Biblical View on Women Wearing Men's Clothing
The biblical prohibition against women wearing men's clothing is rooted in Deuteronomy 22:5, which states, "A woman must not wear men's clothing, and a man must not wear women's clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD your God" [2]. This verse is part of a larger section in Deuteronomy that addresses various laws and regulations for the Israelites.
The historical context of this prohibition is not entirely clear, but it is believed to be related to the cultural practices of the time. In ancient Israel, the distinction between male and female attire was not very marked, with both men and women wearing tunics and outer garments [1]. The law may have been intended to prevent the adoption of heathen customs, such as cross-dressing in temples, or to maintain social distinctions between the sexes [5].
Rabbinic tradition interprets this verse as prohibiting not only cross-dressing but also the wearing of clothing or accessories typically associated with the opposite sex. For example, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov is quoted as saying that a woman should not wear weapons to war, as this is considered an adornment of a man [3]. Maimonides also interprets this verse as prohibiting a woman from adorning herself as a man, including wearing a turban or hat [8].
In Christian tradition, this verse has been interpreted in various ways. Some commentators, such as John Gill, see it as a prohibition against immodesty and unseemliness, rather than a strict prohibition against cross-dressing [7]. Others, such as Tertullian, discuss the importance of modesty in dress, particularly for women [6].
The underlying concern of Deuteronomy 22:5 appears to be the maintenance of social norms and distinctions between the sexes. As the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary notes, the adoption of the habiliments of one sex by the other can lead to "softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in the woman" [5]. This concern is echoed in the Babylonian Talmud, which discusses the importance of maintaining modesty and avoiding confusion between the sexes [3, 4].
The biblical view on women wearing men's clothing is thus rooted in a complex interplay of cultural, social, and theological factors. While the specific historical context of Deuteronomy 22:5 is unclear, its interpretation has been shaped by various traditions, including Rabbinic and Christian thought. The underlying concern remains the maintenance of social norms and modesty, reflecting a broader biblical emphasis on the importance of distinguishing between the sexes [9, 10].
Sources
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Apparel — In Old Testament times the distinction between male and female attire was not very marked. The statute forbidding men to wear female apparel (Deut. 22:5) referred especially to ornaments and head-dresses. Both men and women wore (1) an under garment or tunic, which was bound by a girdle. One who had only this tunic on was spoken of as "naked" (1 Sam. 19:24; Job 24:10; Isa. 20:2). Those in high stations sometimes wore two tunics, the outer being called the "upper garment" (1 Sam. 15:27; 18:4; 24:5; Job 1:20). (2.) They wore in common an over-garment ("mantle”
- Deuteronomy “Deuteronomy 22:5 (BSB) — A woman must not wear men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD your God.”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Nazir 133b.117:3: Rather, it means that a man may not wear a woman’s garment and thereby go and sit among the women; and a woman may not wear a man’s garment and sit among the men. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: From where is it derived that a woman may not go out with weapons to war? The verse states: “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman’s garment,” which indicates that a man may not adorn himself with the cosmetics and ornaments of a woman, and similarly a woman may not go out with weapons to war, as those are for the us”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Nazir 59a.3: Rather, it means that a man may not wear a woman’s garment and thereby go and sit among the women; and a woman may not wear a man’s garment and sit among the men. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: From where is it derived that a woman may not go out with weapons to war? The verse states: “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman’s garment,” which indicates that a man may not adorn himself with the cosmetics and ornaments of a woman, and similarly a woman may not go out with weapons to war, as those are for the use of ”
- Deuteronomy (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Deuteronomy 22:5: THE SEX TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY APPAREL. (Deu 22:5-12) The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment--Though disguises were assumed at certain times in heathen temples, it is probable that a reference was made to unbecoming levities practised in common life. They were properly forbidden; for the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the other is an outrage on decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in th”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 3: Tertullian — CHAP. XX.--OF WOMEN'S DRESS.: So far, however, as regards the dress of women, the variety of observance compels us--men of no consideration whatever--to treat, presumptuously indeed, after the most holy apostle,[6] except in so far as it will not be presumptuously if we treat the subject in accordance with the apostle. Touching modesty of dress and ornamentation, indeed, the prescription of Peter[7] likewise is plain, checking as he does with the same mouth, because with the same Spirit, as Paul, the glory of garments, and the pride of gold, and the meretricious elabora”
- Deuteronomy (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Deuteronomy 22:5: The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,.... It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any "instrument of a man" (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family; and so this law may be opposed to the customs of the Egyptians, as is thought, from whom the Israelites were lately come; whose women, as Herodotus (g) relates, used to trade and”
- Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12:10: A woman should not adorn herself as a man does 1 Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 39) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 542) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Curiously, with regard to this and the following prohibition, the Rambam departs from his usual custom and does not mention the Biblical proof-text, Deuteronomy 22:5, for these prohibitions. e.g., she may not place a turban or a hat on her head - Needless to say, a hat that was styled for women is permitted. A”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 44b.14: MISHNA: When the condemned man is at a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning, they take off his clothes. They cover a man’s genitals in the front, and a woman is covered both in the front and in the back; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: A man is stoned naked, i.e., wearing only that cloth covering, but a woman is not stoned naked, but is stoned while clothed.”
- Mishnah (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishnah, Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:3: When the condemned man is at a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning, they take off his clothes. They cover a man’s genitals in the front, and a woman is covered both in the front and in the back; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: A man is stoned naked, i.e., wearing only that cloth covering, but a woman is not stoned naked, but is stoned while clothed.”