Deuteronomy 22:5 (UASV) reads:
“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah your God.”

This verse stands as one of the more debated Mosaic regulations because it touches directly upon distinctions between the sexes, the preservation of divine order, and cultural symbols of identity. Translation choices here have a profound impact on interpretation, particularly in an age when gender categories are being blurred. The precise rendering of kĕlî geber (כְּלִי־גֶבֶר) and śimlat ’iššâ (שִׂמְלַ֣ת אִשָּׁ֔ה) must therefore be considered with great care. The theological weight of the command hinges not merely upon generic “clothing,” but upon the more specific cultural markers of apparel associated with men and women in ancient Israel.

---

The Hebrew Terms: Kĕlî Geber and Śimlat ’Iššâ

The text uses two distinct expressions:

1. כְּלִי־גֶבֶר (kĕlî geber) – literally, “article/implement of a man.”

   • The noun kĕlî broadly denotes an object, vessel, instrument, or implement. Its semantic range includes clothing, weapons, and tools. The genitive geber specifies “a strong man” or “warrior,” often with martial overtones. Thus, kĕlî geber does not simply mean “men’s clothing,” but rather something associated with a man, especially with his societal role. In many contexts, this could imply weapons, armor, or a cloak functioning as a military garment.

2. שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה (śimlat ’iššâ) – “outer garment of a woman.”

   • Simlah denotes an outer cloak, mantle, or robe, a distinctive piece of apparel. This was not generic “clothing” but a specific, recognizable garment. It often served as a covering, a blanket at night (Exod. 22:26–27), or a visible identifier of a woman’s role or social standing.

This lexical distinction is crucial. Whereas śimlah clearly designates a piece of clothing, kĕlî geber is intentionally broader, encompassing apparel and perhaps accessories associated with a man’s public role. Reducing both to “clothes” erases the deliberate contrast the inspired author intended.

---

Why Generalized Renderings Flatten the Text

Modern dynamic-equivalence versions often generalize:

• NIV (2011): “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing.”

• NLT (2015): “A woman must not put on men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing.”

The NIV reduces kĕlî geber to “clothing,” and the NLT further collapses the semantic precision into “clothes.” This erases the nuance between garment and implement and blurs the distinction between what belonged to a man in his role (tools, weaponry, or a mantle associated with authority) versus the more clearly defined woman’s garment. The theological force is softened: the Mosaic Law was not merely about fabric but about visible boundary markers of God-ordained gender roles.

By contrast:

• UASV: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment.”

• ESV: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak.”

• NASB 1995/2020: “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing.”

Here, the ESV preserves the distinction by rendering śimlah as “cloak” and kĕlî as “garment.” The UASV rightly holds both as “garment,” keeping the concrete imagery without collapsing categories into “clothing.” The NASB, while slightly less precise in its newer editions, at least avoids the flattening that occurs in NIV and NLT.

---

The Force of the Prohibition

The purpose of the prohibition is not about trivial sartorial regulations but about maintaining the God-ordained boundary between the sexes. Ancient Near Eastern pagan practices often involved cross-dressing in the context of cultic prostitution, fertility rituals, or magical rites. A woman donning a man’s kĕlî geber could symbolically take upon herself male roles or functions, thereby blurring divinely established order. A man donning a woman’s simlah would likewise invert his role, mocking the order God instituted at creation (Gen. 1:27; 2:18–25).

The concluding clause—“for whoever does these things is detestable (tô‘ēbah) to Jehovah your God”—underscores the severity. The term tô‘ēbah denotes abomination, often linked with idolatry, sexual perversion, and cultic impurity. The prohibition, therefore, has a covenantal and moral dimension, not merely a cultural one. To misrepresent one’s God-given sex through the deliberate adoption of the opposite’s garment was tantamount to rebellion against Jehovah Himself.

---

Translation Philosophy at Stake

Literal translation is indispensable here. To collapse “garment” into “clothing” (NIV, NLT) undermines the precision of the inspired text. A literal rendering retains the specificity of the Hebrew, allowing the reader to wrestle with what exactly kĕlî geber entailed in its ancient context. The task of interpretation belongs to the exegete and the reader, not to the translator. By contrast, dynamic translations pre-interpret the text, stripping away lexical signals and collapsing distinctions that Moses deliberately preserved.

A faithful translation should therefore:

• Retain garment for śimlah.

• Retain garment or implement for kĕlî geber, leaving its semantic range open for contextual exploration.

• Avoid flattening into “clothing,” which falsely suggests the terms are interchangeable.

---

The Witness of the Textual Tradition

The textual witnesses of Deuteronomy 22:5 are stable, with no significant variants affecting the meaning. The Septuagint renders kĕlî geber as σκεῦος ἀνδρικόν (“implement/gear of a man”) and śimlah as ἱμάτιον γυναικεῖον (“garment of a woman”). This confirms the Hebrew distinction and further demonstrates that the LXX translators understood kĕlî as broader than “clothes.” Jerome’s Vulgate likewise retains the contrast: non induetur mulier veste virili, nec vir utetur veste feminea. Early Jewish and Christian interpreters consistently viewed this verse as forbidding cross-dressing, not merely in fashion but in identity-role confusion.

---

The Theological Significance

This verse affirms an abiding principle: God created male and female as distinct, complementary sexes, and their distinctions are to be honored visibly. In Israel, outward attire reflected this divine order. To blur these markers was a denial of creation order and thus an affront to Jehovah. The prohibition is not about cultural fashion but about maintaining sexual differentiation rooted in creation.

Modern debates about gender expression and transgenderism only underscore the ongoing relevance. When translations weaken the text by generalizing “garment” into “clothing,” they risk obscuring the clear teaching that identity is not self-chosen but God-given.

You May Also Enjoy

Genesis 6:2 and the Translation of “Sons of God” (בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים)

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS