John Gill Commentary Deuteronomy 22:5

"A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman`s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God." — Deuteronomy 22:5 (ASV)

The woman shall not wear that which pertains to 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" ^F6, any utensil of his which he uses 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 had lately come; whose women, as Herodotus ^F7 relates, used to trade and merchandise abroad, while the men kept at home.

And the word also signifies armour ^F8, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women. And so Maimonides ^F9 illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus ^F11 explains it: "take heed, especially in war, that a woman not use the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman." He is not to be found fault with as much as he is by a learned writer ^F12, since he does not restrain it wholly to war, though he thinks it may have a special regard to that. For no doubt the law respects the times of peace as well as war, in neither of which such a practice should obtain. But the Targum of Jonathan very wrongly limits it to the wearing fringed garments and phylacteries, which belonged to men.

neither shall a man put on a woman's garment ;
which would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them. To prevent this and to preserve chastity, this law seems to have been made; and since in nature a difference of sexes is made, it is proper and necessary that this should be known by difference of dress, or otherwise many evils might follow.

And this precept is agreeable to the law and light of nature. It is observed by a Heathen writer ^F13 that there is a twofold distribution of the law: the one written, the other not written. What we use in civil things is written; what is from nature and use is unwritten, as to walk naked in the market, or to put on a woman's garment. And change of the clothes of sexes was used among the Heathens by way of punishment, as of the soldiers that deserted and of adulteresses ^F14; so abominable was it accounted. Indeed, it may be lawful in some cases, where life is in danger, to escape that, provided chastity is preserved.

for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God ;
which is a sufficient reason why such a practice should not be used. Some from this clause have been led to conclude that respect is had to some customs of this kind used in idolatrous worship, which are always abominable to the Lord.

So Maimonides ^F15 observes that in a book of the Zabians, called "Tomtom", it is commanded that a man should wear a woman's coloured garment when he stood before the star of Venus, and likewise that a woman should put on a coat of mail and warlike armour when she stood before the star of Mars. He takes this to be one reason for this law, though besides that he gives another: because hereby concupiscence would be excited and an occasion for whoredom given. That there were some such customs among the Heathens may be confirmed from Macrobius ^F16 and Servius ^F17, as has been observed by Grotius; the former relates that Philochorus affirmed that Venus is the moon, and that men sacrificed to her in women's garments and women in men's; and for this reason, because she was thought to be both male and female. And the latter says there was an image of Venus in Cyprus with a woman's body and garment, and with the sceptre and distinction of a man, to whom the men sacrificed in women's garments and women in men's garments. And, as the above learned commentator observes, there were many colonies of the Phoenicians in Cyprus, from whom this custom might come; and to prevent it obtaining among the Israelites in any degree, who were now coming into their country, it is thought this law was made. For the priests of the Assyrian Venus used women's apparel ^F18, and in the feasts of Bacchus men disguised themselves like women ^F19.

---

FOOTNOTES:

• F6: (rbg ylk) "instrumentum virile", Pagninus, Junius et Tremellius; "instrumentum viri", Vatablus.
• F7: Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 35.
• F8: "Arma viri", Munster.
• F9: Hilchot Obede Cochabim, c. 12. sect. 10.
• F11: Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 43.
• F12: Cunaeus de Repub. Heb. l. 2. c. 22.
• F13: Laert. Vit. Platonis, l. 3. p. 238.
• F14: Cunaeus ut supra. (^F12)
• F15: Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 37.
• F16: Saturnal. l. 3. c. 8.
• F17: In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 2.
• F18: Jul. Firmic. de Relig. Prophan. p. 6.
• F19: Lucian.