Christian MEN Wearing Skirts

[Darryl]

This is informational ONLY. I simply submit my findings and conclusion for those who may find it interesting or helpful. It may be like throwing 'chum' into the water to entice the sharks, but I haven't found much else on this board directly related, so it may help a few people. I hope.

THIS IS A MONOLOGUE, NOT A DISCUSSION.

As a Christian, how do I deal with Deuteronomy 22:5?

It appears the majority opinion under Jewish law is that Deut. 22:5 is designed especially to prohibit men and women from misrepresenting themselves as the other gender with the aim of illicit heterosexual activity. The mitzvah does not prohibit cross-dressing for the festival of Purim (for the purpose of gaiety), nor would it prohibit cross-dressing in a private setting, for theatrical purposes, nor would it prohibit such dress when it would not mislead others as to the gender of the person in the clothes. The key here seems to be deception for illicit purposes. Indeed this law appears in Deuteronomy in the context of laws against deceit.

There appears to be a minority opinion that we are discussing "warrior's gear." Although in my opinion it makes more sense. In another attempt to identify the quintessential "men's items," Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited c. 800 C.E.), says, "What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?" He then cites our verse, which he reads this way: "A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman" (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a "warrior's gear." This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been "unlady-like" for her to use a sword — worse, a violation of the law — because a sword is a man's tool and so the righteous woman of valor finds an alternate weapon.

Now, what of the text itself? Words seem to indicate not any man, but a 'strong man,' a warrior. And...not clothing specifically, but utensils, weapons.

A more accurate translation might be as follows for Dt. 22:5 “The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” This makes sense. It keeps women as noncombatants and prevents masquerading men from endangering that status.

Adam Clark, the British Methodist theologian and biblical scholar puts it: “As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armor before her.”

John Gill, an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar and theologian puts it: “...and the word [keliy] also signifies armor, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'”

Now...we seem to have some agreement here between the Jewish and Christian interpretations...which, I think, is a good thing.

One other thing - if we go by the poorly-chosen words in most English _translations_ of the Bible - how would men's clothing differ from women's?

In Genesis, we find the first accounts of clothing mentioned in the Bible. First, we find that upon recognizing their nakedness, Adam and Eve sewed garments of fig leaves together to cover themselves (Gen 3:7). This is an interesting account in that we find humans attempting to clothe themselves, but obviously God was not pleased with their choices, as later we find that God made new clothes for them. Gen 3:21 records that God made “coats of skin” for them to wear. The word coats in this verse is the Hebrew word kethoneth and means “a long shirt-like garment.” Interestingly, Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose the exact same word to describe the specific type of clothing that God made for both Adam and Eve. Where is the distinction here? If God chose to make so little distinction between a man’s and woman’s clothes that a single word can describe the specific clothing worn both by Adam and Eve, then who are we to require a greater distinction?

Margarita Gleba of University College - London, says that pants might have been around since the origin of horseback riding, approximately 4,000 years ago: “I would not be surprised if trousers appeared at least that far back.”

Particularly in Asia, men and women both wore pants. They make sense for horseback riding, cavalry and knights in armor. If your opponent used cavalry, you'd better learn how to use cavalry yourself or die. Outside of that narrow focus, men and women have been wearing unbifurcated garments...well...at least speculatively...since time began.

In my opinion, anyone who wants to restrict certain items of clothing to one gender is on a power trip and is more interested in control and power than anything else.

Given the data above about the similar garments of Adam and Eve, the actual Hebrew words used in Dt. 22:5 and the common interpretations of Christian theologians and Jewish rabbis over the centuries I believe I have a harmonious, consistent understanding of what is intended with this passage in spite of the naysayers.

Logic dictates that there is nothing wrong or sinful in women wearing pants, or conversely in men wearing skirts and dresses inasmuch as neither is attempting deception.

I am an Electronics and Computer Science geek, though I have been a student of the Scriptures since 1973, have been studying Biblical languages for over a decade and have what I consider a fair understanding of textual criticism (the science and art that seeks to determine the most reliable wording of a text). Right, am I? Or wrong? You decide.

-- END --

[Caultron]

Nobody in the bible ever wore pants.

And kilts, at least, are manly dress.

[skirtyscot]

This is a discussion board, not a monologue board!

So much mental effort! Why don't you just ignore that verse, like you ignore lots of other verses that you don't like very much. You don't have to look very far for examples.

Verse 11: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." Go on, tell me with a straight face that you obey that one.

Ch 21 verses 10 - 14, paraphrased: if you go to war and see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can "let her go."

Ch 21, verse 18 - 21, paraphrased: if you have a "stubborn and rebellious son," then you and the other men in your neighborhood "shall stone him with stones that he die."

Any comments on those virtuous pieces of scripture? Anyone see the need to analyse them to find some agreeable interpretations? (My handy summaries are from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.)

If you want to defend the idea of men in skirts using scripture, can't you just point to Ch 22 v 30 "A man shall not ... discover his father's skirt"? Or use the old one "show me a picture of Jesus wearing trousers"!

[RichardA]

That's why I wear a kilt to church and a skirt for every thing else

[happykilt]

Same subject (=men in kilts/skirts)and same authority (=The Bible) but a bit different outcome:
"It is Sinful for Men to Wear Kilts!" http://www.dividedbytruth.org/BD/kilts.htm

[wsherman]

Hello Darryl:

May I commend you for a nicely done commentary on Dt. 22:5! Your extra-Biblical sources are quite interesting and informative. I think someone having difficulty with this particular passage will find this most informative and useful.

Thank-you for your research and thoughtful comments.

Slainte'
Bill & Sir Brinkley the Exubrant my LeaderDog!

[crfriend]

May I commend you for a nicely done commentary on Dt. 22:5! Your extra-Biblical sources are quite interesting and informative. I think someone having difficulty with this particular passage will find this most informative and useful.

Indeed, and that's why the topic has been allowed to stand, and I would like to take the time to thank the various participants for keeping the topic respectful and congenial.

Over the years, way, way, way too much stuff has been attached to that section of the Old Testament, and I'm glad to read some new thoughts and interpretations on it.

It's also good to read you again, Bill, and I hope all is well. Please give Brinkley a scratch behind the ears for me, will you?

[happykilt]

Same subject (=men in kilts/skirts)and same authority (=The Bible) but a bit different outcome:
"It is Sinful for Men to Wear Kilts!" http://www.dividedbytruth.org/BD/kilts.htm

And here is a Rebuttal to the article “Kilts are Sinful”: http://thesheepbelow.blogspot.fi/2014/0 ... -kilt.html

[couyalair]

It beats me completely that anyone today can be bothered with the musings of a bygone society that has so little resemblance with the modern western world, unless of course it is from an interest in anthropology. We laugh at our own parents' fashions, yet we should take seriously the admonitions of ancient tribes???

Martin

[Jim]

It beats me completely that anyone today can be bothered with the musings of a bygone society that has so little resemblance with the modern western world, unless of course it is from an interest in anthropology. We laugh at our own parents' fashions, yet we should take seriously the admonitions of ancient tribes???

God made the universe, and all the beauty and complexity in it. Society changes, but God doesn't. I don't believe that Gentiles are to follow the law of Moses, but seeking to understand why God gave that law is profitable.

[happykilt]

It beats me completely that anyone today can be bothered with the musings of a bygone society that has so little resemblance with the modern western world, unless of course it is from an interest in anthropology. We laugh at our own parents' fashions, yet we should take seriously the admonitions of ancient tribes???

God made the universe, and all the beauty and complexity in it. Society changes, but God doesn't. I don't believe that Gentiles are to follow the law of Moses, but seeking to understand why God gave that law is profitable.

Well, some people believe in some god and some do not. It is useless and totally fruitless to discuss this in a kilt/skirt forum. For the ones who believe (and some who do not) it is interesting to see how religious writers back up their beliefs regarding kilts/skirts on men, using religious scriptures.

So, if I as a newbie can make a request, please do not start discussing is there any sense in believing to God or some other god or no god. Lets keep this on kilts/skirts. Discussing about how some religion (or their leaders) sees men wearing skirt/kilt is an interesting subject if there seems to be an issue. Ones personal beliefs are not (in the context of this forum).

(If this is inappropriate, mods please delete this.)

[crfriend]

[Mod hat on]

Before this gets out of hand, I'd like to take the time to remind folks here that religion is almost always a touchy subject as it raises passion on the part of many and renders clear rational thought difficult, if not impossible. Hence, we need to steer clear of trying to (re-)hash whether there is a god or not and we absolutely need to avoid making value-judgments on the matter.

If we can keep this to the analysis of the appropriateness of skirts for guys within the context of religion it'd be very much appreciated. If we can't, I'll lock this thread up tight. We've been here before and it got messy; let's not do it again.

Thanks.
[Mod hat off]

[couyalair]

There would be no néed to mention religions hère (indeed, I did not do so, mentioning only ancient texts intérpreted as rules). However, so long as religious people trot out these texts to condemn our choice of clothing, I see no reason why we should not let it be known just what we think of their rantings, here more than anywhere.
Sorry, Carl!

Martin in secular France

[Ralph]

Ah, my favorite insoluble conundrum.

Couyalair and Happykilt, it goes without saying that any discussion about how God feels about our clothing choices is only relevant to people who believe in God in the first place, and more specifically those who follow the Abrahamic God and put any kind of value in Mosaic law -- which would include believers of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim background. The topic may not interest you personally, but if there are more than one people (well, I suppose if it's just two they could IM/email on the topic) interested, what's the harm in letting them have the discussion in the off-topic forum? Personally, I have zero interest in kilts and only moderate interest in skirts that aren't part of one-piece dresses. So should I complain when people talk about skirts because it doesn't interest me? Certainly not; I just don't get involved in those discussions.

Getting back to the topic at hand: Don't sweat it. ESPECIALLY don't let other authors do your thinking for you. It takes little to no effort to find the work of wiser theologians than we will ever be, who can use 4,000 years of interpretation, direct translation of the Hebrew, and other masterful skills of exegesis to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 22:5 IS still relevant and DOES specifically forbid what we wear, as well as equally qualified and wise theologians who can prove that 22:5 does NOT forbid us from wearing skirts, dresses, or French maid outfits with frilly knickers. So you won't get anywhere having someone else tell you what to believe.

It's really an issue between you and God, and no one else. Now for me, I'm a strong believer in the "promptings of the Holy Spirit", what the nonbelievers would call a conscience. There are times when I get that guilty feeling because I know God is saying "You really let me down, you know that? I hope you enjoy that nice new skirt while a Vietnam veteran living under the bridge goes without another meal because you never donate a dime or even a minute of your time to the homeless shelter." Or "Nice job, ridiculing that person. It sure made people respect YOU more." (fortunately, God isn't that sarcastic with me; those are my choice of words).

What I have NEVER felt guilty about is the way I choose to dress. Remember, "all things are permissible, but not everything is beneficial." We have two jobs to do: Love God, and love our neighbor. If what you are doing does not impede either of those, and God isn't making a point of calling your attention to the behavior, you're probably giving yourself grief over something that's not even on the radar. Of course those two commandments carry a lot of weight behind their simple words: Your love for God is diminished if you spend so much time on your appearance that you have no time for worship. Your love for your neighbor is diminished when "you saw me hungry and did not feed me; you saw me naked and did not clothe me; you saw me in prison and you did not comfort me."

With that in mind, the same action may or may not be offensive to God depending on the circumstances and motives. Are you dressing the way you do to deceive others into thinking you are female? That diminishes the "loving your neighbor" part. Are you dressing the way you do because you think God made a mistake and you should have been a woman? That diminishes the "love God" part. Do you just like those clothes better and make no pretense of being female? Nothing in all of Mosaic law says you can't prefer one clothing type over another for the simple comfort of it.

Now having said all that, I should add to the list: Don't lie to God, by way of lying to yourself. If you're going the whole nine yards with wigs and makeup and shaved legs and breast inserts and bras and heels and a leather microskirt over fishnet stockings... you might be able to convince yourself that you just do that because it's a more comfortable way of dressing, but you're not fooling anybody but yourself.

And having said THAT, one final disclaimer: All of the above is framed within the context of MY relationship with God, not anybody else's. I absolutely do not judge, condemn, or criticize folks who for whatever reason do feel compelled to take on a completely female persona, with or without surgery. So please don't take my observations as anything other than an explanation for why *I* do not feel I should go down that road. Like I said at the start, don't let somebody else (including me) do your thinking for you.

I've written a few times on the subject over at my blog, namely here: http://ralphinadress.wordpress.com/2009 ... good-book/
And here: http://ralphinadress.wordpress.com/2011 ... revisited/

Really not much more in either of those articles than what I've said here, though.

Great topic! I look forward to reading more responses.

[happykilt]

Couyalair and Happykilt, it goes without saying that any discussion about how God feels about our clothing choices is only relevant to people who believe in God in the first place, and more specifically those who follow the Abrahamic God and put any kind of value in Mosaic law -- which would include believers of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim background.

Four things:
1) Do not put me in the same basket with Couyalair. In this matter I am totally on the other end of the table and he is on your end of table. You both want to show your religion as the right one and that is the discussion I see will corrupt this interesting thread. This forum is not the place to witness ones faith or lack of faith or to say someone's faith is just believing in antic texts or not believing in those same antic texts takes someone to hell.

2) "...discussion about how God feels about...". No-one knows how God feels. It is only possible to discuss about how different people or religious leaders say about how to obey Holy Texts and what is written in them. If you think you know how God feels go make a sermon in your church, please do not write it here. Exception; if you have written evidence for your case then show it here.

3) If the discussion stays on relevant level it is interesting regardless of ones own religion or lack of religion.

4) Nothing goes without saying.

The topic may not interest you personally, but if there are more than one people (well, I suppose if it's just two they could IM/email on the topic) interested, what's the harm in letting them have the discussion in the off-topic forum?

Hm... Without counting I think I am the one who has made most posts in this thread. I see, that shows that I am not interested
Yes, I am not interested in your or anybody's personal beliefs but I am interested in the subject of this thread.

And having said THAT, one final disclaimer: All of the above is framed within the context of MY relationship with God, not anybody else's.

And this is exactly what I think should NOT be written or discussed here. The reason: If we start that path the discussion will degenerate to "I believe right, you believe wrong!"

I, and I hope someone, else is interested in the subject of what do the scriptions say and how people understand them and WHY they see it so. At the moment someone says "it is so because I believe.." it is out of interest. The same happens when something is based on "Gods will".

The last: I am not telling that you are wrong in anything of your beliefs. I am only trying to say that this might not be the right place to witness your belief in your God and knowing how your God feels.