Deuteronomy 22:5, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
On April 30th, 2025, at the shameful Family Baptist Church in Pensacola, I and my wife Alice were horribly mistreated by Pastor Brad Moffett in his office. We are both old enough to be his parents, but he showed us zero respect. I and Alice had been invited into his office for a very different purpose, but the pastor instead chose for whatever reason to spend that time censuring my website ministry. It is obvious to me that Brad's wife henpecked him to do what he did. Pastor Brad's wife pressured him to scold the elderly man “Bobby” who lives across the street from the church. Bobby was so hurt and offended that he quit church because of them. They still haven't learned how to rightly treat people at Family Baptist Church in Pensacola.
During our unpleasant meeting with Pastor Brad, that he dishonestly forced upon us without warning, he defended his wife's Biblical right to where pants. Dear reader, in the 45 months that I quietly attended their church as a guest, I never once mentioned my beliefs about modesty to anyone in the church. It was them (not me) who made a fuss when they found my article on my website ministry titled, Why A Christian Lady Ought Not Wear Pants. My article cut to the heart of the pastor's wife, because God convicted her about her sexy pants.
I was reading through some of my Bible books today and ran across an old classic by Sword of the Lord founder, Evangelist John R. Rice (1895-1980), titled: “Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions...” On pages 483-485 Dr. Rice answers the question:
“Women forbidden to wear “that which pertaineth to a man”; is it ceremonial law?
You say that you looked up Deuteronomy 22:5, 9 and 11. Then you say, “Am I wrong to believe if I keep verse 5 and never for any reason put on slacks, that also it would be wrong to wear a woman's woolen suit with linen cuffs or some trimming on the suit linin, as in verse 11?
First, let us look at those three verses you mentioned:
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” —Vs. 5.
“Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.” —Vs. 9.
“Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” —Vs. 11.
1. Throughout the first five books in the Bible, the Mosaic law is given. Some of this is moral law and some of it is ceremonial law. For example, in Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments are give. It is quite obvious that nine of those commandments are moral law and these are repeated in one way or another in the New Testament. It is just as wrong now to worship idols, to take God's name in vain, to dishonor father and mother, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to lie, or to covet, as it ever was.
But in Colossians 2:17 and 18 we are plainly told that the Sabbath days, given to the Jews and mentioned in the Ten Commandments, were nailed to the cross, a part of the ceremonial laws, “a shadow of things to come.” But even if one disagrees about the Sabbath question, in the same twentieth chapter of Exodus other ceremonial commands are given as in verse 24: “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings . . . .” So it is wrong to say that any one chapter is all ceremonial and not binding for us—at least it is wrong to say that about Deuteronomy 22. For example, it is clearly a moral problem that a man is not to hide his brother's ox or sheep, but must tell where they are, a man must help his neighbor when his ox or ass is in trouble. Verse 30: “A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt” is clearly moral law. So chapter 22 does have some moral teachings that are binding upon us today. Of course, no one was ever saved by keeping commandments, but still the moral commandments teach what is right and Christians want to keep the commands of God that place moral obligations upon us
2. But there is another reason for believing that Deuteronomy 22:5 is a rule that is meant for women of all times. The New Testament clearly teaches that the Old Testament laws about the relations of men and women are still binding. First Corinthians 14:34 says, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. Here the law means, of course, the first five books of the Bible. So the same doctrine of the Pentateuch is the doctrine of the New Testament, when it comes to the relationship of men and women. Women are to be under obedience. Perhaps this refers primarily to Genesis 3:16 where the woman is told, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” But certainly the implications that follow are intended also.
In first Timothy 2:11-15 the Scripture plainly says that the Old Testament relationship between men and women is to be the same in the New Testament times. “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
In the case of Adam and eve, the Lord set a certain relationship between husband and wife; and women are today to maintain that same relationship. So we find that this distinction between the men and women was emphasized in the Old Testament by having men and women to dress differently, as indications of their different positions. I think it is right to believe that the same distinctions are to be maintained today again.
In first Corinthians 11:1-6 the Bible clearly says that in the manner of wearing their hair, women and men are to be different. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (vss. 14-16). And the contacts plainly says that this difference is based on the fundamental difference in men and women, because “the head of the woman is the man” (vs. 3). You see, Deuteronomy 22:5 is really just a part of the New Testament and Old Testament doctrine of the proper relationship of men and women. And a woman should show that she takes a woman's place, should show it by wearing long hair, and by wearing a woman's clothes. I hope that you will read my book on Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers (paperbound 75 cents) for further study on this matter.
Now the commands in Deuteronomy 22:9: “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds . . . ” has a spiritual lesson for us. It means that Christians should not yoke up with unbelievers. The same lesson is given in verse eleven. The Jew was not to wear a garment of mixed woolen and linen together, as a symbol to us that we are not to be yoked up with unbelievers. I do not say it is wrong to plant two kinds of seed in the same field. I do not say it is wrong to have two kinds of materials on a dress. That command is not repeated in the New Testament, and I think it is obviously ceremonial law. But the relationship of men and women, and making the hair, and outward dress and behavior, fit that relationship, seems to me to be a moral problem that is preached just the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament.
I think you will see, when you go into the matter thoughtfully, that actually the modern fad of women wearing slacks, and of otherwise defying conventions, and trying to be like men, is a part of the unchristian rebelliousness of the age. It goes with unbelief and rebellion and not with the most spiritual Christianity. I think lots of good women who mean well have bobbed their hair and wear pants, and perhaps smoke cigarettes and rebel against their husbands, but they are not as good Christians as they would be if they obeyed the word of God in this matter, I think; and I think that if they mean well, they will come more and more toward the Bible pattern of obedience to husbands. obedience to the conventions which properly differentiate between the sexes and take the place of modest womanhood, as taught in the Scriptures and upheld traditionally by the best Christian women. Don't you think so?
Bravo Dr. Rice! Pastor Brad Moffett couldn't be more wrong that Deuteronomy 22:5 is ceremonial law. Brother Rice is so right, the proper relationship between men and women is reiterated in the New Testament, clearly defining how men and women are to appear in public to maintain distinction between the sexes. Only a fool would dare attempt to justify Christian women wearing pants in public. Amish females would never even consider putting on a pair of pants because they fear God. Today's Baptist females shame the name of Jesus.
Dr. Rice is correct that women wearing pants goes along with unbelief and rebellion, and not with the most spiritual Christianity. Shame on new-evangelicals for their low moral standards.
