Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[other one]

 

if you are saying that all pants are for men, I simply would disagree.  Maybe a hundred years ago in some areas of the world, but not today.  I hope you are not saying we should go back to the 1800's for our standards.

In some ways, that wouldn't be a bad idea?  I wouldn't even have to go back to the 1800s.  If I could go back 100 years, I think I would be pretty comfortable, and in the main stream.  At some point, women had to decide they wanted to wear pants, and the only ones around were made for men.  It was only after a market was created that people started manufacturing pants to sell to women.  At what time did it go from men's clothing and sin to women's clothing and acceptable?  How many trend setters had to sin before it was no longer sin? 

 

styles and fashion change over years and don't necessarily have anything to do with sin.  Needs change...

[Guest Butero]

Genesis 2:18,22

 

18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

Genesis 3:16

 

16  Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee.

 

Genesis 3:17-19

 

17  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:  cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18  Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken:  for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

Before sin took place in the garden, God said he created woman to be a help meet to her husband.  That is her purpose.  After the fall, God placed a curse on the man and the woman.  The woman was to have pain in child bearing and to be ruled over by her husband.  It is not like he wasn't in charge from the start, as she is his help meet, but until the sin took place, there was unity.  Now that sin entered into the world, strife and disagreement would come into the marriage, and the husband was placed in charge over his wife.  He was to rule over her.  That is the extent of her curse.  She was not given the responsibility to earn a living by the sweat of her face.  That was the man's curse alone.  That is God's order.  Anything else is altering God's order.

 

Going hand in hand with this is 1 Corinthians 11:8,9

 

8  For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

 

This is from the same passage that speaks on hair length.  The hair is a sign of submission and following God's order. 

 

4  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

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.

 

This is not speaking of a veil, but her hair. 

 

15  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:  for her hair is given her for a covering.

 

It is amazing to me how many people to this day believe this is speaking of a literal veil, when verse 15 says the hair is the covering.

 

1 Timothy 5:8

 

8  But if any provide not for his own and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

 

We have left God's order.  We have a society that has become influenced by feminism, which is of the devil.  Rush Limbaugh speaks of a "chickified" society.  That is what we have.  We have a nation, and sadly, a church in rebellion against God's order.  Women in pants is the result of feminism.  Pants represent the authority in the home, as in the old question, "Who wears the pants in the family?"  Women wearing pants blurs the lines between men and women.  There was a time when radical feminists burned their bras because they were protesting anything that created a difference between men and women.  That is what is taking place here, but not all women recognize this.  Most don't.  Most just feel more comfortable in pants, but it doesn't matter why they wear them.  They are still disobeying Deuteronomy 22:5

 

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.

 

There are spiritual reasons behind the things we see in the natural.  It is like the increase in acceptance of homosexuality.  That is a rejection of God's order for the family.  Women dressing like men is also a rejection of women being feminine in their appearance.  It is blurring the outward differences in the appearance of men and women, as is short hair on women.  There are other things that I believe are signs of rebellion.  Tattoos are one.  They are a way of destroying the natural image God gave to men and women.  Of course, I am sharing things that were revealed to me, and I suspect they will be rejected, but I figure, what the heck?  Maybe someone will consider what I am saying? 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

if you are saying that all pants are for men, I simply would disagree.  Maybe a hundred years ago in some areas of the world, but not today.  I hope you are not saying we should go back to the 1800's for our standards.

In some ways, that wouldn't be a bad idea?  I wouldn't even have to go back to the 1800s.  If I could go back 100 years, I think I would be pretty comfortable, and in the main stream.  At some point, women had to decide they wanted to wear pants, and the only ones around were made for men.  It was only after a market was created that people started manufacturing pants to sell to women.  At what time did it go from men's clothing and sin to women's clothing and acceptable?  How many trend setters had to sin before it was no longer sin? 

 

styles and fashion change over years and don't necessarily have anything to do with sin.  Needs change...

 

It is not really that needs changed, but we have a society wholly given to rebellion against God's order.  I addressed that in my last post.  There is more I could have said on the topic, but I gave you enough to understand where I am coming from?

[other one]

i just simply disagree

[Guest Butero]

i just simply disagree

That is certainly your right.  I simply speak what I believe the Lord shows me.  I am not responsible if someone rejects what I say.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

Deut 22:1-12

You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. ² And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. ³ You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself.

⁴ “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again.

⁵ “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

⁶ “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; ⁷ you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

⁸ “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

⁹ “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

¹⁰ “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

¹¹ “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

¹² “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

Surely, if it is a sin for a woman to wear trousers then it is also a sin for anyone to wear socks (which are invariably made of mixed fibers).  Do you have articles of clothing which are made of mixed fibers, Butero?  Does your clothing have tassels?  I think I might have one sweater with tassels, and then it's only two on the draw string.  

 

Acts

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him,‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’

14 ‘Surely not, Lord!’ Peter replied. ‘I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.’

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

...

28 He said to them: ‘You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 

 

 

It's clear that the dream isn't just about food.  Peter applies it to associating with Gentiles, and later even applies it to circumcision.  I have often seen people argue that 'not one jot' of the law has changed and that all must be followed - yet all of these people do pick and choose which laws they apply that 'not one jot' to and which ones became permissible through Peter's Vision.  Few seem to like it when I also point out in reference to the law that; 

 

 

1 Corinthians 10

The believer’s freedom

23 ‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say – but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’– but not everything is constructive.24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.’[f]

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

 

 

 

 

Titus 1:15

New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach – and that for the sake of dishonest gain.12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

 

 

If the laws regarding circumcision no longer apply, and the laws regarding food no longer apply, then why on earth would the laws regarding garments of mixed threads or women wearing mens clothing still apply?  It just seems to me like more useless legalism of the very same sort Titus accuses the Cretes of when he says 'To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure.'  

 

These laws are part of the old covenant which has passed away.

 

 

 

Hebrews 5

New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

5 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. 4 And no one takes this honour on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was.

5 In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,

‘You are my Son;

    today I have become your Father.’[a]

6 And he says in another place,

‘You are a priest for ever,

    in the order of Melchizedek.’[b]

7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

 

 

Hebrews 7

New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

Melchizedek the priest

7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means ‘king of righteousness’; then also, ‘king of Salem’ means ‘king of peace’. 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest for ever.

4 Just think how great he was: even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! 5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people – that is, from their fellow Israelites – even though they also are descended from Abraham.6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood – and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood – why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

‘You are a priest for ever,

    in the order of Melchizedek.’[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

‘The Lord has sworn

    and will not change his mind:

    “You are a priest for ever.”’[b]

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives for ever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need – one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect for ever.

 

Under the Old Covenant the Priesthood had to set themselves apart using those laws and rituals, and with sacrifices.  They had to be circumcised, they had to go through cleansing if they came into contact with anything 'unclean'.  The tabernacle curtain is torn in two!  We have a permanent, always clean forever and ever, High Priest of the Order that PRECEDED all other priesthoods.  Why would we try to then place ourselves under the restrictions of the old covenant?

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

 

5. I see no problem with women having hairstyles according to their own tastes. I personally like longer hair (probably because I grew up in S. America where this was the norm) but this is just a personal preference. Do you think women with a particular style of hair is sinful?

 

6. Discrimination based on hair length I would imagine is at the minimum unethical and possibly illegal in many places. I have no issue with the length of a man's hair. Do you?

First of all, scripture says it is a shame for a man to have long hair and women to have short hair, so I do have a problem with it, but it is funny how men are attacked for long hair but women can have long hair or short hair?  My company would have a problem with men with long hair.  I haven't seen any lawsuits yet? 

 

Perhaps I am wrong for saying this, but I don't believe you.  I would have to see it to believe it?  I would have to see a man visit your church and how you react?  I would have to see you being fine if you had a son and he wore a dress? 

 

Where does Scripture say this in red? Are you talking about 1 Cor. 11? What is the context of the passage?

Re: no men with long hair. If it is a company policy that doesn't break the law I see no problem with it. They are free to make rules specifically for their business. You are free to specifically chose a different job.

 

You don't believe what? Oh perhaps this is to my sarcastic comment. <sigh>

 

Why does it have to say something in red to be valid?  Of course I am speaking of 1 Corinthians 11.  The Bible states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair and it says that long hair was given to the woman as a covering or a veil.  Context?  It speaks of praying and prophesying.  I don't feel right about praying with my head covered (long hair).  If you look at the passage carefully, this acts as a sign of submission to one's head.  If the man has short hair, it is a sign he is under submission to Christ, and when the woman has long hair, it shows she is under submission to her head (husband and Christ).  When a man has long hair and a woman has short hair, it is an open sign of rebellion. 

 

Yes, a company is free to set standards.  My point is the double standard that exists for men and women.

 

For reference I was saying what I highlighted in red from your post. Not necessarily "in red" meaning the words of Jesus typically printed in red in many Bibles.

Short hair doesn't make a man submissive to Christ. Long hair doesn't make a woman submissive to Christ. Those are outward qualities or choices. What matters is the heart.

 

There are several views on this passage. Particularly, four come readily to mind:

 

(1) This text has no applicability to us today. Paul is speaking about a ‘tradition’ that he has handed on. Hence, since this is not the tradition of the modern church, we hardly need to consider this text.

 

(2) The head covering is the hair. Hence, the applicability today is that women should wear (relatively) long hair.

 

(3) The head covering is a real head covering and the text is applicable today, in the same way as it was in Paul’s day. Within this view are two basic sub-views:

• The head covering is to be worn by all women in the church service.
• The head covering is to be worn by women in the church service only when praying or prophesying publicly.

(4) The head covering is a meaningful symbol in the ancient world that needs some sort of corresponding symbol today, but not necessarily a head covering. This also involves the same two sub-views as #3 above.

 

I would probably agree with #4 personally as my personal conviction. I believe this view can be supported.

#1 No Applicability: is pretty easy to dismiss. It is based on a poor assumption about the definition of ‘traditions’ (paradovsei") in vs 2, as well as ‘custom’ (sunhvqeian) in vs 16. A potential case can be made for vs 16 but only if you ignore vs 2.

 

#2 Hair: depends on vs 15... hJ kovmh a*ntiV peribolaivou devdotai--‘her hair is given [to her] in the place of a veil’ The assumption in verses 2-14 is that of a woman veiling or unveiling herself. Numbers 5:18 is often used in conjunction with this view. A woman accused of giving herself to another man her hair let loose to show her dishonor. The Hebrew word for letting loose or uncovered in Greek is akatakalyptos. However, Numbers 5:18 doesn't use this word. This word only occurs once in Lev. 13:45.

However, two observations... A. No word occurs for veil in vs 2-14 and B. Paul points out the similarities of long hair with a head covering. Yet he does so very strongly to the point that the two are not to be identified because they are similar but not identical.

So, it could be argued...

a. that a man should either shave his head or go bald.

b. if it's an either or scenario than vs 6 "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." could be read as: "if a woman will not wear long hair, then she should go bald or cut off her hair.”

c. the argument caves in by the texts own subtle implication.

d. verse 10 and verse 15 would have to be the same. Yet in verse 10 a woman is to wear a symbol of authority - submission and not glory. In verse 15 a woman's hair is the symbol of her glory. A literal translation of the Greek would be of verse 15 would be: ‘a glory to her’ or ‘a glory accruing to her,’ or ‘to her advantage.’

To take this view would almost have to ignore the function of the long hair and the head covering - one shows her submission while the other one shows her glory. Both of these ideas are contrasted with an uncovered head while praying/prophesying and a shaved head.

#3 Real Head Covering Applicable Today: it is the hardest to swallow practically while the easiest from a exegetical point of view. This view assumes...

A. That a real head covering is in plain sight

B. That Paul's argument had a greater foundation than simply convention and

C. The head covering itself is critical to the viewpoint

Verse 2 indicates that this was a tradition he was passing onto the Church. Verses 3-9 base the instruction on creation and theological hierarchy. God is the head of Christ who's the head of man who's the head of woman. Paul isn't arguing the inferiority of women. Paul is arguing the functional subordination of Christ to God and of wife to her husband. Verse 10 has some speculation with angels with many conjectures out there. Verse 13-15 talks about nature ending with verse 16 with the wisdom of the universal Body of Christ - the Church.

So this view has roots in general theological conviction with trinitarianism, creation, angelology (is that a word?), general revelation, and given church practice. The practical application is whenever a woman is in a church service or whenever a woman prays/prophecies publicly. 

I'll get to the fourth one in a separate post. I may or may not get to it tonight as it is significantly longer than the others.

God bless,

GE

 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

Deut 22:1-12

You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. ² And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. ³ You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself.

⁴ “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again.

⁵ “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

⁶ “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; ⁷ you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

⁸ “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

⁹ “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

¹⁰ “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

¹¹ “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

¹² “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

Surely, if it is a sin for a woman to wear trousers then it is also a sin for anyone to wear socks (which are invariably made of mixed fibers).  Do you have articles of clothing which are made of mixed fibers, Butero?  Does your clothing have tassels?  I think I might have one sweater with tassels, and then it's only two on the draw string.  

 

Acts

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him,‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’

14 ‘Surely not, Lord!’ Peter replied. ‘I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.’

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

...

28 He said to them: ‘You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 

 

 

It's clear that the dream isn't just about food.  Peter applies it to associating with Gentiles, and later even applies it to circumcision.  I have often seen people argue that 'not one jot' of the law has changed and that all must be followed - yet all of these people do pick and choose which laws they apply that 'not one jot' to and which ones became permissible through Peter's Vision.  Few seem to like it when I also point out in reference to the law that; 

 

 

1 Corinthians 10

The believer’s freedom

23 ‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say – but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’– but not everything is constructive.24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.’[f]

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

 

 

 

 

Titus 1:15

New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach – and that for the sake of dishonest gain.12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

 

 

If the laws regarding circumcision no longer apply, and the laws regarding food no longer apply, then why on earth would the laws regarding garments of mixed threads or women wearing mens clothing still apply?  It just seems to me like more useless legalism of the very same sort Titus accuses the Cretes of when he says 'To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure.'  

 

These laws are part of the old covenant which has passed away.

 

 

 

Hebrews 5

New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

5 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. 4 And no one takes this honour on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was.

5 In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,

‘You are my Son;

    today I have become your Father.’[a]

6 And he says in another place,

‘You are a priest for ever,

    in the order of Melchizedek.’[b]

7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

 

 

Hebrews 7

New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

Melchizedek the priest

7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means ‘king of righteousness’; then also, ‘king of Salem’ means ‘king of peace’. 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest for ever.

4 Just think how great he was: even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! 5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people – that is, from their fellow Israelites – even though they also are descended from Abraham.6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood – and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood – why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

‘You are a priest for ever,

    in the order of Melchizedek.’[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

‘The Lord has sworn

    and will not change his mind:

    “You are a priest for ever.”’[b]

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives for ever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need – one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect for ever.

 

Under the Old Covenant the Priesthood had to set themselves apart using those laws and rituals, and with sacrifices.  They had to be circumcised, they had to go through cleansing if they came into contact with anything 'unclean'.  The tabernacle curtain is torn in two!  We have a permanent, always clean forever and ever, High Priest of the Order that PRECEDED all other priesthoods.  Why would we try to then place ourselves under the restrictions of the old covenant?

 

I have already addressed some of this.  It is all rather simple.  The law of Moses was comprised of three types of laws.  1  Laws of separation  2  Laws Concerning the order Of The Levitical Priesthood  3  Moral Laws. 

 

The mixed fabric law was one to show separation between Israel and the idol worshipping gentile nations, so it doesn't apply to us.  We were those gentiles but we are no longer unclean. 

 

The vision of Peter was not just about food.  I am glad you noticed that.  The reason why Israel was to abstain from certain foods was as a sign of separation.  Now that the gentiles were made clean by the blood of Jesus, they are no longer separate, but there is one body.  We are engrafted into the same spiritual tree with Israel, so the symbolism has changed.  Now all foods are clean.  That is why we are free to eat pork.

 

Circumcision was another sign of separation given to the Jews.  How do I know this?  This is rather simple too.  Have you ever noticed how many sins are mentioned in the NT, and it is said that those who commit them shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?  These are actually laws.  If the law was done away with, we could do anything we want and inherit God's Kingdom, because scripture says, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."  The laws that apply today are those pertaining to God's standard of holiness.  It is not so much that part of the law was done away with, but some parts were only to take us to the cross.  We don't have the Levitical Priesthood in place anymore, as Christ's one time death paid the penalty for any sin we can commit.  Instead of sacrificing an animal, we simply confess our sins, and the blood of Jesus washes us clean. 

 

It would be like this.  I write a bill, and in this bill, there are temporary measures in place to get things started.  The bill passes, and is not repealed, but when a certain date rolls around, parts no longer apply, because there are long term things in place to keep the law going.  That is how this works. 

[Guest Butero]

GE, you are free to go to any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 you desire, but I told you what it means.  I stand by what I said.  I have heard various interpretations as well.  There are numerous interpretations to all scripture, but just because someone comes along and says, "this is what it means", that doesn't mean I accept them as right?  I can't tell you how many people I have had tell me this was speaking of a veil, when verse 15 plainly says the hair is given for a covering.  It was right in front of them, and they missed it, because they were looking up Greek words for this and that.  A man has short hair to show he is in submission to his head, Christ Jesus, and when his hair is long, it is an outward sign of rebellion against Christ Jesus.  A woman has long hair to show she is in submission to her head (husband, Christ Jesus), and when she has short hair, it is an outward sign she is in rebellion against her head (husband, Christ Jesus).  Yes, her hair is her glory.  So what?  It can't be her glory and also a sign of submission? 

[nebula]

A lot of people try to use the mixed fabric argument, but it is not valid.  There are some laws that were in place for Israel as a sign of separation, and that was the case with the one about mixed fabrics In a garment.  The law in Deuteronomy 22:5 is a moral law, and it still remains.  I would be more likely to consider that we should stop wearing garments of mixed fabrics, than to consider that it is right for women to wear pants. 

 

Deut 22:1-12

You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. ² And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. ³ You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself.

⁴ “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again.

⁵ “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

⁶ “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; ⁷ you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

⁸ “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

⁹ “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

¹⁰ “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

¹¹ “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

¹² “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

 

 

Interesting that vs. 5 is the only verse in this list you hold as a moral law that still remains today.

 

 

In any event, the real issue is what one deems to be "man's clothes" and "women's clothes." The Bible does not define what clothes belong to men and what clothes belong to women.

 

But it is funny how pants seem to be the only "anything" that "pertaineth to a man" that women are not allowed to wear. I recall attending a Christian concert in Pennsylvania, and I saw a young Mennonite female in the crowd. She wore her hair up in the Mennonite "cap", a skirt, socks, tennis shoes, and a concert t-shirt. I had to laugh!