by aymon de albatrus
"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." (Deu 22:5 AV)
You know me well and are well aware that i do not speak with malice, but preach only that i truly believe. I am honest with what I am saying, not a hypocrite, and surely I fear God because one day I will have to give account of all I have said: "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom 14:12 AV)
You could very well be in disaccord with me, and you need not do what I am saying, unless you are convinced by it. On the other hand, I must say what I believe in and I am firmly convinced by it, otherwise I would come short of what I am persuaded the Lord has given me and would be a hypocrite, a thing I abhor. Therefore, I pray you, never take offence of what I am saying, but honestly evaluate to see if my words are strictly Biblical or not and take notice.
There is a current in Christianity that believes that not all that is written in the OT is applicable in the NT, but I read God saying: "For I am the LORD, I change not;….." (Mal 3:6 AV)
And also Jesus saying: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Mat 5:18 AV) Moreover, Jesus and the Apostles have always referred to the OT to prove what they were saying, indeed the books of the OT are canonical because they were approved by Jesus and His Apostles.
What I am to do, believe men or the Word of God? Methinks i shall believe God.
As far as I am concerned I take the Bible as inerrant and complete in all Its particulars. For me the Word is the Constitution of the Kingdom of God and I am determined to do all I can to put this into practice in my little life. This does not mean that I am perfect. I know very well that I am not, but my attitude is to aim at perfection, as my Lord commands: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Mat 5:48 AV)
There are too may preachers today that are extremely scared to touch this subject even with the proverbial ten feet pole, for they are fearing to offend a new arrival or a new believer. The truth is that when modesty is part of the whole package, the new arrivals will take note of the situation and will follow the pious example. Anyway, the problem is not that the people of the world do not know better, indeed the problem is that, apparently, the church does not know better.
Now, let us take some examples to demonstrate that God changes not and the OT is confirmed in the NT.
The sacerdotal Law:"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22 AV)
This aspect of the Law was acted by the Levites and by the Priests whereby the remission of sins was obtained through animal sacrifices and the sprinkling of their blood once a year by the high priest on the Arc of the Covenant in the Sanctum Sanctorum. The sacerdotal cast interceded for the people. But, which was the principle then and now? It is that sins are atoned for through the spilling of blood:
And what are we reading i the NT: "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb 10:10 AV) and again: "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." (Heb 13:12 AV) and more, He is The High Priest: "24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Heb 7:24-25 AV)
What are we gleaning here? That the principle is that of spill blood for the remission of sins with intercession and this principle is the same in the OT as in the NT, it has not changed. Only, in the OT we had animal blood with limited value, whilst in the NT there is Jesus’ blood that has infinite value with intercession for the people of God, not done by priests, but by Jesus Himself. So what has changed is that the blood and intercession is done by Christ Jesus and not by man, but the principle remains and is the same.
In the NT believers are a royal priesthood:"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" (1Pe 2:9 AV)
This is correctly obtained from:
But the same is in the OT: "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Exo 19:6 AV)
Consequently, both in the NT as in the OT God’s elect have the same calling.
In the NT we are no longer under the Law:
But if the Law is no more, then there is no more sin, for sin is known through the Law: "….. for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20 AV) If this is the case, then why us believers must repent of our sins if sins do not exist anymore? "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?" (Rom 3:6 AV)
In the NT Grace is paramount, but if sin is no more, what we need Grace for?
Obviously the same Law of the OT exists in the NT. To the unbelievers the Law is applied directly: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," (1Ti 1:9 AV)
Whilst for the elect the Law is fully extinguished in the Blood of Christ, being interposed by God between the Law and the believers, thus they are saved by Grace: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (Eph 2:8 AV)
Therefore the principle of sin through the Law is the same in the NT as in the OT.
I guess to have given enough examples to prove that the principles in the OT have not changed or come to nought in the NT, but it is all perfectly logical because: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (Jam 1:17 AV)
LET US NOW STUDY OUR REFERENCE VERSE.
"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." (Deu 22:5 AV)
We do note the words ‘for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God’ meaning that not the act of dressing is an abomination to God, but the actual persons that do it. This looks serious to me. Which principle is expressed here? Surely, that dressing with clothes commonly pertaining to the other sex is an abomination to God. But why? Simple, because God created them ‘male and female’ with a clear distinction between them, that He wants kept: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Gen 1:27 AV) "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." (Gen 5:2 AV)
So there is the principle, God has created and divided humankind in male and female and wants this difference clearly uphold, it is the Law of the Kingdom. He created them ‘male and female’, an absolute difference with different functions in every sphere of human activities. Even in creation he used different methods to bring them into existence. The man was created from the dust: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7 AV) He created him as the ‘image and glory of God’ "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, (1Co 11:7a AV) : Whilst the woman was extracted from the man as his convenient helper "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." (Gen 2:22 AV) and she is the ‘glory of man ’ but the woman is the glory of the man." (1Co 11:7b AV) The difference is net and of enormous importance.
This difference is further repeated in the NT where we read: "5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." (1Co 11:5-6 AV) and more "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (1Co 11:10 AV)
What Authority? Because of the Angels? What meanest this?
The ‘Authority’ referred here by the Apostle is the one God has established since the beginning: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1Co 11:3 AV) The head of the woman is the man, that is to say ‘the authority’ directly over her and a woman that wears short hair dishonours her head, that is the man. Similarly, a woman wearing what belongs to man wants to be the head, thus going squarely against God’s order and indeed fighting God.
Because of the ‘Angels’ refers to the fact that in the spiritual realm we are surrounded by angels observing us, and they greatly rejoice when the precepts of the Kingdom of God are put into practice between men and women. The same applies where it says that it is dishonour for a man to wear long hair: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (1Co 11:14 AV) There, another principle of difference established between man and woman.
Another one, God has given the beard to man, but not to the woman, then why men shave it off? Has God made a mistake and we know better? Really? Jesus was wearing the a beard Isa 50:6 and so did His Apostles.
All these situations refer to the same principle expressed in Deu 22:5. There must be a difference between man and woman.
Now, which of the two sexes dresses up with clothes pertaining to the other sex? I have never seen a man normally dressing up as a woman, but I have seen too many women dressing up with male clothing, especially pants.
WHICH ARE THE EXCUSES?
Pants are more comfortable:
Maybe they are, I do not know for I never wore a gown, but honestly, do you really think that comfort is sufficient reason to go against what God establishes in His Word? Don’t you think it strange that for almost 6000 years women have always wore skirts but in the last 30-40 years all of a sudden gowns have become uncomfortable? If you saw a man wearing a dress, what would you call him? Uh-huh, you would have no trouble knowing that it was wrong, and an abomination to God (even if his dress had a fly). Have you noticed how wimpy the boys are getting and how masculine the girls are getting? Women's sports are becoming the rage. We would rather have our girls learn how to "Kill 'em on the court" than to learn to be chaste and skilled at homemaking. This is how we have come to put women in military combat positions. We would have never even considered this 20 years ago, but now we are eliminating the difference in the sexes that God made. In fact, I believe that it is all part of Satan's plan to further defile mankind by mixing the genders. But God is the God of order, not of confusion.
It is cold:
According to scientists the world is becoming hotter, therefore when our mothers and grandmothers were around the temperature was colder, but ALL of them were wearing skirts and dresses and would have never dreamed to wear pants alternative. But when women started wearing pants? When the feminist movement firstly manifested itself. Coincidence? Methinks not. If truly you are cold, then wear a gown over your pants reaching your shoes.
In antiquity men and women dressed the same:
Absolutely false, to our eyes those little drawings could seem that way, but they were quite different. This can be proven easily enough, by checking out the Arabic tribes where they are still dressing now as they dressed then. Also the same is seen in African tribes. Moreover, if in those times there was no difference between the male vestment and those of the female, what would have been the point for Deu 22:5? Surely, it would not have had any sense for God to introduce this verse in His Word.
It is the fashion, every woman wears them now and they suit me nicely:
Since when the Kingdom of God aligns Itself with the world? You can be pretty sure that in the Kingdom of Gods fashion does not exists for this is vanity that exalts man and not God. Moreover, if pants fit well and exalt your female sexual forms or not, has nothing to do with what God commands, indeed it is vulgarity. The point: "are you of the Kingdom or not?" If you are, then behave as such, if not, then do what you like.
Check out every toilet in the World and you will notice that those assigned to the males have a little man painted on the door with pants, whilst those for the female have a little woman with skirt.
Even the European Union, the supreme democracy, has stated that pants are man dressing whilst gown and skirts is garment pertaining to women.
Pants in our society are a symbol of authority, as fully evidenced by the famous adage: "I wear the pants in my family". Sadly, most women might as well wear the pants, since they rule their homes anyway!
Many modern commentators see in this verse a prohibition for "those times" towards temple transvestites and prostitutes. But this is not stated, nor even alluded to, and then, it would have little sense affirming that transvestites and prostitutes were not allowed to wear dressing of the other sex but such prohibition was not for normal people. Surely it is valid for all.
I know very well that many people do not like to see this verse and promptly cry out that it cannot be put into practice without also establishing the other verses in that chapter that forbid sowing different seeds in the same field and the wearing of clothes made of different materials, that people normally wear. We do not object to this, in fact we say that we must do this without letting the other undone as Jesus say: "….. these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Luk 11:42 AV) However, in this specific case we are covering the fact that the sexes are to be dressing differently. If man were to wear skirts and women pants, there would not be problems for the principle of differentiation is kept. It is the principle that counts, in this case the separation of dressing between man and woman, for God has created them male and female.
I hear a lament: "how i dress or how i behave myself it matters not, for it is my heart that counts as God looks at the heart." My objection to this contorted idea is that God has put limitations in His word and if He has put them there they must be important, otherwise they would not be there for the Bible is inerrant and perfect. If that were the case then we would be entitles to pick and choose, or remove, any other verses.
But i hear the voice of Jesus: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Mat 12:34 AV) From this I understand that the external things of a man are but the reflection of what is in his heart and so what it is that God sees in that heart? "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: ……." (Gal 6:7 AV)
"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Ti 3:16-17 AV)
The Word of God is inerrant and complete:
The Bible is the Constitution of the Kingdom of God and has to be put into practice to the letter if one wants to be of this Kingdom. Who cavils It and tries to implement to his liking does not belong to the Kingdom,
The Bible has principles that change not between OT and NT, they could be implemented in different ways, but are the same, nonetheless, and there are no changes, for the Lord God changes not. Let us see what Paul is saying: "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." (1Co 10:11 AV) Throughout this passage Paul continually uses the Old Testament to prove something. Focus on verses 6 and 11. Paul tells us that those OT writings are for us today. I suppose Paul would be called a legalist or a Pharisee by todays liberals. Just because something is in the OT does not negate it from being applicable for us in the church age. Any commandment or teaching in the OT that is repeated in the NT is for us,
God has divided humanity in male and female with a clear distinction that has to be kept in every sphere of human activities. Who mixes these differences plays Satan’s game in confusing the order established by God,
Man and woman have to dress up in a clear differentiated way. They must have a different external appearance for they are different,
The woman that dresses up with vestments pertaining to man transmits rebellious signals towards God and towards man, her head,
I do understand the absolute perfection is impossible in the flesh but we can ask God to give us a new heart according to His will to be able to put in action His commandments: "26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Eze 36:26-27 AV)
There! I have told you without malice or condemnation: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom 8:1 AV)
You judge if i have divided the Word of God correctly or not, and come to your own conclusions and act in accordance with those. Amen