Is it wrong for men to be effeminate or for women to be masculine?

Verse 5 forbids a woman to wear man's clothing or a man to wear women's clothing, for it is an abomination to thus try to pass as a member of the opposite sex. If God has created one as a man, it is an insult to God for him to outwardly take the place of a woman, and similarly for a woman to take a man's place. Let us rather be thankful for what God has made us and seek to bear faithfully the responsibilities of that place as well as to enjoy the blessings of it.

Thus we see, even from the natural point of view, God expressing His mind in most unmistakeable language, and branding with the mark of shame every woman who, even if only in her garment, disowns the place in which the Lord has put her. I can but refer to what has been said already on this subject in chapter two when speaking on the principle of divine order.

Laws on the second table are now more fully expounded by Moses. The love to the neighbor is to be expressed by guarding and preserving that which is his property. The strayed and fallen animal belonging to another had to be helped. To leave them in that condition would have been a violation of the law "love thy neighbor as thyself" as well as an act of inhumanity. Another interesting law is the one which forbids woman to wear man's garments (verse 5). "The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices; but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the 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--such as even the emancipation of women--was unnatural, and therefore, an abomination in the sight of God." Yet to-day we find a universal movement in the world for the complete emancipation of women, which ignores and even defies the place which the Creator and the Redeemer has given to woman.

Further, he appeals to the sense of propriety grounded on the constitution of both man and woman. "In your own selves judge: is it becoming that a woman uncovered should pray to God? Doth not even nature itself teach you," etc. If it be as natural for man to have short hair as for woman to have long, is it not a revolt against the nature of each to reverse this in practice? God's creation must govern where the word of His grace does not call to higher things, and this could not be pretended here.

(Vv. 13-15). The Apostle, having asserted the creation order, now appeals to nature, therein to learn what is comely. Inasmuch as, in her long hair, the woman has a natural covering, nature indicates her place of subjection, and tells us that a hidden woman is a beautiful woman, while a woman who cuts off her hair and apes the man is held in contempt by all. Even so, the man with long hair brings shame upon himself.

In I Corinthians 11:14, 15, the apostle refers to nature as a further evidence of the distinction between man and woman and of her proper place of subjection. "Does not even nature itself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But woman, if she have long hair, (it is) glory to her; for the long hair is given (to her) in lieu of a veil" (New Trans.). God has given long hair to woman and short hair to man as a distinguishing mark between them. It is natural for woman to have long hair and for man to have short hair.

Paul then appeals to the Corinthian saints to discern the matter in terms of propriety supported by the natural world. It is important to remember that, although we are considered as dead with Christ, we are not said to be dead to nature. From it lessons can be learnt. The man, having been entrusted with a position of responsibility before God in creation, means he ought to answer to it. A man with long hair would be adopting a characteristic that is inappropriate as a distinguishing feature for the man. A womanish appearance would suggest that he has abandoned his place in God's order. This is not to put the woman down by her having long hair,* because it is hers properly as the distinctive glory of woman, and as such, she is the glory of the man.

*The Greek word translated 'long hair' in the case of the man is also the word used for the woman's hair. This reinforces the fact that a woman should have long hair.

Long hair is referred to in the N.T. as the natural covering of a woman, as owning her subjection to the man, and is a glory to her; but nature teaches that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him. His head must not thus be covered, for "he is the image and glory of God." 1 Cor. 11:6-15. "Hair as the hair of women" is a symbol of subjection to a head, and effeminacy. Rev. 9:8.

Nature is also a term descriptive of the vast system of created things around us, to each part of which the Creator has given not only its existence, but its use, its order, its increase, its decay — often called 'the laws of nature' — the laws which govern each and which constitute its propriety. Thus nature teaches that a man should not have long hair, 1 Cor. 11:14; and a multitude of other things that are of God's order in creation.

We find, all through the word of God, great prominence given to what is according to nature — what is comely. "Does not even nature itself teach you?" says the inspired apostle, to the assembly at Corinth. There are certain feelings and instincts implanted in nature, by the Creator, which must never be outraged. We may set it down as a fixed principle, an axiom in Christian ethics, that no action can possibly be of God that offers violence to the sensibilities proper to nature. The Spirit of God may, and often does, lead us beyond and above nature, but never against it.