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 22:37, 28 September 2019
, 4 years ago→What the Bible teaches
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The New Testament does not allow a person to bring Old Testament law into the new covenant. | The New Testament does not allow a person to bring Old Testament law into the new covenant. | ||
The New Testament clearly holds women to a standard of modesty (1 Tim. 2:9). But it is not an issue of salvation. And it is not an issue of the type of garment. | |||
We have personally seen message women wear a dress in an immodest fashion and have also seen women in pants that would be considered quite modest. | |||
Deuteronomy 22:5 states, | Deuteronomy 22:5 states, | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
But we are no longer under the Mosaic law. We are not under the old covenant. | But we are no longer under the Mosaic law. We are not under the old covenant. | ||
Paul clearly teaches that Christians are no longer under the law | Paul clearly teaches that Christians are no longer under the law instituted under Moses. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 3:14, the Mosaic covenant is identified as “the old covenant” in contrast with “the new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6) of which Paul is a minister. The phrase “old covenant” implies that that covenant enacted with Moses is no longer in force and that it has been replaced by the new covenant. The old covenant is clearly identified with the law, for the letters engraved on stone, which are clearly the Ten Commandments, reflect the content of the covenant (2 Cor. 3:6–7). 2 Corinthians 3:7–18 teaches that the old covenant has passed away. | ||
It follows that if the Mosaic covenant is no longer in effect because it has been replaced by the “new covenant,” then the laws, which belong to that covenant, are no longer binding either. | It follows that if the Mosaic covenant is no longer in effect because it has been replaced by the “new covenant,” then the laws, which belong to that covenant, are no longer binding either. | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
=William Branham's opinion= | =William Branham's opinion= | ||