1

THE LAW OF FORBIDDEN MIXTURES

Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.6

by James B. Jordan

Biblical Horizons
P.O. Box 132011
Tyler, Texas 75713

Copyright (c) Biblical Horizons

August 1989
 2

THE LAW OF FORBIDDEN MIXTURES

Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No.6

by James B. Jordan

In the Mosaic law God forbad the Israelites to mix certain things. The purpose of this essay is to explore the
reasons for this, and what it means for us today.

Let us get the laws before us. First Leviticus 19:19:

Your animal: you shall not mate two kinds.

Your field: you shall not plant two kinds of seed.
And clothing: two kinds woven together you shall not wear on yourself.

Similarly, Deuteronomy 22:9-11:

You shall not seed your vineyard diversely (with two kinds),
lest you make holy the fullness,
the seed that you seeded and the increase of the vineyard.
You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together.
You shall not wear mixed fabric of wool and linens together.

What is the rationale for these prohibitions? Rousas J. Rushdoony's thought-provoking collection of
insights on the Mosaic law, Institutes of Biblical Law,1 provides two non-contradictory approaches. On
page 87 he states, "To bring diverse things together in an unnatural union is to despise the order of God's
creation." The mixtures are forbidden because they destroy the order and integrity of the specific "kinds"
created in Genesis One.

The second approach is found on pages 253ff., where Rushdoony argues that the law prohibits
hybridization. In addition to mixing "kinds," hybridization tends to produce relatively more sterile seeds,
thus diminishing "life."

Rushdoony is not alone in taking these approaches. For instance, we find similar interpretations in Gordon
Wenham's Leviticus,2 and in Keil and Delitzsch's Old Testament Commentary.3 Most commentaries simply
admit that the reason for these laws is unknown.

In a general way, both of these arguments are related to holiness. Part of the meaning of holiness is
integrity, and forbidden mixtures take away holiness. Because forbidden mixtures create some kind of
defilement, God rejects them. For that reason, such mixtures are wrong. Such is the argument.

The problem with these approaches emerges from Deuteronomy 22:9, which states that the produce of a
mixed field is not "unclean" or "abominable" or "detestable" or "naked," but holy. 4 This verse indicates that
the reason for forbidden mixtures lies in exactly the opposite direction. Such mixtures are forbidden
because mixtures are holy, and men are not.

1
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1973.
2
The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 269.
3
English translation, Eerdmans edition, 2:422.
4
Here and here alone the AV, and some modern translations, render qdsh as "defiled" instead of "made holy." The only justification for
such a translation is the preconceived interpretation of the passage, which it is the subject of this paper to challenge. The text should
be taken as it stands.
 3

In the Law, some things were forbidden because they were unclean, while others were forbidden because
they were holy. For instance, the Israelites were forbidden to make either incense or anointing oil of the
same proportionate mixture as the holy incense and oil (Ex. 30:22-38). Holiness, not uncleanness, is the
reason why these mixtures were prohibited.

When we consider the holy environments in the Bible, we find right away that they contain some of the
exact mixtures that Israel was forbidden to make. First consider the cherubim, the archangelic guardians of
God's throne. They have four faces: ox, eagle, lion, and man (Ezk. 1:10). This is some kind of an animal
mixture.

Second, consider God's garden. We find in Revelation 22:2 that "on either side of the river was the tree of
life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month." Here surely seems to be a "hybrid"! Since
the verse literally says simply "twelve fruits," it is possible that we should translate "twelve crops of fruit,"
so perhaps this is not a clear enough proof text. Consider Genesis 2, then. In the Garden of Eden were all
kinds of fruit trees (2:9). As we shall see below, however, it is probably not a violation of the law of
mixtures to have more than one kind of tree in your vineyard. The fact that the inner walls of the Temple
were carved with both palm trees and open flowers (1 Ki. 6: 29 ff. ) does more closely seem to "violate" the
law, as we shall see.

Third, consider the fabric of the Tabernacle and of the High Priest's garments. These were a mixture of
wool and linen. The reason we know this is that ancient dyes did not work well on linen, and so the "blue,
purple, and scarlet" material that was interwoven with the "fine twined linen" was woolen.5 The High Priest
wore a garment of mixed wool and linen (Ex. 28:5-6).

Menahem Haran has written concerning the mixed wool and linen of the Tabernacle curtains and the
garments of the High Priest, "It serves as a deliberate feature of those appurtenances, since according to
Old Testament tradition the appearance of a heterogeneous mixture is taken as a hallmark of holiness. It is
precisely for this reason that such a mixture, described as kil 'ayim in the Old Testament, was forbidden in
all its possible forms in everyday life (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9, 11). At the same time, it was assumed as a
matter of course within the closed circle of priests.”6

Thus, mixtures were holy. If a man made a garment of mixed wool and linen, he was dressing like a priest.
If he did this, God would count him under the special laws of holiness that applied to the priest. Not being
ordained a priest, and not being able to keep such laws, the citizen would simply bring judgment down
upon himself by wearing holy garments.

Just so, if he planted his field with mixed seed, all the produce of the field would be holy. Presumably it
would all have to be given to the sanctuary, assuming that the owner lived long enough to give it over!
Otherwise, the owner would have to buy it back from the sanctuary according to the redemption schedule
found in Leviticus 27.

With this in mind, let us look a bit more closely at each of these stipulations, and what they might have
meant.

5
“The dye used must have a natural affinity for the cloth used, or a mordant must be added to make the color fast. Wool, the most
common cloth in Biblical times, was easy to dye... Linen was more difficult to dye.” H. Jamieson, “Dye, Dyeing,” in Merrill C.
Tenney, ed., Zondervan pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 2:173.
Jacob Milgrom writes, “The ancients had great difficulty in dying linen because the colors would run, so all dyed garments are
assumed to be wool.” Milgrom, “Of Hems and Tassels,” Biblical Archaeology Today 9:3 (May/June 1983):65. Milgrom refers to
Winifred Needler, “Three Pieces of Unpatterned Linen from Ancient Egypt in the Royal Ontario Museum,” Textile Manufacture in
Northern Roman Provinces (Cambridge: 1970); and Alisa Baganski and Amalia Tidhar, Textiles from Egypt (L. A. Mayer Institute for
Islamic Art, 1980).
See also Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, [1951] 1967), p.
325.
6
Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), p. 160.
 4

Mules

"Your animal: you shall not mate two kinds" (Lev. 19:19). Among other things, this law prohibited crossing
a donkey with a horse and producing a mule. According to what we have seen, such a hybrid would be
especially holy. It is interesting to note that the kings and royal sons of Israel rode on mules, and this is not
criticized (2 Sam. 13:29; 19:9; 1 Kings 1:33, 38, 44). David certainly knew the law, and it is safest to
assume that he would not have used mules had he understood Leviticus 19: 19 as forbidding it.

The explanation for this is that the Davidic monarchy was linked to the sanctuary and was thus quasi-holy.
The King's palace was built adjacent to the Temple, evidently with a common pavement. 7 As the Priest was
an Adam to dress the sanctuary, so the King was an Adam to dress (build and rebuild) the sanctuary.8 Thus,
the Davidic kingship had a holy status that enabled them to breed horse with donkey and ride mules.

Contrast the judges of Israel, who only rode donkeys (Jud. 10:4; 12:14). Just so Jesus, before He ascended
on high and became King of kings, rode not a mule but a donkey when He came to Jerusalem (Matt. 21:5). 9

Mixed Seeds

"Your field: you shall not plant two kinds of seed" (Lev. 19:19). What is meant by "field" here? Generally
speaking, a man's field was the largest part of that estate given his family at the time of the Conquest, and
which reverted to him in the year of Jubilee if he mortgaged it (Lev. 25). To understand the Biblical concept
of the "field" more clearly, we can make a fairly obvious comparison with the sanctuary.

God's sanctuary had a house (the Tabernacle/Temple), a garden (the Tabernacle/Temple courtyard), and a
field (the land of Israel).10 Just so, a man had a house, which was under certain rules of holiness (Lev. 11-
15). He also had a vineyard, and he also had a field.

The distinction between garden and field is found in Genesis 1 and 2. We see there a distinction between
domestic animals and beasts of the field. Genesis 2:19-20 indicates that the beasts of the field (such as the
serpent, 3:1) did not normally have access to the Garden, while the domestic animals did. Moreover,
Genesis 1:11-12 indicates two fundamental kinds of plants: fruit trees and grains (seeding plants). In
Genesis 2, fruit trees are said to be in the Garden, but there is no mention of the seeding plants.

In terms of this scheme, Leviticus 19:19 is dealing with the field, not with the vineyard. It states that a man
is not to plant two kinds of crops in his field. What did this mean practically? Did it mean that each Israelite
farmer had to decide what crop he was going to grow this year, and grow it only? Or might a farmer divide
his "field" into several "sub-fields," and grow barley in one and wheat in another? My guess is that he was
free to divide his field, provided that he did not actually mix his crop within a given area. He was not to
grow rows of beans alternating with rows of wheat.

7
The fact that the dimensions of the palace are given (1 Ki. 7:1-12) links it with the Temple also, since in Scripture it is holy places
whose precise dimensions are marked out. Also, there are numerous architectural parallels between palace and Temple. Further, God
delayed moving into His House until Solomon was ready to move into his (2 Chron. 8:1; etc.). There was a "King's pillar" in the
Temple courtyard (probably the Boaz pillar, since Boaz was David's family name). I have discussed these matters in more detail in my
book Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986), pp. 48f., and "Thoughts on Jachin and Boaz,"
both available from Biblical Horizons.
8
The King is a permanent Bezalel. Also, the Davidic King- Covenant should not be separated from the Phineas Covenant of Peace of
Numbers 25:12; they are two sides of one Melchizedekal coin. The priestly line of Eleazar-Phineas was set aside during the period of
the judges, and only came fully into possession of the priesthood when Solomon came fully into possession of the kingship. See my
remarks in Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical view of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), p. 225.
9
The King of kings rides a horse from heaven in Revelation 6:2 and 19:11. Perhaps this is an "advance" beyond the conditions of the
Davidic monarchy?
10
In Genesis 2, compare the central sanctuary of the two trees at the center of the Garden, the Garden-vineyard itself, and the land of
Eden in which the Garden was located.
 5

I also imagine that the Israelite family also had a vegetable and herbal garden near their house, and that this
garden was not under this law. I base this on common sense, and also on Matthew 23:23, where Jesus
speaks of tithing on mint, dill, and cumin. I doubt if a man who grew mint was forbidden to grow anything
else. Thus, this law in Leviticus 19:19 has to do only with whatever the man designated as his "field" or a
"sub-field." (For the idea of prior designation in the law, compare Leviticus 11:34 and 37, which distinguish
grains set aside for eating from grains set aside for planting. )

God's field was holy, however, so it could have mixtures. This is implied by language found in Leviticus
25:5, "Your harvest's growth from spilled kernels you shall not reap, and your grapes of nazirite
[consecrated, freely growing] vines you shall not gather" (cp. v. 11). During the year of Jubilee, when all
the land became God's for a year and was thus holy, the land was not to be "shaved." The word used for the
"untrimmed vines" is nazir, which is also seen in the holy man, the Nazirite, whose head was not to be
shaved. During that year, boundaries among men did not apply, and God was free to plant His land with
any mixtures He pleased. If kernels of wheat and barley were spilled and grew up mixed, it did not matter.
If they grew up inside the designated vineyard, it did not matter. This is because all the land was holy
during that year.

Mixed Clothing

"And clothing: two kinds woven together you shall not wear on yourself" (Leviticus 19:19). This is
specified in Deuteronomy 22:11 to forbid mixing wool and linen, though attaching a woolen tassel to a
linen garment was not forbidden. As it stands, though, Leviticus 19:19 forbids any mixture of clothing.
Most modern clothing involves mixtures, but they are mixtures of natural and synthetic fibers. In the
ancient world, garments of mixed clothing would have been relatively rare in any event.

As we noted above, the garments of the High Priest were mixed (Ex. 28:6; 39:29). Dyed thread had to be
wool, since linen did not take ancient dyes. Moreover, the holy garments were interwoven with gold thread.
Thus they were a combination of animal (wool), vegetable (linen), and mineral (gold).

Seduction

The three laws of Leviticus 19:19 lead straight to a fourth that we have not yet considered, but which we
must now address.11 It is quite long, and is found in verses 20-22:

20. And a man: if he sleeps with a woman -- emission of seed -- and she is a slave-girl promised to
another man,
And she has not been formally ransomed [being ransomed she has not been ransomed],
Or freedom has not been given to her,
Damages must be paid for her.
It is not the case that they must die, because there was not freedom.

21. And he must bring his Trespass offering to the LORD to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a
ram of Trespass Offering.

22. And the priest shall cover him [atone for him] with the ram of the Trespass Offering before the
LORD for his sin that he sinned, and he will be forgiven for his sin.

Verse 20 says, "And a man: if he sleeps with a woman -- emission of seed...." The express statement
regarding seed again associates this law with the previous one concerning mixed seed in the field. The
slave-girl is "designated," which is equivalent to being betrothed. Seduction of a betrothed woman was a
capital offense (Dt. 22:23-27). Since the woman is a slave, she probably would not feel free to cry out, so

11
On the discourse boundaries in Leviticus 19, which show that this fourth stipulation is linked with the three preceding, see my study
Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988), chap. 3.
 6

she is accounted innocent, but the man is guilty (Dt. 22:25-27). In this case, however, since the woman is a
slave, the penalty is not death. Damages must be paid, a dowry-compensation probably equal or double
what the girl was being married for.12

In Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (p. 53), I wrote: "The seducer must also bring a
Compensation [Trespass] Offering to de-sanctify the potential offspring. Because sin was involved, a
money payment will not do, but blood sacrifice is required.” 13 I think this is still true as part of the situation,
but I suspect there is more involved.

In the case of a married woman who is seduced, the seducer is put to death (and so is she, if she does not
cry out). In the case of an un-betrothed girl, the requirement is for the man to marry her unless her father
forbids it (Dt. 22:28-29). Although such a seduction was sinful, we notice that no sacrifice was prescribed.

We are left with the case of the designated slave-girl. Whom does she belong to? The fact that a Trespass
Offering is required means that she is regarded as belonging to God Himself, and therefore as holy
property. Trespass Offerings were for trespasses against God’s name and His property. 14

How does this compare with forbidden mixtures? Well, by sleeping with this holy woman, the man has put
himself under God's special rules for holiness. It is as if he had put upon himself a holy garment, thus
inviting God's inspection and consequent judgment. The man must rapidly de-sanctify himself, the woman,
and their future offspring, or else face God's judgment, the judgment that comes to those who presume to
take holiness for themselves.

The fact that God would take under His wings a defenseless slave girl who is between masters is surely not
surprising, given the stress in the law that God is the Almighty Protector of the weak.

I believe we can see an application of this to Christ and Israel. Let us assume that in a wider, spiritual sense,
Israel is the slave girl. She was, after all, God's holy people. Thus, any Gentile invader who assaulted her
was assaulting a slave girl who had been betrothed to another, to Jesus Christ, the Coming Savior and
Husband. Like the slave girl in this passage, the Old Covenant people of God had not yet been redeemed or
given freedom. God was merciful to the Gentiles, however. Because the slave girl was not yet married, He
was willing to let the Gentiles off with punishment alone, provided they repented. In the New Covenant,
however, it is different. Woe be to the "Gentile" who lays a finger on God's holy bride, the Church! To
assault a married woman, or a betrothed free woman brings God's death penalty. Whether we see the
Church today as married or as betrothed, it is certain that she has been redeemed and is free. Ecclesiastical
rapists, beware!

Excursus on the Trespass Offering

It seems to me that the Trespass (or Reparation, or Compensation) Offering was the opposite of the
Purification (or Sin) Offering. They were mutually exclusive, and together covered the whole range of sin
situations.15 The Purification Offering dealt with inadvertent sins that ran in the direction of uncleanness,
while the Trespass Offering dealt with inadvertent sins that ran in the direction of holiness (Lev. 5:14 - 6:7).
The Purification Offering cleansed, while the Trespass Offering de-sanctified. A man needed to be de-
sanctified when he found himself in a situation of holiness for which he was not equipped.

12
Wenham argues persuasively for the translation of bikkoreth as damages. Gordon Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 270-71.
13
Jacob Milgrom discusses the relationship between the compensation offering and Leviticus 27 in Milgrom, Cult and Conscience:
The "Asham" and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 18 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 44ff.
Milgrom discusses Leviticus 19:20-22 on pp. 129ff. of the same book. My own approach differs somewhat from his.
14
See the discussion in Wenham, Leviticus, pp. 106ff.
15
"Only a ram or a male lamb could be offered as reparation [compensation] offerings (Lev. 5:14ff.; 14:12ff.; 19:21-22; Num. 6:12)...
On the other hand male sheep were never allowed for the purification offering." Wenham, Leviticus, p. 105.
 7

If a man contacted uncleanness, and became unclean, he was not to approach the sanctuary lest he come
under judgment. This is because he was in a state of defilement. Defilement was removed through washing,
or in severe cases by the Purification Offering.

In exactly the opposite situation, if a man put himself into the sphere of the holy without being prepared, he
was in danger of judgment. It is as if he had gone into the Holy Place, or touched the Altar, in which case
the guardian Levites were to slay him.16 He was not unclean, so being cleansed would do him no good.
What he needed was de-sanctification. He needed some way to remove God's special judgment from
himself and thereby return to the world of ordinary cleanness. This is what the Trespass Offering was for.

The Nazirite provides a case in point. If he accidentally contacted a dead body, he had to bring both a
Purification Offering and a Trespass Offering. The Purification Offering removed the uncleanness he had
contracted from the corpse. The Trespass Offering removed him from the sphere of the especially holy,
which sphere had been defiled by his corpse contact. Thus, he was both cleansed and de-sanctified, and
started his vow over again (Num. 6:9-12).

We see from this that if a clean man came in contact with something holy, it did not render him unclean, but
it put him under the threat of a higher standard. He needed to be de-sanctified, and the Trespass Offering
was for this purpose. If an unclean man came in contact with something holy, he would have to be cleansed
and de-sanctified. In intense situations, this would mean both a Purification Offering and a Trespass
Offering.

The "leper" is another case in point. In Leviticus 14:10-20, the law of cleansing the "leper" involves both
Purification and Trespass. The meaning of the Purification Offering is clear: it is for his uncleanness. The
presence of the Trespass Offering indicates that in some way the "leper" has, or is counted as having,
trespassed against something holy. Instances of "leprosy" in the Bible demonstrate possibilities in this area:
Miriam's attack upon Moses; Uzziah's seizure of priestly prerogatives; secret sins (Num. 12:10; 2 Chron.
26:19; Zech. 5:4 with Lev. 6:2-3).

The Trespass Offering had to be a male sheep without defect, or else the equivalent in money (Lev. 6:6).
This creates an association with Leviticus 27, which consists largely of a schedule of de-sanctifying
payments to be used whenever someone needs to remove an item from the sphere of the holy to that of the
clean. There was no sin involved in the de-sanctifications of Leviticus 27, because there was not theft or
encroachment involved. Among the concerns of Leviticus 27 is the tithe, which belonged to God. To hide
and hoard one's tithe would be a sin, and would require both a fine and the Trespass Offering. If a man
wanted to convert his tithe of sheep into money, he would simply pay the de-sanctifying fee. 17

Some other situations in the Bible that show trespass onto the holy, with attendant "quilt" or "sense of
trespass," and Trespass Offerings are these:18 Sexual relations with another man's wife, even in ignorance,
is a trespass against God's holiness (Gen. 26:10). So is murder (Gen. 42:21). If a layman ate holy food, he
trespassed (Lev. 22:14-16). Refusal to permit a penitent sinner back into the congregation is a trespass
against God's holy people (2 Sam. 14:13; cp. 2 Cor. 2:6-8).19 The Philistines realized they had trespassed
when they abused the Ark, So they made Trespass Offerings when they returned it (1 Sam. 6:3,4,8,17).
When the Israelites failed to show the same respect, God slew them (1 Sam. 6:19). Idolatry, which is
rendering God's holy service to an idol, was a trespass against God's holy things (1 Chron. 24:18; Amos
8:14 + 1 Kings 12:28-29). Taking God's holy people captive without His permission was a trespass (2
Chron. 28:10-13).

16
Compare Exodus 19:12 and 22. The people were forbidden to touch the mountain, which equals touching the Altar. They were
forbidden to gaze at the holiness of God, which equals going into the Holy Place and gazing at the holy furniture. I have discussed this
in my essay "The Death Penalty in the Mosaic Law" (available from Biblical Horizons), chap. 3: "The Death Penalty for
Encroachment." I find Jacob Milgrom's arguments in favor of armed Levites compelling; see Milgrom, Studies in Levitical
Terminology: The Encroacher and the Levite (Berkeley: University of California, 197); against Menahem Haran, Temple and Temple-
Service, pp. 182, 188.
17
For a fuller discussion of the Trespass Offering, see Milgrom, Cult and Conscience.
18
These are places where the word "asham" is actually used.
19
In the case of 1 Samuel 14:13, the principle was misapplied, because Absalom was not actually repentant.
 8

Another important illustration comes from David's numbering of the people, called a trespass in 1
Chronicles 21:3. The people were God's holy host, and were to be numbered only when He said so (in time
of war). This is why there was a de-sanctifying half-shekel payment made by each man when the host was
mustered (Ex. 30:11-16). Passage into the host was passage into a holy environment, God's holy war camp
(Dt. 23:9-14; cf. discussion below).20 By numbering God's host, David was presumptuously laying hold of
God's holy things. He placed the whole nation into a state of holiness, and God then brought His holy
judgment upon the nation. Only by paying atonement money to buy the Temple site did David avert the full
wrath of God (1 Sam. 24; 1 Chron. 21).

The reason for this excursus has been to reinforce the idea that mixtures were forbidden because they
encroached upon the holy, not because they were unclean or because they wrecked the order of the
universe. The fact that crimes in this area required the Trespass Offering as a satisfaction indicates that this
was the case.

With the coming of the New Covenant, and of the Ho1y Spirit, it would seem that far from mixtures being
prohibited, they are encouraged. We now live in an age of greater holiness, and we are encouraged to be
holy. In fact, though, the laws of mixtures have simply expired with the transformation of the Old Covenant
into the New, and so the fact that we are holy does not mean we are commanded or even encouraged to
make mixtures. Nevertheless, the fact that we can make mixtures, breed mules, wear mixed cloth, plant
beans in our orchards, etc., is a testimony to the coming of the new age of holiness.

The Specifications in Deuteronomy 22: 9-11

We now turn our attention to the mixture laws in Deuteronomy 22:9-11. These laws are slightly different in
each case from those in Leviticus 19:19, and in fact the entire context of Deuteronomy 22-23 points in a
slightly different direction. The emphasis here is not on the holiness of mixtures as such, but more on the
corruption of the holy. Forbidden mixtures are themselves holy, regardless of what is mixed. This is the
point of Leviticus 19.

Another dimension of mixtures, however, comes into focus when that which is less holy is mixed with that
which is more holy, and this is the concern of Deuteronomy 22. This latter situation is analogous to the sin
of encroachment, when an ordinary "clean" person gets mixed up in something "holy, " and comes under
condemnation for trespass.

"You shall not seed your vineyard diversely, lest you make holy the fullness, the seed that you seeded and
the increase of your vineyard" (Dt. 22:9). In contrast to Leviticus 19:19, which legislated for the "field,"
here we have legislation for the vineyard. As we noted above, the vineyard is the place of fruit trees and
vines. What is forbidden here is not having several kinds of trees and/or vines in the vineyard, but planting
seed plants in the vineyard.

We need to see that this has nothing whatsoever to do with hybridization. It is not possible (yet, anyway},
and clearly was not possible for them, to hybridize wheat and apricots.

As we discussed above, Genesis 1:11-12 set out two basic kinds of food plants: grain and fruit. These were
associated, in Genesis 2, with the field and with the garden or vineyard respectively. Deuteronomy 22:9
says that this distinction was to be maintained in Israel. If they planted grains in their vineyards, then both
crops would be holy, and they would be inviting God’s inspection and judgment.

Let us notice that in God's vineyard these things are both found. We mentioned above that both palm trees
and flowers were carved on the inner walls of the Temple. While we cannot be dogmatic about it, this
seems to be a mixture. The same word for flowers in 1 Kings 6 is used for flowers "of the field" in Psalm

20
Evidently the mustered men became nazirites; Judges 5:2, and see my discussion in my book Judges: God's War Against Humanism
(Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985), p. 93.
 9

103:15 and Isaiah 40:6-8, and Jesus spoke of the "lilies of the field" (Matt. 6:28) which indicates that
flowers are associated with the field and not with the vineyard. In the Temple they were apparently mixed.

Beyond this, in the Tabernacle, the Table of Showbread was accompanied by wine of the drink offering. In
the Church, both bread (from grain) and wine (from vineyard) are served, although they are to be served
separately (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

Having said this, I am not completely satisfied. Any Israelite would bring both bread and wine into his
house, even if the wine came from his vineyard and the bread from his field. "Mixing" bread and wine at
the same meal does not seem to violate the principle embedded in Deuteronomy 22:9. More to the point
seems to be the fact that flowers and palm trees were both put on the inner walls of the Temple. Both
flowers and palms represent growing things, and it was the growing of grains in the vineyard that was
prohibited. Still, perhaps the flowers on the walls were flowers of trees, not of grains. Moreover, since the
Temple was the house rather than the garden area, this kind of mixture still does not take us as far as we
need to go.

In the Temple courtyard, however, there were lilies. The courtyard is the equivalent of the vineyard (1 Ki.
7:19, 26). The two pillars Jachin and Boaz, and also the Bronze Ocean, were decorated as "lilies of the
field." Thus, God put field plants in His vineyard, though Israel was not to do so.

"You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together" (Dt. 22:10). Leviticus 19:19 prohibited mixed
breeding, and though some have suggested that "plow" is here used with sexual overtones, the idea in this
case seems clearly to be that of yoking these two animals together. 21

How likely is it that an Israelite would try to yoke an ox with an ass? Given the difference between the
animals, it is hard to imagine that if yoked together they would plow a straight furrow very easily. Possibly
a poor farmer might try it, though (and possibly I am simply showing my ignorance of farming).

"You shall not wear mixed fabric of wool and linens together" (Dt. 22:11). Here again, we have a
specification of what is found in Leviticus 19:19, which forbad all mixtures.

The Rationale for These Laws

With this verse, I believe we have come to a place where it is possible to show the difference between the
thrust of Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. The former simply forbids all mixtures of animals,
cloth, and planting in the field. We have seen this is because such mixtures are holy. Simply to create such a
mixture is to move oneself "under the gun" of God's holy inspection, a fatal mistake.

In Deuteronomy 22:9-11, however, in each case the rule is specified. They were forbidden to plant field
plants in their vineyard, to yoke an ox with an ass, or to mix wool with linen. As I hope to show now, in
each of these cases the precise mixture forbidden is that of something less holy with something more holy.

As regards vineyard and field, we have seen that the garden or vineyard is aligned with the sanctuary
courtyard, while the field is aligned with the land. Thus, the vineyard is analogously "more holy" than the
field. To introduce field plants into the vineyard could have the effect of defiling the vineyard, but in fact it
had the effect of raising it to a holier place, a place too holy for the Israelite to maintain. It made it like
God's vineyard (the Temple courtyard), which only He could maintain.

This scenario may indicate what was done with such holy produce. Since the mixed vineyard was raised to
the level of God's vineyard, the produce of the mixed vineyard would have to go to the priests, who
maintained God's vineyard. Analogously, the mixed field (Lev. 19:19) would be raised to the level of God's

21
See Calum M. Carmichael, "Forbidden Mixtures," Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982):403; and M. H. Pope, Song of Songs. Anchor
Bible 7C (Garden City: Anchor, 1977), pp. 323f. Carmichael's essay is highly speculative, occasionally stimulating, but not very
helpful because of his extremely liberal understanding of Biblical history and of the text.
 10

field (seen in the Jubilee year). The produce of God’s Jubilee field was not given to the priests, but was for
everyone indiscriminately. Thus, the farmer would not have been allowed to harvest it, but would have
been required to let anyone Who wanted to gather a basket do so.
Whatever was done with his crop, he would have to bring a Trespass Offering to de-sanctify himself.

To return to the focus of Deuteronomy 22:9, we see that it is precisely the mixture of two differing grades
of holiness that is the problem here. By comparison with the vineyard, the field is "profane."

Let me suggest that the Israelite and the converted stranger, who had access to the garden-sanctuary of the
Tabernacle courtyard is the "vineyard plant." The unconverted Gentile (contrast Num. 15:14,26), who had
no such access, is the "field plant." He did have access to God's holy land (the "field"). Thus, one human
application of Deuteronomy 22:9 is to mixed marriages. This suggestion receives support from the fact that
Deuteronomy 22 goes on to discuss marital stipulations (see discussion below).

As regards ox and ass, the ox was a clean animal while the ass was unclean. It was the Israelite and the
converted Gentile who were associated with clean animals (Israel possibly more closely with sacrificial
animals, converted Gentiles with such animals as deer and gazelle). Unclean animals were associated with
excommunicated Israelites and with unconverted Gentiles (Lev. 20:24-25). Thus, it seems again that
intermarriage is one of the foremost human applications of this verse. Both ox and ass are domestic
animals, while the difference between clean and unclean in the realm of the "beasts of the field" can be seen
in the clean deer and the unclean lion. As we shall see below, the human focus of this law has to do with
which persons within the larger domestic household of Israel were to be considered part of the assembly,
and which were not.

Paul seems to be leaning on this verse when he forbids yoking believers and unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14).
Should such a relationship come to pass, either through a sinful marriage or through the conversion of one
member of a heathen marriage, what is the status of the relationship and of the children? Does the
unbeliever "defile" the marriage and the children, or does the presence of the believer "sanctify" the
marriage and the children? Paul answers this in 1 Corinthians 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through the brother; for otherwise your
children are unclean, but now they are holy." This is in keeping with the laws of Deuteronomy 22:9-11,
which state that the field becomes holy when such a mixture takes place. By extension, a field plowed by a
yoked ox and ass would become holy.

We find a similar thing in the case of linen and wool. Linen is a vegetable fiber, while wool comes from
sheep. We notice that it was in his sinfulness that man was clothed with animal skins,22 while the High
Priest on the Day of Atonement wore only linen into God's presence (Gen. 3:21; Lev. 16:4). We are
specifically told in Ezekiel 44:17-18 that the inner clothing of the High Priest's garments was pure linen,
with no wool, and that this meant "they shall not gird themselves with sweat." Sweat here is associated with
wool, perhaps because wool causes sweat, or perhaps simply as a symbolic linkage. At any rate, after the
fall of man sweat is associated with his life under the curse on the soil (Gen. 3:19; cp. Zech. 3:3; Jude 23).

Thus again, a human application would associate the Godly with their priestly representatives, clothed in
linen, and associate the unrighteous with sweaty wool. Mixed marriages would again be forbidden by
implication of Deuteronomy 22:11, as would other "tight covenantal associations" between God's people
and His enemies.

Diagram 1

The God1y The Ungodly

22
Skins of fresh kills. Adam and Eve were not clothed with cured and tanned hides, but with bloody skins.
 11

Initiation/Environment Vineyard plants Field plants

Walk/Lifestyle23 Clean animals Unclean animals
Glory/Influence Linen garments Woolen garments (of skin)

Possibly we can see a progression of thought here, which would explain the order of these stipulations. The
believer is first called into God's Kingdom, being planted (initiated) into the vineyard, separated
definitively from field plants. He is then told to live a holy life and walk a holy walk, as a serving ox,
walking separately from asses. The long term result of his obedience will be his glorification with the white
linen of salvation, separate from the sweaty degradation of the wicked in the fires of hell.24

If he becomes covenantally (i.e., closely and tightly) involved with the ungodly, his position is threatened.
This is not because he has defiled himself, but because he has brought the non-holy into close connection
with the holy, and has allied himself with this new situation. While intertestamental Judaism decided that
unconverted Gentiles were unclean, and thus sources of ceremonial defilement, the Bible never says this.
The Gentiles were symbolized by unclean animals, but were not said to be unclean themselves. Close
associations with Gentiles did not make Israelites unclean, but rather it brought about a trespass, and
encroachment of the less holy upon the more holy." A layman who ate something holy committed a
trespass, but obviously so did a priest who gave something holy to a layman (cp. 1 Sam. 21:3-6). Just so, an
Israelite who entered a tight covenant, or who married, an unbelieving Gentile was tampering with
something holy. By creating this mixture, he was inviting God's inspection of the new situation, and God
would find that the situation did not measure up to the higher standards of holiness needed to accommodate
mixtures in general, and specifically this kind of mixture in particular. Thus, he invited judgment upon
himself.25

Looking back at God's sanctuary, we can reopen the question of the meaning of the mixtures found there.
Field plants are found in His courtyard. The cherubim combine faces of clean animals (ox) with unclean
(eagle, lion). The High Priest's outer garments are a mixture of wool and linen. What does this mean?

I suggest three things. First, it means that all the world, both the Godly and the ungodly, serves God and
His purposes. The latter may do so unwillingly and unself-consciously, but they do so all the same. All are
part of His ultimately-holy environment: the creation. All are gathered around Him as part of His plan.

Second, it means that the sacrificial system in Israel existed not simply for the linen-clad oxen of God's
vineyard, but also provided an atonement for the whole world of wool-clad donkeys in the field. Whatever
"conm1on" grace the ungodly received, they received from God's ministry portrayed in Israel.

Third, it implies the eschatological union of Jew and Gentile, of clean and unclean, of linen and wool, of
vineyard and field, in the New Covenant, when such symbolic distinctions will be overcome, leaving only
their ultimately-moral meanings still functioning (e.g., no yoking with unbelievers).

Deuteronomy 22:9 - 23:14

In Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (pp. 64-66), I suggested that this section of the
Deuteronomic law concerns the seventh commandment, and that it contains a chiastic structure, to wit:

A. 22:9 the vineyard.

B. 22:10 the yoke.
C. 22:11 the garment.
23
The clean animals wear shoes, walk with divided hooves, and chew cud; the unclean animals lack one or more of these
characteristics (Lev. 11:2ff.). However we interpret these stipulations, they clearly have to do with the "visible lifestyle" of the animals
in question.
24
We can meditatively expand this along the lines of John Frame's tri-perspectival triad: Control (vineyard); Authority (walk);
Presence (glory).
25
Perhaps we could also say that bringing the "sheep and goats together" (mixing holy and profane) has the effect of calling on God to
exercise "last judgment" inspections; cp. Matthew 25:31ff.
 12

C'. 22:12-30 garment: sexual union, marital boundary, family discipline

B'. 23:1-8 yoke: social union, national boundary, civil discipline
A'. 23:9-14 vineyard: ecclesiastical union, sanctuary boundary, church discipline

To complete the present study, we need to look at these three extensions of the law of forbidden mixtures.

Adultery and infidelity can easily be seen as related to forbidden mixtures. This is the larger concern of the
seventh commandment, and thus it governs the discussion in this section of Deuteronomy. 26

Before entering into this discussion I need to layout a perspective from the book of Genesis that I believe is
in the background of this passage. The creation sets out the world in three parts: sanctuary, land, and world.
The first and the essential Fall of man occurred in the Garden. It was a fall with reference to the man-God
relationship. In the theologically ultimate sense, it had to do with rebellion against the Father. It resulted in
man's being cast from the holy garden sanctuary environment.

A second fall is found in Genesis 4. This fall occurred in the land of Eden. It was a fall with respect to the
man – man, or brother – brother relationship. In the theologically ultimate sense, it had to do with rebellion
against the Son. It resulted in Cain's being cast from the land of Eden.

The third fall is found in Genesis 6. This fall occurred in the world. It was a fall with respect to the man
-woman, or believer - unbeliever relationship. The sin was that of intermarriage. 27 In the theologically
ultimate sense it had to do with rebellion against the Spirit (Gen. 6:3). It resulted in man’s being scoured off
the face of the earth.

Genesis follows this theme in the last three major sections of the book. The story of Abraham shows what it
is to exercise true patience before the promises of the Father. The story of Jacob and Esau concerns most
pointed the Cain-Abel, brother-brother relationship. The story of Joseph, his refusal to intermarry with
Potiphar's wife, and his evangelization of the heathen under the guidance of the Spirit (Gen. 41:38),
answers to the sin of the third fall.

In symbolic terms, this order is followed in Deuteronomy 22: 9- 11, to wit:

1. No field plants in vineyard = sanctuary focus.

2. No plowing with ox yoked to ass = citizenship (land) focus.
3. No mixed garments = marital focus.

In reverse order, Deuteronomy 22:12--23:14 takes up these themes in a general way. The first section has to
do with marriage, the second with citizenship in the land (who is an ox and who is an ass), and the third
with the holiness of God's war camp (a portable sanctuary).

The Garment

Having forbidden a mixture of wool and linen, the law goes on to command that a tassel be placed on the
wings of one's garment. The normal garment was flax linen, and the tassel, with its blue thread, was
woolen. Deuteronomy 22:13-30, which concerns sexual morality, is bracketed by references to this tassel
(vv. 12, 30b.). Thus, the tassel law has an association with sexual morality. The laws of Deuteronomy
22:12-30 have to do with marital covering and uncovering as these relate to the holiness of the tassel.

A mixture of wool and linen was a characteristic of the holy garments of the High Priest. A full mixture was
forbidden to the Israelite citizen. A slight mixture, however, was commanded, affirming each citizen's holy

26
Assuming I have rightly assessed the discourse boundaries. For full discussion, see Covenant Sequence, chapter 4.
27
I believe that the "sons of God" were Sethites, who intermarried with the Cainite "daughters of men." See my discussion in my book
Primeval Saints, available from Biblical Horizons.
 13

standard as a member of the "nation of priests."28 The mixture was put on the four corners, literally
"wings," of his garment.29 We should associate these four wings with the four wings of the cherubim, who
guard the holiness of God's presence.30 The citizen, like the cherub, was positioned in the heavenlies as a
guardian of God. Perhaps the blueness of the tassel thread is another reminder of heaven, and also an
association with the predominant blueness of the Tabernacle's veils.31 The word for "garment" in Numbers
15 is also used for the holy robes of the High Priest and for the cloth used to cover the Tabernacle furniture
(Num. 4:6-13).32 As God in heaven is holy, so the blue thread was to remind the people to "be holy to your
God" (Num. 15:40).

Thus, the tassel, being a mixture, indicates holiness and holy relationships. When a man married, he spread
this tasseled wing over his wife, enclosing her within his garment (Ruth 3:9). To signify that Saul in his
rebellion had forfeited holiness and thus the right to reign over Israel, Samuel tore off Saul's tasseled wing
(1 Sam. 15:27). David was persuaded by his men to make a sinful attack on Saul's integrity by cutting off
the tasseled wing of his garment, an assault on the remaining official holiness of the Lord's anointed (1
Sam. 24:4ff.).33

Thus, the holiness and integrity of marriage is associated with the tasseled wing, and this accounts for the
structure of Deuteronomy 22:12-30, as it relates to the mixed garment law of Deuteronomy 22:11. 34

The first case, verses 13-21, concerns a man who spreads his wing over a woman, only to find that she was
not a virgin. If this is the case, and if he chooses to charge her, she is to be put to death. She is not put to
death for deceiving him, but for playing the harlot in her father's house. In other words, she brought
sinfulness within the circle of the holiness of her father's wings, and then instead of marrying her lover,
deceived her father. It is the lying that makes her sin high-handed, and it is a high-handed sin in the face of
the holy blue tassel.

We can compare the daughter of a priest who does the same thing. In that case, her body is burned,
doubtless with fire from God's altar, after she has been put to death. We notice also that it is precisely
because the priest is holy that he is not to take a woman profaned by harlotry or a divorcee (Lev. 21:7). The
priest is to be made holy, and he is holy for them, because the Lord, who makes them holy, is holy (v. 8).
Thus, "the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be
burned with the fire" (v. 9, emphasis mine).

If the husband's allegation proves false, he is beaten, fined, and forbidden to divorce the woman. According
to Deuteronomy 19:16-21, a malicious witness was liable for the same punishment that would have been
measured against the person he was charging. In terms of this, the husband who falsely accuses his wife of
harlotry before marriage should be put to death. It seems that this is an instance of applying the "eye for
eye" principle in terms of circumstances. If the husband were put to death, the woman would be left
without protection. Thus, it seems that his "death" punishment involves the flogging, the fine, and the
prohibition of any future divorce.

28
The blue cord or thread in the tassel (Num. 15:38) indicates that the rest of the tassel was probably linen. Thus, the tassel itself was
a mixture. Possibly we should see the whole tassel as woolen, in which case the "mixture idea" is reduced to the inter- weaving of the
tassel threads with the garment threads at the points of attachment.
29
Notice that the High Priest's undergarments were pure linen, while the mixed clothing was his outer wear. Does this correspond to
the fact that the mixed tassel was attached to the outer corners of the citizen's garment?
30
The same word "wing" is always used for the wings of the cherubim.
31
The angelic associations of the Israelite dress can be correlated with the astral character of the two censuses, which relate to the
astral character of the life spans of the patriarchs of Genesis 5. These patriarchs are referred to in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 as "angels"
and in Genesis 6 as "sons of God." See my discussion in Jordan, Through New Eyes, p. 58, and the literature referred to there; see also
Jordan, "Who Were the Angels of Jude 6?" in Biblical Horizons 1 (January, 1989).
32
The word in Deuteronomy 22:12 is different. Bgd, used in Numbers 15, seems to emphasize more the idea of a garment, while ksth,
used in Deuteronomy 22, seems to emphasize more the idea of a covering.
33
David's "heart struck him" (v. 5). Compare this with the smitten conscience of Leviticus 5:17 and 6:4. It is this smiting of the
conscience that leads to repentance, the Trespass Offering, and de-sanctification. Essential in this process is the open confession of sin,
which David also performed before Saul.
34
In Covenant Sequence I guessed that the wool and linen might have to do with woman and man (p. 65). The present study has led
me to reject that idea.
 14

The second case, verse 22, specifies the death penalty for lying with a married woman. They have flaunted
the holiness of the husband's tassel, and they may die for it if he chooses to go for the maximum penalty.
They have brought sinfulness within the realm of special holiness (sanctified marriage), which heightens
their liability. They have invaded the holy environment marked out by the four wings of the husband's
garment, which was the wife's protection and boundary.

The third case (vv. 23-27) concerns the betrothed girl. In this case, her husband-to-be has not yet spread his
cloak over her, so that she is not yet under his wings in a full social sense. This case tells us that she is,
however, counted as under his wings in a legal sense. The legal transaction of betrothal creates the same
condition as the physical action of the husband's spreading his wings over her. Thus, if the woman
cooperates with her seducer, she and he are guilty of adultery, and guilty of violating the holiness of the
groom's robe, and therefore are liable to be put to death. If the woman does not cooperate, only the rapist is
guilty.

The fourth case (vv. 28-29) contemplates the opposite situation. Here there has been no legal covenant and
betrothal, but the man spreads his wings over the girl anyway. This also creates a marriage. 35 In this case,
the legal transaction comes after the consummation of the marriage.

Verse 30 returns to the overarching them of the holy wing: "A man shall not take his father's wife so that he
shall not uncover his father's wing.”36 This law is repeated in the same words in Deuteronomy 27:20. From
this we see that any form of adultery involves an invasion of the holy boundary of another man's life,
marked out by the four wings of his garment.

Why is this particular law included? Why specify the father and his wife? Why include this among the
curses of Deuteronomy 27? The answer seems to be related to the concept of inheritance. The son inherits
the father’s robe. The rebellious son seeks to steal the father’s robe, and leave the father naked. This is what
Ham tried to do, and the result was Noah's cursing of Canaan (Gen. 9:20-27). It is what Reuben tried to do
(lying with Jacob's concubine), and the result was that Reuben lost his firstborn privileges (Gen. 35:22;
49:4). Absalom's public taking of David's concubines relates to this also (2 Sam. 16:21-22).

In sum, both the father-daughter relationship, under the mixed-cloth wing of the father's garment, and the
marriage relationship, under the mixed-cloth wing of the husband's garment, are zones of special holiness.
Holiness comes from God the Father, as the One from whom every family on earth derives its name (Eph.
3:14-15). First the father and then the husband guards the holiness of the bride, as we see in Deuteronomy
22:13-30. Those who attack or invade that relationship have brought sin in contact with holiness, to their
own destruction.37

The Yoke

35
The father has the right to annul it (Ex. 22:16-17). Why is this not mentioned here in Deuteronomy? I believe it is because Moses'
sermon here in Deuteronomy is "blending" the more "moral" laws of Exodus 21-23 with the more "symbolic" considerations of
Leviticus and Numbers. Thus, the point in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is that once the man has spread his wings over the woman, a real
relationship has been created in terms of holiness. The fact that the father can annul that relationship does not come within the horizon
of holiness concerns here. (Compare the language of Leviticus 18, which speaks not of who may marry whom, but of who may
"uncover the nakedness" of whom. Obviously, Leviticus 18 applies to marriage, but the language is peculiar for symbolic purposes,
pointing to holiness-relationships.)
36
The previous four cases are all introduced by the Hebrew ki, "if." This last law is a simple command, returning us to the form of the
first law in the section (v. 12).
37
Some wider theological observations seem to grow out of this. In redemptive historical terms, the Father guards the Daughter in the
Old Covenant (cp. "Daughter Zion," "Daughter Jerusalem"). In the New Covenant, the betrothal has taken place, and the bride-to-be is
guarded by the wing of the Son-Husband.
These relationships (Father-Daughter and Son-Bride) seem to take their ultimate rise from intra-Trinitarian relationships as archetypes:
The Spirit "under" the Father, and the Spirit "under" the Son. On the Spirit's association with the Bride and with femininity in general,
see the remarks of Thomas Hopko, "On the Male Character of the Christian Priesthood," in Hopko, ed., Women and the Priesthood
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983). In redemptive historical terms, the Spirit "grows" the Daughter in the Old
Covenant, and now "grows" the betrothed Bride in the New Covenant, preparing Her for the Celestial Marriage.
 15

If clean ox and unclean donkey are not to be yoked, then the Godly should not have close relationships with
the ungodly. The closest of all human social relationships is common membership in the same religious
assembly. The laws of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 deal with who may and who may not be yoked into the
assembly of the Lord. Exactly what "membership in the assembly" would mean is not clear. It would not
exclude them from salvation, or from participating in at least some forms of worship. It might exclude them
from the sanctuary, and from being officially enrolled as citizens.38

We noted above that ox and ass are both domestic animals, not "beasts of the field." Thus, the horizon of
concern here is with those persons who are in some sense part of Israel, God's domestic people. Some are
asses and some are oxen.

It is my considered opinion that exclusion from the assembly in this passage did not exclude anyone from
worshipping God at local proto-synagogues (Lev. 23:3). Nor do I believe it would exclude anyone from
circumcision and from Passover. I am not convinced it would exclude anyone from drawing near to offer
sacrifice in the courtyard of the Tabernacle. Let me suggest that the exclusion is from the holy war camp. I
offer as evidence the association of the holy war camp with the theme of trespass and atonement money,
discussed above. Additionally, Deuteronomy 23:9-14 follows this discussion of membership in the
assembly with a discussion of the holy war camp. Thus, it seems to me that the assembly is the thrice-
annual appearance of all the men before the Lord (Ex. 23:17), which is a thrice-annual gathering of the
host. Correlative to membership in this host would be permission to be a part of a holy war camp. 39

Exclusion from the holy war camp and from the formal triennial assembly of the official host of God would
also mean exclusion from the possibility of assuming political leadership. Thus, it is the brother-brother
question, the question of full citizenship in the land that is paramount here.

The Vineyard

Deuteronomy 23:9-14 discusses the holy war camp. God was in the midst of the camp, which made it a
zone of special holiness. Elsewhere I have made a comparative study that indicates that the holiness of the
war camp is equivalent to the holiness of the Tabernacle/Temple courtyard (cp. 1 Sam. 21:4-6, Lev. 24:9). 40

Ceremonial defilement was prohibited from the holy war camp. Uzziah held that he was not to visit his
wife while the Ark was in the field (Lev. 15:18; 2 Sam. 11:9, 11; cp. Ex. 19:10, 14-15).41 Thus, Moses could
have mentioned sexual relations, or "leprosy," as disqualifications for entrance into the camp. Instead, he
only mentioned nocturnal emissions. We saw above that "emission of seed" is part of what is in view in
such emissions (Lev. 19:20). Evidently, "planting" such "seed" in God's war-camp vineyard is what is
forbidden here.

The other matter Moses brings up is defecation. Here again the language suggests planting: "You shall have
a space among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn and
cover up your excrement" (Dt. 23:13). Such material is not to be planted in God's vineyard.

Using the bathroom is not a source of uncleanness, nor is it in any sense bad. The Scriptures indicate,
however, that it is a private matter, and that it is "shameful" to expose the "nakedness" of it. Thus,

38
Almost the whole tribe of Judah were descended from bastards, so were they excluded from the assembly? This question arises
because of Deuteronomy 23:2, which is usually translated as referring to bastards. Actually, the Hebrew term is uncertain, and
precisely what group of people was here excluded is unclear.
39
If Deuteronomy 23:2 did exclude bastards, and if most of the tribe of Judah were still bastards during the period of the Judges, then
most of the tribe of Judah would have been excluded from these ritual assemblies. In time of war, most of Judah would have to
encamp outside the defined boundaries of the holy war camp. Such Judahites would probably not have been allowed to take the
Nazirite war-vow. This might account for the marked absence of Judah from most of the fighting in the book of Judges, though
compare Judges 1:8-21.
40
See my essay, "The Death Penalty in the Mosaic Law," chapter 4: "Holy Ground." Available from Biblical Horizons.
41
This meant that the Israelite army was ritually kept from rape; cp. also Deuteronomy 21:10-13.
 16

Deuteronomy 23:14 states that God is not to see anything "naked" in the camp. What is "clean and proper"
outside the camp, is improper within it.42

Thus, the passage forbids bringing things that are unclean (emissions) into the holy environment, and also
forbids bringing things that are clean but unsanctified into it (manure). Again the idea is to prevent a
mixture, because such a mixture would bring on God's judgment.

Conclusion

In the Old Covenant, mixtures were forbidden not because they created defilement but because they
brought things into the realm of holiness, where God’s judgment operated more strongly. In Leviticus 19:
19-22, it is the simple creation of mixtures that is forbidden: cattle, seeds, garments, and people. In
Deuteronomy 22:9--23:14, the focus is on mixtures that combine the less holy with the more holy. This was
dangerous in two ways. First, it created an affront to holiness to bring the less holy into mixture with it.
Second, the creation of the mixture itself called down God's inspection.

The prohibition on mixtures had nothing whatsoever to do with hybridization of plants, or with personal
hygiene in clothing, or with eliminating "sterile" mules. Rather, these laws served to make the people
intimately aware of the presence of God in their midst, and of their need to walk circumspectly in terms of
His holiness. They were not to encroach upon His holy mixtures, or defile His holy places and holy
relationships, either in sacral or in domestic life. It is here that we find the abiding and evangelical equity of
these laws, for surely we as New Covenant saints -- holy ones --should be careful in our moral walk before
the Holy One of Israel.

42
The use of "naked" here provokes a comparison with Leviticus 18. It would go beyond the bounds of this paper to go into this, but it
is worth considering whether while Leviticus 11-16 deals with uncleanness, conversely Leviticus 17-22 deal with encroachments on
holiness. That is, the question would be whether these two sections run in opposite directions. Drinking blood (Lev. 17) would be an
encroachment on the holy, which is why it would be an "abomination," and bring God's wrath. Similarly, in Leviticus 19 that holiness
is at the fore, with the Trespass Offering highlighted (compare my chapter on Leviticus 19 in Covenant Sequence). Leviticus 21-22
have to do with the improper use of holy things that belong to the priests. Perhaps the precise nature of the sexual prohibitions in
Leviticus 18 and 20 lies in the fact that such relationships are too close, and therefore too "holy." Marrying one's sister or aunt would
not cause uncleanness but would rather be an invasion of holiness, bringing on God's judgment. A full exploration of this will have to
wait for another occasion, and I only suggest it here as a possibility.