Return to Front Page

Translation

Myself in Public

Men in Skirts - Bible Hypocracy

Deuteronomy 22.5 is often quoted as to why men cannot wear skirts yet allows women or is never used against women who want to wear trousers. Deuteronomy and the Bible as a whole are held in high esteem within the Religious World of the West as to behaviour in modern life. It is interpreted by those who quote the Bible for such purposes or those who state that they follow the religious teachings. I cover 22.5 and other versus within Deuteronomy 22 in detail below but first consider the following extracts of Deuteronomy and apply these to modern life with equal importance as that of 22.5. (King James Bible is the first Bible translated into English 1611)

Deuteronomy 22.11.


King James Bible 1611:Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together.


New Living Translation 2007: You must not wear clothing made of wool and linen woven together.

Deuteronomy 13: 6-9


King James Bible 1611: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

[Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

New Living Translation 2007: Suppose someone secretly entices you--even your brother, your son or daughter, your beloved wife, or your closest friend--and says, 'Let us go worship other gods'--gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known.

They might suggest that you worship the gods of peoples who live nearby or who come from the ends of the earth.

But do not give in or listen. Have no pity, and do not spare or protect them.

You must put them to death! Strike the first blow yourself, and then all the people must join in.

Deuteronomy 21: 18-21


King James Bible 1611: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

New Living Translation 2007: Suppose a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him.

In such a case, the father and mother must take the son to the elders as they hold court at the town gate.

The parents must say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a glutton and a drunkard.'

Then all the men of his town must stone him to death. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.

Deuteronomy 23: 2


King James Bible 1611: A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

New Living Translation 2007: If a person is illegitimate by birth, neither he nor his descendants for ten generations may be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

Now apply the above to today and how conveniently they are ignored to suit.

Also remember the quote from the Bible often used in modern life, let those without sin cast the first stone.

Deuteronomy 22.5 basically says  “A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-5.htm I have come across this site http://www.kiltmen.com/bible.htm where the following quote comes from - “Some believers jump from place to place among various books of the Bible, selecting isolated passages that they interpret as support for whatever personal belief or prejudice they are seeking to justify


Now consider the following extracts from Deuteronomy 22.22 to 22.29:-

22 If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the other man's wife must be killed. In this way, the evil will be cleansed from Israel23 Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town,24 you must take both of them to the gates of the town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will cleanse the land of evil.25 But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man should die.26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. This case is similar to that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbour.27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged,29 he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Just think about what you have just read. Do we in the real world implement Deuteronomy 22.22 to 22.29? Obviously not. Why therefore does religion quote Deuteronomy 22.5 to the likes of me and others like me? Below is an extracthttp://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-5.htm by accessing the Context tab, under the Commentary heading.

"The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbour's chastity, v. 5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1 Co. 11:14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally. To befriend a lawful escape or concealment it may be done, but whether for sport or in the acting of plays is justly questionable. 1. Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women's clothes; this, as other such superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord. 2. It forbids the confounding of the dispositions and affairs of the sexes: men must not be effeminate, nor do the women's work in the house, nor must women be viragos, pretend to teach, or usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. Probably this confounding of garments had been used to gain opportunity of committing uncleanness, and is therefore forbidden; for those that would be kept from sin must keep themselves from all occasions of it and approaches to it." 

The comment above actually makes reference that a man should not do women's work in the house as part of its justification for neither man or woman wearing each others clothes - "The distinction of sexes...". This is a different subject and I am a modern man who will do his share of work around the house but it is interesting how this argument is not used in that area as well as the comment about women not being viragos, pretend to teach or usurp authority as defined in 1 Tim. 2:11, 12 which is completely ignored nowadays in this world of equality. 1 Timothy 2 9 to 12 actually says under the New International Version (1984) "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man: she must be silent".  It's the 'cherry picking' of 22.5, Deuteronomy and other areas generally against men only and not for women that I am referring to here, not a campaign for the old days of in-equality. It also makes reference to 1 Corinthians 13-16 which nature has declared a difference between man and woman with regards hair. This should also be read with 1 Co. 11-15 referring to women being glorified with long hair and 1 Co. 11-16 which basically says that the with regards contention here the churches of God have no practice. I do not hear any comments on this within society or religion about women having very short hair or come to that about some men who these days have pony tails. Then what about Romans 14 1-12, this basically states accept all and do not judge 'for God has accepted them'. Lerviticus 19:28 which clearly says that you should not put Tattoos on your body, but because it suits society to do so, people do.

Now consider the following extracts from the Bible, all referring to men wearing skirts: 1) 1 Samuel 24-5 "and it came to pass afterward,that David's heart smote him,because he had cut off Saul's skirt" 2) Ruth 3 7-10 where it mentions Boaz, Ruth's father, wears a skirt. 3) Ezekiel 16-8 where God says "I spread my skirt over thee... ...and thou becamest mine" 4) Psalm 133-2 "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments". These 4 extracts are the King James translation of the Bible, the first in English. Subsequent translations through the passage of time referr to robes or garments instead of skirts.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-5.htm has a list of parallel versions throughout the ages. Deuteronomy 22.5 translations are all very similar. Look at the translations for 22.30 http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-30.htm. All start off exactly the same, but some have differing endings, but as they are all Deuteronomy 22.30 they should in effect put over the same point. Interesting then that quite a few say "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt" yet others end referring to his father's bed, nakedness, disgrace, violation. Out of 15 differing translations for 22.30, 9 refer to his father's skirt, the other 6 which generally refer to disgracing his father are modern translations from 1984 and two are revisions i.e. after the original Bible. Of these 6, all in their own strict versions for Deuteronomy 22.5 state exactly the same - basically, that men and women must not wear each others clothing, as God detests anyone who does this - which you may be interested to know is exactly the same as the other 9 translations for 22-5 making 15 in total. Very, very interesting and very, very convenient that 22.30 is never mentioned in the argument for putting 22.5 forward against men in skirts and that the change in translation is during the modern era! Skirt in the original Deuteronomy 22-30 and therefore 22-5 must have differing means then as to now

I have not added anything from the Context tab for 22-30 as the whole explanation is complete nonsense in the modern real world and certainly has no interpretation on the meaning of 'skirt' that is implied to mean in our modern world. One sentence in the commentary states that the expression which he adds "nor discover his father's skirt" is implying that the father is put to shame. Do I need to point out here how Deuteronomy 22.5 and 22.30 are being manipulated all the time, there is no consistency especially when the modern day definition of 'skirt' is being applied to 22.5 for men like myself.

At the end of the day, as it is in life, an argument for or against anything can be made as to interpretations of text written hundreds of years ago in a civilisation not as advanced or knowledgeable of interpreting situations. But then that is one of the many failings of humans, especially nowadays who stereotype and classify only to allow those with influence bend the rules to suit the needs of others and many now apply to history. There are many modern variations of the wording of Deuteronomy 22 in fact one report goes as far as saying that it does not forbid women from wearing trousers! Very convenient.

Another thought I would like someone to answer me which makes me question how human religion can frown upon men wearing skirts but allow women to wear trousers. According to the Bible, and I am not a reader of other religions but from comments made in the public arena they say, like the Bible, that God is an understanding and compassionate person, forgives all those who truly repent. If this ‘being’ is that kind and understanding how is it then if we listen to the preaching's that “LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-5.htm. Answer this and that discussed above with good findings and perhaps society should point to Deuteronomy 22.5. Remember, Deuteronomy is the old Testament, previous to the updated New Testament which includes Romans 14 1-12 which contradicts the statement God detests in the widely and conveniently quoted Deuteronomy 22.5 within the Religious areas of Society. I’m sorry, but the religious frowning upon Cross Dressers, even Transgenders, Gays and Lesbians does not stack up. Look at Bishops, Vicars etc within the church, quite happy to walk around in robes that are very similar to female dresses! Oh of course, you have trousers on underneath!

 

The "next" and "previous" buttons on the bottom of each page work on internal ID numbers which are not numeric for the actual next page. It will bring up only the next numeric ID page for this site. To follow each section on the site in order use the left hand side menus throughout. Basically ignore these "next" and "previous" buttons. Must be a failing of free templates!