Why is eating dairy products and meat in the same meal considered not kosher?

We are aware that the two questions, the one by the Pharisees and the other, the Lord's counter question in the beginning of the fifteenth chapter, are not fully grasped by many readers of the Word. The Jews believed and still believe (at least, the orthodox) in a written law and in an oral law. This they founded upon Exodus 34:27 and taught that while Moses wrote down a law another oral law was given to him and that this oral law was handed down from generation to generation. It is believed by them that Moses received both the written and the oral law on Mount Sinai. They placed the oral law above the written law. (The words of the scribes are lovely above the words of the law; for the words of the law are light and weighty, but the words of the scribes are all weighty. -- Beracoth.) Circumstances, however, forced them to commit the oral law to writing, which was done in the Talmud (meaning doctrine), from which we can learn all the ridiculous paraphrases and wicked additions to the law the ancients had made under the plea that it was given by God. To illustrate what interpretation they put upon certain statements of the law we select Exodus 34:26: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." The oral law has expounded this to mean that it is a sin to eat meat and drink milk at the same time, and the elders have gone so far as to declare, if a pot of milk boils over and some of the milk drops into a pot of meat, the meat is unclean and must be thrown away. Butter, coming from milk, is likewise not to be eaten with meat, etc.

Before proceeding to quote for the reader the lovely paragraph which closes our chapter, we would very briefly call his attention to the last clause of verse 21. "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." The fact that this commandment is given three times, in various connections, is sufficient to mark it as one of special interest and practical importance. The question is, what does it mean? what are we to learn from it? We believe it teaches very plainly that the Lord's people must carefully avoid everything contrary to nature. Now, it was, manifestly, contrary to nature that what was intended for a creature's nourishment should be used to seethe it.

We find, all through the word of God, great prominence given to what is according to nature — what is comely. "Does not even nature itself teach you?" says the inspired apostle, to the assembly at Corinth. There are certain feelings and instincts implanted in nature, by the Creator, which must never be outraged. We may set it down as a fixed principle, an axiom in Christian ethics, that no action can possibly be of God that offers violence to the sensibilities proper to nature. The Spirit of God may, and often does, lead us beyond and above nature, but never against it.

The first of the firstfruits of their land was to be brought into the house of the Lord their God. In Deut. 26 will be found a beautiful description of this obligation, together with the manner in which it was to be discharged. It is an inspired exposition of this injunction. Lastly, we have a most remarkable prohibition. (v. 19.) Three times it is found in the Scriptures. (Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21.) God will have His people tenderly careful, guarding them from the violation of any single instinct of nature. The milk of the mother was the food, the sustenance of the kid, and hence this must not be used to seethe it as food for others. Some have seen a spiritual teaching in this enactment. That analogies might be profitably drawn is undoubtedly true; but this would be more suited to private study than for public exposition.

The closing sentence of verse 19 is certainly remarkable. One may wonder why it comes in here, and why repeated in Deuteronomy 14:21. May it not be to show us that while God demands that His rights and the rights of His house be scrupulously honoured, it is His will that what is seemly be observed as to even the lowliest of His creatures? The goat gives her milk, as ordained of God, to sustain the life of her kid. It is not seemly therefore to use what God has ordained for life as an instrument connected with its death. Let us all ponder whether the principle involved in this may not have some spiritual application for us today.

I apprehend as to seething a kid in its mother's milk, that one of the characters of idolatry, of Satan's power, is to destroy the order, affections and comeliness which God has established in nature. Christianity raises above it, but respects it all. He degrades in every way by what is unnatural. The way this was done in idolatry is remarkable, and diligently and horribly. This was an example as to tender and kindly affections. If you are at all acquainted with the horrors of idolatry - a profitless learning, I am sure, morally - or even remarking what scripture refers to briefly, but perfectly, you cannot but see how true this is. All this the law forbade. As to 2 Peter 3:10-12, I apprehend it means but the materials of which the crust of the globe is composed. It will be melted down by fire (as it was once inundated by waters) to form a new earth, atmospheric heaven, etc.

Ex. 23:19, pp. 27, 96. — Among the efforts of Satan's power in idolatry, as another reminds me, one was to destroy the order, affections, and comeliness which God has established in nature. Christianity respects, though it raises above, all such proprieties, while Satan degrades them in every way by what is unnatural. This seething of a kid in its mother's milk was an example in respect of tender and kindly affections. Those who are even moderately acquainted with the horrors of idolatry, will remember how universal and systematic were such outrages. All this the law forbade.

Another injunction follows: "a cow or a sheep — it, and its young — shall ye not slaughter in one day." Jehovah cultivates seemliness in His people. If He commanded sacrifice strictly and reverently, it was both to make guilt and self-will felt and confessed, and yet more the One Saviour and only sacrifice of efficacy for sin before Him. But He also would have delicacy of feeling, even when a dumb or dead beast was concerned, as when He forbade seething a kid in the milk of its dam. All scripture is against the coarse brutality habitual to the heathen who knew not the true God.

After this follow the general institutions of the law, which mainly insist on retribution. Advantage must not be taken of the weak or subject; violence cannot go unpunished, any more than dishonour where we owe reverence; responsibility for what is allowed, were it but a mischievous brute; restitution must be made, and this double, fourfold, or even fivefold, according to the wrong; neither a witch nor an offender unnaturally could live; neither stranger nor widow nor orphan must be vexed or afflicted; neither poor must be burdened, nor judges reviled; but God is to be honoured with the first of the fruits, and of the sons, as well as of the cattle. Israel are to approve themselves as holy men to God. False report and testimony are forbidden, were a multitude to lead the way; as on the other hand there must be no partiality to the poor man's cause, nor a refusal to help an enemy, nor falsehood, nor bribery, nor oppression. The seventh year was to be enjoyed as the land's Sabbath, even as the seventh day by each Israelite, who must avoid naming false gods, but keep the due feasts thrice a year to the true God, not offering blood with leavened bread, nor letting the fat remain till the morning. A prohibition occurs of a peculiar kind, and is repeated not only in a later part of this book, but also in Deuteronomy: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." God would guard His people from an outrage in comeliness, were it even about a dumb or dead animal; as Satan triumphs in all that is abnormal and unnatural in the superstitions which usurp the place of the truth, and are bound up with idolatry. His angel is promised, not only to keep and lead Israel, but to bring them in, spite of the doomed Canaanites, who should be driven out: they should have no covenant with them or their gods. (Ex. 21-23) These points do not call for particular remarks.

Deuteronomy 14 insists on what became the children of Jehovah their God in abstaining from unseemly maimings or disfigurements for the dead, as well as from any food which He, who knew better than they, pronounced abominable. They are then shown what may or may not be eaten, whether beasts, fishes, or fowls. A people holy to Jehovah must not eat anything that dies of itself, nor accustom itself to an uncomely act, were it with a dumb and dead kid and the milk of its dam.

The three feasts are next mentioned. The connection with verse 13 is obvious. It is a warning concerning other gods. The feasts were designed to keep Jehovah, His power and His grace, as a living reality before the nation. The three feasts are: The feast of unleavened bread in memory of the exodus; the feast of the first fruits, also called the feast of weeks, because it came seven weeks after the feast of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:15-16; Deut. 16:9), and still another name is "the feast of the first fruits of the wheat harvest." It was now known by the name of Shavuoth. The third feast came on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Lev 23:34), and is the feast of ingathering, known as Succoth, the feast of tabernacles. Of all this we shall learn more in Leviticus. The last clause of verse 19 has led to ridiculous speculations among the rabbis. It is looked upon by the Jews as a prohibition against eating flesh prepared with milk (see Deuteronomy 14:21).