Quote:
Originally Posted by freeatlast
and the abomination refered to in that verse was the idol worship that was being done by the pagan nieghbors of the Israelites.
Before the men (hebrew "geber" = warriors) would go into battle they would have their women put on the "apparel' or armaments of war, the soldiers would atire themselves in the cast off garments of the women.
Then they would, dressed in that fassion, appease their gods to bless them in battle.
The words of Dt 22:5 was a warnig to Israel not to do as their pagan nieghbors did.
The Abomination was NEVER the clothing they wore but the idolol worship that took place when this practice took place.
So "search for holiness" is wrongon this account. Call the book what it is, "Search for man made standards"
|
Thanks, not only that, the word "abomination" is very complicated and tricky. Doesn't mean the unpardonable sin...also, what was an "abomination" to God under the law would have been judged against the Mosaic law. Just as the eating of unclean meat, touching dead things, eating with unwashen hands, etc. Once the law was fulfilled in Christ, we are now set at liberty against the judgment of the law. So, this verse even if it was an "abomination" at that time and meant what some think it did (men's pants) does not apply - post Mosaic law, hence Calvary. This is one reason Peter had such difficulty with the Gentiles. God had to show him a vision and tell him to "slay and eat".
It's about time some people get a hold of Peter's vision. The law is over. Jesus fulfilled it in His sinless flesh. God is doing a new work, what was illegal under the law, is now legal in Christ. Of course, with the exception of the Eternal Moral Law which preceded Moses.
BTW, if those who preach this really believed it, women shouldn't wear the following; PJ's with a divided thigh, husbands socks, baseball caps, your husbands coat when your cold and he's not...Hello???