"You shall not wear a material mixed with wool and linen together" (Deuteronomy 22:11).

Does that mean that you could not wear this suit from JoS.A.Bank?

I have heard different answers to my question. One person simply answered, "I guess not."

One minister said, "You have to ask what the principle is in the command." Okay, so what, I asked, is the principle? He suggested that the command is given to show that Christians are a holy people and must keep themselves from worldly things. He suggested that we don't have to apply it literally. Okay, so I followed up, do you think Israel could rationalize this command and tell God, "I know what you mean. You really don't mean that we should not mix our fabrics but simply keep ourselves from mixing with the evil people of Canaan. You must also mean this with respect to the restricted foods and with respect to the command just a few verses earlier with respect to not plowing an ox and donkey together." So, Israel really didn't need to take God literally about many things. 

May I suggest that both these answers are wrong. I believe what God commanded Israel, He meant literally. He did not intend for them to spiritualize His commands. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that He intended anything other than an absolutely literal interpretation of these commands. 

Now, the first person's conjecture that because of this command, Christians cannot wear clothing that mixes linen and wool, is also wrong. It is wrong not because the Law of Moses doesn't command it. It does command it. It's wrong because Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. I have written about this extensively elsewhere, but I will just give a couple of passages here:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Romans 7:7).

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear (Hebrews 8:13).

This means that none of these laws within the Law of Moses directly applies to Christians today. This is also why I have rebuked ministers for preaching that Christians are commanded to tithe. Tithing is a command under the Law of Moses and is not a Christian requirement. Yet, how interesting it is that tithing has become the cornerstone for most megachurches today. This would also apply to the so-called requirement for Sunday worship, which is called a "Christian Sabbath." This has absolutely no biblical support. The Sabbath was also a command under the Law of Moses. 

Then, you may ask, how are we to benefit from the Old Testament at all? 

First, these are "examples" for us. They are examples to show us how utterly incapable Israel was in keeping the Law of Moses. As Paul wrote in Romans 7, the Law was given to show failure not success. 

Second, we learn about the holiness of God. God demanded His people make a distinction between what they practiced versus what the idolatrous nations were practicing. This general principle has a parallel in the New Testament, which teaches Christians not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers" (cf. 2 Corinthians 6) and to not be "conformed to the present world system" (cf. Romans 12).

Third, we gain a greater appreciation for the grace we have in Jesus Christ, who frees us from both the ordinances and the condemnation of the Law (cf. Romans 8). What if we, like Israel, foolishly tried to gain a right standing with Him by keeping the Law? We would have been a hopeless lot.

Dear brothers and sisters!

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, ¹⁹ his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. ²⁰ They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” ²¹ Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

 When I first read the paragraph above, my heart was disturbed by the underlined instruction.  What kind of parents could do such a thing?  No matter how bad their children are, how could any parents have their child stoned to death?  If someone else brings the charge against your child to be rebellious and has him stoned to death, it might sound a little better.  But here God tells parents themselves to bring their child to death!!!  I felt the heaviness of my sin which must be dealt with the perfect justice of God which goes beyond our comprehension.  Christ had to be cursed for my own sin as described in Deut 21:23, "..anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse."

 Now I understand why the new covenant is better than the first one.  Just as an apostle Paul said in Romans 8,"For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did it by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering."  Even though the Law was perfect, it couldn't do what it was intended to do: Bring Life.  But instead death came to all men.  Bless be the Name of the Lord who is a true friend to sinners by His willing death on the cross.  We cannot take any sin lightly but must be thankful to our Lord Jesus Christ who took away all the burdens such as a parental duty in the above paragraph.

 In Christ,

 Stephen

I have 2 comments about Chapter 22.  The first deals with the first few verses:

“If you see your neighbor’s ox or sheep or goat wandering away, don’t ignore your responsibility.^c]">[c] Take it back to its owner. ² If its owner does not live nearby or you don’t know who the owner is, take it to your place and keep it until the owner comes looking for it. Then you must return it. ³ Do the same if you find your neighbor’s donkey, clothing, or anything else your neighbor loses. Don’t ignore your responsibility.   ⁴ “If you see that your neighbor’s donkey or ox has collapsed on the road, do not look the other way. Go and help your neighbor get it back on its feet!

While we are no longer under Mosiac Law, isn't this the 2nd "commandment" of Jesus, "Love your neighbor"?  While I try to do what is polite and helpful, I do oftentimes find myself only doing what is easy (holding open a door, etc...) versus those that are difficult (clearing the neighbors sidewalks after a snow).  Granted, I'm not always that way (referring to the time I helped someone stuck in the snow push their vehicle out only to find out I was stuck myself when I got back to me truck), but those "uncomfortable" acts of kindness are harder to perform today.  Granted, I know they aren't our responsiblity today, but as a society it seems more difficult to provide these acts where there are so many that could be provided (if I clear my neighbors sidewalks, does that mean I should do the whole neighborhood).  Plus, it appears that many people in society don't truly appreciate true acts of kindness.   I cannot count how many times have I have held a door for people entering/leaving a business with no acknowledgement or appreciation.  Again, that's not why we do those things, but those "thank yous" tend to reinforce that behavior.  Now I'm rambling I think.

In the last few versus of Chapter 22, it talks about secual purety and the various duties of virgins, husbands, etc...and it made me think of Mary, mother of Jesus.  How difficult must it have been for her, her father/mother, and Joseph when she announced she was still a virgin, but was pregnant?  Of course, the whole town and everyone would have doubted that such a thing could happen, and by the law, if since she was engaged and no longer a virgin, she would be stoned to death (unless of course they simply believed that it was Joseph's child, in which case he would have to pay the fine).  While God and his Angel's visited Mary and Joseph to ease their minds, we don't hear/read of them visiting the whole town to prevent them following this law to the written conclusion.  To me, it adds more drama to the story of Mary/Joseph and Jesus (I can hear the Law and Order "dong-dong" in my head now).

Yujin adds... Excellent thoughts, brother Aaron. Your dilemma in how much to help is a common dilemma. Oftentimes, because we see the magnitude of the need, we often do nothing at all. Perhaps the operative principle for us to follow is to do what we can (cf. Mary in Mark 14:8) and try to discern God's will (cf. Ephesians 5:15-17), which is much more than just acts of charity. 

As I read Deuteronomy,  I am reminded of the question asked by Jesus: "Which is the greatest commandment"?  Jesus responded:  "That you love the Lord God with all thine heart, soul and mind, and thy neighbor as thyself.  All the commandments rest on these.  Sometimes, I think about how hard it would have been for someone like myself to have made it back then.  I would have been having to be rich or indebt for all the sacrifics that I needed.  So, thanks be to God that gives us the victory through our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus who was offered as a sweet smelling sacrifice.  For by the grace of God go I.

Yujin adds... I hear you, brother Anthony. Actually, most all of us would probably be dead. The sacrifices only covered unintentional sins. Intentional sins required either restitution or the death penalty. There were no sacrifices to gain forgiveness for intentional sins.

Today's reading really convicted me that no matter how hard the Israelites (or anyone, for that matter) tried the Mosaic Laws could not be kept.  Thank God we are not under these laws anymore.  Thank God for the sacrificial blood of Christ!

Chad wrote... A little warning, I am a dangerous person.  That is, a person with limited knowledge of the bible.  I realize that there are going to be times when I read the bible and interpret it in a way that is not the Lord's intent.  Today may be one of those days.In this reading the Lord provides additional laws for the Israelites to follow.  22:5 specifically prohibits a woman from wearing men’s clothing and a man from wearing women’s clothing.
 
I must admit that it was the first time I had read that particular verse and it kind of surprised me.  Not only was it very specific but it seems to be randomly placed.  I know that I have always been uncomfortable with the practice and now I think I understand it a little better.  I think that it was the Holy Spirit in me that was telling me that this is an unnatural practice and not from the Lord.}

Yujin commented... I praise God for your humble spirit, brother Chad! This law is part of the Mosaic Law, so in a sense it has no direct application to us today. Therefore, we do not have any authority to say to someone that they should not do this because they are violating God's Law. However, the NT epistles, which is like the Christian "Law of Moses," seems to make clear distinctions between men and women, particularly in their respective representations of God's relationship with His people.
 
So, in 1 Corinthians 11, we read that women should wear some covering on her head when she worships to signify that she has subordinated herself to her husband or to the men in the congregation. This is a visible representation of the funtional authority and responsibility given to men in their marriage and in relation to women. In Ephesians 5:22-33, this principle is again explained specifically in the context of marriage, where the husband is to his wife as Christ is to the church. His authority and responsibility involves sacrificial leadership in love, guiding his wife in God's Word, and providing for her needs. In doing this faithfully, the husband mirrors the Lord Jesus Christ. And when the woman submits to her husband in everything, she mirrors the proper response of the church to the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
While I'm not so much concerned about women wearing pants or men wearing dresses - some countries do this culturally - I do sense that, as unpopular as it may be to our generation of independent-minded people, we should practice the rule of 1 Corinthians 11 today in our churches. It cannot simply be culturally explained away. It is a command of God for Christians.