What Was the Purpose of the Command against Mixed Threads?

Adam Parker of Bring the Books has an interesting take on why the Israelites were commanded not to use mixed threads in their clothing:

This view says that the passage is not prohibiting mixed threads because it was the clothing of prostitutes. Nor is this prohibition merely meant to be a picture of holiness and Israel's distinction from among the nations. Rather, this prohibition had a very practical purpose. Numbers 16:1-40 records an incident when the laity sought to take priestly duties for themselves. In this view Deut. 22:11 (and Lev. 19:19) actually address a real and pressing issue: namely the temptation for the laity to resent or break down the distinction between priests and laity among the Israelites. Given this understanding of the prohibition of mixed threads, we see that God is placing barriers between the people and the Levites to keep such events as the rebellion of Korah from taking place. It is also easy to explain to the skeptic why Christians no longer observe this prohibition. Since the New Testament no longer distinguishes elders from the laity by clothing this command regarding mixed threads is no longer relevant except perhaps in terms of a persistent recognition that the Church still has leaders and elders whom the members are to submit to (Hebrews 13:17).

So rather than the command being about a separation between the Israelites and other nations, Parker says it’s about making a distinction between the priests and the laity. This sounds reasonable, especially since there was a similar prohibition against the laity using the particular blend of incense that was only to be used in the tabernacle (later, the temple) by the priests:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Take for yourself spices, stacte and onycha and galbanum, spices with pure frankincense; there shall be an equal part of each. With it you shall make incense, a perfume, the work of a perfumer, salted, pure, and holy. You shall beat some of it very fine, and put part of it before the testimony in the tent of meeting where I will meet with you; it shall be most holy to you. The incense which you shall make, you shall not make in the same proportions for yourselves; it shall be holy to you for the Lord. Whoever shall make any like it, to use as perfume, shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:34-38).

But I don’t think this prohibition against mixed fibers for the laity need be merely a practical command meant to maintain the proper, ordained authority structure (and I think Parker might agree with me on this). When creating the Israelite culture through the Law, God used many visual parables to illustrate the setting apart of the holy from the profane. Those who were ordained to stand before God for the sake of the people were set apart in a special way because God is holy, great, and beautiful. All the commands for the specific clothing, the decorations, and the objects in the tabernacle were meant to express this truth about God.

You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother [the priest], for glory and for beauty (Exodus 28:2).

You shall also consecrate [the items in the tabernacle], that they may be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy (Exodus 30:29).

[Those not ordained to do so] shall not go in to see the holy objects even for a moment, or they will die (Numbers 4:20).

The separation between man and a holy God wasn’t just explained to the Israelites, it was experienced and seen as they lived out the commands of the Law every day. God spent more than a thousand years preparing us for Christ in this way. Try to read Hebrews 7-10 with the eyes of those who lived the holiness code in the Law—those who were always at a distance from God because of their sin, those who were required to participate in the endless cleansing rituals reminding them of this distance—and you will be awestruck at what it means to be united to Christ, our priest, who has truly and finally made us holy, tearing down the curtain separating us from the most holy place where God dwells.

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split (Matthew 27:50-51).

Parker goes on to explain why he finds this view of the mixed fiber commandment compelling:

a) It has ancient pedigree….
b) It accounts for the previous command for the priests to wear mixed threads….
c) It allows for harmonization within the Pentateuch rather than disharmony.

You can read his full post here.

Comments

[Jberr]

Always wondered about that command. It seems like that is the best solution, since Torah tells us the priests are to use twisted linen garments. How about an explanation for some of the other less obvious ones? Like don't shave the sides of your beard or kosher food laws?

[d]

Great post, and great catch on the danger of drawing a analogy to today's "laity" and "elders".

I would totally agree that among the many applications of this command, it certainly sets up a distinction between those who were Levite priests and the rest of the Israelite congregation; however, the purpose of that is not to draw an analogy to the New Testament church structure. To do so ignores the entire gist of books such as Hebrews, as Amy pointed out, which definitively draws a contrast between the OT structure and the change that occurred as a result of Jesus' saving work on the cross. Not only was Jesus' sacrifice an individual event, it also served to set up the corporate structure in which Jesus is head of the Church and we submit to him and draw a distinction between us and Jesus; that's the place for the analogy.

In other words, the purpose of this command is to highlight the contrast and not the similarity. Further, just as we are to submit to those who shepherd us as elders, we are also all, elders included, commanded in a broader sense to submit to one another. I think this is why the pattern we see in the NT for biblical congregations is one in which the elders are regarded and regard themselves as "fellow labourers" and not "ruling elders"...

[John Plough]

I think you are reading way too much into it. Don't forget the culture that would have understood the meaning behind such a command died out 600 years before Christ. So 2600 +\-. The last living people who had any clue what many of those things meant were the parents of Daniels generation, and they are generations removed from Moses. It could very well be just a practical commandment like many of the mold regulations. Just because we wear poly cotton blends today doesn't mean it could have been feasible then. It is most likely because wool shinks and linen doesn't so cloth made of a wool linen blend would be shoddy and GOD didn't want his people to look dishelved. Not everything has a hidden meaning. The surface message in the bible is hard enough for people to get without mining esoterica which isn't relevent anyway. I was under the impression that NOBODY wore blended garments in Isreal including the priests, which would tend to "mitigate" the separation arguments. One other thing Wool\Linen blends are available today because of preshrunk wool and dry cleaning. (But I ain't gonna wear them cuase I don't wanna get struck by lightning) ;-)

[Amy]

John, there are commands in the Law for the use of mixed threads for the priests and for the tabernacle (see above). This is what I had missed before. And I think that today, we don't understand the continuity of culture that used to exist up until recent centuries when things started changing so quickly. The explanation above was given by Josephus who was part of the Jewish culture at the time of Jesus.

[Andrew W]

Not about threads specifically, but the OT Law as a whole...

As Gentiles, we are not bound by any of the specific OT Law. None. Nada. Zip. Not even the "10 Commandments". Consider:

(1) the 10 commandments are specifically addressed to Israel. See Ex 19 and 20:2

(2) the New Covenant is specifically distinct from the OT Law, and the Gentiles are not to be initiated into the latter. See Acts 15:10-11 and 18-20. Also John 4:21-23, Galatians (all) and other similar passages

In Acts, the new Gentile believers are explicitly not referred to Moses for their standard of behavior. They are instructed to be sexually and religiously pure, but this is not based in the Law.

BUT, I am not saying the Law is irrelevant. It teaches God's holiness to his chosen people Israel, and can therefore teach us likewise. But we have no mandate to simply import it (in whole or part) as "Christian Law". But while we do not submit to the Law, we should delight in it, for it teaches us the mind of God, to whom we do submit and obey

This might sound like a fine distinction, but I believe it is an important one, for it steers us away from fruitless discussions of "which parts of the Law do I obey?" and lets the Law teach us instead

In the case of discussions on sexual holiness, there is more than enough affirmative teaching from Genesis, Jesus and Paul without needing to proof-text specific OT prohibitions - though the humble heart will learn from meditating on them

[d]

But while we do not submit to the Law, we should delight in it, for it teaches us the mind of God, to whom we do submit and obey

100% agree and well said, and if anything further highlights the need to be very careful in drawing too many analogies between the structure and methods of the Old Testament and today's New Testament church.

For example, it might be a fair statement to say that the way in which God dealt with the nation of Israel throughout the overarching Old Testament narrative (i.e., chosen people, set apart, conformed to a holy standard, etc.) might be said to be a picture of how God deals with the Church and indeed with individuals as well. But that's not really drawing an analogy or one-to-one correspondence. Instead, I think something like that is doing what Andrew W referred to as something that "teaches us the mind of God".

My example earlier was the idea of using the Old Testament Levitical structure as a means of interpreting the New Testament idea of Elders into something like a "ruling elder" class, which I believe is what Amy was also driving at in her original post.

I think the same kind of thing is going on for those that would support paedo-baptism by using circumcision as a means to support that, but I haven't fully articulated through that in my brain just yet, so please excuse the thinking out loud...