View Full Version : Question on Deut.22:5
Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids a woman to wear men's clothing, and a man to wear women's clothing.
.
Deut.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.
My question is where in the Bible does it define what God considers men's clothing and what is considered women's clothing? I am not aware of any statement in the Bible that defines clothing styles for women or men, so it seems that clothing standards are set by humans - namely men - so, once again it is the human male who becomes the one who sets the standards...giving the credit, or blame to God.
Rose
Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids a woman to wear men's clothing, and a man to wear women's clothing.
.
Deut.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.
My question is where in the Bible does it define what God considers men's clothing and what is considered women's clothing? I am not aware of any statement in the Bible that defines clothing styles for women or men, so it seems that clothing standards are set by humans - namely men - so, once again it is the human male who becomes the one who sets the standards...giving the credit, or blame to God.
Rose
I hope you are not suggesting that men and women are equal and should be allowed to wear each other's clothings.....bra, underwear, panties, blouse, hose etc. :lol:
God is the one who made the first clothings for Adam and Eve:
Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
I am not sure if God made the garments as one-size-fits-all for both man and woman. But I believe God have to take into account allowance for female breasts and bigger hip, and for male's bigger chest and allowance for the "bottom". So the garments will have to be different for man and woman. God made garments of skin sounds like leather to me and that sets the clothing standard for humans. So once again God sets the standards, and men and women subsequently adds to the numerous fashions and designs. Yes, I stressed on some renowned women who have played significant roles in designing both men's and women's apparels and fashions. They were also the ones who set standards for men's and women's wear. It's unfair to blame just mainly men who sets clothings standards.
May God bless us, Amen.:pray:
Look up the words.
The clothing of the man is describing a soldier's warrior armor. A woman is not to be so attired.
Nor is the antithesis to be observed.......a man clothed with female attire.
Why cloud it with male/female bias?
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
08-07-2011, 09:27 PM
Look up the words.
The clothing of the man is describing a soldier's warrior armor. A woman is not to be so attired.
Nor is the antithesis to be observed.......a man clothed with female attire.
Why cloud it with male/female bias?
Joel
Yes, the phrase "kli-geber" could mean "soldier's armor" - but it could also mean "men's clothing." Why do you assert that it "is describing a soldier's warrior armor" as if there were no question about the matter? How do you know that? Why do you so confidently reject the conclusions of the Hebrew experts who translated it as "men's clothing?" I could not find the translation you suggest in any of these fifteen major English translations (http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-5.htm). On the contrary, every one of them says essentially the same thing as the KJV, as seen here in the first seven of those fifteen:
New International Version (http://niv.scripturetext.com/deuteronomy/22.htm) (©1984) (http://biblica.com/) A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
New Living Translation (http://nlt.scripturetext.com/deuteronomy/22.htm) (©2007) (http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/)"A woman must not put on men's clothing, and a man must not wear women's clothing. Anyone who does this is detestable in the sight of the LORD your God.
English Standard Version (http://esv.scripturetext.com/deuteronomy/22.htm) (©2001) (http://www.crossway.org/)'A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/deuteronomy/22.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/) "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (http://gwt.scripturetext.com/deuteronomy/22.htm) (©1995) (http://www.godsword.org/)A woman must never wear anything men would wear, and a man must never wear women's clothes. Whoever does this is disgusting to the LORD your God.
King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/deuteronomy/22.htm)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.
American King James Version (http://kjv.us/deuteronomy/22.htm)The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the LORD your God.
If your interpretation is correct, why could I not find that translation in any version of the Bible?
Also, it looks like your interpretation breaks the symmetry of the verse:
The woman shall not wear a man's armor,
neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
The word "garment" (simlah) is a general term that applies equally to any garment worn by a man or woman. The same word was used just two verses earlier in Deut 22:3 to refer to a man's "garment." Your interpretation makes the comparison asymmetric because we then would have a general prohibition against men wearing women's clothing contrasted with a specific prohibition against women wearing one particular kind of men's clothing. I think this asymmetry is probably one of the reason no translators translated it the way you say it should have been translated.
So with these facts in mind, let's revisit Rose's question:
My question is where in the Bible does it define what God considers men's clothing and what is considered women's clothing? I am not aware of any statement in the Bible that defines clothing styles for women or men, so it seems that clothing standards are set by humans - namely men - so, once again it is the human male who becomes the one who sets the standards...giving the credit, or blame to God.
Even if the "men's clothing" actually refers to "soldier's garments" the problem remains, because the Bible nowhere defines "women's garments." Therefore, her conclusion that it is the "human male" that "sets the standards" seem to be correct. The Bible provides no guidance on how to obey this commandment because it does not define "women's clothes."
I find this fascinating, because it exemplifies how we read things into the Bible that are not there. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that men have used this passage to say women should not wear pants! When we modern folks read this passage, we think it is talking about modern styles like the "bra, underwear, panties, blouse, hose" mentioned by CWH. Few people stop to ask - "What are men's clothes? What are women's clothes?" There are many other things like this in the Bible, where folks confuse their own traditions with "God's commandments."
There is....the letter....and the spirit.
Whenever a verse is read, if the letter is your emphasis, then the strictness and exactness applies so that the verse becomes a tool of the flesh, and where dominance and control prevail.
It may evolve into, as in this case, rules of proper apparel. How rediculous is that?
But, if the spirit prevails over the letter, men will not choose to look like women, and vice versa, but will seek to conduct themselves in a way pleasing to God Who appears to have each part of humanity, male and female, demonstrate a facet of God which is their part.
When you insist on the intricate details of a verse demonstrating some imagined bias, I say you are seeing through the eyes of flesh, and applying the letter which kills and does not bring life and peace.
Do your words edify or tear down?
Why not seek to build up rather than destroy?
You can probably take each and every verse of the scripture and use it either as a stone to throw at someone, or bread which imparts life. If you seek the latter, you need the spirit, not the letter.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
08-08-2011, 09:12 AM
There is....the letter....and the spirit.
Whenever a verse is read, if the letter is your emphasis, then the strictness and exactness applies so that the verse becomes a tool of the flesh, and where dominance and control prevail.
It may evolve into, as in this case, rules of proper apparel. How rediculous is that?
But, if the spirit prevails over the letter, men will not choose to look like women, and vice versa, but will seek to conduct themselves in a way pleasing to God Who appears to have each part of humanity, male and female, demonstrate a facet of God which is their part.
When you insist on the intricate details of a verse demonstrating some imagined bias, I say you are seeing through the eyes of flesh, and applying the letter which kills and does not bring life and peace.
Do your words edify or tear down?
Why not seek to build up rather than destroy?
You can probably take each and every verse of the scripture and use it either as a stone to throw at someone, or bread which imparts life. If you seek the latter, you need the spirit, not the letter.
Joel
Wow - you sure changed horses in the middle of the stream of our conversation Joel! You are the one who appealed to the "letter" when you claimed, without presenting any factual evidence or alternate interpretations, that the verse must be interpreted in a way that no translator ever translated it. So I responded reasonably and rationally to your suggestion by looking at the facts. And now you want to accuse me of "tearing down" and "destroying" by my appeal to logic, facts, and Scripture? Why didn't you just respond to the facts that I presented?
Rose asked a simple question. The Bible prohibits one sex from wearing the clothing of the other, but never states the precise standards that defines the difference. But most people who read that verse think they know what it means, and mistakenly apply modern dress styles to that verse written thousands of years ago. This exemplifies a fundamental problem with the way modern folks read the Bible. They read their own thoughts into the text and think it is saying things that it doesn't actually say.
So what have I "torn down" or "destroyed" by explaining these facts? If anything, it must be that I have torn down the ignorant assumption that people have when they mistake their own modern ideas for what the Bible actually states.
You said that we could "probably take each and every verse of the scripture and use it either as a stone to throw at someone, or bread which imparts life." I don't understand why you feel like my explanation was "throwing stones" at you. I only tried to accurately explain what the text says to the best of my ability. I didn't say anything against you, did I?
All the best to you my friend,
Richard
Richard,
I was attempting to point out that the scripture can be used in a negative manner, as well as a positve manner.
You have always been a kind, and considerate conversationalist with me, as well as Rose. I do not believe you have thrown stones at me.
Please specify again, if you will, what I have said that seems to you to be talking out of two sides of my mouth.
I have gained so much by joining in to discussions on this forum, and continue to view it as a very positive experience.
Of late, what has perplexed me is the departure from the faith of both yourself and Rose. I do not judge you in any way, but, am in a certain state of confusion about all of that and believe that it will all work itself out in the end.
All the best to you both,
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
08-08-2011, 05:35 PM
Richard,
I was attempting to point out that the scripture can be used in a negative manner, as well as a positve manner.
You have always been a kind, and considerate conversationalist with me, as well as Rose. I do not believe you have thrown stones at me.
Please specify again, if you will, what I have said that seems to you to be talking out of two sides of my mouth.
I have gained so much by joining in to discussions on this forum, and continue to view it as a very positive experience.
Of late, what has perplexed me is the departure from the faith of both yourself and Rose. I do not judge you in any way, but, am in a certain state of confusion about all of that and believe that it will all work itself out in the end.
All the best to you both,
Joel
Hey there my friend, :yo:
I guess there has been a misunderstanding. I thought you were upset with me and that you were implying that I was misusing Scripture to "throw stones" at you. I'm glad I got that wrong!
I think it would be great to discuss why I have quit Christianity. I would like my reasons to be reviewed with a critical eye by you and others. So I think I'll start a thread on that topic. I hope you will join in.
All the best my friend. I have always appreciated your presence on this forum.
Richard
throwback
08-09-2011, 01:10 PM
Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids a woman to wear men's clothing, and a man to wear women's clothing.
.
Deut.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.
My question is where in the Bible does it define what God considers men's clothing and what is considered women's clothing? I am not aware of any statement in the Bible that defines clothing styles for women or men, so it seems that clothing standards are set by humans - namely men - so, once again it is the human male who becomes the one who sets the standards...giving the credit, or blame to God.
Rose
Being honest, nowhere in the scriptures or the NT is it indicated that God considers certain garments to be female garments and other garments to be male garments. The issue of male vs. female clothing then is entirely subjective and dictated not by divine mandate, but rather based on the norms and mores of respective cultures. What we do see is that at least in the lands of the Hebrews, that God expected there to be a clear divide between what was appropriate for men and what was appropriate for women. Each were expected to act like their own sex.
Twospirits
08-10-2011, 09:10 AM
Rose wrote,
Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids a woman to wear men's clothing, and a man to wear women's clothing.
.
Deut.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.
My question is where in the Bible does it define what God considers men's clothing and what is considered women's clothing? I am not aware of any statement in the Bible that defines clothing styles for women or men, so it seems that clothing standards are set by humans - namely men - so, once again it is the human male who becomes the one who sets the standards...giving the credit, or blame to God.
This admonition most probably deals with the mandate to maintain the distinctions between male and female functions and roles. "Cross-dressing" seems to be the issue here. The man is not to be feminine and the woman is not to be masculine. Neither is to assume the mannerisms and role of the other. Also, the created order distinguished between male and female very clearly and adopting the clothes of the opposite sex would blur this line and might even encourage homosexuality.
The same Hebrew word translated detests (to ebah, lit., 'a detestable thing;" kjv, 'an abomination') is used to describe God’s view of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Also some evidence exists that transvestism may have been connected with the worship of pagan deities. Since this law was related to the divine order of Creation and since God detests anyone who does this, believers today also ought to heed this command."1
Source http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/women-should-not-wear-mens-clothes
Hope this helps--
God bless---Twospirits
Richard Amiel McGough
08-10-2011, 10:00 AM
This admonition most probably deals with the mandate to maintain the distinctions between male and female functions and roles. "Cross-dressing" seems to be the issue here. The man is not to be feminine and the woman is not to be masculine. Neither is to assume the mannerisms and role of the other. Also, the created order distinguished between male and female very clearly and adopting the clothes of the opposite sex would blur this line and might even encourage homosexuality.
The same Hebrew word translated detests (to ebah, lit., 'a detestable thing;" kjv, 'an abomination') is used to describe God’s view of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Also some evidence exists that transvestism may have been connected with the worship of pagan deities. Since this law was related to the divine order of Creation and since God detests anyone who does this, believers today also ought to heed this command."1
Source http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/women-should-not-wear-mens-clothes
Hope this helps--
God bless---Twospirits
Given that the Bible does not define what constitutes male or female clothing, this law is relative to the prevailing culture. This seems to be confirmed by the meaning of the word "to'evah" (abomination) which does not generally denote something that is morally right or wrong, but rather something that violates a mere cultural norm. This becomes quite obvious when we review how it is used in the Bible. It's first occurrence refers to the eating habits of Hebrews which were detestable to the Egyptians:
Genesis 43:32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
Likewise, the next occurrence refers to how Egyptians hate shepherds:
Genesis 46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
Obviously, being a shepherd is not a "moral" issue.
And we see the same relative meaning of this word in the third occurrence:
Exodus 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?
The next occurrence is found in the classic gay bashing verse used by the hypocrites who reject the theocratic Law for themselves but want to impose it upon others:
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
We have proof that to'evah is used for culturally relative norms, and I think it likely that the same meaning holds in this verse, just as it does in the verse in the OP, since differences between the clothing of men and women are entirely relative to culture.
Being honest, nowhere in the scriptures or the NT is it indicated that God considers certain garments to be female garments and other garments to be male garments. The issue of male vs. female clothing then is entirely subjective and dictated not by divine mandate, but rather based on the norms and mores of respective cultures. What we do see is that at least in the lands of the Hebrews, that God expected there to be a clear divide between what was appropriate for men and what was appropriate for women. Each were expected to act like their own sex.
When one stops and thinks about the idea of "acting like their own sex" it becomes very clear that most of what is imposed upon women and men as to how they should act, is totally based upon the customs and traditions of each particular culture...NOT commands from God.
From the biblical perspective of the creation of man and woman, we see male and female created equally in God's image, nowhere does it say woman should act one way and men another. Where I see the problem being introduced is when man gives himself rule over woman...from that point on men have dominated and imposed their own ideas of how they think women should act, and what rights they should be given.
It all comes down to men giving themselves authority by saying "God" commanded it.
All the Best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
08-11-2011, 08:46 AM
When one stops and thinks about the idea of "acting like their own sex" it becomes very clear that most of what is imposed upon women and men as to how they should act, is totally based upon the customs and traditions of each particular culture...NOT commands from God.
From the biblical perspective of the creation of man and woman, we see male and female created equally in God's image, nowhere does it say woman should act one way and men another. Where I see the problem being introduced is when man gives himself rule over woman...from that point on men have dominated and imposed their own ideas of how they think women should act, and what rights they should be given.
It all comes down to men giving themselves authority by saying "God" commanded it.
All the Best,
Rose
That's a real problem. Who says that men and woman should "act" in different ways? We are identical in every way except a few biological incidentals like sexual anatomy. We have the same abilities to walk, talk, write, think, judge, or whatever you name. Therefore I must ask, why would any modern person think that men and women should "act" differently? And if they believe this, exactly what defines their roles? Can anyone answer this question? I really want to know ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.