King James Version (KJV)
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
If you're a woman caught up in the Hebrew Israelite/Hebrew roots movement then you've likely been told that wearing pants is a sin, against the bible, and that God is not pleased with you wearing pants, and for some even worse. But the information age has only confirmed much of the history and cultural context of biblical times. And that is what sheds light on seeing for ourselves the meaning of biblical truths.
First off,
Question: what is "that which pertaineth to a man?
Answer: Whatever pertained to men. And in our case, the men of Israel.
Question: What clothes pertained to the men of israel in the times of deuteronomy?
Answer: Garments... And guess what? men did not wear pants to show an outer distinction from women at all. in fact, BOTH WORE GARMENTS.
Observe below from http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/culture_clothing.html
So lets look again at the text. this time at the word "man". The Following is from bishop Jerry Hayes. "The word translated “man” is the Hebrew word “gerber.”According to Strong’s Concordance #H1397, “a valiant man or warrior;… .” From Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew and English Lexicon, "man as strong, distinguished from women, children, and non-combatants whom he is to defend, ... ." Therefore, the women of Israel were not to practice the custom of wearing the battle garments of a man of war, as was the custom of the women of Canaan in their worship of Ashtoreth. This prohibition would have been even more important on the holy days of the idol deity... This prohibition was given to the Israelites because the Canaanites so dressed to worship the goddess of war.
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/10/deuteronomy-225-examined-by-laws-of.html?m=1
Historic Commentaries all point to this reality of the ancient near east.
"It must be remembered that both male and female wore robes in the ancient Near East. The only difference being that women’s robes in Israel had blue decoration around the shoulders." - Dr. Bob Utley commentary: You can understand the bible
"In one of the rites of Canaanite, Phœnician, and Syrian heathenism the sexes changed dresses (see references in Driver)." - Peak's Commentary
"Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women's clothes; this, as other such superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord."
- Matthew Henry's Commentary on the whole bible
"and in like manner Josephus (k) explains it,"take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman;''nor is he to be found fault with so much as he is by a learned writer"
- Josephus Antiquities of the Jews . l. 4. c. 8. sect. 43.
"Men appeared in women’s clothing and vice versa (Deu_22:5) in some of the worship rituals of Astarte. [Note: Ibid., p. 234.] Furthermore transvestism did and still does have associations with certain forms of homosexuality. [Note: Craigie, The Book . . ., p. 288.] Perhaps for these reasons God gave the command to wear clothing appropriate to one’s own sex as well as because God intended to keep the sexes distinct (Deu_22:5). Homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Lev_20:13)."
- The Expository notes of Dr. Constable
This final Commentery sums it up the most clear of all.
"כלי גבר keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word גבר geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armor before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male’s attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion."
- Adam Clarke's Commentary on The Bible
One last observation. God speaks of this as an "Abomination"!!!.... This word most of the time was used in relation to Israel's old tough habit that took centuries to kick... IDOLATRY!... So if cross dressing was done by Canaanites to worship their deity who at times was androgynous(here), then it makes perfect sense as to why God would say that such a thing was abominable as a key word used as a theme of frustration over just one of the many sins that come from idolatry.
The basic thrust of this text is not patriarchal, but the rejection of Canaanite worship practices (i.e., “abomination,” cf. Lev_18:26-27; Lev_18:29-30).
- Dr. Bob Utley commentary: You can understand the bible
So, Can women wear pants?... Yes... God's focus was not on pants or dresses in Deuteronomy. This was also a time when Israelites were still in the wilderness, warning them to not take on the ways of the Canaanites. whatever "pertaineth" to a man, THAT alone is what a woman is not to wear.
In the new testament under The New Covenant brought about by Jesus, this law of clothing in Deuteronomy 22:5 is not a law of the new covenant at all. but idolatry and idol practices and worship is still a sin under the new covenant(Galatians 5, Romans 1). But wearing pants(especially women's pants) is not a sin. Neither in this covenant, nor the former.
Christ is risen...
No comments:
Post a Comment