|
uschaplain -> RE: Transgenderism/Crossdressing One Stop thread (11/28/2006 2:34:17 PM)
|
Deuteronomy 22:5 is the verse most often cited with regards to crossdressing. In the 1800's and early 1900's, Christians used this verse as a prohibition for women wearing pants. The simplicity of the English language does not indicate the complexity of the Hebrew language, the verse's immediate context, or the cultural milieu of the time. According the New American Standard Bible, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." If we look closer, a possible translation would be: A woman [ishah, in Hebrew, meaning a female] shall not wear man's [not ish, male, but the Hebrew word, geber, meaning strong man, able-bodied man, warrior] clothing [kaliy, meaning armor, combat gear; only here is it translated as clothing], nor shall a man [again geber, meaning strong man, able-bodied man, warrior] put on woman's [ishah, meaning female] clothing [simlah, meaning sheet, blanket, outer wrap, cloak, or garment]; . . . . The meaning of this verse appears to be as follows. A civilian woman is not to put on the combat gear of a warrior to fight against the enemy, nor is a warrior to be disguised as a woman, either to run away from combat or to use subterfuge against the enemy. As a former Army chaplain I understand this principle. It is the reason military forces wear uniforms, that is, to distinquish combatants from non-combatants. The purpose of the verse is to reduce colateral damage and the loss of life of innocent civilians. The purpose of the verse is to protect civilian women on the battle field. If the enemy thought civilian women were fighting as combatants, other non-combatant civilian women would be endangered. If the enemy thought soldiers were dressing as women as subterfuge against them, again innocent civilian women would be endangered. The enemy would most likely shoot first and ask questions later. This proposed meaning takes into consideration the immediate context of the surrounding verses, in that, they serve to protect the young and the innocent from harm. If the passage refers to sexual impropriety, the verse would more logically be placed with other sexual sins. I do not believe the intent of the verse was to be a direct prohibition of women wearing male items of clothing, nor of men wearing female items of clothing. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart.
|
|
|
|