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]

__________________
Mark
Independent baptist
Singapore

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.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -George Orwell

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

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]

__________________
Tyler Upchurch
Talkative Fellow
Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church
Mason, TN
- - - - - - -
My Library!

"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.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

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...

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."

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

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 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.

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, imho.

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.