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.
@Mzichi @Christ the King are these scriptures applicable today or does it fall under Old Testament jurisdiction?
Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
The Laws given to Moses by God had so many issues that were designed to make the Israelites righteous, but it failed. Jesus came and introduced grace. If you read the book of Hebrews you will understand the vanity of the laws.
When the gentiles were welcomed into Christianity, they had the burden of following all the Jewish laws but when the council in Jerusalem met, they decided on only three things the gentiles should not do…sexual immorality, eating food sacrificed to idols, and meat from struggled animals or blood.
This means that we as gentiles are not supposed to take up the entire Mosaic Laws.
The Law will always be in effect, because it illustrates the heavy penance of sin in the eyes of a perfect God. However the bride of Christ will not be judged according to the Law (or their works).
You say the Israelites were unable to act righteously. Why did they fail? Are Christians today any better at maintaining the level of righteousness that is expected by God?
The law expected men to make themselves righteous by abiding by it. But this failed as is evident in the exiling of the Israelites as punishment and then the coming of Christ to provide grace. The righteousness we seek not is from God, given by grace and not deeds like before.
What the Law WAS POWERLESS to do, God did by sending His only Son to crucify sin in the flesh…
That’s why the Israelites failed. They had the command, but no power to obey it. With us, disobedience is crucified in us… so obedience is possible. We are empowered to obey… not just commanded.
The bride will be Judged by their works…
He comes with his reward in His hands to reward everyone according to their deeds.
And many shall say did we not cast away demons in your name…
He shall tell them plainly, YOU NEVER DID MY FATHER’S WILL.
If a man disobeying the law given by men, and not having been empowered to fulfil the law was stoned to death.
Why do you imagine there’s no consequence to breaking the laws given by His Son when you are empowered to obey?
If Israelites were stoned for disobedience to the commands given by Moses.
How much more those who break commandments given by Christ.
Christ is a King. He doesn’t give suggestions. Every command He uttered is unrevocably and unapologetically binding.
To imagine that the great Monarch of Zion can be disobeyed without consequence.
To imagine that there’s greater consequence to disobeying the Law by Moses than there is to disobeying the Law by Christ is borderline blasphemous
The OT is fulfilled in the New.
Good example, was Paul wrong to say that circumcision is of no consequence?
The Law had two aspects:
1.The Physical Requirement… don’t eat, don’t touch, don’t wear… etc.
2. The Righteous Requirement… don’t steal, don’t kill… these are regulations around character.
The Physical requirements… in their entirety , aren’t binding to the Church.
The Righteous Requirement is still binding. In fact, Romans 8 says that Christ came to crucify sin in the flesh that we may fulfill the Righteous Requirement of the law
Are you saying that a man cross dressing in a way that makes him effeminate is not indicative of his character? And vice versa for women?
In and of itself… no.
Because dressing is informed by culture… not the Bible.
Example:
High heels were a man’s clothing item when they came out.
Scots wear skilts.
Maasai huvaa Shuka… ukikuyuni hiyo ni ya wamama.
The question would therefore be, what culture do we use to determine what’s effeminate?
The only way it becomes sin is if it causes offence to weaker brethren… like the eating of meat discussed by Paul.
But in and of itself, clothing isn’t determined by God, its determined by culture.
Like for example, walking with exposed breasts would be considered naked now. A few years back, it was culturally acceptable.
That’s why we don’t write doctrine around culture… cultures change with each generation.
I believe God cares a lot about how Christians dress. He wants women to look & act feminine and the same for men. If it was simply a ‘cultural’ issue then Paul would not have written 1 Timothy 2:9-11.
I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
With what outcome? Heaven vs hell? Or a crown of victory?
Christians and the likes always cherry-pick what fits the narrative they want to advance
heaven or hell. you must first finish the race to qualify for a crown
1 Timothy 2:9-11
Who determines decency… the bible or the culture?
Would you say Scots wear female clothes when they wear skilts?
@messiahette the Israelite women of old adorned themselves with Gold… would you say they were breaking scripture?
Paul was informed by culture. Same way we would say men shouldn’t wear skirts… not that skirts are bad for men, but because culture deems them effeminate.
In future, if this changes and trousers become a cultural dressing for women, and skirts for men, the church will then be obliged to deny men the right to wear trousers and restrict them to only wear dresses.
That is the exact same case with Paul.
Think on how Paul gave rules slaves should follow… was he legitimizing slavery? No. Like the dressing, the Church is obliged to follow societal norms (in as long as they don’t interfere with the core values of Christianity (righteous requirements to do wit character)
@messiahette you are yet to show any scripture that says breaking Christ’s commands has no consequence on salvation.
I cited the very words of Christ Himself saying that believers will only stay in His love if they obey His commands.
This idea that Christ came so men can sin without consequence is quite the opposite of why Christ came. Christ came to give us power to beat sin because the Father can’t tolerate it.
He didn’t come so that the Father could change and tolerate sin, He came so that men could change and satisfy the Father’s criteria
I think when God said to Jeremiah that he will put the law in our hearts, I believe this is one of the many laws that He was talking about. Because even without the bible, it just feels wrong and unnatural to do certain things; this being one of them, 100%.
True. But what’s female and what’s male dress code is a function of society.
A Kenyan man couldn’t wear a Skilt… though it’s a man’s dress item in Scotland. It’s literally a skirt…
You can’t tell the Scot he is wearing a woman’s clothes because that’s only a woman’s item in your culture… so you would be imposing your culture on him.