Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identity in

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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).

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

[Justin]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

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.

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?

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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).

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

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

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Dimples

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.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

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).

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.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Justin

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.

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.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Justin

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?

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.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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).

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.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

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.

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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

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.

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.