Saturday, 13 February 2016

Deuteronomy 22:5 Comments

A controversial topic that is raised is, Can wear women trousers? The answer is yes.

But let use deal with a few things with respect to Deuteronomy 22:5 that must be clarified and out of the way:

"Deuteronomy 22:5 “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."

Some translations go however mention another aspect that most seem to overlook and it can be found in other translations, I'll give one but the rest you can read yourself:

"English Revised Version
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God." http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-5.htm

The phrase used in the passage in Hebrew is kĕliy geber. While keliy can be used of garments and clothes, it is also a reference to utensils or equipment. In other words, it is not just a prohibition of wearing clothes of the opposite sex, but is also a reference saying that women shall not use or wear the utensils specifically assigned to a man, which would also entail military garb.

There is one particular article I recommend looking at for more information: https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/women-in-the-military-and-in-combat/

Before anyone tries to argue women are used in the military by Israel, Here is another article I direct you to: http://warfighternews.com/2014/03/21/debunking-the-israeli-women-in-combat-myth/


Am i arguing Christians are under the Old Testament law? No. we should be asking, which laws are for Christians today and which are not?

The principle in the passage that applies to us today is recognizing the distinction between men and women and their roles in family life, not just in clothes, but behavior too. This is not to say that women are not equal to men in terms of dignity in the of the eyes of God, to say men and women are not equal in terms of dignity in the eyes of God would be a lie.

It does not matter if you are a man or a woman, living a holy life in God's sight is what counts and BOTH genders need salvation.

Transvestism is a sin, It robs people of their distinction and even in today's world, people are trying obliterate that distinction.

I won't go into detail here as to whether or not a woman can work, What I will say is this, There are jobs women have that men cannot and there are jobs men have that women cannot. There are jobs applicable for both genders and there are jobs for specific genders, either male or female. The principle ultimately in Deuteronomy 22:5 calls for men and women to recognize their roles and not seek to violate and destroy the barrier.

Now, with that out of the way, Let's get to the question, Can women wear trousers. Yes, However....

While I believe women can wear trousers, they must be trousers that show they are a woman and likewise, the man must wear trousers that make show they are a man. I don't suggest that women or men should dress in a kinky manner, as we both must dress modestly and not have our attire cause others to lust over us.

Truth be told, I take issue with men wearing really skinny jeans. When I say that, I am not talking about a mountain of a man like Arnold Schwarzenegger who had a huge structure before his acting career and thus a baggy pair would be quite skinny, I am talking about the little guys, including myself. In our case, wearing really skin tight jeans would be inappropriate if it makes us feminine. Women can wear jeans or trousers, but they must be feminine, I seriously would not recommend a woman to wear casual baggy trousers but certainly thin jeans that distinguish them from the men would be allowed.

While there are many men out there who are well intentioned in not allowing women to wear trousers, I feel this legalistic. As long as there is a distinction between women's clothing and men's clothing, then trousers are acceptable. It's like the Japanese Kimono or Middle Eastern Robes, there are distinctions between the clothes of both sexes, You can't shove a male into female kimonos and vice versa. Ancient Israelites wore robes, but the robes clearly had a distinction between male robes and female robes, Men had to wear men's robes and Women had to wear women's robes. Trousers have the same principle, Men have to wear men's trousers and Women have to wear women's trousers. The basic principle is that the clothes do NOT cause gender distinction to be lost and before you ask, no a man cannot wear a dress.

I leave you to judge my words.

Answering Judaism.

PS, there might be baggy jeans for Arnie, but you get the idea.

9 comments:

  1. Well argued, but don't you think that skinny jeans also raise the issue of tzniuth?m if so, then nobody should wear them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends on the context regarding skinny jeans, if a woman's motive to attract other men, then they shouldn't. If they are just comfortable wearing them, I think they are fine.

      Delete
    2. Are not some garments immodest by definition; ie motivation notwithstanding; clothing defining anatomical endowment speaks for itself. Your thoughts?

      Delete
    3. There are some out there, namely stripper's clothing, bondage stuff etc, Those are immodest.

      Delete
  2. You're wrong about כלי גבר (kli gever) also applying to utensils, because if you read the rest of the verse, it says literally "and a man shall not wear the SIMLA of a woman", simla (שמלה) means a dress, or it can mean clothes in general. It's obvious what this verse is saying. Also, the word says "kli gever ON (על) a woman". I don't know what kind of "utensils" you put ON a woman besides clothes and accessories.

    Interestingly, the Shulhan `Arukh says men shouldn't wear pants. If they do, they should be loose. This isn't because tight clothes will make a man look feminine, because men aren't shaped liked women. It's because it can cause an erection and it's not modest - even though modesty doesn't apply the same way to men as it does to women.

    Interestingly, Israelite men of ancient times used to wear what in Arabic as a hizme. Basically, it's a kilt, or you could say a man-skirt, lol. Habbani Jews (a type of Yemenite Jews) dressed like this up until today. One of my teachers, who is a Habbani Jew, dresses like this to this day. The Jalabiya/Abaye was common as well, and most Jews Mizrahi (what many people call "Sepharadi", often a misnomer) dressed similar to this until very recent history. Ashkenazi Jews varied, but many wore European style clothes that were adapted from the original Middle Eastern style. Some Ashkenazi robes/halifot are totally Middle Eastern, yet.

    Woman shouldn't wear pants, which should be obvious, because it shows too much. The point of this verse isn't to say women should show curves - it's to say women sould wear modest and feminine clothes. Modest is a given, there should be no need to clarify that. Tight skirts are out, too. Women should wear long and flowing skirts that don't hug their skin, or a dress that goes to her ankles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I looked up, the phrase kĕliy can refer to utensils and Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't just address clothing but also addresses utensils, specifically military garb in the context. It suggests that women are not to go into the military to fight.

      I think men and women can wear pants provided it distinguishes their sex. Nevertheless, Its interesting to read your input.

      Delete
  3. If the first part of the verse talks about "kli gever", men's clothes/articles/'utensils', and completely connected to that is the prohibition of men wearing women's clothing, specifically dress/clothing, then it's obvious what the first part of the verse is talking about because the second part of the verse leaves no room for mistake. The prohibition here on a practical/halakhic level is that men and women shouldn't wear the clothes of the opposite sex.

    Also, women wearing pants isn't about wearing men's clothes, it's about modesty, because anyone with a pair of eyes can see that a woman in pants or a tight skirt is showing her body off, which is entirely immodest, as opposed to wearing a loose and long skirt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The verse in mension of Deuteronomy 22: 5; Is being taken out of context; Because at the time men and women wore TUNICS; (Yes, the woman's robes were different, and the men's robes were different); But there were no pants, and they had details that marked the difference between the man's robe and the woman's robe. It is much more correct for the context to state that it refers to the immoral behavior of the Canaanites; And it seems to me that the purpose is not to try to deceive with a certain attire; Or usurp the roll of the other genre.
    In addition the purpose of the dress was to cover the body; And not girding, or fitting a cloth, or a garment to the body; For when a person SITS, or fits a garment to his body; She is actually stripping. The pants are the most exhibitionist dress that has been made; And especially for the man.
    By the anatomical shape of the body; The pants match; Or is more related, or harmonizes more with the body of the woman.
    By anatomical characteristics, the skirts are much more suitable suitable and suitable for the men.
    A few years ago men imposed on us the use of pants.
    For more than 5000 years men were not wearing pants.
    The dress that is healthier, comfortable, comfortable and decent to dress a man is a skirt, a robe, or a dress with skirt; (If a distinction should be made between the man's dress and the woman's dress)
    I wear skirts and dresses the Scottish style; And is the most comfortable, decent and practical I have used.
    Trousers are torture
    It is best to dress again with SKIRTS.
    Many congratulations for your work and for promoting skirts for men.

    ReplyDelete