I beleive in those days and culture a man and womans cloths was spisificly and differently made for man and woman. Today man and womans clothes are still made spesiicly for men and woman, but most of the clothes today are made to be worn by either man or woman... So no a woman wearing pants is not wrong.
Debby, this has nothing to do with garments, back in those days, both men and women were dresses for lack of better words. This is a Hebrewism that means that a woman is not to take the place of a man in bed, or lay with another woman.
Re: Deut. 22:5 . A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man. It is very clear, any garment that a man has to wear, a woman should not wear it. Pants pertain to men garments not women, so women should not wear such garments.
@ Al. Verses 28-29 have nothing to do with forcing a woman to marry her rapist. If you read up to verses 25-27, even though that woman is betrothed, she cried out. Rape. The man was then executed. In verses 28-29, there was no crying out, so no rape occurred. It was consensual. Basically it's saying, "Since you wanted to test drive it, now you must buy it. You can never trade it in either."
Our Father would not make a woman marry her rapist, and then force her to cook, clean, and have normal willing sex with him afterwards. Always put it in context.
i want to know what this verse mean because i have pray about this .i dont think it is wrong .but i would like to know because i dont want to do nothing god dont want to .thank you
Verses 28 and 29 here are pretty good evidence of not being able to take the Old Testament morality at face value. This is seriously saying is a man rapes an unengaged virgin, he can pay her father and then marry her. So, anyone want to go make some girls marry their rapists?
laura, from verse 13-30 it speaks of the same subject. if a man takes a wife and then becomes unpleased with her and starts spreading gossip about her so that she recieve a bad reputation, then the parents will bring documentation that she was a virgin so that the man be found a liar. They major issue is the man spreading ill will against her so that she undueingly receive a bad rep!
Hi Rutha, this is a very missunderstood verse. This is speaking of a man not taking the womens place sexually and a woman not taking a mans place sexually. God does not judge the outward appearance but the heart( 1 Thess 2:4, Rom 8:27) and many others. Remember if that was the case that women couldnt wear mens clothing then they could wear pants because men wore dresses at that time!
Christians often believe certain parts of the Bible don't apply today, that they were written only for particular people, a particular culture or a particular time period. Whether women should speak in the church is one that has divided churches- some do it, some don't. There are many other verses in the Bible that one needs to question the applicability of, for instance: circumcision, sacrifices, eating of pork and 'unclean' animals, wearing clothes with mixed thread ( Deuteronomy 22:11), or unusual verses like Deuteronomy 22:29. Paul is the only author in the Bible that speaks of women to be silent in the church and is the same person who says men are better off never getting married. Yet, we know that the very reason God created women was so that we're not lonely, and that he wants us to be married in order to reproduce and populate the earth. So, is Paul a less-credible author in the Bible? We will probably never have the answers in this life.
Our Father would not make a woman marry her rapist, and then force her to cook, clean, and have normal willing sex with him afterwards. Always put it in context.