Women in the Millitary?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by MEE, Jun 4, 2003.

  1. MEE

    MEE
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/me3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone have information, as to whether women, in the OT, were allowed to be in the millitary? Also, are they allowed to be in the millitary, in Israel, now?

    Comments appreciated! [​IMG]

    MEE [​IMG]
     
  2. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    All Israeli women between the ages of 18 and 26 who are unmarried, have no children, are fit and are not conscientious objectors must serve two years, as opposed to the men's required three years. In 1995, a ruling was made overturning the ban on women engaging in actual combat (although they'd always been able to be in combat support roles). Women were deployed to the West Bank back in March.

    I don't know about OT, though. I don't think women were specifically mentioned as being in the military, but I don't recall it ever being stated that militaries were only men. But, if the Bible is silent on the matter, we still might be able to make a sociological conclusion.
     
  3. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    As for Old Testament examples of women in the military, the only example I can recall is Deborah. You can read that account in Judges 4. She is not described as an active military member but was rather forced into action for the good of Israel.

    This was likely the exception and not the rule as in Numbers Moses is told to number the members of the tribes in Israel. Verse 1:2 specifies that this census pertains to the "men" twenty years and older able to fight.

    Later, in 2Samuel 24/1Chronicles 21, we see that David's census (one of his sins) includes all the people of Israel but the final tally in 2Samuel 24:9 cites only the men.

    It is unlikely that women were involved in raiding parties or advancing armies in Old Testament times. However, when under seige the women would defend themselves and their villages and cities along with the men. We see examples of this in Judges 9:46-55 with the death of Abimelech and the death of Sisera in Judges 4:17-21.

    Numbers 32:16-17 also shows that women and children stayed behind in fortified cities during times of conquest.

    [ June 04, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
     
  4. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Women in the military? No problem. Women in combat? No way.

    Just a little trivia for you:

    Both Dr. Ruth Westheimer and "Urban Cowboy" actress, Debra Winger, served in the Israeli military.
     
  5. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it just so happens that I am doing some research on this topic myself. If you read Judges you will find that Deborah tried to get Barak to go to war. He said he would not go unless she went. Also, I think Deborah is an extreme case and one in a million.

    Most women of the OT were mothers. Hannah is a fine example of a woman who was simply pleased to be a mother.

    Moving forward to the New Testament it is clear that women are not to be in the military. Women are to be keepers AT home, not fighting warriors.

    Having spent almost eight years in the military, not in combat I can tell you it is no place for a Christian woman.
     
  6. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see there can be a line drawn between women in teh millitary and women in cambat. Are we to pay them just for being in the millitary and what happens when theres war, leave out the solidiers we have been paying to train for war?
    I saw a tory on tv a fe w months back, a woman who had joined the army a few years abck, was called to serve in Iraq, she didn't want to go made a big fuss about having children(she should ahve though of that ebfore she joined the army), but as it turns out she only joined so she could get her schooling paid for, on us,and not have to serve us, which we were paying her for. Nope we can't have soldiers we can not send into cambat. Thats makes no sence, and is a waste of tax $$$.
     
  7. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Katie,
    I agree 100% with your opening statement. In fact yesterday I observed a young woman in the military. She was hobbling along in her Battle Dress Uniform (camoflague), and she was pregnant. I was watching her thinking, "Is this woman a warrior?" Pregnancy and the military does not match.
    In each job even so-called non-combative jobs one must still know how to fire a gun and other jobs for combat, just in case.
     
  8. MEE

    MEE
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/me3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    This sounds interesting. [​IMG]

    What I'm wanting to see is if anyone knows what Deut. 22:5 really means.

    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.

    The part where is says "pertaineth unto a man" is what I've found through research means that:

    Quote from research:

    Torah forbids the wearing of apparel customary for the opposite sex. From this rule, tradition concluded that "man's apparel" included implements of war, and a midrash explained that this was the reason for Jael killing Sisera with tent pin and mallet (Judges 4:17-21),because as a woman she was not supposed to wield a man's weapon. This also meant that women were precluded from joining the Army.

    The above is only a small portion of what I found.

    This is a far cry from what I was taught Deut. 22:5 to mean. I don't want to offend anyone, if you don't agree, but I just wondered if anyone else agrees with what I found.

    Waiting for more comments. ;)

    MEE [​IMG]
     
  9. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    I found a qualifier for this statement.

    When the nation of Israel left Sinai, the very formation of the tribes was that of an army, surrounding the Tabernacle in the center. This was, of course, the movement of a nomadic people which would involve men, women, children and livestock.

    In the story of the fall of Jericho in Joshua 6 we find that even though the entire nation (with the excception of three tribes) had crossed the Jordan, only men were involved in the march around Jericho (v. 6:3). After the walls fell, it was only men that entered the city for the destruction (v. 20).

    The 3 tribes that did not cross the Jordan were the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Mannasseh. However, the fighting men of those clans advanced with the rest of the Israeli nation (Joshua 1:12-15).
     
  10. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the Marine Corps, every Marine must be a rifleman. Not so in other branches. Other branches of our military have people in support or administrative roles who are not necessarily trained for combat.

    Somebody has to do these jobs to free up those who are trained for combat.

    Not only do I stand by my beliefs on women in the military but I believe we need to bring back the WAC's.

    I'd also open up clerical and some support jobs to handicapped people who met certain physical requirements.
     
  11. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good grief, she was pregnant? Is there no concern for the child?
     
  12. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    This sounds interesting. [​IMG]

    What I'm wanting to see is if anyone knows what Deut. 22:5 really means.

    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.

    The part where is says "pertaineth unto a man" is what I've found through research means that:

    Quote from research:

    Torah forbids the wearing of apparel customary for the opposite sex. From this rule, tradition concluded that "man's apparel" included implements of war, and a midrash explained that this was the reason for Jael killing Sisera with tent pin and mallet (Judges 4:17-21),because as a woman she was not supposed to wield a man's weapon. This also meant that women were precluded from joining the Army.

    The above is only a small portion of what I found.

    This is a far cry from what I was taught Deut. 22:5 to mean. I don't want to offend anyone, if you don't agree, but I just wondered if anyone else agrees with what I found.

    Waiting for more comments. ;)

    MEE [​IMG] [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]When I did some research on women's clothing, of course this verse is alwasy used. But I found that with a lot of research it means women are not to wear a warriors clothing. Meaning to me they are not to be in the millitary.
     
  13. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    No offense Mike Mck, but you are sadly mistaken. I was in the Air Force and I had to learn to shoot, among other things I will not mention that were combative, although my job was non-combative.
     
  14. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Would it surprize you if I, a retired military person, told you I think every woman 16 years and older should be trained in the safe use of personal fire arms, both rifles and hand guns, as well as military discipline. That way when they become mothers, they will understand the ramifications of gangland thinking, and perhaps, raise their children to respect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, thus starving out the gangs of their recruits.

    I am totally convinced that every male American must go through at minimum 3 years of military training and discipline that strips them of their pride and arrogance and builds into them respect and a sense of pride in being a human being in a society of human beings. Our prisons would then be half empty rather that at 150% of design capacity.

    If we are paying women to serve in the military, they had better be able to fight side by side with the men, carrying their own load. If they can't or won't, boot them out with no benefits! Show them no mercy, you can rest assured an enemy would not!
     
  15. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,739
    Likes Received:
    4
    Mee -

    I have also heard before that Deuteronomy 22:5 refers to "armor" though I am unable at present to find the initial source of this scholarship.

    Crosswalk has a number of commentaries from conservative scholars who had this to say on the matter:

    The more modern Broadman commentary of 1971 says:

    I searched for any verse that used the word "woman" and "armor," "sword," or "sheild" in the same sentence. I came up with nothing. I do not recall any mention of a woman using a convential weapon in the Bible, though, of course, my memory could be flawed in this.

    I would be interested in the source and date of the information you provided from your research.

    Just for a bit more info, I also have these references (please pardon the type-setting, my time has run short):

     
  16. MEE

    MEE
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/me3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mee -

    I have also heard before that Deuteronomy 22:5 refers to "armor" though I am unable at present to find the initial source of this scholarship.

    I would be interested in the source and date of the information you provided from your research.


    **Clint, the information is rather lengthy. I will post it and after reading it, you can remove the post if you think it's too long. [​IMG]

    This information was sent to me by one of the College Professors, that taught at ABI, in St. Paul, Minn. He belonged to the same organization that I sat under for over thirty years. We were taught that a woman can't wear pants because of Deut. 22:5. This is what he sent! There are other teachers that believe the same, but aren't allowed to teach what they see to be the truth. It would be against the "Articles of Faith."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    V. Deuteronomy 22:5, what does it really say?

    Two statements are made which are not symmetrical, although it would have been easy to make them so.

    How it reads in the KJV.

    Deut. 22:5 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.

    How it would read if it were symmetrical.

    The woman shall not put on a man's garment, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.

    What do the words actual say in the Hebrew language according to the scholars.

    The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.

    That which pertaineth - Actually, the statement above which is translated that which pertaineth in the Hebrew is the word keli, and it means a manufactured article. It is most often translated as some sort of weapon or armor.

    Strongs: 3627 kee-lee" something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): --armour [bearer], artillery, bag, carriage + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon (emphasis Strong's) whatsoever.

    Gesenius (Hebrew words and most references deleted) properly whatever is made, completed, or prepared...(1) any utensil, vessel. Gen 31:37; 45:20. vessels of gold, of silver, the vessels of the temple, vessels of wandering, outfit for exile. (2)clothing, ornaments of a bride, also for yokes for oxen. (3) a vessel for sailing. (4.) an implement, a tool, musical instruments, instruments of the indignation of Jehovah (5) arms, weapons Ben. 27:3 ; Jud 18:11,16. more fully, deadly weapons Psalm 7:14. , an armour-bearer 1 Sam.14:1, 6, 7, 31:4,5,6 an armoury Isa 39:2.

    Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 982g vessel, utensil, The basic idea of this root is "to bring a process to completion." The root occurs in all its forms 237 times. Of these 206 are verbal....The idea of being consumed is most commonly applied to violent destruction, often by war...

    3627 Wigrams, The New Englishman's Hebrew/Aramaic Concordance: k'lee Translated 45 times as armour, or weapons. Most other times as instrument, jewel, furniture, vessels, etc., but never, not even in Deut 22:5 is it translated clothing.

    Unto a man.

    Strong's, 1368 gibbor, ghib-bore; from 1397 geber gheh'ber, a valiant man or warrior, powerful: by implication warrior, tyrant: --champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one) strong (man), valiant man.

    Gesenius 1368 references and Hebrew omitted (1) strong, mighty, impetuous, used of a hunger, commonly of an impetuous soldier, a hero, a mighty king (Alexander the Great), a mighty hero. [The mighty God: Christ is spoken of] these are the heroes, those who were famous of old; the lion is a hero among the beasts; also used of a soldier generally, a mighty warrior, Used of God, Jehovah (is) strong and mighty, Jehovah (is) mighty in battle....(2) a chief, a military leader, the commander of soldiers and the soldier. Used generally of a chief. (3) in a bad sense, proud, a tyrant, like the Arab.

    Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 310 condensed (ga bar) prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great. Derivatives, man, mighty man. might. lady, queen. .... The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior....(RSV often translates "warrior") The heroes or champions among the armed forces.

    Wigrams, p. 289, 290, translated mighty men, mighty one, mighty hunter, mighty, mighty man, mighty men, strong, valiant men, mightiest, mighty of valour, strong man, giant, as a strong man, the Mighty God, the mighty. The only instance it is translated as man is in Du 22:5. Not so translated in any other place.

    VI. How do the Jewish scholars understand this scripture?

    Moses Maimonides on Deuteronomy 22:5 - There is also the reason for its dictum: A woman shall not wear man's armor, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment. You will find in the book of Tumtum the commandment that a man should put on a woman's dyed garment when standing before [the planet] Venus and that a woman should put on a cuirass and arms when standing before Mars. In my opinion there is also another reason for this, namely, that such a practice arouses desires and necessarily brings about various kinds of debauchery. Vol 2 p. 544, 545.

    The Torah, a Modern Commentary - Deuteronomy 22:5 Man's apparel. The Hebrew is more general and says "man's gear." (See further in Gleanings.) Abhorrent (they way they translate "abomination"). The Hebrew terms suggests that transvestitism was considered not so much a sexual deviation as an idolatrous practice. From the "Gleanings", p. 1490 Transvestitism (Deut. 22:5) The Torah forbids the wearing of apparel customary for the opposite sex. From this rule, tradition concluded that "man's apparel" included implements of war, and a midrash explained that this was the reason for Jael killing Sisera with tent pin and mallet (Judg. 4:17-21), because as a woman she was not supposed to wield a man's weapon[25]. This also meant that women were precluded from joining the army [26]; note the present-day controversy in Israel over women's exemption from the military. According to Targum Jonathan the rule implied further that women were forbidden the wearing of talit and tefillen (prayer shawl and phylacteries); but the Talmud disagreed and said that women, while exempt from the duty, were not prohibited from using them [27]. On the island of Cos, says Plutarch, priests of Hercules dressed as women; while, in Rome, men who participated in the vernal mysteries of that god did likewise. So too in the cult of Dionysus, males often adopted feminine costume, just as at the annual festival of Oschophoria boys were attired as girls and, at the Skirophoria, men were garbed like women. The same practice is attested also in connection with the cult of Leukippos in Crete....The origin of the custom is disputed. According to some scholars, it is a method of assimilating the worshiper to the person of the deity (though it is difficult then to explain why the devotees of the male Hercules affected feminine attire). According to others, it is a form of disguise, designed to foil demons and similar noxious spirits. Probably, as Frazer has observed, there is no single origin for all the examples of this practice; in some, the former idea comes into play ; in others, the latter. It has also been suggested that, in cases where men wear women's clothes in the performance of magical rites, this reflects the widespread belief that magic (especially when it aims at promoting fertility) is primarily the province of the female sex, and that--at least in some instances-- the usage may go back to a time when priesthood was in the hands of women. Also,....transvestitism is a well-known symptom of sexual abnormality....frequently associated with religious psychosis. T. GASTER [28] Operations to correct the problem of transvestitism and bisexuality are the subject of various halachic opinions. Generally speaking, elective surgery is frowned upon because of the danger attendant upon it, but there may be cases where exceptions could apply [29].

    Pentateuch and Haftorahs 5 An interchange of attire between man and woman would promote immodesty and in consequence, immorality. This law is probably directed against rites in Syrian heathenism, which included exchange of garments by the sexes and led to gross impurities. p. 843.

    What do the commentaries understand this verse to say?

    Adam Clarke, Vol. I, p. 704 Notes on Genesis Chapter XXII, Verse 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man] keili geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or a man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies paraticularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and female. The close-shaved gentlemen may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.

    **There is more, but I will leave it here.

    MEE [​IMG]
     
  17. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. Not sadly mistaken. Right on the mark.

    I learned to shoot (among other things) when I was a child. Didn't make me combat ready.

    Nevertheless, my point still stands: women should not be in combat.
     
  18. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yelsew

    You think women can only be good mothers if they themselves have learned how to kill?
    Bologna! :eek:
     
  19. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    My answer to the paraghraph I quoted, I think men should be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, then they wouldn't have these issues to deal with. That is what God's Word says, how they are to be trained. Too many men are not training their boys to be men. It is not assigned to the military to train boys up but fathers.
     
  20. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. Not sadly mistaken. Right on the mark.

    I learned to shoot (among other things) when I was a child. Didn't make me combat ready.

    Nevertheless, my point still stands: women should not be in combat. [/QB][/QUOTE]

    That is because you were not in the military, am I am right? You might want to do some research. I spent quite a while in the Air Force and I can tell you that the two jobs I held were not considered combat jobs but I was required to be able to aim, shoot and kill. There were other things I learned which I really cannot mention.
     

Share This Page

Loading...