11,141
edits
Is it permissible for women to wear pants?: Difference between revisions
Is it permissible for women to wear pants? (view source)
Revision as of 01:37, 30 September 2019
, 4 years ago→If it was a special type of sin, wouldn't the punishment be special as well?
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
But there isn't. | But there isn't. | ||
The penalty for breaking Deuteronomy | The penalty for breaking Deuteronomy 22:5 (cross dressing) is the same as for Deuteronomy 22:11 (wearing clothing made from linen and wool). | ||
==Conclusion== | |||
In 2 Corinthians 3:7, Paul refers to the law as the ministry of death: | |||
:''Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone...<ref>The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 2 Co 3:7.</ref> | |||
"Engraved on letters of stone" is clearly a reference to the ten commandments. | |||
If the Mosaic covenant is no longer in effect because it has been replaced by the “new covenant,” then the laws, which belong to that covenant, are no longer binding either.<ref>Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law, ed. Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2010), 67.</ref> | |||
Paul says believers are no longer “under law” in Romans 6:14. The law is no longer in effect. Romans 10:4 asserts that Christ is “the end of the law.” Paul’s discussion in Romans 5:12–21 explains that the Mosaic covenant is no longer operative. We see a further indication that the law has come to an end from Romans 7:6, where believers are released from the law through the death of Christ. Release from the law means that the law is no longer in force. | |||
The Old Testament law clearly forbid the eating of certain foods (Lev. 11:1–44; Deut. 14:3–21). Paul, however, identifies the weak as those who have a restricted diet (Rom. 14:2), whereas those who are strong feel free to eat anything. Paul sides theologically with the strong. He clearly speaks about the food laws in the Old Testament when he declares, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” (Rom. 14:14). It is quite clear that the legitimacy of eating foods forbidden by the Old Testament is the subject of discussion in Romans 14:20: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.” The term translated “clean” (katharos) often refers to what is considered to be pure (e.g., Lev. 10:10; Deut. 14:20; 23:11 LXX). What is remarkable is that Paul declares foods that are forbidden by the Old Testament law and the Mosaic covenant to be clean (cf. also Col. 2:16, 20–22). Such a conclusion indicates that believers are no longer required to obey the stipulations of the Mosaic law, and thus the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force. | |||
Finally, a few other observations confirm that the Mosaic law is no longer in force. Circumcision was mandated in the Mosaic law (Lev. 12:3). Indeed, Moses was nearly killed by the Lord himself because his son was uncircumcised (Exod. 4:24–26). Furthermore, Israel could not enter the Land of Promise without being circumcised (Josh. 5:1–9). But Paul clearly teaches that circumcision is no longer necessary to belong to the people of God (Rom. 4:9–12; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:2–4, 6; 6:15). If the initiation rite into the Mosaic covenant is no longer required, then it follows that the covenant itself is no longer operative. In the same way, the Sabbath was a central part of the Mosaic covenant (e.g., Exod. 20:8–11), but Paul identifies the Sabbath along with the food laws as part of the shadows that give way to the substance, who is Christ himself (Col. 2:16–17). Similarly, in Romans Paul is unconcerned if one considers every day to be alike (Rom. 14:5–6). He almost certainly thinks of the Sabbath here, but he reckons it to be a matter of inconsequence. Paul’s attitude of indifference relative to the Sabbath indicates that it is no longer normative. A new era has dawned in which the Mosaic covenant has passed away. This reading is confirmed by Ephesians 2:15. Jews and Gentiles in Christ are now one new man, for Christ has “[abolished] the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” In other words, one reason Jews and Gentiles are unified is that the requirements of the Mosaic covenant, which separated Jews from Gentiles, have become passé.<ref>Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law, ed. Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2010), 69-71.</ref> | |||
Given that the Mosaic law is no longer in effect, there can be no commandment that forbids women from wearing pants. More problematically, pants were only invented 500 years ago and so Deut 22:5 could not have been aimed at women wearing pants. | |||
This was simply the opinion of William Branham and did not come from scripture. | |||
=William Branham's opinion= | =William Branham's opinion= | ||