Interesting..... (calling the biblical experts)

[Judah14]

Since historically, at the time of the scriptures, men and women both wore robes...

Were women's robes different from mens' robes?

Probably yes:

[crfriend]

In the recent photograph above we see garments that might as well have been from two completely and totally different periods of time.

Note first the simplicity and ruggedness of the man's robe. What pattern is has on it is clearly possible to get using a simple weave which would have been common 2000-odd years ago, similarly the head-scarf. Note, also, the textures and the colours of the dyes involved.

Now, moving on to the woman's robe. First and foremost we see the vivid dyes that only started to be available in the mid 1850; this marks the garment as positively being from "our time". There's also the fact that the pattern was printed on, not embroidered or painted on (as would have had to be the case in antiquity). There's also the matter of the metallic embellishment near the lower hem; metallised fabrics have been available since the time of the Egyptian Pharaohs but were so brutally expensive that only the elites could afford them.

To really tell, we'd have to look at the construction of the two garments -- and then that might not tell us all that much as manufacturing techniques have vastly improved in the intervening centuries. Looking at his robe, perhaps it was constructed using a period pattern; I strongly doubt if hers was. Also note, that since all clothing of the time was hand-made in the home, some level of custom-fitting would have always gone on, although that was mostly likely for matters of height and basic girth rather than close tailoring to a precise body-shape (except at the most elite levels of society where it could be afforded).

I rather suspect that biblical times were as visually boring as today is: drab fabrics in uninspiring cuts of coarse textures -- not so much different from denim and ratty t-shirts today (save that robes likely would look better on most body-types (at least around here) than skinny-jeans).

[Judah14]

In the recent photograph above we see garments that might as well have been from two completely and totally different periods of time.

Note first the simplicity and ruggedness of the man's robe. What pattern is has on it is clearly possible to get using a simple weave which would have been common 2000-odd years ago, similarly the head-scarf. Note, also, the textures and the colours of the dyes involved.

Now, moving on to the woman's robe. First and foremost we see the vivid dyes that only started to be available in the mid 1850; this marks the garment as positively being from "our time". There's also the fact that the pattern was printed on, not embroidered or painted on (as would have had to be the case in antiquity). There's also the matter of the metallic embellishment near the lower hem; metallised fabrics have been available since the time of the Egyptian Pharaohs but were so brutally expensive that only the elites could afford them.

To really tell, we'd have to look at the construction of the two garments -- and then that might not tell us all that much as manufacturing techniques have vastly improved in the intervening centuries. Looking at his robe, perhaps it was constructed using a period pattern; I strongly doubt if hers was. Also note, that since all clothing of the time was hand-made in the home, some level of custom-fitting would have always gone on, although that was mostly likely for matters of height and basic girth rather than close tailoring to a precise body-shape (except at the most elite levels of society where it could be afforded).

I rather suspect that biblical times were as visually boring as today is: drab fabrics in uninspiring cuts of coarse textures -- not so much different from denim and ratty t-shirts today (save that robes likely would look better on most body-types (at least around here) than skinny-jeans).

You are right indeed, as artwork such as paintings and modern reenactments such as Senakulo theater use modern versions of biblical garments:

[crfriend]

You are right indeed, as artwork such as paintings and modern reenactments such as Senakulo theater use modern versions of biblical garments:

Recall that part of the point there is to make the era (and ethos) look attractive. Unfortunately, this usually comes at the expense of historical accuracy.

[Ralph]

I see someone revived this old thread on my favorite topic. I'm well on the far side of a half century and I've been wrestling with Deuteronomy 22:5 for a couple of decades, so here's what I've found. Just for the sake of establishing my point of view, I am what I would call a conservative, evangelical, "born-again" Christian who tends to find the middle path between extreme ideologies on either side of a controversial topic. The result is that my liberal, (mostly) non-Christian friends think I'm a bible-thumping fanatic, and my conservative, (mostly) Christian friends think I'm a hippie or a Communist or something equally distasteful. I identify 100% as male inside and out. And... I also happen to prefer wearing dresses and skirts of a decidedly feminine style, in the privacy of my own home, for reasons I have spent my life unsuccessfully trying to understand. So now that you know where I'm coming from, here's my take on it...

First off, you can find expert testimony to confirm any theory you favor. This is what the folks at the Institute For Big Words call "confirmation bias" - which basically means that we tend to see what we expect (or want) to see, and ignore any contradictory data. So you can easily find experts with impressive credentials who can speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew all at the same time and have personally handled first-century manuscripts and have read every commentary on every verse in every translation of the bible that ever existed. These experts will quickly tell you that 22:5 was only a restriction on a particular pagan ritual that was popular at the time, and their evidence will be overwhelming. But other experts with equally impressive credentials will tell you that it was only a restriction on trying to pass for the other sex, and their evidence will be equally overwhelming. Still other experts will say it was only a cultural hangup that doesn't apply to our modern enlightened society in which women have equal status with men. Other experts will say that the entirety of the Old Testament law was nullified with the crucifixion that rendered the ultimate sacrifice for all sins, major and minor, past and future. And other experts will tell you that it does indeed still apply today and anyone who violates Deuteronomy 22:5 really is "an abomination unto God".

So my first advice is: Don't listen to the experts. ESPECIALLY don't listen to the experts who give you the interpretation that works out best for you. All those contradictory explanations, at the most one of the is right and all the others are wrong. This is between you and God. If what you wear offends God for whatever reason that we can't comprehend, it doesn't matter if you have a thousand expert scholars telling you it's OK: If God says it's not OK, those experts are wrong. On the other hand, if God isn't giving you any grief over it, you shouldn't let anyone tell you how much God hates you.

Paul told us that he was free from the hundreds of dietary restrictions, but he also told us not to "be a stumbling block" for others who still believed those dietary restrictions were necessary. That is to say, if you love a big juicy steak but you have vegetarian friends over for dinner, don't serve steak. That's a big reason why I intend to remain a closeted skirt wearer all my life if at all possible. While I may feel that God is on my side and is perfectly OK with what I wear, I do not wish for that topic to become a divisive issue that drives away my friends who haven't gone through the 30+ years of soul-searching I did to get where I am today. It's an extension of the only two laws that really matter: Love God and love your neighbor. If whatever I am doing, whether wearing a pretty dress or binge-watching Supernatural or singing hymns or whatever, prevents me from loving God or loving my neighbor, they fail the "two laws" test and have to be stopped.

Paul also tells us that "all things are permissible", but adds that they aren't all profitable. So you have every *right* to stab yourself in the eye with a knitting needle, but it's still stupid to do so. In theory, we are indeed free to do every "thou shalt not" in the Old Testament... but even if none of them will put us on a fast train to hell, we may still find ourselves dealing with real-world consequences in this life. And not in a good way. Which OT restrictions can safely be ignored, and which ones should still be avoided out of self-preservation?

The answer to that brings us right back to my opening statement: It's between you and God. You'll notice that I haven't told you how *I* interpret Deuteronomy 22:5. That's because how it affects my relationship with God has nothing at all to do with how it affects your relationship with God. Don't follow my advice. Don't follow theologians' advice. Don't even follow Paul's advice. Pray about it. Only God can tell you how important this is for YOU, and you alone. If you don't feel deep down that you've gotten a clear answer, pray about it daily. Maybe it'll take years. Maybe you'll be at peace with the answer you get right away. How God communicates with you is above my pay grade. I can only tell you that I was frantic with stress about this verse for many years. Even when I found some of those apologists who gave me convenient explanations like those we have discussed here (applied to pagan rituals, applied to a different era, etc.) I was not at peace about it until I gave the whole thing over to God.

Hope that helps.

[moonshadow]

That was a lovely response Ralph!

I think really as far as matters of the soul go, we should all endevor to follow our own hearts. And yes... watch out for the self proclaimed "enlightened ones" on your journey.

Wise men know they are fools. Fools believe they are wise.

As for my own foolish wisdom... well I have no frame of reference to base a measurement or assumption.

[Fred in Skirts]

Ralph presents a good thing to think about. What is your skirt or dress wearing doing to your relationship with your God. Myself I am at complete peace with what I wear and my relations with my God.

Speak not to your priest or paster but directly with your God. You will get better answers.

Fred

[crfriend]

[...] It's between you and God. You'll notice that I haven't told you how *I* interpret Deuteronomy 22:5. That's because how it affects my relationship with God has nothing at all to do with how it affects your relationship with God. Don't follow my advice. Don't follow theologians' advice. Don't even follow Paul's advice. Pray about it. Only God can tell you how important this is for YOU, and you alone.

Speak not to your priest or paster but directly with your God. You will get better answers.

We speak no treason here, but this is the sort of heresy that got several folks hanged on Boston Common not all that long ago (in the general scope of things, mind, only about 356 years ago), and it's the same thinking that's still largely in sway under the golden dome in Boston today. I worry for your souls, gentlemen, not so much from the wrath of god, but from the wrath of the "Justice System". I'd stay out of Massachusetts Colony for safety's sake. Rhode Island should be OK, but any further north might place you in grave peril.

Not to make too much light of it, thanks for that insight Ralph; altogether too many Believers aren't so enlightened.

[hoborob]

I have been following this discussion and attempting to stay on the outside of it as it does tend to be a religious discussion and we all remember the things you don't discuss to avoid problems with others, Religion and Politics. However Ralph is correct on most of his points and today the real deal is about your own personal relationship with your creator. In the end we will and stand before him and we will answer for our own actions.

I do know also from scripture (1 Peter 2:15 I believe) that offer our own interpretation is not allowed as we do not have that right. Yes Duet 22:5 is still there and you can argue about it all you wish but you must also remember that the Old Testament was written to the nation of Israel and not to the Church of the Body of Christ to which the New Testament has been written. To really look at this subject I will refer to the Gospels where the Lord himself discussed the clothing of the birds of the air and the grass of the field, which God himself clothes, He then says to us why are you then worried about who is wearing a piece of clothing. In short it is really up to us and our relationship with our creator and lord as to how we present ourselves in society. I personally prefer the softer clothing that are, according to society, female clothing as I find them to be more comfortable. Now if I am out in public or around those that might be offended easily I will back off and present a more "masculine" appearance for their sake. (The stumbling block issue.) In all essence it is really all about the fact that I own these garments so they are my clothes and I will wear them. I do not desire to wear some woman's clothes I'd rather wear my own, they are just as comfortable as what she is wearing.

Beyond all of this biblical arguing and discussion there is also the historical data that must be considered. Up until the Medieval period the clothing worn by the male and female portion or our society were very similar with only minor differences to distinguish them from each other. Also you will find that virtually every garment that is "female garb" was in fact developed at first for men to wear and was not intended at all for women to wear. Hosiery for instance was developed to provide a barrier between a mans skin and the furs and animal skins often worn to prevent the fleas that might be there from biting the person wearing the skins or furs.

While the Bra may have been developed to cover the breast area of a woman it's intent was to provide support and covering for the breasts, and we as men also have breasts and some have even developed larger breasts which also need support so that argument is also a moot point. If fact in many cultures it is not unheard of that men will also suckle a child when needed due to a female breast not being available at the time.

In the end the arguments for separate type of clothing for men and women are in reality based completely upon societal taboos which when examined very carefully are simply that societal taboos which have no other supporting information and even when "Biblical evidence" is presented when examined very carefully you will find that such data simply is skimpy at best.

The main point really is that by taking a biblical verse out of context you can prove that the bible supports and proves any point of view, which we are instructed not to do. Remember also this that God has accepted us for who we are and knows everything that we will do in our lives and he still accepts us as for who we are. Who then is another to say that God "hates" us when he has declared us to be his children who he loves. Someone is contradicting God and I know that he has accepted me and calls me his own child, beyond that anyone else can say and do what they want I will be answering for my acts and actions not theirs. So then develop your own personal relationship and be aware that your father loves you and wishes you no harm, then go out and live you life knowing that you are his and no one can take you away from him.

[Ralph]

We speak no treason here, but this is the sort of heresy that got several folks hanged on Boston Common not all that long ago (in the general scope of things, mind, only about 356 years ago), and it's the same thinking that's still largely in sway under the golden dome in Boston today. I worry for your souls, gentlemen, not so much from the wrath of god, but from the wrath of the "Justice System". I'd stay out of Massachusetts Colony for safety's sake. Rhode Island should be OK, but any further north might place you in grave peril.

Great, now I'm going to have to travel to Wittenburg to nail my comments (above) to the door of the church

[skirtyscot]

I'm not in the God squad so I normally ignore this sort of thread. But today I read the new posts and I marvel at how much mental effort gets expended on one little verse of the Bible. Instead of jumping through mental hoops to find a comfortable position, why don't you just be honest and say you are going to ignore that verse? Face it, you all ignore large chunks of the Bible already, mostly in the OT and specifically in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

[skirtyscot]

And if God is so clever, why didn't he give the authors of the Bible some nice clear wording which is not open to 15 different interpretations? It can't be that hard, can it, not for an omnipotent deity?

[moonshadow]

And if God is so clever, why didn't he give the authors of the Bible some nice clear wording which is not open to 15 different interpretations? It can't be that hard, can it, not for an omnipotent deity?

Well, not to play the devil's advocate (pardon the pun), but even if the story were true and God really did come down and explain all of this to the prophets of the bible word for word, keep in mind that this was several thousand years before the printing press. Most religious tradition was oral or written in scrolls, each one manually copied over and over again, over thousands of years, under interpreters of many different disciplines. God only knows (literally) what was originally said....

Even in the modern era, people put crap out there all the time that frankly... just isn't true, and that goes for ANY subject matter. With all the conflicting stories out there, both in the bible and elsewhere, the only logical thing a person can really do with regards to his or her spirituality is follow their heart, and try to do what's right.

On the other hand, I feel this thread has been very informative and thoughtful. I'm happy that it's located in the open part of the forum as this is stuff the world needs to hear.

[Darryl]

It was stated by the Apostles and Elders in the Council: "the Holy Spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper." (Acts 15:27–28) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

Point. Set. Match.

The Council of Jerusalem about 50 AD to the Gentile Christians. NOW. Good points above, especially about not offending others - always better to make friends than enemies, to make people feel good rather than irritated and/or uncomfortable. And so on. My pastor knows where I'm coming from as do a few other friends at church. Still, there are two friends in particular that when I visit, as well as when going to church, I will wrap myself in one of my kilts. I've been to work in a kilt before when called unexpectedly, but normally wear trousers in case I have to crawl around chasing cables or changing out computers, etc. Most also know we're of Scotch-Irish stock, that I'm into genealogy and attend the local Renaissance and Celtic Fairs and Highland Games.

Still, the other day we had a meeting at church and I'd grown fond of a running skirt I wore at my first 5K on 8/3/16. (Finished, hope to do better next time.) So I underestimated the time I'd need and gone up about 200' on a local hill and had to go to the meeting straight from the hillside wearing the black running skirt with a white t-shirt, Brooks Beast 14 running shoes and an old Vietnam-era boonie hat with a white square of cloth on my head with the hat on top to make something like a neck-shade Foreign Legion type thing. Sweaty and all.

So, I got cooled down after about an hour in the air conditioned environment inside the church. As we broke up I put my boonie hat back on and a friend slowly and obviously looked me down and up and said: "your HAT is sweating."

Another good day.

[Ray]

What Alastair said.

It's a small excerpt from a tome which is based on less than perfect recollection and witness statements. Relying so much on a particular interpretation (Ralph's comments are spot on here) is daft.

Although I do not believe in any deity, spirit or omnipotent being (thus the bible is, to me, an interesting read but essentially without any credibility), I DO like the general tone - be good to all - and I DO respect the rights of others to follow their own belief system. With one caveat - I cannot have others' belief systems applied to me, and think that many would do the same.

Thus, would it not be sensible to follow your own interpretation of - whatever- and just ignore those who would disagree? This is, after all, just about clothing.