The Strongest Biblical Argument
The only verse that appears to directly address the question of cross-dressing is Deuteronomy: Chapter 22, Verse 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.
Taken literally it is used to label a cross-dresser as a sinner in need of repentance. Failure to acknowledge the sin can then be characterized as a state of rebellion against God. I am not a Biblical scholar and can't compete with religious leaders on detailed Scriptural interpretation so I turned to existing Bible commentaries to find out what they had to say. I stopped looking after 30 commentaries. Here's a summary of their interpretations with the number of each shown in parentheses:
Pagan religious connotation (12)
Deviant sexual practices or moral issues (9)
Maintain proper distinction between the sexes (8)
Part of a collection of laws with a common theme (5)
Definitely not about simple cross-dressing (5)
Magical connection related to disguise or deceit (4)
Related to armor or wartime attire (3)
No comment (3)
Hard line literal interpretation to be applied to all cross-dressing (2)
Doesn't apply because we aren't under the law (1)
A few made absolute statements. A third offered multiple possible explanations hence 52 interpretations from thirty sources. Most used qualifiers such as likely, may/might, possible/probable, seems, some or suggests/suppose. Here is a good example --
Raymond Brown - "there are two likely reasons for the uncompromising prohibition. First, there was probably a serious moral issue at stake here. Sexual promiscuity was rife in Canaan, and transvestite practices were part of the corrupt and immoral context of the land... This prohibition is a warning to the Hebrew people not to identify with the degrading sexual...practices of the Canaanites. ...Secondly, it is also likely that there were religious reasons for this regulation. Some pagan religions ...demanded that men and women exchange their clothing as part of their fertility rites."
With that diversity of opinion, how can anyone insist that their view is the correct one and impose it on others without allowing any questioning? Which view is correct? Can anyone be certain they know the mind of God? A blanket condemnation is unwarranted.
If it is wrong for a man to wear a dress, then logically it is wrong for a woman to wear pants, suspenders, a vest and a tie. Virtually everyone applies the rule vigorously to men yet ignores it when dealing with women. How can that be justified?
Here is an insightful comment about the clothing nonsense:
If any rascal quotes you scripture about how males or females dress, make sure to point out to them that Jesus and his companions went around in dresses down to the ground, wore beards and long hair. It never hurts to point out that trousers were invented in Persia for the females in the kings "harem" The garments had no fronts or backs and rather looked like a cowboy's chaps; we'd call them exceptionally suggestive. No one ever said it would be easy to serve the LORD, but this is ridiculous. Pastor R E
Two other verses from the same chapter are curiously related to clothing.
Verse 11
Don’t wear clothing woven from two kinds of thread: for instance, wool and linen together.
Why isn’t there a great disturbance about wearing shirts and blouses made of polyester and cotton?
Verse 12
You must sew tassels on the four corners of your cloaks.
Wearing tassels is more likely to be associated with a burlesque show than a religious expression. Why doesn't anyone mention this verse?
Verse 22 is really interesting,
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lie with the woman and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
If you judge a cross-dresser as an abomination aren't you similarly required to put adulterers to death?
Finally, Verses 28 and 29 state,
If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Are we to force every man who seduced a virgin to pay a dowry, marry her and prohibit a divorce for his lifetime?
If anyone chooses to take part of one verse literally, then they must take the others the same way. We have only discussed six verses from one chapter, and I don't know anyone who consistently follows the literal interpretation of all of them. The Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy) has 5,851 verses. Are we to take them all literally as well? If we don't take them all literally, how do we decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore? Who gets to decide?
Here is an insightful comment on the selective use of Old Testament laws:
I usually have two responses to those who use the Levitical code to condemn. First, as a Christian I am a new testament person. Jesus condemned literal implementation of the Law. He was much more concerned with what was in the heart of the believer, not the outward actions. "It is not what goes into one's mouth, but what comes out that condemns them." As Paul states - all that the Law can do for us is make us realize that we are all sinners. There are not categories of good sin and bad sin. WE ARE ALL SINNERS. AND WE ARE ALL SAVED BY GRACE. Second, I then ask those who throw the Levitical Law at me if they are ready to live by the whole of the Law. Most have not read the whole Law and do not realize that most of what they do would be condemned. I push them to be consistent in their actions. They cannot pick which Law they will impose and which they will let slide. So, in the end we are left as sinners, struggling to respond with joy and service to God's grace. And all are welcomed into God's Kingdom which is all around us, even now. All we need to do is open our hearts to the grace of God and step into a new reality where all are welcomed. Pastor Bruce
In all of the hundreds of discussions that I had with religious leaders, Not one made a serious attempt to address this issue point by point.
Not One!
When someone says that a Bible verse means exactly what it says, they simply don’t know what they are saying. If we say, he lost his shirt, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth or he is in hot water, do we mean exactly what we say?
If you want to learn more about the real meanings and intent of Biblical passages, George M. Lamsa’s "Old Testament Light – The Indispensable Guide to the Customs, Manners, & Idioms of Biblical Times" is a great resource. He is Assyrian and translated the text himself from Aramaic. He was raised in a culture that retained much of the ancient language and customs. His understanding of the intent of the authors, the mindset of the people who wrote it and for whom it was written, sheds a refreshing new light.
"We must not forget that the Israelites were forbidden to draw pictures, carve statues, or make graven images or any other symbols or objects of worship. But the Hebrew prophets found a new way to portray and explain spiritual ideas so that even simple folk could understand them. They used parables and allegories which people easily understood but never took literally."
"Nevertheless, the Bible contains many expressions and mannerisms of speech, many local idioms that no foreigner without the knowledge of the background of ancient Semitic languages and of the issues which existed during the times of the author could understand."
"The whole way of life has changed from biblical days. And the change has left a chasm of 3,500 years between us and the time when some portions of the Bible were written. This commentary is an attempt to bridge that chasm. It covers hundreds of passages, some of which have lost their meaning through mistranslation; some because idioms are translated literally, and others because of the lack of knowledge of the background, customs, manners, metaphors, issues and allegories which existed during the time of the writer. Still others are due to the lack of knowledge of the Semitic languages and the subtle and allegorical ways through which the Word of God is interwoven and imparted."
"My primary objective in this work…is to take the reader to biblical lands and to let him see and understand the Bible through Eastern eyes."
Logically, Deuteronomy 22:5 cannot be used to routinely condemn cross-dressing! If the strongest argument fails, don’t let anyone trap you with a weaker alternative!
Return to Transgendered Spiritual
Seminar
Return to Educational Materials
