Leviticus 19:19

DrVictoriaD

Hi to all my Logos co-users

I have a question about the above passage that we are trying to get answered over on wws.thinkingchristian.net

(see here http://www.thinkingchristian.net/new-atheism/2013/01/why-wearing-clothes-of-mixed-fabrics-lev-1919-was-wrong/#comment-50033)

regarding the prohibition of wearing clothes of mixed fibers (linen and wool).  The suggested explanation is that this practice was an example of Canaanite sympathetic magic, possibly related to fertility issues (as suggested by Fee and Stuart, for example, or most commentaries).  I'd like to find an original reference to Ugartic archaeology / tablets that describes these practices in  more detail.  I know Logos has the Ugartic materials available, so if someone happens to know the answer and can provide good references, we'd appreciate it very much.

 

Thanks

Victoria

David Paul

That is sheer nonsense. EVERY explanation of a command of YHWH that is rooted in something that pagans do or did (unless explicitly stated as such) is pure baloney. There are two reasons for the prohibition: 1) some contend that the garments of the high priest were commanded to have both linen and wool fibers--this isn't explicitly rendered, but there is implication of such depending on how certain things are understood and interpreted. For this reason, in the same way that the exact recipe for incense used in the temple is forbidden for any other use, the mixture afforded and accorded the high priest is thus forbidden to all others. 2) There are many places where the idea that YHWH "hates a mixture" is put forward in Scripture. This has to do with the concept of illustrating how important the ideas of "holiness", "purity", and "sanctification" are to 'Elohhiym. One example would be "learn not the way of the heathens nor inquire how they worship their gods". YHWH's holiness is so utterly pure that absolutely nothing can be overlooked in this regard--indeed, in any and all regards. Syncretism will not be tolerated.

That said, this idea of "mixture = bad" can be overdone. I know many people who speak of this concept as if it is a universal principle in YHWH's mind. They, like Fee and Stuart, do err...(fill in the blank). The evidence of this is found in the example I just gave above--the incense. It was commanded to be made as a mixture. Scripture says that YHWH hates a mixture. YHWH commands a mixture. Is 'Elohhiym divided?

No. The understanding is simple. What shouldn't be mixed, musn't be mixed. What is commanded to be mixed, must be. That which is commanded to be unique, must not be compromised.

For evidence regarding the influence of Ugarit on Scripture, do a search for "Ugarit" in your fave Bible. Mark those verses well.

 

**Fwiw (not much), I have a few of the Ugaritic resources, but I'm not on my own computer right now. I will post some references later, if no one does in the mean time.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/455778#Comment_455778

The Bible contains a general prohibition against cloth that combines wool and linen, which is referred to by the untranslatable term sha’atnez (Deuteronomy 22:11; cf. Leviticus 19:19). Some of the early commentaries (for example Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deuteronomy 22:12), however, indicate that sha’atnez—this combination of wool and linen—was sanctioned and even required in priestly garments. And this rabbinic suggestion has now been confirmed archaeologically. Tassels dating to the Bar Kokhba period (c. 135 A.D.) were found in the Dead Sea caves. These tassels were made of white cords of linen and blue cords of wool, demonstrating that the rabbinic teaching was not speculative abstraction but actual practice.†

Thus the reason for the prohibition against sha’atnez—cloth combining wool and linen—is clear: it would resemble some of the priestly garments made from a blend of linen and wool (e.g., Exodus 28:6; 39:29; Mishna Kilayim 9:1). Thus the combination of wool and linen (sha’atnez) is forbidden to the lay Israelite because it is a holy mixture and reserved exclusively for the sanctuary (e.g., Exodus 26:1) and the priests.

By using the combination of wool and linen in the tassel, the ordinary Israelite was, however, in a small way, wearing a priestly garment.

BAR 09:03 (May/June 1983), ed. Hershel Shanks (Biblical Archaeology Society, 1983).

-------------------------

But what is there about the tsitsit that would remind its wearer of holiness? The earliest rabbinic sources, perhaps dating back to biblical days, taught that the tsitsit are shaʿatnez, a mixture of wool and linen (LXX, Targ. Jon. to Deut. 22:12; cf. Rashi, Ibn Ezra on Deut. 22:12, Men. 39b–40a, 43a, Lev. R. 22:10). In fact white linen cords and dyed woolen cords were found in the Bar Kockba caves, proving that the rabbinic teaching was actually observed. Now the wearing of shaʿatnez is forbidden to the Israelite (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:11), patently because it would resemble some of the priestly garments made from a blend of linen and wool (e.g., Exod. 28:6; 39:29; the colored cloths are wool). In fact, the High Priest’s linen turban (Exod. 28:39) is bound by a petil tekhelet, a violet woolen cord (Exod. 28:37). Thus shaʿatnez is forbidden because it is a holy mixture, reserved exclusively for priests and forbidden to nonpriests. That shaʿatnez is forbidden because it is holy can be derived from the injunction: “You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed, else the crop—from the seed you have sown—and the yield of the vineyard (literally) will become sanctified (yikdash)” (Deut. 22:9); that is, it will belong not to you but to the sanctuary. However, early in the rabbinic period it was taught—perhaps stemming from a biblical practice—that every Israelite should wear tsitsit made of shaʿatnez. (Cf. also Tosafot on Deut. 22:11.) Thus the tsitsit, according to the rabbis, are modeled after a priestly garment that is taboo for the rest of Israel!

 

Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, 413 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/455782#Comment_455782

Just as a general warning: ANY reference to what rabbis and pharisees did when trying to determine what the Bible said, meant, or intended will almost always result in egregious error. Yeishuu`a should have made this obvious when He pointed out that they had "many things" in which they contravened Scripture in order to follow their own ways. Milgrom's last sentence is a fine example of this.

DMB

Closest I could get to a Canaanite reference was that the Hittites, but the IVP Background Commentary OT doesn't give much specific detail: logosres:ivpbbcot;ref=Bible.Le19.19;off=887   refers to ANET 195 ( logosres:anet;ref=ANET.ANET_195;off=2373 )

logosres:ivpbbcot;ref=Bible.Dt22.11;off=2

DrVictoriaD

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/455782#Comment_455782

Thanks for the reply, Don

I think the curtains of the tabernacle were also made of woven linen and wool (or at least a mixture of materials): see Exodus 26:1 

I've been searching through articles on Ugarit tablets and Canaanite fertility practices, and while they talk about 'sympathetic magic and fertility rites and such', I haven't found anything that refers to these specific practices.

DrVictoriaD

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/455778#Comment_455778

Thank you for the reply, David - I can see you are a man who does not mince words - I like that

 

Well in Leviticus 18,  the Israelites are told to NOT adopt the practices of the pagan nations around them (presumably referring back to what was said just before that).  What I am looking for is whether or  not the Canaanites practice of sympathetic magic actually involved the practices forbidden in Leviticus 19:19 or not; ie is it a viable interpretation in the first place?  If the Canaanites never actually practiced those things after all, then this interpretation is impossible on those grounds.  The fact that the priestly garments were to be made of a woven mixture, as well as the curtains of the Tabernacle seems to rule out the pagan influence prohibition anyway - if the LORD didn''t want His people to imitate a pagan practice, why would He instruct that the garments and curtains be made in a similar fashion.

 

The reason that the question came up over on ThinkingChristian is that skeptics and atheists like to scour the Bible looking for fodder to use against it - the 'unreasonableness or silliness of Leviticus 19:19 was brought up', and Fee and Stuart's comment on it was brought up as a possible answer.

We were so focused on that particular passage that we forgot about the priestly garments and the Tabernacle.  I came across those in my Logos searches, but had not got around to posting back on TC's blog, because I wanted to confirm or rule out the Canaanite practice first, if possible

Will Scholten

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/455803#Comment_455803

The reason that the question came up over on ThinkingChristian is that skeptics and atheists like to scour the Bible looking for fodder to use against it - the 'unreasonableness or silliness of Leviticus 19:19 was brought up', and Fee and Stuart's comment on it was brought up as a possible answer

First I would like to thank you for bringing this up in the forum, everyones comments are great. I have been doing an in-depth study on why I/we believe what I believe. I met with my pastor and we had a very nice discussion for 1 1/2 hours and toward the end he brought up the topic of mixing these two materials together and asked me if I obey that?(with a smirk on his face) Needless to say he knew I wouldn't have a good answer for that, I just told him our Father put it in the Bible and there has to be a good answer for it and that if I were a seamstress I might know more. Now my question is this; what is the right answer for this question no or yes? No because ther are no Levites,, no Temple, I am not in Jerusalem and no more animal sacrifices for our sins because the Son came for that. Or is it still yes because our Father said it and it is in His Word. Anyone have any in-put?

thank you

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456023#Comment_456023

Will Scholten said:

The reason that the question came up over on ThinkingChristian is that skeptics and atheists like to scour the Bible looking for fodder to use against it - the 'unreasonableness or silliness of Leviticus 19:19 was brought up', and Fee and Stuart's comment on it was brought up as a possible answer

First I would like to thank you for bringing this up in the forum, everyones comments are great. I have been doing an in-depth study on why I/we believe what I believe. I met with my pastor and we had a very nice discussion for 1 1/2 hours and toward the end he brought up the topic of mixing these two materials together and asked me if I obey that?(with a smirk on his face) Needless to say he knew I wouldn't have a good answer for that, I just told him our Father put it in the Bible and there has to be a good answer for it and that if I were a seamstress I might know more. Now my question is this; what is the right answer for this question no or yes? No because ther are no Levites,, no Temple, I am not in Jerusalem and no more animal sacrifices for our sins because the Son came for that. Or is it still yes because our Father said it and it is in His Word. Anyone have any in-put?

thank you

Will, these forums discourage such discussions, though they come up from time to time anyway. The question of how Old Testament/Old Covenant laws (specifically the law given through Moses), relate to New Testament/New Covenant Christians is frought with difficulties and theological nuance. For me to even suggest how I deal with this question would surely generate a long and possibly unseemly discussion. That is, there is no simple answer to your question that is widely accepted as the 'orthodox' answer.

I'd suggest taking this to a theological discussion form, or find a group on Faithlife that wants to deal with the question with you.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456023#Comment_456023

If I had any garments made with both fabrics, I would get rid of them, and I would not purchase any such garment. Your pastor will eventually have some explaining to do...and he won't be wearing any smirk.

Just for the sake of clarity, I see the command against sha`attneiz to refer to "woven fabric". Wearing a cotton shirt with a wool coat would not be a violation. That is my understanding--Tohraah's expectation is that each person decides what the teaching expects, knowing they will be judged according to how they apply it.

KJ Niblett

Here is a book review from one of my journals;

 

Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18–20, by Calum M. Carmichael. Ithaca, NY/London: Cornell University Press, 1997. Pp. i + 209. $35.00.

Carmichael’s present work is an expansion of his theory concerning the methods and intents of biblical lawgivers as found in earlier publications. He suggests that “the biblical lawgivers of the Pentateuch formulated biblical laws in relation to biblical narratives” (p. 9). In response to these stories and traditions the later editors developed the law characteristic of the Pentateuch. Thus, it was not in response to specific situations in the present, but rather to fictional literary traditions of the past, that law was promulgated (p. 6). After a brief introduction (pp. 1–13), which provides a short review of incest laws in history and which makes use of recent anthropological material (pp. 3–4), the monograph is divided into seven chapters discussing Lev 18–20 in sequence. Carmichael is not interested in identifying different sources or rearranging the order of the text, although he utilizes standard historical-critical nomenclature (pp. 11, 14, 15, et passim). He focuses specifically on the law of forbidden mixtures in Lev 19:19 (pp. 87–104) and the strange sequence of Lev 19:20–26 (pp. 105–27). In his conclusion (pp. 189–99) Carmichael reiterates again his basic viewpoint, namely, that the presence and absence of specific incest laws in Lev 18–20 can best be explained as a running commentary on the earlier patriarchal legends and traditions (p. 189), focusing upon the issue of Israelite identity (p. 191) and should be understood in terms of a literary creation instead of an account expressing historical realities. Both an index of sources cited in the study and a brief subject index are included in the book (pp. 199–209).
Carmichael’s main hypothesis is unquestionably interesting and attractive, as it furnishes the evaluation (or reaction) of later generations to the patriarchal stories found in the Pentateuch. However, one of the main critical points remains its hermeneutical validity. By which means can a connection between Gen 34 and Lev 19:19 be established? In fact, the problem hinges on the question of the hermeneutics of biblical texts. One has the impression that Carmichael’s method sometimes borders on the allegorical method of interpretation. When he writes (p. 92) that “Shechem is the son of the ass, Hamor, and he seduces (sexually plows, in the colloquial of the time) Dinah, the daughter of the ox, Jacob/Israel (Gen 49:6),” one gets the uneasy feeling of an interpretation with little regard to the context. Obviously, Carmichael can afford this type of explanation because he sees no specific historical setting in these earlier “stories” and “legends”—a contention that not only conservative scholars would be willing to dispute. Having clearly indicated his presuppositions in reading the text, he also has shut out recent scholarship concerning P and H that would date them much earlier than the standard historical-critical dating scheme. While it is true that earlier texts are often alluded to (or reshaped) in later literature (i.e., intertextuality), specific linguistic criteria should be established in order to avoid excessive subjectivity (see, e.g., P. Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah [SBLDS 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], 76–84). Furthermore, Carmichael does not include a discussion of the theological dimension of the legal material that seemed to have played a major role in its conception, as found in J. G. Gammie’s work (Holiness in Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989], 9–44). On the positive side, his conclusion (p. 195) that the legal material of the Pentateuch is embedded in a narrative context (and thus does not represent merely a collection of unrelated stipulations) is worth taking note of and provides a new impetus for legal studies in the Pentateuch. However, I find Carmichael’s method lacking in objective criteria. His ideas are fresh and challenging and should be heard, but I would think that his use of subjective criteria will make it difficult for others to reach similar conclusions. The marriage of new ideas with standard critical models of explaining the origin of the Pentateuch feels like putting new wine into old wineskins. Perhaps it is time to not only reshape those models, but rebuild them from the ground up.

Gerald A. Klingbeil
Universidad Peruana Unión, Lima 8, Peru


Gerald A. Klingbeil, "Review of Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18–20, by Calum M. Carmichael", Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 149-50, ed. Gail R. O’Day, 149-50 (Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001).

KJ Niblett

Here is another one;

 

  Book Reviews


  Pilgrim Theology: Taking the Path of Theological Discovery. By Michael Bauman. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992, $14.99 paper.

 

"The legislation of the torah that prohibited the wearing of garments of mixed fibers (Lev. 19:19) was aimed at forestalling the discomforts of static electricity” (p. 87)."

 

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 38, 2, 264 (Lynchburg, VA: The Evangelical Theological Society, 1995).

 

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456053#Comment_456053

Kelvin Niblett said:

"The legislation of the torah that prohibited the wearing of garments of mixed fibers (Lev. 19:19) was aimed at forestalling the discomforts of static electricity” (p. 87)."

LOL

Will Scholten

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456038#Comment_456038

 

I'd suggest taking this to a theological discussion form, or find a group on Faithlife that wants to deal with the question with you

Thanks Richard

thank you to everyone else to for your input

KJ Niblett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456066#Comment_456066

 

David Paul said:

Kelvin Niblett said:

"The legislation of the torah that prohibited the wearing of garments of mixed fibers (Lev. 19:19) was aimed at forestalling the discomforts of static electricity” (p. 87)."

 

LOL

 

I love some peoples hypotheses

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/455803#Comment_455803

I had to do a complete re-index when I got home and it is nearly finished, so I will do some searches in my Ugarit resources later. For now, I just wanted to post some things that came to mind yesterday when I wasn't on my own computer. First, from Osborne's book...

"Therefore, one of the most important tools for serious exegesis of the Old Testament is comparative linguistics. Much work needs to be done, and great care must be taken in using the results. Since the study is still in the formative stages, many have overdone the parallels. One of the best examples of overkill is Michel Dahood’s three-volume commentary on the Psalms (Anchor Bible), which found Ugaritic parallels in virtually every verse. Yet this ground-breaking work did demonstrate the potential inherent in a comparative approach (see his index in the back of the commentary). Utilizing the sister language can uncover the potential background and meaning of many obscure Hebrew words and syntactical arrangements. Further, many phrases or terms seem to have been directly borrowed from the surrounding religions, so such an approach becomes doubly valuable. In doing so, however, we must be careful to search all the potential parallels and select the one that best answers the problem rather than settle for any possible parallel (too often the one that best suits our purpose!). This principle will recur several times in our survey of hermeneutics, for it is also a problem of semantic research and the use of parallel passages."

Osborne, G. R. (2006). The Hermeneutical Spiral : A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed.) (65). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Dahood was a scholar of the Ugaritic language who wrote Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology. Ergo, he had Ugaritc on the brain. For this reason, the "law of the instrument" seems to have come into play. Kaplan and Maslow's dictum "when you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail" seems to have taken hold of Dahood's thoughts, mixed with a bit of déformation professionnelle. 

I'm not suggesting there can't be related thematic connections between Ugaritic/Canaanite thought & practice and what Israel did. Coincidence, for instance, makes such things possible. But it is pure absurdist nonsense to suggest that the religious practice of Israel, clearly and logically portrayed in Scripture as introduced by YHWH Himself, also has a "real" or "practical" influence from surrounding pagan practices, whatever the culture. The reasons Israel did what they did (assuming their obedience to YHWH's revealed will) was because YHWH TOLD THEM TO DO IT, and His reasons are His own and not a reactionary knee-jerk to human paganistic practices. As I pointed out in a couple of earlier recent threads, the lion's share of Scripture says-what-it-says for big-picture prophetic reasons. The command not to mix fibers is just such an example, prophetically portraying the principles and concepts that are briefly outlined above.

Osborne, in the book I quoted above, quotes James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language, which is to be expected (it is a watershed publication inexplicably absent in Logos). Interestingly, Wikipedia has this to say in its article on Barr:

In another important study, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (1968), he criticized the tendency to ascribe meanings to difficult Hebrew words based on words in other Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic). This study has been described as having "put comparative Semitic philology on a new and firmer footing."

This appears to fly in the face of the comments Osborne makes immediately following his comment about Dahood. My point is simply that all these folks are susceptible to being mistaken. On one level, that might seem obvious, but it sometimes seems to get overlooked when we are doing our research (which leads me back to Fee and Stuart).

As far as Ugaritic resources go, there is the Ugaritic Library available in Logos.

DrVictoriaD

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456038#Comment_456038

My apologies if I posted in the wrong place.  This is the first time I've come to the Logos forums.
I was not asking to start an entire discussion on this verse - I just wanted to know if anyone knew of any references to actual historical or archaeological data that documents Canaanite practices that might relate to this passage. 

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456102#Comment_456102

DrVictoriaD said:

My apologies if I posted in the wrong place

No apologies needed. These threads get derailed often.

I have quite a few resources but am having a little trouble tightening up my search string to narrow the results to applicable hits. Any suggestions welcome.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456111#Comment_456111

In addition to ANET and the Hittites, if you have Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, p195-202 has a lengthy discussion.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456111#Comment_456111

Super Tramp said:

I have quite a few resources but am having a little trouble tightening up my search string to narrow the results to applicable hits. Any suggestions welcome.

Some ideas:

Keep Smiling [:)]

George Somsel

DrVictoriaD said:

I have a question about the above passage that we are trying to get answered over on wws.thinkingchristian.net … regarding the prohibition of wearing clothes of mixed fibers (linen and wool).

I suggest that this has to do ultimately with the situation at the time of the return from Captivity in Ezra 9 where it speaks of the Jewish men taking wives from the people of the land.  It states that "Thus the holy seed has mixed itself [וְהִתְעָרְבוּ] with the peoples of the lands" 

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456111#Comment_456111

I reduced my library to 20 resources using the term "Ugarit", and from there I searched each resource individually using "wool" & "linen". Most got no hits. The one that seems the most germane follows, and it doesn't really address the subject.

 

"The internal economy of the state was based upon agriculture and a local manufacturing industry. Agriculture was diversified. Crops included cereals, grapes, and olives; from the latter two, wine and oil were produced. The natural supply of timber was harvested and provided the necessary raw material for both construction and shipbuilding; there was sufficient timber for export to places such as Egypt, which lacked natural resources of timber. Sheep and cattle were kept, contributing wool and meat to the economy. The manufacturing industry included the production of textiles and weapons. With respect to textiles, both garments and materials of linen and wool were produced for internal use and for export purposes; the use of distinctive dyes contributed to the production of highly valued materials such as expensive purple wools and fabrics. Swordsmiths produced weapons, such as bronze longswords, some of which were exported to Egypt. Metalworkers manufactured vessels of considerable beauty from metals such as bronze and gold."

Craigie, P. C. (1983). Ugarit and the Old Testament (37). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

This just says that both kinds of fibers were used--it doesn't address whether or not they were woven together. That's about it. Just to make it clear, there aren't hundreds or even dozens of Ugaritic literary documents to scour. There is a rather small finite set of resources to consider. I won't say I have everything, but I have a significant segment of what is available. If personally doubt that there is such "evidence", but even if something explicitly states that they wove linen and wool together (or didn't, for that matter), it wouldn't have any impact on Tanakh at all. As I said earlier, YHWH does things for His own reasons, nearly always prophetic.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456164#Comment_456164

George Somsel said:

DrVictoriaD said:

I have a question about the above passage that we are trying to get answered over on wws.thinkingchristian.net … regarding the prohibition of wearing clothes of mixed fibers (linen and wool).

I suggest that this has to do ultimately with the situation at the time of the return from Captivity in Ezra 9 where it speaks of the Jewish men taking wives from the people of the land.  It states that "Thus the holy seed has mixed itself [וְהִתְעָרְבוּ] with the peoples of the lands" 

George's observation is certainly one of the prophetic fulfillments...which in turn is itself also a prophecy pointing toward other more elaborate fulfillments since the time of Yeishuu`a on down to this day. Likewise, the command not to sow (mix) two kinds of seed in the same field is manifested in the parable of the sower (soils). The seed sown among thorns gets choked out (like Solomon with his foreign wives).

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456178#Comment_456178

Note that in both Lev 19 and in Ezra 9 the concept of holiness is emphasized.  In Lev 19.2 it instructs the people that they are to be holy while in Ezra 9 it refers to the people as holy.

Dan Francis

19:19-36. The third main section of chap. 19 covers fourteen areas of life, all grouped under the general heading of “keep my decrees” (v. 19).

The first decree warns against mixing cattle, seed, or materials in garments. Thus the crossbreeding of animals, the sowing of two different seeds in the same field in a type of hybridization, and the weaving of two different fabrics into a single article of clothing are deemed to be unnatural associations. But why? The second and third examples are mentioned again in Deut 22:9, 11 with another unnatural association intervening there in v. 10—the prohibition of yoking an ox and a donkey to the same plow. This last example is fairly easy to explain: Too great an expectation would be placed on the weaker donkey in such an arrangement. But what of the other associations and mixtures? What principle lies behind their prohibition?

The reason may have been to maintain the created orders “according to its kind.” However, mules were used in Israel from the time of David (see 2 Sam 13:29; Deut 18:9; 1 Kgs 1:33; Deut 18:5), and that would require us to see this as a very early regulation. The perspective of Leviticus often seems motivated by a concern for what seems “natural,” and this extends to matters that modern perspectives would consider inconsequential and of little moral significance.

----WALTER C. KAISER, JR., New Interpreter's Bible Vol. I

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456182#Comment_456182

I think that it has something to do w/static electricity.

rub some wool and other [linen] together and then hold them and touch something metal.........

[img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/spacecraft.gif[/img]

 

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456305#Comment_456305

Room4more said:

I think that it has something to do w/static electricity.

rub some wool and other [linen] together and then hold them and touch something metal.........

 

I find that rather dubious.  It has also been proposed that the prohibition of certain classes of animals rests on health concerns.  I also don't find that convincing. 

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456322#Comment_456322

George Somsel said:

Room4more said:

I think that it has something to do w/static electricity.

rub some wool and other [linen] together and then hold them and touch something metal.........

 

I find that rather dubious.  It has also been proposed that the prohibition of certain classes of animals rests on health concerns.  I also don't find that convincing. 

you seen right thru me.

Greetings Brother...

[img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/angels/teu35.gif[/img]

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/455778#Comment_455778

David Paul said:

EVERY explanation of a command of YHWH that is rooted in something that pagans do or did (unless explicitly stated as such) is pure baloney.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with this statement, but we should certainly be careful here. While it does appear that some of the biblical laws may have been influenced by pagan or Near Eastern practices, this apparent connection can just as easily be explained by similarities in common observation and economic need. We should remember that these laws come from a common Semitic background, and as such, independent parallels can be expected.

 

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456432#Comment_456432

Then there is the boringly practical observation that mixing fibers that shrink to different degrees when washed in water is a good way to have maximal work for minimal clothing use. Good (housewife) stewardship doesn't mix the fibers.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456440#Comment_456440

MJ. Smith said:

Then there is the boringly practical observation that mixing fibers that shrink to different degrees when washed in water is a good way to have maximal work for minimal clothing use. Good (housewife) stewardship doesn't mix the fibers.

There might be numerous practical reasons for various practices, but I rather think that the regulations are more religious/cultic in origin than practical.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456444#Comment_456444

George Somsel said:

I rather think that the regulations are more religious/cultic in origin than practical.

Probably .... which is why I called it an observation and refrained from suggesting it showed something about God's gender[:D] Just joking, folks, just jolking.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456444#Comment_456444

George Somsel said:

There might be numerous practical reasons for various practices, but I rather think that the regulations are more religious/cultic in origin than practical.

I tend to believe things start off being practical, then the theology was added to the practice.  For an example, candles on the altar/communion table.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456630#Comment_456630

That sure is hard to say, Tom. One that really sticks out in early religions is the good goat / bad goat scenario with the string, and the primary variation as to who gets to dump the bad goat.

But your example humorously (I'm terrible) brings up the imagery of burning up the communion table, and therefore settling on candles.  Early home churches warning each other. Just joking of course.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/456630#Comment_456630

tom said:

George Somsel said:

There might be numerous practical reasons for various practices, but I rather think that the regulations are more religious/cultic in origin than practical.

I tend to believe things start off being practical, then the theology was added to the practice.  For an example, candles on the altar/communion table.

Practical?  How about

20　You shall further command the Israelites to bring you pure oil of beaten olives for the light, so that a lamp may be set up to burn regularly. ²¹In the tent of meeting, outside the curtain that is before the covenant, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening to morning before the Lord. It shall be a perpetual ordinance to be observed throughout their generations by the Israelites.

Ex 27.20-21 
3 Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord under Eli. The word of the Lord was rare in those days; visions were not widespread. ²At that time Eli, whose eyesight had begun to grow dim so that he could not see, was lying down in his room; ³the lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was.

1 Sam 3.1-3

5　Coming from the throne are flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and in front of the throne burn seven flaming torches, which are the seven spirits of God;

Re 4.5

 

etc.

3Young Samuel was in the service of the Lord under Eli. In those days the word of the Lord was rare; prophecy was not widespread. ²One day, Eli was asleep in his usual place; his eyes had begun to fail and he could barely see. ³The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the temple of the Lord where the Ark of God was.