MEANING OF DEUTERONOMY 22:5
*THE MEANING OF DEUTERONOMY 22:5*
*INTRODUCTION*
I will begin by asking such questions as: (1) If you see a young man, or an old man wearing Skirt, what will you say or do? Surely, you will say that he is mad; you will say that he lacks home training; you will say that he is a wayward; you will even call him GOOD FOR NOTHING. Again, if you see a man having dreadlock or putting on earring, how will you feel? Surely, you will feel bad. You will see the guy as someone who is not moral, as someone who lacks home training; even the commercial sex workers will not be happy with such a man, but they will say “my own is to have fun with him and collect my money, but I don’t like such men”. (2) But today, when you see women wearing trousers, how do you feel?
In some cultures, like Igbo and Niger Delta cultures in Nigeria, the men (titled men) wear skirts or wrappers on top of trousers. First, some people use it as a reason why women should be wearing trousers. Second, many people have failed to decipher the background of the culture, as we can see the practice of such culture in the ancient near east (nations that were surrounding Israel then).
When the issue of wearing trousers started in the 1990s in Nigeria, the reason was against RAPE, and later it became SIGN OF A BIG GIRL, NWA WARA ANYA (one who has gone to the city and no longer village girl). So, how have people been seeing Deuteronomy 22:5?
*WHAT PEOPLE SAY ON DEUTERONMY 22:5*
The first school of thought belong those who see Deuteronomy 22:5 as referring to transvestism. For them, the intent of these cross-dressers is to deceive people into thinking they are the opposite gender. Transvestism - Cross Dressing is or was considered a psychological disorder in many cultures. And, transvestism - cross dressing is not in isolation, other sinful behaviors may run along with it. One may see it in Romans 1.
The second school of thought belong those who see Deuteronomy 22:5 as simply forbidding women to wear the clothes of a warrior. People in this school of thought explain that it is apparent that Moses, when writing Deuteronomy 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: 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.”
One of them argues: 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.
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…’”
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…”
The Third School of Thought argues that Deuteronomy 22:5 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. They still stress over the morality of the action because they have found no real way to prove the action right or wrong.
The Fourth School of Thought belong those who say that Deuteronomy 22:5 does not apply to Christians today. In this group belong most pastors and members of new Generation protestant Churches. They are of the opinion that Deut 22:5 do not apply to contemporary times. Their premise is the book of Galatians (5:1-14) where Paul makes it clear that the death of Jesus freed us from bondage to the laws of the Old Testament (OT). They believe that because the world keeps changing, there might be the need to review certain standards, especially those that do not really matter for the gospel. This view therefore is not that the text does not forbid women to wear trousers but that it is not relevant to our time. For them, we are not under the law but under grace.
The Fifth School of Thought belong those who say they are under grace. Then, they give their own interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5. For them, there are other laws in that same chapter that are not practicable, and logically when you break one law you break all. The text says a woman shall not put on "what pertaineth" to man and vice versa. In their own opinion, what pertains to man means what a man has put on, and not the type of fashion that belongs to men. If it is a statement about fashion we do not know what men wore different from those of women in ancient Israel; so we cannot apply to our time what we are not sure of. Concerning trousers specifically, many of them in this School who are Female Pastors hold that women's trousers are sewn differently from those of men, so we cannot say women are putting on what pertains to men. They explain further that fashion differs from culture to culture. For example, in Chile and Fiji Island skirts are men's wear. One of them said that She had once watched a programme by Revd. Benny Hinn from Fiji Island in which he appeared in skirts. Consequently she asserted that the Gospel of Christ is not localized; it is the same everywhere, whether in Nigeria or Fiji Island. Hence, according to this female pastor, apart from having been freed by grace from the laws of the OT, we cannot apply the prohibition in our own time because we do not really know what it forbids.
The Sixth School of thought belong those who I see that are not steady in their opinion. They are of the opinion that the Deuteronomy text is not talking about trousers because Israelites were not using trousers then, otherwise it would have been mentioned in the Bible. They also said that what pertains to men or women depends on the culture of the place; for example, in Scotland men wear skirts. *I will ask the people in this sixth group if abortion is mentioned in the Bible, if Bible is mentioned in the Bible, If General Overseer is mentioned in the Bible, if homosexuality (Gay and Lesbianism) is mentioned in the Bible, and so on.* Inasmuch as they are not mentioned by name in the Bible, they are been described in the Bible, and we know them when we read that portion of the scriptures.
*THE DEUTERONOMISTIC CODE (D- CODE) AND DEUTERONOMY 22:5*
The laws in the D code constitute a guide for living meant to set the Israelites apart from other peoples whether in the pre-exilic, exilic or post-exilic time. The regulations are often categorized into three groups namely ceremonial laws (12:1-16:17), civil laws (16:18-20:20) and social laws (21:1-26:19). Thus, the D code deals with far more than religious matters; it legislates for a style of life that involves economic, political, social and even military matters. Perhaps for this comprehensiveness some would call it a "constitution." Longman and Dillard, for example, affirm that the D code in effect became the "constitution" of ancient Israel. This is because it was the written deposit that defined her social order, the codification of her legal principles and juridical procedures, and her self-understanding under the rule of God.
The classification above places our text (Deut 22:5) under social laws (21-26), which include regulations concerning murderers, prisoners, inheritance, sexual relationships as well as cultic and other miscellaneous issues. Several commentaries and certain English translations of the Bible group Deut 22:1-12 together under "Miscellaneous Laws," which contain regulations about care for one's neighbour's lost livestock or materials (vv. 1-4), cross-dressing (v. 5), attitude to wild animals (vv. 6-7), type of material to use for one's roof (v. 8), type and number of seeds to plant at a time, type of animal to plough with, and type and number of cloths to use in sewing one's garment (v. 9-12). The collection in 22:1-12 is therefore properly called "miscellaneous" as the regulations have very little in common; hence 22:5 has to be examined in isolation.
*THE MEANING OF DEUTERONOMY 22:5*
The following Bible Versions are used: Masoteric Text (MT), Septuagint Text (LXX), TaNaK (TNK), and Gender Text (GT).
For convenience, in running text, here is the LXX (Septuagint text,i.e, Old Testament written in Greek) and TaNak:
The apparel of a man shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for every one that does these things is an abomination to the Lord thy God *(LXX).*
A woman must not put on man's apparel, nor shall a man wear woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God *(TaNak).*
The text originally reads thus:
Another version in Masoteric Text reads: לֹא־יִהְיֶה כְלִי־גֶבֶר עַל־אִשָּׁה וְלֹא־יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה
*FIRST PHRASE*
MT: לֹא־יִהְיֶה
Translit.: lōʾ yihye
LXX: Οὐκ ἔσται
Translit.: ouk estai
Trans.: shall not be
GT: Never cause or force ... to be used
TNK: must not put on
*COMMENTARY:* The Hebrew is literally "There shall not be", i.e., a negative command or prohibition. The form with "lōʾ" conveys a blanket prohibition, like the Ten Commandments, rather than an immediate or temporary, "don't!" ("Don't touch the stove!"). There is NO nuance, hint, or tendency to causation for "forcing" anything or anyone, so this is at least tendentious, and even misleading. The Hebrew is simply a statement of what must never be. The Tanak translation smooths this in English (the context is "apparel") to make it more colloquial, without distorting the meaning. And where "to be used (by)" comes from is anyone's guess. It's not in the Hebrew.
*SECOND PHRASE*
MT: כְלִי־גֶבֶר עַל־אִשָּׁה
Translit.: kĕlî-geber ʿal-ʾiššâ
LXX: σκεύη ἀνδρὸς ἐπὶ γυναικί
Translit.: skeuē andros epi gunaiki
Trans.: The apparel of a man ... on a woman
GT: a warriors weapon ... by a woman or weak person
TNK: A woman ... man's apparel
*COMMENTARY:* The GT translation indulges in two unwarranted moves here. (1) kĕlî-geber as "a warrior's weapon" is a possible translation, in that the English given provides legitimate glosses on the Hebrew words. HOWEVER, CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING, thus, this (otherwise acceptable) translation is not suitable for the context. The Hebrew word "kĕlî" has a very wide range of meaning, with something like "utensil" as a base meaning. But, "clothing" is part of its semantic range, and what we want in context. "GEBER" is the word GT translates as warrior here: this is just possible, as it usually refers to men who can be part of the fighting force, but even this needs to be explained sometimes (see Jeremiah 41:16 where it spelled out as "gibborim [plural of geber] who were men of war"). In Lamentations 3:1 it is always translated simply "I am the man who has..."
(2) GT's "woman" is fine, but "weak person" is fabrication. It simply is not there, nor is it an acceptable expansion of Hebrew ʾiššâ which can mean "woman" or "wife", more specifically. It is not a generic term for "weak person".
*THIRD PHRASE*
MT: וְלֹא־יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה
Translit.: wĕlōʾ-yilbaš geber śimlat ʾiššâ
LXX: οὐδὲ μὴ ἐνδύσηται ἀνὴρ στολὴν γυναικείαν
Translit.: oude mē endunasētai anēr stolēn gunaikeian
Trans.: neither shall a man put on a woman’s dress
GT: neither dress warriors armor on a woman or weak person
TNK: nor shall a man wear woman's clothing
*COMMENTARY:* The errors that GT perpetuates in the preceding phrase are carried forward here. It is hard even to work out how the GT's English can "map" back on to the Hebrew text. The best part about it is the verb "dress", although this is worded so as to imply that there is a dresser, and someone is (passively) being dressed. That is not what the Hebrew conveys. It is just about putting on clothes, or even more neutrally, "wearing" as the Tanak has it.
"warrior's armor" is getting close to fabrication. "geber" was discussed in the previous phrase. The important word here is "śimlah" (or in the genetive construction of the Hebrew, "śimlat ʾiššâ", with the -at ending signalling an "of" relationship). It is, quite unambiguously, simply an outer garment, a cloak, and you might well sleep in it, using it as a blanket. It never has the nuance or connotation of "armour" -- this pretty much qualifies as a falsification. I can't see how it is a "mistake", when the translation is, presumably, thoughtfully and deliberately produced.
(The Greek translation, stolē, is likewise simply a "robe" - it's where we get our English word "stole" [as in "fur stole"] from.)
Given the unambiguous meaning of "śimlah", and the symmetrical construction of the prohibition, this is the clincher for why "kĕlî" does not mean "weapon" or the like in the preceding phrase.
*FOURTH PHRASE*
MT: כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה
Translit.: kî tôʿăbat YHWH ʾĕlōhêkā kol-ʿōśē ʾēlleh
LXX: ὅτι βδέλυγμα κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ σού ἐστιν πᾶς ποιῶν ταῦτα
Translit.: hoti bdelugma kuriō(i) tō(i) theō(i) sou estin pas poiōn tauta
Trans.: for every one that does these things is an abomination to the Lord thy God
GT: for to Yahweh, God of Host, disgusting is such that do so
TNK: for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God.
*COMMENTARY:* All our translations line up pretty much here, even the GT -- although it has one distortion. (It also is barely English, but we are not discussing the quality of the translation as 'literature', just its accuracy.)
The distortion is that the GT translation imagines some party forcing some weaker person or persons to bear arms against their will, and that THIS is abhorrent (it is quite right about the force of this term, tôʿăbat) to the Lord. That sense is wholly absent from the Hebrew, and from its ancient Greek translation which (translated by Jews for Jews in the pre-Christian era) had no reason to meddle in its translation of this text.
*THE RELEVANCE OF DEUTERONOMY 22:5 TO CHRISTIANS AND THEIR LIFESTYLE*
Most commentators interpret this legislation in terms of the practice of transvestism among non-lsraelites. It is believed that in Canaanite fertility rites the exchange of dress between men and women somehow contributed to the fertility of the land. The evidence for this type of exchange is practically nonexistent. Yet we know that the goddess Anat is described in one document as acting and dressing like a man. More clear evidence for ritual transvestism is found in the cult of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. It was believed that a ritual change of sex occurred by exchanging clothes, and on occasion emasculation may have been practiced.
Among the Hittites we also find rituals in which transvestism was apparently practiced, only among men and for the purpose of removing femininity from the man, restoring his masculinity. Others find in this biblical legislation a rejection of ritual homosexual practices among pagans.
The above are attempts to identify the cultural background for this biblical legislation. There are disagreements among scholars concerning the specific cultural or religious practice that the biblical writer had in mind. This point once more to the fact that, ultimately, it is the biblical text itself that has the final word in terms of its meaning.
*First,* we should observe that the prohibition is carefully phrased: "No woman shall wear an article of man's clothing" (NEB). The Hebrew word translated "clothing" (kali) in the New International Version could include more than what is usually implied by "clothing," and therefore '"article[s] of clothing" may be a better rendering.
The emphasis is on the apparel that distinguishes a man from a woman. The man is not to "put on [a] woman's dress" (NEB). The Hebrew term (simlah, "mantle, wrapper") refers to a square piece of cloth worn as a mantle or wrap. This type of clothing was also worn by men, but the difference, according to the authorities, may have been the finer materials and the vivid colors of the woman's dress and its distinctive embroidery.
*Second,* the context is formed by a collection of different laws dealing with a variety of human actions, seeming to emphasize respect for other persons and their properties and respect for nature. The unifying topic may well be respect for the social and natural order established by God. There is nothing in the context about pagan ritual practices.
*Third,* a reason is given for the prohibition: the Lord "detests" a person who does these things. It's here that some find the ritual element. The term "detest/abominate" is used in other places to refer to pagan religious activities that are not acceptable to the Lord. But it is also used to refer to social behavior that is repugnant to the Lord (see Deut. 24:4; 25:16). This seems to be the case in Deuteronomy 22:5.
*It appears that the legislation under consideration is not controlled by ancient cultural concerns that are meaningless to us, but is in fact based on a very relevant principle for Christians today: that God is a God of order, and He establishes boundaries within creation to preserve the order instituted by Him.*
The distinction between male and female was established at Creation when the human race was defined as "male and female." Anything that alters that distinction is rejected. In the setting of the daily life of the Israelites this would be a rejection of transvestism in pagan rituals. But the principle cannot be limited exclusively to that cultural expression, because it is based on the order of creation.
This certainly impacts our lives today. Every Christian should dress in such a way as to preserve the distinction between the sexes. The details in the implementation of the principle are something that, in our complex society, should be determined by the believer in communion with her or his Lord. Although society defines the way we dress, Christians are to select from what society offers that which is compatible with biblical values.
Most English translations of Deuteronomy 22:5 make it clear that God is indeed against cross-dressing.
*EXPLANATION OF THE TRANSLATION OF DEUTERONOMY 22:5*
*WOMEN SHALL NOT WEAR MEN’S CLOTHING*
The first part of the verse prohibits women from wearing men’s clothing and from using a wide variety of items normally associated with men. Unfortunately, the English translations of the verse are inadequate. Notice that the Hebrew word that is translated as “clothing” in the first part of Deuteronomy 22:5 is כְלִי־ or keli. This Hebrew word means more than just clothing (see Exodus 22:6; Leviticus 11:32; 13:49). Keli includes ornaments, weapons and other symbols that are uniquely characteristic of men. That is, God is prohibiting women from wearing men’s clothing and appearing as men. For example, women cannot wear men’s clothes, wear men’s hairdos or wear men’s watches, medallions or other male artifacts. God is referring to a habitual pattern of life.
*MEN SHALL NOT WEAR WOMEN’S CLOTHING*
The second part of the verse prohibits men from wearing women’s clothing too! But the Hebrew word for clothing in the second part of the verse is שִׂמְלַ֣ת or simla. The word is different from the word translated as “clothing” in the first part of the verse. Simla refers to women’s clothing explicitly. This means that men cannot wear women’s clothing! The meaning of the word is narrower than keli.
*AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD YOUR GOD*
The last part of the verse is a warning that “whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” This statement helps us understand that this command from the Lord our God seeks to maintain the sanctity of the distinction between the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman (Genesis 1:27).
*THE INTERPRETATION OF ABBOT BENEDICT*
Deutoronomy 22:5 is one of the verses that cause much commotion in the church between fundamentalists and liberals. You really make me enjoy the topics you choose. The fundamentalists will definitely use this verse to demonstrate that transsexuality and Travesty is an abomination.
Deuteronomy 22:5—A woman shall not be clothed with manly apparel, nor shall a man make use of feminine apparel. For whoever does these things is abominable with God.
(1) This passage teaches us that men and women are intended by God to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society, and that those differences should be reflected in clothing, grooming, and behavior.
(2) The passage also condemns, unequivocally and as an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral act, attempting to change one’s God given biological gender by clothing, hormones, surgery, implants, gender name-changes, or any other means.
(3) Now certainly the soul is the form of the body, meaning that body and soul are very thoroughly united as one person. But in a sense the soul is clothed in the body, and so the passage can be read as prohibiting changing one’s body from male to female, or from female to male.
(4) No, it is not a sin for a woman to wear pants, nor for a man to dress as a woman for a comedy show. These persons are not denying the differences in men and women, nor are they rejecting their God-given gender.
However, and this is what I add to the totality: The Lord is the only one that should judge anyone. It is not our task to be the judge of other people, based on their gender or sexual preference or clothing preference.
*CONCLUSION:*
Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits men from dressing like women and women from dressing like men. God warns us to maintain the distinctions of the sexes that He created. This means that men must not wear long hair and women must not wear short hair like a men. Women are to dress like women and men are to dress like men. This does not mean that man cannot wear some article of clothing temporarily, such as wearing a woman’s coat to stay warm or vice versa. This does not mean that it is wrong for a woman to be bald if she loses her hair due to chemotherapy.
What God is prohibiting is an intentional blurring of the difference between men and women. Men are not to be transvestites or dress as woman for comical reasons. Men are to look like men and women are to look like women.
What is abhorrent to the Lord according to Deuteronomy 22:5 is cross-dressing. Where that leaves the relationship of church and synagogue with the fashion industry is a different question. It is clear that this text is not talking of women wearing warrior’s cloth or dress. It is clear that the text still incriminate transvestism in modern times. It is clear that the text still apply to Christians today. It is clear that the law is practicable. Culture cannot take precedence of Natural Law. So whether Rev Benny Hinn wore Skirt to preach or not, has nothing to add or subtract with the moral standard set by Deuteronomy 22:5.
*BIBLIOGRAPHY*
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Theologies in the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997.
Keil and Delitzch. Commentary On The Old Testament. Hendrickson Publishers. 2006. vol. 1, p. 945.
Longman, Tremper III and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Michigan: Zondervan, 2006
McConville, Godon. "Deuteronomy." Pages 198-232 in New Bible Commentary. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Gordon J. Wenham and J. Alec Motyer. Leicester: IVP, 1994.
Moore, Megan B. and Brad E. Kelle. Biblical History and Israel's Past. Grand Rapids: WmB. Eerdmans, 2011.
Peter Craigie. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Eerdmans Publishing. 1976. Sarna and Potok. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. The Jewish Publication Society. 1996.
© Rev Utazi Prince Marie Benignus SFDPM
July 21 2020
Memorial of Saint Lawrence Brindisi
*INTRODUCTION*
I will begin by asking such questions as: (1) If you see a young man, or an old man wearing Skirt, what will you say or do? Surely, you will say that he is mad; you will say that he lacks home training; you will say that he is a wayward; you will even call him GOOD FOR NOTHING. Again, if you see a man having dreadlock or putting on earring, how will you feel? Surely, you will feel bad. You will see the guy as someone who is not moral, as someone who lacks home training; even the commercial sex workers will not be happy with such a man, but they will say “my own is to have fun with him and collect my money, but I don’t like such men”. (2) But today, when you see women wearing trousers, how do you feel?
In some cultures, like Igbo and Niger Delta cultures in Nigeria, the men (titled men) wear skirts or wrappers on top of trousers. First, some people use it as a reason why women should be wearing trousers. Second, many people have failed to decipher the background of the culture, as we can see the practice of such culture in the ancient near east (nations that were surrounding Israel then).
When the issue of wearing trousers started in the 1990s in Nigeria, the reason was against RAPE, and later it became SIGN OF A BIG GIRL, NWA WARA ANYA (one who has gone to the city and no longer village girl). So, how have people been seeing Deuteronomy 22:5?
*WHAT PEOPLE SAY ON DEUTERONMY 22:5*
The first school of thought belong those who see Deuteronomy 22:5 as referring to transvestism. For them, the intent of these cross-dressers is to deceive people into thinking they are the opposite gender. Transvestism - Cross Dressing is or was considered a psychological disorder in many cultures. And, transvestism - cross dressing is not in isolation, other sinful behaviors may run along with it. One may see it in Romans 1.
The second school of thought belong those who see Deuteronomy 22:5 as simply forbidding women to wear the clothes of a warrior. People in this school of thought explain that it is apparent that Moses, when writing Deuteronomy 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: 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.”
One of them argues: 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.
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…’”
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…”
The Third School of Thought argues that Deuteronomy 22:5 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. They still stress over the morality of the action because they have found no real way to prove the action right or wrong.
The Fourth School of Thought belong those who say that Deuteronomy 22:5 does not apply to Christians today. In this group belong most pastors and members of new Generation protestant Churches. They are of the opinion that Deut 22:5 do not apply to contemporary times. Their premise is the book of Galatians (5:1-14) where Paul makes it clear that the death of Jesus freed us from bondage to the laws of the Old Testament (OT). They believe that because the world keeps changing, there might be the need to review certain standards, especially those that do not really matter for the gospel. This view therefore is not that the text does not forbid women to wear trousers but that it is not relevant to our time. For them, we are not under the law but under grace.
The Fifth School of Thought belong those who say they are under grace. Then, they give their own interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5. For them, there are other laws in that same chapter that are not practicable, and logically when you break one law you break all. The text says a woman shall not put on "what pertaineth" to man and vice versa. In their own opinion, what pertains to man means what a man has put on, and not the type of fashion that belongs to men. If it is a statement about fashion we do not know what men wore different from those of women in ancient Israel; so we cannot apply to our time what we are not sure of. Concerning trousers specifically, many of them in this School who are Female Pastors hold that women's trousers are sewn differently from those of men, so we cannot say women are putting on what pertains to men. They explain further that fashion differs from culture to culture. For example, in Chile and Fiji Island skirts are men's wear. One of them said that She had once watched a programme by Revd. Benny Hinn from Fiji Island in which he appeared in skirts. Consequently she asserted that the Gospel of Christ is not localized; it is the same everywhere, whether in Nigeria or Fiji Island. Hence, according to this female pastor, apart from having been freed by grace from the laws of the OT, we cannot apply the prohibition in our own time because we do not really know what it forbids.
The Sixth School of thought belong those who I see that are not steady in their opinion. They are of the opinion that the Deuteronomy text is not talking about trousers because Israelites were not using trousers then, otherwise it would have been mentioned in the Bible. They also said that what pertains to men or women depends on the culture of the place; for example, in Scotland men wear skirts. *I will ask the people in this sixth group if abortion is mentioned in the Bible, if Bible is mentioned in the Bible, If General Overseer is mentioned in the Bible, if homosexuality (Gay and Lesbianism) is mentioned in the Bible, and so on.* Inasmuch as they are not mentioned by name in the Bible, they are been described in the Bible, and we know them when we read that portion of the scriptures.
*THE DEUTERONOMISTIC CODE (D- CODE) AND DEUTERONOMY 22:5*
The laws in the D code constitute a guide for living meant to set the Israelites apart from other peoples whether in the pre-exilic, exilic or post-exilic time. The regulations are often categorized into three groups namely ceremonial laws (12:1-16:17), civil laws (16:18-20:20) and social laws (21:1-26:19). Thus, the D code deals with far more than religious matters; it legislates for a style of life that involves economic, political, social and even military matters. Perhaps for this comprehensiveness some would call it a "constitution." Longman and Dillard, for example, affirm that the D code in effect became the "constitution" of ancient Israel. This is because it was the written deposit that defined her social order, the codification of her legal principles and juridical procedures, and her self-understanding under the rule of God.
The classification above places our text (Deut 22:5) under social laws (21-26), which include regulations concerning murderers, prisoners, inheritance, sexual relationships as well as cultic and other miscellaneous issues. Several commentaries and certain English translations of the Bible group Deut 22:1-12 together under "Miscellaneous Laws," which contain regulations about care for one's neighbour's lost livestock or materials (vv. 1-4), cross-dressing (v. 5), attitude to wild animals (vv. 6-7), type of material to use for one's roof (v. 8), type and number of seeds to plant at a time, type of animal to plough with, and type and number of cloths to use in sewing one's garment (v. 9-12). The collection in 22:1-12 is therefore properly called "miscellaneous" as the regulations have very little in common; hence 22:5 has to be examined in isolation.
*THE MEANING OF DEUTERONOMY 22:5*
The following Bible Versions are used: Masoteric Text (MT), Septuagint Text (LXX), TaNaK (TNK), and Gender Text (GT).
For convenience, in running text, here is the LXX (Septuagint text,i.e, Old Testament written in Greek) and TaNak:
The apparel of a man shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for every one that does these things is an abomination to the Lord thy God *(LXX).*
A woman must not put on man's apparel, nor shall a man wear woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God *(TaNak).*
The text originally reads thus:
Another version in Masoteric Text reads: לֹא־יִהְיֶה כְלִי־גֶבֶר עַל־אִשָּׁה וְלֹא־יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה
*FIRST PHRASE*
MT: לֹא־יִהְיֶה
Translit.: lōʾ yihye
LXX: Οὐκ ἔσται
Translit.: ouk estai
Trans.: shall not be
GT: Never cause or force ... to be used
TNK: must not put on
*COMMENTARY:* The Hebrew is literally "There shall not be", i.e., a negative command or prohibition. The form with "lōʾ" conveys a blanket prohibition, like the Ten Commandments, rather than an immediate or temporary, "don't!" ("Don't touch the stove!"). There is NO nuance, hint, or tendency to causation for "forcing" anything or anyone, so this is at least tendentious, and even misleading. The Hebrew is simply a statement of what must never be. The Tanak translation smooths this in English (the context is "apparel") to make it more colloquial, without distorting the meaning. And where "to be used (by)" comes from is anyone's guess. It's not in the Hebrew.
*SECOND PHRASE*
MT: כְלִי־גֶבֶר עַל־אִשָּׁה
Translit.: kĕlî-geber ʿal-ʾiššâ
LXX: σκεύη ἀνδρὸς ἐπὶ γυναικί
Translit.: skeuē andros epi gunaiki
Trans.: The apparel of a man ... on a woman
GT: a warriors weapon ... by a woman or weak person
TNK: A woman ... man's apparel
*COMMENTARY:* The GT translation indulges in two unwarranted moves here. (1) kĕlî-geber as "a warrior's weapon" is a possible translation, in that the English given provides legitimate glosses on the Hebrew words. HOWEVER, CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING, thus, this (otherwise acceptable) translation is not suitable for the context. The Hebrew word "kĕlî" has a very wide range of meaning, with something like "utensil" as a base meaning. But, "clothing" is part of its semantic range, and what we want in context. "GEBER" is the word GT translates as warrior here: this is just possible, as it usually refers to men who can be part of the fighting force, but even this needs to be explained sometimes (see Jeremiah 41:16 where it spelled out as "gibborim [plural of geber] who were men of war"). In Lamentations 3:1 it is always translated simply "I am the man who has..."
(2) GT's "woman" is fine, but "weak person" is fabrication. It simply is not there, nor is it an acceptable expansion of Hebrew ʾiššâ which can mean "woman" or "wife", more specifically. It is not a generic term for "weak person".
*THIRD PHRASE*
MT: וְלֹא־יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה
Translit.: wĕlōʾ-yilbaš geber śimlat ʾiššâ
LXX: οὐδὲ μὴ ἐνδύσηται ἀνὴρ στολὴν γυναικείαν
Translit.: oude mē endunasētai anēr stolēn gunaikeian
Trans.: neither shall a man put on a woman’s dress
GT: neither dress warriors armor on a woman or weak person
TNK: nor shall a man wear woman's clothing
*COMMENTARY:* The errors that GT perpetuates in the preceding phrase are carried forward here. It is hard even to work out how the GT's English can "map" back on to the Hebrew text. The best part about it is the verb "dress", although this is worded so as to imply that there is a dresser, and someone is (passively) being dressed. That is not what the Hebrew conveys. It is just about putting on clothes, or even more neutrally, "wearing" as the Tanak has it.
"warrior's armor" is getting close to fabrication. "geber" was discussed in the previous phrase. The important word here is "śimlah" (or in the genetive construction of the Hebrew, "śimlat ʾiššâ", with the -at ending signalling an "of" relationship). It is, quite unambiguously, simply an outer garment, a cloak, and you might well sleep in it, using it as a blanket. It never has the nuance or connotation of "armour" -- this pretty much qualifies as a falsification. I can't see how it is a "mistake", when the translation is, presumably, thoughtfully and deliberately produced.
(The Greek translation, stolē, is likewise simply a "robe" - it's where we get our English word "stole" [as in "fur stole"] from.)
Given the unambiguous meaning of "śimlah", and the symmetrical construction of the prohibition, this is the clincher for why "kĕlî" does not mean "weapon" or the like in the preceding phrase.
*FOURTH PHRASE*
MT: כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה
Translit.: kî tôʿăbat YHWH ʾĕlōhêkā kol-ʿōśē ʾēlleh
LXX: ὅτι βδέλυγμα κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ σού ἐστιν πᾶς ποιῶν ταῦτα
Translit.: hoti bdelugma kuriō(i) tō(i) theō(i) sou estin pas poiōn tauta
Trans.: for every one that does these things is an abomination to the Lord thy God
GT: for to Yahweh, God of Host, disgusting is such that do so
TNK: for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God.
*COMMENTARY:* All our translations line up pretty much here, even the GT -- although it has one distortion. (It also is barely English, but we are not discussing the quality of the translation as 'literature', just its accuracy.)
The distortion is that the GT translation imagines some party forcing some weaker person or persons to bear arms against their will, and that THIS is abhorrent (it is quite right about the force of this term, tôʿăbat) to the Lord. That sense is wholly absent from the Hebrew, and from its ancient Greek translation which (translated by Jews for Jews in the pre-Christian era) had no reason to meddle in its translation of this text.
*THE RELEVANCE OF DEUTERONOMY 22:5 TO CHRISTIANS AND THEIR LIFESTYLE*
Most commentators interpret this legislation in terms of the practice of transvestism among non-lsraelites. It is believed that in Canaanite fertility rites the exchange of dress between men and women somehow contributed to the fertility of the land. The evidence for this type of exchange is practically nonexistent. Yet we know that the goddess Anat is described in one document as acting and dressing like a man. More clear evidence for ritual transvestism is found in the cult of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. It was believed that a ritual change of sex occurred by exchanging clothes, and on occasion emasculation may have been practiced.
Among the Hittites we also find rituals in which transvestism was apparently practiced, only among men and for the purpose of removing femininity from the man, restoring his masculinity. Others find in this biblical legislation a rejection of ritual homosexual practices among pagans.
The above are attempts to identify the cultural background for this biblical legislation. There are disagreements among scholars concerning the specific cultural or religious practice that the biblical writer had in mind. This point once more to the fact that, ultimately, it is the biblical text itself that has the final word in terms of its meaning.
*First,* we should observe that the prohibition is carefully phrased: "No woman shall wear an article of man's clothing" (NEB). The Hebrew word translated "clothing" (kali) in the New International Version could include more than what is usually implied by "clothing," and therefore '"article[s] of clothing" may be a better rendering.
The emphasis is on the apparel that distinguishes a man from a woman. The man is not to "put on [a] woman's dress" (NEB). The Hebrew term (simlah, "mantle, wrapper") refers to a square piece of cloth worn as a mantle or wrap. This type of clothing was also worn by men, but the difference, according to the authorities, may have been the finer materials and the vivid colors of the woman's dress and its distinctive embroidery.
*Second,* the context is formed by a collection of different laws dealing with a variety of human actions, seeming to emphasize respect for other persons and their properties and respect for nature. The unifying topic may well be respect for the social and natural order established by God. There is nothing in the context about pagan ritual practices.
*Third,* a reason is given for the prohibition: the Lord "detests" a person who does these things. It's here that some find the ritual element. The term "detest/abominate" is used in other places to refer to pagan religious activities that are not acceptable to the Lord. But it is also used to refer to social behavior that is repugnant to the Lord (see Deut. 24:4; 25:16). This seems to be the case in Deuteronomy 22:5.
*It appears that the legislation under consideration is not controlled by ancient cultural concerns that are meaningless to us, but is in fact based on a very relevant principle for Christians today: that God is a God of order, and He establishes boundaries within creation to preserve the order instituted by Him.*
The distinction between male and female was established at Creation when the human race was defined as "male and female." Anything that alters that distinction is rejected. In the setting of the daily life of the Israelites this would be a rejection of transvestism in pagan rituals. But the principle cannot be limited exclusively to that cultural expression, because it is based on the order of creation.
This certainly impacts our lives today. Every Christian should dress in such a way as to preserve the distinction between the sexes. The details in the implementation of the principle are something that, in our complex society, should be determined by the believer in communion with her or his Lord. Although society defines the way we dress, Christians are to select from what society offers that which is compatible with biblical values.
Most English translations of Deuteronomy 22:5 make it clear that God is indeed against cross-dressing.
*EXPLANATION OF THE TRANSLATION OF DEUTERONOMY 22:5*
*WOMEN SHALL NOT WEAR MEN’S CLOTHING*
The first part of the verse prohibits women from wearing men’s clothing and from using a wide variety of items normally associated with men. Unfortunately, the English translations of the verse are inadequate. Notice that the Hebrew word that is translated as “clothing” in the first part of Deuteronomy 22:5 is כְלִי־ or keli. This Hebrew word means more than just clothing (see Exodus 22:6; Leviticus 11:32; 13:49). Keli includes ornaments, weapons and other symbols that are uniquely characteristic of men. That is, God is prohibiting women from wearing men’s clothing and appearing as men. For example, women cannot wear men’s clothes, wear men’s hairdos or wear men’s watches, medallions or other male artifacts. God is referring to a habitual pattern of life.
*MEN SHALL NOT WEAR WOMEN’S CLOTHING*
The second part of the verse prohibits men from wearing women’s clothing too! But the Hebrew word for clothing in the second part of the verse is שִׂמְלַ֣ת or simla. The word is different from the word translated as “clothing” in the first part of the verse. Simla refers to women’s clothing explicitly. This means that men cannot wear women’s clothing! The meaning of the word is narrower than keli.
*AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD YOUR GOD*
The last part of the verse is a warning that “whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” This statement helps us understand that this command from the Lord our God seeks to maintain the sanctity of the distinction between the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman (Genesis 1:27).
*THE INTERPRETATION OF ABBOT BENEDICT*
Deutoronomy 22:5 is one of the verses that cause much commotion in the church between fundamentalists and liberals. You really make me enjoy the topics you choose. The fundamentalists will definitely use this verse to demonstrate that transsexuality and Travesty is an abomination.
Deuteronomy 22:5—A woman shall not be clothed with manly apparel, nor shall a man make use of feminine apparel. For whoever does these things is abominable with God.
(1) This passage teaches us that men and women are intended by God to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society, and that those differences should be reflected in clothing, grooming, and behavior.
(2) The passage also condemns, unequivocally and as an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral act, attempting to change one’s God given biological gender by clothing, hormones, surgery, implants, gender name-changes, or any other means.
(3) Now certainly the soul is the form of the body, meaning that body and soul are very thoroughly united as one person. But in a sense the soul is clothed in the body, and so the passage can be read as prohibiting changing one’s body from male to female, or from female to male.
(4) No, it is not a sin for a woman to wear pants, nor for a man to dress as a woman for a comedy show. These persons are not denying the differences in men and women, nor are they rejecting their God-given gender.
However, and this is what I add to the totality: The Lord is the only one that should judge anyone. It is not our task to be the judge of other people, based on their gender or sexual preference or clothing preference.
*CONCLUSION:*
Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits men from dressing like women and women from dressing like men. God warns us to maintain the distinctions of the sexes that He created. This means that men must not wear long hair and women must not wear short hair like a men. Women are to dress like women and men are to dress like men. This does not mean that man cannot wear some article of clothing temporarily, such as wearing a woman’s coat to stay warm or vice versa. This does not mean that it is wrong for a woman to be bald if she loses her hair due to chemotherapy.
What God is prohibiting is an intentional blurring of the difference between men and women. Men are not to be transvestites or dress as woman for comical reasons. Men are to look like men and women are to look like women.
What is abhorrent to the Lord according to Deuteronomy 22:5 is cross-dressing. Where that leaves the relationship of church and synagogue with the fashion industry is a different question. It is clear that this text is not talking of women wearing warrior’s cloth or dress. It is clear that the text still incriminate transvestism in modern times. It is clear that the text still apply to Christians today. It is clear that the law is practicable. Culture cannot take precedence of Natural Law. So whether Rev Benny Hinn wore Skirt to preach or not, has nothing to add or subtract with the moral standard set by Deuteronomy 22:5.
*BIBLIOGRAPHY*
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Theologies in the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997.
Keil and Delitzch. Commentary On The Old Testament. Hendrickson Publishers. 2006. vol. 1, p. 945.
Longman, Tremper III and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Michigan: Zondervan, 2006
McConville, Godon. "Deuteronomy." Pages 198-232 in New Bible Commentary. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Gordon J. Wenham and J. Alec Motyer. Leicester: IVP, 1994.
Moore, Megan B. and Brad E. Kelle. Biblical History and Israel's Past. Grand Rapids: WmB. Eerdmans, 2011.
Peter Craigie. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Eerdmans Publishing. 1976. Sarna and Potok. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. The Jewish Publication Society. 1996.
© Rev Utazi Prince Marie Benignus SFDPM
July 21 2020
Memorial of Saint Lawrence Brindisi
Comments
Post a Comment