Deuteronomy 22, one of those passages we're going to just dive right into, and we'll try to do our best to answer the objections to this passage. Are you happy to be saved? Amen. Amen. Alright. Lord, do ask for your help as we open up the Word of God, help our saints to be able to be edified and learn. In Jesus' name, amen. Here's what I want you to do. Start off, put your thumb out with one hand, and then put your forefinger out with your other hand. Okay? It don't matter which is which. Now, switch. What's the problem? Doesn't it seem like it should be simple? All I'm doing is putting this finger up and this finger out. Yeah. Things that we think can be simple can sometimes be pretty difficult to do or to get a hold of. Now, the reason I start off with that is because that's what this lesson will feel like. Because I'm going to guess I'm going to assume that most of you, if not all of you, have not heard something like this taught in an actual church setting. Typically, it's, well, we'll just kind of figure it out. Nobody really talks about it because it's uncomfortable. And people typically don't like confrontation, so that's one of the reasons we don't talk about stuff. Well, we're a Bible teaching church, so we open up these things and we try to see what the Word of God has to say. And so, let's get into the Bible with that said, and let's read. Deuteronomy chapter number 22, and let's read verse number 5 together. Deuteronomy 22, verse number 5. Ready? 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 an abomination unto the Lord thy God. So, objection number 1. That's not what it means. Because in American Christianity, it's not like this all over the world until it gets westernized. If we don't like a verse, we simply say, well, that's not what it means. On the other hand, I do want to know what it means, and I don't want to have it mean something it doesn't mean. So, our first tip-off that someone doesn't want to obey the Word of God is that they read a passage and they say, well, that's not what it means. If that's our starting point, and the Word of God doesn't mean what it says and says what it means, what ultimately is our final authority? Ourself. Our interpretation. We are God. And the Bible's not going to tell us what to do. We're going to tell it what to do. Now, second simple test that isn't so simple. Let's have all the young people that are willing to come on out, and I want you to point to the boy. Point to the boy. All young people, come and point to the boy. Okay. Now, was that hard to figure out? How did you know that? Now point to the girl. You knew it. Very good kids. Give them a hand. You knew it because there was something inside you that just caused you to choose one over the other. Okay. You know they're trying to blur the bathroom distinction. That's not supposed to mean what everyone understood it to mean, and that's without a King James Bible. That's just walking into a secular place. So people say, well, 1st Timothy 2.9 just says modesty, and after all, aren't modest pants more appropriate than immodest dresses, ladies? Well, yeah. Yeah. Duh! Wouldn't you rather have a woman wearing loose baggy pants than have her coming in with a, you know, a painted on mini skirt all the way up? Duh! Who doesn't know that? Alright, next lesson. Culture. Because in Biblical times, both men and women wore robe-like garments. Right? In Biblical times, both men and women wore robe-like garments. Now you kids are going to pass these cards around, but I want you to look through And with your parents, I want you to pick out, keep them in order, because they're in pairs, which one is the man and which one is the woman. We're not using a Bible, we're using a deck of cards I got at some antique shop about 15 years ago. And when you're done, pass it on to another family who hasn't... Because the argument is, what pertains to a man and what pertains to a woman changes with culture. It changes over time. But I want you to look at these cards and you'll see, are you done yours? You'll see all different cultures. All different cultures. yeah it is look at all this now when you go through that deck of cards did you see cultures did you see countries like Norway and Switzerland and the United States and Mexico now let me ask you a question when you looked at those could you tell which one was the man and which one was the woman by what they wore Right? Were the specific articles of clothing the same from culture to culture? No. What was the same from culture to culture? Simply a gender distinction. Correct. To me, that's easy to understand. That's clear. We're not trying to legislate articles of clothing nor is God." Well, we'll see in a minute, He did with Israel, but He's not with us. But I believe the principle still stands. Hey, look, there's a distinction in men and women, and there's many of them. One of them is garments or clothing. In 1852, Erica Snodgrass, anybody here Erica Snodgrass from the Snodgrass family? She was the first woman arrested for wearing loose pants in public. That was in 1852. Why? Because at that time, the secular culture still recognized a God-given distinction And the culture recognized, because they had enough fear of God, that there was a distinction in apparel. How many of you, you probably don't know this name. I didn't until I researched and looked it up. How many of you know of Eric Bivens? Eric Bivens. In 2011, he was the first man to be arrested for wearing a skirt in public. Why? Because it was understood that there's a distinction. We've come a long way from 1852 to 2011, but in 1852, I bet you there were some preachers that were saying, you know what's going to happen one day? There's going to be a man that's going to walk out in public and he's going to have a dress on. Alright, argument number two. Let's read Deuteronomy 22, verse 5 together again. Ready? "...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." Well, Christians are not bound to keep the law. Amen? We are not. The law was given to Israel, and we're not Israel, we're the church. Amen? We're not Israel, we're the church. We understand that. But let me ask you this. Look at verse number 8. Let's read that together. How many of you are construction men? I know we've got at least two guys here that do construction. Do you follow a principle of safety when you build a structure? We're not required to have a battlement on our roof. We have a different roof structure now than they did back in biblical times. I'm assuming it was a flat roof. Correct me if I'm wrong. Right? That's why you would need a battlement. But you're telling me today that principle doesn't apply? That when Lance is going to be laying gas pipe, that he's not thinking of the safety of his neighbor? Or when David's doing a construction job and he's building a house, he's not thinking of safety principles? The principle's still there. There were specifics for the nation, but the principles still apply for New Testament Christians. Let's read v. 9-10. 12 together, "...then shall not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds, lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown and the fruit of thy vineyard be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together, thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together. Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself." So, People say, well, do you wear mixed fabrics? Well, duh, yeah, I wear mixed fabrics. Do you plow with an ox and an ass? Well, duh, yeah, we do that. But don't tell me the principle of what the nation was told specifically under Mosaic law was, I want you separate. When you go out in public, by the fringes on your garments, they're going to know you're a Jew. And how you farm? Those Gentiles are going to look, and just by the way you farm, they're going to know you're a Jew. Don't tell me that principle doesn't apply for New Testament Christians. How many times have we preached, be not unequally yoked, be separate from the world? It's just a principle of separation that is still applicable to us. Come out from among them and be ye separate. He was simply asking his nation to do specific things to set them apart. We don't have to do those specifics, but the principles of separation are still in play. We don't follow the dietary laws of Moses. But we do have a principle of, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. We do have a different diet. The principles stand. It's just understanding it, I believe. Look at the last verse in Deuteronomy 20 to 30. What's the last word of the last verse in the chapter? Skirt. You know David cut off the skirt of Saul's robe? Do you know that the prophet Haggai used the phrase, skirt of his garment? Do you know I am wearing a garment with a skirt? This is the skirt. Gentlemen, You say to your boys, I want you to tuck your shirt tail in for church. What is he tucking in? The skirt of his shirt. All garments have skirts, or all upper garments have some type of a skirting to them. It was a very, very common thing in jujitsu. It would not be uncommon for the instructor to say, hey, I want you to grab the skirt of the gi. And we would use that skirt of the gi to apply a choke. Nothing like using your garments to protect yourself. We all understood what the skirt part of the garment was. People say, well, that's just for Old Testament Israel. Deuteronomy 22, 5 is just for Israel. You know, God told, He said, for Adam there was not found and help meet for him. Because Adam looked around and all of the creation, all of the animals, God said, none of that's suitable for you. And Adam's like, none of that's suitable for me. And so God made something suitable for him. And do you know in the book of Exodus and Deuteronomy and Leviticus, God condemns man lying with a beast? They're cursed. They should be put to death because it's so abominable. You know that's not restated in the New Testament? Do you know this world's moving toward that? Parents, you know what I'm talking about. I think you can fill in the blanks pretty easily. You know, I say, well, that's just the Old Testament. It's not stated anywhere in the New Testament. I'm going to go with the Old Testament. Why? Because the principle applies. Before the nation of Israel was formed, God said, look, you're distinct from that animal kind. That's not suitable for you. After he establishes a nation through Abraham, he has the same principle, and he doubles down, and he said, if you even think about doing that, it's going to be bad news for you. So don't think about doing it. That's why he gave them that law. The purpose of Deuteronomy 22.5 was only to prevent pagan religious cross-dressing. That's argument three. And since we're not pagans, it doesn't apply to us. Because in Old Testament times, that's where pagans were doing, and so God wanted them to be distinct from the pagans. When we first got here, the first big outreach we did, minus just some small ones, was the drag queen story hour at the public library in Putnam County. And Christians and preachers would go there, and they were protesting men dressed in women's clothing. They call it drag. Because it started in the 1700s with Shakespeare, and they put on these plays, and the men would dress up as girls, and the bottom of their dresses would drag on the ground, and so they called it drag. And so, flash forward to 2020, and now you have men dressing up in drag. It's funny, they're not reading stories to themselves, but they sure want to get our kids in there and read it to them. Isn't that strange? Because they know where to go to get a following, get them while they're young. But stay with me. If you start to drift, come on back and just count it as I'm a crazy preacher. And I'm good with that. I'm good with that. Is it odd for me as a preacher to stand there and watch women in trousers protesting against men wearing skirts and reading books to children? Now, that's not the only thing I thought, but that's one of the things I thought. And I thought to myself, we have really come a long way. Do you realize what you're protesting against? In other words, if we flip the script and we had men show up saying we didn't want women reading our children in drag, reverse drag, probably wouldn't go so well, would it? Because we've come such a long way. Why are we so against the LGBTQ lifestyle? Yet, at the same time, we're willing to adopt their dress codes and their dress standards and accept their fashion designers. And ladies, why have you freely given up your God-given distinction because culture has convinced you otherwise? Why are you more willing to defend culture than you are the Bible or the conservative preacher that's trying to turn the ship? that can't be turned, because he's spinning the wheel like this. And at the end of a decade, you get this far. Because we ain't living in the 1800s anymore. We're living in a time where, cut the feed, man. Why do we say no to unisex bathrooms, and why do we say no to same-sex marriages, and then we say yes to same-sex dress codes? I'm asking, I'm not telling. Because we are under grace. We do have liberty. Argument. Gender-specific clothing changes over time. Because of that, There are women's pants who are cut with a different style than men's pants. They fit different. On and on, yada, yada, yada. Fresh case in point. Yesterday at our jujitsu tournament, there was a man who was wearing a dress. It's America. I'm there to work. I'm not there to preach. He's wearing a dress. Well, it wasn't a flowery dress. Well, I guess that's good. It was a rugged dress, and it kind of had like construction style, like you guys wear a cart when you work. It was kind of that material. It was a masculine style dress. So I say to my workers, After the tournament, you want to go out shopping and get you a dress? And they got a kick out of that, because they knew, without even being saved, they knew, there's something wrong with that guy. This is a little bit strange-y. Folks, do you understand? We're within a decade of this entire script being completely flipped. We are not going to know who a woman is and who a man is. I know what a woman is, and I know what a man is. And I think the church should as well. That's why they're doing all this changing. Well, I'm not going to go down that road. But it's all interconnected, I guess, as a way to wrap up this thought. In 1940, Coco Cheadle, who was a feminist, she invented trousers for women. She was a feminist. Who Christians say, they're not feminists. Okay, but you adopted a clothing attire from a feminist. Yeah, but I'm not a feminist. Okay. In 1966, Eve St. Laurent, who was a homosexual fashion designer, designed the pantsuit for women. It was a loose pantsuit. There was a couple reasons for that. One, There was already not an understanding of how God designed men and women because they live in an alternative homosexual lifestyle. That's problem one. It was also during World War II, women took on industrial roles. You know why? Because their husbands were forced at war. So the women were left at home. And by the 1960s, 40% of the women had entered the workforce. They had to because it was needed because the men were at war and their husbands were, some of them died. So that was a time in history where you had these things working together. And the pantsuit was designed to make a woman appear more masculine. So she can enter into what was traditionally a masculine role. It was a symbol of a feminist ideology that rejected traditional gender roles. I'm not trying to be accusatory of anyone. I'm just trying to open this can that we typically don't like to look into. Someone told me the other week, well, you know, you wear a suit because they design the suit because it's supposed to look like the man's an authority, and they make the shoulders come out so he has a nice shape of authority. I said, well, isn't the man supposed to be an authority? Isn't that a distinction in roles where women aren't supposed to usurp men's authority? So, clothing is designed, especially the pantsuit for women, so that they can appear more authoritative. It was traditionally a role. God wanted men to take that role. In 1978, Calvin Klein, who was a homosexual—he's a bisexual, we'll leave it at that, parents—he invented skinny jeans, which were tight pants for women. When he invented that, they then essentially used and abused young people. You won't know this name, but anybody over 40 would know this name. They used and abused a little girl, Brooke Shields, to sell what a homosexual fashion designer created. And they ran ads that declared jeans are I'll let you fill in the blank. The tighter they are, the better they sell. You know what they were selling? What we want to keep our kids away from. I'm a Christian. That's funny. All the money you spend on clothes goes to those type of designers. But I'm the crazy one. In 1997, Gianni Versace, who was another homosexual, He invented leggings and he convinced Christian ladies, I mean it was easy to convince the world, but he convinced Christian ladies to wear underwear as outerwear. I have to say it that clear so no one misunderstands what I'm trying to convey. I don't agree with that thought. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, I'm just giving you the thought. I don't believe ladies were liberated. I believe ladies were lied to. And I believe Christian ladies, pilgrim ladies, you should be strangers and pilgrims to this world, not adapting your lifestyle to the rebellious fashion designers. It doesn't fit. Say this. Everybody is free to wear what they want. We live in America. People are free. Wear what you want. You know, people ask, what do I wear to church? Wear clothes, come on. But it's like, We're not going to do this every Sunday, Kimmy. We're not going to do this every Thursday night, Callie. But there's going to be a time when we're going to just have to go through these matters. We're not going to ride the hobby horse for 20 years, but we've got to go through these matters. And everybody's free to wear whatever they want outside the church house. Like, I'm not the clothing police. I'm not an owl up on a limb looking at everybody to see what they're doing. I mean, everybody, do what you want to do. I'm trying to help you want to do this. That's what I'm trying to persuade you to do. And it would be fair for a church to simply say, look, we don't have a youth group, but if we did, there'd be a dress code for the youth. Because your son someday is going to have some more hormones than he does that he has at this age. And we wouldn't want to have a Christian youth group have all of the teenage boys who have a lot more hormones than they do at this age, lusting over that when they could be thirsting after the Word of God. Amen. And when we act like that's not an issue, that's a fail as a parent. If we do a family camp where you're going to come and minister to the saints in a corporate church setting, Just be okay with obeying them that have rule over you and say that he's a mean preacher. I'm okay with that, but let's try to just... I don't know. I grew up in martial arts. I didn't like a lot of the things my instructors did, but I certainly had enough respect to, if they told me to line up and stand straight, that's what I did. If my dad told me to do something, I did it. And if I didn't, I regretted not. Old Testament is still profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. We are not bound under it, but we can learn from it. Yes, Jesus did come to fulfill the law. And Christ completed its purpose and revealed the law's true meaning. All that's true. But he never said the law was irrelevant. He never said we couldn't learn from it. We're not justified by keeping the law, and we're not Old Testament Israel who's under the law. But the law still is holy and just and good. The New Testament independently establishes gender distinction without Deuteronomy 22. So let's run a couple of passages, and then we'll be done. Go to 1 Corinthians 11, and we'll read these together and then close out. We'll read about four or five passages. 1 Corinthians, verse number 11. We'll go through these quickly. 1 Corinthians chapter 11, let's read verses 14 and 15. Ready? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him, but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering. It's just a gender distinction in hair. That's all that is. It's a form of distinction. Nobody says you're not saved. Nobody says you're bound under the law. Nature would teach you that if I just looked at the heads, I would know that's a woman and that's a man. Go to 1 Timothy 2. 1 Timothy 2, and let's read verses 12 and 13. 1 Timothy 2, verses 12 and 13. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." Look, there's gender-specific roles within the context of the local congregation, the local assembly. God's not saying that your wife has to walk around and she can't open her mouth in Walmart because you're there. It's simply in the context of the congregation testify, hey, I thank the Lord for saving me. But he says don't go into teaching. Well, how you get saved is you've got to believe on Jesus. And if you're not saved... You see, there's a distinction. You can sing. You can testify. You can teach ladies. You can even go out in public and teach lost people about the gospel. God just says in the corporate assembly, there's a distinction in who is to teach. It's not oppressing women. It's simply helping them understand their role and men understand their role. Because if you honestly would to ask someone to stand up and testify or give a lesson on something, naturally, women would tend to want to do that over the men. They're more nurturing. They're more brave. And sometimes they're more smart. And so men, because we won't step up to our role, women feel they have to usurp it. And so God says, ladies, look, don't usurp it. There's a distinction. Give them some time. And if you be quiet, somebody's going to have to talk. And if you're quiet long enough, he'll step up to the plate. Look at 1 Peter 3. Let's look at a couple of more before we close here. 1 Peter 3. 1 Peter 3, verse number 7. Let's read that. 1 Peter 3, 7. Ready? Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel. That passage acknowledges that there's a physical distinction between the vessels. It's not right or wrong, it's just a different role. There's a distinction. Ephesians 5. Ephesians 5. Look at verse 22. Let's read verse 22. Ready? Now let's read verse 25. They're in a marriage. There's a distinction in men's roles and women's roles. Go to Titus chapter 2. Titus chapter 2. The Bible says, let's read verses 3-5 together. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviors becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." There's a distinction. aren't supposed to be the protectors and the providers. The men are supposed to provide for their own, or they're worse than an infidel. The women's role is to keep the home. The man's role is to protect and to provide for the home. All of that is needed. And God says, here's what I want you, here's what I want your role to be, here's what I want your role to be. He says, I want you to keep the home, but I want your husband to protect the home. So when someone comes to your house, don't ask your wife to get out a frying pan. That's your job to protect your home. She's to keep it in good order so you can get to the frying pan real easy. Right? It's organized. Amen. Alright, last verse and we're done. Go to Romans 1. Romans 1, look at verse number 26. We'll read 26 and 27. Ready? For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections. For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error, which was meat." Again, it's an appeal to nature. It's not an appeal to Mosaic law. It's an appeal to nature and creation to say, hey, there is a natural use and then there is an unnatural use. And that goes all the way back to Adam when God says, there is no help me, there's nothing and nobody, none of these animals are suitable, I'm going to make one for you. And from that point on, God lays out these distinctions in men and women. So look, I know that this is like one of those lessons where it's like, okay, let's try this one more time, guys. One finger out, now switch. See if you can get good at that. It throws you for a loop, because we're not used to doing that. We're not used to hearing this. you