Deuteronomy 22 starts off sweetly, lecturing to return to the rightful owner items such as oxen, sheep, asses and clothing that have been lost. Probably most of the world would agree that's a good idea.

But then it goes weird on us. At least to those of us in the modern world. Perhaps when it was written, 3,000 years ago, it made sense... at least for the old men who wrote it.

Indeed, it does say in Deuteronomy (verse 22) that "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." (King James Version)

Before we consider other commandments of this same verse, let us consider this particular section. Is it not true that virtually every modern woman blatantly violates this verse on a regular basis? Within a literal interpretation of the foregoing verse would not millions of contemporary women appear as an "abmonination" to the Lord in the wearing of pants, shorts, mens-style shirts and jackets, overalls, cowboy boots, athletic shoes, baseball caps, physicians smocks, construction site attire, and many other items of clothing that were originally designed exclusively for the male gender? Of course. This fact in itself is enough to invalidate any modern levity to which this hoary verse may still aspire. But there is much more contained within infamous Deuteronomy 22 that will compel the modern reader to completely disregard this verse from having any validity in civilized culture.

Deuteronomy insists that you must build a "parapet" (ledge) around your roof so no one will fall off.

Deuteronomy commands you to fashion tassels or fringes on the four corners of your cloak or coat.

Deuteronomy lays the law down against wearing any garment that combines fibers.

Deuteronomy sternly admonishes families to retain evidence of their daughter's virginity at the time of marriage (the bedsheets from her wedding night, presumably smeared with blood from the piercing of the hymen), so that they may have proof if the good-for-nothing husband later accuses his wife of not being a virgin. Now, if this happens, the woman can be taken back by her father, but is still regarded as married to the jackass and cannot be divorced from him as long as she lives. BUT... if the claim is true and she really was not a virgin upon marriage (or if the parents lost that bloody sheet and cannot prove otherwise)... well then Deuteronomy commands that she be dragged to the door of her father's house and stoned to death.

Deuteronomy proclaims that if a man sleeps with another man's wife, or with a betrothed virgin, then both of the lovers must die.

Deuteronomy says that if a man comes upon a virgin out in the country who is pledged to be married, and rapes her, he must be killed. However, if the girl was not pledged to be married, the guy must pay the father 50 sheckles of silver and marry the girl, and they cannot ever be divorced. Deuteronomy says nothing about a man raping a non-virgin, or betrothed virgins raped in the town.

Now, if the modern reader disapproves of the cruel and barbaric solutions commanded by Deuteronomy for these sexual situations, has not yet constructed that parapet around their roof, does not have those four tassels dangling from their coat, and routinely wears garments of mixed fibers, then it is crystal clear that Deuteronomy Verse 22 has not a shred of validity to their values. Since these readers are already completely disregarding the bulk of Deuteronomy 22, they should certainly feel perfectly free to dress in the clothing of the opposite gender without the slightest notion that what they are doing is actually an abomination to any God worth worshipping.

Angel Russell
Copyright © 2007 A. Russell. All rights reserved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------