# Deuteronomy 22:5 and Playing Dress-Up



## Parakaleo (Nov 28, 2015)

I'm the father of three boys and two girls, ranging from one to eight years of age. A few times, my girls have been playing dress-up in their bedroom and decided it would be funny to put their little brother in a dress. When this happened the other day, I admonished them not ever to do this again. I showed them Deuteronomy 22:5 to teach them why this was not allowed in our house:

_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 would say the better policy is to laugh and play up the "sillyness" of a boy in a dress, so it reinforces the absurdity of it in their little minds. I think, in light of our current cultural confusion, direct teaching about God's design for masculinity and femininity is also needed from a very young age.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 28, 2015)

It may be well to counsel your children to stick with patterns that affirm nature's order, and encourage others (like a little brother) to keep to the same. I think it likely I would so counsel my own children, though perhaps considering the circumstance. Do I want to make a case of conscience over a bit of innocent amusement? Certainly Moses was not confronting mindless, childish amusements.

But regarding the method: turning _directly _to Moses--distinct from the moral law--as a means of enforcement for present behaviors, sets a unwise precedent. If you simply go to an OT law, and apply it as "God's will," you are teaching your children to treat other situations in the same way. The question: "Is there an applicable Israelite statute addressing this moment," is a return *under law*.

For instance, if I have a tattoo, or if I consider getting one, should I consider Lev.19:28? "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, *nor print any marks upon you*: I am the LORD." Samuel Rutherford wrote:


> “He that is circumcised becomes debtor to the whole law, sure to all the ceremonies of Moses his law: So I argue, *a peri,* from the like: He that will keep one judicial law, because judicial and given by Moses, becometh debtor to keep the whole judicial law under pain of God’s eternal wrath.”



The impropriety of certain things requires more than a prooftext approach. And many young minds will not adequately follow reasoning to the truth. Better, I think if the children are too young, to enforce the matter of appropriate clothing perhaps as something related to the 5th commandment, the obedience of children to parents, and the wisdom of following patterns set by dad and mom. Not every bit of childish experimentation is profitable.

Even the command in Dt.22:5 is set within a section that is principally undergird by the 8th commandment. In other words, Moses delivers this prohibition in particular as an exposition of the law against theft. We believe in a "general equity" belonging to those ancient laws; so a faithful application of the Holy Spirit intent of this text should include the moral basis for it. If the child can follow the logic that stealing is wrong, and thus Dt.22:5 makes sense in the light of that universal moral principle; then a modern application of the text might be warranted.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 28, 2015)

It may indeed be an opportunity to make a point about gender roles, but I think I would be careful to do it gently and without scolding. They were just being silly, and likely not really violating that law's intent. Be careful not to give the impression that they have angered God by their bit of silliness, lest they come to see him as someone who dishes out punishments for unintended, letter-of-the-law violations while ignoring the heart.


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 28, 2015)

Excellent thoughts. Harder to explain to a five year-old. I wonder if my reaction to this is different now than it would have been 30 years ago? I went to different camps and even school events that had cross-dressing in skits when I was young. It was never presented as anything other than harmless tomfoolery. This is clearly no longer the case.


----------

