INFORMATION ON DEUTERONOMY 22:5!

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man; neither 
shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination 
unto the Lord thy God.
	Deuteronomy 22:5

Words which are pertinent for understanding this scripture 

Woman 802
	‘ishshah, ish-shaw, literally a woman, female
Pertaineth 3627
	keliy,kel-ee’, any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon):
	armour({bearer}), artillery, bag, carriage, + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, 
	that is made of, X one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, + psaltery, sack, stuff, 
	thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon, + whatsoever
Man 1397
	geber, gheh’-ber; a valiant man or warrior; gen. a person
		Simply:- every one, man, X mighty.
Garment 8071
	simlah, sim-law’ (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); 
	a dress, espec. A mantle:-apparel, cloth (-es, ing), clothing, raiment.

One of the questions that could be asked about this scripture is, “should a man or woman wear the clothes of the others gender”? This is what we generally think of in the modern day, therefore it has become a scripture concerning cross-dressing. But is that what the Israelites thought of in their day? If so, wouldn’t the scripture simply say, “a woman may not wear man’s clothes and a man may not wear women’s clothes”? When they read this scripture other things came to mind. The word “pertaineth” indicated more than just a garment. It represented an implement (armor), tool (weapon), or things concerning the military. This thought is also strengthened by use of the word “geber”, which means a “valiant man or warrior”. A woman observing the prohibition of carrying or using a weapon of war (sword) is found in Judges 4:21 where Jael killed Sisera with a nail instead of his sword, this was in accordance with the law (Deut. 22:5).

Also, Moses could have chosen a more common word used for man “iysh”, which simply means a man or male, instead he intentionally chose geber (warrior).

The second clause pertains to the man and would simply be understood as, “a warrior should not put on a woman’s garment”. Deuteronomy 22:5 should be understood to mean these forbidden acts are abominations and not the person himself or herself.

This scripture could easily be written as “A woman cannot put on warrior’s attire and a man cannot put on woman’s attire”, it is abominable to the Lord.

It should also be noted that other understandings concerning this verse revolve around military dress and woman’s dress being used in Pagan religious ceremonies. This would be an additional prohibition against the deviant sexual practices common in Canaan in that age. Some say it was the prohibition to keep men and women from misrepresenting themselves as the other gender with the aim of illicit heterosexual activity.


The common dress of Moses’ day was very similar for a man’s or woman’s garment.
Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves and covered themselves after their transgression. God made coats of skins for them to wear. The word coats in this verse is the Hebrew word Kethoneth which means long shirt-like garment. The common dress in the Old Testament and the New Testament consisted of two separate pieces. The inner garment had sleeves and it reached always below the knees and sometimes nearly to the ground. The inner garments of men and women varied little in appearance. The outer garment varied in shape, size and purpose. It was commonly used to cover the head of both men and women. It was also commonly worn over the shoulders and had many purposes. The garment itself does not appear to have been made functionally different to any significant degree, and the distinctions between male and female outer garments were merely stylistic (i.e. color, trim, size, etc.).

Deuteronomy 22:5 is a scripture imbedded between other scriptures which are most assuredly scriptures concerning ceremonial law. It seems that the fifth verse also belongs in the realm of ceremonial law rather than moral, keeping this verse in context with the others.

It should be stated that like most scriptures, Deuteronomy 22:5 has been studied and debated for hundreds of years. However, few scholars interpret this passage as a modern ban on cross dressing (i.e., women wearing slacks).

Scholars such as John Gill, Adam Clark, Matthew Henry, Rabbi Tilsen, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and J.A. Thompson saw no relevance in Deuteronomy 22:5 to the act of cross-dressing.

Many people (myself included) believe in the distinct separation of the sexes; however I do not believe that Deuteronomy 22:5 is a scripture to be used in the prohibition of women wearing slacks (pants).

One more thing. It has been stated that Moses could have used any word to represent man in the first clause of the scripture. But he had to use geber to match the context of the verb “pertaineth (keliy) “which is relative to clothing or equipment of a warrior. Valiant men could be referred to with other words such as “ish” if the context did not require the distinction.

Possibly these thoughts will help give understanding to a verse in the Bible that is causing us so much division.

1 Ibid. “Hebrew lexicon entry for ishshah” Strongs # 802
2 ibid. “Hebrew lexicon entry for keliy” Strongs # 3627
3 ibid. “Hebrew lexicon entry for geber” Strongs # 1397
4 ibid. “Hebrew lexicon entry for simlah” Strongs # 8071
5 Writings by Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen
6 Writings by Rabbi Jon Jay Tilsen

• Home >