Exodus 23:19

Exodus 23:19 . Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk — It is remarkable that this command, extraordinary as it is, is repeated Exodus 34:26 , and Deuteronomy 14:21 , and that, as here, in connection with the offering of the first-fruits. Hence it has been conjectured that it has a reference to the payment of these fruits, and to some superstitious practices which the Pagans used on these occasions, who were wont, it seems, when they had gathered in all the fruits of the earth, to boil a kid in its mother’s milk, and “to sprinkle the trees, and fields, and gardens, with the broth in a magical manner, to make them more fruitful the following year.” See Dr. Cudworth, On the Lord’s Supper, page 14. Some, however, with an appearance of probability, take this for a prohibition against offering any animal in sacrifice when it was milky and unformed, or before it was eight days old, till which time it was to be left with its dam, Exodus 22:30 . And others, again, consider the precept as being chiefly intended, like many other of God’s laws, to prevent cruelty toward the creatures, and to inculcate a mild and tender disposition.

(19) The first of the firstfruits — i.e., the very first that ripen. There was a natural tendency to “delay” the offering ( Exodus 22:29 ) until a considerable part of the harvest had been got in. True gratitude makes a return for benefits received as soon as it, can. “ Bis dat qui cito dat.” The house of the Lord. Comp. Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 23:18. It is known to Moses that the “place which God will choose to put his name there” is to be a “house,” or “temple.” Thou shalt not seethe a kid.—A fanciful exegesis connects the four precepts of Exodus 23:18-19 with the three feasts—the two of Exodus 23:18 with the Paschal festival, that concerning firstfruits in Exodus 23:19 with the feast of ingathering, and this concerning kids with the feast of tabernacles. To support this theory it is suggested that the command has reference to a superstitious practice customary at the close of the harvest—a kid being then boiled in its mother’s milk with magic rites, and the milk used to sprinkle plantations, fields, and gardens, in order to render them more productive the next year. But Deuteronomy 14:21, which attaches the precept to a list of unclean meats, is sufficient to show that the kid spoken of was boiled to be eaten. The best explanation of the passage is that of Bochart (Hierozoic. pt. 1, bk. 2, Exo. 52), that there was a sort of cruelty in making the milk of the mother, intended for the kid’s sustenance, the means of its destruction.

This seems to be a general rule, extending to all the fruits which the earth first produced; in every kind of which the very first are here enjoined to be offered unto God, before they should presume to eat any of them. It may seem to be repeated here, where the year of rest is mentioned to leach them the first-fruits were to be given to God of all that the earth produced, not only by their labour and seed, as might be thought from Exodus 23:16 , but also of its own accord, as is here implied. He names one kind, under which he understands a lamb, or a calf, &c., according to the use of Scripture style. This law many understand literally, and that it is forbidden to them, because the idolaters had such a custom, whereof yet there seems to be no sufficient proof; nor, if there were, doth it seem to be a rite of that importance or probability to entice the Israelites to imitate it, that there needed a particular law against this, more than against a hundred such ridiculous usages which were among the heathen, and are not taken notice of in the book of God’s laws. The words may be rendered thus, Thou shalt not seethe, or roast , (for the word bashal signifies to roast as well as to boil, as it is evident from Deu 16:7 ) a kid, being, or whilst it is (which is to be understood, there being nothing more common than an ellipsis of the verb substantive) in his mother’s milk; which it may be said to be, either, 1.

Whilst it sucks its mother’s milk; and so it may admit of a twofold interpretation: (1.) That this is to be understood of the passover, of which most conceive he had now spoken, Exodus 23:18 , in which they used either a lamb or a kid, Exodus 12:5 , and then the word bashal must be rendered roast . (2.) That this speaks not of sacrifice to God, wherein sucking creatures were allowed, Exodus 22:30 Leviticus 22:27 1 Samuel 7:9 , but of man’s use; and so God ordained this, partly because this was unwholesome food, and principally to restrain cruelty, even towards brute creatures, and luxury in the use of them. Or rather, 2. Whilst it is very tender and young, rather of a milky than of a fleshy substance, like that young kid of which Juvenal thus speaks, Qui plus lactis habet quam sanguinis , i.e. which hath more milk than blood in it. And it may he said to be in its mother’s milk , by a usual hypallage, when its mother’s milk is in it , i.e. whilst the milk it sucks as it were, remains in it undigested and unconverted into flesh, even as a man is oft said to be in the Spirit , when indeed the Spirit is in him . And what is here indefinitely prohibited, is elsewhere particularly explained, and the time defined, to wit, that it be not offered to God before it was eight days old.

The first of the firstfruits of thy land - The "best," or "chief" of the firstfruits, that is, the two wave loaves described Leviticus 23:17 . As the preceding precept appears to refer to the Passover, so it is likely that this refers to Pentecost. They are called in Leviticus, "the firstfruits unto the Load;" and it is reasonable that they should here be designated the "chief" of the firstfruits. If, with some, we suppose the precept to relate to the offerings of firstfruits in general, the command is a repetition of Exodus 22:29 . Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk - This precept is repeated. See the marginal references. If we connect the first of the two preceding precepts with the Passover, and the second with Pentecost, it seems reasonable to connect this with the Feast of Tabernacles. The only explanation which accords with this connection is one which refers to a superstitious custom connected with the harvest; in which a kid was seethed in its mother's milk to propitiate in some way the deities, and the milk was sprinkled on the fruit trees, fields and gardens, as a charm to improve the crops of the coming year.

Others take it to be a prohibition of a custom of great antiquity among the Arabs, of preparing a gross sort of food by stewing a kid in milk, with the addition of certain ingredients of a stimulating nature: and others take it in connection with the prohibitions to slaughter a cow and a calf, or a ewe and her lamb, on the same day Leviticus 22:28, or to take a bird along with her young in the nest Deuteronomy 22:6. It is thus understood as a protest against cruelty and outraging the order of nature.

Verse 19. - Law of first-fruits . The first of the first-fruits may mean either "the best of the first-fruits" (see Numbers 18:12 ), or "the very first of each kind that is ripe" ( ib , verse 13). On the tendency to delay, and not bring the very first, see the comment on Exodus 22:29. The house of the Lord . Generally, in the Pentateuch we have the periphrasis" the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to put his name there" ( Deuteronomy 12:5, 11, 14 ; Deuteronomy 16:16 ; Deuteronomy 26:2 , etc.); but here, and in Exodus 34:26 , and again in Deuteronomy 23:18 , this "place" is plainly declared to be a "house" or "temple." Law against seething a kid in the mother's milk . The outline of law put before the Israelites in the "Book of the Covenant" terminated with this remarkable prohibition. Its importance is shown - 1. By its place here; and 2. By its being thrice repeated in the law of Moses (see Exodus 34:26 ; and Deuteronomy 14:21 ). Various explanations have been given of it; but none is saris-factory, except that which views it as "a protest against cruelty, and outraging the order of nature," more especially that peculiarly sacred portion of nature's order, the tender relation between parent and child, mother and suckling. No doubt the practice existed. Kids were thought to be most palatable when boiled in milk; and the mother's milk was frequently the readiest to obtain.

But in this way the mother was made a sort of accomplice in the death of her child, which men were induced to kill on account of the flavour that her milk gave it. Reason has nothing to say against such a mode of preparing food, but feeling revolts from it; and the general sense of civilised mankind reechoes the precept, which is capable of a wide application - Thou shalt not seethe a kind in his mother's milk. CHAPTER 23:20-31 Exodus 23:19

19a. Firstfruits to be brought to Jehovah’s house. the first of the firstripe fruits ] ‘Firstripe fruits’ ( bikkurim ) seems to be used here in the wider sense noticed on v. 16; and it is said either (Ges.) that the earliest , or (Kn., Ke.) that the first (i.e. the choicest, best : rçshîth as Amos 6:1 ; Amos 6:6 ), of these are to be presented to Jehovah: comp. esp. Ezekiel 44:30 . The rend. the best , (even) the firstripe fruits, of thy ground (Di., Benzinger, EB. iv. 4910, Nowack, Arch. ii. 256, Bä.) is less natural. As regards the relation of this law to that in v. 16, v. 16 alludes only to the bikkurim to be presented at the Feast of Weeks; the present law is wider, and would include for instance the firstfruits of the grape and olive harvest, which fell later in the year (according to the Mishna, bikkurim were offered on ‘seven kinds,’ viz. wheat, barley, vines, figtrees, pomegranates, oil, and honey: see Gray, Numbers ., p. 228). It seems to be a parallel to the law in Exodus 22:29 ; the two laws probably belonged originally to two distinct collections, and both were preserved on account of the difference in their form.

The amount of firstfruits to be offered is not prescribed; and is evidently left to the free will of the individual offerer (cf. v. 15b; Deuteronomy 16:17 ). the house of Jehovah ] The expression might denote the hêkal , or temple, at Shiloh ( Jdg 18:31 , 1 Samuel 1:7 ; 1 Samuel 1:24 ; 1 Samuel 3:15 ), or the Temple of Solomon ( 1 Kings 8:10 , and often): it might also, presumably, denote the local sanctuary nearest to the offerer’s own home; for these, or at least the principal ones, had almost certainly ‘houses’ or shrines (cf. 1 Kings 12:31 , 2 Kings 17:32 , Amos 7:13 ; Amos 9:1 ). The Tent of meeting might also perhaps be spoken of generally as the ‘house,’ or abode, of Jehovah; but the term is not a very natural one to apply to it; and where it does apparently denote the Tent of meeting ( Joshua 6:2 [but ‘the house of’ omitted in LXX., as in v. 19 in the Heb.], Exodus 9:23 end ), or the tent erected for the ark by David ( 2 Samuel 12:20 ; cf. 2 Samuel 6:17 ), is open to the suspicion of having been used by the writers on account of their familiarity with the Temple of Solomon (in 2 Samuel 7:6 a ‘tent’ denied to be a ‘house’). The present law must have been formulated it seems natural to think, without any reference to the Tent of meeting. 19b. A kid not to be boiled in its mother’s milk. Repeated verbatim , in the "" Exodus 34:26 b, and Deuteronomy 14:21 b.