Cooking a kid in its mother's milk
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." Exodus 23:19. It’s been suggested that there were idolatrous practices that involved doing just this so this law prohibits that. Perhaps. But then there were idolatrous practices which involved roasting, butchering, bleeding and all kinds of things that were embodied in Mosaic ritual practice so why weren't these forbidden? A Ugaritic text has been offered as a parallel to Exodus 23:19. It’s a text that needs reconstructed and the most likely reconstruction of it is debated. It might say, “Cook a kid in milk, a lamb in butter.” In any case, this isn’t a parallel to the biblical text which doesn’t forbid cooking a kid in milk. This passage forbids cooking a kid in its mother’s milk.
It’s true the Mishnah forbids the cooking of any meat in milk (except fish and locusts—Hullin 8:1) but that was done to avoid the possibility of offending against the Exodus 23:19 law. The rabbis even forbade the eating of cheese and meat together. But the Pentateuchal law three times forbids cooking a kid “in its mother’s milk.” Maybe there is a Canaanite fertility rite being opposed but there is no clear indication that this is so.
Maybe Chadwick is right, the simplest explanation is the correct one. In 23:5 the law urges Israel to assist the overburdened animal even if you have an emotional conflict with its owner. In 23:10-11 the law provides food for even the wild animals. In 23:12 the law provides rest for the domestic animals—note the "so that". The psalms assure us that God provides food and drink for the whole creation, animals and birds included (Psalm 104:13-14; 145:15-16; 147:8-9 and elsewhere).
Exodus 23:19 may then be an expression of God’s care for the animal world (which has theological and moral ramifications for us in terms of ecology and human relationships). In offering the first fruits sacrifice of animals, 22:30 tells us the animal is not to be separated from its mother for a full seven days (cf. Leviticus 22:27; Deuteronomy 22:6-7). While such laws have religious significance, there is no reason to choose the strictly religious significance and reject the humane. It seems very clear that all the laws of the covenant, in some way or another, have ramifications for the life of Israel at the human level and nurtured compassion, fairness and sensitivity.
Deuteronomy 25:4 says the ox must not be muzzled while he treads out the corn. The law shows concern for the ox. Paul’s use of it in 1 Corinthians 9:9 does not deny that, it simply makes the point that if indeed God’s cares for oxen—which he does—he certainly cares for his human servants. To accuse Paul of denying not only what OT texts taught but also what every Jew of his day believed is nonsense! Just the same, we need to note what he did with a passage that legislated concerning a non-reasoning creature. He believed that the principle of the text went beyond oxen to people. Should that surprise us? His Master said, If God feeds the birds which are sold two for a farthing, he will feed his people who ‘are much more valuable’ (Matthew 6:25-26 and parallels).
In a fairly well controlled and self-sufficient community such as Israel things were simpler than they are today in a world of international commerce. It isn’t always possible to assess fairly what is gratuitous violence, greed or cruelty. The killing of baby seals for food and clothing by those who live in that part of the world is not in the same league as killing them to make luxuries for bored people who have more money than they know what to do with. To abort a developing human to save the life of the mother, whatever else one might think of it, we shouldn’t put in the same category as using aborted developing humans to manufacture cosmetics.
Whatever else is true about Exodus 23:19, people have always felt it shows a kind of callousness and perverseness, a perverting of nature, to take what was meant to sustain and nourish the offspring and make it the instrument of its death; to use what the baby delighted in to cause its death.
To force a defenceless mother to choose or assist in the death of her child has that kind of spirit in it. The Nazi camp-commander, approached by the Jewish mother, begging him to spare her two little boys, cruelly said he’d allow one to live but she had to make the choice or both would die. He “cooked a kid in its mother’s milk.” To seduce a girl, by well-oiled speech to choose between her family and the baby growing within her is to “cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” For a young man (or woman) to use the deep emotion of one who loves them as the means of getting them to dishonour themselves is “to cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”
There are many ways to engage in this kind of perversity.
There are people who use their illness as a tool to hurt those who love them deeply and dearly. Counting on that love and devotion, in a fit of spite and with sly purpose, they sometimes feign pain or feign worse pain than they’re really experiencing, or injure themselves to break the carer’s heart. He (or she) has done something that has offended them, you see, so they use their sickness as a weapon but it can only work as a weapon when they can be sure of the love of the one they wish to hurt. Such people are ill in more ways than one. They “cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Children, in spite, to inflict pain, sometimes engage in things they know will grieve the hearts of the parents [“I’ll make them sorry! If I end up on the streets or addicted they’ll feel guilty!”]. They count on the love of the parents and they use that love to bring about grief and profound pain. They “boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Astonishing!
And, yet, so common, so widespread. So perverse!
No comments:
Post a Comment