PDA

View Full Version : Deuteronomy 22:5 - the "clothing abomination"



CoffeeCat
Sep 24th 2008, 03:51 AM
Deuteronomy 22:5 (New American Standard Bible)

"A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.



This has always been something I've wondered about without ever fully discussing it in a group with people... so here's my chance.

1. What does it mean for a woman to wear men's clothing?
2. What does it mean for a man to wear women's clothing?
(and surely, isn't some clothing gender neutral?)
3. Is ACTUAL clothing being discussed here, or is the term "clothing" used to actually describe the roles men and women have.... as in, women shouldn't put on/take on a man's role, and vice-versa?

Of the options, I think 3. makes the most sense to me. It's not even considered inadvisable to have a woman wear men's clothes, for for a man to wear women's.... it's an abomination. To the Lord. So, why is it such a big deal? After all, we'd reason, it's just clothing. If a man and woman both buy t-shirts at a store that are identical and unisex, is it an abomination to wear them? If a woman wears a pair of jeans, how about then? If a man wears a necklace, what about that? When we break it down culturally that way.... individual clothing pieces (and we know fashion's very fluid) don't make sense as abominations. We barely notice things like that. For it to deeply offend God doesn't SEEM to make sense.

So I think the verse MUST be another way of saying "women, don't take on the roles men do. Men, don't take on the roles women do." After all, if a woman steps into a role.... a persona... that isn't supposed to be hers, she's basically telling God "I can improve on the person You meant me to be! I want to live my way!" Same if a man steps into female roles and personas.

Does that make sense to you guys? I think it does, to me.... I can't imagine God calling actual FABRIC an abomination.... but if we "clothe" ourselves in a certain role/persona and deny the person God made us... I can see how bad THAT could be. (For example, a man acting in a very feminine way.)

Or..... does the verse actually mean FABRIC?

Looking forward to your ideas.

(And of course, I acknowledge that this is a topic of sheer curiousity for me..... low impact on the 'importance' scale. But still worth a little chat. )

Ashley274
Sep 24th 2008, 04:30 AM
In my perspective back then OT days clothes were very different ...so men wore robes and loin clothes...women wore very modest clothes and no doubt had unmentionables that looked very different.....cloaks were for men with Jewish words written on them..down the side.....So I think all 3 apply...... JMHO

cdo
Sep 24th 2008, 04:43 AM
:) I love your addicted little cat:rofl:



Deuteronomy 22:5 (New American
Standard Bible)




"A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.



This has always been something I've wondered about without ever fully discussing it in a group with people... so here's my chance.

1. What does it mean for a woman to wear men's clothing?
2. What does it mean for a man to wear women's clothing?
(and surely, isn't some clothing gender neutral?)
3. Is ACTUAL clothing being discussed here, or is the term "clothing" used to actually describe the roles men and women have.... as in, women shouldn't put on/take on a man's role, and vice-versa?

Of the options, I think 3. makes the most sense to me. It's not even considered inadvisable to have a woman wear men's clothes, for for a man to wear women's.... it's an abomination. To the Lord. So, why is it such a big deal? After all, we'd reason, it's just clothing. If a man and woman both buy t-shirts at a store that are identical and unisex, is it an abomination to wear them? If a woman wears a pair of jeans, how about then? If a man wears a necklace, what about that? When we break it down culturally that way.... individual clothing pieces (and we know fashion's very fluid) don't make sense as abominations. We barely notice things like that. For it to deeply offend God doesn't SEEM to make sense.

So I think the verse MUST be another way of saying "women, don't take on the roles men do. Men, don't take on the roles women do." After all, if a woman steps into a role.... a persona... that isn't supposed to be hers, she's basically telling God "I can improve on the person You meant me to be! I want to live my way!" Same if a man steps into female roles and personas.

Does that make sense to you guys? I think it does, to me.... I can't imagine God calling actual FABRIC an abomination.... but if we "clothe" ourselves in a certain role/persona and deny the person God made us... I can see how bad THAT could be. (For example, a man acting in a very feminine way.)

Or..... does the verse actually mean FABRIC?

Looking forward to your ideas.

(And of course, I acknowledge that this is a topic of sheer curiousity for me..... low impact on the 'importance' scale. But still worth a little chat. )
Hi CoffeeCat,
When I finally came to the understanding of the scriptures about the clothing."This is what I have come to know of the meaning of it is and in no way to make others to believe"The clothing is not the main focus of it.A little background......Gen; Sodom & Gomorah.....remember the "people of the town"how the angels came to destroy it for 5 righteous 'men'.Lot made them stay in his home that night instead of the streets.The 'men' of the town came to his door seeking the angels.( so they could use them)these wicked men are /or prefer men ...not women. Lot gave his daughters to them, but they pushed their way in and they were blinded and could not get to them.
This clothing is speaking against men who 'act like women" and 'women who act like men". dressing for the gender they are not.Even as it is this day. It is an abomination To God.
Just my understanding of that Law.

zombieCat
Sep 24th 2008, 05:55 AM
I believe the only way it can be interpreted as something other than physical cloth garments is if that's what one wants to read into it. In every case I've been able to find in the OT, the Hebrew word for "garment" (simlah) is used to refer to physical cloth garments, never allegorically as "essence", if you will. Add to that the fact that the passage in question is in a law-giving book. The stating of laws used very concise and literal language, lacking all manner of allegory and leaving little to no room for interpretation. Else, confusion would ensue. Again, to say that it means something other than what the plain literal reading offers requires one to want to believe something else.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 24th 2008, 06:40 AM
The clothing regulations stipulated in Deuteronomy were directed at Israel, not us. The pagan societies of that day were rampant with homosexual practices, like Sodom and Gomorrah, and God wanted Israel to differentiate themselves from these godless societies. One way in which Israel was intended to do that was with their sexual purity. Since homosexuality involves men and women swapping roles in relationships, God wanted them to "keep their places" even while they were dressed.

Today, we have the more generic command that "not a hint of sexual immorality" must be allowed to enter our lives. However, that would include not dressing oneself in such a way as to compromise your witness by presenting your body in a way that suggests that you are willing to fulfill a sexual function for which you were not designed.

Emanate
Sep 24th 2008, 06:48 AM
In my perspective back then OT days clothes were very different ...so men wore robes and loin clothes...women wore very modest clothes and no doubt had unmentionables that looked very different.....cloaks were for men with Jewish words written on them..down the side.....So I think all 3 apply...... JMHO


um, where did you get your information?

by Jewish words do you mean Hebrew? what 'jewish words" were on these designer clothes?

zombieCat
Sep 24th 2008, 06:50 AM
The clothing regulations stipulated in Deuteronomy were directed at Israel, not us. The pagan societies of that day were rampant with homosexual practices, like Sodom and Gomorrah, and God wanted Israel to differentiate themselves from these godless societies. One way in which Israel was intended to do that was with their sexual purity. Since homosexuality involves men and women swapping roles in relationships, God wanted them to "keep their places" even while they were dressed.Reference please?

CoffeeCat
Sep 24th 2008, 12:15 PM
Thanks for the responses, so far.

One thing I'm not sure of, at all: I'm always wary of saying "those laws were for THEM, they don't apply to us." Is something that's considered an abomination to God NOT an abomination now? If something that deeply offends God then, wouldn't it still now? It wouldn't make much sense to say "oh, He's only grieved/offended if THEY did it back then. If we do it now, it's fine." ;)

cdo
Sep 24th 2008, 01:30 PM
The breaking of the Law in which we are talking about. I believe unless there is repentance it would still be an abomination today.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 24th 2008, 02:44 PM
Reference please?Um, Exodus 20 - Deuteronomy 33?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 24th 2008, 02:47 PM
Thanks for the responses, so far.

One thing I'm not sure of, at all: I'm always wary of saying "those laws were for THEM, they don't apply to us." Is something that's considered an abomination to God NOT an abomination now? If something that deeply offends God then, wouldn't it still now? It wouldn't make much sense to say "oh, He's only grieved/offended if THEY did it back then. If we do it now, it's fine." ;)Certainly it offends Him now. The clothing itself is not where the offense comes from, however. If that were the case, then Scotland would be in serious trouble because of their kilts that men wear. It's the implication the clothing carries of a person taking on themselves the wrong sexual role in a perverse relationship. That much is still just as true today as ever. As I pointed out, the New Testament gives us an even broader umbrella of restriction than Israel was under: "Not even a hint of sexual immorality". (Ephesians 5:3) That gives us an even higher standard than Israel was given.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 24th 2008, 02:50 PM
The breaking of the Law in which we are talking about. I believe unless there is repentance it would still be an abomination today. It does, but Ephesians 5:3 gives us even broader restrictions than Israel was under. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we are under looser standards than Israel was. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that we're under an even higher standard than Israel.

keck553
Sep 24th 2008, 03:26 PM
Yeshua holds us to a higher standard. With more promises comes more accountability.

Mograce2U
Sep 24th 2008, 03:48 PM
Hi Coffecat,
The feminine form for the word garment suggests an image, figure or idol. One's covering ought not to be with deceit or pretense. These instructions given to Israel are not unlike the things Paul speaks about for the assemblies when we come before the Lord. I think you are on the right track in understanding this law.

zombieCat
Sep 25th 2008, 05:29 AM
Hi Coffecat,
The feminine form for the word garment suggests an image, figure or idol. One's covering ought not to be with deceit or pretense. These instructions given to Israel are not unlike the things Paul speaks about for the assemblies when we come before the Lord. I think you are on the right track in understanding this law.Good points. While we can apply things in such a manner (and indeed most likely should), there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the law given regarding men's and women's clothing is anything but what a plain, literal reading of the text indicates. The perspective you note is a welcome addition to that, but not a replacement for it.

Mograce2U
Sep 26th 2008, 03:45 AM
Good points. While we can apply things in such a manner (and indeed most likely should), there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the law given regarding men's and women's clothing is anything but what a plain, literal reading of the text indicates. The perspective you note is a welcome addition to that, but not a replacement for it.Just the other day I came across 1 Cor 9:9 where Paul exegetes Deut 25:4. Pretty amazing what he was able to get out of a "plain and simple" law. A little meditation upon the scripture can go a long way!

zombieCat
Sep 26th 2008, 05:43 AM
Just the other day I came across 1 Cor 9:9 where Paul exegetes Deut 25:4. Pretty amazing what he was able to get out of a "plain and simple" law. A little meditation upon the scripture can go a long way!Agreed, Paul does pull out some impressive additional spiritual connotations from Deut 25:4. But the fact remains that it says to not muzzle oxen while they tread grain, which was meant, taken and practiced literally. There was absolutely no confusion as to whether they really should follow the law as it was plainly and simply stated. Paul's comments were giving insight into some of the spiritual implications behind the law, they weren't meant to invalidate the literal application of it.

BTW, I really like the perspective you bring to these discussions :)

Mograce2U
Sep 26th 2008, 07:10 PM
Agreed, Paul does pull out some impressive additional spiritual connotations from Deut 25:4. But the fact remains that it says to not muzzle oxen while they tread grain, which was meant, taken and practiced literally. There was absolutely no confusion as to whether they really should follow the law as it was plainly and simply stated. Paul's comments were giving insight into some of the spiritual implications behind the law, they weren't meant to invalidate the literal application of it.

BTW, I really like the perspective you bring to these discussions :)Thanks I like you too. :hug:

The interesting thing about Deut 25:4 is that it is a law given to deal with a man's sin. As Paul states it really wasn't about God looking after the care of oxen. So what would that sin be I wondered? Oxen don't come with muzzles, so not putting one on it would seem to be no reason to even mention this. Unless, because of a man's covetousness and unwillingness to trust the Lord to provide in his harvest; he then muzzles the ox so it cannot eat his grain.

Paul using a similar point, however not concerned with the sin this law addressed; works from the point of hope and creates some symbology for us from this law to make his application.

What are your thoughts?

Teke
Sep 26th 2008, 07:26 PM
I believe it means that the dignity and distinction between male and female were not to be obscured.In the beginning God created male and female and blessed both (Gen. 1:26,27). To be male is not better than to be female or vice versa. God pronounced both "very good" (Gen. 1:31). So no need to try to be another gender than God created you. :)

BroRog
Sep 26th 2008, 07:41 PM
I believe it means that the dignity and distinction between male and female were not to be obscured.In the beginning God created male and female and blessed both (Gen. 1:26,27). To be male is not better than to be female or vice versa. God pronounced both "very good" (Gen. 1:31). So no need to try to be another gender than God created you. :)


I think that's right. In addition, I think the principle leaves much room for cultural mores. For a long time, in our culture, only men wore pants. But now women wear pants too. It could be, now, today, that pants have lost that sign of distinctiveness. It's hard for me to say, just as it's hard for me to say whether the length of a person's hair is a male-female thing these days.

Mograce2U
Sep 27th 2008, 04:06 AM
I think that's right. In addition, I think the principle leaves much room for cultural mores. For a long time, in our culture, only men wore pants. But now women wear pants too. It could be, now, today, that pants have lost that sign of distinctiveness. It's hard for me to say, just as it's hard for me to say whether the length of a person's hair is a male-female thing these days.And yet a transvestite is not hard to spot...!

zombieCat
Sep 27th 2008, 05:56 AM
Um, Exodus 20 - Deuteronomy 33?Um, are you saying Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 33, or Exodus 20 THROUGH Deuteronomy? If it's the former, I find not support for the statements you made. If it's the latter, you may as well have said Genesis through Revelation. Specifically, do you have a scriptural reference that supports the following statement?: "The clothing regulations stipulated in Deuteronomy were directed at Israel, not us."

petepet
Sep 27th 2008, 11:56 AM
Um, are you saying Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 33, or Exodus 20 THROUGH Deuteronomy? If it's the former, I find not support for the statements you made. If it's the latter, you may as well have said Genesis through Revelation. Specifically, do you have a scriptural reference that supports the following statement?: "The clothing regulations stipulated in Deuteronomy were directed at Israel, not us."

I agree. It would seem to me that God is quite clearly demonstrating that men and women should dress in such a way that they are clearly distinguishable. Nor are women to ape men, or men ape women. I do consider that uni-sex clothing is displeasing to God for that reason.

threebigrocks
Sep 29th 2008, 03:52 PM
I do consider that uni-sex clothing is displeasing to God for that reason.

So, if I wear the same sweatshirt as my husband or son, I'm sinning? That is what God has displeasure in, so I can't imagine you meant anything else by using the term displeasing. Disobedience occurs from going against God.

If you are convicted to not dress in like manner to the opposite sex then don't. I don't see it as God looking on me with less favor because I wear shorts when it's hot or the same sweatshirt in my size that my husband has.

Mograce2U
Sep 29th 2008, 04:08 PM
If Paul could show us that an obscure law admonishing not to muzzle your ox was really not about that; how is it we think a law about wearing slacks or sweatshirts is about that either? Surely the way a piece of cloth is cut is not the sin in view that the law addresses. Law and sin go together, but law does not create sin rather the sin already exists. If the law were saying not to wear pants and it makes doing so a sin - then it creates a sin that wasn't there. That can't be it.

Whispering Grace
Sep 29th 2008, 04:42 PM
For a long time, in our culture, only men wore pants. But now women wear pants too. It could be, now, today, that pants have lost that sign of distinctiveness.

Also in our culture now homosexuality is accepted and embraced, as well as abortion and premarital sex.

If we are to "go with the cultural flow", so to speak, where do we draw the line?

threebigrocks
Sep 29th 2008, 04:51 PM
We draw the line at making these things a burden through legalism.

It is not solely what we wear and how we look that is testimony to God. It's what we say and do as well. As Paul stated - when with Jews he was as a Jew. When with Gentiles, as a Gentile.

That doesn't mean if we are going out on the street to witness to prostitutes that we dress like one. But I'm not about to do so in a skirt. If we get worked up because we might need to wear pants for whatever reason because it's not right then it's a problem. What we wear is not a big deal, so long as it doesn't consume us with legalism.

Whispering Grace
Sep 29th 2008, 05:17 PM
Is obeying God's Word legalism?

Mograce2U
Sep 29th 2008, 06:23 PM
Is obeying God's Word legalism?Obedience is not legalism. Holding to the letter of the law apart from the spirit in which it was given is though. Therefore the wearing of pants is not the issue is it?

Teke
Sep 29th 2008, 06:30 PM
Also in our culture now homosexuality is accepted and embraced, as well as abortion and premarital sex.

If we are to "go with the cultural flow", so to speak, where do we draw the line?

I don't understand what this has to do with BroRog statement. Do the things you mentioned blur the distinction between male and female?

As a woman, I would say it would be nice to just be a woman and not have to do things which in past times we didn't have to do. But that just isn't the case. Especially in the work place. Some women have jobs in which wearing a skirt or dress just wouldn't be practical. Such garments would hinder and could even harm us if worn. To further the point, I'll give an example. At one point in my life I had a job for a lumber company. The job developed from an office position in which I did and could wear a dress/skirt, to an outside sales position which involved going to construction sites to load and unload materials. A flowing garment such as a dress would have been hazardous because of the materials being handled, and could also hinder, in that there was a time factor involved which didn't allow for the time a woman needs to keep such a garment in order about herself.

My point is, practically speaking, there are a number of factors to consider when deciding what to wear. For a Christian woman modesty would be at the top of the list whatever she wore IMO.


___________________________:)

zombieCat
Sep 29th 2008, 10:51 PM
If Paul could show us that an obscure law admonishing not to muzzle your ox was really not about that; how is it we think a law about wearing slacks or sweatshirts is about that either?I just want to clarify that the obscure law was indeed about not muzzling your ox...PLUS the perspective Paul added. The latter expands the application of the former, rather than negating it.

Mograce2U
Sep 30th 2008, 03:20 AM
I just want to clarify that the obscure law was indeed about not muzzling your ox...PLUS the perspective Paul added. The latter expands the application of the former, rather than negating it.But you never did give your thoughts on why Paul was able to do that. Could it be because the law addressed a sin - not created one (my point)? Legalism would not muzzle the ox, but covetousness could still not be averted even though the law was "kept". Paul turns this around to give a perspective about hope instead. And he clearly says that the law as it was written was not about the care of oxen at all.

Deut 25:4 and 1 Cor 9:9f were the texts if anyone is actually interested in seeing how that might apply here to this issue about clothing. It seems to me that these threads about the Torah always want to be hyper-literal without considering the meditation on the spiritual issues that Paul was able to apply. As NT believers we ought to be able to do the same, IMO.

Whispering Grace
Sep 30th 2008, 01:12 PM
Obedience is not legalism. Holding to the letter of the law apart from the spirit in which it was given is though. Therefore the wearing of pants is not the issue is it?


If my heart is right, isn't that going to manifest in outward obedience to God?

Sold Out
Sep 30th 2008, 07:39 PM
Thanks for the responses, so far.

One thing I'm not sure of, at all: I'm always wary of saying "those laws were for THEM, they don't apply to us." Is something that's considered an abomination to God NOT an abomination now? If something that deeply offends God then, wouldn't it still now? It wouldn't make much sense to say "oh, He's only grieved/offended if THEY did it back then. If we do it now, it's fine." ;)

What comes to mind for me is that men & women should not purposely try to dress/appear as the opposite sex. Cross-dressers......

It would signify that something is not quite right with that person if he/she is engaging in that behavior. God was using Israel to bring forth the Messiah, and He didn't want any funny business going on that would pervert the people.

And my opinion is that this would apply to NT Christians as well.

cdo
Oct 1st 2008, 12:25 AM
What comes to mind for me is that men & women should not purposely try to dress/appear as the opposite sex. Cross-dressers......
The ones that do dress as their opposite sex are as the one's in Genesis referring to Lot and the angels who came to destroy Sodom & Gomorrah for all their abomination of their fleshly perverted life style and did destroy them.


It would signify that something is not quite right with that person if he/she is engaging in that behavior. God was using Israel to bring forth the Messiah, and He didn't want any funny business going on that would pervert the people.
The one's that live that type of life is possessed with a spirit of wickedness who has taken control of them.Not to say they can't be delivered by our Mighty God.


And my opinion is that this would apply to NT Christians as well.
This would include everyone...O.T. & N.T.

RoadWarrior
Oct 5th 2008, 12:30 AM
This thread seems to have run its course and therefore is being closed.