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 7:6).

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.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The example of a wool-and-linen garment exposes a common interpretive shortcut. A reader notices a command that seems remote from modern practice and immediately replaces it with a general spiritual lesson. The original rightly asks whether this would have counted as obedience for ancient Israel. Deuteronomy 22:11 is a concrete restriction, and an Israelite could not ordinarily satisfy it by affirming holiness while ignoring the garment itself. Whatever its symbolic significance, the command had an actual form that belonged to Israel's covenant life.

That observation does not require every later reader to occupy the same covenantal position. A command can retain its original meaning while its direct legal applicability changes through fulfillment and the establishment of the new covenant. The quotation about release from the law is Romans 7:6, and its second half matters: believers now serve in the newness of the Spirit. Paul moves from one relationship to the law into a new manner of service, not from obligation into moral indifference. Romans 7:6 states both release and renewed service.

The precise purpose of the fabric prohibition is not fully explained in the verse. Suggestions about distinctiveness, symbolic order, or sacred materials must be identified as interpretations. It is better to admit that limitation than to present an attractive symbolic explanation as though Moses supplied it. The garment photograph serves as an illustration of the question; its particular commercial description should not bear the theological argument. What matters is the stated combination of wool and linen.

The original's applications to tithing and Sabbath observance reflect its understanding of covenant continuity. Christians differ about whether moral patterns expressed in the Mosaic law carry forward and how the Lord's Day relates to the Sabbath. These positions should be examined through the wider biblical argument rather than settled by declaring every alternative unsupported. A believer who rejects the Mosaic tithe as a binding percentage may still give proportionately and sacrificially. A congregation can gather on Sunday to celebrate Christ's resurrection without assuming that every Mosaic Sabbath regulation has transferred unchanged.

The Old Testament also does more than document human failure. Its laws reveal justice, mercy, worship, and God's care for community life; its narratives include genuine, though imperfect, faithfulness. Paul calls the law holy and good even while exposing sin's misuse of it. Christian reading therefore asks how a passage contributes to the story fulfilled in Christ and what it teaches about God and humanity within that setting.

A disciplined approach can begin with three questions: What did the command require of its original recipients? How does the New Testament describe its covenantal category and fulfillment? What response follows for people who belong to Christ? This avoids both arbitrary allegory and unexamined transfer. The result is a deeper appreciation of grace: we receive God's earlier revelation seriously while serving the risen Lord in the life his Spirit makes possible.

Dear brothers and sisters! Deuteronomy 21:18–21 describes a stubborn, rebellious son who won't obey his parents even after discipline, whom the town elders would have stoned to death, to purge the evil from their midst (a paraphrase).

When I first read this, my heart was disturbed by the underlined instruction — what kind of parents could do such a thing? No matter how badly a child behaved, how could any parent hand their own child over to be stoned? If someone else brought the charge, it might feel a little more distant — but here, God tells the parents themselves to bring their own child to death. I felt the weight of my own sin, which must be dealt with by God's perfect justice, a justice that goes far beyond our comprehension. Christ had to be cursed for my sin exactly as Deuteronomy 21:23 describes — anyone hung on a pole is under God's curse (a paraphrase).

Now I understand why the New Covenant is better than the first. As Paul writes in Romans 8, what the Law was powerless to do, weakened by our sinful nature, God accomplished by sending His own Son in human likeness as a sin offering (a paraphrase). Even though the Law was perfect, it couldn't do what it was meant to do: bring life. Instead, death came to everyone. Blessed be the name of the Lord, a true friend to sinners through His willing death on the cross. We can't take sin lightly, but must be endlessly thankful to Jesus Christ, who took away burdens like the very one described in that Deuteronomy passage.

In Christ, Stephen

AI-Expanded Reflection

The connection this comment draws between the stoned rebellious son and Christ's own crucifixion is worth extending slightly, since Paul's specific choice of Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians is deliberate and pointed — he applies that exact curse language directly to Christ's death on a Roman cross (Galatians 3:13), a form of execution the original Deuteronomy law never anticipated. Paul seems to be reading the ancient law's language about a "curse" attached to public execution as broad enough to describe Christ's own death precisely, meaning the same verse this comment finds so disturbing when applied to a rebellious child becomes, in Paul's hands, the exact vocabulary needed to explain what Christ actually accomplished on the cross.

I have two comments about chapter 22. First, regarding the opening verses — if you see your neighbor's ox, sheep, or goat wandering off, don't ignore your responsibility; take it back to its owner, or keep it safely until they come looking for it. The same applies to a lost donkey, clothing, or anything else your neighbor loses — don't ignore it. If you see your neighbor's donkey or ox has collapsed on the road, don't look away — help get it back on its feet (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 22:1–4).

While we're no longer under the Mosaic Law, isn't this essentially Jesus's second commandment — love your neighbor? I try to do what's polite and helpful, but often find myself doing only what's easy (holding open a door) rather than what's genuinely difficult (clearing a neighbor's sidewalk after a snowstorm). I'm not always that way — I once helped push someone's car out of the snow, only to find my own truck stuck when I got back to it — but these "uncomfortable" acts of kindness feel harder to actually perform today. I know they're not technically our responsibility now, but as a society it seems harder to offer these acts when there's so much need available (if I clear one neighbor's sidewalk, does that mean the whole street?). It also seems like many people don't fully appreciate genuine kindness — I can't count how many times I've held a door for someone with no acknowledgment at all. That's not why we do it, of course, but a simple "thank you" does tend to reinforce the behavior. Now I'm rambling, I think.

Second, the closing verses of chapter 22 discuss sexual purity and the various responsibilities of virgins, husbands, and others — which made me think of Mary, Jesus's mother. How difficult must it have been for her, her parents, and Joseph, when she announced she was still a virgin yet pregnant? The whole town would surely have doubted such a thing was possible, and under this law, being engaged and no longer a virgin could have meant being stoned to death (unless everyone simply assumed it was Joseph's child, in which case he'd owe a fine instead). While God and His angel visited Mary and Joseph directly to ease their minds, we don't read of anyone visiting the whole town to prevent this law from being carried out to its written conclusion. To me, it adds real drama to the story of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.

Yujin adds... Excellent thoughts, brother Aaron. Your dilemma about how much to help is a common one. Often, because we see the sheer scale of the need, we end up doing nothing at all. Perhaps the operating principle for us is simply to do what we can (cf. Mary's example in Mark 14:8) while trying to discern God's specific will in each situation (cf. Ephesians 5:15–17) — which is far more than a matter of charitable acts alone.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The Mary and Joseph scenario this comment imagines is genuinely worth taking seriously as a real historical risk, since Matthew's Gospel confirms Joseph's initial instinct matched exactly this legal reality — considering Mary's pregnancy, he plans to divorce her quietly rather than publicly, specifically to avoid exposing her to public disgrace, before an angel intervenes to explain the situation to him directly (Matthew 1:19–20). That detail confirms this comment's own instinct wasn't overreading the danger — Joseph himself was already navigating exactly the legal and social risk this comment describes, weighing mercy against the Law's requirements, before receiving the direct revelation that resolved his dilemma.

Deuteronomy 21:18–21 describes a stubborn and rebellious son who won't obey his parents even after discipline — his father and mother are to bring him before the town elders, who would then have the town stone him to death, purging the evil from their midst (a paraphrase).

These verses caught my attention. My first thought was, that's severe punishment. My second thought was that most families would lose at least one child if this were actually enforced. My third thought: thank You, Lord, that You spared me even in my own rebellion — as David prays, asking God not to remember the sins of his youth or his rebellious ways, but to remember him instead according to His own love and goodness (a paraphrase of Psalm 25:7).

AI-Expanded Reflection

There's no biblical record of this particular law ever actually being carried out, which many scholars take as significant in its own right — its severity may have functioned primarily as a strong deterrent and a statement about how seriously God takes the family's role in transmitting covenant faithfulness, rather than as a regularly enforced penalty. That reading doesn't remove the law's weight, but it does suggest a possible reason Scripture never records a single case of it being applied: a threat this severe, attached to something this foundational, may have been effective precisely by rarely, if ever, needing to be carried out.

As I read Deuteronomy, I'm reminded of the question asked of Jesus: "Which is the greatest commandment?" Jesus responded that we are to love the Lord God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves — and that all the commandments rest on these two (a paraphrase of Matthew 22:37–40).

Sometimes I think about how hard it would have been for someone like myself to have made it back then — I would have needed to be either wealthy or in debt to cover all the sacrifices required. So thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, 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 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 sin.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Yujin's point has a direct textual anchor: Numbers 15:30–31 states plainly that anyone who sins defiantly — native-born or foreigner alike — blasphemes the LORD and is to be cut off from the people, with no sacrifice offered as a remedy for that kind of sin. The system had real limits by design, not oversight. Which makes Anthony's closing line land even harder than it might first appear: "by the grace of God go I" isn't just pious language here — under the actual terms of the Law he's describing, defiant sin left no sacrificial path back at all. Grace, in the New Testament, isn't merely a better version of the old system; it's covering exactly the category of sin the old system was never able to touch.

Chad wrote... A little warning: I am a dangerous person — that is, a person with limited knowledge of the Bible. I realize there are going to be times when I read the Bible and interpret it in a way that isn't the Lord's intent. Today may be one of those days. In this reading, the Lord provides additional laws for the Israelites to follow. Deuteronomy 22:5 specifically prohibits a woman from wearing men's clothing, and a man from wearing women's clothing.

I must admit it was the first time I had read that particular verse, and it kind of surprised me. Not only was it very specific, it seemed to be randomly placed. I know I've always been uncomfortable with the practice, and now I think I understand it a little better. I think it was the Holy Spirit in me telling me 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 don't have any authority to tell someone they're violating God's Law by this. However, the New Testament epistles, which function like the Christian's "law of Moses," seem to make clear distinctions between men and women, particularly in how each represents an aspect of God's relationship with His people.

In 1 Corinthians 11, we read that a woman should wear some covering on her head when she worships, signifying that she has placed herself under the authority of her husband or the men in the congregation. This is a visible representation of the functional authority and responsibility given to men in marriage and in relation to women. In Ephesians 5:22–33, this principle is explained again specifically in the context of marriage, where the husband relates to his wife as Christ relates to the church. His authority and responsibility involve 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 wife 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 with women wearing pants or men wearing certain garments — some cultures dress this way as a matter of custom — I do sense that, as unpopular as it may be to our independent-minded generation, we should still practice the principle of 1 Corinthians 11 in our churches today. It can't simply be explained away as culturally outdated. It is a command of God for Christians.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Worth noting the immediate literary context this law sits in: Deuteronomy 22 is full of similarly specific, seemingly scattered instructions — not mixing certain fabrics, not sowing two kinds of seed in one field, building a parapet around a roof — many of which scholars connect to distancing Israel from surrounding Canaanite religious customs, several of which involved ritual cross-dressing as part of fertility-cult worship. Read against that background, this law may have functioned less as an isolated statement about clothing and more as one more line drawn against blending Israel's worship with the practices of the nations around them — a concern that runs through nearly this entire section of the book, regardless of how the law's contemporary application gets worked out.