior?

Anonymous said...


I just think God is not stupid. Everyone concentrates on this verse from deuteronomy.
Some people think women should not wear men´s clothes and vice versa. But why don´t they follow what God says in other verses?
Like in those about ill people? Or Deuteronomy 22:11,12? That people should not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together? Or that people should make tassels on the four corners of the ´cloak´ they wear? I think they should be purple or something.

So why do they follow teachings from only selected verses ( note now it is the one which is somehow the hardest to follow )? Just tell me this, because I see women oh so devoted to wearing only skirts but I haven´t seen them having those tassels. Or I haven´t seen them outside the town when they should be, as the old testament say. You know what I mean.

Remember Jesus? He talked about King David, breaking the law or rule about saturday ( remember what God said about those who break His rules )? Or do you remember that Jesus broke the rule about saturday, too?
They broke it because in their case it was all right to break it, without sin. There was some reason why they could.
So, if women can´t wear men´s clothes, don´t you think that according to Jesus there would be some exceptions? And also a reason behind them?
Don´t you think the reason was love?

I personally think it is all right for a woman to wear men´s clothes if she is not intending to be a man. I think deuteronomy 22:5 is against transvestites and in the past, even people who didn´t intend to pretend they are different gender, had to obey to avoid misleading.

And by the way, the bible doesn´t say which clothes are for men and which for women. Someone in the past said trousers are for men and later perhaps Coco said they are also for women. So what is and isn´t for whom?

I would just like to know if you all have tassels on your clothes and if you also do other things from deuteronomy.

And btw, in deuteronomy 21:14 He talks about leting a wife go, which in NT He explained He allowed for a reason, but also said it was not the best solution, it was for their bad heart.

I just remember that everything is summed up first in love to God ( which is also obeying Him ) and then love to neighbour. But from God´s side,that He loves us.
I believe there are His reasons behind His rules. And as I said, He is not stupid.

The Dove Lady said...

Man made bylaws from an organization have made this about a specific clothing article. Skirt vs. Pants. What about the T-Shirt? What about colors? The T-Shirt was made for men in the military. However, I see plenty of "Godly" women running all over town offending God by wearing T-Shirts. When a baby is born at a hospital they are given a Blue or Pink head cap and blanket. The color depends on the sex of the baby. Blue = Male pink = Female. Therefore a women shall not wear anything BLUE, because Blue pertaineth to a man in our culture. And vice versa, Men shall not wear anything with PINK because it is an abomination to God. I have seen a few UPC ladies wear sweats around their house, but would not wear them out in public. Why? If they were doing it for God, not man, they would never wear sweats... By them not wearing them in public, but wearing them at home tells me that they are trying to please man, not Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. A few Denominations put waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too much emphasis on this one scripture and make it about The skirt. Back in the 1st Century, I didn't see to many skirts. People wore tunics I do believe. What about the mixing of certain fabrics? Do the churches have inspections of tags to see if it is cotton, wool, etc??? No, You won't be judged, condemed or looked down upon if you are wearing a blue denim skirt, with a cotton tshirt and a wool sweater. But by golly, if you are wearing a pair of ladies slacks that were purchased from the ladies section of the department store, you are going to burn in hell. Again, way to much emphasis is put on outward appearances. God looks at your heart and intentions. If I recall, it was The Religious leaders that Jesus Christ was upset with because they were the ones judging and condeming others. If LOVE would be our focus as Christians, we would not have any of this bickering and I am right and you are wrong. It is sad and pathetic that people are judged soley by their outward appearance. May God reveal what is truly important in these last days. LOVE!!!

Anonymous said...

Praise the Lord to all!

I have seen the sites and comments of others. I see the stand that each one is taking, but the BIBLE is right all by itself. I know that there are commentators that print information that they have researched, but sometimes they slightly add their opinion, like I have seen many on this site. The topic is " Deuteronomy 22:5, but I see some scriptures that are being used out of context.

If I may, I would like to look at Gen.3:21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Now, here in this verse you see no distinction, but the you can see how GOD clothed them. Now, my question to you all is, why did Moses write Deuteronomy the way he did, because I have not found anything as such before, or after they were getting ready to go into the land with the canaanites.

I read earlier where someone tried to use Job 38:3 as a scripture for men clothing, this is not so, please read it in context and verify the Hebrew terminology. People, we must understand the Gospel, not fight one another with the Gospel. God is not the author of confusion.

I know where I stand on this issue, but I also know where I am trying to get and I cannot be closed minded. If a women wearing pants is wrong, I want to preach it, but if it is not wrong, I also want to preach it. I am just trying to discover the truth and line up with the word of GOD.

Lastly, the strong stance of Deuteronomy 22:5 has a focus on the word ABOMINATION, but this is just something that GOD hates and it is sin; however, do not get me wrong I do not want to do anything to disappoint or discuss GOD, but take a look at Rev. 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

If we would be more passionate about seeing souls saved, and let GOD's word convict the hearts of the people, whether it is pants for women, or not, I believe we would see more stable saints and more repented souls. Hey, I am still studying and seeking GOD for this truth, but until I find out truth I will obey 2 Tim 2:15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Christina Lynn Johnson said...

Huh... you make no mention about eunuchs, who are completely outside of your Divine Gender Binary. Yet they are blessed by God. I'm trans, and even after reading your post, I don't feel the slightest bit convicted about me being me. If God hates what I do in life, let Him strike me down for being abhorrent to Him. However, I don't see that happening, considering that my sins are blotted, and my name written in the book of life.

Show love. Love wins.

Anonymous said...

Interresting blog and comments. The use of the term Gerber is interesting as I understand that the general term for man and men delineating the male gender has been used throughout Deuteronomy in every other instance but this one. This suggests that there was something special about the men that they were referring to,they were valiant men or men of authority or warriors. If this was to be a general prohibition of one would expect that the general delineation of men's or man's would have been used. It leads one to suspect that they were referring to a specific situation not a general prohibition on cross dressing.

The reference to abomination is also interesting as I understand that the terms used refer to a cult associated abomination, one strict interpretation would therefore be that warriors or valiant men should not wear woman's clothing in a cult associated way as this is offensive and detestable to God.

I believe that people need to pray this through and obey as the Holy Spirit would lead them.


Anonymous said...

Sup non Jews or as we like to call you Goy and you seem to think gentille.

The "old testament" (as you call it) is not your book stop reading it.

No joking aside read it in the context it was written.

Its not hard its a out dated list of laws and as I am sure we all know the law is set by man and not by god. How many of you have ever cut the hair on the sides of your head or eat unclean meat?

Anonymous said...

All this stuff makes me sick. We are Christians, right? We love our neighbours... no matter what. And yet we persist in pointing accusatory fingers on tenuous ground.

I would respectfully suggest that anyone wanting to discover the meaning of this passage start by looking that context and wondering why it appears to be out of context??? All of the first ten verses of this chapter are about being fair... but stuck right in the middle is this one about cross dressing. It doesn't make sense for it to be there... especially when there are more appropriate places to put it latter on. The Bible is not like that.... it doesn't jump around willy nilly... it follows themes and keeps context. So one might reasonably conclude that not all is as it appears. And it is not. What is wrong here is quite simply the English translation. Anyone wishing to comment on this would do well to get out an interlinear bible and check out the Hebrew.

This passage is, indeed about fairness. It is about not forcing women to take up arms and not dressing your soldiers up as women in order to ambush your enemy. The hebrew words used in this passage are all military terms. For clothing, read armer (or, in fact, weapon), and for man read worrier (valiant man, actually).

And then, all of a sudden, the passage fits perfectly within the context of the surrounding verses.

Don't take my word for it... go learn a little about ancient Hebrew and figure it out for your self.

Further to this, I would simply say that we are Christians, and as such we are NOT under "the law". The ONLY reason for including the old testament in the Canon is to give context to the devinity of Christ. That is why we only have selected books of the Old Testament; we only have the ones relevant to us so that we can understand who Christ is.


Paul says so quite explicitly.

But we CHOOSE to quote particular parts of the OT which suit our own ends... such as Deut 22:5. I don't see many people quoting Deut 22:21... or Deut 22:22 or 22:24 or 25....

There is sooooo much of the OT that you "choose" to ignore, but the one thing you choose to try to enforce it the one thing which is just so completely obviously mistranslated it is almost unbelievable. The Devil must have been laughing into his boots when he slipped that one in there.... "that will have them all fighting amongst themselves in a few centuries time and distract them all form the Love of God", he must have chuckled.

Open your EYES. Be not ye deceived.

Kary Hooper said...

I 100% agree. When I took the time to dig deep into the actual translation, it was clear that is was talking about women taking on the role of a man and vise versa. It is unfortunate that many good people who love The Lord get stuck in such a shallow mindset that God is concerned about whether your garment has a seam or does not have a seam. people are dying daily and going to Hell for eternity, yet, there are some that continue to put themselves on the "Holy" pedestal and look down at others and question their salvation solely on the outward appearance of ones garment. It is my prayer that we can unite under Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and put heritage,tradition, and manipulated bible verses aside. Jesus died on The Cross so we would not have to live under law. Thank You Jesus for the freedom I receive by FAITH in You! Let us All Be Slave's To Christ, not The Law!

bishopbenjamin said...

Why do you all follow the Old Testament laws? The Bible states, "Rom 10:4
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Christians are no longer bound to those Levitical laws.

For those of you who pick out this scripture, the bible says Gal 5:3-4

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

If you try to make others live this or any other law in Deut. "ye are fallen from grace."

Praise God I am free from Legalism and Legalistic preachers and teachers like this.

If you teach Deut. 22:5 why do you not teach verse 11?Deut 22:11
11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

If you're going to try to live one, you have to live them all. Go check your closets and make sure you have no garments of wool mixed with linen, you may be bound for hell.

See how silly that is?

Raycol said...

While it is clear that Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits women from putting on a male garment and men from putting on a female garment, it is also clear that this verse does not apply to us today.

In Acts 15:13-30, the early church decided that non-Jews who became Christians would have to follow some, but not all, of the Old Testament (Jewish) laws. The non-Jewish Christians were not to eat certain food and they were not to be sexually immoral (fornicate). Therefore they had to follow the Old Testament laws on sexual conduct, including no incest, adultery, bestiality or sex between men. The other Old Testament laws did not apply to them.

I assume that wearing a garment of the opposite gender is not being sexually immoral as, in itself, it involves no sexual activity. If this assumption is correct, then the early church’s decision means that Deuteronomy 22:5 does not apply to us today.

Anonymous said...

Legalism is all this is, performance based works. God's Grace is sufficient, it is a gift of God all you have to do is accept it and obey His commandments. The Phillipian jailer asked "what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas responded "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Pants, skirts, long hair short hair, nail polish, zippers v. buttons, belts v. suspenders -it is all Legalism. Man's having to add to Christ's work on the cross! Satan said with an envious sigh, Christians know more about Hell than I!

Kent Brandenburg said...


First, you are a coward for being anonymous.

Second, you don't understand legalism in the least bit. It isn't legalistic to require saved people to obey God. They can obey God because of grace. I'm not a legalist, but you are licentious and lascivious. That's the truth.

While I'm at it---Raycol,

A good book for you to read is From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law by Philip S. Ross. The moral law is still in play in the NT, even as you yourself showed with the prohibition of fornication. Deuteronomy 22:5 is obviously a moral law. It is still intact for us all to obey if we love God, whether you explain it away or not.

Margaret Bellette said...

Duet 22:5 is in context with the previous and following verses. It is about protection of the species.
A woman has been created to be feminine and attractive to the man. When she wears manly apparel she unconsciously walks and sits more like a man. It follows that if a man is surrounded by women who look like men it is easier to make the next step to transferring their affections to another male.
Read about "Ghost in the genes". New diseases are appearing in children born of IVF embryo transplants. It has been reported that when the fertilisation occurs outside of the natural environment certain switches in the genes are not activated resulting in an impure embryo.
Impurity of the species is shown in the fruit of mixed seed planting in the following verses.
External distinction of the sexes is necessary to protect it's purity.

Anonymous said...

Hello, I was just reading all of these comments. Some of you are forgetting what Jesus died for. He died to abolish death and sin. Moses and his followers were under a different law that we are today. When Jesus died, so did the old laws also. Some of you spend way too much time arguing about God's word. Arguing is not of God. God's word brings peace. 2 Corinthians 3:3-18 is great scripture to be read in this instance. Accordingly all scripture is given for reproof, correction and instruction. In this passage in 2 Corinthians Paul is telling us that even in our time many have a vail covering them so that they do not see that Jesus died for our freedom. Old laws were abolished. Verse 14 reads "But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. An example of an old law would be sacrificing an animale for our sins. We clearly do not do that anymore because Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice. Also in Galatians 3 we are also once again reminded that we are not under the old laws.Verse 25 states that we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Before faith came we were kept under the law. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Verse 28 states "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Remember also Galatians 5. All of it! As followers of Christ we are to be examples in word and deed. To be a Christian is to be Christ Like. Jesus went about doing good. We are to be edifying others. Building their faith up not tearing it down. So then Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It is our responsibility to tell others about Jesus and salvation. We spend way too much time on things of less importance. Our focus should be on winning souls for Christ. When Christ comes in He cleans up our inside then our outside follows. God looks on the inside of our heart not on our outward appearance. Judge not lest ye be judged.For example: Who are we to say that if a person has tatooes, then they are Hell bound. What if they had accepted Jesus but were left with a permanent tatoo. Are they still lost? No! So many young people never are saved because of misinformed Christians. Christians that are blinded by pride or old ways. How will sinners ever know who Jesus is if we as so called Christians are condemning and judging them even before they ever set foot in a church. Jesus said to love one another even as He loved us. I leave with scripture to read. 1 Timothy 1:4-11

Pastor Mike said...

Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, murder, lying, stealing, coveting, taking the LORD'S name in vain, etc. etc. ALL find their place in the "LAW." So does that mean they do not apply to the N.T. Christian? Men acting like men are not wrong, and women celebrating their femininity are not wrong either, I can't understand why anyone would think women wanting to be distinctly female and different looking than men is so negative? It really should be celebrated and sought after by all? God created us male and female...PERIOD. That is all the gender distinction proof we need. Satan our enemy is out to destroy all that God has created and that includes God's divine plan for male and female, marriage, family and morals in general, all of which are under attack like never before. We need to see past the futile arguments and realize that we are in a Battle and it's not with each other. We have a real Enemy who is against God and Godliness. Feminists hate ANY distinction, they hate the terms male and female, he, she, man or woman. In fact they hate men! (just read Gloria Steinem, Jill Johnston or other celebrated feminists. They HATE any gender distinction even women's pants vs. men's pants. To them there should only be pants. They hate girls playing with dolls and boys playing with trucks, they hate pink and blue...ANYTHING that makes men and women different.... But the Bible tells us God made men and women different. This divine order of creation is on the verge of extinction is the “world” today, if there was any day or any age that God's people should stand up for God's design it should be today, yet so many of them are helping eradicate it, they are joining the world and Satan in its demise. The trend in the world now is "neutral gender babies" in other words don't tell the child it is a boy or girl, give them a neutral name and let them decide for themselves when they get old enough. No longer does God create them male and female we can now choose! What about the Christian woman who was fired from Macy's for not allowing a man into the women's change room? the man's argument was "but I am a woman." This could only be possible if the distinction between men and women was broken down. Albert Barnes, the commentator who said that once the distinction between men and women is gone there would be great "danger to purity" was in fact very prophetic when he wrote those words. What is fruit of all this? GROSS IMMORALITY... just like in the days of Noah.
I do have to make one comment about those who continually use the "mixed fabric" argument. Those laws of "separation" are CLEARLY taught in the N.T. 2Cor 6 is directly referring to them. The principles of those laws are unmistakably for us today as Paul taught the Corinthian believers! They were there for our example, they relate to us not being yoked together with unbelievers. Finally, no one believes that a woman is going to hell for wearing pants, unfortunately many Christian women have never been taught or simply do not want to see the attacks on God’s plan for morality, family and sexuality and the need for distinction. “We can’t give up the fight for “love” we fight because we love.” Pastor Mike

Hala said...

I was recently talking to a Jewish Scholar who insists that Deut 22:5 Refers to forbidding men and women from entering each others tents.

Sara said...

It was very difficult reading through all these comments because they were mostly long-winded. But I read a few, and I agree with anonymous (the one that posted at 11pm), well I only read the first few lines, sorry.
The old law has died, that is very true. The new law is simply to Love and follow God. From my own personal experience with building my relationship with God, I have found that he has shown me quite clearly what is right, and what is wrong.
There is very little sense in trying your hardest to do the right thing, and trying your hardest to do the wrong thing, because at the end of the day, without God leading you, its all a bit redundant. Don't be like the pharisee's (sp?) who were so obsessed with preaching their laws that they couldn't even see that Christ was walking amongst them. Let's not waste too much time and effort arguing over the bits that aren't important.
Build your relationship with God and he will SHOW you what to do. He'll use your conscience as his tool, to lead you on the right path. You don't have to do it yourself and worry that you're doing it wrong!
Personally, I know that God doesn't have a problem with me wearing jeans or shirts, because he knows that I was born into a time when clothing wasn't so much gender specific. Simple as that! I'm not dressing like a man, because today jeans aren't only men's. They're women's too. And I have long hair so that's not an issue, really.
If you're unsure about something, I think its best to leave it for a while, go read New Testament and maybe come back to the OT bits once you've understood a few bits more.
Lots of love, everyone.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Our relationship with God is servant to Master. He has already shown us His will in His Word. A conscience works on its highest perceived standard, which should be Scripture, but today it could be whatever someone feels, as is the case with you sadly. The Pharisees added and took away from the Bible. I'm telling you what the Bible teaches and Christians believed for centuries. That hasn't changed. If God truly is your Master, then you'll do what He says, which is the only acceptable relationship with Him. No man can serve two Masters.

Ezekiel said...

Why do most preachers neglect vvs 1 to 4 and 8 to 12 and basically deal with vs 5?

Kent Brandenburg said...

I've preached through the whole book of Deuteronomy, very by verse, studying the original language, but I can't speak for those who don't, Ezekiel. Why do preacher neglect Deuteronomy 22:5? Why have they changed the meaning to fit the culture and the unisex movement?

Pastor Steven said...

One day I was with a man arguing that pants were not men's clothing, that it was okay for his wife to wear them, they is no distinction between pants vs skirts or dress. I asked the man in front of his wife; then is it okay for you to wear dresses and skirts? I asked the wife, is it okay for your husband to wear dresses and skirts? They could not answer me, the became very confused!
If one says that today, pants are not men's clothings, you also have to argue that skirts and dresses are not reserved for women, that a man also can wear them, and should wear them, like they do in Scottland. To be fair, with our reasoning, since we want to reason with the word of God, the argument must be made both ways: women wearing pants vs men wearing dresses and skirts. So I challenge the men who do not see a disctinction in Deuteronomy 22:5, betweeb men's clothings and women's clothings, to start wearing skirts and dresses in order to live to their opinions and preaching today! If you allow your girls to wear pants, then also aloow your boys to wear skirtsand dresses. If you alloow your wife to wear pants, then you wear some skirts and you guys go out and tell society that it is okay, there is no distinction! Live to your preaching, men let see you try skirts also, do not be ashamed there is no distinction, it is just legalism, go on put on skirts and dresses on you and your boys, because it cause it goes both ways: ask yourself, why should a man be looked down or called homosexual or pervert if he appears today in skirt or dress? Let the pastors wear dresses and skirts in front of their congregation and see how many members will still attend their churches?


Pastor Steven

Anonymous said...

"Ezekiel said...

Why do most preachers neglect vvs 1 to 4 and 8 to 12 and basically deal with vs 5?

6:57 AM"


1. They are not controversial issues
2. Paul does address v. 8-12 in 2Cor 6, unequal yokes are dangerous
3. They are not called "abominations" which are things God hates and does not change His mind about therefore should get our attention.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what your stances are on those born intersex or hermapherditic? For those people there is no binary system of whether or not they are male/female. What do I wonder should those people wear?

Anonymous said...

There are pants for men and pants for women.....they are made distinctively different for opposite sexes.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Did pants even exist when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written? smh

Anonymous said...

Pastor Steven,

I doubt very much Christ wore a three piece suit. Considering the only people who wore pants at that time were the Celtic Barbarians at the fringes of the known world, I seriously doubt he even wore pants. Most likely, he wore some form of long garment which had no inseam. They called them togas.

We call them dresses.

Fashion changes, and will continue to change. We might not like it, but then, I doubt our forefathers did either. Please keep in mind brothers, that we need to focus on the INTENTION of the verse, which was to prevent confusing men and women, and to prevent women from going to war.

I dont think God really cares if the Scottish or anyone else are wearing skirts, just so long as its a MEN's skirt, and not a womans.

Anonymous said...

What cannot be denied is that the Bible explicitly states that with Christ's death on the cross, the old law is done away with. If you were to follow this verse to the letter, you'd have to include laws such as those forbidding the wearing of mixed-fabric garments, afixing tassels to your cloak (something I doubt very much ANY of you have), and setting a railing around the edge of your roof.

You cannot cherrypick old testament laws to suit your need for a Crusade against society. Follow one, and you must follow them all.

Truth, I think, is found in the laws that are REPEATED in the new testament. Such as the ten commandments, or the ruling against homosexuality. If God found it so important to restate those laws as still being applicable, I'd imagine He wouldnt leave out others He meant for us to keep following.

Mr. Brandenburg,

Shame on you for being so presumptuous. Did you ever consider that some of these people chose to remain anonymous because to do otherwise might be prideful?

Kary Hooper said...


Kent Brandenburg said...

I haven't been answering comments on Deut 22:5, but I've got to if I'm going to post certain anonymous comments.

The position that Deut 22:5 is merely OT, not for today, is the new position, the skewed position, the disobedient position. It is like the Corban of Pharisees, where they made up fake reasons why to disobey God's law. And that includes making a "military" verse, to keeping women out of war, etc. It's all bunk coming from an anonymous.

And then he says, "Shame on me," because I say something about cowards who can't name their names.


You don't understand "the letter kills, the Spirit gives life." The Spirit doesn't give life to disobey God's law. It says that to keep the law, you need more than the letter, you need the gospel, the new covenant. You are twisting the Bible to support disobedience.

Kary Hooper said...

Partial Obedience is DISobedience. Either keep the entire Law or judge not. You can judge spirits, but not individuals.To pick and choose which to obey and which ones not to; is living in disobedience. Do you eat shrimp? Do you wear mixed fabrics at the same time? If you keep 100% of the law 100% of the time, I admire you and will stand with you. If you pick and choose based upon traditions of men, and judge others based upon your own interpretation. I cannot stand with you. Those are the people that hung Jesus Christ on the cross. 100% of the Law 100% of the time or it's Legalism. You can wrap it, box it, twist it, wear it, call it whatever you want to. However, if you do not live out 100% of the law 100% of the time and judge others on the exact thing you are not willing to do is nothing short than hogwash. Does The Word say, You will know them by the clothes they wear and mandate others wear or They will know you by the Love you have for one another. Not the judgmental, prideful, boastful, pharasitical, legalistic mindset you have. LOVE or Legalism, It's your choice. I choose Love. If you have a personal conviction in regards to clothing, Live It. I stand with you and honor your personal conviction. However, twisting the Scripture in order to judge others and question their salvation due to an article of clothing having a seam or not having a seam is sick, perverted, arrogant, ungodly and an abomination in itself. Law = Kill Spirit = Life

Kent Brandenburg said...

Kary, (sorry on the "Kate" earlier)

I know that it can be hard to take someone contradicting you, but you should think about what I'm going to write, OK? Because what you're writing is not correct.

God has not done away with His moral law and it is not as simplistic as "it must be repeated in the NT," because the NT itself doesn't say that. The fact that the NT authors used the OT, the law, would say that it is still in play, but how? We still obey all the OT law in spirit, yes, but all of the moral law of God is still applicable, still to be obeyed today. The law is good if used lawfully. What is the lawful use of the law? Here's how historic Christianity has understood it -- the ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ, the judicial law is no longer in force, because it was for the nation Israel, but the moral law is still to be obeyed completely. None of us will obey it perfectly, which is why the new covenant, and that is what Paul is saying in 2 Corinthians 3, where you happen to be quoting.

I know 2 cor 3 very well, especially since right now I'm preaching/teaching through 2 Corinthians. When Paul says the letter of the law kills, he's saying that the law can't do anything except to condemn. The law says we're guilty before God. On the other hand, the Spirit gives life. Conversion through Jesus Christ results in Holy Spirit indwelling that gives us the ability to keep God's moral law.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is moral law. I would say you haven't read much history of Christian theology, because if you have, you would know that's how Christians historically have believed Deuteronomy 22:5. Your teaching is new teaching, new as in invented. If Christians have agreed on something for centuries, and something new comes along, usually Christians reject it.

What you are proposing is more insidious, because you are saying that since we can't keep all the law, then we don't have to keep any of it as a Christian. That is a false view of grace and is perverting what Paul is saying in 2 Corinthians 3. A Christian can keep God's moral law, because He has the power of the Spirit to do that. He's not saved by doing good works, and he couldn't be saved by obeying the law, because he's still going to fail, but that doesn't mean that part of receiving Christ and being regenerated is now the freedom to disobey all the law, because grace will take care of all that disobedience. No, Paul refuted that in Rom 6, when he said that we do not sin that grace may abound. We are dead to sin. What is sin? John in 1 John said it was the transgression of what? The Law.

You need to reconsider your position, Kary. You are antinomian, cheap grace, in contradiction to biblical and historical doctrine.

Kary Hooper said...

Kent, No apology needed.
I never said God has not "done away with His moral law". Of course we must live a righteous and holy life before God. If we love Him, we won't want to purposely sin against him. Unfortunately, there are folks that disregard 95% of God's Word and focus on external clothing as a measuring stick of ones salvation, sanctification and relationship with The Great I am. I am pointing out that we must focus on living a life that is holy and acceptable to God including our dress and modesty not based solely on dress and modesty. The outward wearing of clothing (seam no seam) becomes their idol. They base their walk, and others, on the articles of clothing they wear. Too much emphasis is put on one thing. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water? Of course not. However, we, as followers of Christ must allow people to become before they belong. After attending church for 3 months, if one does not conform to the personal convictions of others in a certain time frame, they are looked down upon. When this occurs, it hinders, not helps. This isn't what Christ would do. You live your personal convictions and allow people to mature in The Word and understand the why before the how. If it is rushed, it becomes legalism. People conform just to fit in (works) not because they understand The Word and want to please a loving God. I find it very concerning when people can gossip, sow discord, commit adultery, cuss like a sailor, steal, kill, etc... as long as they have the right attire. When the attire is more of a focus than the entire being. It becomes legalism in my eyes. I don't know you and cannot say what your intentions are or how you address someones attire as a believer. The law was put into place to show us that we cannot keep 100% of the law. That is why we need Jesus Christ. Again, Shall we continue in sin then? God Forbid.... My beef is that when others judge solely on the attire of a person and not the entire person; it is nothing more than Pride and Legalism. Again, don;t throw the baby out with the bath water. But we must notdrown the baby with meat when they are only ready for milk. The Law can Kill if one is not mature enough to handle it. Hi I want to become a Christian. OK Great... Step 1 Repent Step 2 Be Baptized Step 3 Get rid of your clothes and start wearing this. Step 3 may be the same day or it may take 3 years. But allow people to stay in the process before we kick them to the curb... You stated " you haven't read much history of Christian theology, because if you have, you would know that's how Christians historically have believed Deuteronomy 22:5. Your teaching is new teaching, new as in invented. If Christians have agreed on something for centuries, and something new comes along, usually Christians reject it." I don't worry or care about what others say because The Word of God is True and Every Man A Liar. We have theologians that interpret and teach false doctrines every day. Look at the history of the Catholic church and what they believe. History can be beneficial and commentary can be beneficial, but we are to study The Word to show Ourselves approved. I have not said that you are right or wrong. It's the Spirit behind the verse. Are folks using Deut 22:5 out of love or condemnation. Are they using it to separate themselves to build pride?
I said that Christians do not have to keep the law? Where did I post that at? Of course we do. But we must strive to keep ALL the law, not just bits and pieces that promote our own desires, understandings and heritage.

Kary Hooper said...

My personal understanding of the scripture in Deut 22:5 speaks more about the role of the person than specific attire. Of a man shouldn't wear women's clothing and men should not wear men's. I don't see where in this scripture it specifically speaks on a seam or no seam? I personally think it speaks in regards to warrior attire. Women shall not put on "Armor" or "Strong Men" or "Warrior" attire and go to battle. Just as, Men shouldn't take on the role of a feminine type.

Now if others read it and feel it's specifically speaking about a seam or no seam. I do not have a problem with them for one second if they choose to wear attire that fits their belief or understanding. I honor them for living out there convictions. My position was never as you assumed. I never once said that we may live a life of sin as we desire since we are saved by His Grace. If you love someone, you won't want to do the things they ask you not to do just because they will forgive you. In my eyes, if that is ones position, they really don't love Christ if they want to take advantage of and cheapen His Mercy and Grace. Yes, we may fall short at times. We all do according to The Word. A righteous man falls 7 times. But he gets back up. That doesn't mean we can continue to use His Grace as a License to sin. Your assumption of my intentions are incorrect. Individuals must strive to live a life that is pleasing to God. That includes many laws and requirements. Not just a couple... I do not need to reconsider my position at all. I AM NOT antinomian. Kent, your assumption that I practice and believe that we are free from obeying God's Word is wrong again. Lawlessness as a Christian is Like A ship in a storm without a rudder. One will end up in places they never wanted to go. It just doesn't work.

Kary Hooper said...

What I do believe and practice is Love covers a multiple of sins. What I do believe is that people must belong before they become. What that means so you don't have to guess or assume is that people mature in Christ in their own time. Let's Love, Preach and Teach The Word and Allow The Word to Convict instead of People Condemn. Standing on a soap box with a megaphone (or a computer with a keyboard) and telling people they need to wear certain articles of clothing when you know nothing about them, where they have been, where they are with their relationship in Christ is counter productive and can very easily lead to a self righteous, prideful, pharisaical, arrogant, look at me mindset. Not saying that is what you are doing. But, if not checked and done IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD, it will bring nothing but Death to many. The Law Kills, The Spirit Gives Life.
What I do believe and practice is Love covers a multiple of sins. What I do believe is that people must belong before they become. What that means so you don't have to guess or assume is that people mature in Christ in their own time. Let's Love, Preach and Teach The Word and Allow The Word to Convict instead of People Condemn. Standing on a soap box with a megaphone (or a computer with a keyboard) and telling people they need to wear certain articles of clothing when you know nothing about them, where they have been, where they are with their relationship in Christ is counter productive and can very easily lead to a self righteous, prideful, pharisaical, arrogant, look at me mindset. Not saying that is what you are doing. But, if not checked and done IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD, it will bring nothing but Death to many. The Law Kills, The Spirit Gives Life.

Your Friend and Fellow Laborer In Christ

Kent Brandenburg said...


No one is saying that we keep the law in order to be justified. However, Jesus said we are sanctified by the truth and His Word is truth (John 17:17). Just because we're not saved by keeping the law doesn't mean that we shouldn't obey moral law. The point of the new covenant is to change our lives so we can obey the law, please God, live righteous lives. Deuteronomy 22:5 is the truth and we should be sanctified by it. That's all I'm going to say on this.


Pastor Brandenburg said, "If Christians have agreed on something for centuries, and something new comes along, usually Christians reject it."

Headcoverings, what say you?

John G

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi John,

I'm not convinced on headcoverings. I believe they were the symbol of submission to male authority in Corinth and I'm fine with those who think they still are, but I believe that skirts and dresses became that, which is why "mean wear the pants." It's a very related subject, but slightly different.

Anonymous said...

Brandenburg said, "If Christians have agreed on something for centuries, and something new comes along, usually Christians reject it."

What are your thoughts on The term Trinity / Triune God. Early writings and The Bible do not utilize the words Trinity or Triune, but many do today. No rejection there.


My response to your reply would be:
1) is headship only an issue in Corinth (v. 3)?
2) are angels present only in Corinth (v. 10)?
3) Is long hair a shame on a man only in Corinth (v. 14)?
4) Have the believers for 2 millennia got it wrong and we got it right 50 yrs ago with the feminist movement?
5) Where in the text are believers to learn that dresses/skirts are now the symbol of headship?

It seems you take a stronger stand on the pants/skirt issue that has less internal and historic support than the headcovering issue.

Good discussion, sir.

Anonymous said...

I believe it is wrong for a woman to wear pants in public. But I always had that belief because of the modesty issue until I came across this verse. Does this verse mean it is wrong for a woman to wear pj pants to bed? and if pants are men's clothing and are forbidden wouldn't shirts be too?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Anonymous,

The pants issue isn't a testimony issue, so it isn't just public, but private as well. In 1 Cor 11, we see the symbols are also for the angels, which witness it at all times. And it is a position we take in support of God, not just for testimony's sake.

Shirts aren't a distinguishing garment, so they aren't an issue in this. Pant/skirt is what differentiates.

Anonymous said...

Thank you! Don't ever be discouraged in preaching the truth!

Terry said...

Deuteronomy 22 has 30 verses. Why are you focusing on verse 5? Why? This has always been much a holier-than-thou attitude laden issue, particularly with the IFB. I know. I used to be a member. Glad I am not now! What about killing the adulterers? (vs. 22) Is is OK to IGNORE that one or just wink at it? Or what about a female fiance who has been caught cheating before her marriage? According to vss. 23 and 24, both of them are to be stoned to death. Unless, of course, she was raped. Then, only the man is to be killed. Or how about those divers (diverse) garments? Is anybody tossing out those poly/cotton/woolen mixed suit and ties that are being worn every service behind the holy desk? If not, how are you justifying not doing so? (re: vs. 11) I could go on and on, but you can clearly see my point. You are cherry-picking the word of Almighty God according to your own desires and preferences, and thus there is zero credibility in your arguments and no legitimacy to your point. It's all or nothing. Fact is, Jesus fulfilled the law and therefore we are no longer under the law. Galatians 5. Have a blessed day. And at least be consistent.

Jonathan Speer said...


First, the short answer to your question of why focus on verse 5: there is a key phrase in verse 5 that is not found in the remainder of the chapter, even the examples you raised. That phrase is "...abomination unto the Lord thy God." (I would challenge you to find that phrase throughout the Old Testament and see if you find another place where it is used that you would feel as comfortable being dismissive.) That and the fact that most Bible-believers at least pay lip service to the remainder of the rest of chapter 22 are both good reasons for an occasional focus on verse 5.

Second, is it your premise that we should ignore more of the first 5 books of the Bible, like most ignore verse 5 (After all, we are not "under the law" as you pointed out)? Or are you thinking we should hold to all of the moral, ceremonial, and civil laws to the letter as they were given and intended for Israel during the old covenant if we are going to hold to and teach verse 5?

(There is a third option: to compare the old covenant laws with New Testament commands and affirmations of Old Testament commands and to exercise Holy Ghost discernment in finding ways to become more graciously Christ-like in sanctification.)

You have a truly blessed day, as well, and please allow God's word to stand in your heart as your only guide to righteousness in the face of all the pressure to acquiesce to this worlds trends.

In Christ,

Anonymous said...

Terry, it is easier to slap on a skirt and a dress shirt that covers all the way down to your finger nails and look into a mirror and call that hollines instead of looking into the spiritual mirror and line up with Jesus. The whole premise has been twisted by many. The Word is not even talking about specific clothing articles. It is taling about the role of a man and a woman. A woman should not take on the role of a man nor a man be feminine. That is an abomination. Not the length of a shirt or if a article of clothing has a seam or no seam. Our God is bigger than an article of clothing. Its easier to focus on clothes and self prclaim holliness and judge others solely on a piece of cloth rather than focus on Meekness, Love, Longsuffering, Hunility, Etc. The abomination is going against what God created us to do, pro create. If you have a many woman (lesbian) and a womanly man (gay) they will not pro create. That is an abomination. That seam in your clothing or those shorts your wearing on a hot 100 degree summer day. Are not an abomination. Do I believe in Modesty according to the Word, Yes. Do I believe Some twisted mis interpreted measuring stick of ones holliness based upon a simple article of clothing, NO! I believe we as believers must strive to live out God's entire Word in order to love, reach and teach this world about a loving and forgiving Jesus who can make us new creations through His Blood. Not an article of clothing.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Thanks Jonathan for your comment to Terry. Terry, I don't ignore any of scripture. I preached all the way through Deuteronomy word by word. 22:5 is being violated. It is moral. That should bother you if you love God. The historic Christian dealing with 22:5 is what I'm teaching. Christians have seen the tripartite nature of the law -- moral, civil, and ceremonial, and 22:5 is moral. For Israel, the ceremonial and civil were also important. All of us are to obey all of the law in spirit, the spirit of the law. 22:5 isn't just for Israel, as it says "all who do so," not just Israel. We don't have liberty to sin. Sinning doesn't please Jesus.


There is no total apostasy of biblical truth. What I'm teaching is the historic position. Jesus didn't come to destroy the law. Sin is the transgression of the law. We are sanctified by the truth, which is the Word of God. When God changes us on the inside through the new covenant, that will also change the outside. Repentance is not just sorrow over sin, but a turning from it, a clearing of one's self (2 Cor 7:11). You represent lasciviousness, a lack of mortification of the works of the flesh, a continuation in sin that is not NT or OT. The Holy Spirit restrains sin. Grace is not an occasion for the flesh.

Anonymous said...

You have itching ears gary

Unknown said...

keep in mind i'm not asking out of negativity more out of confusion and to get education. Is the point from the text that women should not where pants or is that ok? from what i gather from the text is that there is suppose to be a definite distinction. that being said my wife has always wore pants and iv never once confused her for a man, and further, that i know of no one ever has. she dose many other things that our society has created to distinguish the difference wile remaining modest. also could this have a verse for there times? did they where pants at all then? wasn't it a robe type garment making it harder to distinguish. perhaps this is the reason for the meaning of the verse? it applys to a time? not saying the word isn't everlasting because it is. but the law once used to judge the people and now it is not. i feel like there is more i can understand on this. please enlighten me.

Faye said...

We are NO LONGER under the OLD LAW (OLD TESTAMENT). Since Christ came, died & Resurrected, WE are now under the NEW LAW (NEW TESTAMENT).
Today, there is DISTINCT differences between men's & women's clothing = no problem. Men are NOT to be feminine . Women are NOT to masculine . Doesn't mean that a man can't help clean house, take care of kids, cook, do dishes, etc.! Doesn't mean a woman cannot be physically strong, work on vehicles, roads, buildings, etc. ! And, we all DO have different INTERPRETATIONS of THE WORD OF GOD. 'Nuff said...

The Preacher said...

Faye said:
" And, we all DO have different INTERPRETATIONS of THE WORD OF GOD. 'Nuff said..."

No, we do not. There are different levels of UNDERSTANDING, but interpretation does not come into the picture. God gave interpretation of dreams, or intepretation of tongues (from one language to another) and other than that, interpretation of NAMES, therefore, if you say you "interpret" the scripture, it will be of PRIVATE interpretion (2 Peter 1:20) which should not be done.

EX: It says of a women to wear "modest apparel". To have a "level of understanding" and say that married women can wear bathing suits around other married men, or young virgin women can do the same only shows a lack of spiritual maturity and mostly attesting to a carnal behaviour and a very low regard for the holiness of God. To "interpret" that to mean "based on the current cultural vogue" would allow you to "be spiritual" and then running to "liberty passages" to try to prove others are "legalists" because they hold a high level of understanding in light of the principles and oracles of God concerning his holiness and understanding that "modest apparel" in its simplist form is to COVER YOUR BODY (Genesis 3:10-11!).

So, your arguments are weak that allow you to live anyway YOU please, not discerning "the Lord's BODY"

Anonymous said...

Actually your are wrong if we look at the hebrew.

The wording “shall not wear” in its context according to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary #1961 is a wordyih·yeh– this word has a Hebrew meaning to “fall out” a word that would sound more like a masculine military role rather than that of a woman’s demeanor

As the word geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, the women were accustomed to appear in armor before her. God was condemning woman to dress in a warrior role or the masculine soldier fall out role giving worship to a false God. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it. The women of that day had no Levi’s, Calvin Klein, Buffalo Jeans or Apple Bottoms to wear, not even a pair of Miss Me Jeans!

Not only that both men and women wore skirts and there were no differences between them

Unknown said...

Thanks so much for the great references as a pastor myself I often search for proven materials to back up Spiritual principals, and this will just help do that.

KJB1611 said...

Dear Christopher Alspaugh,

I believe many of your questions are answered here:

Dear Anonymous,

I would encourage you also to read what is at that link; and also to learn Hebrew if you are going to reference Hebrew, as your statements about that language are extremely inaccurate. You can examine, for instance, the free Hebrew language course I am teaching here:


Anonymous said...

I think this article has been very gently presented, in kindness.
To bring the the verse home more sharply I would like to add,

God calls women who wear pants an abomination, please explain to me how that, which God calls an abomination, expects to enter heaven?

Pants wearing women, their husband and pastors who support them, are those very people mentioned in Mat. 7:21.
Self proclaimed Christians who have replaced the doctrines of God with the doctrines of man who Jesus refers to as workers of iniquity.

Anonymous said...

For those who claim that if we are to follow Deut. 22:5, then we should follow all the other OT commandments - lets put that line of reasoning to rest.

Deut 22:5 is first mention for God's clear intent on a women's dress code, 1Tim 2:9 is its conclusion.

Modest apparel in 1Tim 2:9 is in Greek kosmios katastola - katastola is a style or pattern of dress worn by women.
Strict application of 1Tim 2:9 implies that women are only allowed to wear a katastola type of dress, a modest katastola at that.
Any thing less violates this clear NT command.

1Pet. 3:3 clarifies it further by saying in Greek no 'himation', i.e. no fancy or designer type of katastola. Just a plain modest katastola.

A Christian woman who is obedient in wearing a katastola, automatically complies with Deut 22:5, just as God intended.

The inverse is also true, women in violation of Deut 22:5 will naturally also be in violation of 1Tim 2:9.


If my wife wears her fleece-lined leggings under her skirt, is this a violation?

You say 1 Tim 2:9 is the conclusion on "God's intent on a women's dress code" and then cite 1 Pet 3:3?

If you read the NT on a deserted island you end up with modest dress and headcoverings. You read no pants into the few NT passages on modesty and ignore a 1/2 chapter on headcoverings.

Joe Cassada said...

If you read the NT on a deserted island you may also start playing with venomous snakes, assuming such exist on Hypothetical Isle. I don't think the "deserted island" perspective is the wisest way for looking at hermeneutics.


I use the deserted island reference as a picture of no preconcieved notions.

Could you point me to the text in the NT that says to "play with venemous snakes" , for women not to wear pants and to not wear a headcovering when praying?

Anonymous said...

If the venomous snake is female, you better put a skirt on her.

KJB1611 said...

Dear Anonymous,

While the Bible is clear that true salvation results in a changed life, justification before God is by repentant faith alone, not by works, Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-9, so a poorly instructed woman who wears pants can definitely still be in the kingdom of God.

The argument from katastole is not good. The word is found in the LXX here:

so that to those who mourn for Sion
be given glory instead of ashes,
oil of joy to those who mournb,
a garment of glory instead of a spirit of weariness.
They will be called generations of righteousness,
a plant of the Lord for glory. (Is. 61:3)

where the word "garment" is found with reference to a garment for both men and women.

So you know, I am 100% in favor of gender distinction and against pants on women because of Deuteronomy 22:5. The link at the bottom of the post above is to a sermon I preached on the very topic; you can also check it out here:


Anonymous said...

Seems as if I was here before and if so, KB deleted my remarks. Outside of arctic regions where very few people lived, no one wore pants except the ancient Persians and Mongolians, who tamed the horse. Pants originated as a garment for sitting on a horse. It took many, many long centuries to get men into pants. It took only from 1942-1945 to get women into pants---the World War 2 factory work did it. Other causes were very minor in impact. I submit that since no one has any authority to toss out either half of Deut 22:5---and that if it means women in pants (and men in skirts) are abomination---that if this were the case---there certainly should be a prophecy in Revelation stating that in the end days, most women would be slated for damnation---due to becoming "abomination to God" (by wearing pants). There IS no such prophecy. God never made any requirement for stark differences in apparel for the sexes---that's just an idea caused by social forces. "Solomon in all his glory" included NO pants, no blue jeans, and no hideous, ugly suit and tie.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Anonymous,

I think it's interesting how that anonymous people think they deserve to have their pablum printed for all to read even though they are won't-say-boo-to-a-goose milquetoast pink-lemonaide cowards. Alright, I'll print your wandering, discombobulated non-sensical comments. They are nothing but a red herring. But there they are. I'm sure someone will take them as an argument, like someone would take tipping over their cereal bowl as an argument if it works for them. You are left with not having to obey scripture as if that is a tenable position. This is God's world, and you can use what you've written, but you'll still be in trouble with God.

Unknown said...

and I'll leave you with a few verses.
it's basic, you all know it from Sunday school.

John 3:16 King James Version
[KJV, this is my opinion and up for debatable, best translation, not that new age BS]

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Can I do a P.S?....Eh I'mma do et...

Outside of Western cultures, men's clothing commonly includes skirts and skirt-like garments[dress?].... if you did not get it...the pants and skirt thing in my opinion.... nonsense.

Miles said...

I am a missionary overseas. It is common for men to wear a skirt like article for clothing, but it is distinctively male. The use of geber is used largely as a military term. But Hebrews was a dead language for many years. Geber is also used commonly in O.T. as referencing a man. In Deut itself Ish is used in reference to a military man. If as some argue Deut 22:5 is referring to roles then the way to seperate those roles is through distinctive dress between both a man and woman in the context. After the blurring of dress in the 1950s also came the Womens Lib, abortion, and blurring of roles. Paul is an ardent advocate of roles especially in a marraige context (i.e. 1 Cor 14). Now we have gay marraige, cross dressing, and in our country young men who act like and do the chores of a female. It is all tied to roles. A women should not desire to look similar to a man and a man should not desire to look similar to a woman. But whos keeping score aye? Certainly not the Church which has been the breeding ground for normalizing unnatural practice. The point is that the roles are no longer distinct and nobody wants to live in those roles even if that is the only way to truly feel really natural.
And what of using the O.T for moral norms. It is common practice. Christ established the ceremonial aspects through His death. There are universal principles in the Civil Law that should still find practice at minimum in the Church. Good civil law finds great practice in the Laws of the USA. And the moral practice is still observed today. All scripture is profitable (2 Tim 3:16 was written before completion of the N.T. when the O.T was the common scripture. In Acts 15:29 they stated that the Church should abstain from meats offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled. Things that have direct relation to the Law. Jesus did not come to give license to sin but to give power over sin through the Holy Spirit and Baptism. Missing the mark is still missing the mark. Several times the N.T mentions those who will not see the kingdom because of their sins. ANd the sins are listed. Salvation in ROm 10:9 is really being made right. A theme of Romans mentioned in justification, Baptism in Rom 6, and Spirit indwelling in Rom 8. Then when one finally gets to Rom 10:9 they understand why and the means of being saved when one Has CHrist as Lord of their life and believes in his ressurection power. To truly be a disciple of Christ we must think in the context of the Bible and not in the context of our 21st century. Culture and tradition blind. For the Church the separation of the sexes is just an attempt to do what is natural and right in God's creation. One can argue that a women can wear feminine pants and that is not an invalid argument. But another argument is why try to be that much like the man in a clear cultural blending of the sexes. The push to normalize pants on women has caused enormous problems over time for our distinctive roles.

May God bless whoever reads this

Anonymous said...

Deuteronomy 22:5 says,"...for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God." Not the action but the person!

Kent Brandenburg said...


We agree.

Anonymous said...

Hi Kent,
your blog and the following comments have been an interesting read, I will be in prayer about what God wants for me. I have just one question for you, you seem very quick to comment and in honesty argue and defend your points with people who post argumentative comments towards your post. However it did not escape my notice; as these where the same questions I was seeking to have answered (hence why I was continuing to scroll through the 81 comments) that when Christopher Alspaugh asked some straight from the heart questions and directly asked for clarification you did not respond to him. In truth Id have to say I was disappointed. I could go on with this or that but truly i think people have done a marvelous job of posting/arguing all the possible interpretations and no more needs to be said, but that discipleship should never be neglected.
Cheers Heidi
P.s the only reason i'm anonymous is that it is late and Im not sure how to log in to identify myself fully

KJB1611 said...

Dear Heidi,

It is very possible that Pastor Brandenburg is busy and that is why he did not respond. Also, the link above to the sermon on Deuteronomy 22:5 is not correct – it is actually here:

KJB1611 said...

The web address for the sermon on Deut 22:5 has changed; it is now here:

in the section here:

Leroy said...


So Deu 22:5 is a moral law to be followed: Are the other verses surrounding verse moral laws too or not?

And are there any other moral laws from the the O.T that are not being followed?

Leroy said...


Is the verse 1 Cor.11 a moral law also as the verse in Deu.22:5? I asked since head covering is not practiced by all Christians. Those who don't practice says it is not for today. So is it a moral law or not?

Kent Brandenburg said...


The principle is moral, that is, a distinct symbol of the male role and one for the female role, to distinguish between the two.

Anonymous said...

Hi All, I have read with great interest most all of the comments concerning Deuteronomy 22:5. Why so much controversy about this law (even though God's laws are very important?). Some posters indicate that there must be a clear distinction in the garments of men and women. Besides pants, what about men or women wearing unisex undergarments that cannot be seen by others? Also, it seems to me no one will be able to know the result of women wearing pants in the US at this time in history until the Day of the Lord. Why? Because there is so much controversy concerning this law. My question is: is violation of this law a mortal sin or a venial sin? Notice that there is no mention of putting those that violate that law to death.


KJB1611 said...

To all reading these comments: The link:

has been updated and shortened to:

My apologies to those who tried to go to the wrong link.

KJB1611 said...

Dear Vic,

Thanks for the comment. Not all garments are gender-distinct, so some socks, for instance, can be worn by both genders without any sin. The distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins is not found in the Bible anywhere, although it is taught by Roman Catholicism. Referencing such a distinction makes me seriously question if you understand the Biblical gospel, the good news that Christ's death is a perfect payment for all sin to those who come to Him in repentant faith apart from any works. Please read "Bible Truths for Catholic Friends" here:

in regard to the differences between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. If you are not a Roman Catholic but have picked up the mortal/venial distinction elsewhere, please see:

for resources examining your particular religion.

Thanks again.

Moment of Truth said...

Thank you for this article. As a more than 5 term foreign missionary, I have learned that different cultures have different standards as to what distinguishes between male and female. You quoted the Puritan preacher who stated it very clearly, "What particular form of apparel shall distinguish the one sex from the other, must be determined by the custom of particular countries; provided that those customs do not thwart some general law of God, the rule of decency, the ends of the apparel, or the directions of scripture." The Holy Spirit will guide us as to how we should live and God's Word is our only authority. Ladies' clothing in Bible times was similar to, but different to men's. Just as our styles today are similar to, but different. Men's shirts have their buttons on the right side. Men's pants have their zipper flap on the left side. Ladies' shirts have their buttons on the left side and ladies pants have the zipper flap on the right side. So, the clothing is similar, but different. This satisfies the Biblical mandate. The problem is one of modesty or what is appropriate. Morality plays a big part in the clothing of both sexes. Tight, revealing, skimpy incites lust and is wrong, whether the clothing is worn by a male or female. Loose clothing that covers and is respectful of our God-given gender allows others to see Christ in us.

Unknown said...

Dueteronomy 22 is the chapter of the Bible that gives rules for when a woman should be stoned to death for having been raped.Ergo, your arguments are invalid.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Trey, Very incisive, just that nobody thought like what you're explaining for almost all of Christian history. Some of the Pentateuch is judicial, some ceremonial, and some moral. Dt 22:5 is moral law as seen in the language of verse, and this is agreed by almost every old commentary. This is the historic view as seen in practice. It couldn't have changed in meaning unless before there was a total apostasy, which there wasn't. Your view is equivalent of something cultic, because it is new and turns off of historic Christian belief. You should just say that you don't like what the Bible says. That would be more accurate. Or that you are an unbeliever, which sounds more like it.

Unknown said...

The Word states our relationship with God not as that of Master and slave, but of Father and child - no longer slaves: Gal 4: 6-7 “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭4:6-7‬ Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father. So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir." In my personal, intimate, loving relationship and fellowship with my Father God daily I want to obey Him out of love, because He loved me first, not because I'm a slave and I feel I have to. That's how Satan operates. God is love. And remember the 2 most important commandments, all hang on those 2, the whole Bible - LOVE!

Anonymous said...

So I cannot possibly read all these right now as they feel to be wordsmithing for the debate, or just sticks to poke the bear, which is fine if you enjoy those games, but really for me, just annoying.
I have but one judge, and you are not him. Jesus speaks daily, if he doesn't like what I am doing/wearing...he will let me know, until then...I will wear my blue jeans, I will wear my uni-sex t-shirt and I will wear my make-up too.

johnrainwater said...

when this scripture was written, wasn't everyone wearing some slight variation of a robe?

KJB1611 said...

Dear John,

See for that question answered. Thanks.

Unknown said...


Unknown said...


Unknown said...


Anonymous said...

The question I have is does God change and if he does not then why would something be an abomination to him then and not now? This is not a debate it is a serious question looking for a serious answer because I want to know.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous..I have been following your line of conversation and we are about at the same place. What I have concluded is, the law was a covenant between God and the Jewish people. I think you know that. ANY breaking of the law was considered sinful. I understand that the word 'abomination' may constitute a greater degree, but sin nonetheless. Imagine being Jewish and not circumcising your son? You would be guilty of not fulfilling the greatest act of subscription to the law. Grave sin!

Fast forward to the New Testament. Did God change his mind about circumcision..such an important act of obedience? The dispensation ended, so adherence is no longer required. It is not a sin now to not circumcise. Can you imagine. What was held in such high regard is no longer relevant. I believe the context of Deuteronomy is critical to its understanding.

I like the work you have done. God bless.

Kent Brandenburg said...


You like his way of thinking and your argument is that God did away with circumcision? Circumcision is explicitly done away with in the the New Testament. It was given to Israel. Deut 22:5 is explicitly given to all men and it goes back to God's design, which is for all men. The teaching is repeated in the NT in 1 Cor 11. You'll find the same teaching in almost every old commentary. It is the historic teaching of the church. The switch in teaching, when? 20th century with the rise of feminism. Modern women like it. Or we could say the new Roman woman?

Samantha A. said...

Oh my goodness Mr. Brandenburg! Discussion of the topic aside, I am appalled at how rude you are to those opposing your position.
I have been reading all of the comments, but your responses are so ungracious to those who offend you. Cowards, non-sensical? I am stunned that you seem to be the mediator. Please consider your ways.

Kent Brandenburg said...


1 Corinthians 14:29-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Are you familiar with them?

Jesus said before you judge others, get the beam out of your own eye, but maybe Jesus is too harsh for you.

God is angry with the ungodly every day. Any words for God?

Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. The tone police comes out, when God says something is an abomination and He's personally offended, but you are more concerned for those offending. Capitulation is the only alternative.

Rob said...

Politeness and graciousness are not manly therefore it is sinful for a man to be kind and gracious. Don't you read the Bible? Jesus was kidding when he said "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Matt 5:5 only applies to women.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Several things that I could hope wouldn't fall on deaf ears with you, someone who directs commentary meant for me toward someone else, speaking to me in the third person. There's a difference between being direct versus condescending, including, "Jesus was kidding." Do you think Jesus "kids," Rob?

The Greek word translated "meek" in Mt 5:5 doesn't mean what you are saying. It is harnassed power, used also of a horse that has been broken -- power under control. It is power though, authority and strength. What are we harnessed to, Rob? Jesus. You don't sound like you've read the gospels, because the Jesus I read in the gospels told the truth. He cast out thousands of people, including Roman guard from the temple area among many other very strong statements. Read about John the Baptist.

In the Old Testament, they stoned those who were an abomination. That was civil government, but how polite was that? They weren't happy. That's a lie. You would rather we lie? I saw you made no comment on 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2. Do you selectively leave those out of the Bible?

Rob said...

"Pastor" Kent,
Congrats for picking up on the condescension. Nothing gets by you. You're just demonstrating that people can, and do, read whatever they want into the text. The KJV uses the word "meek" which means "quiet, gentle and easily imposed on, submissive." The KJV is the direct, inerrant, infallible word of God. Any attempt to change the plain reading comes straight from the pit of Hell. You wouldn't be trying to change the plain reading with your fancy Greek translation would you. Translation comes from man, not God, and therefore cannot be trusted. How do you know your translation can be trusted? Did God reveal that to you?


Kent Brandenburg said...

I'll leave it at there, Rob. People can take your comment and get where you're coming from.

Kary Hooper said...

John 13:35
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

Kent Brandenburg said...


Read John 13-17 and read 2 John, which is a companion. What is love? It is keeping His commandments, His Words, and sayings. It's not a feeling or sentimentalism. It isn't toleration of error. Love is walking in the truth. If it is the truth, and you don't tell it, that isn't love.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Nobody has, by the way, here, pointed out any specific examples of what they are talking about. They've just made accusations.

Kary Hooper said...

plural noun: Pharisees
a member of an ancient Jewish sect, distinguished by strict observance of the traditional and written law, and commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity.
a self-righteous person; a hypocrite.

Luke 7:36-50 New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman
36 When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. 38 As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”

40 Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”

“Tell me, teacher,” he said.

41 “Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[a] and the other fifty. 42 Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”

43 Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”

“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

44 Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Kent Brandenburg said...


One, read Galatians. Paul dealt with Judaizing. He didn't call for disobedience to the law, but to live it out of love as a son, not as a slave. You don't love God more by keeping less of His words or sayings.

Two, Pharisaism was about either adding to the law or reducing it, not doing the hard things. That's what you seem to be advocating, which is Pharisaism. Just throwing the term out is not something Jesus would have done.

Third, this is the last post I'll accept that is off topic and attempting to lecture me on tone with zero specific examples. That isn't loving, which is a Pharisaical behavior Jesus confronted in Matthew 7, that is, judging unrighteous judgment. I've noticed that people go for tone when they have no argument. Very often Charismatics do that. You expose biblical teaching on sign gifts and they say, that's unloving. They don't understand love. And that's where I'm at with you right now.

Rob said...

Whether you accept it or not, the term certainly applies to you. Your obsession with pants on women has no biblical basis. You have added to the law. Style of dress has changed throughout the centuries, yet you seem to want to argue that the only moral way for Christians to dress today is stuck in 1940s America. I am certainly not advocating for immodesty, but, let's be real, it's just fabric. There are many other examples that could be made. God does not dictate a style of dress in Scripture.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Are you sure I'm not stuck in the 1950s or the 1840s or the 1740s? At one time all believers practiced the way we do, but they capitulated. Scripture didn't change. Clothes are an issue the third chapter in the Bible. Paul teaches on it in three epistles. God advocates for designed gender distinction. I am obsessing over obedience to scripture, sowing to the Spirit, loving God as a Son. 1 John 2:3-4, "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Take those two verses to heart.

Josh said...

Pastor Mike you are right. We need more pastors and elders teaching this and we desperately need more father's who love God, taking their responsibilities seriously and who start teaching their wives and daughters the truths of gender as God sees them. Girls need to know they are so valued and treasured. It's time for Godly men to stand up and fight and be men of Courage we are called to be a peculiar people and to not blend in with the world.

Anonymous said...

My comment my be a little off but I am just curious. What if a man wore support pantyhose for support. Is the fact that their pantyhose enough to make it sin.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I didn't think it was a legitimate question. I thought you were making some sort of argument and you stayed anonymous because of the nature of that argument, which I didn't think was good. But you really wanted to know.

I guess you are talking about an undergarment. A man needs support, so he wears in essence longunderwear that relate to health issues. I think Joe Namath and other football players wore pantyhose in cold weather under their uniform. The point of these garments is external. They are symbols of the genders and roles that God designed.

Unknown said...

Ok so your saying gender distinction what we portray to others the outside appearance conveying whether or not you are in line with your gender. Not necessarily whether the garment is Male or female, but over distinction