Deuteronomy 22:5 - Page 6

A.W. Bowman · #51 06-22-2009, 09:22 PM

Freeatlast - Yep!

Others, please read my translation notes above.

Of course, if the original language and the meaning of words within the context of the culture, history and prevailing religious environment is ignored, and if one desires to apply a particular passage to further their own agenda, then no amount of reasoning will change that mind.

To use De 22:5 as an argument against women wearing "pants", is to do violence to the word of God.

---------
Some almost random thoughts and comments:

According to Rashi, and I respect his judgment on this verse, for women it was to move amount with a company of men in order to "commit adultery" among them.

For men, it is not as clear. It could be to appear as a woman for the sake of committing adultery, or to perform as a female impersonator (homosexuality), or to escape having to participate in a battle (war) or other male responsibilities.

In either case, crossing dressing as an attempt to deceive is a lie, and lying is a sin, i.e., attempting to take on the appearance and/or role of the opposite sex for whatever reason. Also, in both cases there an understanding of cross-dressing in order to engaging in forbidden sex. Also a sin. According to Rashi, sex is the focus of this verse.

This is one of those scriptures where it is dangerous to attempt draw too much out of it (more than intended). The implied sexual (elicited sex of whatever kind) overtones out weigh all other considerations. If there is no attempt to deceive and forbidden sex is not attempted or engaged in, then there is no sin.

I am still looking at this verse because I still have a couple of doubts about the Hebrew commentary. Therefore, in my published comments, I kept my comments more focused on the “clothing, raiment, equipment “ aspect. That was the easer part, rather than developing a forbidden sex doctrine from these few words.

--------------------------------------

Rashi's Commentary

A man’s attire shall not be on a woman making her appear like a man, thereby enabling her to go among men, for this can only be for the [purpose of] adultery. — [Nazir 59a]

nor may a man wear a woman’s garment to go and abide among women. Another explanation: [In addition to not wearing a woman’s garment,] a man must also not remove his pubic hair or the hair of his armpits [for this is a practice exclusive to women]. — [Nazir 59a]

because… is an abomination The Torah forbids only [the wearing of] clothes that would lead to abomination [i.e., immoral and illicit behavior]. — [Nazir 59a]

My comments

Rashi’s commentary generally supports my translation effort (see above).

Some might assume that Rashi’s opinions can be extended to include contemporary religious rules held by some denominations against women wearing pants-like clothing. However -

The phrase, “A man’s attire [to dress in clothes of a particular type] shall not be on a woman making her appear like a man” supports the Hebrew notion of women being restricted from adorning (putting on, as in the arraying of tools or weapons) themselves in particular male apparel. To adorn (to add decoration or ornamentation to something), as in a disguise – to appear to men as a man.

The additional note, “…nor may a man wear a woman’s garment to go and abide among women. “ also supports my translation & interpretation.

The overall concept of this verse is that neither men or women are to go about disguised as a member of the opposite sex, with the intent to deceive anyone.

I used Rashi’s commentary to give adequate support to the Hebrew world view in the interpretation of the Tanakh (Old Testament).

A personal note:

I have no quarrel with those who support the notion that women should not wear pants, shirts, some kinds of coats, ties, foot wear or other specific garments that they consider to be “male only” in nature. But rather, that a woman should wear only skirts, dresses and/or other garments designed and identified as being made specifically for “women only”. Even so, in no case can this verse be stretched to the extent necessary to support the “no pants” on women position without also including all other clothing, garments and implements culturally common to both men and women.

This whole subject is simply a western culture issue, divorced from the actual text and instruction of the Bible.

A practical exercise:

Invite a ladies department store to send a female model to the church. She is to model a top of the line women’s business suit: white shirt, tie, suit coat and slacks, and shoes. Now, offer to buy this suit, or one like it, for any man who would wear this outfit out in public for a full day, or to work for the day, including out to a restaurant for lunch and dinner. After all, the outfit described here is "men's apparel" according to many men!

Clothes tailored for women, even business suits, are not designed to deceive anyone as to the gender of the wearer – unless worn by an individual specifically for such a purpose – which would also require the addition of cosmetic touches and the assuming of mannerisms appropriate to the gender being imitated!

Now, are tight fitting jeans, blouses cut to the navel, skirts cut up to the waist and other such like clothing appropriate for a God fearing woman? Most likely not - not even appropriate as men’s clothing!

Question: Why are men seemingly so obsessed with how women look and act, that it takes up so much of our time and energy in observing and evaluating them? I think the answer may be found in the degree of self discipline (and self control) one chooses to exercise in their lives. However, we can see by the evidence of our actions, thoughts, and priorities, and our imaginations lead us. What is so funny (if it were not so serious), is that the male leadership of the church have to make women responsible for what the men are thinking! The Hebrew term for this kind of world view, I think, is "scapegoating".

*AQuietPlace* · #52 06-22-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Why do guys care about this subject? Why the fascination, especially this thread started by someone who isn't even married???

I think some of you men have problems you need to talk to your pastor about. Or maybe see a counselor. Seriously.

Men do most of the preaching, and it's been a fundamental doctrine of the OP movement, so it's important for them to know if it's biblically based or not.

LUKE2447 · #53 06-22-2009, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast

This really gave me a good luagh Luke: Here's some references for you. take your time, read real S_L_O_W

A. The first phrase, that which pertaineth - the phrase that which pertaineth is represented in the Hebrew by one word, the word keli, and it most generally means a manufactured article. It is most often translated as some sort of weapon or armor.

1. Scholarly references for the word keli: Strongs: 3627 kee-lee" something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): --armour [bearer], artillery, bag, carriage + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon (emphasis Strong's) whatsoever.

2. Gesenius (Hebrew words and most references used by the author deleted) properly whatever is made, completed, or prepared...(1) any utensil, vessel. Gen 31:37; 45:20. vessels of gold, of silver, the vessels of the temple, vessels of wandering, outfit for exile. (2)clothing,* ornaments of a bride, also for yokes for oxen. (3) a vessel for sailing. (4.) an implement, a tool, musical instruments, instruments of the indignation of Jehovah (5) arms, weapons Ben. 27:3 ; Jud 18:11,16. more fully, deadly weapons Psalm 7:14. , an armour-bearer 1 Sam.14:1, 6, 7, 31:4,5,6 an armoury Isa 39:2.

3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 982g vessel, utensil, The basic idea of this root is "to bring a process to completion." The root occurs in all its forms 237 times. Of these 206 are verbal....The idea of being consumed is most commonly applied to violent destruction, often by war...

4. Wigrams, The New Englishman's Hebrew/Aramaic Concordance: k'lee Translated 45 times as armour, or weapons. Most other times as instrument, jewel, furniture, vessels, etc., but never, *not even in Deut 22:5 is it translated clothing.

Conclusion: The word keli most often means a manufactured item, quite often a weapon, or armor. *It is never, except in Deuteronomy 22:5, translated “that which pertaineth,” “clothing,” or “garment.”

B. The phrase translated unto a man is also represented in the Hebrew language by a single word - gibbor.

1. Scholarly references for the word gibbor -- Strong's, 1368 gibbor, ghib-bore; from 1397 geber gheh'ber, a valiant man or warrior, powerful: by implication warrior, tyrant: --champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one) strong (man), valiant man.

2. Gesenius 1368 author’s references and Hebrew words omitted (1) strong, mighty, impetuous, used of a hunter, commonly of an impetuous soldier, a hero, a mighty king (Alexander the Great), a mighty hero. [The mighty God: Christ is spoken of] these are the heroes, those who were famous of old; the lion is a hero among the beasts; also used of a soldier generally, a mighty warrior, Used of God, Jehovah (is) strong and mighty, Jehovah (is) mighty in battle....(2) a chief, a military leader, the commander of soldiers and the soldier. Used generally of a chief. (3) in a bad sense, proud, a tyrant, like the Arab.

3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 310 (condensed) (ga bar) prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great. Derivatives, man, mighty man. might. lady, queen. .... The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior....(RSV often translates "warrior") The heroes or champions among the armed forces.

4. Wigrams, p. 289, 290, translated mighty men, mighty one, mighty hunter, mighty, mighty man, mighty men, strong, valiant men, mightiest, mighty of valour, strong man, giant, as a strong man, the Mighty God, the mighty. The only instance it is translated as man is in Du 22:5. Not so translated in any other place.
__________________________________________________ _

LUKE...there is absolutley no scripture in the bible that can be used to teach that a woman can not wear a pair of slacks and also be pleasing to the Lord.

Duet 22:5 has been violently abused by us holiness folks.

get to you tomorrow.... tired and going to bed!

freeatlast · #54 06-22-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Why do guys care about this subject? Why the fascination, especially this thread started by someone who isn't even married???

I think some of you men have problems you need to talk to your pastor about. Or maybe see a counselor. Seriously.

HO.... anything that is taught as a doctrine, like the doctrine we OP's teach, that a woman will split hell wide open if she wears any split legged article of clothing. If that doctrine is wrong, it concerns us all, men and women.

We say that Duet 22:5 supports this teaching. It DOES NOT teah what we say does. THIS is WHY I CARE !

You can dress false doctrine anyway you like, it's still false doctrine and to teach from Dt 22:5 that a women can only wear dresses just ain't right.

It concerns men of God just as much as any other false teaching should concern us.

berkeley · #55 06-22-2009, 10:39 PM

I don't believe a woman will split the pit for wearing pants...

Though, I wouldn't date a gal who wears them...

and...

I have to ask....

Which of you men will be the first to wear a dress when it becomes a societal norm in our culture???

freeatlast · #56 06-23-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

I don't believe a woman will split the pit for wearing pants...

Though, I wouldn't date a gal who wears them...

and...

I have to ask....

Which of you men will be the first to wear a dress when it becomes a societal norm in our culture???

The fact that you'd get no takers Bryan on he wearing of a "mans dress" in our Christian society, in no way lessons the fact that there is nothing in scripture, properly interpreted scripture that forbids a women from wearing a ladies business suit or ladies slackes.