This ought to be an interesting discussion

Ask the question you always wanted to ask, and were afraid to. There is no dumb question. Be courageous, for here you will find people ready to talk.<P>All Villagers may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby Maverick » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:18 pm

“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." (Deuteronomy 22:5, ESV)

I'm interested to hear perspectives on this verse--naturist, historical, or otherwise. Come one, come all!
In nuditate veritas.
User avatar
Maverick
Native Resident
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:14 am
Location: DFW, TX

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby jimmy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:17 pm

Paul was writing to a culture rift with cross-dressers. Men dressing in women's clothes to attract men and women dressing in men's clothes to attract other women. Study the culture and the meaning becomes clear.

God bless,

Jimmy
User avatar
jimmy
Councillor
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:08 am
Location: Boston MA

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby naturaldon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:19 pm

Paul? :-?
-Don
He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30)
User avatar
naturaldon
Native Resident
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:03 am
Location: NW MO

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby naturaldon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:23 pm

Mav, odd that you would bring this up. I posted a comment on another site earlier today having to do with this subject (you know the site :wink: ). Here's my come-one-come-all take:

Every man should know how to talk with a boy about sexuality: to tell a boy that he is made a man in the image of God; to remind a boy that he is to be a man and not a feminine man and not a man who thinks he’s a female; to show a boy that his manhood is revealed by his penis, testicles, pubic hair, facial hair, the testosterone his male body produces, and his male DNA; to clarify for a boy the eternal limits of his maleness and his masculinity; to model for a boy a healthy, holy, and unashamed view of the naked male body; and to teach a boy chivalry, duty, honor, and bravery… to teach him that which is not feminine for him to think about, act upon, or pretend to be.
-Don
He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30)
User avatar
naturaldon
Native Resident
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:03 am
Location: NW MO

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby Petros » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:53 am

In a larger context: some have used this to say things like women should never wear pants and men should never wear skirts - completely ignoring that in culture A the norm is both wear pants, in B both wear skirts, in C men wear skirts and women pants ... - and that Paul never wore pants his whole life. Paul is NOT talking at women who wear girl-cut pedal pushers or men in Gordon kilts. It is one more bit in his Dress appropriately for your context campaign, with yes some significant looks at cross dressers.

Further - even on his finicky days I doubt Paul would worry if I in a hurry grab Herself's jacket to run out to the mailbox in the chill wind.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby c.o. » Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:18 am

It's interesting that Moses used geber instead of adam in this passage. A more common word for man is the latter. From Lexical Aids to the Old Testament: "A geber was a male at the very peak of his natural strength." Maybe this changes our understanding, maybe not.

And also interesting that so little can be learned from the immediate context of the verse. Moses goes from oxen and sheep (22:1-2) to donkeys and garments and "anything lost" (v3), to helping if someone's livestock falls (v4) to the statement about cross-dressing in v5. Then to birds, nests and eggs in vv6-7; to house and vineyard design, etc.

Yet within these verses of Dt 22, cross-dressing is the only behavior that Moses describes as an abomination to YHWH.

Expand the context and we see these are Moses' final instructions to the long-wandering Israelites who are about to enter Canaan, which was populated by rank paganism; and that God's people were to stand out as noticeably different from the "ambient culture."

Not a scholar, but my impression is that cross-dressing was practiced either in these pagan cultures, or perhaps even part of their pagan worship. As all paganism is naturally an abomination to the only true God, cross-dressing was also.

God made them (us) male and female. He made them/us in His image, and that image is very meaningful to Him (and SHOULD be equally meaningful to us). The differences are obvious without clothes, but less so with the ways we dress. It seems the bottom line is we are not to blur the distinctions of God's image in us any more than we are to "shed man's blood, for in the image of God He made man" (Gen 9:6).

As to throwing on Herself's jacket to snag the mail, i think intent is key. And God knows the heart. Consequently, in cultures where kilts identify a male... The passage does not say girls can't wear pants or men can't wear skirts. It says man's or woman's clothing. And that can be defined by each culture or time period.
Life will leave me with what i deserve.
Grace never will.
User avatar
c.o.
Native Resident
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:47 am
Location: suburban Chicago

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby Bare_Truth » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:07 pm

Hey, does anybody else here remember side zipper jeans for girls and Front zipper jeans for guys. That was obviously in response to this concern.

But what about something that pertains to either sex ???? The passage in Deuteronmy 22:5 seems to preclude the notion that there was such, or does it??? I suppose that some sort of scarf might have been used by both sexes to wrap around the face in foul weather. Did those have to be different? I sort of doubt it.
I think the whole intent was that neither gender should on pretense try to appear to be the other.

I still cannot get past the warning in
Deut 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body

As harsh as that sounds it is just one item of the Blessings & Cursings Chapter
And the verse that sets the context for that is just 3 verses earlier where we find in
Deut 28: 15 ¶But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:


While that is in the old testament and was delivered to the descendents of Israel we do see the direction that God takes with nations he has chosen to bless when they turn their backs on him.
Malachi3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not.

And as to curses we are told in
Proverbs26:2 As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.

I should take time to note that God does not have to send curses upon a nation that turns to all manner of sin, but rather due to an unwillingness to live as he has advised us to, asked us to, and the nation has turned from, All he has to do if we reject him is leave and let what naturally happens happen.

So when I see or read reports of children from from the age they can talk insisting that they are the opposite sex from their obvious physiology I have to ask if it is due to the approval of all manner of sexual excess and twisting and discarding of God's law, and perhaps God is just letting abuse of the environment inflict suffering on the children of families and then that is responsible for the grief that has befallen in this and other areas. Are these things that we have caused with our pollution of the environment or just that God has in many ways withdrawn from our nation and is not protecting us from the effects of the world we live in? I cannot say I could prove it, but I have to wonder. Have we so made ourselves to be our own gods that he is leaving the fixing of things to us and our gods that we have chosen and just gotten out of the way and stopped protecting us? In other words, he is not causing it but has just withdrawn because mankind has rejected him.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby Jim » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:50 pm

An understanding I've read several places is that the word for "man" here refers to a warrior. The implication was a man shouldn't try to avoid war by pretending to be a woman, and a woman shouldn't try to pretend to be a man in order to engage in warfare.

A little later in Deuteronomy 22.12 it says, "You shall make yourselves tassels for the four corners of the clothing you wear."

I do not believe gentile Christians need to worry too much about the detailed meaning of the Deuteronomy laws; we are not bound to them.
User avatar
Jim
Native Resident
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby c.o. » Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:09 pm

Bare_Truth wrote:...I should take time to note that God does not have to send curses upon a nation that turns to all manner of sin, but rather due to an unwillingness to live as he has advised us to, asked us to, and the nation has turned from, All he has to do if we reject him is leave and let what naturally happens happen.

Which is a curse in itself.
So when I see or read reports of children from from the age they can talk insisting that they are the opposite sex from their obvious physiology I have to ask if it is due to the approval of all manner of sexual excess and twisting and discarding of God's law, and perhaps God is just letting abuse of the environment inflict suffering on the children of families and then that is responsible for the grief that has befallen in this and other areas. Are these things that we have caused with our pollution of the environment or just that God has in many ways withdrawn from our nation and is not protecting us from the effects of the world we live in? I cannot say I could prove it, but I have to wonder. Have we so made ourselves to be our own gods that he is leaving the fixing of things to us and our gods that we have chosen and just gotten out of the way and stopped protecting us? In other words, he is not causing it but has just withdrawn because mankind has rejected him.

I'm up past my usual bedtime, so now is probably not the time to fully answer this. For now, some 2-cents synopsizing.

Scripture (First and Second Testaments) seems clear that God actively judges mankind's (and Israel's, and the Church's) disobedience. "Shall we accept blessing from God and not adversity?" Job asked. And, Bare_Truth, as you pointed out, the astonishing curses pronounced for Israel's disobedience in Dt 28:15-68.

God harshly and directly judged the Northern Kingdom (Israel, the Assyrian captivity) then later the Southern Kingdom (Judah, with the Babylonian captivity). He actively and directly judged Israel harshly between AD 66-70, via Rome.

Romans 1:18-32 makes it clear that God puts up with rebellion to a point, after which He "gives them over" to the rebels' desire to oppose Him, and judicially closes the door, so that "seeing they will not see, and hearing they will not understand."

Finally, Rev shows us seal and bowl judgments that are far more than just God withdrawing, but God inflicting severe judgment on the Earth and its people. (Still studying it, but the true Church does not appear to be present on Earth during these judgments.)

While God is Abba to His people, He is truly, also, a righteous and avenging and sovereign and just judge, who nevertheless holds forth mercy, grace, forgiveness, restoration and sonship for those who love Him.

(Just another note on the topic by way of reminder, not suggesting anyone here has proposed it: cross-dressing is not the unpardonable sin.)
Last edited by c.o. on Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Life will leave me with what i deserve.
Grace never will.
User avatar
c.o.
Native Resident
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:47 am
Location: suburban Chicago

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby Jim » Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:31 am

c.o. wrote:
(Just another note on the topic by way of reminder, not suggesting anyone here has proposed it: cross-dressing is not the unpardonable sin.)

I guess I need to add neither is not wearing tassels on the four corners of your clothing.
User avatar
Jim
Native Resident
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby c.o. » Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:27 am

Jim wrote:An understanding I've read several places is that the word for "man" here refers to a warrior. The implication was a man shouldn't try to avoid war by pretending to be a woman, and a woman shouldn't try to pretend to be a man in order to engage in warfare.

Thanks for this, Jim! This is a wonderful illustration of why English translations can be less reliable than a study of the original Heb (and Gr, as the case may be) words.

I looked up the passage in Blue Letter Bible and found that Moses used 2 different Heb words for "clothing."

“A woman H802 shall not wear H1961 man’s H1397 clothing, H3627 nor H3808 shall a man H1397 put H3847 on a woman’s H802 clothing; H8071 for whoever H3605 does H6213 these H428 things H428 is an abomination H8441 to the LORD H3068 your God. H430"

Strong's 3627 - "something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon); armour, artillery, bag, carriage, furniture, instrument, jewel..."

Strong's 8071 - "...the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath; a dress, espec. a mantle: - apparel, cloth, clothes, clothing, garment, raiment..."

Next thing i'd like to do is see how these words were used in other verses. That may shed more light on the Dt 22 passage.
Life will leave me with what i deserve.
Grace never will.
User avatar
c.o.
Native Resident
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:47 am
Location: suburban Chicago

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby Maverick » Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:34 pm

I enjoyed reading all these thoughts and interpretations. I'll admit that, due to bad ragweed allergies these past few days, I merely posed the question but didn't do much researching myself. My mental faculties have been impaired. :(

The reason I posted this was because I came across a sermon on YouTube in which the pastor was trying to make the point that men shouldn't wear dresses and women shouldn't wear pants. I don't know why it was suggested to me, but I watched a little just for the heck of it. I never made it to the end; I was cringing from the beginning.

One of the rebuttals I would've had to the pastor's exegesis (or probably eisegesis) was, "What about Scotsmen who wear kilts? Or people in cultures where a loincloth, if any clothing, is the norm?" :D

To the (excellent) responses:

I'm a bit confused by references to Paul but if there's a tie-in I'd be interested to hear it.

I think there could be an interesting tie-in between naturaldon's comments about masculinity and Jim's and co's comments about men as warriors. The logical extension of that today might be, should women fight in combat? Is/was there a biblical command against that? And, in a broader scope, this could be part of an interesting study of gender roles in the Bible, how God made male and female equal yet unique (as in specialized).

To take Jim's and co's analysis a bit further:

Here is a list of Strong's 3627 in the Bible: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3627.htm
And here is Strong's 8071: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_8071.htm

8071 is always translated as "clothes" or something similar, like "cloak." It doesn't pop up very much.
3627 has a myriad of translations, but the essence of it seems to be something like "object" or "article." It's also been translated as "armor" or "weapon", and as "vessel" or "instrument" (as in musical instrument). It occurs many times.

Here's an interesting tidbit I found:

"Wash therefore and anoint yourself, and put on your cloak and go down to the threshing floor, but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking." (Ruth 3:3, ESV)

"For a man will take hold of his brother in the house of his father, saying: 'You have a cloak; you shall be our leader, and this heap of ruins shall be under your rule.'" (Isaiah 3:6, ESV)

The word here for "cloak" in both cases is the same, which seems to indicate that men didn't wear "shirts" and women didn't wear "blouses;" they wore the same basic article(s) of clothing.

Another thing:

3627 ("object" or "article") derives from Strong's 3615, which means "to be complete, at an end, finished, accomplished, or spent." There doesn't seem to be an obvious connection between these two words, at least to me, but I bet the Hebrews had an obvious connection in their culture.
In nuditate veritas.
User avatar
Maverick
Native Resident
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:14 am
Location: DFW, TX

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby naturaldon » Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:53 pm

The glory of God is man. The glory of man is woman. The glory of woman is her hair. And long hair is disgraceful for a man.

Maybe Paul (yes, for sure Paul in this case, in I Corinthians 11) is on to something here. Or rather, the Holy Spirit is on to something and moved Paul to write it. Maybe in the New Covenant clothing has nothing to do with man acting like a woman or woman like a man. Perhaps now it's more than clothing. Yes, indeed, it is not clothing that makes a man or a woman. What, then, is it if not clothing? Now we come to masculinity and femininity, neither of which should be shared across gender lines, at least in the Biblical sense.
-Don
He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30)
User avatar
naturaldon
Native Resident
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:03 am
Location: NW MO

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby Petros » Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:50 am

Being rather busy I confess I did not look up the reference, but Paul had been mentioned and it sounded Paulish. A slap on the petrine wrist.

As for the cloak - that is likely an outer covering, protection from elements, disguise, mark of rank. But the evidence is the m and f clothing differed mainly in precise length and details of the cut - dress / tunic for both. But anyone will know which is his and which hers!
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: This ought to be an interesting discussion

Postby natman » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:03 am

I think that the point in both Testaments is that, regardless of the cultural norms, men should not pass themselves off as women and women should not pass themselves off as men, nor should men have sexual relations with other men nor women with other women.

God created us "male and female", different to the core (DNA), but equal in value in His eyes.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Next

Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest