Does Deuteronomy 22:5 Apply to Christians?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

The question, and the creation principle beneath the verse

• The question posed (in the host's frame): the upci's official position paper on holiness (as the frame styles both the organization and the subject) states, that the word of God teaches a distinction, between the dress of a woman, and a man. And then it quotes Deuteronomy 22:5, which says: 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. why should a Christian (as the question is put) — I'm phrasing this, of course, from a, maybe, a worldly person's perspective — why should a Christian care, about an obscure verse from Deuteronomy? After all: some might point out, that in the same chapter, the book of Deuteronomy talks about building a parapet, around the top of your house, so that somebody doesn't fall off. And Christians don't follow that command. So what is it, about verse 5, that we should care about? And that question comes not only from a worldly person, but even Christians, of different denominations. They will say things like: well, that's under the law; that doesn't apply today. Or: there's some certain things in Deuteronomy, that we don't follow. So why should we follow this, and not those other things? The answer: so, let me address the subject, comprehensively. First of all: as Christians, we want to follow the will of God. And it's not just this one verse, in Deuteronomy. But more fundamentally: before sin entered the human race ('before centered and sin entered', as the letters stand), we go back to God's original plan, for humans — his original creation. Genesis 1:27 says: that God created humans, in His image. Male and female, he created them. So it's God's plan, for human beings, to be either male or female. And for male and female to be partners: not only in marriage, but in the larger sense. It takes man and woman, working together, to fulfill God's plan, for Human Society, for planet Earth. And to reflect God's image. We're — both of us, male and female — are created, in the image of God. God is neither male, nor female. He transcends those categories. He is Spirit. He is all-encompassing. And so, really: we, as human beings — as we work together, collectively, male and female — we're able to fulfill God's purpose, and reflect His Image, in this world. So the fundamental point is: God has created us, in this binary identity, as either male, or female. So Deuteronomy happens to be simply an example. Since this is the way God has created us: well, we find, under the law of Moses, the statement in Deuteronomy 22:5 — that men should look, act, dressed like men. Women should look, act, and dressed like women. It doesn't mean there are no activities in common, or no articles of clothing common. But it's a simple, practical thing: that in your overall appearance, you should be able to tell — when somebody's a long way off, walking towards you — you can, by their clothing, their overall dress, looking at it as a whole: that's a man, or that's a woman. And so, even in Bible days: both male and female wore what we would think of as robes. There were distinct differences, where a man's robe, a woman's robe ('row', as heard). And even today, in Arab countries: a man would not be caught, wearing a woman's robe. And vice versa. Because they are distinct.

Scriptures: Deuteronomy 22:5; Genesis 1:27

'Abomination unto God' — not a ceremonial matter

• So that's the teaching, under the law, in the Old Testament. But it's simply an application, of the original principle, from creation. And we see this: it transcends just a legal requirement, or a ceremonial law. Because it says: Those Who violate these things, are an Abomination, unto God. Abomination literally means: something God hates. Now, there were times, that God would tell Israel — such as when establishing the dietary laws: this will be an Abomination, unto you. You shall not eat pork. It will be an Abomination, unto you. Well, that should be — you're supposed to despise that. You're supposed to abstain, from that. You're not supposed to be involved, with that. And that was part of the ceremonial law, of the Old Testament, that helped identify Israel, and keep them distinct from other nations. And help them teach, that God has a plan, for your life. In every decision you make, you should think: what is the distinction, that God wants me to make? But it never said, that pork was an Abomination, to God. After all: God did create pigs, and they do have a valid purpose. The New Testament says: all that God has created is wholesome, and all food is acceptable, to Christians. So we're not under that dietary law. But notice: he never said, that particular dietary restriction was going to be something, that God hates. But when it comes to blurring this distinction — or overturning the distinction — between male and female: that IS something God hates. Now, God's nature never changes. So this is not just something he hated, for a thousand years. But this, as a reflection of his plan, for the human race, which will never change. So that is a strong indication, that this verse is not just limited, to that culture, or to the law of Moses. But it's an expression, of God's pre-existing plan, for humans.

Deuteronomy 22 as a whole — civil, ceremonial, and what cannot be thrown out

• Now, we also see that, in other parts of Deuteronomy 22. And what you have to understand: the Old Testament was written, to the people of Israel. They were a theocracy. They were ruled, directly, by God. And so there are some things, that we would look at as civil laws. But it was considered religious — because they were religious Society, in a way that we're not, as a nation. Likewise, there are some things, that are — that we would consider to be — ceremonial law. And that is: they were types and shadows, that point to Greater truths, in the New Testament. And so, that dietary law, as I mentioned, are an example. They're abolished, in the New Testament. They fulfilled their purpose. But they point to the greater truth: that we should be spiritually separated, from the world, in all of our activities. We should judge them: whether something we eat, something we drink, something we wear, some activity — we should evaluate: is it according God's will, or not? And so, that ceremony has been fulfilled. We no longer follow the animal sacrifices, for example. They're fulfill — fulfilled — in Jesus Christ, who is our Supreme sacrifice. So those ceremonial laws, are types and shadows, that were implemented, for the physical nation of Israel. But they were teaching greater truths, that would ultimately point to permanent reality, in Jesus Christ. So Colossians 2 says, about these ceremonial laws: they were types and shadows. Now that we have the reality — the body — we don't have to follow the types and shadows. But we follow the reality, now. So there are some things in Deuteronomy, like that. But ask yourself: is this distinction, between male and female, a temporary ceremony, that points to a greater truth? If so, what's the greater truth? And the answer is: there is nothing greater. The truth itself is God's plan, for distinction, between male and female. And so this is a legitimate, and correct, way to look at Deuteronomy. For example: you can't just throw out Deuteronomy — or even Deuteronomy 22 — by saying: well, here's some ceremonial laws, in this chapter, that we don't follow. Or: here's some civil laws, like you addressed. It's actually — as the letters stand: 'Sign a in good law' — but it's talking about practical protections, for preserving life of other people. But we don't just throw all that out. For example: that same chapter, Deuteronomy, has a law against adultery. It has a law against rape. Well, who Among Us would say: well, those laws are not relevant. Those are ceremonial. They're abolished in Christ. We're free to commit adultery. We're free to rape. Obviously, we would not twist scripture, like that. So we can't just eliminate Deuteronomy 22:5, on that basis.

Scriptures: Deuteronomy 22; Colossians 2

The New Testament confirms it — and the appeal [captured text ends mid-sentence]

• Now, let's go a little bit further. Let's go to the New Testament. What do we find there? Well, in First Corinthians 6:9-11 (as he cites the span), we see that men are supposed to be masculine, in their behavior. And it specifically says, that homosexual behavior is sinful. And the King James says — there, men are not to be effeminate. And there are two words used, that together go more than just simply the appearance of effeminacy. But actually: behavior, that would be like a woman, in the sense of homosexual conduct. And then, First Corinthians 11 says: there should be a distinction, in the outward appearance, between a man and a woman. A woman should let her hair grow long. A man should cut his hair, noticeably short. So that we can tell, that men or women are distinct. This is the same principle, just applied in another area. So actually, this teaching is consistent, throughout the Bible. From Genesis, before sin. Deuteronomy, under the law. First Corinthians, under grace, after the law. And so that lets me know: this principle — that men and women should be distinct, in their dress, their outward appearance, their hair, their behavior, their conduct, their relationships — that is God's plan, from — for — the human race, from the beginning, up until this very time. And it's interesting: people that would try to ignore that — and they typically would look at modern Western culture, and say: you know, yes, historically, men have worn pants; women have worn dresses. And we say: well, let's keep that. And even today — even though Society has blurred that, so that women freely wear what used to be considered men's clothing — if you want to try to make the visual distinction, in our Western culture, that's still the only thing left, that you have: to avoid a unisex appearance. And you can even see that, in public buildings: when you go to the restroom, often there will be a silhouette of a man, with pants. A silhouette of a woman, with a skirt, or dress. So even our secular culture knows, that if you're going to try to make a visible distinction, that's all we have, in Western culture. Now, other cultures have different styles of dress. And we should follow, what is appropriate, in that culture. But the point is: even secular society recognizes, the nature of that distinction. And finally, I would say: most people, that would throw off this distinction — if they're from other Christian groups — I would ask them: are you really seriously willing, to follow those implications? So: are you willing to say, that men should wear dresses? That preachers can preach, from the pulpit, wearing dresses? If — if you really say, Deuteronomy has no relevance, and this principle of Distinction of dress has no relevance — it's strictly law; it's not Grace — then, if you follow the logic, or conclusion: you should have zero problem, with transgenderism. With what used to be called transvestites — men wearing women's clothing. That should be perfectly acceptable. But if it's not — and I would think it's not — then that lets you know, that this principle still is speaking to us, despite our culture. And finally, I would say: for someone that doesn't accept the Bible — obviously, we're using the Bible, as our Authority. But I would simply appeal to them: this is the natural order. Human beings — even if you believe in evolution — human beings are designed, to be male and female. That's how the human race is propagated. That's how human marriages are constructed. That's how societies are constructed. And so, just eliminate this distinction: is not just something that's an option. It's actually a fundamental violation, of your body Integrity, of human nature, as it is played out, over Millennium (as spoken). And that creates great Devastation, that we're now beginning to see, in our society. So I would say: reconsider. And in that regard: you might want to look at my book, anchor points (as titled in the answer), which gives an apologetic study, based on these principles. And I quote, or cite, a very interesting book, by Nancy Piercy — p-e-a-r-c-e-y, as he spells it — called love thy body (as titled in the answer). And she says: if you study the order of nature, you study the human body, you'll come to this conclusion: that God intends, for there to be, this distinction, between male and female ('between May male and female', as the letters stand). So in this case, biology — [captured text ends mid-sentence]

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Corinthians 11

Scripture index: Deuteronomy 22:5; Genesis 1:27; Deuteronomy 22; Colossians 2; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Corinthians 11.