You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.
Exodus 23:19 ESV
Last week, we began our third and final dive into the Exodus by studying the giving of the Ten Commandments at Sinai. Of course, as I noted there, we did not make an expository walk through each of the Ten because 1) I’ve already done such a series and 2) I wanted to use the Ten Commandments, as a summary of God’s law, to speak generally about how we as Christians ought to read and meditate upon God’s law. In summary, we rejoiced that we are no longer under the burden and condemnation of the law because Christ has perfectly fulfilled the law on our behalf and paid the debt of our disobedience through His substitutional death upon the cross. Yet rather than the law now being abolished completely for us as Christians, the Holy Spirit now writes God’s law upon our hearts, creating within us a desire to obey God, not out of dreadful duty but from overflowing love and delight in our Father, our Savior, and our Comforter.
A quick glance at the remainder of chapter 20 through the first nineteen verses of chapter 23 reveals that many more laws were given through Moses. Indeed, 24:7 refers to this section of laws as the Book of the Covenant. Structurally, we find a set of forty-two laws (21:1-23:12) which are bookended by two sections of laws regulating Israel’s worship (20:22-26 and 23:14-19). John Sailhamer says of these laws:
The purpose of the selection was to provide a basis for teaching the nature of divine justice. By studying specific cases of the application of God’s will in concrete situations, the reader of the Pentateuch could learn the basic principles undergirding the covenant relationship. Whereas the “ten words” provided a general statement of the basic principles of justice which God demanded of his people, the examples listed here further demonstrated how those principles, or ideals, were to applied to real life situations.[1]
I think Sailhamer is correct. These laws are not meant to be exhaustive but to be examples of how to apply the Ten Commandments to specific situations. Of course, we will not be able to cover each of them thoroughly as we make our way through this text but will instead move through large chunks at a time in the coming weeks. But since these laws are each case studies in how to apply the Ten Commandments, I believe it is fitting for us to begin our study of them by choosing one to be a case study for these case studies.
I’ve chosen the second half of 23:19 to be that case study for a couple of reasons. First, I believe that this command has a special significance in being the final words of the Book of the Covenant. I find it fitting that we used to the Ten Commandments, which begin and summarize all of God’s law, to speak generally about God’s law, and then we use this law at the end of this section of text to be a specific example for how we ought to read, interpret, and obey God’s commandments.
I have also chosen this law because of how odd it is. Upon reading, we almost immediately wonder what exactly it means and why it ended up in the Bible, but then we quickly pass by it without any further thought. However, whenever we consider that the infinite God gave us the finite revelation of Himself in His Scriptures, we can rest assured that He did not waste His words with verses that are useless to us. And since this particular command is repeated two more times (Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), we can certainly assume that it is worth taking the time to meditate upon.
HOW DID PAUL INTERPRET THE LAW?
But before we dive into that command particularly, let us begin by establishing how Christians are to read these less studied commandments. It is easy to look at the Ten Commandments and to see how they still apply to us today as Christians. Idolatry is still sinful and so is murder, adultery, theft, and lies. But what do we do with the other laws that seem to be particularly for the people of Israel?
One answer is to distinguish between three kinds of laws in the Old Testament: moral, civil, and ceremonial. The moral law, which again is summarized by the Ten Commandments, is still in effect, while the civil and ceremonially laws have been abolished. While that is certainly true in a sense, I do not believe that gives us the full picture. As we saw in Hebrews, now that the new covenant has come the old covenant has certainly passed away, and to return back to the ceremonies and rituals of the old covenant is a rejection of the finished work of Christ. Indeed, Paul says that, in a sense, Christ did indeed abolish “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Ephesians 2:15). However, it is also true what Jesus Himself said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Yes, the laws of the old covenant have passed away but in the sense that Christ has fulfilled them. They were shadows of Him and His gospel. As we will see in the coming weeks, the tabernacle and all of its rites and furnishing were all visible signs pointing forward to the coming of Christ, quite similar to how baptism and the Lord’s Supper are now the visible signs pointing backward to what Christ has done for us.
As for the more ordinary of the laws, consider how Paul uses Deuteronomy 25:4 and makes an appeal back to the regulations of the tabernacle worship in 1 Corinthians 9:3-14:
This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?
Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?
Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
Notice how the Apostle Paul applies both the command not to muzzle an ox while it is treading grain and the practice of the Levitical priests being fed from the sacrifices being offered. Even though the Levitical priesthood has passed away and though few of us use oxen or even have a farm, there is an underlying principle in these commands that remains. The principle here is that those who work have the right to be fed from their work. Muzzling an ox would prevent the ox from being able to eat while it was working. Paul then specifically applies that principle to ministers of the gospel by making this conclusion: “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” This is perhaps a reference to Jesus’ charge to the Twelve as He sent them out, saying, “Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food” (Matthew 10:10).
FINDING THE PRINCIPLE
We can follow the same pattern with the command before us today: You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk. First, we must identify the principle that this law is setting forth. Over the years a number of potential answers have been proposed. Douglas Stuart explains God may have been prohibiting an idolatrous practice of the Canaanites:
Canaanite fertility religion imitated the fertility practices generally found throughout the ancient world. These included “marrying” seeds when planting a field (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:0) on the theory that such a ritual would magically stimulate the powers of nature to procreate, producing more fertile crops. Since mother’s milk (the milk of the goat doe) was what made the goat kids grow big and strong, the folk theory developed that doe’s milk employed in the process of a sacrifice (in this case by boiling rather than by roasting on an altar) would somehow impart strength to the goat flock, making the whole flock more fertile. Such nonsense, if believed, could have led the Israelites to conclude that the power to shape their destiny and to live the abundant life was to be found in magical practices and fertility religion rather than in the only true, alive God. Even if all other people groups known to them practices these sorts of rituals, the Israelite could not. As Yahweh’s people, they were to be above such things, attributing all life to the single Source thereof.[2]
That interpretation is quite plausible, and I would certainly not be surprised that it was referencing a pagan Canaanite practice.
John Sailhamer argues that the phrase “in its mother’s milk” is an idiom for a kid goat that was still nursing.
Thus the expression “Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” is intended to state the principle that only weaned animals are to be used as offerings. As such it is similar in function to the maxim “Is Saul also among the prophets?” which is found later in Scripture. In the case of the maxim about Saul, we have the actual situation out of which the maxim was formed. Saul, an unlikely candidate for the prophetic gift, began to prophesy as a sign of his being chosen as king over Israel (1Sa 10:11-12). Henceforth, any surprising act of God could be referred to by the saying, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1Sa 19:24). This would be like saying, “This is another miracle.”[3]
This too is possible since it would fit contextually with the first half of verse 19. The Israelites were to give their best to God as offerings, not young goats that hadn’t even been weaned yet. Of course, as Sailhamer notes, because we are given no explanation, there is no definitive proof that “in its mother’s milk” was actually such a figure of speech.
However, I believe the best interpretation is the one that seems to have the most historic pedigree. I will let Ryken explain:
Orthodox Jews take it a dietary law—a general prohibition on mixing meat products with dairy products. This is not what the verse says, however. The only thing forbidden is cooking a young goat in its own mother’s milk.
If there is a general principle here, it is pro-life: The source of life should never become the cause of death. A young goat is supposed to be nourished by its mother’s milk, not boiled in it. And so, in the words of the ancient Jewish scholar Philo, God considered it “grossly improper that the substance which fed the living animal should be used to season and flavor the same after its death.”[4]
Again, it is quite likely that the Canaanites had such a practice, which would make it fit contextually with verse 18 and the rest of 19. Israel was to give its best to the LORD and not to follow abominable offerings of the Canaanites, such a boiling a nursing goat in the very milk that was meant to sustain it.
IS IT FOR GOATS THAT GOD IS CONCERNED?
Following the pattern of Paul, we can ask: Is it for goats that God is concerned? Does He not speak for our sake? Whenever we consider the principle of an instrument of life being used for death, there is sadly no shortage of applications.
Abortion quickly comes to mind. Whenever a mother, who is meant to sacrificially surrender her body for the sake of her child, instead sacrifices her child in order to maintain her bodily autonomy, there is a gross inversion of God’s design for creation. It is a wicked perversion for the one who is designed to bring life into the world to destroy that life instead.
Of course, the same could be said for the doctors and nurses that perform abortions as well as euthanasia. The role of those within the medical system is to preserve life. Such a task certainly comes with difficult decisions, for there are times in which a doctor must ‘do harm’ for the greater goal of preserving life (i.e., amputations and chemotherapy). We should also note that palliative care is a legitimate role of medical care, for there is a great distinction between providing comfort to the dying and actually ending a life. We go too far in the opposite direction to think that life should be preserved at all costs, but directly ending a life is not legitimate medical care.
We may also consider abusive fathers under this principle. Few things are as life-giving and as indicative of future success a child who has a strong, tender, and attentive father. Conversely, the prison system and the porn industry both reek of the death that abusive and absent fathers bring.
Or should we consider the church? We should not take lightly the recent focus on the trauma inflicted by abusive churches or church environments. Both Augustine and Calvin said that God is the Father of the Christian and the church is his Mother; therefore, it should not be surprising that the damage that a church can inflict may cut as deeply as wounds caused by our actual parents.
This principle also explains why the New Testament has its most severe words for false teachers. There is nothing more life-giving than the gospel; therefore, there is nothing more corrupt than a man who claims to proclaim the gospel yet leads others into error. Listen to what 2 Peter 2:17-19 says,
These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption.
They hold out the hope of life but lead down the path to death. But they are not like doctors who malpractice and destroy the body; they are doctors of the soul whose malpractice causes an eternity of harm.
Sadly, the list can go on and on. In our sinful nature, we are experts of death and corruption. One of the most chilling phrases in all of Scripture is found in Romans 1:31: “inventors of evil.” Left to our own devices or, as Paul calls it, given over to our sins, we are each capable of such inventions. Thankfully, our Lord will not be outdone. One of the purposes of the law, as we noted last week, is to show us our sinfulness and point us toward our need of a Savior, which is the point that we have been making, yet the law also reveals to us the holy nature and will of God. Through this command, we get a glimpse at the marvelous character of our God, who does the exact opposite of the cruelty that this verse describes. In order to work our redemption, He chose to embrace one of the cruelest instruments of death ever devised.
Rome maintained its vast empire by having roads to quicken travel and by using the cross to discourage rebellion. The cross perfected wholistic torture. The body suspended upon raised planks of wood by nails driven through the person’s hands and feet. The scourging preceding crucifixion would rip skin and flesh to shreds, causing the condemned to lose enough blood to induce hypovolemic shock as their heart strained to provide enough blood to the vital organs, which would begin to ache with the strain of maintaining life. This trauma would cause fluid to build up in the lungs so that breathing could only be done by pushing against the nails in the feet. Between the constant lack of oxygen, the splinters digging into open wounds, and nails grinding against nerves, the cross punished more than the body; it broke the mind, the spirit, and the soul. After being suspended naked for all to see, the dead body would be thrown into the landfill, reminding everyone that this person had become nothing more than garbage to be disposed of. And since the Greeks and Romans believed that a person could only properly enter the afterlife if their body was buried, the lack of burial condemned the crucified to a hundred years of restless wandering.
The mysterious glory of the gospel is that Jesus was willingly crucified according to the plan of His Father to give His own life as a substitute for the death that our sins earned. He is the Son of God who left His throne to rescue the very rebels who rejected His divine authority by working death out of the life that He freely created. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried to ransom us from the curse of sin and death. And since death could not contain Him, His resurrection now cries out to us that the cross, the tree of death, has become for us the tree of life. Eternal life, therefore, now comes through the cross. As in Eden and as when all things are made new, this is the tree of life that stands in the midst of God’s people. While we take instruments of life and use them for death, Christ took an instrument of death and offers us life everlasting.
As we come to the Table of our King, let us give thanks for Christ’s once for all sacrifice that has eliminated our need to present other insufficient offerings to God. Let the bread and cup remind us of Christ’s broken body and outpoured blood. Indeed, let us taste and see the goodness of our God who through the death of His beloved Son has made us alive with Him forevermore.
We should remember that the third purpose of the law is show what sort of lives we ought to live in thankful obedience to our Redeemer. With that in mind, we should remember that the call to follow Christ is a call to come and die, to take up our own crosses and to crucify ourselves upon them each day as we walk in the newness of life that Christ has given to us in Himself. Brothers and sisters, the world around us delights in taking things of life and using them to work death, and they do so because they are citizens of the domain of darkness and follow after the prince of this world. But in Christ we are of the new creation. Therefore, let us go into the world displaying the light and life of Christ to those around us through dying to ourselves and walking in love for our Lord and for our neighbor.
[1] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 290.
[3] Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 294.
B. C. Newton 