Deut 22:5 Subjective or Objective?

[satz]

Deuteronomy 22:5 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.

Is 'that which pertaineth unto a man' and 'a woman's garment' subjective, relative to culture or is there another standard by which those terms are defined?



[Edited on 9-6-2006 by satz]

 

[py3ak]

If it is not culturally conditioned I suppose it would have to be Biblical --and I've never seen a Biblical reference that spells out what cut, etc., make appropriate gender-diferentiational dress.

 

[polemic_turtle]

I used to argue that the first historical bifurcated garb was the breeches given the priests when they approached the altar and that therefore from the start, pants were for men and only for men, but I began to see holes in that position as a long shot. I'd say it's subjective, although there would seem to be some direction given by Paul when he states that the women are to adorn themselves with "katastole", which my limited Greek exposure points to kata meaning "down"( ie katakalepto from 1Co 11:4 ) and stole meaning "long robes" ( Mark 12:28 ). Surely someone can lighten speech with understanding here?

[Edited on 9-6-2006 by polemic_turtle]

 

[MW]

Originally posted by satz
Deuteronomy 22:5 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.

Is 'that which pertaineth unto a man' and 'a woman's garment' subjective, relative to culture or is there another standard by which those terms are defined?

"That which" pertaineth to men is cultural, best defined by the elders or nobility. But the command itself is not cultural. The apostle picks up on it in 1 Cor. 11, concerning what nature teaches about the distinction of gender. It is worth noting, too, that there could have been no confusing of gender in the garden of Eden. Clothes serve the purpose of covering shame, not covering sexual differences.

 

[satz]

But the command itself is not cultural.

Rev Winzer,

I'am not sure I said anything indicating I thought the command itself was cultural... could you explain what you mean? Forgive me if I am not understanding...

 

[MW]

Originally posted by satz

But the command itself is not cultural.

Rev Winzer,

I'am not sure I said anything indicating I thought the command itself was cultural... could you explain what you mean? Forgive me if I am not understanding...

That qualification was just safeguarding my statement from being taken too far. I didn't mean to imply anything concerning your view. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Blessings

 

[satz]

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by satz

But the command itself is not cultural.

Rev Winzer,

I'am not sure I said anything indicating I thought the command itself was cultural... could you explain what you mean? Forgive me if I am not understanding...

That qualification was just safeguarding my statement from being taken too far. I didn't mean to imply anything concerning your view. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Blessings

Yes, sorry for reading too much into that...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'll ust add that the word for "man" here is also not the run-of-the- mill term like "ish" or "adam" but the term "giboor" meaning "mighty man" or "warrior."

 

[satz]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I'll ust add that the word for "man" here is also not the run-of-the- mill term like "ish" or "adam" but the term "giboor" meaning "mighty man" or "warrior."

Thanks Pastor Bruce.

Thats interesting... however, if that were the case, would it not change the focus of the verse somewhat? The condemnation of cross dressing certainly wouldn't be as strong.

 

[satz]

Originally posted by polemic_turtle
I used to argue that the first historical bifurcated garb was the breeches given the priests when they approached the altar and that therefore from the start, pants were for men and only for men, but I began to see holes in that position as a long shot. I'd say it's subjective, although there would seem to be some direction given by Paul when he states that the women are to adorn themselves with "katastole", which my limited Greek exposure points to kata meaning "down"( ie katakalepto from 1Co 11:4 ) and stole meaning "long robes" ( Mark 12:28 ). Surely someone can lighten speech with understanding here?

[Edited on 9-6-2006 by polemic_turtle]

I surely am not one with understanding, but I would like to make a comment. I've seen many people make a huge deal over the greek word for apparel in 1 Tim 2, but I am not sure it really means all that much. It seems to me that Paul's purpose in 1 Tim 2:9-10 is to exhort women to value their spirits over their external appearence and hence to adorn themselves with good works. It was not his intention to set out a specific dress code per se, so whatever kind of clothing katastole might represent I do not see that it is the only possible modest attire for women anymore than broided hair, gold, pearls and costly clothing are the only possible forms of immodest excess.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by satz

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I'll ust add that the word for "man" here is also not the run-of-the- mill term like "ish" or "adam" but the term "giboor" meaning "mighty man" or "warrior."

Thanks Pastor Bruce.

Thats interesting... however, if that were the case, would it not change the focus of the verse somewhat? The condemnation of cross dressing certainly wouldn't be as strong.

I don't think so. Not at all. Every man had a duty to answer when called to defend the people; every man was a gibor in that sense. Plus, the second part of the sentence has equal force: "nor shall the gibor put on that which pertains to a woman." The word for woman is the simplest "isha". I think the contrast between the sexes couldn't be made more stark.

I think there are two plain conclusions one can draw from the verse: 1) God condemns androgeny, or the undifferentiated sexes--either in dress or in gender-roles; 2) God forbids women in the military (or at the least in combat, if someone is going to split hairs).

So, to address the original question, I think that there are certain "cultural" or "social" issues that come to bear. Not every culture dresses alike. However, any of them can tell men and women apart fairly easily, unless someone is violating norms.

 

[satz]

I don't think so. Not at all. Every man had a duty to answer when called to defend the people; every man was a gibor in that sense. Plus, the second part of the sentence has equal force: "nor shall the gibor put on that which pertains to a woman." The word for woman is the simplest "isha". I think the contrast between the sexes couldn't be made more stark.

I think there are two plain conclusions one can draw from the verse: 1) God condemns androgeny, or the undifferentiated sexes--either in dress or in gender-roles; 2) God forbids women in the military (or at the least in combat, if someone is going to split hairs).

So, to address the original question, I think that there are certain "cultural" or "social" issues that come to bear. Not every culture dresses alike. However, any of them can tell men and women apart fairly easily, unless someone is violating norms.

I can see what you are saying. Though I still see that there is a difference between 'The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a warrior' and ''The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man'. Not a particularly acute one prehaps, one still a difference nonetheless, In my humble opinion.

I am certainly not arguing for women in the army, and I think that practice can be argued against from other scriptures, but I do find that teaching that point from this verse is potentially rather confusing (to me at least) as it is impossible to see from the english.