PDA

View Full Version : Deuteronomy 22:5 - Women shouldn't wear pants?



Eaglenester
Nov 2nd 2008, 03:06 PM
I notice that Deuteronomy 22:5 is used by some denominations / assemblies to forbid women from wearing pants, I did a thorough study on this verse and found it greatly mistranslated.
Upon examination this verse can not be used to control how women dress.

(Deuteronomy 22:5)
“A woman does not wear1961 that which pertains 3627 to a man,1397, nor does a man put on3847 a woman’s
garment8071, for whoever does this is an abomination to Yahweh your Elohim.

Look at the words I’ve underlined

H1961
hâyâh
BDB Definition:

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall outSTRONGS:

A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.Looking at all the verses hâyâh is used, wear is not a correct translation, and this verse is
the only place it is translated as such, none of the other verses even come close to
meaning wear or put on as in clothing.

Look how the word means as it is used in The Creation:

(Genesis 1:2) And the earth was1961 without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.

(Genesis 1:3) And Elohim said, Let there be1961 light: and there was1961 light.

(Genesis 1:5) And Elohim called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were1961 the first day.

(Genesis 1:6) And Elohim said, Let there be1961 a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let1961 it divide the waters from the waters.

(Genesis 1:7) And Elohim made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was1961 so.

(Genesis 1:8) And Elohim called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were1961 the second day.

Also look how that word is used and what it means in it’s other uses in Deuteronomy 22:

2 “And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall be1961 with you until your brother seeks it, then you shall return it to him.

19 and fine him one hundred pieces of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name on a maiden of Yisra’ĕl. And she is to be1961 his wife, he is not allowed to put her away all his days.

20 “But if the matter is1961 true, that the girl was not found a maiden,

23 “When a girl who is a maiden is1961 engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,

29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she is to be1961 his wife because he has humbled her. He is not allowed to put her away all his days.

If Yahweh meant this part of the verse to mean wear or put on clothing why wasn’t
H3847 used like in the 2nd half of the verse?

H3847
lâbash / lâbêsh
BDB Definition:

to dress, wear, clothe, put on clothing, be clothedSTRONGS:

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.
Look at the next underlined word:

H3627
kelîy
BDB Definition:

1) article, vessel, implement, utensil
1a) article, object (general)
1b) utensil, implement, apparatus, vessel
1b1) implement (of hunting or war)
1b2) implement (of music)
1b3) implement, tool (of labour)
1b4) equipment, yoke (of oxen)
1b5) utensils, furniture
1c) vessel, receptacle (general)
1d) vessels (boats) of paper-reed
STRONGS:

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.

Total KJV Occurrences:

vessels,132 instruments,37 vessel,34 jewels,21 armourbearer,18 weapons,17 stuff,14 thing,11 armour,10 furniture,7 weapon,4 whatsoever,3 bag,2 carriage,2 instrument,2 artillery,1 carriages,1 furnish,1 jewel,1 made,1 one,1 pot,1 psalteries,1 psaltery,1 tool,1 wares,1
No place else in Scripture is this word used to mean clothing.
Again, if Yahweh meant this part of the verse to mean women wearing pants, why didn’t He use the word He used in the 2nd half of the verse?

H8071
śimlâh
BDB Definition:
wrapper, mantle, covering garment, garments, clothes, raiment, a cloth
STRONGS:
Perhaps by permutation for the feminine of H5566 (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress, especially a mantle: - apparel, cloth (-es, -ing), garment, raiment
Let’s look at the next underlined word:

H1397
geber
BDB Definition:

man, strong man, warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight)STRONGS:

From H1396; properly a valiant man or warrior; generally a person simply: - every one, man, X mighty.This word does not imply man in general terms, but a warrior. If it were meant to mean man in general wouldn’t Yahweh have used:

H376
'îysh
BDB Definition:

1) man
1a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)So with a word study of this verse, it would be more correctly interpreted as:

Woman shall not be/become a vessel/tool/thing/instrument/weapon of a warrior/valiant man
neither shall a warrior/valiant man put on a woman’s garment,
for whoever does this is an abomination to Yahweh your Elohim.

I believe this whole verse is a command to men, and is wrongly translated and used as a command to how women dress.

Oma
Nov 2nd 2008, 07:04 PM
Regardless of whether you have proved anything in that passage or not, the Bible commands women to dress modestly and if she can do that wearing britches, good for her, but I have not seen very many women in "modest britches" that would not excite either lust or digust!

Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

flybaby
Nov 2nd 2008, 07:45 PM
So according to that verse, women shouldn't be in the military?

Eaglenester
Nov 2nd 2008, 08:04 PM
So according to that verse, women shouldn't be in the military?

This verse could justify the forbidding of using women in combat at the least.

Ta-An
Nov 2nd 2008, 08:08 PM
Remember, it is written in Biblical Hebrew, (compare that to Shakespeare English)
So to actually say a woman should not wear man's clothing, it can be said.... a woman not to turn into a man's clothing... ot man's paraphernalia not to be found on a woman.... to wear = to be on

It reads like this :
(adv. no, nor, nix Not)
(V to be, exist, be present; happen, occur, take place: become, turn into) (nm tool, appliance, facility, piece, gear, ware, paraphernalia, gadgetry, outfit, tackle; vessel, ewer; utensil; instrument, apparatus, implement)
(nm man, male, macho; hero, valiant)
(prep. on, upon, above, over, about, on top, atop, of, onto, at)
(nf. woman, lady, girl, she; wife, spouse, feme, femme, helpmate, helpmeet, mulier)

not, to be, an outfit, of a man, onto, a woman......... (and vice versa)

I hope this helps you :)

Thus ::: (Genesis 1:3) And Elohim said, Let there be1961 light: and there was1961 light.
(Genesis 1:3) And Elohim said, let light exist : and light existed.

remember, one word can have more than one meaning, depending on how it is used, and the usage of the language of the time

Ta-An
Nov 2nd 2008, 08:16 PM
I actually think this verse speaks about "cross dressing" in Homosexuals :idea:

Buckeye Doug
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:45 AM
WOW!
Now that's a post.

As to your question, women will wear pants if they don't want to get arrested. :blush:

(Sorry, just couldn't resist - feeling a bit silly tonight.)

God bless.

Lamplighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:30 AM
When Deuteronomy was written 100's of years ago, men didn't wear pants either. They wore skirts or robes mostly.

Ta-An
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:18 AM
When Deuteronomy was written 100's of years ago, men didn't wear pants either. They wore skirts or robes mostly.Well then let me do the rest of that verse for you... :D

וְלֹא.... and not
יִלְבַּשׁ.... to be dressed. to wear
גֶּבֶר......nm. man, male, macho; hero, valiant
שִׂמְלַת....nf. dress, skirt, gown
אִשָּׁה.....nf. woman, lady, girl, she; wife, spouse, feme, femme, helpmate, helpmeet, mulier


Thus.... and also a man should not wear a dress/skirt/gown belonging to woman (thus womans clothing ;) )

BTW.... the first part does not say "Pants" per se.... it says a garment/paraphernalia belonging to man (man's clothing) Clothing that is considered to be for men... ;)

Back2Front
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:30 AM
Well then let me do the rest of that verse for you... :D

וְלֹא.... and not
יִלְבַּשׁ.... to be dressed. to wear
גֶּבֶר......nm. man, male, macho; hero, valiant
שִׂמְלַת....nf. dress, skirt, gown
אִשָּׁה.....nf. woman, lady, girl, she; wife, spouse, feme, femme, helpmate, helpmeet, mulier


Thus.... and also a man should not wear a dress/skirt/gown belonging to woman (thus womans clothing ;) )

BTW.... the first part does not say "Pants" per se.... it says a garment/paraphernalia belonging to man (man's clothing) Clothing that is considered to be for men... ;)

Unless your Joan of Arc and need to fool a bunch of soldiers.

Ta-An
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:09 AM
Unless your Joan of Arc and need to fool a bunch of soldiers.:o .
Do you understand Hebrew??

Back2Front
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:12 AM
Heftsiba the Kibbutz or are you searching in yourself?

treasureman
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:03 PM
Think about it... in the time of the old Testament all garments were basically cloth or skirt covering so "not wearing pants" is not to be taken literally. Perhaps it means women should defer to her husband as head of family. What do you think?
God Bless,
Spiritual Treasureman

Kudo Shinichi
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:27 PM
Well, I guess it will be tough for women to move around and if the wind happens to blow their skirts will be easily expose...:lol: That's embarrassing...maybe it applies at Moses time maybe...if have to wear skirt...sometimes they will get mosquito bites...poor them...:(

Firefighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:29 PM
I actually think this verse speaks about "cross dressing" in Homosexuals :idea:

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Someone must read Hebrew...

The basic idea of this verse is to prohibit a man or woman from dressing up for the purpose of trying to pass one's self off as the opposite sex.

Kudo Shinichi
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:35 PM
I guess you:lol:...

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:48 PM
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Someone must read Hebrew...

The basic idea of this verse is to prohibit a man or woman from dressing up for the purpose of trying to pass one's self off as the opposite sex.


I am confused why someone would need to know Hebrew as it states this fairly clearly in the English as well.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:00 PM
Unless your Joan of Arc and need to fool a bunch of soldiers.Or Mulan. :D

Literalist-Luke
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:02 PM
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Someone must read Hebrew...

The basic idea of this verse is to prohibit a man or woman from dressing up for the purpose of trying to pass one's self off as the opposite sex.
I am confused why someone would need to know Hebrew as it states this fairly clearly in the English as well.Go try and explain that to the "holiness" people. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/tsk.gif

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:12 PM
Go try and explain that to the "holiness" people. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/tsk.gif

haha. What would they do if we showed up at church in a woman's pant suit? rock and a hard place.

Levin
Nov 4th 2008, 07:59 PM
Well, while this verse likely refers to transvestism, using it to teach against women wearing pants is ridiculous. This specific command was written to the Israelite people for them to obey as a part of the land covenant (see:the book of Deuteronomy). Therefore, since we are no longer a) in the land b) under the mosaic covenant, or c) under the law in any way, we should not take this as a command to Christians living under the New Covenant.

I think that today we should remember that God cares about the glories of men and women and their distinction. A practical was to apply reading this command would be to protect the roles of men and women in our day, and realize that men and women have distinct, special glories distinct to their gender. We should celebrate our differences as men and women, and let girls wear pants people!

Thanks,
Levin

Emanate
Nov 5th 2008, 03:23 PM
c) under the law in any way, we should not take this as a command to Christians living under the New Covenant.


Yikes, how errent that one guy, Paul, was to state that he was under the law.

Levin
Nov 5th 2008, 04:13 PM
Yikes, how errent that one guy, Paul, was to state that he was under the law.
I'm sorry, but what does this mean? And where does Paul state that he is under the law?

Ta-An
Nov 5th 2008, 05:32 PM
I am confused why someone would need to know Hebrew as it states this fairly clearly in the English as well. because ...... ;) I was referring to cross-dressing (homosexualism)and not merely females dressing in long pants :D..... you know what, it actually came as a revelation to me.... :idea:

Ta-An
Nov 5th 2008, 05:40 PM
Heftsiba the Kibbutz or are you searching in yourself?Lo, ani lo kibbutz 'yisrael.

It is my prayer that the L_rd will delight in me :)

Emanate
Nov 5th 2008, 07:20 PM
I'm sorry, but what does this mean? And where does Paul state that he is under the law?


1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law

Levin
Nov 6th 2008, 06:46 AM
1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law
Here's the passage in context:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

It is clear that Paul is not under the Law as the Jews were, but he is under the law of Christ. What does this mean? I know that it is significantly different than being under the Mosaic covenant, but I'm curious how you would interpret this distinction.

Levin

sparklesparkle
Nov 16th 2008, 05:12 PM
Am I bumping up an old post? Oh well...

I'm new here, and I just joined because this topic is something I've been really struggling with recently. I'm a girl, I take martial arts, and I enjoy it, and we regularly use weapons. But to hear that that might be an abomination to God--a woman carrying the weapons of a warrior--worries me...but I haven't been able to find any Biblical examples of a woman carrying a sword, besides the "Sword of the Spirit," which is metaphorical.

:help:

songladyjenn
Nov 16th 2008, 06:16 PM
Well then I would be in a world of hurt as well...

I've carried an M16 among other things when I was in the air force ;)

I've also trained with weapons (long staff) when we lived in PA and took martial arts. It's a great way to get in shape and I now know how to use my broom and mop to defend myself should I need to :lol:

David Taylor
Mar 6th 2009, 05:28 PM
(thread closed as per...Slug1)
As the OP has changed his status to Non-Christian and can no longer participate in this thread, as per Slug1 the thread is now closed.

Thanks to all who have participated!