IBL07: Seventh Commandment

The Transvestite

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Lesson: 17-20

Genre: Talk

Track: 70

Dictation Name: RR130AL70

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

[Audio is very rough, there may be errors]

Our Scripture is Deuteronomy 22:5. Deuteronomy 22:5, The Transvestite.

Deuteronomy 22:5

“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.”

This verse gives us a very interesting law that has a long history in Western culture. Under the influence of Scripture and because they have taken the Biblical law very seriously, every country in the Western world has enacted this law. And as a result until almost today, this has been a part of the law of the United States, of Britain, and of virtually every country with a Christian heritage.

As we analyze the meaning of this law, we will look first of all at the word: ‘Abomination’. Four Hebrew and one Greek word, are translated in the English Bible by our word abomination. In this case, the Hebrew word, one of four words translated as abomination is ‘Toebah’, which means literally something loathed, or loathsome, especially on religious grounds.

(Hunter?) has defined it thus and I quote; “The word is used to denote that which is particularly offensive in the moral sense, to religious feeling.”

Now the significant thing here is that the law says it is not the act or the thing that is the abomination, but the person who does it. The penalty is not specified, it is left to the discretion of law makers.

Now let’s analyze this law very carefully, because in a sense the English translation of it loses some of the subtly of the original. One scholar, a very brilliant archeologist and Old Testament scholar, not orthodox however, (Ian rom?) saw this law as a part of the requirement of physical perfection, and there is a duty to respect and to maintain the body, and our calling with respect to our sex, its God given. Without mutilation or confusion. (?) the great German scholar of a century ago declared that the purpose of this law was to maintain the divine distinction of the sexes. They declared that the first part of this law could be literally translated: “There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on woman’s clothes.”

Now that is the difference in the Hebrew. A man’s things shall not be upon a woman, nor a woman’s clothes upon a man. There is a difference there. (?) say that things here means, utensils or tools or duties. The purpose of the law, they state and I quote: “Is to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God.”

W.L. Alexander, another one of the great scholars of a century ago pointed out that it could be translated: “That which pertaineth to a man, or the thing that pertain to a man, or more literally the apparatus of a man.”

In other words, it means not merely clothing, but implements, tools, weapons, utensils, and duties. (?) another scholar from over a century ago pointed out that this law forbids the wife to rule her husband, and it forbids every perversion of the sexes from their God-given place.

Thus a very interesting meaning appears. What is the meaning with respect to the woman? It is grabbing for the reality of the power and the function of the man. So the woman’s offense of this law is assuming the powers and duties as well as the forms of the man’s life, but with the man it is the abdication of the forms, and it is a surrender if he puts on a woman’s garb, as a sign of his weakness and surrender.

Now let us turn from the law for a time to the present situation with respect to this law. And I give you now the analysis of a sociologist and anthropologist (Winnig?) who, without having any criticisms of sexes whatsoever, or concern one way or another is simply reporting on contemporary (?). According to Dr.(Winnig?) today we see the progressive de-sexualization, the goal he says is the bland man, the neutral, the blurring of distinctions between male and female. It has gone so far that in 1964 the American Civil Liberties Union for the first time in the history of the country, challenged the law against (?) that is for a man to appear in public in woman’s clothing, and claimed that it was an infringement of the civil liberties of a man. Moreover, as Dr. (Winni?) has pointed out, (?) on the part of man, that is men wearing women’s clothes to play a role, is becoming increasingly common on the stage, and also in movies and on television. In London unisexual prose has become a style, and to a degree also they have become a style in Scandinavia. They are being promoted and will gradually appear in other countries elsewhere. Already we do see among the hippy elements this uni-man or unisex idea propagated, so that sometimes it is very difficult to tell whether they are male or female; if you look and see the girls shoes will sometimes give her away, but if they are barefooted sometimes it works against you.

Moreover, at the same time the stage is increasingly trying to give a picture of men that is anything but masculine. Dr.(Winnig?) says the stage has, and I quote: “Created a number of men who are programmed for defeat.” Men who (are born?), are at the same time giving us increasingly aggressive woman on the stage. In fact, on the stage in New York and London and elsewhere, one of the interesting facts is that increasingly actresses are appearing who are taller than the male lead. This is not entirely accidental. Moreover, Dr.(Winnig?) comments and I quote “Although women characters once represented the goal of a (hutero?) romantic sex, today we are getting the woman as brute. The woman as the one who mistreats poor, helpless males.”

Now Dr.(Winnigs) report is, I think, well grounded. Behind all this chaos, this drive towards unisex and uniman, rides certain ideas. First of all, there is a rebellion against Gods ordained order. The principle of God’s creation and of His order is denied, so that man is seeking to rearrange the whole of the world and the sexes in terms of his own creative mandate. I have at home a very interesting magazine with an article on mathematics today. Most of the article is beyond my comprehension because I deals with higher mathematics, and you don’t have to get very high in mathematics to lose me. However, one paragraph stood out like a neon light. In this the author stated why the new mathematics is so popular, and why it is perpetuated. Because the old math gives us a world that is already made, it is a world that is (?) there from the hand of god, and there is nothing you can do about it. But in the new math he says: “Man remakes the world as his own creation.”

Well, if we have this temper in mathematics, should we be surprised that we have it everywhere else? Second, equality as a philosophical and religious faith (?) founder of unisex, uni-man. Today the principle of equality is applied everywhere. All people are equal. Woman are equal to man, and man is equal to God. As a result, there is a militant war against any differences. The bland, the neutral is the goal. Henry Miller of course has said and I cited this before, that the goal of society must be a great revolution, a revolution which will wipe away all civilization, all knowledge of reading and writing, books, everything, for two hundred years. During which time nothing but anarchy and ruin will prevail. So that all knowledge of our history and civilization will disappear, every kind of perversion will be so general that at the end of that time, men will scarcely know that they are men, and women will scarcely know that they are women. And then, he says, paradise will begin. Because it will be beyond God, it will be a world of man’s making without God and His law.

Now this of course is what is behind the studied violation of this law. And we can see in terms of these commentators who have studied very carefully the significance of the Hebrew text, the meaning of the law has broader references than clothing. The clothing reference is specific with respect to men in women’s dress. The reference to woman refers to broader concept. The law strikes at the general neutralization of the sexes and the confusion of their roles. It strikes at the man’s abdication of his responsibilities, and the woman’s presumption in assuming what is not hers. It certainly therefore is a law that legislates against the idea of women elders, and against the idea of woman ministers. It certainly legislates against the idea of men being irresponsible, because the idea of being a man is to bear the responsibility in a situation.

I recall some years ago, an elder who (?). And he said that David was a repulsive figure to him, he claimed to be fundamentalist, this man, but he said David was a repulsive figure, (?). It is true that David did commit murder and adultery. It is true that David did sin with respect to his children. It is true that you can possibly find out some other faults in David. But the thing that makes David so great a man, and so close to God, is that David was in all things a responsible man. a responsible man. We know of David’s sin, of David’s record. “Against Thee, and Thee only have I sinned and done that which is evil in Thy sight.” And this elder who made this charge about David, had never been caught in admitting that he had done wrong in his life. Here was a man (?) clearly in Gods eyes, king David.

Saint Paul insists on a strict line of division between male and female or sex, and as God ordained as the means of communication and love between man and woman. The (?) God ordained them to be. That man should be the responsible figure, the strength and support of the household, and the woman to be a helpmeet to him, and the exercise of his responsibility and support.

It is interesting the influence this law has had on military law. Until the 1940’s at least, the military law of this country as well as in some other countries had strict rules that specify that a man was at all times to only have the apparatus of man, (?) therefore it was forbidden to a man in uniform to push a baby carriage down the street. It was unbecoming to the dignity of a man. It was forbidden to him to carry an umbrella while in uniform. He was at all times the picture of military dignity and authority. These rules were good, and they usually had a healthy effect on the men because they (?) at one and the same time his masculinity, and also at the same time that he was to be a gentleman in public, he wore a uniform that was to represent a man, and a man conducting himself like a man.

The purpose of the law was to increase the strength and authority of men and women as men and women in their respective domains. The strength of a man is in being a man under God, and the strength of a woman in being a woman under God. The definition of a transvestite thus is much broader than mere reference to clothing. Our modern culture very clearly, as Dr. (Winnig?) has made clear, has a very strongly transvestite character. It is in full (?) violation of this law, because it is first a culture of perversion to the law of God.

Where God has called us to order, (?) and basic to Gods order is Gods distinction of man and woman, male and female created he them. Let us pray.

Almighty God our heavenly Father we thank Thee that Thou hast called us to be Thy people, and has made us male and female and given us wonderful and glorious responsibilities. We pray our Father than in this day of evil when men are destroying Thy God (?), Thou wouldst make us strong in terms of Thy law, that Thou wouldst make us to live in terms of Godly reconstruction. That Thou wouldst make us ever mindful our Father that Thy judgement is upon the people, and Thy blessing upon the people of (?) and of Thy word. Bless us therefore that we may be able to serve Thee and to magnify Thee, and to bring forth Thy glory among all (?) amen.

Are there any questions now, first of all about our lesson? Yes.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, they are all basically the same idea.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] The meaning of the word abomination both in the Greek word and the four Hebrew words, is something that is loathsome, or to be loathed, especially on religious grounds. And the word that is used in this particular case is the strongest of the four Hebrew words. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, if you take political and military history of course, (?) prominent, rather than women which is as it should be. But when you go through the scripture you find that many women had very great significance in scripture. And when you take…

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, some great things I was going to come to that. You find when you… what?

[Audience Member] ...?... (laughter)

[Rushdoony] Yes. Now, when it comes to political history, you find (?) but here is a very interesting distinction. The best queen I know of in all history, to take a classic example on the one side, who was thoroughly feminine, was Maria Theresa. The best queen on the other side who was rather masculine was queen Elizabeth.

Now, even then the greatness of Queen Elizabeth was in a sense feminine, because her success was this. She knew that England was highly vulnerable, and that both sides, the powers in Europe, were angling to get England on their side by marrying somebody in one of the Royal families to Elizabeth. And then they would bring Elizabeth into (?). Well, at this point Elizabeth by playing hard to get all her life, and meanwhile leading on both sides and giving everyone the idea that, ‘I thinking of getting engaged with you’ was able to preserve England, and enable England to grow strong. So even though she was highly masculine in other respects, her greatness was her feminine traits.

On the other hand, Maria Theresa is one of the most wonderful figures in all history, and I think it is fitting that the most popular coin in all of history is the Maria Theresa coin, actually minted in her honor by her son in her last days. Mariah Theresa came to the throne of the Autrian/Hungarian empire when all of Europe expected to fall apart. And here she was, just a slip of a girl. And yet she was thoroughly womanly, remarkably so. She was by right, the Empress of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the Austrian Hungarian Empire. (?) she never did. She said: “The title belongs to a man. Let my son have it when he comes to the throne. But it is not right for a woman to ascend to that power.” She always had around her level headed men as councilors. She always did the final deciding, but at all times she made every man around her know, that she was treating his opinion with respect, and she was not presuming (?). As a result she built up a loyalty that was unparalleled in history. Everyone loved her, they recognized the godly character of the woman, her very, very real humility, and the fact that she understood the details of things, and the (?) of things. So that she became quite a remarkable ruler.

Now there are differences between men and women. Women are personal, this is their grace. This is why they can cope with family situations and personal things, because they are interested in the very personal thing, and they view every problem from the personal perspective. “What is this doing to me, or to my husband, or to my children?” They put it in personal terms. While, what does a man do? He tries to put it in abstract terms. “Now let’s look at this objectively.” That is his attitude.

Well, you see, this is why they need each other, this is why you cannot read scripture properly except in terms of male and female, and this is why in a godly society the woman will have a very important role because the balance is needed. Men become too impersonal, they are trying to abstract everything; but not the woman. Now, it is not surprising that most sociologists are men, and the women who do it (?). Because what does the sociologist do? He tries to de-personalize everything. If a child is misbehaving or something, he is trying to find abstract objective reasons for all of this. What does the woman do? She nails him. Because he is out of line. Not abstract social problems.

Now, I am stretching the point a bit, but this is the difference between male and female, one is personal, the other tends to be abstract and general. And both are needed in the world. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Very good question. In the older tradition the answer was emphatically no, the woman if they were to pray, had a separate midweek Bible study led by one of the women. Nowadays not much attention is paid to that, and I think it would be better to get back to the older tradition because I believe it is more godly.

Then I have noticed this, that where women are leading in prayer in the prayer meetings, the men tend to drop back, so that if there is a prayer meeting there will be a couple women praying for every man who prays. In other words, where women move in to do something, the men simply tend to pull back. So it is…

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] It is unscriptural first of all, and secondly it tends to destroy the masculine (?).

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] It is men who lead in prayer, yes. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?... More and more men have abdicated their responsibility as head of the household, and a lot of the problems that I see in relation to the children is because the husband has abdicated his responsibility, and I want to go on record as saying that I believe …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Well of course, this doesn’t mean that we… we mustn’t take a Victorian view of women. Woman in Bible times were very capable, the reason the last chapter of Proverbs describes the woman, how she runs the farm, how she runs the business, manages the household, handles her husband’s business so he can be an elder sitting in the gates, that is a city councilman; that is, it does not say that the woman sits in a corner and nits, what it says is that a woman does not take over the man’s responsibilities, that is to usurp them. The woman presented in scripture is a very strong personality. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] I am sorry to see it, but it is just about done in every church. The plight of woman’s suffrage is this, it is the one man, one vote idea. The older standard was: ‘One family, one vote.’ You see. In which case the man voted in the congregational meeting, or the widow voted. It was one family, one vote. And this is the founders principle, this is why some churches still count membership in terms of number of families, the Christian Reformed Church has a membership role in terms of this, a 50 family church or a 300 family church, and so on. This is a sound perspective, there is a lot else that is unsound about the Christian Reformed Church, but that aspect is sound.

[Audience Member] ...?... in Christ there is neither male nor female …?...

[Rushdoony] This is quote by those who are for? Yes, oh yes, I see. by those who are for women’s suffrage.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Well you see, we have become atomistic today, it is the individual. And in the scripture it is the family. The family is the basic unit. And this is where we have gone wrong. Now I would say that in terms of scripture we are permitted a certain leeway, so that in this day and age where every woman has the vote, women should vote. Because while it would be best to restore it to a family vote, and then the unmarried man would have no vote, because he has got to be the head of a household, an adulterer would not be entitled to a vote. But meanwhile the woman should vote in order to help nullify a great deal of the evil that is prevalent. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] This would be in terms of assuming the masculine role such as priest work, taking over fighting as in war time, out and out fully masculine work. I don’t mean women who were helping in a specific position, matrons, or doing the feminine side of juvenile work with the police. But it does not permit the kind of thing that the Soviet Union has done for example, actually using women on the fighting lines and so on, definitely not. But it doesn’t prevent the woman from having weapons and using them in cases of necessity. Remember one of the women who is very much praised, Jael, who put a tent peg through Sisera’s head. And, if you go back to the words of praise used concerning her, you will find they are echoed with respect to the Virgin Mary in the New Testament. A very interesting episode. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] No, that is not true, because it can be traced back to Africa. And if anything, the very small amount of masculine responsibility you find among Negro’s, you do find as a product of (?) where there was some order and discipline imposed. The tribal culture in Africa gave the man no function except to hunt and do battle, that was all. All the work was the woman’s, all the responsibility was the woman’s. The man was nothing but a playboy as it were, but when there was war (?) and if it was an agricultural tribe, even his hunting was somewhat limited. So that the man did not have any responsibilities.

Now this you find in other cultures as well, among the African cultures you find it to the nth degree, but you find this also among the American Indians. I spent eight and a half years among the American Indians, and the thing that was characteristic of them was that the Indian women were far more responsible than the men, far more responsible. And the Indian men are mostly alcoholics, an extremely high ratio of alcoholism, overwhelming, over, far, far more than (?) percent. But the number of Indian women that are alcoholics is not high. And the reason is that from very early years because of the tribal background, they are the responsible party. And you see, responsibility is a total thing. If you are a responsible man in most of your life, it carries over into (?) and because the Indian man is not responsible, he is very prone to alcoholism.

Now, this question was asked this morning, and then a woman said yes, when I was Arizona I saw this Indian go into an ice cream parlor and get an ice cream cone while his wife sat outside and didn’t get one. And I said yes, I believe that, but I will tell you something more, the chances are she gave him the money and sent him in to treat himself. Because he is the biggest baby she has. And they indulge their men, the men are very abusive and all, and beat them up, but the women often provides them a good deal of the money for their drinking, and for their ice cream cones and so on.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, it is over and over again used so in scripture, and as a matter of fact the old Puritan tradition was, not only to call fellow members brother so and so and sister so and so, but also the ministers were called Father. This is not Catholic usage. It is modern among the Catholic. After the Civil war as I pointed out some months ago, somehow this switch came around, the Catholic term for priest was Mr. or Don, meaning (?) this was the way they addressed their priest. But the Protestants always spoke of the minister as Father, and the little kids would speak of the older men as Father Jones, any older man. So that, or if they were quite a familiar family friend for example, a man would be addressed by, if he had a young student in the group Father (?). So that the older men would be called Father, and the adults were called Master Father. You find this in the American Protestant and Puritan tradition up until the war, and it began to die out after the Civil war, and somehow Catholic and Protestant customs switched.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, call no man Father save God. Father in the absolute sense. But remember, Saint Paul wrote to Timothy that: ‘I have been your father in the faith.’ So you see, there is a distinction there, so that he called Timothy ‘my son’, even though he was not his son. So it was used in that sense of brother, sister, Father and Mother, a family in Christ. But in the sense of a reverence or awe such as used say for a priest, Father so and so, no. But in a sense of being a family, in that sense yes. Because, when it is a family situation as it was say in the Puritan church, Brother Paul and Sister Mary, and Father Marpoll and so on, it was a different kind of thing, it was a different context. So that, even Calvin defined in speaking of this voice in Matthew it says: ‘Call no man Father save God only’, he said this does not refer to the usage in the church by brethren in the Lord who are one family. So Calvin specifically favored it.

Now this came as a shock to me when I ran across this in Calvin a while back before I started studying about it, before I came to my perspective here because I realized Calvin was right at this point.

[Audience Member] ...?... (Laughter)

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, the regular orthodox faith and the Greek Orthodox (?) very close to one another, was a heresy at certain serious points. For one thing they did not believe in the profession of the Holy Ghost, Father and Son. They gave the Son a subordinate position. Subordinationism as we saw in our studies of the (?) councils leads to a rather humanistic faith. Second, the Orthodox churches, and especially the Russian Orthodox church, held to the doctrine of Kenosis. And the doctrine of kenosis was a very dangerous one. The idea was that when Christ came incarnate, He emptied himself of His divinity, so that he was completely man, even though He was very God of very God. So that, the way of Kenosis the Russians emphasized for all believers, you as it were surrendered all authority and all power, you became a pilgrim as it were. Utter humility.

Well, this is a perversion, because the Christian is to use, as we shall see in a few weeks, power under God. And to deny that power as Christians, and to say that Christ proved Himself to be truly the Son of God by denying His Godhead, and emptying Himself of His power, and that we are to renounce all power and so on and so forth, is to pervert the meaning of humility and of meekness. We shall be coming to this as I say very soon, so I don’t want to go into it too heavily. But it did mean to a great extent, to become a Christian as a Russian Orthodox was almost to surrender any influence you might have, in any position you held. So that the doctrine of Kenosis was a very very deadly doctrine, the idea of a truly holy man was of someone who having accepted the faith just wandered around witnessing. And of course, some people in Protestantism tend to have that kind of idea. It meant forsaking your responsibility just to make a witness. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] No, Kenosis refers to this doctrine of emptying yourself.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, a lot of the churches in Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, are named not after persons but doctrines. For example the church of Saint (?) which is in Constantinople is not name after someone named (?) but after wisdom, (?) means wisdom, so the church of holy wisdom, that is the literal translation. So, this is the (defective?) thing, Eastern Orthodoxy does have churches named after saints, but a lot of the names have reference to doctrines. The church of the holy wisdom, the church of kenosis. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes. The trouble with almost all discussions of free will verses predestination is that free will is discussed in the abstract and absolute sense. Free will in the absolute sense can only be applied to God, because only God is totally and absolutely sovereign and free. Now, our freedom is the freedom of a creature. We are free to be what we are. Ours is a secondary causality and a secondary freedom. So that it comes within the circle, if you are going to use circles… the circle of Gods predestination has many smaller circles in it which are products of this great circle. So we are free to be what we are created to be, what we have been ordained to be. There is no compulsion on it. But God has made us in terms of His sovereign decree. So that, we move in terms of it. So, we can never ascribe anything but a secondary causality and a secondary freedom to ourselves. We aren’t free, as I have said on other occasions, to be born in the age we choose, or to get younger each year, or to say: “I am going to be Chinese today and Japanese tomorrow, and a Greek the next day, because I’d like to change around.” No. We are not free to choose who we are, and that freedom is a part of God’s sovereign decree. That freedom is our knowledge that we are acting without coercion in terms of our own nature.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Without coercion, because God has created us to be what we are, so we are not coerced in what we are.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, freedom in modern philosophy, especially since Kant and Hegel means the freedom from God to be your own God. And this is why when you come to Sartre, Sartre as he tries to develop this finds: “Alright, I abolished God. My freedom is to be my own God. But now I have abolished all principle of definition, because I have abolished meaning, since all meaning is derived from God. So how can I be free, since I am not given the world?” you see, you try (?) but you still can’t escape meaning as it is somehow there. So the most logical of these existentialists, oh the artist Marcel Duchamp, who painted the famous Nude Descending a Staircase for the Armory show before WW1, and it is still around, Marcel Duchamp was so determined to abolish God, that he determined that he had to get rid of the whole world of God and of His meaning, so he said: “I am going to create a language in which nothing will find meaning, because meaning ultimately has reference to God.” So he worked on it for years, but he found out, and he said (?) nobody could then communicate, because then you would have to establish a common bond, you would have to say that there is something outside of myself, in which case I am not God, I am not totally independent.” And of course Sartre concludes his great work Being and Nothingness in the next to the last chapter, after going through all this, how a man has to be his own God, well how is he going to be God? Well, it is impossible, because there is always somebody else in the world, and you have to have some kind of communication with them, and this nullifies it all. And so he concludes: “Man is a useless (?)”

Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, right. Just one more?

[Audience Member] ...?... (Laughter)

[Rushdoony] You are so right, only a man could be that stupid. (Laughter) and with that we are adjourned.