Deuteronomy 22: 5
Is this really about clothing choices?
Popular Perspective
The common belief is that this scripture is addressing literal clothing.
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.
As the critic who refuted my response said, "The terms 'garment' and 'cloak' have nothing to do with clothing? Maybe we should take God at his word sometimes rather than trying to search for some coded meaning."
To start we should clarify that the term 'cloak' is not in the verse. If you see cloak you have a translation that won't reconcile with the original. You need a KJV with a Strong's Concordance to break each word back to their root forms. Modern translations eliminate that possibility, which is why they swim in the denominations.
Let's take a closer look at what Deuteronomy 22: 5 really means.
Ancient Israelites Clothes
First to those who thought this means women shouldn't wear pants. The first pants the Israelites saw were influenced by Persian, Eastern and Central Asian horse riders. They were worn by both men and women.
During the time of Deuteronomy "both men and women" wore three main pieces. 1 - A loincloth. 2 - A tunic from the neck to ankle-length. 3 - A robe called a mantle.
There were different lengths for different uses or purposes, such as skirts that were knee length and could be girded up for battle, or red for ladies of the night.
So let's dig in on three key words that greatly impact the depth of this verse. It doesn't take away at all what people have used the scripture for. You could argue that men and women wearing each other's clothing would be an indication of the lifestyle choices we see on TV... but even at that simple level it's not the clothes that God had a problem with. It's what they were dressed to do. Think about that as we break down these three words. That's three solid clues for emphasis.
"Wear" is from Hayah
The word "wear" comes from Hayah. It basically means "to be", meaning physically present. Hayah also means to "bring to pass", which implies taking action.
Our verse could safely read:
The woman shall not "to be" that which...
or,
The woman shall not "bring to pass" that which...
Both of those work in the original language with the understanding she is taking the action herself. The woman shall not do or cause to do.
Additional seasoning is that Hayah can also mean Ruin and Destruction.
"Pertaineth" to Man
Let's look at that which "pertaineth" unto a man.
Pertaineth (1) : to belong as a part, member, accessory, or product. (2) : to belong as an attribute, feature, or function. the destruction pertaining to war.
Our verse could safely read:
The woman shall not bring to pass that which (is a part, feature, or function) of a man...
What is a Garment
The Hebrew word is simla (pronounced sim-law'). It appears in the KJV as raiment, clothes, garment, apparel, cloth, and clothing.
The Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon states whether of men or women; especially a large outer garment, with which, at night, persons wrapped themselves.
This was a covering for night activities. Not all uses for clothes mean for night activities, but it is within the definition so it can't be dismissed unless there are other words that clarify the point. The previous words we covered give credibility to the night implication. The reason a man shouldn't put on a woman's garment is because it means he's dressing to attract a sexual encounter.
Our verse could safely read:
The woman shall not bring to pass that which (is a part, feature, or function) of a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's red night wear: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
Do you sincerely think that clothing "style" is a full abomination unto God? That's a mighty huge charge with a tremendous penalty. We already established they wore the same thing... so doesn't something seem out of balance to you? Is it the clothing that is in question, or is it the motives behind the person?
It should also be noted that cross-dressing was a fundamental part of heathen history, including sexual activity during the worship of their gods. So whether it is ceremonial attire, or they're going out for the night... both instances have a sexual connotation.
A Hebraism
A Hebraism refers to the cultural, historical, and religious traditions of the ancient Israelites and their ancestors. As you can see from the documentation we covered this Hebraism meant that man was not to take the place of a woman in the bedroom and vice versa.
What people are failing to reconcile is that both men and women basically wore the same clothes. We have to ask what was it that made a garment for a woman? It was the color and adornment. For ladies of the night it was typically red, and very effeminate. Men avoided that look deliberately, because that was how "people" of the night presented themselves.
They had stereotypes too.
Nothing is Twisted
This is not changing the word. It's reproofing the works of men before us, and clarifying just as we were instructed to do by the original translators. If you have a KJV there is a letter from them in the front of your Bible. If you have a Companion Bible and a Strong's Concordance then you have the tools to verify these details... details that were reserved for our time. Just ask Daniel if such a thing exists?
Daniel 12: 4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
You don't think we're in that time?
Jesus was able to say he foretold us all things, because all things we need to know are within the Bible, including all books.
John 1: 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The scriptures are complete, but the content, context, and depth is released by the Holy Spirit for each generation since Christ, according to their needs at the time.
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The Word is not static. It's living, and it's happening today just as much as any other day in history. Sexual deviation is not a modern phenomena. It's been present throughout history. In our world today we are seeing the glorification of the same practices and cultural impact that got the verse penned in the first place.
| Top |