Seething Kids in Mother's Milk

In a recent Bible study, I made application of the scriptural prohibition of "seething a kid in its mother's milk." Interestingly, this obscure statute is found in three places- Exodus 23:19; 34:26; and Deuteronomy 14:21- God giving three witnesses to a principle. 

The Rabbis make a rule of this forbidding the consumption of dairy and meat together, even prohibiting using the same dishes or storage places for both. However, this stretches a specific prohibition of a kid in its own mother’s milk to include all animals of any age and all milk being located in the same proximity. Is this a logical interpretation, or does this make void the word of God by their tradition?

Paul the apostle took an obscure regulation occurring in Moses only once- Deuteronomy 25:4, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.”- and made broader application twice- 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18- saying, God is concerned here with more than the ox; and the laborer is worthy of his pay. Can we not make a similar application of God’s three witness concern a kid and its mother’s milk?

Principle: An immature offspring should not suffer or die by means of what is meant to nourish from its own mother. 

Our mother is the church. We are the children of God, of his flock, brought into the covenant by and through the church’s labor. Our milk, until we are strong enough for meat, is the simple substance of God’s word. Yet, it is possible, and too often happens, that young Christians are beaten up with what is meant to nourish, bring life and encourage growth. Such can happen when the word of God is misinterpreted, misapplied, used out of context, in a manner contrary to its intent, out of season, with a haughty spirit, in an accusatory manner rather than one that edifies. And, such may be done by believers with much zeal for the things of God but lacking wisdom in speaking the truth in love. 

 Does the KJV Qualify as Vulgar?

I wrote the following in July of 2009, while living and ministering in Boise, to answer to the Question: “Does the KJV qualify as ‘vulgar language’ as required by WCF I:8?”  A few thoughts: 

1) The AV was not standard English when it was fresh.  It gave us a sort of Hebraicized English with its formal equivalent style of translation. This style did not make the text beyond understanding; and left ambiguities of the original as ambiguities rather than force a particular interpretation into the translation. 

2) That said, the wide circulation and use of the AV and Shakespeare perhaps did much to standardize the English language, much as the Quran did for Arabic and Cervantes did for Spanish.  I dispute the contention English has changed more in the last four hundred years than any equivalent time before.  There is far greater difference between the Chaucer’s English and the AV than between the AV and today. Canterbury Tales to the AV was approximately 220 years. 

3) “Vulgar” may mean “common” much the same as “koine.”  Koine was the common international language of the Greco-Hellenistic world.  Paul wrote the Romans in Koine, not Latin.  The AV is common to English speaking peoples.  One will find churches in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, India, and North America using the AV and understanding it.  The AV is a truly “common” translation of the scriptures.  For the same reason, the 1650 Scottish Psalter is the “common” Psalter of the English language. 

4) While I’m not opposed to the use of different translations of the Bible or Psalter, and would favor a modern, international, ecclesiastical, Reformed translation of the Bible based upon the TR, we don’t have such. 

5) Having read and considered the previous thread, I will continue to read the AV in public worship, when necessary providing a brief preface of obscure words, phrases or grammar, the same way I might explain some strange Hebrew cultural or historical reference in the text.  I do the same when we regularly sing from the 1650 Psalter. I do so without any concern I may be violating the intent of WCF I:8. It is important we read, hear, sing, pray and preach with understanding.  If the AV is not understandable, neither are the Westminster Standards. 

BTW, here in the Treasure Valley of Idaho, where one often encounters KJV-Only cultists and Mormons, the AV is more readily accepted by them as authoritative.   

I can’t tolerate “churchy” language, practice or piety; but, dignity and reverence in public worship is not the same.  When unbelievers dare enter the precincts of Mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the general assembly and church of the firstborn, they might expect it to look and sound different than the world. So, they have to strain a little to hear the accents of Sion; I have to do that when I’m in New Jersey, New York, Boston, Glasgow or London. Doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate those fine places or would not visit them again, even though many of the natives don't speak a vulgar English.