Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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.
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,
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, Phnizier, i. 678 ff., Stark, Gaza, etc. 306, W.R. Smith, OTJC 2 , 365.
that which pertaineth ] Heb. k e l, 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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Deu 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.
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.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man] keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This shall not be done ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases it may be lawful, as to make an escape for ones 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. The woman shall not wear thatwhich pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’sgarmentThough disguises were assumed at certain times inheathen temples, it is probable that a reference was made tounbecoming levities practised in common life. They were properlyforbidden; for the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by theother is an outrage on decency, obliterates the distinctions ofnature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence andboldness 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 allwho wear the dress of another sex are pronounced “an abominationunto the Lord.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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:
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Various Prohibitions. | B. C. 1451. |
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. 6 If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: 7 But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. 8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. 9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. 12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.
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, v. 5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1 Cor. xi. 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,1Ti 2:11; 1Ti 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.
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? 1 Cor. ix. 9. Yes, certainly; and perhaps to this law our Saviour alludes. Luke xii. 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. lxv. 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. x. 14), and that the women with child were ripped open, Amos i. 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, v. 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. xix. 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, v. 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, v. 11.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verse 5:
The text teaches that Israel was to maintain a clear-cut distinction between the sexes. It was thus necessary that the clothing, as well as other things, which pertained to one must not be utilized by the other.
“Pertaineth,” from the noun keli, “instrument, vessel,” also translated “armor, wares, weapon, jewel, stuff, thing, tool.” The term denotes not only clothing, but also implements, tools, utensils, and all such items as are commonly used by a man.
This is a regulation which pertains to morality. Anything which tends to remove the distinction between the sexes is an abomination unto God.
Customs of dress differ from one era to another, and from one country to another. But orderly societies of all ages and countries have clear-cut distinctions between the sexes. In these countries it is unnatural and immoral to obliterate the man-woman roles. Those societies which do eliminate these roles are generally licentious.
The modern “uni-sex” look and “liberated society” are evidence of a declining morality which is contrary to God’s righteous principles.
Some object to the fact of distinction between the sexes. They say it implies that one is better than or superior to another. But nothing in Scripture, or in the natural world, teaches that “different is better.”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: (97)
“
What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?”
Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty.
(97) The quotation is from Juvenal, Sat. 6:252:
“
Quem praestare potest mulier galeata pudorem, Quae fugit a sexu.”
The Fr. translation is forcible: “qu’une femme, qui contrefait le gendarme, et fuit son sexe, ne gardera nulle honte.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) APPROPRIATE CLOTHING FOR THE SEX (Deu. 22:5)
5 A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:5
362.
Why such a strong prohibition against wearing clothes of the opposite sex?
363.
Is God saying here we should be able to visibly tell whether a person is male or female? i.e. Should me appear to be the sex we are by the way we dress? Any modern day application for this?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment; for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.
COMMENT 22:5
We are not told why God made this distinction in clothingor even that the distinction was between the two types of clothing. But (especially when Deu. 22:9-12 are compared) it appears quite obvious that God wanted Israel to recognize a distinction, a difference, and a separation. He wanted his people to know whether they were seeing a male or female.
But it is likely that the reason for prohibition goes beyond this. Transvestism (the practice of dressing in clothing of the opposite sex) has historically almost always been practiced by those who exemplified the characteristics of the opposite sex, and often these were homosexuals.[39] To wear the clothing of the opposite sex would immediately label you in the community, and God would have the Israelites avoid such a stigma, A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches . . . (Pro. 22:1). A good name is better than precious oil . . . (Ecc. 7:1).
[39] Transvestism, with its accompanying evils (such as sodomy) is still a relatively common practice among several aboriginal tribes. Several American Indian groups formerly gave these men places of honor among their tribes!
By donning improper apparel, a woman might be known as an amazon or virago; a man might be thought effeminate. The distinction between the sexes is natural and established by God in their creation, and any neglect or violation of that distinction, even in externals, not only leads to impurity, but involves the infractions of the laws of God. (Lange).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(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?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Cross Dressing Is Forbidden ( Deu 22:5 ).
Deu 22:5
‘ A woman shall not wear what pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.’
Cross dressing is strictly forbidden. It may well be that such behaviour was a part of certain religious rituals by which attempts were made to stir up, or even deceive the gods, but the principle was also laid down as a general one. Men should be men and women should be women, and they should be clearly distinguishable, and on principle should not wear each other’s clothing. To do so would be an abomination to God. From the beginning mankind was made male and female, the former as God’s representative on earth, the latter to assist him as an equal and bear children. And this distinction must be maintained and be clear to their children, and to the world.
This law respected the positions of both men and woman, and honoured their respective responsibilities. To mix them up was to dishonour both, and ignore God’s purpose for each. Both had authority in their own sphere within the covenant, which must not be trespassed on.
It may also possibly have in mind what purpose someone might have in such behaviour. By this means they might spy on each other’s behaviour, they might have nefarious reasons for entering into each others sanctums, they might trespass on each others right to privacy. They were blurring distinctions which were intended to be maintained, and providing themselves with a means of trespassing where they ought not to be. It made for suspicion and dishonesty in society.
“What pertains to a man.” This would include his weapons. Women were not to ape the man, or behave like men.
The modern attempt to blur the difference between the sexes is rebellion against God’s way of things. In His economy each have their differing function. While male and female are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28), stressing equality of status, this does not affect function. Each must act within their sphere. Such behaviour would also affect their children and coarsen society.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Israel Must Avoid All That Is Unseemly ( Deu 22:5-12 )
Israel was to avoid all that was unseemly. That had applied with regard to what living things could be eaten (Deu 14:3-21). Now it applies to dressing transexually (Deu 22:5), to dealings with nature (Deu 22:6-7), and to mixing unlike with unlike (Deu 22:10-12).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
a A woman shall not wear what pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God (5).
b If a bird’s nest chance to be before you in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother sitting on the young, or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young, you shall surely let the mother go, but the young you may take to yourself, that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days (Deu 22:6-7).
c When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof (Deu 22:8 a).
c So that you do not bring blood on your house, if any man fall from there (Deu 22:8 b).
b You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole fruit be forfeited (literally ‘be made holy’), the seed which you have sown, and the increase of the vineyard, you shall not plough with an ox and an ass together, you shall not wear a mixed fabric, wool and linen together (Deu 22:9-11).
a You shall make yourself tassels on the four borders of your robe with which you cover yourself (Deu 22:12).
Note that in ‘a’ emphasis is laid on the necessity for identification, and the same applies in the parallel. In ‘b’ a mother bird and her young must not be put together for the same treatment, and in the parallel other aspects of creation are not to be put together. In ‘c’ a parapet must be made for a flat roof, and in the parallel this is so that blood is not brought on the house.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, &c. A woman shall not wear man’s clothes, neither shall a man put on women’s clothes. Vid. Mill. Dissert. 9: p. 258, &c. The last words of the verse clearly shew this to have been an idolatrous custom; and several authors have produced instances of the like practice among the heathens. See Maimonides, More Nev. p. iii. c. 37. But, beside this, if the law had not an immediate respect to idolatrous practices; every one knows, that if the sexes were not distinguished by their habits, it would open a door to all impurity; for which reason, were there no other, this law was very wise and pious. See Macrob. Saturnal. lib. 3: cap. 8 and Spencer, de Leg. Heb. lib. 2: cap. 29. Some have thought that this law had reference to the abominable practice condemned Lev 18:22; Lev 18:30.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Probably this precept was meant to distinguish GOD’S people from their idolatrous neighbours, among whom, and probably for the gratification of their lusts, the distinction of the sex in their dress was not preserved. And it is possible, it might have a further object of a religious and spiritual nature. The apostle seems to have the same idea in view, when he speaks of the different dresses of the sexes in his Epistle to the Corinthians. 1Co 11:12-13 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Neither shall a man put on
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 22:5
5A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
Deu 22:5 This verse has been proofed-texted to dictate appropriate dress for modern worship (i.e., women cannot wear slacks to church). It must be remembered that both male and female wore robes in the ancient Near East. The only difference being that women’s robes in Israel had blue decoration around the shoulders.
The basic thrust of this text is not patriarchal, but the rejection of Canaanite worship practices (i.e., abomination, cf. Lev 18:26-27; Lev 18:29-30). There is to be a appropriate distinction between the God-given difference between males and females (i.e., the created order). This is not meant to be a negative, restricting distinction, but an affirmation of the different strengths and cultural functions of the sexes!
It is surely possible that this text is connected to the Mosaic covenant’s condemnation of homosexuality (cf. Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13) practiced in worship settings by the Canaanites.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
that which: i.e. any article of ornament or apparel.
man = geber. See App-14.
woman’s garment. Generally red, and eschewed by men.
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
woman shall not: 1Co 11:4-15
abomination: Deu 18:12
Reciprocal: Deu 25:16 – all that do Zep 1:8 – strange 1Co 6:9 – abusers 1Co 11:6 – but
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
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 ones life. Now this is forbidden for decencys 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
22:5 The {d} 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.
(d) For that alters the order of nature, and shows that you despise God.