Get out Strongs and look up the word "man" in Dt 22:5 then look up the very few other places that hebrew "geber" was used in the OT.
You should be able to figure it out.
Let me know if you get stuck.
There were quite a few other moral laws that brother Alex would like us to follow sandwiched in Deut 22 ... like not mixing fabrics and marrying your rapist.
Deut 22:5 is placed squarely in the middle of, and is completely surrounded by, ceremonial laws. If it is indeed a principle to be literally followed today, why would God choose to bury this verse in the middle of what are clearly ceremonial laws?
Alex ... the meaning of geber and as it applies to Deut. 22 ...
3) The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.
The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture, it is important to read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.
The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.”1 Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:
“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
“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.”4
John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, 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 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 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...'” (sic) 5
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”
“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”
Rabbi Tilsen further states,
“This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool...”
Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.
Alex ... the meaning of geber and as it applies to Deut. 22 ...
3) The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.
The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture, it is important to read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.
The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.”1 Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:
“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
“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.”4
John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, 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 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 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...'” (sic) 5
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”
“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”
Rabbi Tilsen further states,
“This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool...”
Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.
And "we" got a woman can not wear a split legged article of clothing out of that.
I had the priveldge of enjoying Christmas dinner this past year with a retired hebrew professor.
his feeling was that no man should be ordained or teaching with out a working knowledge of the bible laguages.
Not so much that you have to be able to speak or write them but to at least realize to understand some passages of scripture we MUST go back to the original languages and the history of he people these scriptures were written to even begin to get a clue what they might mean for us today.
__________________
God has lavished his love upon me.
Alex ... the meaning of geber and as it applies to Deut. 22 ...
3) The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.
The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture, it is important to read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.
The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.”1 Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:
“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
“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.”4
John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, 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 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 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...'” (sic) 5
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”
“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”
Rabbi Tilsen further states,
“This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool...”
Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.
Are woman who are in the armed forces an abomination?
Was that your reading of the quote I posted ... I for one didn't get that from it at all, Lady LPW ...
What I did get is that an entire doctrine stating women can't wear pants should not be based on this scripture .... especially viewed a salvific or a fruit of the Spirit.
The myth that somehow some sins are bigger in God's eyes than others ... as some use the word abomination to mean ... is also very precarious.
As a repentant, born again believer, we dwell in Christ. Because we dwell in Christ, we are exempt from wrath. Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
God's wrath is reserved for those who refuse to accept Christs' atoning work on the cross.
Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
As a born again believer, we will not be judged by the law, rather we will be rewarded for our deeds. Christ will give us a crown of life to those who remain faithful to Him.
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Revelation 14:13
And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Now, the law was given as a revealer of sin. Paul describes it as a "schoolmaster". Without the law, we would not know sin.
When Christ came and finished the law, he completed it fully and perfectly in His flesh. When we dwell in Him, we dwell in His completed work, we dwell in His perfection. Therefore, we who dwell in Christ are not appointed unto wrath.
1 Thessalonians 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
Since God has released us from Judgment, we who dwell in Christ release others from judgment as well. This is the heart of the Gospel message.
There were quite a few other moral laws that brother Alex would like us to follow sandwiched in Deut 22 ... like not mixing fabrics and marrying your rapist.
I found that to be offensive brother.
And I'm going to repeat what you've probably heard ad infinitum "GOD didn't call mixing fabrics an abomination, but HE did call cross dressing an abomination."
I haven't read all that you wrote though, I will study with an open mind and get back to you and freeatlast.
Personally, I do not much care what anti-Christ rabbis think we should or should not observe.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Was that your reading of the quote I posted ... I for one didn't get that from it at all, Lady LPW ...
What I did get is that an entire doctrine stating women can't wear pants should not be based on this scripture .... especially viewed a salvific or a fruit of the Spirit.
The myth that somehow some sins are bigger in God's eyes than others ... as some use the word abomination to mean ... is also very precarious.
Yes...
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Linear Mode
