More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Seeing that pants weren't worn by the average Israelite when Deuteronomy was written, the scholars may have a point. The text reads...

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
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.

The first thing that we notice is that this is an abomination. An abomination is a detestable thing in the eyes of God. The term is most often used in relation to pagan idolatry and religious practices. It is also used in connection with aberrant sexual practices, which were typically integrated into pagan worship (for example, homosexual acts). The next thing we see is that the word "man" used here is "geber", which means, "strong man" or "man of war", in the Hebrew. It is most probable that what is intended here is armor and military equipment. And the men were forbidden to put on a woman's garment. We know that in the worship of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites women were accustomed to appear in armor before her and men in soft feminine clothing. This was done because in Canaanite culture women were valued warriors and men were often classified as cowards who dressed as women to cover themselves and escape the enemy. Then they engaged in lewd sexual rites of worship as part of their fertility rituals. It certainly cannot mean a simple style in dress, for in ancient Israel the clothing styles between men and women had little difference. This Canaanite practice was common throughout the land that God was giving in the Israelites, so such a prohibition would be reasonable and make perfect sense.

The word geber is used to show masculinity. Job 3:3 Job speaks about his birth. The word geber is used. We are never told in the Bible that Job was a warrior, a man of war. This is the simplest example of the use of geber. But reader you will find that some people don't want simple, they just push agenda. "May the day of my birth perish, and the night that said, 'A boy is conceived!' Sorry, but Job was speaking of a healthy strong male. Deuteronomy is stressing masculinity, and for the female femininity. Therefore pants, trousers, and breeches were male attire, katastole was for females.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So the verse actually puts the kibosh on several things:

- Involvement in Canaanite idolatrous practice.
- Women dawning armor and military equipment and acting as soldiers.
- Men dawning feminine attire and pretending to be women.
- And involvement in lewd sexual perversions whereby gender roles are exchanged one for the other.

Again, here is the argument that Deuteronomy 22:5 is religious. That it is concerning pagan rituals of pagans gender blending. Therefore we can draw the logical conclusion that God has no problem with crossdressing if your intent is righteous? Again, flawed logic, also Aquila argues that they Hebrew children who were tossed into the fire were wearing BABYLONIAN ONLY clothing. Yet, previously the rejected pagan foods, and they are being thrown into the fire because they REFUSED to be involved in pagan rituals. Yet, here they are in pagan attire "which is used in pagan rituals" being thrown to their punishment? No, the garments of these three boys were already in use back home in Jerusalem. But, Aquila uses this argument as it even is still viable to the discussion. He therefore believes that if he says something enough times it by proxy becomes truth. Also military excuse is because of one word, the word geber. This also has been refuted, do a word study, look it up in the Hebrew, and in the LXX Deuteronomy 22:5 the word used is ἀνδρὸς. If there was such an issue to denote military usage of the verse, then the Diaspora Judeans would of had issue with the Greek ἀνδρὸς . Which never happened.
Men dawning female attire pretending to be females? Like Aquila who constantly beat the drum for pants to be mentioned in the verse, homosexuality isn't spoken of in the verse. You see a virtual hodgepodge of different meanings of this one verse from Aquila, because readers he is doing this on the fly. Dedicating more time to Google, then to the verse itself. We don't see anything concerning intent, pagan rituals, military purposes, men wanting to be women. Women wanting to be WARRIORS! Well Sister Alvear loses Warrior Deborah. Even though I don't believe Deborah led armies into battle, we have no Biblical record of females fighting with ancient Israeli military. A woman throwing a millstone over a parapet and killing a man was thought to be disgraceful. Yet, last of all if crossdressing was just about someone's perverted intent, then if we can remove the wrong intent, then the crossdressing is no longer an abomination. That my friends and foes, is called logic.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, it should be stressed that this isn't about cultural clothing styles. Because there was never much difference between male and female dress in ancient Israel during the time of this writing. It should also be stressed that pants were not in view here seeing that they were not part of the common attire of neither men nor women in ancient Israel.

Never much difference? Then where's really the crossdressing? Aquila states archeological evidence. The oldest pair of clothing found on the planet is a pair of oriental calvarymen pants. Since pants were the primary tool for riding horses into battle. Hence Jesus' wearing embroidered pants in Revelation 19:16. Yet, we aren't dealing with anyone trying to come to a truthful conclusion. This whole discussion isn't even about clothing good or bad. It is about agenda. Plain and simple, if Jesus preached and David played his harp Aquila wouldn't change his mind. Because it is all about a group of bad people who MAKE other people to bad things? How gross, and I'm the one who is being insulting?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Since God never rebuked the nation for the fact that male and female attire was so similar, we have to assume that similarities in every day common attire wasn't an issue in the eyes of God. So, our ultra-conservative brethren don't really have much grounds to condemn women to hell merely over them wearing women's jeans or pants.

Never rebuked a nation for similar attire? Deuteronomy 22:5 itself says there attire wasn't similar? You have a law book which has a verse that speaks solely about objects which are NOT similar.

Originally Posted by Aquila

This view takes several things into consideration that the ultra-conservatives on this position are ignoring.

- The Hebrew meaning of the text itself.
- The cultural & historical context wherein the Israelites were confronted with Canaanite practices.
- The cultural norms of the day in which it was written.
- The cultural norms that continued throughout Israel after it was written.

Cultural norms were under Deuteronomy 22:5 they wore different clothing. the Hebrew meaning is the same as the Greek meaning found in their Greek Old Testament. Which was used throughout the Hellenized Judean world. If the verse was to specifically mean WARRIOR? Then no one had an issue with the Greek usage in Deuteronomy 22:5 it just means MAN. Canaanite ritual practices in the entire Bible we are never once shown anything about rituals, involving clothes. Or crossdressing rituals. Not saying there wasn't there most certainly was as in Corinth. Yet, the logical conclusion to that is if your intent is pure you can crossdress. Also the pagan crossdressing argument refutes the three Hebrew children's attire hands down.

Originally Posted by Aquila

In essence, they are drawing their conclusion in a vacuum wherein the verse is used as a proof text and associated with other unrelated texts found in passages of Scripture that are from different writers, separated by nearly 1,000 years, and were written under an entirely different cultural context.

Therefore, I conclude that the ultra-conservative interpretation on this text isn't biblically accurate.

What applications can be drawn from this text?

- The admonishment to avoid participation in pagan ritual.
- The admonishment against allowing women to serve in combat.
- The admonishment against the effort of males trying to avoid military service through cowardice means.
- The admonishment to avoid any sexual practice wherein gender roles are abandoned to satisfy perverted lusts such as the cross dressing fetish including any practice wherein women wear a phallus and engage in lewd acts with submissive men.

When the ultra-conservatives apply this text strictly to clothing styles involving pants, they are actually not only ignoring a complete exegesis of the text, they are selling themselves short on the broad spectrum of practices the text would actually address.

I would just be repeating myself at this point, because Aquila is pounding this into the dirt. Aquila's position is that crossdressing is fine if intent is pure. That is conclusion I have drawn. If it is religious pagan practice or perversion then if your intent is godly then crossdressing is righteous.

Aquila, that is your world?