Posts

A rule or a riddle? Deuteronomy 22:5

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV says, The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth [keli]of a man [geber], neither shall a man [geber] put on a woman’s garment [simlah]: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

We have looked at how a geber-man was a mighty man or man of valor. The first definition of keli given in the concordance pertains to general things, such as utensils and vessels, and not things worn. So we are after the second definition which pertains to things a geber-man would wear:

2 utensil, implement, apparatus:

a. implement of hunting and (especially) war, = weapon Genesis 27:3 (J), 1 Samuel 20:40; 1 Samuel 21:9 (גַּם חַרְבִּי וְגַם כֵּלַי), 1 Kings 11:8 2 Chronicles 23:7; 1 Kings 11:11; Isaiah 54:16,17; Jeremiah 22:7; probably also Numbers 35:32, כְּלִי בַּרְזֶל Numbers 35:16, כְּלִי עֵץיָֿד Numbers 35:18 (all P); כְּלֵיחָמָם Genesis 49:5 (poem); כְּלִי מַשְׁחֵתוֺ Ezekiel 9:1, מַמָּצוֺ׳כ Ezekiel 9:2; figurative of God’s weapons כְּלֵימָֿוֶת Psalm 7:14 (“” חִצָּיו); זַעְמוֺ׳כ Isaiah 13:5; Jeremiah 50:25; of entire equipment of warrior, armour or armament offensive and defensive 1 Samuel 17:54 (compare 1 Samuel 17:5 ff.), 1 Samuel 21:6 (twice in verse) (see Dr Sm 139. 293), 1 Samuel 31:9,10 = 1 Chronicles 10:9,10; hence נשֵֹׁא כֵלִים (כֵּלָיוׅ armour#NAME? weapon-bearer Judges 9:54; 1 Samuel 14:1,6,7,12 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 14:13 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 14:14,17; 1 Samuel 16:21; 1 Samuel 31:4 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 31:5,6 = 1 Chronicles 10:4 (twice in verse); 1 Chronicles 10:5,2Samuel 18:15; 2 Samuel 23:37 = 1 Chronicles 11:39; figurative וְכֵלַי כֵּלָיו רָעִים Isaiah 32:7 and a knave, his weapons (i.e. devices, Che ‘machinations’) are evil; more precisely כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה Judges 18:11,16,17; 1 Samuel 8:12; 2 Samuel 1:27; Deuteronomy 1:41; Jeremiah 21:4; Jeremiah 50:20 (figurative), Ezekiel 32:27; 1 Chronicles 12:34 (van d. H v. 1 Chronicles 12:33); כְּלֵי צְבָא מִלְחָמָה 1 Chronicles 12:38 (van d. H v. 1 Chronicles 12:37); כְּלֵי קְרָב Ecclesiastes 9:18; בֵּית כֵּלָיו 2 Kings 20:13 = Isaiah 39:2 is perhaps armoury; ׳כ Ezekiel 40:42 is sacrificial knife.

Source: Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew #3627

The word “wear” is not actually found in the first part of the verse. The Young’s Literal Translation renders it thus:

The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.

But there is more here to uncover. The most literal translation would be this:

And HE IS NOT a weapon of a valiant-man on a woman, and a valiant-man is not wearing a garment of a woman, for an abomination of Yahweh thy God is the whole of him-who-makes these ones.

“Weapon” [keli] is from a singular noun. It is not in the plural. The NASB translates this word keli as “armor” 24 times and “weapons” 22 times. That is significant. The only meaning that gets rendered more, is “utensils” or “vessels” which are not things worn. But because “wear” is not a part of the first clause, one can surmise what a “utensil of a valiant-man” might be.

“Him who makes” comes from a participle verb עֹ֥שֵׂה to make/do in the masculine singular. It is not in the plural.

The last word “these” is a plural pronoun (#428).

So what does it mean?

In the fully literal translation this sounds much more like a riddle that one has to figure out, does it not? Think of how far off that understanding is from the traditional interpretation that this was just a law or rule to not think about but simply obey. Consider that the whole law is a set of riddles rather than rules. If that is the case, the target was missed by miles by everyone who’s ever interpreted or translated it.

He is not a weapon of a warrior on a woman.

The warrior is not wearing a garment of a woman.

An abomination is the whole of the one who makes these.

There are also two women spoken of here, hence the plural pronoun these ones.

The context dictates translation/interpretation big time, and most know that. But what is the context? Is it a rule or a riddle?

Taken as rule, one can see how obscure and impossible it is to arrive conclusively at anything enforceable. It seems to be talking about crossdressing…but give no useful information, boundaries, explanations, or lines. How can one transgress the line when there are no lines? It is the “goodness of God” to be so ambiguous?

All those people cross-dressing, and trans-gendering—said to be transgressing God’s law and under his judgement because of this verse when this verse neither condemns nor vindicates them, but leaves us all scratching our heads.

Taken as a riddle, we could conclude we missed the point altogether, and that this God doesn’t give a damn what a man or woman chooses to put on, but is rather interested in communicating things to those “who have the ears to hear” the riddles…

Who is Deborah?

The unwalled-villages have ceased in Israel. They have ceased until which-I-have-stood-up, Bee, which-I-have-stood-up, a mother in El-Strives.

Judges 5:7 literal

Her name Deborah דְּבּוֹרָה means bee. Because she stings or has a stinger perhaps? The Hebrew for bee is from דָבַר dabar which means to speak, from which the word דָבָר of Elohim is derived. Also דֶּבֶר pestilence.

Note that the perfect verb I-have-stood-up has a relative pronoun prefixed – שַׁקַּ֥מְתִּי sha-qamti, which I have stood up. This is very odd and doesn’t occur anywhere else except in Judges 5:7. The sense is that the speaker is standing up as “Deborah”, i.e. whom I have stood up as. This is further supported by the fact that both Deborah and Barak are singing the same song.

Barak stood up as a Bee. And slaughtered. Maybe they are singing of one and the same thing?

Consider it an enigma. “Deborah” was never about women to begin with. If you really care about the truth you are going to have to dig. At some point Christians are going to come to terms with the fact that they’ve never read the real thing,

And he is making אֶת-the Basin of bronze, and אֶת-his base of bronze, in mirrors of the Warring-ones, who have warred at an opening of a tent of an appointed time.

Exodus 38:8 literal

That verse was always changed to read “serving women”. Perceived context and the crafty art of “dynamic-equivalence” takes the place of real text, and as a result everyone is left in the dark.

Who is really made in the image of God?

In Focus on the Family’s article How Can Woman Be Made in the Image of a Male God? the following question is posed:

How is it possible for both men and women to be made in the Divine Image when the Bible speaks of God primarily in masculine terms? I’m wondering if all the talk I’ve been hearing about the biblical basis for equality between the sexes is just an attempt on the part of liberal theologians to “feminize” God.

Focus on the Family answers this question thus,

according to the language of Scripture, it takes both man and woman – or, to put it another way, mankind as a whole – to reflect God’s Image in a complete way.

How does this not make God out to be a bifurcated man/woman, masculine/feminine God? The writers at the same time attempt to reassure us that God is not bifurcated,

Although it’s true that God has revealed Himself in the Bible as a Father who has many masculine traits, this isn’t quite the same thing as saying that He is a “male” God in the style of Zeus, Apollo, or Hermes. If you have trouble grasping this, remember that while the Lord is a personal God, He is neither human nor sexual in nature. There’s an important sense in which “masculine” is not necessarily the same thing as “male” – at least not when we’re talking about God.

Those sentences reflect the writing of someone who has not fully thought this through. We are told that God is a “masculine person” but that “women bear his image” and He is “not human” (while maintaining that Jesus, a man, is God).  The statement is so conflicting and confusing that it leaves the reader hopelessly forced to assume ambiguous, abstract meanings to the words, FATHER, MASCULINE, FEMININE, MAN, WOMAN, etc.

There’s also Paul’s text regarding the image of Jesus (a male) being the image of God which is completely left out of their discussion (Col 1:15). This too would be explained subjectively.

Here, and in most other complementarian resources, we are told to assume that MAN/WOMAN reflect the the IMAGE of God while at the same time told to believe he is a FATHER and not a MOTHER. This is the doctrine we are taught: God’s image is both masculine and feminine. There is absolutely no sense in this. But we’ve lived a long time under a fear of straying from such a doctrine so as not to reap the repercussions of getting burned at the stake. It became taboo to even question this. And so truth becomes squandered by our submission to fear.

The idea that “everyone is made in his image” is old…

In the Epistle of Barnabas (not authentically written by the Apostle Barnabas) written in around 100 A.D. we read this:

There is yet this also, my brethren; if the Lord endured to suffer
for our souls, though He was Lord of the whole world, unto whom God
said from the foundation of the world, Let us make man after our
image and likeness
, how then did He endure to suffer at the hand
of men?

Barnabas 5:5

It would seem that blindness came over Christianity as soon as the Apostles left the building. It is not said anywhere, by Jesus, nor by the Apostles in the New Testament that everyone is made in the image of God. In fact we find the opposite: that one must be made into the image of God (Rom. 8:29).

Enigma time:

The first man is out from earth, dust; the second man out from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:47)

In v.15 Paul was caught mentioning two Adams.…from Adam, back to Adam…