I was recently asked if Deuteronomy 22:5 was mistranslated in the KJV. Was it really intended to prohibit women from taking up warriors’ weapons or armor?

Maybe a more accurate translation would be something like this: “The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Here is why I can't agree with this re-translation. (Warning this post will be more technical than most because of the nature of the question.)

It is worth noting that no major translation conveys the idea of warriors or weapons.

English Standard Version (ESV)
5 “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

King James Version (KJV)
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.

Deuteronomy 22:5
New International Version (NIV)
5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Deuteronomy 22:5
New King James Version (NKJV)
5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
New Living Translation (NLT)
5 “A woman must not put on men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing. Anyone who does this is detestable in the sight of the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
World English Bible (WEB)
5 A woman shall not wear men’s clothing, neither shall a man put on women’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
5 `The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God [is] any one doing these.

Deuteronomy 22:5
The Voice (VOICE)
5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, and men must not put on women’s garments. The Eternal your God is horrified when anyone does this.

Deuteronomy 22:5
New Life Version (NLV)
5 “A woman must not wear men’s clothing. And a man must not put on women’s clothing. For the Lord your God hates whoever does these things.

Deuteronomy 22:5
New Century Version (NCV)
5 A woman must not wear men’s clothes, and a man must not wear women’s clothes. The Lord your God hates anyone who does that.

Deuteronomy 22:5
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5 “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
The Message (MSG)
5 A woman must not wear a man’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing. This kind of thing is an abomination to God, your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
Living Bible (TLB)
5 “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing. This is abhorrent to the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
Lexham English Bible (LEB)
5 “The apparel of a man shall not be put on a woman, and a man shall not wear the clothing of a woman, because everyone who does these things is detestable to Yahweh your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
5 “A woman is not to wear male clothing, and a man is not to put on a woman’s garment, for everyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
Darby Translation (DARBY)
5 There shall not be a man's apparel on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.

Deuteronomy 22:5
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
5 “A woman must not wear men’s clothes, and a man must not wear women’s clothes. That is disgusting to the Lord your God.

These were translated by separate and distinct large committees. None were from a holiness background. They all translated the passage the same way. These versions represent the conclusion of hundreds of scholars and experts in Hebrew. I believe they got it right

Also within the context of the verse itself the idea that men shouldn't wear women's clothing and the idea that women shouldn't wear men's clothing corresponds nicely. Conversely, a prohibition that men shouldn't wear women's clothing and a prohibition that women shouldn't wear soldiers' weaponry doesn't demonstrate the same parallel nature.

“Keliy” (Strongs H3627) generally refers to an article or thing. It refers to a weapon, instrument, or armor only if that is clearly the subject. This would be similar to the pronoun "it" in English. This is the reason the NKJV translate the term as "any thing" that pertains to a man. What “thing” is being referred to is determined by context. The term is inclusive of clothing which happens to be "the stuff" that the rest of the passage discusses. Since garments are the subject immediately following in the passage, most translations use the word ‘clothing’. To limit this to weapons or armor doesn't make sense.

It is true that two distinct Hebrew words are used to in this chapter to describe a man, but they have the same primary definition. Don’t read too much into that. In English, I may refer to a male as a man, guy, or dude. Sometime I alternate between the three in the same conversation. There is no deeper meaning. These are synonymous terms that can be used interchangeably.

The whole argument depends on “geber” (Strongs H1397) meaning a warrior or fighter exclusively. Clearly in scripture it doesn't. Usually, it simply refers to males. Only twice out of 70 uses is it translated as “mighty men”. If you look up the scriptures in which the term is used, there are a few times when potentially a strong man is being discussed, but many times it is simply a general term for men. It is even used to describe a male child. I do believe the root comes from the Hebrew term for strength. For obvious reasons, a variation of the word “strength” would be used to describe men in comparison to women. If there was any particular reasoning behind using this term in this context, a point that I’m not willing to concede because there is no conclusive or compelling proof, it probably was chosen to emphasize the distinction between a man and the wife (weaker vessel). The issue is distinction between sexes and not warriors or weapons.

If the assertion that this verse is intended to only prohibit putting on a warrior’s garment or artifacts is correct, EVERY VERSION OF THE BIBLE GOT IT WRONG.

I like using Strong's or other lexicons, but there are shades of meaning that can't be determined by simply looking up words in a dictionary. To accurately translate a passage, there needs to be a deeper understanding of grammar, common expressions, and the use of unique native vocabulary. I believe the unanimous opinion of the experts involved in Bible translations is correct.