the rationale of the ban on cross-dressing in deuteronomy 22,5
TRANSCRIPT
Andrews University
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
THE RATIONALE OF THE BAN ON CROSS-DRESSING IN DEUTERONOMY 22:5
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Course
OTST 664 Pentateuch: Deuteronomy
by
Ovidiu Dascalu
October 2014
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................iii
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION1
The Problem ..................................................................................................1 Limitations ....................................................................................................1 Methodology .................................................................................................1
II. EXEGESIS .........................................................................................................2 The wording of Deut. 22:5 ............................................................................2 The context of Deut. 22:5 ............................................................................ 10 ANE background of Deut. 22:5 ................................................................... 12 The rationale of this law .............................................................................. 14 Menswear and womenswear in ancient Israel ............................................... 17 Contemporary significance ........................................................................... 21
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ICC International Critical Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
NICOT New International Commentary (Old Testament)
RSV Revised Standard Version of the Bible
TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
BDB Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
HAL The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this paper I will deal with Deut. 22:5: ―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.‖ This is a challenging text among scholars, for there
is a plethora of interpretations for it.
The Problem
Scholars tried to make sense of this text in different ways: some argue that this a
law against involvment in pagan practices; other sholars support transvestism, and
indirectly homosexuality, being in view here; there are some who argue for a law against
women to be involved in war; and there is the interpretation that the breaking of creation
order is in view here (the distinction between men and women). The question for this
study is: What it is about in Deut. 22:5, and what is the rationale of this law?
Limitations
There is the language limitation that I encountered researching for this topic, and I
can use only materials that are in english and romanian.
Methodology
This is an exegetical paper and I followed the steps for doing exegesis.
2
CHAPTER II
EXEGESIS
The wording of Deut. 22:5
לא־יהיה כלי־גבר על־אשה ולא־ילבש גבר שמלת אשה כי תועבת יהוה אלהיך
כל־עשה אלה
Some translations:
"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.
(Deut. 22:5 NKJ)
A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor should a man dress up in women's
clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the LORD your God. (Deut. 22:5 NET)
A woman must not dress like a man, nor a man like a woman; anyone who does
this is detestable to Yahweh your God. (Deut. 22:5 NJB)
A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak,
for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deut. 22:5 ESV)
3
Firstly lets look at the structure of this law and then move to key words for
understanding better the meaning and elements we are dealing with. Vedeler suggests a
division in two main parts, the first part being split in two:
1
1a
There shall not be a kĕlî geber upon לא־יהיה כלי־גבר על־אשה
an ’iššâ
1
1b
and a geber shall not wear a ולא־ילבש גבר שמלת אשה
garment for a ’iššâ
2
2
כי תועבת יהוה אלהיך
כל־עשה אלה
for whoever does this is an
abomination to Yahweh your God.1
Vedeler points out in brief the basic meaning of the law: ―two categories of
persons are given, each prohibited from contact with an item associated with the other
(part 1). Violating this separation is regarded as offensive in some way to Yahveh (part
2).‖2
At the surface its seems that the first part is dealing with clothing, a prohibition for
women to wear men‘s clothing and vice versa. Looking at various translations of the verse
it seems that the law is about clothing, but the hebrew text is more obscure. In order to
better grasp the details of this law we will have a look at key words.
The second sentence of the first part is more clear and we will start from there:
1Harold Torger Vedeler, ―Reconstructing Meaning in Deuteronomy 22:5: Gender,
Society, and Transvestitism in Israel and the Ancient near East,‖ Journal of Biblical
Literature 127, no. 3 (2008), 460-61.
2Vedeler, Reconstructing meaning, 461.
4
1b ולא־ילבש גבר שמלת אשה (and a geber shall not wear a garment for a ’iššâ)
Both the hebrew word for wear (לבש) and for women garments (שמלת אשה)
make clear reference to clothing. לבש ―is regularly used for the ‗putting on‘ of ordinary
clothing‖3 it means ―to put on a garment, to clothe oneself with.‖
4 And שמלת was an
―outer garment, cloak, mantle‖.5 This meaning is reflected in the ESV translation ―nor
shall a man put on a woman's cloak.‖ In conclusion, in the second sentence of the first part
we have a clear prohibition for men to wear women‘s outer garments.
Let‘s look at the first sentence now:
1a לא־יהיה כלי־גבר על־אשה (There shall not be a kĕlî geber upon an ’iššâ)
Of particular importance here is the construction כלי־גבר and the verb היה. It is
very interesting that the verb is to be and is not used as to wear in OT, this is the reason I
use the translation: ―there should not be.‖ And the word kĕlî that has it‘s counterpart
3W. E. Vine et al., Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New
Testament Words (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1996), 1:38.
4Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,
electronic ed. (Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 519.
5See Koehler, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1337.
There are others that point out that שמלת is used for clothes in general: ―This is the
general word for clothes.‖ R. Laird Harris et al., Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980), 879. Douglas R. Edwards lists the
general words for clothing in OT, among them is שמלת. See David Noel Freedman, The
Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 2:232.
5
garment in the second part of the sentence is actually a very broad term. WSOTDICT
defines it as: ―A masculine noun indicating an article, a vessel, an instrument, a jewel. It
has a broad inclusive sense and indicates useful objects of all kinds. The context must
determine what object is indicated and for what task.‖6 From the context it seems that
clothes is a proper translation, but there is still a question to be answered: Is this word use
with the meaning clothes in the OT?
I look for the word kĕlı ̂in different dictionaries and lexicons. From 6 dictionary
and lexicons: four (HAL, Gesenius, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, Dictionary of Biblical Language with Semantic Domains: Hebrew) contain the
meaning garment and two (TWOT, BDB) don‘t. From the four that render garment as a
possible translation for kĕlı ̂every one of them but HAL use as a proof only Deut 22:5.
HAL render another verse, 1 Sam 21:6- Then David answered the priest, and said to him,
"Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels
of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was
sanctified in the vessel this day. (NKJ, emphasis added) But here it is even less probable
then in Deut 22:5 for kĕlı ̂ to mean garments. Even the authors of HAL mention that there
is an alternative reading here: body.7 This means that beside Deut 22:5 we don‘t have any
other place in the OT were kĕlı ̂ means garments.
6Warren Baker, The Complete Word Study Dictionary : Old Testament
(Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003, c2002), 508.
7Koehler, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 479.
6
Now the question is: Are we justified to translate kĕlı ̂ as clothes in Deut. 22:5,
only on the basis of the next parallel sentence? There are scholars who perceive this
problem and support weapon as a proper translation of kĕlı ̂ here.8 On the basis of the
broad meaning of kĕlı ̂ it seems to me that both possible translations offered are not
covering the entire semantic meaning of this word. HAL renders the following meanings
for kĕlı ̂: (1) vessel, receptacle; (2) piece of equipment; (3) implement, instrument: (a)
ornament, (b) garments, (c) weapons.9 I concur with Davidson, who supports a broader
translation in Deut 22:5, namely gear: ―in this passage could have in view anything that
pertains to a man- a man‘s ‗gear.‘‖10
Clothes may be part of kĕlı ̂,but the text has in view
more than clothes. It is ―applicable to almost any article used or worn, e.g. weapons (Gn.
8 See Frank Ritchel Ames, ―Women and War in the Hebrew Bible,‖ (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Denver, School of Theology, 1997), 57; Vedeler,
Reconstructing meaning, 470-471. ―The translation ‗apparel‘ makes this clause
synonymous with the second part of the verse; it is based on the fact that the plural of keli
means ‗clothing‘ in rabbinic Hebrew. However, it is not certain that it has this meaning in
biblical Hebrew, where it normally means ‗implement, vessel,‘ or—as Targum Onkelos
and R. Eliezer b. Jacob take it here—‗weapon.‘‖ Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS
Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 200.
9Koehler, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 479.
10 Richard Davidson, Flame of Yahveh- Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 170.
7
27:3), jewels (24:53), ornaments (also household objects, implements, vessels, &c.), Lev.
13:49 (a ‗thing‘ of skin), 1 S. 17:40 (a shepherd‘s ‗bag‘).‖11
A further pointer to the broadness of the word kĕlı ̂ is the verb that it is used in the
first sentence: hyh, in this passage it is used the negative form of it לא־יהיה. It is a verb
with a broad meaning. David Stabnow made a research on the negation with lo in Hebrew
and he dealt with לא־יהיה.12
He suggested several possible concepts that are conveyed
through this construction: (1) the non-existence of something (in the future- with
imperfect, and in the past with perfect aspect of the verb) (2) ownership or possession, (3)
not being ―on the road‖, (4) not being "with someone", (5) not going "after someone," (6)
not being "in a group," (7) not being "from a group," (8) not being "from someone," (9)
and not being "like someone."13
He dealt with the usage of this construction in legal texts
at the first point. So Deut. 22:5 it will forbid the ―existence of ‖ a kĕlî geber upon an ’iššâ.
This can be an allusion to wearing, but there is nothing that point directly to wearing here.
There may be carrying a men‘s tool that is in view also. The next question is: Why do the
author use those broad terms in order to describe what it is forbidden for a woman to have
11
S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, The
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
(Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1902), 251.
12David Stabnow, ―A Discourse Analysis Perspective on the Syntax of Clauses
Negated by לא in the Primary History,‖ (PhD. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary), 88-99.
13 Stanbnow, A Discourse Analysis, 89-95.
8
upon her? He could be more specific if there were only clothes in view here. I will keep
this question for later on.
There is one more word in this first sentence of Deut. 22:5 that can add some
nuances to the meaning of the verse. It is the word for man, גבר which is a rare word for
man in OT (66 occurrences), in Deuteronomy it is present only here. This word is not only
pointing to gender but it emphasize something about the nature of man: firstly it is about
strength, and secondary has a sexual meaning.14
―As distinct from such more general
words for man as ˒ādām, ˒iš, ˒enôš, etc., this word specifically relates to a male at the
height of his powers.‖15
It is important to notice this difference, but it is too far to say that
this is a different kind of man, a superior one.16
,is used in the Exodus narrative twice גבר
14
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 377-78.
15 R. Laird Harris et al., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1999, c1980), 148.
16 Kosmala wrote an insightful analysis of the occurrences of גבר in OT and
Qumran Scrolls. He points out three ways of using this word in OT: (1) ―its concrete
sense with the emphasise on physical strength, courage, and valour on virility and
procreative power,‖ (2) ―a man of any age who stands in a special relationship with God,‖
(3) it describe Job as a man of exceptional character (born as a גבר). See Hans Kosmala,
―The Term geber in the OT and in the Scrolls,‖ SVT 17 [1969]: 162.
Vedeler, dealing with Deut. 22:5, argued that we should bear in mind this third
usage of גבר when we approach Deut. 22:5. On the basis of that he offered this
translation: ―A women shall not be associated with the instruments of a superior man, and
a superior man shall not wear the garment of a women…‖ In this way he pointed out that
it is not cross-dressing between common people that is in view here, but the law that tries
to protect the superior men in Israel (he should not look like a women because he will lose
his dignity, and women should be prevented to take his role). See Vedeler,
Reconstructing, 473-476. I think Vedeler is going to far with the conclusions of Kosmala.
9
in reference to the men of Israel coming out of Egypt (Exo 10:11; 12:37). There it is used
―to contrast men with women and children.‖17
It seems that in Deut. 22:5 it has the same
function.
To sum up the discussion around the first sentence of the first part of the verse, we
notice that while the prohibition in the second sentence is very clear and precise, in the
first one the terms are really broad. It is a prohibition for women that there should not be
on them anything that pertain to a men‘s gear.
Next is the last part of the verse:
for whoever does this is an abomination) כי תועבת יהוה אלהיך כל־עשה אלה 2
to Yahweh your God).
Of particular importance here is the construction תועבת יהוה. This construction
explains the gravity of breaking this law. How this construction collaborates to a better
understanding of Deut. 22:5?
The meaning of תועבת is abomination, abhorrence. In a broader sense, the word is
used to identify anything offensive (Prov. 8:7).18
TWOT points out the nature of the
offense: ―may be of a physical, ritual or ethical nature and may be abhorred by God or
Firstly there is no clue in the context that the word גבר is used in a special way here. In
Pentateuch it is used 5 time, twice in reference to the men of Israel coming out of Egypt
(Exo 10:11; 12:37). So it is used also for common people, not only for superior ones.
17Warren Baker, The Complete Word Study Dictionary : Old Testament
(Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003, c2002), 183.
18Warren Baker, The Complete Word Study Dictionary, 1218.
10
man.‖19
―Thus the OT can indicate that which is excluded by its very nature, that which
seems dangerous or sinister, by tôʿēbâ.‖20
The construction תועבת יהוה appears only in Deuteronomy (8 times) and
Proverbs (11 times). It ―expresses the incompatibility of some things with Yahweh‘s
nature.‖21
Davidson pointed out that תועבת it is not only about to cultic taboos ―but also
as with Lev. 18, to violation of the creation order.‖22
At the end of the discussion about the hebrew words used in Deut. 22:5 I support
a more literal translation: ―There is not to be a man‘s item on a woman, a man is not to
clothe himself in the garment of a woman, for an abomination to YHWH your God is
anyone doing these!‖23
The context of Deut. 22:5
After looking carefully at the words of this verse, let‘s see how the context throw a
light on the meaning of it. Firstly, There are scholars that pointed out to the little
19
Harris, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 977.
20Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 1429.
21Jenni and Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1430.
22 Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 171.
23Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy ; a New Translation With Introductions, Commentary, and Notes, The
Schocken Bible, vol. 1 (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), Dt 22:5.
11
importance of the context here.24
And indeed at a first glance it seems that the law is out
of place. In Deut. 22:1-12 we have the following laws: (1) law of respect for the property
of one‘s fellow (v. 1-4), (2) Deut. 22:5, (3) law on protecting birds nests (v. 6,7), (4) law
on requiring parapets on homes (v. 8), laws concerning forbidden mixtures (v. 9-11), (5)
law concerning clothes and clothing (v. 12).25
After looking closely at the passage it become clear that there are some connection
within it. The position of Deut. 22:5 seems to ―anticipates both the laws on forbidden
mixtures in verses 8–11 and the laws on sexual behavior between men and women in
verses 13–30.‖26
Kaufman pointed out a small chiasmus that binds v. 5-12: ―(A) dress, v.
5; (B) animals, vv. 6-7; (C) house, v. 8; (C‘) field, v. 9; (B‘) animals, v. 10; (A‘) dress, v.
11-12.‖27
This arrangement set Deut. 22:5 in chiastic parallel with the law concerning
forbidden mixtures. How this influence the interpretation of Deut. 22:5? It will be helpful
to understand what is the reason for the laws concerning the forbidden mixture, in order to
better understand Deut. 22:5.
There are three laws concerning mixture that are forbidden: (1) sowing different
kinds of seeds, (2) plowing with different kinds of animals, (3) wearing clothes made from
different kinds of treads (this last one is in direct chiastic parallel relationship with Deut.
24
Vedeler, Reconstructing meaning, 460.
25See Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Towards Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1983), 135.
26Gary Harlan Hall, Deuteronomy, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin,
Mo.: College Press Pub. Co., 2000), 330.
27Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 173 quoting Steven A. Kaufman, ―The Structure of
Deuteronomic Law,‖ Maarav 1-2 (1978-1979): 136.
12
22:5). In an insightful note about the forbidden mixture C. Houtman pointed out the
reason for this laws: ―mixing of kinds has to be prevented, because the order of the world
must not be endangered.‖28
He showed that the world was created by means of separation:
―the world exists thanks to the separation of heaven and earth, the alternation of light and
darkness, of heat and cold, of water and land, thanks to the difference between man and
beast, thanks to the diversity of species.‖29
And ―blurring separation and variety may
induce a reversion of cosmos to chaos and must therefore be prevented.‖30
According to the context it seems that Deut. 22:5 prohibits the blurring of
distiction between man and woman, as God created them at the beginning.
ANE background of Deut. 22:5
In Egypt there were some instances where people were involved in cross-dressing.
There were two pharaohs who chose to depict themselves with traits of the opposite sex.
Pharoh Hatshepsut (1478/72-1458 B.C.E.) is one of them, ―after seizing power, had
herself depicted with such male (and pharaonic) features as a beard, male kilt, and
crown.‖31
She did all of this without a clear reason, because there were women pharaoh
before her. Besides Hatshepsut another transgender behaviour happened with Pharoh
28
C. Houtman, ―Another Look at Forbidden Mixtures,‖ VT 34/2 (1984), 226-228.
29Houtman, ―Another Look,‖ 227.
30Houtman, ―Another Look,‖ 227-228.
31Vedeler, Reconstructiong meaning, 465.
13
Akhenaten, who was depicted with feminine hips and his wife Nefertiti wearing the crown
which was only for pharaoh. The behaviour of Akhenaten remained also unclear.32
In Mesopotamia there was a group of temple personnel that was involved in cross-
dressing. The male cult functionaries (termed assinnu, kargarrû, or kulu’u) in the cult of
Ishtar used to ―dress like women, wore female makeup, and often carried the female
symbol of the (spinning) spindle‖33
And it seems ―inescapable that these individuals did
participate in ritual homosexual practices.‖34
It was considered that these functionaries
were turned from men to women by the goddess Ishtar.35
In Canaan there is one reference in ―The Bow of Aqhad‖ about the Canaanite
goddess Anath as one that ―takes away men‘s bow, that is, who changes men into
women.‖ This may pointed out that the goddess transformed those men in homosexuals,
according to the similitude with the Mesopotamian statements about Isthar.36
This seems to be the background of Deut. 22:5. The law might have in view the
male personnel in the cult of Ishtar. The cult of Ishtar is equal to the cult of Astarte/
Ashera in Canaan, on the basis of this parallel there can be concluded, even there are no
substantial evidence, that assinnu had its counterparts in canaanite religion.37
32
Vedeler, Reconstructiong meaning, 465
33Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 170.
34Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 137.
35Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 138.
36Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 141.
37Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 170.
14
The rationale of this law
One of the most important question related to Deut. 22:5 is about the rationale of
the law. Why should a women not wear anything that pertain to a man, and a man not
wear a woman‘s clothes? There is is a long debate among scholars about the reasons for
this law. And there are several positions on this that scholars share.
(1) There is the approach to Deut. 22:5 from those who translate כלי as
weapon, and they suggested that this text is a prohibition related to war. Frank R. Ames
proposed ―that the law prohibits woman from assuming and man from avoiding the role of
warrior.‖38
(2) There are scholars that suggested on the basis of ANE background that
here the author prohibit involvment in a foreign cult.39
They suggested that ―women
appeared in male garments and men in women‘s clothes when they worship their pagan
deities. Yahweh wanted His people to be unique and to do nothing that was in any way
connected with foreign religions.‖40
38
Frank Ritchel Ames, ―Women and War in the Hebrew Bible,‖ (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Denver, School of Theology, 1997), 55. See also Calum M.
Carmichael, ―A Time for War and a Time of Peace: The Influence of the Distinction upon
Some Legal and Literary Material,‖ in Studies in Jewish Legal History: Essays in Honor
of David Daub, ed. B. S. Jackson (London: Jewish Chron. Pub., 1974), 51.
39 See Vedeler, ―Reconstructing meaning,‖ 468; David F. Payne, Deuteronomy,
The Daily Study Bible Series (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001, c1985),
125;
40 John C. Maxwell and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, The Preacher's Commentary Series,
Volume 5 : Deuteronomy, The Preacher's Commentary Series, vol. 5 (Nashville,
Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1987), 241.
15
(3) Another view is that Deut. 22:5 it is about a sexual perversion, such as
homosexuality. Winston H. Pickett suggested that ―Dt. 22:5 appears to reffers to the
practice of transvestism as a not uncommon behavioral extension of homoxesuality.‖41
Tikva Frymer-Kensky presented the uniqness of aversion of the Bible writers against
homosexuality in the context of ANE mindset, and she added ―anything that smacks of
homosexual blurring is similarly prohibited, such as cross-dressing (Deut 22:5).‖42
(4) There are other scholars that take in consideration the second and third
interpretation but they go even further to suggest that mainly the law is against blurring
distinctions between men and women, distinctions that are God given at the creation.43
Keil and Franz Delitzsch commented on the rationale of the law:
The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to
oppose idolatrous practices […]; but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the
sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to
which Israel was not to sin.44
The scholars who endorse the second interpretation while taking account of the
ANE background, they don‘t pay attention to the context of Deut. 22:5. Here there is no
41
Winston H. Pickett, ―The Meaning and Function of ‗T‘B/TO‘EVAH‘ in the
Hebrew Bible,‖ (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion,
1985),
42Tikva Frymer-Kensky, "Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible,"
Semeia 45 (1989): 96. See also Peter C. Craigie, ―The Book of Deuteronomy,‖ NICOT
(Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1976), 288.
43 See Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 171-172.; Ian Cairns, Word and Presence : A
Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, International Theological Commentary (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992), 194.;
44Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 1:945.
16
reference to a cultic situation. The third interpretation is well questioned by Hoffner:
―there are more direct ways for refering to this practice [homosexuality], which are, in
fact, employed elsewhere in the OT.‖45
It seems that it ought to be more than a law
against homosexuality. According to the context of Deut. 22:5 it seems that the main
reason for this law is indeed the blurring of creation order. Davidson offered a well
balance view: ―Thus cross-dressing is moraly/culticaly repugnant to God not only because
of its association with homosexuality and fertility cult rituals but also- and primary-
because it mixes/blurs the basic distinctions of gender duality (male and female) set forth
in creation.‖46
Peter Lange made this point even clearer: ―It is too narrow a view to regard it as a
mere precaution against unchastity, and too wide as an opposition to practices at
idolatrous festivals. (The distinction between the sexes is natural and established by God in
their creation, and any neglect or violation of that distinction, even in externals, not only
leads to impurity, but involves the infraction of the laws of God.)‖47
Lange pointed out
that the focus of this law is not idolatrous festivals and the law is not so narrow as to
prevent only unchastity, but the issue at stake is bluring of distinctions in external
apperences between woman and man.
45
Hary A. Hoffner, Jr., ―Symbols for Masculinity and Feminity- their use in
Ancient Near Eastern Sympathetic Magic Rituals‖ JBL 85/3 (Sept., 1966), 333.
46 Davidson, Flame of Yahveh, 172.
47 John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures : Deuteronomy
(Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008), 164.
17
As a conclusion to this discussion, I concur with McGee who said: ―God is saying
here that a man ought to look like a man, and a woman ought to look like a woman.‖48
And Maxwell added that the law is against: ―the wearing of any item specifically intended
for the opposite sex.The distinctives of each sex should be maintained and protected in
regard to outward appearance.‖49
Menswear and womenswear in ancient Israel
Dealing with the role of cloths for the identity of the individual in the OT times,
Gamberoni stated: ―If clothing does not establish the identity of an individual in human
society, at least it plays an indispensable role in signalizing this identity unmistakably.‖50
Clothes are means of comunication, they are signalizing something about the wearer.
Frank Ritchel Ames added: ―On the symbolic level, clothing always serves as a means of
visual communication. Thus, to dress the part is to assume the role, either intentionally or
unintentionally. Clothing, one might say is a fashionable form of synecdoche: the part
represents the whole.‖51
48
J. Vernon McGee, vol. 09, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Law
(Deuteronomy) Thru the Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 139.
49 John C. Maxwell, Deuteronomy, Preacher's Commentary Series, vol. 5
(Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc, 2004), 241.
50Paderborn J. Gamberoni, ‖ָלֵבׁש ‖ Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
11 vols, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids,
Mi: William E. Eerdmans, 1995), 468. See also TWOT: ―In addition to simply referring
to clothes as something to be put on (Song 5:3), clothes may reveal something about the
wearer.‖ Harris, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press,
1999, c1980), 469.
51Ames, ―Women and War,‖ 56.
18
Looking at this definition of clothes, it seems that trying to change appearances
with the other sex became a matter of hiding identity. Let us see what are those items that
are specifically wear by men and women and carry identity in those times. This topic is
related to the question that remain unanswered in this study, the question about the
broadness of the terms in the first part of Deut. 22:5 (Why do the author use those broad
terms in order to describe what it is forbidden for a woman to have upon her? He could be
more specific if there were only clothes in view here.)
I suggest that when it is about man there are more than clothes that differentiate
him from women. Besides clothes, there are other articles wore by men of that time:
weapons and tools . Maybe there are other article specifically wear by men of that time
(for eg. particular adorments), but in this paper I will deal only weapons, tools and
clothes.
Firtsly, there are weapons (they are part of the definition of כלי), and were use and
wore only by men in ancient Israel and ANE.52
Secondly there are tools and instruments
used for work that are carried only by men. Israel was an agricultural society53
, and men
52
Ames, ―Women and war,‖ 220. ―The visual record obtained from art recovered
in the excavations of Mesopotamian sites of the third through second millennia BCE
indicates that two themes predominated: warfare and religious events. Women make no
appearance in battle scenes.‖ Pauline Albenda, ―Western Asiatic Women in the Iron Age:
Their Image Revealed,‖ Biblical Archaeologist, elec. ed. 46/2 (1983), np.
53 See John Robert Jackson, ―Enjoying the Fruit of one‘s Labor: Attitude Toward
Male Work and Workers in the Hebrew Bible,‖ (PhD. dissertation, Duke University,
Religion in the Graduate School), 66-70.
19
were the one‘s that deal with work that need strenght and hard work,54
in contrast with
women that were more centered on the family domicile. Because ―men‘s work often
involves strength, the expenditure of great deals of energy in quick bursts, the use of large
muscle groups, and travel away from home,‖55
they need also to carry for lond distances
tools for different types of work. This will be something else that is particularly wear by
men. (There are archeological evidence that men wear a belt around the waist in order to
fasten the skirt that they wore, besides this the belt was used in order to hang on it
―various articles such as a sword, dagger, weights or valuables could be carried.‖56
Tools
and different instruments of work might be carried out, hanged on this girld). Tools of the
trade will become something that carry man‘s identity.
When it is about clothes there are some differences between men and women. ―The
clothing worn by women was similar to that of the men, except that they did not wear the
short skirt and in all probability they could adorn themselves in a greater variety of
garments if they possessed the means to purchase them.‖57
It seems that men were
54
―Men‘s work often involves strength, the expenditure of great deals of energy in
quick bursts, the use of large muscle groups, and travel away from home. Women‘s work
often involves more ―monotonous,‖ time-consuming tasks, employs finer motor skills, and
is anchored more closely to the family dwelling. Because women are the primary
caregivers for children, they perform tasks that will allow them to care for children at the
same time.‖ Jackson, ―Enjoying the Fruit,‖ 107.
55Jackson, ―Enjoying the Fruit,‖ 107.
56G. Ernest Wright, ―Israelite Daily Life,‖ Biblical Archaeologist, elec. ed. 18/3
(1955), np.
57Wright, ―Israelite Daily Life,‖ np.
20
wearing a king of short skirt in order to have the ability to move more quickly while
working.58
On the other hand, what was specifically wear by women in that era? ―Women‘s
activities seem to have been directed to domestic tasks‖59
and because of her duties she
was not seen in public wearing any כלי as men did. The biblical author mention only
for (שמלת) as what it is specific for women. It is interesting that there are cloaks שמלת
man also.60
But it seems that the cloak of a women was different, ― according to the
authorities, may have been the finer materials and the vivid colors of the woman's dress
and its distinctive embroidery.‖61
I suggest that in that time- because of their duty- men had specific articles that
differentiate them from women (weapons, tools and clothes), and Deut. 22:5 prohibits
women to wear them. The reason for the broadness of the terms in the first part of Deut.
22:5 will be that this articles and clothes will make women to appear like men, and God
want people to not blurr the distinctions. When it is about women there are specific
58
―The basic garment of the Israelite worker and soldier appears to have been a
short wraparound skirt or waistcloth (’ezor) reaching down to about the middle of the
thigh.‖ G. Ernest Wright, ―Israelite Daily Life,‖ Biblical Archaeologist, elec. ed. 18/3
(1955), np.
59Pauline Albenda, ―Western Asiatic Women in the Iron Age: Their Image
Revealed,‖ Biblical Archaeologist, elec. ed. 46/2 (1983), np.
60Alecia J. Batten, ―Clothing and adorment,‖ Biblical Theological Bulletin 40/3
(2010), 150.
61 See Angel Manuel Rodriquez, ―Deuteronomy 22:5‖
https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/bible-ot-texts/deuteronomy-225 [accessed
oct. 2014]; See also Alecia J. Batten, ―Clothing and adorment,‖ 150.
21
garments that differentatiate them in apperances from men. Pickett explained this law: ―In
labelling the wearing of the clothes of the opposite sex (for whatever nonsexual reason or
however ―inocently‖ done) as morally repugnant to God (תועבת יהוה), Deuteronomy
seeks to assert that total fidelity to YHWH extends even to the mundane world of dress.‖62
Contemporary significance
Tobi Liebman in his study of the rabinical history of interpretation of Deut. 22:5
pointed out to the need of contemporary scholars to apply ―the verse‘s meaning to
contemporary customs and definitions of gender.‖63
This is not an easy task and I think is
the duty of every beliver to think prayfully over this issue. I will point out only some
general principle.
What it is a point of reference for the application of this law is the rationale of it.
Angel Manuel Rodriquez correctily wrote: ―The distinction between male and female was
established at Creation when the human race was defined as "male and female." Anything
that alters that distinction is rejected. […] But the principle cannot be limited exclusively
to that cultural [ancient Israel] expression, because it is based on the order of creation.‖64
Mark Braun added: ―Styles change from one time and place to another; it‘s impossible to
dictate a specific dress code for all the rest of human history. God wants men and women
62
Winston H. Pickett, ―The Meaning and Function of ‗T‘B/TO‘EVAH‘ in the
Hebrew Bible,‖ 157, emphasis added.
63 Tobi Liebman, ―The Jewish Exegetical History of Deuteronomy 22:5: Required
Gender Separation or Prohibited Cross-Dressing?,‖ (M.A. thesis, McGill University,
Montreal, Department of Jewish Studies), 109-110.
64 Angel Manuel Rodriquez, ―Deuteronomy 22:5,‖emphasis added.
22
to appreciate the dignity of their own sex, instead of assuming the appearance or
preferring the role of the opposite sex.‖65
We are living today in a culture very different then that culture of the Bible, but as
in every culture there are articles of clothes and adornment that are specifically wear by
man or women. Rodriquez points out what is the attitude that should characterize the
believer:
Every Christian should dress in such a way as to preserve the distinction between the sexes. The details in the implementation of the principle are something that, in our complex society, should be determined by the believer in communion with her or his Lord. Although society defines the way we dress, Christians are to select from what society offers that which is compatible with biblical values.
66
65
Mark Braun, Deuteronomy, The People's Bible Milwaukee (Wis.: Northwestern
Pub. House, 2000), 197.
66 Rodriquez, ―Deuteronomy 22:5.‖