Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
In another post I point out that there is nothing to suggest that the death penalty was ever applied or expected to be applied in the case of someone planting different crops side by side or wearing garments made from two different threads. The insinuation here that it might is a form of bearing false witness to the biblical text.
But what is the significance of YHWH’s instructions for holy living in Leviticus 19, sandwiched as they are between two chapters which stress that the Israelites must distinguish themselves as holy by following YHWH’s commands and not the nations’ sexual and religious practices? We learn that holiness is not only about abstaining from certain practices but about being discerning in every sphere of life (cf. A Jewish definition of holiness). It means, e.g., engaging in economic practices that are pro-actively helpful to the poor (19:9-10), not just refraining from stealing and defrauding people (19:11). It means not to do harm even when there is little risk of being detected (19:14) and it means judicial impartiality (19:15). It means not only refraining from slander (19:16a) but also being pro-active about helping someone discern the wrong in which they are engaged (19:17). It means not only that one does not jeopardize a neighbour’s life (or allow a neighbour to be victimised, 19:16b, the precise meaning is uncertain) but also not to bear a grudge (19:18, “but love your neighbour as yourself”). And then it also means
“You are to keep my statutes. Do not crossbreed two different kinds of your livestock, sow your fields with two kinds of seed, or put on a garment made of two kinds of material.” (19:19)
According to some Jewish interpreters, “statutes” are “those laws for which no rational justification was obvious. They are to be treated as ‘decrees of the king,’ to be obeyed simply because they come from God. This,” as Ephraim Radner observes, “represents, at best, a pure fellow following of God’s will, at worst a kind of blind obedience. Holiness here is a cleaving to God, but not one imbued with a coherent understanding.” (Leviticus [London: SCM Press, 2008], 213) It may be the equivalent of a football jersey or a school uniform – a marker of identity which is largely arbitrary but not therefore irrelevant. Keeping these statutes may also be a training ground for authentic and faithful performance where it really matters, cf. Hayim Donin’s comments on food laws.
Others, however, do find a rationale. They suggest that the instructions against cross-breeding and mixing different kinds of seeds in one field are about keeping separate what the Creator God had made distinct, “respecting the categories he has established” (Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC [Nottingham: IVP, and Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013], 247, cf. Nahmanides [c.1194-c.1270], going further than the Rabbinic tradition of interpreting the mixing of different kinds of seeds as a prohibition against grafting). Understood in this way, the law could have implications for the ethics of genetic engineering. “But,” as Ephraim Radner notes, “God’s own love, which creates these in their discreet character, also seeks to bring them into the fullness of proximity with him” which leads him to a discussion of Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds and Paul’s use of grafting imagery in Rom 11:17-24 (Leviticus, 214)
Sklar notes that the use of different kinds of fabric in making garments is not forbidden but wearing such clothing is. “The rationale may be that some priestly garments were made from mixed fabrics (woollen yarn and linen, Exod. 28:5). Since non-priestly Israelites were forbidden from doing priestly duties (Num. 3:10, 38), this prohibition would have prevented them from heading in that direction (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.208 [4.8.11]), something the early Israelites were tempted to do (Num. 16:1-40).” (Sklar, Leviticus, 248). The more specific reference to wool and linen in Deut 22:11 supports this. The abrogation of this priesthood and its regulations would mean that this specific command is not directly applicable among the new covenant people although the principle of respecting the calling and ordination of some people to specific ministries remains. Radner suggests, again, that Christ’s passion brings together what had been kept distinct (Leviticus, 215-16). In a more beautiful world a Bishop in the Church of England with a PhD in Old Testament studies would help us explore this further rather than ape President Bartlet’s dismissive attitude to OT law.
