IBL06: Sixth Commandment
Hybridization and Law
Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony
Subject: Prerequisite/Law
Genre: Speech
Track: 38
Dictation Name: RR130U38
Location/Venue: ________
Year: 1960’s-1970’s.
Our scripture is Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. Hybridization and law.
First of all, Leviticus 19:19.
“19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.”
Then, Deuteronomy 22:9-11
“9 “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.
10 “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.
11 “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.”
Very recently I was at a college speaking and I was interested in an article in the student paper written by a young woman. It had reference to our attitude towards people we would regard as criminals. The basic point of view of this girl can best be stated by quoting from her article, and I quote. She takes various sentences that reflect common opinion and then answers them.... the first quote: “ “I can’t imagine ever having a homosexual for a friend.” “ Her answer to this “Can you honestly imagine any of your friends not living with some awfully serious tangibility[?]?”
Then another quote: “ “Westmont students should know the Christian answer to marijuana.” Just what IS the Christian answer to marijuana? Or is there more than one possible position? is the use of marijuana inherently evil, is it wrong if it is illegal, what happens if the law is changed?”
Then another quote she gives: “ “I am repulsed by the thought of homosexuality, drug addiction, and prostitution.” ” Her comments: “Some people are repulsed by ignorance of social conditions, hypocrisy, false piety, and willing detachment from reality.” ”
Another quote: “ “I can’t afford the time to become socially involved in the community public[?] of Santa Barbara. After all, my first responsibility is to be a student!” ” And her answer: “How can I afford NOT to become involved? What does being a student mean? Can it ever exclude being a person and all that that means?”
Now of course, this girls attitude is antinomian. It is the ethic of love, applied to every situation. When people abandon the law of God and substitute forth the ethics of love, what they are saying thereby is that situation ethics is the only real ethics because if love is going to prevail then you apply love as the situation warrants it! And you have no more law. You’ve destroyed it. The bible of course says love is the fulfilling of the law. But in this anti biblical conception of love, love becomes the destruction of the law.
Unfortunately, this antinomianism prevails today in modernist as well as in fundamentalist circles. You find it among Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Baptists, Roman Catholics, and every other circle today. The reason for this is simply that the doctrine of love as a kind of cure all has taken the place of law. Without law and without biblical love which is the fulfilling of the law, society breaks down. Thus it is that laws such as we read today are extremely important because they give us basic social guidelines. And yet, the average person would say if you cited these laws that I read today, Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. The average person would say how these have nothing to do with us. We are under grace and not under law. Which is, as we have seen previously, a perversion of scripture.
Now let us approach these verses of scripture as law; which is what they declare themselves to be. There are certain implications immediately that appear. First of all, “Thou shalt not kill.” being the overall commandment, and these laws being subordinate aspects of this commandment thou shalt not kill, it is clear that they favour fertility. To harm or destroy life apart from GOd’s law is forbidden. The hybrid is clearly a hybridization of this law. Now these are case laws, we’ve seen previously that the bible gives us in the Ten Commandments the basic principles and categories of the law, and then in the various specific legislation gives us case laws which illustrate these laws which set forth a minimal case; and if it is true in the minimal case, it is true in every other.
The hybrid frustrates the purpose of creation. All things, we are told according to Genesis, were created with their seed in themselves, destined to be fertile. Hybridization seeks to improve God’s work. It seeks to gain the best of two diverse but somewhat related things. The result is a limited advantage but a long range launched including sterility.
Second, these laws clearly require a respect for God’s creation. We are not to change one kind into another, or to attempt it. All things we are told were created good. Now when we hold to evolution we cannot see all things as created good. Because evolution is the survival of the fittest, and the best you can say about anything is that it is the fittest. Not that it is the best, not that it is morally the most desirable thing. And though it has survived thus far it may not survive in the next ten thousand years, so that man for example, we are told may be a mistake.
Thus we cannot under an evolutionary perspective see all things as created good. But man under God has been created good and the world around him has been created good. Man can kill and eat plants and animals to use this creation under God’s law. But he cannot tamper with it, he cannot hybridize; which is to violate God’s kind. And the penalty for it, of course, is sterility. You can cross a horse and a donkey, but the mule is sterile. You can put all kinds of new variety of squash and carrots and the like on the market, but the penalty for these is sterility. They will not produce a seed. And while they will have certain advantages --the mule has certain advantages over the horse-- they have marked disadvantages, and a greater frailty, sensitivity, nervousness (as with the mule), so that they are a real handicap.
Third, related to this law against hybridization are the sexual laws with regard to violation of mankind. Laws against homosexuality, and laws against bestiality; which appear for example in Leviticus 18:22-23 and many other places in scripture. These practices were a part of the cults of chaos, the religious practices of antiquity, and they appear again in every culture when there’s a revolutionary movement. And this is why they are reappearing now.
According to scriptures the penalty for these offenses is death. This was the law in early America, the death penalty, and it was enforced. It is significant that Meril Unger’s bible dictionary which is premillennial and dispensationalist in it’s perspective, will not mention the death penalty for these offenses as a part of scripture. This is the radical antinomianism of so many today. Now of course[?], Saint Paul as he refers to these laws takes the law with regard to the use of an ox and an ass together , and he brings out the broader implications of this law. He declares in 2’nd Corinthians 6:14 “He ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness and what communion hast light with darkness?
So that very clearly Saint Paul states here what already had been stated repeatedly in scripture, that mixed marriages, marriages between believers and unbelievers are forbidden. But at the same time he also states that unequal yoking is the principle in the Deuteronomy passage thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. What is the principle there? Unequal yoking! So that unequal yoking of any kind runs counter to God’s law. This appears also very clearly in the law with respect to marriage. Man was created in the image of God and woman was created from man with the reflected image of God in man.
And woman was termed a helpmeet, which means a reflection, or front, or mirror. In other words the woman is to reflect the man’s nature and supplement, assist, further him in his calling. This means therefore that if they are unequally yoked she cannot be of any assistance to him in his calling. So that if it is inter-religious marriage, or interracial, or intercultural, normally the disparity is too great for it to be a valid marriage in terms of God’s standards. The burden thus of God’s law is clearly against inter-religious marriage, or interracial, or intercultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very idea of community which marriage is to establish.
But unequal applies of course to much more than marriage. It applies to any kind of social integration. Today we are told that we must have a world, according to the U.N. charter in which there are no discriminations with respect to race, color, or {?}. In other words there can be no religious lines of discrimination. But this of course is an unequal yoking!
Now to return to the second point, the fact that this law clearly requires a respect for God’s creation. We say that God pronounced on creating all things that they were good. Men cannot treat their fellow man or any part of creation therefore with contempt. Thus while we cannot have unequal yoking we cannot have a contemptuous treatment of any man or any part of creation. Animals for example, we are told in one series of laws in scripture are to be treated with kindness and with humanity. For example, the Sabbath rest is to be rest for animals as well. The Sabbath year, the fields are allowed to remain so that strangers and wild animals may eat of the harvest. Again, the threshing pot must not be muzzled. The laborer, whether it is an animal or a man, is worthy of it’s hire.
Again the law forbids killing both mother and young, of birds for example, or any animals. So that there would be no destruction of species. Again there must be a return of stray domestic animals, both as a kindness to the animals and their owners. Overburdened beasts must be helped, and so on. But respect for creation means far more than kindness to animals. It means recognizing God’s handiwork, that he has a purpose for all things. One of the things that characterize my schooling from the early grades on up to university and apparently is still with us because I heard it on the radio this morning, was the idea that all bacteria are bad and that the scientific ideal is a germ free, bacteria free world. Of course, such a world would mean death.
And yet, we are actually told now that by 1990 we will have such a sterile world that milk itself being rendered totally sterile, will sit on a table and will never spoil. In such a world not only bacteria will be gone, but man also. Such a world and such a science represents a travesty on God’s creative purpose. It is interesting to note what Lewis Mumford has said with regard to this kind of science, and I quote: “What will be left of the plant world if we allow the basically village culture found in a close symbiotic partnership between man and plants to disappear? There are plenty of people working in scientific laboratories today who though they may still call themselves biologists have no knowledge of this culture --except by vague hearsay-- and no respect for its achievements.
They dream of a world composed mainly of synthetics and plastics, in which no creature above the rank of yeast of algae should/would be encouraged to grow. A biological factor of safety existed when seventy to ninety percent of the worlds population was engaged in cultivating plants. In the past century this biological factor of safety has shrunk. If our leaders were sufficiently awake to these dangers they would plan not for urbanization but for ruralization. As insects are eliminated,” Doctor Mumford points out, “the plants that depend upon them for fertilization are doomed.” End of quote.
We might add that in some parts of the country the pollination of trees in the spring is becoming very much a problem. In fact, in some parts of Pennsylvania there is a crisus in this respect because the indiscriminate spraying by air ventilation agencies has killed off the bees, and wiped out beekeepers. Doctor Carson[?] Murgin, of the A.L. university has called attention of what this fundamental disrespect for creation is doing. And his analysis is a very interesting and telling one, and I quote: “A full understanding of natural processes is an absolute must if we are to avoid nature environmental calamities. Some past environmental disasters are attributable to abuse of natural systems. The World Help organization carried on extensive programs pest control for the people of Bornio. In order to eradicate mosquitoes --considered a pest of serious dimensions-- the organization sprayed villages, village areas, extensively with BDC.
Shortly after the application palm thatch roofs of the village houses began to collapse. It turns out that a certain caterpillar which feeds on the palm fronds had suddenly increased. Because of it’s habitat the caterpillar was not exposed to the BDC. But a predatory wasp, which ordinarily keeps the caterpillar population at non-destructive low levels was vulnerable to the poison and was consequently was annihilated. Carson goes on to relate further ecological reactions to spraying, to eradicate flies inside the village houses World Help workers sprayed BDC indoors! Up till that time the flies were controlled by a little lizard that inhabits many a home in Bornio. The lizard kept on eating the flies which were now heavily contaminated with BDC, and then the lizards began to die. The lizards in turn were eaten by house cats, and then the housecats in turn began to die from BDC poisoning. As a result of cats being wiped out the rats began to invade the dwellings. As we all know, rats not only consume human food but they also pose a serious threat of spreading diseases such as the plague!
The rats appeared in such large numbers that the World Help organization had to parachute a fresh supply of cats into Bornio, in an attempt to restore a balance that had been successfully operative but unrecognized by the technicians who had come to help. I recount this true and recent story because it shows the interrelationship between living beings and their environment. To live in harmony man must modify many of his actions and know nature. In reality we can consider ourselves lucky that none of the scientific discoveries has apparently rupter the food chain processes to the extent where they have caused major disasters.
So far I have talked about very elementary facts which are well known to ecologists, if however these things are known that the administrators and engineers who plan manipulations of the environment, they seldom make it apparent. Amidst the technology is the solution to all our problems, however, is the solution to all our problems however is being questioned more and more by planters, as well as by the public at large. However we can add that Doctor Murgin is too optimistic in feeling that it is being questioned. The damage continues very extensively, I myself have seen in one area where I lived some years ago, a decision that to get rid of coyotes that were killing deer they would have to kill the coyotes. So, a coyote killing program went into effect, and then of course in no time at all they had a deer problem because the weak deer were now breeding whereas before all the weaklings were killed --the weak and the diseased ones-- by the coyotes!
But they also had a problem in a that now the squirrels took over the area because the squirrels and the field mice, which were before killed by the coyotes, were now without a natural enemy. And so, they had to embark on a further program to kill the squirrels, but of course the poisons went into the ponds then saw a radical death of the fish in the pond, and so they had a mosquito problem! And so they had to then consider spraying for mosquitoes. In other words, the more they acted the more damage they did. Forgetting that all these things have, in God’s providence, a purpose. Wipe out your squirrels and your gophers and your moles alike, and what do you do? you create erosion. Because the amount of water absorbed in these mole and squirrel and gopher holes is tremendous, and it is an important part of both aerating the soil and seepage of water downward.
It is interesting to note that in some areas a little bit in the way of an old fashioned respect for God’s creation is coming back, and is doing wonders. For example in Jeeksville[?], Illinois, a far seeing man J. L. Wade started to campaign in 1962 to treat God’s creatures with some respect, beginning with the purple martin. The report is very interesting, and it is revelatory of what a knowledge of what a knowledge of what God’s creation does in the way of producing a more successful treatment of problems. “The J.C.’s” and I quote, “of Riggsville installed 28 purple martin houses along the main street. The purple martins moved in and the town had some astonishing results. Citizens found that their mosquito problems were solved! At last townspeople were able to enjoy lawns, gardens, and patios, without annoyance.
And this was only the beginning. For the towns annual fair it had been customary to spray with chemical pesticide to control biting insects. But that year, by some fortuitous circumstance the usual shipment was sidetracked to another town and failed to arrive in Greggsville in time. But the purple martins had arrived, and they were hungry. Since these birds live solely on live insects they thrived at the fair. When the chemical firms troubleshooter arrived in town and apologized for the shipping delay, the fair committee told him they no longer needed the pesticides. In their words, they told him if he could find a fly or a mosquito on the premises we would order ten times as much spray. He couldn’t, and he took the order back.
The Greggsville experience broadened out to neighboring farmers who recognized to economic value to attracting purple martins. Cattlemen, for example, learned that nesting boxes for these birds set in stockyards were an asset by having few insects bother livestock. This yielded better cattle gain. The initial purple martin project in Greggsville was so successful that it soon involved the local boy scouts, school children, community park board, western Illinois park board, businessmen, farmers, orchardists, state {?} officials, conservationists, civil workers throughout the nation, and the snowballing continues.
The promotion of the purple martin spread to many other communities. For example, in Luverne, Iowa, $200.00 worth of insecticide had already been purchased, but after attracting purple martins they did not have to resort to even $25.00 worth of spray. The article goes on to quote how much has been done in many areas. Then it said, in publicising this bird the fact has often been quoted that a single purple martin can devour about two thousand flying insects daily. Mr. Wade feels that this is a gross underestimation. Based on research, the actual average seems to be between ten thousand and twelve thousand mosquitoes daily, when these insects are plentiful. The purple martin will also eat flies, beetles, moths, locusts, weedles, and other insects which we consider damaging or as nuisances.
The list can go on indefinitely. All insects and animals have their God given place. In the basic life cycle of nature, and a respect for God’s creation involves creating all things with knowledge and with restraint. Even weeds, as Doctor Cocanour[?] has pointed out in a very important article called Weeds, Guardians of the Soil are important. In that, weeds go down to the subsoil and bring up minerals to the subsoil and therefore have a place in the life cycle and weeds can restore soil that is worn out. Years ago, Louis {?} said that with roots diseases the soil is everything, that is, the condition of the recipient.
Sir Albert Howard for example, in his experiment with animals in India, shows that when the animals were given proper nourishment, when they were on good feed and good soil, they could mingle with animals that had diseases like rinderpest, septicemia, and hook and mount diseases without contracting them.
Thus the Christian as he faces the world must respect the world. He must realize that the world is not an enemy, it is not a hostile element it is God’s handiwork. The world was created by God and we are always to remember as we deal with the world, what was God’s purpose here, in creating this? But at the same time, while the world was created essentially good, it is fallen and not normative. Thus, perfectionism with regard to nature is anti Christian. Everything has a purpose in creation, but God created man and set him in the garden of Eden with a purpose to use and to develop nature. Thus, while hybridization is forbidden, the improvement of various species is definitely a part of our responsibility.
Thus, we do not look back to Eden, we look forward to the kingdom of God. Those who hold to a perfectionism with regard to nature are anti Christian. The logic of this perfectionism with regard to nature, holding nature as normative is to eat raw foods only because you can’t improve on nature, it is to be a nudist because you can’t improve on nature, it is to deny housing because housing is an improvement on nature.
This is all very very definitely hostile to scripture because while creation is essentially good, from the biblical perspective, it is to be developed by man. There is to be an improvement in terms of the guidelines laid down by God. Thus, hybridization is not Christian, but improvement is definitely the Christian responsibility. Hybridization and unequal yoking involve a fundamental disrespect for God’s handiwork, and it leads to futile experimentation. But for us as creationists, the fertility and the potentiality of the world rests in his law, in it’s pattern, in it’s fixity.
Doctor Walter Lambert, who has won international eleven international prizes has stated that his advantage over other geneticists is that they had no sense of law, so they indulged in futile experimentation; but he as a creationist believed that there are fundamental laws and he worked within that framework, so that he does not waste his time on futile experimentation. Thus, the significance of these laws with respect to hybridization is that the penalty for their violation is sterility. But, respect for these laws leads to vitality, to fertility, and to scientific progress.
We are therefore under God to look ahead to a nature that surpasses the Garden of Eden, to a nature that abounds in fertility and improves progressively as man under God works to establish the kingdom of God. Let us pray.
Our Lord and our God we thank thee that thou hast created all things good, and hast ordained that we as thy servants, as kings over creation unto thee have a calling to exercise dominion, to subdue the earth and to develop it under thee and in terms of thy law. Bless us to this purpose. Recall us our Father to thy word and to thy law, that we might use thy handiworks to thy glory and to our happiness and prosperity in thee. Bless us to this purpose, in Jesus name, amen.
Are there any questions now with respect to our lesson? Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
We are to use things for our benefit and what?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Oh yes. Well, the strict conservationists who believe just in preserving, not in using, are of course carrying something too far. Actually the conservationists are very often creating areas where the greatest exploitation goes on. The federal areas, the federal lands, the federal {?} which are set aside are not the best areas of conservation. For example, with respect to timber. Because the federal government is not operating on a dollar and cents basis the areas that are set aside by the federal government in the name of conservation are leased out, many of them to ranchers, and these are wealthy corporate entities who run cattle exclusively in government lands. Whereas, for example, an area such as that owned by warehousers will have far better conservation. True conservation, because it is in terms of a continuing use.
For example, there is almost as much forest in Maine today as there was when the first settlers landed in Maine. Moreover, these forests now because they are operated in terms of commercial use are better operated and more productive than in their natural condition! Thus, corporate entities, large corporate entities are geared to production for human use but a long range program to preserve their future income. The devastation you find in foresting for example is largely with small timber firms that simply lease an area, cut it, and move on. Their perspective is short term.
Now the strict conservationists who feel that utility is no consideration is often preceding his own end. Because nature was created by God to have utility, and what we need is a happy balance between exploitation.
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Yes, there is generally an unfair picture presented of the lumber companies by the federal government. Not that there have not been abuses, but that the abuses are equally as real if not greater in federally controlled areas. Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
No, what they had done is to restore the balance of nature in that area. The purple martins has it’s natural enemies, but the point was that spraying was killing off these birds as well as others.
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
No. Not if you stopped interfering and let them come back. They take care of themselves.
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Yes. Yes. They were simply restored. Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Yes. Love is total acceptance of everything. It means then that you have to accept everything, tolerate everything, it means that there is no discrimination with respect to good and evil, right and wrong. This is the modern definition of love, and of course it is thoroughly anti Christian.
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Yes. It is, yes, it is both literally meant as well as symbolically. There is to be no mingling in one garment, you see. And of course, this was tried some years ago, mingling linen and wool, and it was very unsuccessful. It doesn’t produce a good garment and it does not-- and it violates a principle.
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Synthetics are usually made out of one material. t means that two diverse materials are not to be used in the same garment. Yes. Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
You have what?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
You have cotton...?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Yes, what is datron made of.
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Yes, yes.
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Well, that’s a very interesting point, I would say that we would have to say that it is not valid. And it brings out an interesting point for me because the use of datron leads very definitely to heavy perspiration. It’s not--
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
There is something about it that is not healthy, so far as I’m concerned and others report the same thing.
[audience member speaking very loudly and clearly] Well I find it to be very efficient.
Yes, that could be. But there’s still a principle; the bible requires the integrity of-- yes.
[audience member interrupts, and speaks unintelligibly]
Yes. Yes, the next question?
[different audience member speaks unintelligibly]
That’s true. Why, I cannot say, but it is still stated as a principle, a general principle that we are to avoid hybridization and then we are to avoid mingling of dissimilar things. Now, we don’t always know the reason for a law but ultimately if we abide by it we find that some kind of principle develops. Someday we may know why this is a valid principle, meanwhile we’re simply asked to abide by it.
Even though we don’t understand it. Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
That’s possible, I don’t know. I’d have to think that one over, but we should be careful in this area. In other words, before we move too rapidly into any area to try to improve on God’s work we need to treat what he does with respect. There’s a fundamental principle here, that summons us to be cautious. It is possible that on due study that such a thing can be verified. Now the rabbi’s puzzled over this a great length with regard to clothing, with regard to hybridization and so on. They thought for example that you could sow wheat in an orchard because the two were too diverse to create a problem one for another... but you could not sow wheat and barley together in the same field or joining one another.
Now there’s a good principle there and the revinict conclusion which appears in the Talmid. There is no possible conflict, between wheat and apples, for example. There is for wheat and barley.
So, in terms of that principle perhaps someone who has a bench here could explore synthetic materials and see... but this was the direction of rabbinic thinking and exploration on this subject. I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert in this field, but I do feel we need to proceed with caution. Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Well as I say again, this is an area for experts. I’m simply stating the guidelines which scripture gives us here and then to deal with the application will take an expert in some areas. Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
That’s probably an element. Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Where is it.. yes, what passage is it?
[audience member speaks clearly] This is Exodus 22-- [audience member becomes unintelligible]
No, we have to understand the terminology and the use of the language there. Very often when you have a problem with translation it is that subtle nuances of words do not communicate themselves. Now, what the Lord planned to do there was to bring judgement on all Israel. And the judgement would be evil in the sight of the people, that is, to do them harm so that the sense of evil there is to harm them, it is the destroy them. It is not evil in the sense that we think of it. In other words, our language is limited here. For example, in the new Testament there are three words in the Greek for love with very sharply differing meanings. In {?} Greek rather, and two of those words are used in the New Testament, and while their meaning is so different, we only have one word to translate them by. Love.
So it is here. What it means by evil is to be evil in their sight, in other words, for you do to disciplined it’s evil in your sight it doesn’t strike you as good. But, it is not evil objectively. This is the significance there.
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
They were still sinners and so judgement seemed evil to them. And it’s simply the usage of the language there; this is what it meant: It seemed evil to them, and so the bible speaks of it as doing evil unto them, doing that which is harmful. It is not harmful in the objective sense of ultimate wrong, evil in the sense of something is harmful. In other words, we only have one full word to translate subtle Hebrew terms by, and that’s our problem. Yes?
[audience member speaks unintelligibly]
Love in scripture is the fulfilling of the law. It involves the keeping of the ten commandments. Love to God is keeping the whole ten commandments, love to our neighbor is keeping the second table of the law. To respect his right to life, to home, to property, to reputation; in word, thought, and deed. So that, as Saint Paul sums it up, love is the fulfilling of the law.
Our time is now up, I’d like to call your attention to these notices you’ll find in the back of the room. The Chalcedon studies lectures, for monday evenings beginning tomorrow evening, at the Prignoff home, in San Marino. Doctor Bolton Davenhouser[?]. Tomorrow night he shall speak on the historical background and significance of the problem, that is, of evolution. He is a distinguished biologist and he has a major work which will be appearing within a few months which I believe will be one of the most important things ever written on the subject. It’s a major manuscrit and highly readable. I think you will find his four lectures of particular interest, so I urge you to attend. Tomorrow evening at 8:00pm and for the following three weeks through March the 3’rd.
Our time is up and we are now adjourned.