The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man neither shall a man put on a womans garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.Deuteronomy 22:5 Explainer ## Introduction - In Plain Language: The verse says men and women should wear different kinds of clothing; people who mix those gendered clothes are described as something the Lord hates. - Big idea: The law insists on clear male/female distinctions in dress as part of social and religious order. - Key points: - The verse sets a rule about clothing that marks gender differences. - It uses strong language (“abomination”) to signal this rule mattered for Israel’s identity and holiness. - How to understand and apply this today is debated—context and underlying principles matter. ## Context - Where this verse fits in: Deuteronomy is Moses’ speech to Israel before they enter the Promised Land. Chapter 22 is a collection of miscellaneous laws governing everyday life—property, safety, sexuality, and clothing—aimed at creating a holy, ordered community. - Story timeline: Given to the Israelites during the late Bronze/Iron Age as part of the covenant instructions. The speaker is Moses, addressing the whole nation of Israel as they prepare to settle Canaan. - Surrounding passage: - Verses just before: Deut. 22:1–4 give neighborly rules (returning lost animals, not passing by a fallen animal). - This verse (v. 5) interrupts that flow with a rule about clothing and gender distinctions. - Verses after: Deut. 22:6–7 instruct how to handle bird nests; 22:8–12 and onward continue a series of laws—about building safety, mixing seeds and animals, and not wearing cloth of two kinds (shatnez). The chapter groups diverse laws that define everyday holiness. ## Explanation - Quick take: Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids cross-dressing in the Israelite community and frames it as contrary to the Lord’s standards. It aims to protect social and religious boundaries that helped define Israel’s identity. - In Depth: - The plain wording focuses on garments—“a woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment.” In the ancient world clothing signaled role, status, and identity; mixing those signals could confuse social order or be tied to pagan worship practices. - Many scholars suggest one purpose was to avoid practices tied to surrounding pagan religions (ritual cross-dressing, temple prostitution, or role reversals in cultic rites). Another purpose was to prevent deception—disguising one’s sex could lead to illicit behavior or identity confusion in a culture where roles were strict. - The phrase translated “abomination” (Hebrew: to’evah) is strong. In Deuteronomy and elsewhere it often marks practices that violate covenantal holiness or social boundaries. It doesn’t always mean “immoral in every context forever,” but it does show ancient Israel was to be distinct from neighboring peoples. - How modern readers apply this verse varies. Some read it as a timeless moral rule forbidding cross-dressing. Others see it as a culturally specific law whose core concern is the maintenance of social order, honesty, modesty, and the avoidance of pagan ritual—principles that can be applied differently in today’s world. ## Key Words - labash (לָבַשׁ) — “to wear” or “put on” (verb for clothing). - beged (בֶּגֶד) — “garment,” clothing; often gendered in social use. - to’evah (תּוֹעֵבָה) — “abomination” or “detestable thing,” a strong term for what violates God’s covenantal standards. - ish / ishah (אִישׁ / אִשָּׁה) — “man” / “woman” (simple gender markers in the text). ## Background - Cultural/historical: In the ancient Near East clothing styles were highly gendered and signaled identity, status, and role. Some neighboring religions included gender-role reversals and ritualized cross-dressing in certain ceremonies; Israel’s law set boundaries to separate Israelite worship and life from those practices. Clothing also functioned practically—different garments fit different tasks, and mixing them might be linked to deception (e.g., disguising identity) or imitating pagan practices. - Literary: This verse appears in a legal block that repeatedly seeks a distinct, holy identity for the people of Israel. Clothing laws (including Deut. 22:11’s rule against mixing fibers) show concern for symbolic boundaries as well as practical community standards. ## Theology - Theological insights: - Holiness often involves visible distinctions: God’s people were to look and act differently in ways that reflected covenantal faithfulness. - Laws like this express concern for social order, identity, and avoiding practices that could lead to idolatry or moral harm. - Interpreting such laws today requires balancing the original intent (protecting covenant identity and preventing pagan or deceptive practices) with Christ’s emphasis on the heart, compassion, and freedom in Christ. ## Application To Your Life - For workers: In most modern workplaces, the underlying values are honesty, respecting others’ identity, and professional dress codes. Focus on integrity and clear communication rather than legalistic attire rules. - For parents: Teach children about modesty, respect for others, and how clothing can affect the way we’re perceived—while also nurturing kindness and empathy for those who differ from us. - For church leaders: Use the verse to discuss how community identity and holiness look today: what symbols (including clothing) communicate faithfulness, and how to respond pastorally to people with gender identity questions. - For seekers or those exploring gender identity: This passage can feel painful or confusing. It’s helpful to talk with compassionate leaders and to ground conversations in Scripture’s broader themes of love, dignity, and truth. - Reflection questions: - What underlying value (honesty, modesty, identity, or something else) might this law be protecting? - How should faith communities balance biblical boundaries and care for people whose gender expression differs from cultural expectations? - Are there ways my dress communicates something I don’t intend? - Short prayer: Lord, guide me to honor You in how I live and present myself, and give me wisdom to treat others with truth and compassion. ## Translation Comparison - King James Version (KJV): “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.” - New International Version (NIV): “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor shall a man put on women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.” - English Standard Version (ESV): “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.” - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.” - Note on differences: Translators make choices about words like “garment,” “cloak,” or “apparel” and how to render to’evah—“abomination,” “detests,” or “abhorrent.” These choices affect tone: “abomination” is very strong and can feel condemning today; “detests” or “abhorrent” soften nuance while preserving disapproval. Understanding the Hebrew helps: the law uses strong language to signal a serious boundary for ancient Israel, but modern application requires interpretation of the principle behind the command. ## FAQs - Q: Does Deuteronomy 22:5 mean the Bible condemns transgender people? - Short answer: The verse addresses clothing and gendered appearance in ancient Israel; it does not speak directly to modern concepts of transgender identity. Many scholars view the law as aiming to prevent role confusion, deception, or participation in pagan religious practices, rather than addressing internal gender identity. That said, some people and traditions read the verse as a general prohibition on gender-variant expression. Pastoral and theological responses vary: some churches apply the rule strictly, others emphasize compassion and distinguish between clothing and the deeper issue of one’s identity and relationship with God. A wise approach listens to those affected, considers the broader biblical themes of dignity and love, and seeks guidance from Scripture, community, and careful pastoral care. - Q: Is this law still binding for Christians today? - Short answer: Christians disagree. Some argue this is a timeless moral rule about gender distinction; others see it as a culturally specific civil law for Israel meant to preserve covenant identity and distinctiveness (similar to other Old Testament laws not repeated in the New Testament). The New Testament does not re-state this specific clothing rule, but it does discuss appropriate deportment and the importance of inner integrity (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11 conversations about head coverings, Jesus’ critiques of outward religious show). Many modern readers focus on the underlying principles—honesty, avoiding deception, rejecting idolatrous practices, and respecting others—rather than enforcing specific ancient clothing norms. Ultimately, how Christians apply this passage today should reflect Scripture’s broader ethic of holiness, love, and mercy. ## Cross References - Deuteronomy 22:11 — Law against wearing cloth of two kinds (shatnez): both deal with clothing and boundary markers. - Isaiah 3:16–24 — Imagery where clothing and ornamentation reveal social and moral breakdown; garments symbolize identity and shame/judgment. - 1 Corinthians 11:14–15 — Paul links hair and cultural gender distinctions to propriety in worship. - Genesis 1:27 — God creates male and female; foundational text for discussions about sex, gender, and creation order. - Matthew 19:4 — Jesus cites Genesis in discussing male/female realities; used in conversations about the created order of sexes. ## Deeper Study - Commentary synthesis (high-level): - Traditional interpreters (Jewish and many Christian) have generally seen this as a straightforward prohibition against cross-dressing. Rabbinic literature develops rules about when and why cross-dressing is forbidden. - Modern critical scholars highlight historical context—ties to pagan ritual, concerns about deception, and the role of clothing as a social marker. Many emphasize seeking the law’s purpose (telos) rather than a surface reading alone. - Pastoral commentators stress care for persons affected today, urging communities to balance biblical conviction with compassion. - Group study bullets: - Read the Hebrew words and discuss what “garment” and “abomination” likely meant to ancient Israel. - Compare Deut. 22:5 with cultural practices in the ancient Near East—what threats was the law addressing? - Role-play pastoral conversations: how should a local church respond to someone who expresses gender dysphoria? - Explore New Testament principles (love, truth, holiness) and how they shape application. ## Related verses (compare and contrast) - Deuteronomy 22:11 (shatnez: don’t wear cloth of two kinds) — Why: another clothing law that marks symbolic boundaries; compare what each law protects. - 1 Corinthians 11:14–15 (honor and gender signs in worship) — Why: New Testament discussion of gender markers in worship that informs how later Christians thought about gender-related practice. - Isaiah 3:16–24 (women’s ornamentation and symbolic reversal) — Why: clothing and adornment used metaphorically for social/consequential identity; compare prophetic use of garments as social signifiers. ## Talk to the Bible Try the Talk To The Bible feature to explore this verse further. Suggested prompts: - “Show me what the Hebrew original of Deuteronomy 22:5 says, and explain each word in plain English.” - “Give me a pastoral guide for church leaders on responding to transgender members while staying faithful to Scripture.” - “List major scholarly views on why Deut. 22:5 forbids cross-dressing and the evidence for each view.”
