Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identity in

[Dimples]

Deuteronomy 22:5 is one of those oft-quoted passages from my
Pentecostal upbringing that requires reassessment and mature
evaluation.

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a
man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to
the LORD your God." (NKJV)

In my youth, I saw this verse as a specific prohibition against women
wearing pants (male apparel) which included an injunction against
"dressing out" in physical education class.

So thoroughly was this ingrained in my mind, for years I missed the
obvious, literal meaning of the passage - a prohibition of
transvestism.

Before I offer my comments on this passage, let me point to two preliminary
readings that I will address in this discussion: (1)
"Transvestism in Ancient Israel" from Claude Mariottini's blog
(Professor at Northern Baptist Seminary) -
http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2...nt-israel.html
and (2) Harold Vedeler's article "Reconstructing Meaning in
Deuteronomy 22:5: Gender, Society, and Transvestism in Israel and the
Ancient Near East" (Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no.3 (2008) p.
459-76). I have included a PDF copy of this fairly technical article
for your consideration. I will engage the ideas of both writers,
agreeing with some of their insights, but offering a much simpler
solution for interpreting this passage.

Vedeler correctly recognizes the threefold structure of the passage.
Two parallel prohibitions - (1A) men prohibited from female clothing
and (1B) women prohibited from male clothing - and (2) the reasoning
behind these prohibitions - such acts are "an abomination before
Yahweh."

Vedeler offers an interesting presentation of transvestism as a social
practice in the ancient and modern worlds, although he too quickly
limits the erotic dimension of transvestism as a thoroughly modern
phenomenon. Specifically, he focuses on the female quest for masculine
power and the gender-bending nature of Canaanite cultic (temple)
garments. Mariottini makes a similar argument - but in a much more
straightforward way - referring to the vestments of the Canaanite
worshippers of the Baal/Asherah deities. Both scholars draw a fairly
strong conclusion - Deuteronomy 22:5 as condemnation of Canaanite
cultic practice - from fairly weak evidence.

I do not agree with Mariottini's argument for the cultic nature of the
phrase "an abomination before Yahweh" - an argument taken from the
classic commentary of S. R. Driver. This phrase appears in other
contexts in Deuteronomy and other Pentateuchal legislation that are
clearly not condemnations of cultic practice. Any good concordance
will show this.

The heart of Vedeler's argument is that different words for male and
female garments (and the differing power of the Hebrew verbs
associated with them) show an obvious imbalance that points to meaning
beyond the literal. Not wanting to cross swords with the analysis of
Hebrew usage and syntax on which Vedeler makes his argument, I must
differ at a couple of very simple points: all of which focus on
PARALLELISM.

Whatever subtlety may be hidden in the choice of nouns and verbs in
sections 1A and 1B, these two prohibitions must first be seen as
simple parallelism which is common throughout Hebrew literature,
especially the Wisdom tradition. (I am not trying to "late date"
Deuteronomy as a Persian- or even Greek-era document. Rather, I argue
that some of Deuteronomy is exilic and some of the Wisdom literature
surely predates the Persian period.)

Simple parallelism - leaning toward antithetical parallelism in this
case - makes both prohibitions roughly equivalent and insists on a
fairly literal interpretation of the passage - the prohibition of
violating the cultural norms of gender difference in clothing.

Whatever the underlying message of this passage - power, cultic
practice, or eroticism - to ignore an ancient parallel to the modern
practice of erotically motivated transvestism seems unfair.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is a prohibition of transvestism whatever its
motivation - or put positively, an affirmation of cultural norms of
gender difference specifically expressed in clothing.

[Dimples]

Response from my friend:

I think you are on the mark. The issue of transvestitism was never even
considered in our (former) Pentecostal circles, but rather, their theology
was largely drawn from a reaction against changes in clothing styles back in
the early part of the 20th century. As was not uncommon, they just found a
verse to hang it on.

However, the fact that transvestitism and cross-gender values were a central
part of the Canaanite fertility cult is vividly protrayed by the graffiti
discovered on a large pithos (storage jar) at Kuntillet 'Ajrud about 30
miles or so south of Kadesh Barnea to the south of Judah. There are three figures
in the composition plus an inscription suggesting a bold syncretisim in
which Yahweh is depicted as having an Asherah (a female divine counterpart).
The two foremost figures seem to represent Yahweh and his female consort, a
crude distortion of all sorts of biblical norms in the Torah and elsewhere.
The third figure is a musician. The central figure is clearly androgynous,
since it features both female breasts and male genitalia. Both figures are
linked with Bes, an Egyptian demonic deity, and while bi-sexual deities were
unknown in Egypt, they certainly appeared in the Levant in more than one
instance by the Iron Age.

The passage in Deuteronomy 22:5 seems very much at home in such an
environment which encouraged trans-gender expressions. If the creation
acount in which God made humans male and female is normative for human
existence, then Canaanite trans-gender expressions would be fundamentally in
tension with such a norm. However, to reduce this passage in Deuteronomy to
a prohibition against women wearing jeans, as many of the early Pentecostals
did, is not only a stretch (no pun intended), but probably ludicrous. After
all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and in those days
men wore dresses (well, robes, actually, but you get the idea--they
certainly didn't wear trousers).

[POWERUP]

Originally Posted by Dimples

Response from my friend:

I think you are on the mark. The issue of transvestitism was never even
considered in our (former) Pentecostal circles, but rather, their theology
was largely drawn from a reaction against changes in clothing styles back in
the early part of the 20th century. As was not uncommon, they just found a
verse to hang it on.

However, the fact that transvestitism and cross-gender values were a central
part of the Canaanite fertility cult is vividly protrayed by the graffiti
discovered on a large pithos (storage jar) at Kuntillet 'Ajrud about 30
miles or so south of Kadesh Barnea to the south of Judah. There are three figures
in the composition plus an inscription suggesting a bold syncretisim in
which Yahweh is depicted as having an Asherah (a female divine counterpart).
The two foremost figures seem to represent Yahweh and his female consort, a
crude distortion of all sorts of biblical norms in the Torah and elsewhere.
The third figure is a musician. The central figure is clearly androgynous,
since it features both female breasts and male genitalia. Both figures are
linked with Bes, an Egyptian demonic deity, and while bi-sexual deities were
unknown in Egypt, they certainly appeared in the Levant in more than one
instance by the Iron Age.

The passage in Deuteronomy 22:5 seems very much at home in such an
environment which encouraged trans-gender expressions. If the creation
acount in which God made humans male and female is normative for human
existence, then Canaanite trans-gender expressions would be fundamentally in
tension with such a norm. However, to reduce this passage in Deuteronomy to
a prohibition against women wearing jeans, as many of the early Pentecostals
did, is not only a stretch (no pun intended), but probably ludicrous. After
all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and in those days
men wore dresses (well, robes, actually, but you get the idea--they
certainly didn't wear trousers).

Great Information.....................It's so amazing how through the years
we have made easy topics into something so hard to understand...I'm just
saying.

[Justin]

Good stuff, here's what I have noted:

Deuteronomy 22:5; The woman shall not wear (see note A) that which pertaineth (see note B)unto a man (see note C), neither shall a man (see note C) put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Note A: Wear: Strongs H1961: hâyâh (haw-yaw')

A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)

It's important to note that this Hebrew word occurs in the Old Testament 1162 times, and only once is translated in 'wear'. 538 times it is translated in to "came", 136 times it's translated as "come", 83 times in to "had", 67 times in to "become", 66 times in to "became", etc.

Another important note is that in verse 11: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.", the Hebrew word for "wear" in this verse is:

Strongs H3847: lâbash lâbêsh (law-bash', law-bashe')

A primitive root; properly wrap around, that is, (by implication) to put on a garment or clothe (oneself, or another), literally or figuratively: - (in) apparel, arm, array (self), clothe (self), come upon, put (on, upon), wear.

"Wear" is verse 11 is vastly different from the "wear" in verse 5. Verse 11's "wear" occurs 112 times in the Old Testament, it's translated in to "put" 41 times, "clothed" 39 times, "clothe" 12 times, "arrayed" 4 times, "wear" 4 times, etc.

So we come to the conclusion that it wasn't an abomination to simply "wear" the clothing, but the abomination was in the act of doing so for the effect to "become" the opposite sex; as is a cross dresser which was looking to engage an homosexual behavior, hence the "abomination".

If the abomination was simply in "putting on" clothes of the culture deemed appropriate for one sex or another, God would has used the same Hebrew word in verse 5 as he did for verse 11.

In other words, if you're going to wear clothes of the opposite sex in order to fulfill a desire to "become" or "exist" as the opposite by means of homosexuality or as a transvestite, then that is an abomination.

Note B: Pertainith: Strongs: H3627 kelı̂y (kel-ee')

From H3615; something prepared, that is, any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): - armour ([-bearer]), artillery, bag, carriage, + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of, X one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, + psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon, + whatsoever.

Note C: Man: Strongs: H1396 geber (gheh'-ber)

properly a valiant man or warrior; generally a person simply: - every one, man, X mighty.(emphasising strength or ability to fight).

This is not your normal "man", but rather a strong and mighty man, as in a warrior. Compare "man" in Deuteronomy 22:5 with "man" in other areas in the Old Testament:

* Genesis 1:26; "And God said, let us make man..." The Hebrew is 'adam (Strongs H120), which appears 552 times.

1) man, mankind

a) man, human being

b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)

c) Adam, first man

d) city in Jordan valley

* Genesis 2:24; "Therefore shall a man leave his father..." The Hebrew is 'iysh (Strongs H376), which appears 1639 times.

1) man

a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)

b) husband

c) human being, person (in contrast to God)

d) servant

e) mankind

f) champion

g) great man

2) whosoever

3) each (adjective)


* Deuteronomy 22:5; "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man..." The Hebrew is geber (Strongs H1397), which appears 68 times.

1) man, strong man, warrior (emphasising strength or ability to fight)

The original language and context will tell us a multitude of information regarding all scripture. If God meant that any man wearing what is commonly and culturally know as woman's attire, and vise versa, the original Hebrew would have been inked as 'iysh, meaning any man. It's quite possible that women were not to wear mens armor to go to battle as the pagan's did. But I believe God was rebuking the act of cross-dressing with the intent of transvestite and/or homosexual purposes, thus the "abomination".

[TheLegalist]

any study will show geber is not strictly used and is used many times with the meaning of man and very little as warrior. As many times it is used in a verse surrounded by adam/iysh/enos/ etc.. it doesn't really stand out as anything of a warrior but more of emphasis of stature than warrior as man is the head figure of order. The context of it's usage has consistent parallel usage of that of the word woman. Making it strictly for "warrior gear" negates both sides of the text of women to man and man to women. Actually it would make the text nonsensical.

[Dimples]

Unable to post article mentioned in the first post.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

any study will show geber is not strictly used and is used many times with the meaning of man and very little as warrior. As many times it is used in a verse surrounded by adam/iysh/enos/ etc.. it doesn't really stand out as anything of a warrior but more of emphasis of stature than warrior as man is the head figure of order. The context of it's usage has consistent parallel usage of that of the word woman. Making it strictly for "warrior gear" negates both sides of the text of women to man and man to women. Actually it would make the text nonsensical.

Good point.

I still think that the focus is on the Hebrew word "wear" meaning, to become, not simply "putting on".

[Dimples]

My response to my friend:

Interpreting any isolated passage (such as Deuteronomy 22:5) reveals
the challenge of historical reconstruction - how to find a meaningful
historical, social, and/or cultural context in which the passage
"makes sense."

Clearly, as you have shown, the PRIMARY context for the prohibition of
transvestism is the Hebrew notion of gender difference and sanctity
that rests in the foundational creation stories. In this context,
Deuteronomy 22:5 is a practical application of these first principles
against any gender-bending effort to break down/defy/subvert
traditional gender distinctions.

I am also persuaded (along with you and Mariottini and Vedeler) that
the growing evidence of transvestism in Baal/Asherah worship may well
offer a SECONDARY - albeit very important - context for interpreting
this passage. In fact, this cultic affront to traditional Hebrew
social practice may be the specific circumstance that raised this
isolated piece of legislation to its current canonical status.

My only concern is that we might - in our scholarly zeal - focus
solely on the SECONDARY (and more tenuous) context while missing the
obvious PRIMARY context of the divine sanction of gender difference
expressed profoundly in the creation stories. It is precisely this
PRIMARY value that underlies and informs the SECONDARY context.

Missing the PRIMARY by over-emphasizing the SECONDARY context would be
unfortunate. There is a straight line of exegesis between Deuteronomy
22:5 and Genesis 1 and 2 - whatever other meanings may apply.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Justin

Good point.

I still think that the focus is on the Hebrew word "wear" meaning, to become, not simply "putting on".

I would agree but that is the point in part. Women and men should be clear in distinction, purpose and order in all things by which we are called. The KJV version is excellent in it's usage of "pertaineth" as man is beyond the scope of woman per his stature which is beyond and not just to clothing. Thus she is to not assume any form of being of man. "Man" is not to put on the apparel of a woman. This is divine order perfectly expressed by us according to our designated work. Thus presentment is the perfection of the heart's order to it's purpose and realized by all.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Dimples

The passage in Deuteronomy 22:5 seems very much at home in such an
environment which encouraged trans-gender expressions. If the creation
acount in which God made humans male and female is normative for human
existence, then Canaanite trans-gender expressions would be fundamentally intension with such a norm. However, to reduce this passage in Deuteronomy to a prohibition against women wearing jeans, as many of the early Pentecostals did, is not only a stretch (no pun intended), but probably ludicrous. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and in those days
men wore dresses (well, robes, actually, but you get the idea--they
certainly didn't wear trousers).

Wow, this part hit me between the eyes! Makes a lot of sense.