Deuteronomy 22:5 NIV

[PattyPryor]

in Deuteronomy 22:5 it says 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."

and in
1 Corinthians 11:14-15

14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering

does this mean that women should always wear dresses? I know a lot of people who are different religions besides catholic and believe this. I’m all confused

 

[runandsew]

in Deuteronomy 22:5 it says 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."

and in
1 Corinthians 11:14-15

14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering

does this mean that women should always wear dresses? I know a lot of people who are different religions besides catholic and believe this. I’m all confused

Those were cultural rules which don’t apply to us now.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

in Deuteronomy 22:5 it says 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."

and in
1 Corinthians 11:14-15

14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering

does this mean that women should always wear dresses? I know a lot of people who are different religions besides catholic and believe this. I’m all confused

As I recall at the time that was written, and for a couple of millenia after, men wore long dress like robes and had rather long hair.

 

[Ruthie]

I believe that Deut 22:5 refers to transvestism. In other words, the intent of these cross-dressers is to deceive people into thinking they are the opposite gender.

Ruthie

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Patty, Deut 22 is simply forbidding women to wear the clothes of a warrior thats it.

It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,

“As the word…geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”4

John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:

“…and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, ‘take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman…’” (sic) 5

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”

“In another attempt to identify the quintessential ‘men’s items,’ Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior’s gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior’s gear’.”

Rabbi Tilsen further states,

“This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been ‘unlady-like’ for her to use a sword – worse, a violation of the law – because a sword is a man’s tool…”

actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Daniel Marsh: do you believe that transvestism is ever mentioned in the bible?

If it isn’t how would a Sola Scripturaist calculate if it were wrong or not?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I do not know if transvestism - cross dressing is referred to in the bible. But, it is or was considered a psychological disorder in our culture. And, transvestism - cross dressing is not in isolation, other sinful behaviors may run along with it. One may see it in Romans 1.

Personally, I would see transvestism - cross dressing as a psychological problem and let the Holy Spirit convict the person of any sin in their life.

Frankly, is there a history of transvestism during biblical times in isreal? What non-biblical sources document the existence of this practice? I have Pitchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts volume, and there is not a single case of Transvestism - cross dressing in it.

But, you are seeking to understand how one who holds Bible Alone would deal with a topic not directly addressed in scripture.

First, I must make distinctions. True sola scriptura is bible as primary authority ( the reformers recognised the creeds, and early councils as authoritive ). Whereas, Bible Alone recognises the Bible as the only authority. So, lets use the test case of abortion since I do know more about it.

Abortion is not directly addressed in the bible frankly because such a practice among the Jews is contray to “be fruitful and multiply” and contray to God as the creator of life. So, it need not be addressed there. But, we know from history ( church fathers ) that abortion was addressed because of its practice among the nations. Both sola scriptura ( bible primary authority ) and Bible alone seek out principles in scripture related to the topic and indirectly condem abortion on principles in scripture.

If Transvestism is tied with homosexuality in modern times then the sin of homosexuality by itself is enough to comdem a person of sin. No, I am not saying it is ok for one to be a cross dresser, that person simply needs to seek professional help to deal with the deeper problems that the cross dressing is a simpton of.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Note, when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written pants, dresses, and underwear as we know them today simply did not exist back then. People wore robes, and warriors wore military armor along with their robes. Both men and women wore robes. The only difference in clothing was the military armor.

biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=armor

As far as I can see in scripture cross dressing of dresses and silk underwear was not even a problem because dresses and silk underwear are both modern inventions.

 

[REDfan4Lyfe]

This verse does not necessarily incriminate transvestism in modern times. It was a requirement for the Israelites to not cross-dress because such actions were pagan practices at the time. I still stress over the morality of the action though because I have found no real way to prove the action right or wrong.