Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Some of the laws I can directly see why they were given, however I do not understand the last part of the verse below regarding not boiling a kid in its mothers milk.

Deuteronomy 14:21 NIV Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

What does this law mean really, is there some spiritual significance I am not getting?

share|improve this question
    
The thought boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk itself is cruel to me. –  Mawia Feb 25 '13 at 13:59
    
I think this is because grilling is so much better... –  Narnian Mar 27 at 12:13
    
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com –  The Freemason Mar 27 at 12:31
    
@Mawia that's immediately what I thought. Narnian lol I'm sure God meant something else by this, funny though. –  jlaverde Mar 27 at 16:48
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 11 down vote accepted

There is much debate about this one but I think the Rabbis never understood it, which causes trouble to some Christian commentators as well. It reminds me of this:

For it is written in the Law of Moses:“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? (1 Corinthians 9:9, NIV)

The Apostle applies this to establishing an argument that ministers should be paid for their effort. A prohibition is there about an animal but for the purposes of how we treat each other.

In this case about a goat and its mother, the lesson is we ought to respect the tender relationship of an animal and her young. The law is established about less important things to make a stronger point. God honors the relationships of a goat and her child. How much more than should we honor the relationship of parents and children? We should not despise relationships that God honors so strictly.

share|improve this answer
1  
To think that some of the nations surrounding ancient Israel were so corrupt that they offered up their children to their god Moloch by burning them alive is to understand a little bit better how important to God are the relationships between parents and children. The logic involved in Dt 14:21 is similar to the logic Jesus used in his "how much more" statements, of which he made quite a few. In other words, if God cares for even a goat and her kid, HOW MUCH MORE does He care for the relationship between two of His image bearers, whether it be parent to child or any other relationship! –  rhetorician Apr 8 at 16:31
add comment

Opinions abound. One is that the practice was cruel and inhumane, but given the animal sacrifices for sin, that just doesn't make sense to me. Another is that the Jews were lactose intolerant, but if that were true, only common sense would be required, not a law. Perhaps the practice did not fully or properly cook the meat, so the prohibition was actually a health benefit.

What does make sense is that the practice was perhaps associated with idolatry. One opinion I read suggested that this was a foreign religious ritual meant to obtain favor from pagan gods over the fertility of their herds. As such, it would seem to violate the first and second commandments given to Moses, namely, to have no other gods before God and to not be involved with idolatrous practices.

share|improve this answer
    
As a note: people who are lactose intolerant are generally able to drink goat's milk. Cow's milk is the problem. –  Ignatius Theophorus Feb 25 '13 at 14:48
2  
If you can get a source or two on the idolatry aspect your answer would be perfect. –  fredsbend Feb 25 '13 at 16:44
add comment

Boiling a young goat in the very thing that is intended to bring life to the goat would be abhorrent. A goat in the Old Testament was killed for one of two reasons, for food or for atonement for sins. In both instances, the goat is giving up it's life for the good of the people. Not only has the goat's life been taken, but now we're taking something that is intended to give life to the animal, and we're using it to add flavor to the young animal whose life has been taken. This practice would be considered abhorrent mainly because of the blatant misuse of the milk. It's main purpose is life intended for the young, not flavoring to please those who take the life of the young.

It's not unlike the respect that hunters have for the deer that they kill. The hunters I know (and I know quite a few living in Texas), will tell you that one of the most disturbing things that can happen while hunting is that might fail to make a clean kill. That is, they don't shoot the animal in a place where it's death is as quick and painless as possible. Hunting isn't about animal cruelty. It's about finding food for the hunter. No hunter I know wishes to bring pain upon the animal. They recognize that the life that the deer gives brings life to those who take it (via it's meat), and they seek to respect the animal by not bringing more unnecessary suffering upon it.

There's a respect that comes in the exchange of one life for another.

Of course, there are many differing viewpoints. But this is mine.

share|improve this answer
    
This all seems like opinion. By this same logic the Jew cannot even drink the milk because it is meant for the goat, but that was allowed. –  fredsbend Feb 25 '13 at 16:47
    
It may very well be opinion. :) –  David Morton Feb 25 '13 at 16:48
    
But when you drink goat's milk, doesn't it bring life? Using something intended to bring life to an animal for the purpose of preparing that same animal to be consumed just "seems" wrong. –  David Morton Feb 25 '13 at 16:49
    
I'm not saying that your opinion here is not held by a particular Christian group, or even that it is wrong. I am saying that you are clearly giving your opinion and only your opinion. You do not even mention a denomination that takes this view or quote a commentary. There are many reasons just as valid as mentioned in other answers and you neglect them which makes for a very incomplete answer (and subsequently appearing biased). "seems" is not good enough. –  fredsbend Feb 25 '13 at 16:58
    
Okay, I've appended my post. –  David Morton Feb 25 '13 at 17:00
add comment

This quote from the OT may be the most questioned verse in the Bible. It appears that no one actually knows what it means and most people only accept it and go on. However the people of Judaism let it control their life. They have taken it to the extreme to mean no meat and no milk shall be mixed. Of course this is not what it says in any form or fashion. The statement is very precise, "no kid in its mother's." Now the question is, "does the verse say milk?" First let me quote a few other laws of the Torah. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. (Exod 22:28b-29) When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother, and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable as the Lord’s offering by fire. But you shall not slaughter, from the herd or the flock, an animal with its young on the same day. (Lev 22:27-28) If you come on a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, with the mother sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. Let the mother go, taking only the young for yourself, in order that it may go well with you and you may live long. (Deut 22:6-7) It appears that God wanted his people to be aware that it was not good to kill an animal that was self sustained for a while, nor was it good to kill a mother and the offspring at the same time.
This brings up the word milk. In the Hebrew the word milk and the word fat are spelled the same. There were no vowels but milk was pronounced Halav and fat was pronounce Helev. It is possible that God was telling them not to cook a kid in its mother's fat which would mean both would die at the same time. The Talmud even questioned this many years ago. R. Aha b. Jacob questioned: Is there anyone who does not accept the reading as determinant? Has it not been taught: “in the milk of its mother” in which verse you might read “in the fat”? (bSanh 4a)

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.