(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
2 Corinthians 8:21 (Good News Bible)-Our purpose is to do what is right, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of others.
One of the interesting characteristics of some Pentecostal groups is the teaching that women must only wear dresses. Over the years, I have been blessed to work with several people from these religious affiliations, and this is one question that often arises.
What does God teach about this matter?
Let’s study.
There are two passages of Scripture which directly relate to the question of whether or not women must wear only dresses. The first one is from the Book of Deuteronomy. Moses writes:
Deuteronomy 22:5-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.
This passage of Scripture is found contextually regarding the timeframe of the people of Israel entering the land of Canaan. They had been condemned to wander in the wilderness for forty years because of their wickedness (Numbers 14), and the Book of Deuteronomy picks up with Moses explaining in a series of sermons to the new generation of Hebrews their history. Now, the Jews are going to enter the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. Moses reminds them of the pagan spiritual beliefs and practices of the Canaanite peoples inhabiting the land.
Deuteronomy 18:12-For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you.
The passage in Deuteronomy regarding the women and men wearing clothes that pertains to the other is in this context of religious paganism, as is especially demonstrated by the word “abomination.” The primary meaning of this word had reference to a religious desecration.
“a-bom-i-na’-shun (piggul, to’ebhah, sheqets (shiqquts)): Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by “abomination,” or “abominable thing,” referring (except in Ge 43:32; 46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness. The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is to’ebhah, meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, “The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians,” this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Ge 46:34). The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.” (George B. Eager, “Abomination,” in James Orr, Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), 1149-1157 (Kindle Edition); OSNOVA)
The reason why the males wearing female clothing in the Old Testament and visa versa was due to the religious teaching and practices of the pagan cults.
“22: 5 / This law is not about styles or fashions in clothing, though it has been quoted in earnest pamphlets urging Christian women not to wear jeans (though not, as far as I am aware, in relation to Scotsmen’s kilts!). Almost certainly it is about the perverted crossing of genders either in orgiastic rites involving transvestitism, or in some form of pagan worship, or both. The final phrase of the law shows that some form of serious immorality or idolatry was involved.” (Christopher J.H. Wright, Deuteronomy, 240-241 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)
Some have suggested that this passage is not discussing cross-dressing, but rather Moses is forbidding women here from taking up weapons of war as men generally do. While it is true that the words here may apply to implements other than clothing, it is a linguistic stretch to try and make it apply only to this. Sprinkle shows the problems with that line of reasoning:
“Some people dispute the NIV’s translation of keli geber as “men’s clothing,” since geber often means “warrior” and, they say, keli never means clothing. Some therefore say that the command prohibits woman from dressing up in a warrior’s armor and therefore might not have much to do with cross-dressing per se (see Linda Tatro Herzer, The Bible and the Transgender Experience: How Scripture Supports Gender Variance [Cleveland OH: The Pilgrim Press, 2016], 34–37). This interpretation is problematic for several reasons. First, while the adjective gibbor most often means “warrior,” Deuteronomy 22: 5 uses the noun geber, which often overlaps with the normal word for “man,” ish (see, for example, Ex. 10: 7, 11; 12: 37). Second, the word keli doesn’t typically refer to clothing, but it does refer more generally to various things associated with men, including certain ornaments, weapons, hunting equipment, gear, and also clothing (1 Sam. 21: 5; 1 Kings 10: 21; Gen. 24: 53; Num. 19: 18). The translation “the things of men” is probably a better and more inclusive translation of the phrase by itself. However, the parallel statement, “nor a man wear women’s clothing” (shimlat) specifies an article of clothing, which suggests that the former reference to keli geber probably does have clothing in mind. In any case, the point made here goes much deeper than mere clothing, to the fundamental differences between men and women. Clothing is the external expression of those differences. In most cultures of every era, clothing carries powerful signs of class, style, modesty, status, and—especially—of sex difference. According to two experts on the history of cross-dressing, “Dress traditionally has been a ubiquitous symbol of sexual differences, emphasizing social conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Cross dressing, therefore, represents a symbolic incursion into territory that crosses gender boundaries” (Vern L. Bullough and Bonnie Bullough, Cross Dressing, Sex, and Gender [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993], viii; cited in Nili Sacher Fox, “Gender Transformation and Transgression: Contextualizing the Prohibition of Cross-Dressing in Deuteronomy 22: 5,” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed. Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009], 51). In short, “the prohibition of the wearing of clothes of members of the opposite sex was … to safeguard the division between male and female” and was rooted in God’s concern for diversity and order as reflected in the creation account of Genesis 1–2 (P. J. Harland, “Menswear and Womenswear: A Study of Deuteronomy 22: 5,” Expository Times 110, no. 3 [1998]: 76).” (Preston M. Sprinkle, Embodied: Transgender Identities, the Church, and What the Bible Has to Say, 251-252 (Kindle Edition): Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook)
Moses here is telling us that cross-dressing in ancient Israel was forbidden because of the pagan practices of that time which encouraged transgender gods and teachings. These were fairly widespread in the ancient Middle East.
“That said, an Old Babylonian text first translated and published in 1997[ 188] seems to confirm at least some of the Bible’s negative characterizations of Inanna’s Canaanite counterpart, Astarte, including cult prostitution, “cross-gender activities… and the performance of sexual acts.”[ 189] Since we’d like to keep this a family-friendly book, we won’t dig much deeper into the personality of Inanna, but it’s safe to say she definitely was not a girl you’d bring home to meet your mother. In fact, she wasn’t always a girl, period. You see, while Inanna was definitely the goddess with the mostest when it came to sex appeal, she was also androgynous, sometimes depicted with masculine features like a beard. On one tablet from the first millennium BC, probably some three thousand years after Nimrod, Inanna says, “When I sit in the alehouse, I am a woman, and I am an exuberant young man.”[ 190] Her cult followers included eunuchs and transvestites, and she was apparently the first in history to make a practice of sex reassignment: She [changes] the right side (male) into the left side (female), She [changes] the left side into the right side, She [turns] a man into a woman, She [turns] a woman into a man She ador[ ns] a man as a woman, She ador[ ns] a woman as a man.[ 191] It’s incredibly ironic. The twenty-first century progressive ideal of gender fluidity was personified five thousand years ago by the Sumerian goddess Inanna. She’s celebrated by modern scholars as complex and courageous, transcending traditional gender roles, turning Inanna/ Ishtar into an icon of independent man/ woman/ other-hood. (That) a man is like a woman, a maiden is a young man, you have put his offspring in the gutter—are yours, Ishtar… (That) a m[ an goes] the way of a woman, a woman [goes] (the way) of a man, [—are yours, Ishtar.]… You make men obey (the rules of) garments (and) wigs. At night, the women are touched. They are untidy regarding the hair-locks. The woman, like a man, is equipped with a quiver, she holds a bow. The man carries a hairpin, a siBtum, an uḫḫu, a harp. The women are carrying bows, slings, sling-stones.[ 192] What gender activists don’t realize is that Ishtar’s act was already old when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the Law. What God taught the Israelites was new. A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 22: 5) You see, deconstructing God’s appointed gender roles isn’t progressive. It’s regressive. Gender activists are trying to turn back the clock about four thousand years. A word about that verse in Deuteronomy: It’s been misinterpreted by some Christians as God’s command that women should not wear pants. That’s not what it means. First, the Hebrew word kǝlî doesn’t necessarily mean “garment.” It can mean “piece of equipment,” “article” or “object”—basically, “stuff.” In this context, the word refers to items that are gender-specific—like quivers, bows, and slings for men, or a hairpin, harp, and uḫḫu for women (whatever that is). In other words, the Law simply says men shouldn’t try to be women and vice versa. It’s a pretty good bet that the verse cited above was specifically directed at Inanna/ Ishtar. Her cult was very old, it extended over the entire biblical world, and shattering God’s boundaries for gender was a key element of her cult. At Inanna’s festivals men dressed as women and women dressed as men, and cultic dancers wore outfits that were men’s clothes on the right and women’s on the left. Some, though not all of, Inanna’s priests practiced same-sex behavior.… Therefore, some of Inanna’s earliest temple personnel displayed same-sex behavior and took on transgender, non-heteronormative identities.[ 193] By emulating their goddess who was both female and male, they shattered the boundary between the sexes.… The cultic personnel of the goddess in their costumes, words, and acts had but one goal: “to delight Ishtar’s heart, give themselves up to (otherwise) for[ bidden] actions.”[ 194] We could go deeper into this discussion, but only at the risk of becoming more graphic than necessary to make the point.[ 195] We can summarize by describing the so-called goddess of love as an androgynous deity of carnal perversion whose followers included cross-dressers, transgenders, homosexuals, and prostitutes. Worship of Inanna extended well into the biblical era. As the Canaanite goddess Astarte, her cult was spread throughout the Holy Land by the pagan neighbors of Israel. Texts from Ugarit reveal that she was worshiped as both female and male—as Astarte, represented by Venus as the evening star, and as the war-god Attar, who was Venus as the morning star. All too often, the veneration of Astarte was practiced by the Israelites themselves.” (Derek P. Gilbert, Bad Moon Rising: Islam, Armageddon, and the Most Diabolical Double-Cross in History, 162-167 (Kindle Edition): Crane, MO: Defender Publishing)
Transgenderism as practiced in pagan culture religions is what is in play in Deuteronomy 22:5. The protecting of the genders was paramount in the Bible, as Paul also demonstrates during the New Testament period.
1 Corinthians 11:3-16-But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
At Corinth, veils were an important part of female clothing. This was due primarily to the pagan temples (which Paul especially began discussing in 1 Corinthians 8) and what they represented. A woman in the pagan temples who did not wear a veil was seen as offering sexual services as a priestess to a particular goddess, and men who wore veils in the temple were promoting the same.
“There is firm evidence that Corinthian women were connected to the cult of Demeter which we know operated in Roman Corinth in Paul’s day in the temple on the slopes of the Acrocorinth overlooking the city.59 Curse inscriptions written by women have been discovered there…It can be concluded, therefore, that those wives who undertook religious functions would have covered their heads with the marriage veil, given that all respectable married women would wear their veil outside the home, as Roman law and custom prescribed. scribed. This raises the possibility that those who sent messengers to spy out the activities of Christian gatherings could have reported to the men elected to officially supervise women’s dress codes in Corinth that some Christian married women were inappropriately attired while engaging in a religious activity…Their deliberate removing of their veils while praying and prophesying would have sent a signal that they were identifying themselves in this religious gathering with the new women who behaved loosely at banquets which were often held in private homes.” (Winter Bruce, Roman Wives; Roman Widows-The Appearance Of New Women And The Pauline Communities, 1063-1098 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
Like with the passage in Deuteronomy, this text in 1 Corinthians 11 demands that the clothing that men and women wear is to be such that gender confusion does not result and that honor to pagan gods or goddess is not endorsed or practiced.
With these things in mind, let us turn now to the question of whether or not God is enforcing women in these passages to wear dresses.
The first thing to notice is that the passage in Deuteronomy is drawn from the Old Testament Scriptures. While the principles and underlying teachings of the Old Testament are just as true today (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:1-12), the specific Old Testament regulations themselves are not binding on followers of Christ (cf. Romans 7:4; 2 Corinthians 3; Galatians 3:24-29; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 8). With that being said, the Apostle Paul clearly establishes the same principle in 1 Corinthians 11 that cross-dressing is not to be practiced.
Second, it is important to realize that both of these passages teach condemnation against cross-dressing while at the same time recognizing and acknowledging cultural norms. For example, in the Deuteronomy passage, Moses recognizes the local Canaanite customs (as embodied in the word “abomination”). In the same way, Paul acknowledges the cultural context of his statements.
For example, the words used in 1 Corinthians 11 are loaded with the ideas of cultural shame and dishonor.
“Notice how Paul’s reasons for the head covering for women and its absence for men are loaded with the language of culture. (1) Honor or shame (disgrace) for the man—“ any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head” (1 Corinthians 11: 4-5). (2) Shame (disgrace) to the woman—“ It is one and the same thing as having her head shaved…. If it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil” (1 Corinthians 11: 5-6). (3) What is accepted as a sign of authority—“ For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” (1 Corinthians 11: 10). (Angels are perhaps invoked as witnesses to the order of creation.) (4) What is regarded by human beings as natural (that is, what is customarily done)—“ Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 Corinthians 11: 13-15). (5) The practice of the churches—“ We have no such custom, nor do the churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11: 16).” (Everett Ferguson, Women in the Church: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, 390-399 (Kindle Edition): Abilene, TX: Desert Willow Publishing)
Look at the word “nature” used in 1 Corinthians 11 as another example here.
1 Corinthians 11:14-Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
We might be tempted to think that this is talking about “nature” in the sense of “the way God created things and intended them to be.” However, that overlooks the fact that the Greek word used here and translated as “nature” often had reference to local custom!
“The idea might be arguable from Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.4; Cic. Offic. 3.6.30. Sen. Dial. 5.27.3 might have been helpful, except he does not use the term “natura.” (Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul, 8043-8045 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic)
Several historians and commentators have noted this usage of the word:
“It is most unlikely that in this context Paul regarded “nature” as that which is intuitively understood by all human beings, nor did he see it as a description of something that belongs to the very essence of how men and women are created (e.g., as in Stoicism). So the custom of Paul’s day, and of most generations, is that a man with long hair brings dishonor on himself.” (Paul D. Gardner, 1 Corinthians (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 496 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan)
Again:
“Nature” sounds like an appeal to the way God created things, but Paul the Jew would have known of the Nazirites whom God blessed precisely because they did not cut their hair (of whom Samson was the most famous example; Judg. 13: 5). In the Greek world, the Spartan men were known for their shoulder-length hair. But it was true, then as now, that most cultures maintained a relative difference in hair length between men and women. So “nature” is probably best understood here as that which is “almost instinctive because of long habit,” a “long-established custom.” 15”. (Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians (The NIV Application Commentary Book 7), 181 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan)
Again:
“Nature,” which Paul said teaches that long hair on a man is dishonorable, is phusis (FOO-sis). It means “nature” and “the natural order,” but it also can be used to describe a mode of feeling or acting that is almost instinctive because of long habit. In that sense, phusis means “long-established custom.”” (John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women: The Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love, 84 (Kindle Edition): New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc)
What may be considered gender accepted clothing in one society may not be the same in another. Things may change from culture to culture, and from generation to generation. We realize this, don’t we? Think about the colors blue and pink as an example.
“Pink and blue are classic examples of this. A hundred years ago, pink was considered a masculine color while blue was feminine. According to the Ladies Home Journal in a 1918 article, “[ P] ink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” 14 (Prior to the twentieth century, all babies were stuffed into white frilly dresses.) And yet today—in the West, at least—boys prefer blue and girls prefer pink. Why? Because we’ve nurtured girls to like pink and boys to like blue. Nothing in our genes hardwires boys to like blue and girls pink. Pink and blue are cultural constructs.” (Preston M. Sprinkle, Embodied: Transgender Identities, the Church, and What the Bible Has to Say, 50-51 (Kindle Edition): Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook)
We must be careful not to make cultural or generational norms the standard for all cultures or generations. As another example, consider that in the first century in which Jesus lived and in which 1 Corinthians was written that men and women often worse clothes that were very similar.
“The terms most used for clothes in general were, in the Old Testament, cadhin, simlah, salmah, and in the New Testament himation (Mt 21:7; 24:18; 26:65; Lu 8:27) and enduma (Mt 22:11 f; compare Mt 7:15), plural, though the oldest and most widely distributed article of human apparel was probably the “loin-cloth” (Hebrew ‘ezor), entirely different from “girdle” (Greek zone). Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garments ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.” (James Orr, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 48907-48912 (Kindle Edition): OSNOVA)
The basic difference between the clothing worn by men and women in the first century dealt with the length and finer quality of the women’s’ clothing.
“The basic garment worn by men was the kuttonet, a wool tunic (Exod 28: 4; 29: 5). It was apparently made of two short pieces of material joined together at the sides, with an aperture left at the top for the head. It was held in place by a “girdle” (’ ezor). This was made either of linen (Jer 13: 1–2) or of leather, fitted with clasps (2 Kgs 1: 8). The girdle enabled a pouch to be made in the tunic, which sometimes even held a knife (1 Sam 25: 13). The simlah or mantle was similar to a square blanket that was placed over the shoulders, and served as a cloak for the poor. Old Testament law stated that if a debtor’s possessions were taken as collateral against a loan, this upper garment could not be retained overnight by creditors (Exod 22: 26, 27), because the debtor would thereby be deprived of protection against the night cold. An ostracon found at Mesad Hashavyahu contained this plea: “[( So) please return] my garment. If the official does not consider it an obligation to return [your servant’s garment, then have] pity upon him [and return] your servant’s [garment] from that motivation” (COS, III. 78). Garments of skins were much favored by itinerants and others, the sheepskin cloak being especially popular. Some form of skin covering seems to have been an emblem of the prophet’s office, such as Elijah’s mantle (’ adderet, 2 Kgs 2: 13). Its nature conveyed the strict, unflattering attitude towards life that the prophets generally exhibited (Zech 13: 4). Nudity was abhorrent to the Hebrews (Gen 9: 20–23; Lam 4: 21; Hab 2: 15). Adam and Eve employed fig leaves as a form of primitive dress to conceal sexual characteristics (Gen 3: 7). God then fashioned coverings made from animal skins for them (Gen 3: 21). The prophet Isaiah went stripped and barefoot for three years as an object lesson to Judah (Isa 20: 2). Priests were required to wear undergarments (Exod 28: 42). The patriarchal narratives (Gen 37: 3) indicate the special favor which Joseph enjoyed in his doting father’s eyes by describing the clothing he wore as a “coat of many colours” (KJV); “an ornate robe” (NIV); “a long, sleeved robe” (NEB); “a varicolored tunic” (NASB). At the capture of Jericho, Achan saw in the plunder “a beautiful robe from Babylonia,” and secretly took it along with other items (Josh 7: 21). Priests (Exod 28: 4), the wealthy (Job 1: 20) and royalty (1 Sam 24: 4) wore an elegant outer garment with wide sleeves. The Phoenicians supplied purple dyed cloth for the robes of kings and wealthy citizens (2 Sam 1: 24; Prov 31: 22; Zeph 1: 8). In Israelite tradition the making of clothes was deemed to be the responsibility of the housewife, and this duty was accepted readily, whether the woman was of high or low standing in society (Prov 31: 22–24). Hannah, mother of Samuel, made her young son a little robe (1 Sam 2: 19). At first glance based on the biblical evidence and terminology there might appear to be little distinction between the styles of male and female garments, but since the Mosaic Law prohibited men from wearing the clothing of females, there were obviously differences in style and shape that were clearly recognizable. Women in general appear to have worn clothing that was longer and of finer quality material than that of men.” (Edwin M. Yamauchi, Marvin R. Wilson, Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and Post-Biblical Antiquity: Complete in One Volume, A-Z, 322-323 (Kindle Edition): Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC)
Third, the issue of clothing and gender is such that we must make sure that clothes we choose to wear are not implying cross-dressing or religious devotion apart from the Lord. With that in mind, I can tell a clear difference between (for example) women’s pants and men’s pants. These are different in design, and as such, a woman wearing women’s pants would not violate either Deuteronomy 22:5 or 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.
Finally, let us exercise caution in all of these matters of expediency. We must be careful not to make a matter of opinion or personal taste a matter of salvation or fellowship. As a general rule of thumb, when looking to every conceivable matter, the principle of love is one that should be constantly at the forefront.
Romans 13:8-10-Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” “YOU SHALL NOT MURDER,” “YOU SHALL NOT STEAL,” “YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS,” “YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.