score:17
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.
Upvote:3
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.
Upvote:7
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.