return to New Vineyard Resources Page

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.

Many people today wonder if this verse is not a proof-text that validates the prohibition of wearing men’s clothing, such as slacks, by women. Two separate prohibitions are presented here: behaviour that is forbidden for women and behaviour forbidden for men. Let’s examine them.

1. The phrase “which pertaineth unto a man” does not specifically refer to clothing, as is often supposed today. Rather it seems to be referring to accoutrements, vessels or accessories of men (which may include items of apparel).

When we examine the Hebrew word that is translated into English as the unqualified or general term “man” the word in the bible is geber, which means man qualified by characteristics such as strength or might. In the Hebrew, the word which modifies geber is kel-ee. This word refers to implements, utensils, vessels and apparatuses that are not specifically named in the verse. But it is because geber refers to a man who is strong or mighty that many commentators think the apparatus or implements being spoken of are implements of war such as armour, weapons and such. This is a reasonable conclusion, especially so since it was not uncommon for women of gentile nations at the time to dress up in panoply of war as a way of worshiping their oft-times androgynous or hermaphroditic gods. However, given the context, the word kel-ee could additionally be referring to implements of various other traditional, male dominated trades and occupations like music, farming, fishing, and construction. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) geber “relates to a male at the height of his power.” So when we consider this immediate context within the verse itself, it seems evident that this prohibition is against the wearing by women of items which made a distinction between a man in his role as artist, craftsman, tradesman, head of the household, or warrior and a woman in her domestic roles and activities. Ultimately though, this portion of the verse refers back to the role differences between men and women first established by God in the Garden of Eden (Ge 2, especially 18-24; 1 Ti 2:13) of which the art of war as well as other trades were worldly expressions. I believe, when it comes to the prohibition against the wearing of "that which pertaineth to a man" we are on safe ground if we understand this to mean that women are not to engage in certain manly activities. (If a woman was not engaged, about to be engaged or desired to be engaged in such activities, there would be no need to prohibit her from wearing the problematic attire or accoutrements.) In my opinion, a clear example of where the prohibition holds true is in the engagement by women of military combat, certain kinds of police work and other inherently dangerous and physically demanding work such as the construction trade.

2. The second portion we are examining, “neither shall a man put on a woman's garment”, is referring to a different but still related situation.

In the Hebrew, the same word for man is used. Moreover, as we’ve seen, geber refers to obviously masculine traits or characteristics; those elements of manhood that define him in the world at large; his manly qualities.

It was common among the pagan nations of Palestine, as part of the religious activities and worship, for male priests to dress in female clothing, but more than this, to wear make-up, jewels, scarves and veils and to act as male cult prostitutes at the various temples. In such cases the blurring of distinctions between male and female was made worse by the acts of idolatry committed by these cult prostitutes. This in turn was a major influence on the moral values of the Jewish people, (1 Ki 14:24; 22:46) since much of this kind of behaviour was actively encouraged by many wicked rulers like Abijah and Rehoboam. (The pagan and syncretistic influence of the gentile nations surrounding Israel and later Judah is a major theme in the OT. It began with the forty scouts who were sent to spy out the land and who came back to the Israelite camp and tried to convince Moses and the Elders to abandon the planned conquest. The legacy is being felt by the current nation of Israel to this very day.)

But specifically, the phrase under discussion warns men against “cross-dressing, transvestitism, androgynous and ‘gender-bender’ behavior” that blurs the distinctions between the sexes, thus overturning the created order. It is also assumed in the Bible that such behaviour tends toward effeminacy, which is a denial of the God-given qualities of masculinity being spoken of in this verse. The increase in effeminate behaviour within the Jewish nation would inevitably contribute to a weakening of the institution of marriage thus creating moral instability and spiritual laziness that in turn would lead to increasingly “liberal” attitudes and a rise in idolatry. It is for this reason that such verses as De 22:5 have been taken so seriously by the Church. (It should come as no surprise that this is the very picture of the society in which we now live, in so called “developed” nations.)

Well then, as Christian men and women, how are we to respond to the prohibitions we find in such verses as De 22:5?

In today’s excessively liberal society, where situational ethics is the norm, we must always be mindful of the potential to blur the distinctive and God-given relationship between the sexes and we must be ever vigilant not to fall into sinful error in this regard. But neither must we fall into the error of legalism; remember that we are not bound by the ceremonial law. In this, let us recall the example of Lydia given to us in Acts 16:13-15. She was independent, a successful unmarried businesswoman, responsible for her own household. As this example shows, the godly Christian woman is not characterized by mere external compliance with the ceremonial law, but rather is known for the inner qualities described so eloquently in 1 Pe 3:4-5. But in regard to modesty, it is not so much what a woman wears as how she wears it. A modest woman will dress in a way that is not suggestive, and does not incite lustful desires in men, whether she is wearing pants or a dress. Modesty is an expression of a Spirit-filled mind; it is an attitude that is an expression of holiness in a particular context.

De 22:5 is in general a condemnation of behaviours that tend to blur or obliterate the inherent differences between the sexes; in this it is not opposed by any passage in the NT but is in fact supported by many. I believe the overarching issue it addresses is the usurpation by women of the rightful authority and activities of men as leaders in the community and at home and any behaviour by men that weakens masculine leadership and the responsibilities men have been given by God through the order of creation. I also believe in this regard, there is warrant in defending this view by recourse to Matt. 6:28-31, 33. In this passage, the Lord is not just referring to clothing in its elementary function as a personal protection against the elements. The real reason for this passage is found in verse 24, where He states that we cannot serve two masters, God and mammon (which word is used as a synecdoche for for all the aggregate concerns of the world).

Rather, in this passage the Lord is telling us not to be "hung up" on our clothing. This is why he compares the plain and simple lilies of the field to the glorious array of King Solomon. If it is true what the Lord has said Matt. 23:25-28, could not the same teaching be applied to the issue of external dress (even though there are some who would accuse me of arguing from silence? We therefore must be careful not to take this argument where the Lord never intended for it to go. It does not apply to injunctions against homosexuality and effeminacy as these are clearly and unequivocally condemned in Scripture.)

Those who wish to find in this verse biblical warrant for prohibiting women from wearing slacks and so forth are searching in vain. But the good news for both men and women, husbands and wives, is that to some degree Christian liberty rules the day. Women are nowhere bound by the law of Christ to refrain from wearing trousers, pants or slacks and the ceremonial law does not apply. As well, our consciences and our behaviour must not be obedient to the opinions and beliefs of other Christians, but must be so to God (through His word) who alone is Lord of the conscience (WCF 20:2). Notwithstanding, when it comes to behaviours that run contrary to the moral law as given to us in both Testaments (and summarized in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount) men and women have no such freedom but are bound to the will of God as found nowhere else but in His precious word, the Bible. Representative examples of such restrictions are found in the condemnation of homosexual behaviour (1 Co 6:9) and the prescription for women to wear a head covering during worship (1 Co 11:1-16). Nor do I believe that the verse is directly concerned with or can be rightly used in defense of female modesty. To do so would make this verse say too much. On the level of the specific and particular, while it is not, per se, a prohibition against women wearing items of apparel normally worn by men, it is a prohibition against men wearing items normally worn by women as such a practice is one that creates a climate conducive to effeminacy and even homosexuality. Since effeminacy in general and homosexuality in particular are thoroughly condemned by God in both Testaments in many passages, including Lev 18:22; 20:13; Ro 1:26; 1 Ti 1:9-10; 1 Co 6:9) our responsibility to keep the moral law in such a case is clear and unambiguous.