A woman shall not wear men’s clothing, neither shall a man put on women’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.
Parallel Translations
-
A woman shall not wear men’s clothing, neither shall a man put on women’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.
-
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.
-
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Commandments (2)
The laws of the Torah, each cited and shown as a primary source.
Cross-references (2)
Passages linked to Deuteronomy 22:5 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- 1 Corinthians 11:4-15 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or be shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man; for man wasn’t created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this cause the woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? Doesn’t even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.
- Deuteronomy 18:12 For whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh. Because of these abominations, Yahweh your God drives them out from before you.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (18 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain For that were to alter the order of nature,…
For that were to alter the order of nature, and to despite God.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which…
Deu 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.
Ver. 5. The woman shall not wear.] Because it is against both natural and civil honesty.
Read full note →
Neither shall a man put on] That is, say stage players and those that plead for them, a man shall not wear women’s apparel ordinarily and daily, so as women used to do. But the word is, Put on, and so they do: the same word is used of David’s putting on Saul’s armour, which yet he put off again presently. So full, saith one hereupon, are our hearts of distinctions and shifts, odia restringere, ampliare favores, to restrain hatreds, as they call them - that is, the commandments that make against them.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain This shall not be done ordinarily or unnecessarily, for…
This shall not be done ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases it may be lawful, as to make an escape for one’s life. Now this is forbidden, partly for decency sake, that men might not confound, nor seem to confound, those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest umbrage or sign of softness and effeminacy in the man, of arrogance and impudency in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both; and partly to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, which this practice opens a wide door unto.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Here are several laws in these verses which seem…
Here are several laws in these verses which seem to stoop very low, and to take cognizance of things mean and minute. Men's laws commonly do not so: De minimis non curat lex - The law takes no cognizance of little things; but because God's providence extends itself to the smallest affairs, his precepts do so, that even in them we may be in the fear of the Lord, as we are under his eye and care. And yet the significancy and tendency of these statutes, which seem little, are such that, notwithstanding their minuteness, being fond among the things of God's law, which he has written to us, they are to be accounted great things.
I. The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbour's chastity, Deu 22:5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (Co1 11:14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally. To befriend a lawful escape or concealment it may be done, but whether for sport or in the acting of plays is justly questionable. 1. Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women's clothes; this, as other such superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord. 2. It forbids the confounding of the dispositions and affairs of the sexes: men must not be effeminate, nor do the women's work in the house, nor must women be viragos, pretend to teach, or usurp authority, Ti1 2:11, Ti1 2:12. Probably this confounding of garments had been used to gain opportunity of committing uncleanness, and is therefore forbidden; for those that would be kept from sin must keep themselves from all occasions of it and approaches to it.
Read full note →
II. In taking a bird's-nest, the dam must be let go, Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7. The Jews say, "This is the least of all the commandments of the law of Moses," and yet the same promise is here made to the observance of it that is made to the keeping of the fifth commandment, which is one of the greatest, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days; for, as disobedience in a small matter shows a very great contempt of the law, so obedience in a small matter shows a very great regard to it. He that let go a bird out of his hand (which was worth two in the bush) purely because God bade him, in that made it to appear that he esteemed all God's precepts concerning all things to be right, and that he could deny himself rather than sin against God. But doth God take care for birds? Co1 9:9. Yes, certainly; and perhaps to this law our Saviour alludes. Luk 12:6, Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? This law, 1. Forbids us to be cruel to the brute-creatures, or to take a pleasure in destroying them. Though God has made us wiser than the fowls of heaven, and given us dominion over them, yet we must not abuse them nor rule them with rigour. Let go the dam to breed again; destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, Isa 65:8. 2. It teaches us compassion to those of our own kind, and to abhor the thought of every thing that looks barbarous, and cruel, and ill-natured, especially towards those of the weaker and tender sex, which always ought to be treated with the utmost respect, in consideration of the sorrows wherein they bring forth children. It is spoken of as an instance of the most inhuman cruelty that the mother was dashed to pieces upon her children (Hos 10:14), and that the women with child were ripped open, Amo 1:13. 3. It further intimates that we must not take advantage against any, from their natural affection and the tenderness of their disposition, to do them an injury. The dam could not have been taken if her concern for her eggs or young (unlike to the ostrich) had not detained her upon the next when otherwise she could easily have secured herself by flight. Now, since it is a thousand pities that she should fare the worse for that which is her praise, the law takes care that she shall be let go. The remembrance of this may perhaps, some time or other, keep us from doing a hard or unkind thing to those whom we have at our mercy.
III. In building a house, care must be taken to make it safe, that none might receive mischief by falling from it, Deu 22:8. The roofs of their houses were flat for people to walk on, as appears by many scriptures; now lest any, through carelessness, should fall off them, they must compass them with battlements, which (the Jews say) must be three feet and a half high; if this were not done, and mischief followed, the owner, by his neglect, brought the guilt of blood upon his house. See here, 1. How precious men's lives are to God, who protects them, not only by his providence, but by his law. 2. How precious, therefore, they ought to be to us, and what care we should take to prevent hurt from coming to any person. The Jews say that by the equity of this law they were obliged (and so are we too) to fence, or remove, every thing by which life may be endangered, as to cover draw-wells, keep bridges in repair, and the like, lest, if any perish through our omission, their blood be required at our hand.
IV. Odd mixtures are here forbidden, Deu 22:9, Deu 22:10. Much of this we met with before, Lev 19:19. There appears not any thing at all of moral evil in these things, and therefore we now make no conscience of sowing wheat and rye together, ploughing with horses and oxen together, and of wearing linsey-woolsey garments; but hereby is forbidden either, 1. A conformity to some idolatrous customs of the heathen. Or, 2. That which is contrary to the plainness and purity of an Israelite. They must not gratify their own vanity and curiosity by putting those things together which the Creator in infinite wisdom had made asunder: they must not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, nor mingle themselves with the unclean, as an ox with an ass. Nor must their profession and appearance in the world be motley, or party-coloured, but all of a piece, all of a kind.
V. The law concerning fringes upon their garments, and memorandums of the commandments, which we had before (Num 15:38, Num 15:39), is here repeated, Deu 22:12. By these they were distinguished from other people, so that it might be said, upon the first sight There goes an Israelite, which taught them not to be ashamed of their country, nor the peculiarities of their religion, how much soever their neighbours looked upon them and it with contempt: and they were also put in mind of the precepts upon the particular occasions to which they had reference; and perhaps this law is repeated here because the precepts immediately foregoing seemed so minute that they were in danger of being overlooked and forgotten. The fringes will remind you not to make your garments of linen and woollen, Deu 22:11.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto…
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,.... It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any "instrument of a man" (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family; and so this law may be opposed to the customs of the Egyptians, as is thought, from whom the Israelites were lately come; whose women, as Herodotus (g) relates, used to trade and merchandise abroad, while the men kept at home; and the word also signifies armour (h), as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides (i) illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus (k) explains it,"take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman;''nor is he to be found fault with so much as he is by a learned writer (l), since he does not restrain it wholly to war, though he thinks it may have a special regard to that; for no doubt the law respects the times of peace as well as war, in neither of which such a practice should obtain: but the Targum of Jonathan very wrongly limits it to the wearing fringed garments, and to phylacteries, which belonged to men:
neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; which would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them; to prevent which and to preserve chastity this law seems to be made; and since in nature a difference of sexes is made, it is proper and necessary that this should be known by difference of dress, or otherwise many evils might follow; and this precept is agreeably to the law and light of nature: it is observed by an Heathen writer (m), that there is a twofold distribution of the law, the one written, the other not written; what we use in civil things is written, what is from nature and use is unwritten, as to walk naked in the market, or to put on a woman's garment: and change of the clothes of sexes was used among the Heathens by way of punishment, as of the soldiers that deserted, and of adulteresses (n); so abominable was it accounted: indeed it may be lawful in some cases, where life is in danger, to escape that, and provided chastity is preserved:
Read full note →
for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord thy God; which is a reason sufficient why such a practice should not be used. Some from this clause have been led to conclude, that respect is had to some customs of this kind used in idolatrous worship, which are always abominable to the Lord. So Maimonides (o) observes, that in a book of the Zabians, called "Tomtom", it is commanded, that a man should wear a woman's garment coloured when he stood before the star of Venus, and likewise that a woman should put on a coat of mail and warlike armour when she stood before the star of Mars; which he takes to be one reason of this law, though besides that he gives another, because hereby concupiscence would be excited, and an occasion for whoredom given: that there was some such customs among the Heathens may be confirmed from Macrobius (p), and Servius (q) as has been observed by Grotius; the former of which relates, that Philochorus affirmed that Venus is the moon, and that men sacrificed to her in women's garments, and women in men's; and for this reason, because she was thought to be both male and female; and the latter says, there was an image of Venus in Cyprus with a woman's body and garment, and with the sceptre and distinction of a man, to whom the men sacrificed in women's garments, and women in men's garments; and, as the above learned commentator observes, there were many colonies of the Phoenicians in Cyprus, from whom this custom might come; and to prevent it obtaining among the Israelites in any degree, who were now coming into their country, it is thought this law was made; for the priests of the Assyrian Venus made use of women's apparel (r), and in the feasts of Bacchus men disguised themselves like women (s).
(f) "instrumentum virile", Pagninus, Junius et Tremellius; "instrumentum viri", Vatablus. (g) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 35. (h) "Arma viri", Munster. (i) Hilchot Obede Cochabim, c. 12. sect. 10. (k) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 43. (l) Cunaeus de Repub. Heb. l. 2. c. 22. (m) Laert. Vit. Platonis, l. 3. p. 238. (n) Cunaeus ut supra. (l)) (o) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 37. (p) Saturnal. l. 3. c. 8. (q) In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 2. (r) Jul. Firmic. de Relig. Prophan. p. 6. (s) Lucian.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Shall not wear - Namely, ordinarily or unnecessarily, for…
Shall not wear - Namely, ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases this may be lawful, as to make an escape for one's life. Now this is forbidden, both for decency sake, that men might not confound those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest sign of effeminacy in the man, of arrogance in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both; and also to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, which this practice opens a wide door to.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 5. The woman shall not wear that which…
Verse 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man] כלי גבר keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word גבר geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Deu 22:5. Shall not wear — That is, ordinarily…
Deu 22:5. Shall not wear — That is, ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases this may be lawful, as to make an escape for one’s life. Now this is forbidden for decency’s sake, that men might not confound those sexes which God hath distinguished; that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest sign of effeminacy in the man, of arrogance in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both; and also to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, for which this practice would open a wide door.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain That which pertaineth unto a man - i. e.…
That which pertaineth unto a man - i. e. not only his dress but all that especially pertains distinctively to his sex; arms, domestic and other utensils, etc.
The distinction between the sexes is natural and divinely established, and cannot be neglected without indecorum and consequent danger to purity (compare 1Co 11:3-15).
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain God. Some take this literally, as the contrary practice…
God. Some take this literally, as the contrary practice is contrary to decency, and might be attended with very pernicious consequences. All know what noise was occasioned by the action of Clodius, who put on women’s apparel, that he might be present with the Roman ladies at the feast of the good goddess. Yet others think that Moses here forbids some superstitious practices. St. Ambrose (ep. 69,) remarks, that in some of the mysteries of the idols, it was requisite for those present to change clothes in this manner, sacrum putatur. Lucian testifies, that men put on women’s clothes at the feasts of Bacchus. They did the like in those of Venus, while the women took men’s clothes in the festivals of Mars. (Jul. Hirmic. c. 4.) (Maimonides) --- In the East, people honoured the moon, to which they attributed both sexes, and Venus in like manner. Josephus ([Antiquities,?] iv.8,) believes that women are here prohibited to engage in warfare. Hebrew, "the vessels (armour) of man shall not be upon a woman." Semiramis gained a great name by her martial exploits, and commanded all her subjects to dress like herself. (Justin., i) --- The Amazons were likewise very famous in war, and it is said that half the army of Bacchus was composed of women. Alb. Gentil maintains that Moses here condemns an abominable crime, which he did not wish to mention, at which the Book of Wisdom hints, (chap. xiv. 26,) and which St. Paul condemns more explicitly, Romans i. 26. Moses had already denounced death against the perpetrators of it; and surely the manner in which he now speaks, seems to forbid something more than simply putting on the garments of the other sex, for he, &c. (Calmet) --- Yet that disorderly conduct deserved to be reprobated in strong terms, (Haydock) when it was not excused by some necessity or proper motive, such as actuated some holy virgins, St. Theodora, &c. (Tirinus)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain THE SEX TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY APPAREL. (Deu 22:5-12)
THE SEX TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY APPAREL. (Deu 22:5-12)
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment--Though disguises were assumed at certain times in heathen temples, it is probable that a reference was made to unbecoming levities practised in common life. They were properly forbidden; for the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the other is an outrage on decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in the woman as well as levity and hypocrisy in both; and, in short, it opens the door to an influx of so many evils that all who wear the dress of another sex are pronounced "an abomination unto the Lord."
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 5. The sexes are to be distinguished by their…
5. The sexes are to be distinguished by their dress.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment — This prohibition was in the interest of morality. The interchange of dress would give occasion for great license. At festivals of Baal the priests and worshippers appeared in red transparent female garments, and were in other respects attired as women, while the women were dressed as men, and carried swords and lances. In the Annals of Tacitus, 3:53, Tiberius is represented as severely condemning the interchange of dress between men and women.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 5. Against Wearing the Clothes, etc., of the Other…
5. Against Wearing the Clothes, etc., of the Other Sex. Peculiar to D. As what is forbidden is styled an abomination to Jehovah, the law probably refers to heathen rites, for the practice of which, including the interchange by the sexes of their clothes, weapons, etc., leading to gross impurities, there is much evidence in records of the Syrian and other ancient religions. Calvin quotes Juvenal Sat., vi. 252.
Quem praestare potest mulier galeata pudorem,
Read full note →
Quae fugit a sexu?
Lucian, Dea Syr. 15, 26, 51, Apul. Metamorph. viii. 24 ff., Pausanias iii. 197, Macrobius Sat. iii. 8, Eusebius Vit. Const. iii. 55, Jerome on Hos_4:14, Augustine Civ. Dei, vii. 26. Cp. Movers, Phönizier, i. 678 ff., Stark, Gaza, etc. 306, W.R. Smith, OTJC2, 365.
that which pertaineth] Heb. kelî, covering weapons (Deu_1:41), utensils (Deu_23:24 [25]) and ornaments, as well as garments or ‘things’ as we call them (Lev_13:49, etc.).
abomination] See Deu_7:25; cp. Deu_18:12, Deu_25:16.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (5) The woman shall not wear . . .—One…
(5) The woman shall not wear . . .—One of the things of which we may well say with St. Paul, “Doth not nature itself teach you?”
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain The divinely instituted distinction between the sexes was to…
The divinely instituted distinction between the sexes was to be sacredly observed, and, in order to this, the dress and ether things appropriate to the one were not to be used by the other. That which pertaineth unto a man; literally, the apparatus (yliK) of a man, including, not dress merely, but implements, tools, weapons, and utensils. This is an ethical regulation in the interests of morality. There is no reference, as some have supposed, to the wearing of masks for the purpose of disguise, or to the practice of the priests at heathen festivals of wearing masks of their gods. Whatever tends to obliterate the distinction between the sexes tends to licentiousness; and that the one sex should assume the dress of the other has always been regarded as unnatural and indecent (comp. Seneca, "Epist.," 122, "Nonne videntur contra naturam vivere qui commutant cum feminis vestem;" and Juvenal, "Sat.," 6:252 Quem praestare potest muller galeata pudorem Quae fugit a sexu?")
Such a change of vesture is here declared to be an abomination to the Lord, because of its tendency to immorality.
Read full note →
Vers. 5, 13-21, 22-24, 25-27, 27-29, 30. Divine care for sexual honor.
In these, as in so many of the precepts of this book, we find civil precepts invested with religious sanctions. Nothing is more important for the honorable maintenance of social life, than that both men and women should honor each other"s sex as well as their own. Those that do otherwise are an abomination to the Lord their God. There are five or six different cases supposed in the verses referred to at the heading of this Homily:
(1) clothing (ver. 5);
(2) impeached or impaired reputation (vers. 13-21);
(3) adultery (vers. 22-24);
(4) rape or seduction (vers. 25-29) two cases;
(5) unlawful marriages (ver. 30).
Such sins would have been thought nothing of among the Canaanites. God would have his people lifted up above them. Hence it is needful that they should be specifically named, and that the people should be solemnly told of the odiousness of these sins in God"s sight, that thus they might become odious also in their eyes. While all will feel that such subjects need great wisdom in handling them, yet undue reticence thereon may work direful harm. Many need to be told with great plainness of speech, "He that breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him." Our theme isSexual dishonor odious in the sight of God." The following lines of thought suggest themselves.
I God has made our nature, in every part thereof, for himself.
II In making man, male and female, God has opened up to each wondrous possibilities of love, of holiness, of usefulness, by each rendering to the other due honor in accordance with Divine Law.
III By as much as the joy and culture are great when God"s sexual laws are obeyed, by so much are the misery and debasement great when they are disobeyed.
IV He who trifles with himself or with others in regard to the holiest of all human relations, will find that sins of impurity nip his nature in the bud, embitter life beyond all power of expression, and render true greatness altogether impossible. One sin will drag the whole man after it. Hence our Lord"s solemn warnings in Mat_5:29, Mat_5:30; Mar_9:43, 45, 47. Hence
V We should look upon God"s order in nature with devout and reverent regard.
Man and woman.
Woman has her rightful place and function in society. So has man his. Their places, while complementary, are distinct. In modern society, a variety of influences competition in business, difficulty of finding suitable employment, the leveling tendency of the age, which is impatient even of distinctions that have their ground in nature-combine to thrust women into spheres and work not in keeping with womanly character. The distinction of the sexes is to be preserved:
1. In dress.
2. In manners. Unwomanly boldness and assertiveness in company or before the public is as unpleasant as foppish effeminacy is in men.
3. In occupations. Few would like to see women jostling men in the Exchange, pleading at the bar, or sitting in parliament. The feeling is not one of mere sentiment, but rests on inherent differences in the calling of the sexes. It deserves to be considered whether the line is not unduly crossed as it is in many forms of female occupation. It is certainly so crossed in some: barmaids; occupations involving an excessive tax on the female strength; manufactory work, where the system allows of the mingling of the sexes under conditions certain to demoralize, etc. (see Lecture on "Sex in Industry," by Joseph Cook Lectures"). J.O.
The philosophy of clothes.
We have here particular directions as to the maintenance of the distinction of dress between the sexes. On the termination of what Carlyle calls "Adamitism," in his "Sartor Resartus," when through the fall of man fig leaves were first resorted to, it is evident that the Lord was not content therewith as the device of self-conscious modesty, but gave them "coats of skins." These "coats," we can well believe, were differentiated, so that Eve s was in some particulars distinct from Adam"s. This distinction in dress between the sexes, begun, let us suppose, immediately after the Fall, is designed by God to continue; and we have here the law prohibiting any exchanges of apparel, so as to conceal one"s sex. It is, in fact, an earlier "philosophy of clothes" than Carlyle has given us.
I THE PROMISCUOUS INTERMINGLING OF THE SEXES IS MOST UNDESIRABLE. Of course, this is quite another thing from the entire separation of the sexes as it prevails among Orientals. The latter custom proceeds on the supposition that there can be no social intercourse between them except licentious intercourse; and is the poor precaution of deep depravity. But suppose that men and women were wont to dress alike, there could be no enforcement of decorum such as difference in dress renders possible. The sexes are intended to be distinct, and cannot profitably be intermingled.
II IT IS A DEEP INJURY TO BOTH SEXES TO OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTIONS PROVIDENCE HAS MADE. Whatever tends to render the male sex effeminate and the female sex masculine, is an injury to both. The tendency of the times is in this direction; women are being introduced to fierce competitions with men: we have had women, forgetful of their sex, even entering the prize-ring, to afford amusement to brutal onlookers; we have women persistently knocking at the door of professions fit for men only; while, on the other hand, we have a number of occupations, which will readily occur to every one, where men are made effeminate, and which could be most fitly discharged by women; and those reformers are not friends of either sex who try to break down the barriers between them. If Providence has made the one sex different from the other, then it is idle by any manipulation of ours to obliterate the distinction.
III AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS A DEEP WRONG TO EXAGGERATE THE DEFECTS WHICH PROVIDENCE HAS ALLOTTED TO EACH BY ENLIGHTEHED SYSTEMS OF EDUCATION. We thoroughly sympathize with the effort to do away with the exaggerated "subjection of women," upon which Mr. Mill in his book has so ably insisted. The education of each sex should be as broad and liberal as possible. But no education can ever remove the inequality which naturally obtains between the sexes. Let education consider the providential purpose of sexual distinctions, and work on these lines, and. then, and. then only, need we expect permanent amelioration for oppressed sisters.
IV MODESTY IS ONE OF THOSE SOCIAL GRACES WHICH SHOULD BE FOSTERED AND NOT RESTRAINED. We have heard of men whose command of their emotions was so perfect as never to allow their modesty to appear by any chance. It may be harmless or ludicrous in men; but it is ruin to women, and whatever tends to make them "Amazons" or "Trojans" is to be reprobated most earnestly.
V IT TAKES THE TWO SEXES COMBINED TO GIVE A COMPLETE IMAGE OF THE DIVINE NATURE. When God said, "Let us make man ( a;) in our image, after our likeness," he used the generic term, and hence immediately resorts to the plural verb, "and let them have dominion (WDryi)," etc.. (Gen_1:26) The idea is that it takes the female with the male to complete the Divine image. There is a maternal element as well as a paternal and a filial in the Divine nature. (cf. Isa_49:15 with Psa_103:13 and Joh_8:29) And it is interesting to notice among the theological vagaries and conceits of such a man as Theodore Parker, that he was forced to call his God," Infinite Father and Infinite Mother," a set-off to his dreary unitarianism. If then we find the sexual distinctions to be but the reflection of elements in the Divine nature, then a halo of true glory is thrown around each. In their respective spheres the sexes are exhibiting traits of divinity, and all effort at obliterating the distinctions through artificial means, will be found only to obliterate the Divine. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have their counterparts in the development of humanity, and it is well clearly to see this. May the sexes carry on their respective missions so faithfully that earth may soon reflect in undimmed luster the various qualities of God! R.M.E.
Against deceptions in dress.
Truthfulness in act is as needful as truthfulness in speech. Our very dress is a manifesto of truth or of falsehood. God has stamped a visible distinction in the appearance of the human sexes, and it is fraudulent to obliterate them.
I SIN OFTEN ROBES ITSELF IN A FOREIGN GARB. If sin always appeared in her true habits, but few would court her society. It is her plan to put on a false appearance. Vice usually succeeds because she wears the semblance of virtue. It is the policy of the devil to hide the real nature of sin. Her native blackness would alarm many, if it were seen. The felon flatters himself that it is all fair game. Murder is palliated as just revenge. Profligacy is defended as the impulse of nature. Unchastity paints her face, and robes in others" dress.
II THE SLIGHTEST APPROACH TO SIN SHOULD BE SHUNNED. The Bible nowhere frowns on innocent merriment. But frolics, that lead to sin, are to be branded as detestable. A wise captain will give a wide berth to perilous quicksands. We cannot keep the sparks too far away from a cask of gunpowder. It is wise to close both ears to the bland voice of the guilty enchantress. Avoid the first step of temptation.
III DECEIT IN ANY FORM IS DETESTABLE BEFORE GOD. We cannot too highly value a true standard in moral conduct. "Tis more precious far than a standard for purity of gold or for correctness in speech. Such a standard God has furnished us in his own feelings and judgments. Pretence of any kind is as smoke in his eyes. He is light, faithfulness, and truth. To be transparent, candid, straightforward, is to be Godlike. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto…
Deu_22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.
Read full note →
Dominion of fashion
God thought womanly attire of enough importance to have it discussed in the Bible. Just in proportion as the morals of a country or an age are depressed is that law defied. Show me the fashion plates of any century from the time of the Deluge to this, and I will tell you the exact state of public morals. Ever and anon we have imported from France, or perhaps invented on this side the sea, a style that proposes as far as possible to make women dress like men. The costumes of the countries are different, and in the same country may change, but there is a divinely ordered dissimilarity which must be forever observed. Any divergence from this is administrative of vice and runs against the keen thrust of the text. In my text, as by a parable, it is made evident that Moses, the inspired writer, as vehemently as ourselves, reprehends the effeminate man and the masculine woman.
1. My text also sanctions fashion. Indeed, it sets a fashion! There is a great deal of senseless cant on the subject of fashion. A woman or man who does not regard it is unfit for good neighbourhood. The only question is, what is right fashion and what is wrong fashion. Fashion has been one of the most potent of reformers, and one of the vilest of usurpers. Sometimes it has been an angel from heaven, and at others it has been the mother of abomination. As the world grows better there will be as much fashion as now, but it will be a righteous fashion. In the future life white robes always have been and always will be in the fashion. The accomplishments of life are in no wise productive of effeminacy or enervation. Good manners and a respect for the tastes of others are indispensable. The Good Book speaks favourably of those who are a peculiar people; but that does not sanction the behaviour of queer people. There is no excuse, under any circumstances, for not being and acting the lady or gentleman. Rudeness is sin. As Christianity advances there will be better apparel, higher styles of architecture, more exquisite adornments, sweeter music, grander pictures, more correct behaviour, and more thorough ladies and gentlemen. But there is another story to be told.
2. Wrong fashion is to be charged with many of the worst evils of society, and its path has often been strewn with the bodies of the slain. It has often set up a false standard by which people are to be judged. Our common sense, as well as all the Divine intimations on the subject, teach us that people ought to be esteemed according to their individual and moral attainments. The man who has the most nobility of soul should be first, and he who has the least of such qualities should stand last. Truth, honour, charity, heroism, self-sacrifice should win highest favour; but inordinate fashion says, Count not a womans virtues; count her adornments. Look not at the contour of the head, but see the way she combs her hair.
3. Wrong fashion is productive of a most ruinous strife. The expenditure of many households is adjusted by what their neighbours have, not by what they themselves can afford to have; and the great anxiety is as to who shall have the finest house and the most costly equipage.
4. Again, wrong fashion makes people unnatural and untrue. It is a factory from which has come forth more hollow pretences and unmeaning flatteries than the Lowell mills ever turned out shawls and garments. Fashion is the greatest of all liars. It has made society insincere. You know not what to believe. When people ask you to come, you do not know whether or not they want you to come. When they send their regards, you do not know whether it is an expression of their heart or an external civility. We have learned to take almost everything at a discount.
5. Again, wrong fashion is incompatible with happiness. Those who depend for their comfort upon the admiration of others are subject to frequent disappointment. Somebody will criticise their appearance or surpass them in brilliancy, or will receive more attention. Oh, the jealousy and detraction and heartburnings of those who move in this bewildered maze! Poor butterflies! Bright wings do not always bring happiness.
6. Again, devotion to wrong fashion is productive of physical disease, mental imbecility, and spiritual withering. Apparel insufficient to keep out the cold and the rain, or so fitted upon the person that the functions of life are restrained; late hours filled with excitement and feasting; free draughts of wine that make one not beastly intoxicated, but only fashionably drunk; and luxurious indolence--are the instruments by which this unreal life pushes its disciples into valetudinarianism and the grave. Wrong fashion is the worlds undertaker, and drives thousands of hearses to churchyards and cemeteries.
7. But, worse than that, this folly is an intellectual depletion. What is the matter with that woman wrought up into the agony of despair? Oh, her muff is out of fashion!
8. Worse than all, this folly is not satisfied until it has extirpated every moral sentiment and blasted the soul. A wardrobe is the rock upon which many a soul has been riven. The excitement of a luxurious life has been the vortex that has swallowed up more souls than the maelstrom off Norway ever destroyed ships. What room for elevating themes in a heart filled with the trivial and unreal? (T. De Witt Talmage.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 General Information:
General Information:
Moses is still speaking to the people of Israel.
Read full note →
what pertains to a man
"men's clothing"
translationWords
abomination
Yahweh
God
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 22:5 Adopting the dress and behavior of the opposite…
22:5 Adopting the dress and behavior of the opposite gender unnaturally blurs the lines between things that should be kept separate and distinct (also 22:9-11).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.