Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identity in
 

Deuteronomy 22:5 is one of those oft-quoted passages from my
Pentecostal upbringing that requires reassessment and mature
evaluation.

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a
man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to
the LORD your God." (NKJV)

In my youth, I saw this verse as a specific prohibition against women
wearing pants (male apparel) which included an injunction against
"dressing out" in physical education class.

So thoroughly was this ingrained in my mind, for years I missed the
obvious, literal meaning of the passage - a prohibition of
transvestism.

Before I offer my comments on this passage, let me point to two preliminary
readings that I will address in this discussion: (1)
"Transvestism in Ancient Israel" from Claude Mariottini's blog
(Professor at Northern Baptist Seminary) -
http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2...nt-israel.html
and (2) Harold Vedeler's article "Reconstructing Meaning in
Deuteronomy 22:5: Gender, Society, and Transvestism in Israel and the
Ancient Near East" (Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no.3 (2008) p.
459-76). I have included a PDF copy of this fairly technical article
for your consideration. I will engage the ideas of both writers,
agreeing with some of their insights, but offering a much simpler
solution for interpreting this passage.

Vedeler correctly recognizes the threefold structure of the passage.
Two parallel prohibitions - (1A) men prohibited from female clothing
and (1B) women prohibited from male clothing - and (2) the reasoning
behind these prohibitions - such acts are "an abomination before
Yahweh."

Vedeler offers an interesting presentation of transvestism as a social
practice in the ancient and modern worlds, although he too quickly
limits the erotic dimension of transvestism as a thoroughly modern
phenomenon. Specifically, he focuses on the female quest for masculine
power and the gender-bending nature of Canaanite cultic (temple)
garments. Mariottini makes a similar argument - but in a much more
straightforward way - referring to the vestments of the Canaanite
worshippers of the Baal/Asherah deities. Both scholars draw a fairly
strong conclusion - Deuteronomy 22:5 as condemnation of Canaanite
cultic practice - from fairly weak evidence.

I do not agree with Mariottini's argument for the cultic nature of the
phrase "an abomination before Yahweh" - an argument taken from the
classic commentary of S. R. Driver. This phrase appears in other
contexts in Deuteronomy and other Pentateuchal legislation that are
clearly not condemnations of cultic practice. Any good concordance
will show this.

The heart of Vedeler's argument is that different words for male and
female garments (and the differing power of the Hebrew verbs
associated with them) show an obvious imbalance that points to meaning
beyond the literal. Not wanting to cross swords with the analysis of
Hebrew usage and syntax on which Vedeler makes his argument, I must
differ at a couple of very simple points: all of which focus on
PARALLELISM.

Whatever subtlety may be hidden in the choice of nouns and verbs in
sections 1A and 1B, these two prohibitions must first be seen as
simple parallelism which is common throughout Hebrew literature,
especially the Wisdom tradition. (I am not trying to "late date"
Deuteronomy as a Persian- or even Greek-era document. Rather, I argue
that some of Deuteronomy is exilic and some of the Wisdom literature
surely predates the Persian period.)

Simple parallelism - leaning toward antithetical parallelism in this
case - makes both prohibitions roughly equivalent and insists on a
fairly literal interpretation of the passage - the prohibition of
violating the cultural norms of gender difference in clothing.

Whatever the underlying message of this passage - power, cultic
practice, or eroticism - to ignore an ancient parallel to the modern
practice of erotically motivated transvestism seems unfair.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is a prohibition of transvestism whatever its
motivation - or put positively, an affirmation of cultural norms of
gender difference specifically expressed in clothing.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Response from my friend:

I think you are on the mark. The issue of transvestitism was never even
considered in our (former) Pentecostal circles, but rather, their theology
was largely drawn from a reaction against changes in clothing styles back in
the early part of the 20th century. As was not uncommon, they just found a
verse to hang it on.

However, the fact that transvestitism and cross-gender values were a central
part of the Canaanite fertility cult is vividly protrayed by the graffiti
discovered on a large pithos (storage jar) at Kuntillet 'Ajrud about 30
miles or so south of Kadesh Barnea to the south of Judah. There are three figures
in the composition plus an inscription suggesting a bold syncretisim in
which Yahweh is depicted as having an Asherah (a female divine counterpart).
The two foremost figures seem to represent Yahweh and his female consort, a
crude distortion of all sorts of biblical norms in the Torah and elsewhere.
The third figure is a musician. The central figure is clearly androgynous,
since it features both female breasts and male genitalia. Both figures are
linked with Bes, an Egyptian demonic deity, and while bi-sexual deities were
unknown in Egypt, they certainly appeared in the Levant in more than one
instance by the Iron Age.

The passage in Deuteronomy 22:5 seems very much at home in such an
environment which encouraged trans-gender expressions. If the creation
acount in which God made humans male and female is normative for human
existence, then Canaanite trans-gender expressions would be fundamentally in
tension with such a norm. However, to reduce this passage in Deuteronomy to
a prohibition against women wearing jeans, as many of the early Pentecostals
did, is not only a stretch (no pun intended), but probably ludicrous. After
all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and in those days
men wore dresses (well, robes, actually, but you get the idea--they
certainly didn't wear trousers).

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Great Information.....................It's so amazing how through the years
we have made easy topics into something so hard to understand...I'm just
saying.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Good stuff, here's what I have noted:

Deuteronomy 22:5; The woman shall not wear (see note A) that which pertaineth (see note B)unto a man (see note C), neither shall a man (see note C) put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Note A: Wear: Strongs H1961: hâyâh (haw-yaw')

A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)

It's important to note that this Hebrew word occurs in the Old Testament 1162 times, and only once is translated in 'wear'. 538 times it is translated in to "came", 136 times it's translated as "come", 83 times in to "had", 67 times in to "become", 66 times in to "became", etc.

Another important note is that in verse 11: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.", the Hebrew word for "wear" in this verse is:

Strongs H3847: lâbash lâbêsh (law-bash', law-bashe')

A primitive root; properly wrap around, that is, (by implication) to put on a garment or clothe (oneself, or another), literally or figuratively: - (in) apparel, arm, array (self), clothe (self), come upon, put (on, upon), wear.

"Wear" is verse 11 is vastly different from the "wear" in verse 5. Verse 11's "wear" occurs 112 times in the Old Testament, it's translated in to "put" 41 times, "clothed" 39 times, "clothe" 12 times, "arrayed" 4 times, "wear" 4 times, etc.

So we come to the conclusion that it wasn't an abomination to simply "wear" the clothing, but the abomination was in the act of doing so for the effect to "become" the opposite sex; as is a cross dresser which was looking to engage an homosexual behavior, hence the "abomination".

If the abomination was simply in "putting on" clothes of the culture deemed appropriate for one sex or another, God would has used the same Hebrew word in verse 5 as he did for verse 11.

In other words, if you're going to wear clothes of the opposite sex in order to fulfill a desire to "become" or "exist" as the opposite by means of homosexuality or as a transvestite, then that is an abomination.

Note B: Pertainith: Strongs: H3627 kelı̂y (kel-ee')

From H3615; something prepared, that is, any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): - armour ([-bearer]), artillery, bag, carriage, + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of, X one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, + psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon, + whatsoever.

Note C: Man: Strongs: H1396 geber (gheh'-ber)

properly a valiant man or warrior; generally a person simply: - every one, man, X mighty.(emphasising strength or ability to fight).

This is not your normal "man", but rather a strong and mighty man, as in a warrior. Compare "man" in Deuteronomy 22:5 with "man" in other areas in the Old Testament:

* Genesis 1:26; "And God said, let us make man..." The Hebrew is 'adam (Strongs H120), which appears 552 times.

1) man, mankind

a) man, human being

b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)

c) Adam, first man

d) city in Jordan valley

* Genesis 2:24; "Therefore shall a man leave his father..." The Hebrew is 'iysh (Strongs H376), which appears 1639 times.

1) man

a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)

b) husband

c) human being, person (in contrast to God)

d) servant

e) mankind

f) champion

g) great man

2) whosoever

3) each (adjective)


* Deuteronomy 22:5; "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man..." The Hebrew is geber (Strongs H1397), which appears 68 times.

1) man, strong man, warrior (emphasising strength or ability to fight)

The original language and context will tell us a multitude of information regarding all scripture. If God meant that any man wearing what is commonly and culturally know as woman's attire, and vise versa, the original Hebrew would have been inked as 'iysh, meaning any man. It's quite possible that women were not to wear mens armor to go to battle as the pagan's did. But I believe God was rebuking the act of cross-dressing with the intent of transvestite and/or homosexual purposes, thus the "abomination".

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

any study will show geber is not strictly used and is used many times with the meaning of man and very little as warrior. As many times it is used in a verse surrounded by adam/iysh/enos/ etc.. it doesn't really stand out as anything of a warrior but more of emphasis of stature than warrior as man is the head figure of order. The context of it's usage has consistent parallel usage of that of the word woman. Making it strictly for "warrior gear" negates both sides of the text of women to man and man to women. Actually it would make the text nonsensical.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Unable to post article mentioned in the first post.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Good point.

I still think that the focus is on the Hebrew word "wear" meaning, to become, not simply "putting on".

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

My response to my friend:

Interpreting any isolated passage (such as Deuteronomy 22:5) reveals
the challenge of historical reconstruction - how to find a meaningful
historical, social, and/or cultural context in which the passage
"makes sense."

Clearly, as you have shown, the PRIMARY context for the prohibition of
transvestism is the Hebrew notion of gender difference and sanctity
that rests in the foundational creation stories. In this context,
Deuteronomy 22:5 is a practical application of these first principles
against any gender-bending effort to break down/defy/subvert
traditional gender distinctions.

I am also persuaded (along with you and Mariottini and Vedeler) that
the growing evidence of transvestism in Baal/Asherah worship may well
offer a SECONDARY - albeit very important - context for interpreting
this passage. In fact, this cultic affront to traditional Hebrew
social practice may be the specific circumstance that raised this
isolated piece of legislation to its current canonical status.

My only concern is that we might - in our scholarly zeal - focus
solely on the SECONDARY (and more tenuous) context while missing the
obvious PRIMARY context of the divine sanction of gender difference
expressed profoundly in the creation stories. It is precisely this
PRIMARY value that underlies and informs the SECONDARY context.

Missing the PRIMARY by over-emphasizing the SECONDARY context would be
unfortunate. There is a straight line of exegesis between Deuteronomy
22:5 and Genesis 1 and 2 - whatever other meanings may apply.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

I would agree but that is the point in part. Women and men should be clear in distinction, purpose and order in all things by which we are called. The KJV version is excellent in it's usage of "pertaineth" as man is beyond the scope of woman per his stature which is beyond and not just to clothing. Thus she is to not assume any form of being of man. "Man" is not to put on the apparel of a woman. This is divine order perfectly expressed by us according to our designated work. Thus presentment is the perfection of the heart's order to it's purpose and realized by all.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Wow, this part hit me between the eyes! Makes a lot of sense.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Very good information. Amen.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Excellent thread! Thanks, Dimples! Liked what Legalist had to say also!

:thumbsup

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

All I see here is further support for the traditional values forbidding women to wear pants.

Women began wearing pants in America as part of the women's lib movement, seeking to compete with men in traditional men's roles and rejecting traditional women's roles. It may not be erotic transvestitism, but it certainly is rebellion against God's intended purpose.

As to Pentecostal traditions, I am sure they are few and far between , but I do recall hearing a UPC evangelist (I dont recall who, specifically) mention that "women's pants" began with a spirit of rebellious transvestitism and is motivated by the same spirit still today.

I am not sure I would take it to that extreme, accusing all women who wear pants of rebellion and transvestitism, but I do believe many lend themselves to that spirit out of ignorance, rather than intentionally.

Now, please don't misunderstand. I have no issue with women who work outside the home. Certainly, in these days it is almost impossible for a household to remain financially solvent otherwise. However, I think anyone with a "no preacher is going to tell me how to dress" attitude needs to do a bit of soul searching. I also think many families should carefully analyze their lifestyles, incomes, and expenses. Many women who once felt they had to work to make ends meet soon discovered they werent really contributing anything to the bottom line because all their income went to daycare for the child(ren).

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

I think that anyone who would project an attitude of "no preacher is going to tell me how to dress" upon folks who have never even considered such a thing nor even been exposed to an environment where anybody told them how to dress but their own mother needs to do a bit of soul searching himself.

Women in ancient and primitive cultures wore "skirts" for a variety of reasons - often the same reasons men wore "skirts" as well. It was the barbarian horse riding cultures from northern latitudes who introduced "pants." The versatility and especially, the modesty, that pants afford caught on like wildfire.

If modesty is a primary concern for any culture or subculture, clothing both genders in slacks or "pants" is a no-brainer. Unless of course if your subculture has no brains to begin with; then you have other problems.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

If you are truly interested, the beginnings of "women wearing pants" was seen in the WWII when, as a result of many American men being at war, women began working in factories. In these environments dresses, and skirts, were a danger because they could be caught in machinery. So women wore men's pants while working. Working for less money and benefits; and facing sexual harrasment on the job ignited the women's liberation movement which began with sufferage.

So one could argue that women working is the root cause of this "evil" (if you believe it to be so).

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Interpreting this in relation to cross dressing and perversion makes far more sense.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

well of course but the line is drawn FOR DISTINCTION period in relation to presentment. You can't say oh it's cross dressing in extremes while ignoring the normal daily aspects. That's nonsensical and poor application. This is about DAILY LIFE! Distinction in life of what to do. In general there should not be a blending of styles but distinction. Not oh well as long as each man or women doesn't get extreme... The base line for extreme would be? Does that make the middle acceptable? OF COURSE NOT and to say so makes the application of normal daily wear of the text absurd because you are saying both sides can meet in the middle which negates distinction in the first place! To argue only against extremes is to magnify blending of daily styles as acceptable and it's not. You can't say say only extremes and act like that doesn't make the normal daily life wear a total contradiction to the text.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Wearing "women's pants" is not cross dressing and is very distinct from men's pants.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

currently I am not arguing direct application on this. I am dealing with the meaning of the text and the general principle logic it demands. Concerning application that's your opinion on application and I respect that whether I agree with it or not.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

What about all the pagan things that surround us? Wedding rings, most holidays, days of the week, church on Sunday, etc, etc. (Most) of us still participate in many things which were created by and for pagans, but we do not participate in the pagan aspect.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Your timeline is off a bit. Women got the right to vote long before WWII.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

This is an honest question: What were people doing which prompted God to warrant the commandment in Deut 22:5? If there weren't doing anything wrong at the time, how could they have violated it? By women wearing mens robs and vise versa? By men shaving their beards and looking feminine?

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Didn't women's lib start before WW2? More so around the teens and 20's of the 20th century?

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

:thumbsup

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

No preacher is going to tell me how to dress!

By the way, I think that any preacher with a "I'm going to tell people how to dress" attitude needs to do ALOT of soul searching.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

many say not to involve themselves with such. Messianics, Christian groups such as baptists, pentecostals, some church of christ, JW's etc...

The text is a application based on the order of creation as all distinction aspects are in scripture. Initial cause or first order defines application this is nothing but a application of that. God gave law so that we would know his righteousness. Many law preexisted and where known before. Do we know which ones? Some but the record is not a detailed account of everything but a overview in Genesis. Personally I think Christians should have roots in what GOD ORDAINED not pagan religions. We should speak his language and negate the world. Does it mean walking among the world will defile you because you speak to those of the world the day "Friday"? No as that is not in your heart what they mean. There is a balance and it is a balance the church has negated forever. Speak GOD's language and his days and timing in all things. Should you need to communicate to the World the other... do so but you understanding should be derived from him not them. Who has changed the timings and seasons? The church or the world? The world has pushed it's meaning and Christianity has just walked along letting them define much instead of God's language and timings on many issues.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Who said they where not? God giving instruction on how to live is simple in purpose. God saying this is my order in how to live in accordance with my will is progressive. Not that they where doing anything wrong according to there knowledge at the time. The text doesn't say it gives a command and anything beyond that is speculation at best. The text is dealing with daily life as are many of the other commandments. Robes in general are not forming to the body and they usuallyhad several layers. To only have a undergarment on was considered exposed or naked. Today this is not the case it's all about pushing style, and sexual appeal. Women's clothing is the worst about form and drawing attention which the early church for centuries totaly disregarded and considered wrong. Love seeketh not it's own. It not proud and does not draw the lust of others but casts off glory that one might be a stumbling stone to others. Women have power and to express themselves sexually in clothing outside of a husband is to draw is not about love but pride.
I am not against beards.... though I can understand why some for a time wanted to remove themselves from the culture that at one times you could be associated with. The natural order of man is to have facial hair.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

This is an interesting point. Most of the same preachers who preach against pants because they're "masculine" have no problem with women working outside the home. They say pants are a spin-off of the women's lib movement, so must be wrong and indicative of a rebellious attitude. But a woman having a career is not? I know many churches who actively encourage women to work outside the home, and apply pressure to those who don't.

That seems to be a great contradiction.

Not saying I think it's wrong for women to have careers, it's just an interesting thought process that condemns one but not the other.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

women working is not the issue. Women in part worked in the fields which to some extent was at home. To negate children for a job away and send kids to xyz daycare is not faith to God's ordained plan. Her first call is to the husband and the children she brings forth. External jobs... only if it does not conflict with the first two.

Also because someone may be inconsistent does not validate negating the truth of the other. The points those preacher made are correct whether they are consistent in other areas makes no difference to the truth of the matter. What they said goes hand in hand with the collapse of our society in the home.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

I agree. I was a career woman before I got married. My husband and I made huge concessions in order that I would stay home with the children. After calculations, I would have only worked to pay day care, clothing, meals, gas and car payment. Not worth it. It would have also conflicted with my duties at home as I tend to pour myself into what I am doing, neglecting other areas. Not saying all women do that, but it was one of my downfalls. I couldn't and didn't want to try and do the balance.

My husband is also a very handy person and has knowledge in so many areas. We rarely needed a mechanic, carpenter, plumber, electrician, etc. That saved us a boatload of money through the years. :thumbsup

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

The women's suffrage movement started at least as far back as 1848, though the right to vote was not won until 1920.

According to this article: http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...ge/history.htm
"After the Civil War, agitation by women for the ballot became increasingly vociferous. In 1869, however, a rift developed among feminists over the proposed 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to black men. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others refused to endorse the amendment because it did not give women the ballot. Other suffragists, however, including Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe, argued that once the black man was enfranchised, women would achieve their goal. "

There were "feminists" and "women's libbers" long before there were women working in factories in pants. They were the main activists behind better schools, safer factories, child labor laws, and prohibition, among other things.

Many women and children lost their lives in factories for years prior to WWII in cotton mills and other types of factories, who selected them because they would work for smaller salaries and had better manual dexterity and smaller fingers to work in the equipment. There were dangers in wearing dresses in factories, but there were also dangers of working next to open fires in dresses. They still did it. In WWII, they entered the defense factories in larger numbers. They had already worn pants in some situations for years at that point, though. In the Depression, a poor family might hand down their sons' overalls to the little girls, just because that's what they had. Even before that, some women wore bloomers under dresses for both style and practicality. Some pioneer women wore what was most practical in their new homes on the plains. Factories didn't start women's lib, nor were they the start of women wearing pants. In reality, poverty and practicality played a much larger role.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

I did not project upon anyone. I was not referring to any specific person or group of people, on these boards or elsewhere. I said, if anyone has that attitude. If anyone does not have that attitude, I wasnt talking about them and there is no need for such a hypersensitive reaction.

I concur. The teaching/preaching of holiness standards should be a means to an end, not a major objective in and of itself.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

A means to what end?

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

To reach the lost.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Teaching/Preaching holiness standards is a means to help us reach the lost?????

Please elaborate cause I'm sooo not seeing how that works.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

It isnt what's preached, but how it's preached. If you were hopeless, helpless, and looking for a new life, would you go to church with the Christian whose life is just like yours and tells you Christ can make your life different, or would you go to church with the one whose life used to be just like yours and tells you about the difference Christ made in him?

Holiness standards isnt supposed to be a hammer with which to beat sinners over the head. It isnt supposed to be a bunch of rules that the pastor sets and everyone except him and his family have to follow. Holiness standards are supposed to demonstrate a visible difference between life with God and life without God, and be offered as a better alternative to a sinful lifestyle, and are to be equally applicable those who preach them, as to those who hear that preaching.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

Holiness...um..I get it, it's Bible for us to be Holy for He is Holy. Now, if I were a sinner and went to a church where the weekends were spent bar hopping, smoking, pill popping, and sleeping around while carrying all the attitudes and dispositions of the world I was in, then yes, that church would be a complete joke and a waste of time.

Having went on thet rant, let me preface that by saying that if I, the same sinner, went to a church where the Bible was preached, modesty was taught, principle was given, and the fruit of the Spirit was present, taught, and practiced, then THAT church would be a worthwhile endeavor indeed!

The problem is in the perception IMHO, if one feels (because of there particular disposition), that a true Christian Church not only practices what I outlined in the above paragraph, but also must have the "look" (i.e. no cut hair, dresses, no make-up, no jewelry, suits on the men, no facial hair etc.) otherwise we are not offering this sinner a viable alternative to a sinful life. So then the look, regardless of how it's preached, becomes the focal point of identification and fellowship, rather than the spirit, intent, and biblical accuracy of the selfsame church.

The sinful lifestyle is found throughout scripture, however, pants, hair, facial har, etc., are not part of that sinful lifestyle equation. If someone can show scripture that says otherwise I'm game. The key identifying mark is suppose to be how we love each other, by that "they" will know we are his disciples. The issue that keeps going on and on on the Merry Go Round of Holiness debate really centers around both extreme views and rarely on a balanced approach, either we are not strict enough, or we are legalists, and to me there is no productivity in either conversation or camp - one can't convince the other and the banter back and forth usually produces nothing but negative jesture.

Two words that impact standards FAR more than the Bible are Culture and Tradition, and it swings both ways.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

True Holiness:


James 1:27
Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.


John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.


Gal. 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.



Un-holiness:


Gal. 5:19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

The 1st bolded has absolutely nothing to do with keeping holiness standards. Sinners don't go looking for which church teaches the strictest standards or even standards at all. Sinners are looking for a change, but even they realize that such a change is not evidenced by the holiness standards a church practices.

The 2nd bolded declares two things.
1. Standards are suppossed to demonstrate a visible difference in life with God and life without God.

2. Standards are to be offered as a better alternative to a sinful lifestyle.

My response
1. Keeping holiness standards is not an outward manifestation of the inward man. Keeping holiness standards is either an outward manifestation of believing what a holiness preacher says or it is an outward manifestation of believing God has placed you in holiness church and that you should abide by their rules even if you don't believe them. As such, keeping holiness standards can not demonstrate a visible difference in life with God or life without God, because what God changes is the inward man and holiness standards are not related to the inward man in any way.

2. Standards offer no alternative to a sinful lifestyle. Standards aren't even a lifestyle, they are a dress code and a prohibition on a few activities. Standards offer no alternatives, only prohibitions. Also, the whole dress code and most of the activities prohibited by standards are not even sinful.

In summary, its laughable that anyone could honestly suggest that holiness standards are a means to reach the lost.

Re: Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identit
 

AMEN to this Post!