Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 14:21
Ye shall not eat [of] any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that [is] in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou [art] a holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
21. Ye shall not eat of any thing which dieth of itself ] Lit. any carcase, anything found dead, without being slain by the finder. There is a possible case in Doughty, ii. 129; but usually when an Arab sees his camel must die, in consequence of an accident, he slays it forthwith.
thou mayest give it unto the stranger ] The gr or foreigner settled in Israel (see on Deu 1:16), distinct from the following foreigner, not settled, but trading, with Israel.
E, Exo 22:30 (31) enjoins that flesh torn of beasts shall be given to dogs; but H, Lev 17:15, enjoins that neither that which dies of itself nor what is torn of beasts shall be eaten either by Israelite or by gr: obviously a later law, when the position of the gr was more established in Israel and he was brought further into religious communion.
for thou art an holy people ] As in Deu 14:2.
See further on Unclean and Clean Foods, Appendix I.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk ] So E, Exo 23:19, and J, Exo 34:26. The prohibition has a natural seemliness like those laws in H, Lev 22:27 f., which forbid the sacrifice of a calf, lamb, or kid till it has been seven days under the dam, and the sacrifice of the dam and young together [134] . But there must be other motives behind the law. That it occurs among laws on ritual implies that the practice it vetoes had a sacramental meaning (as Calvin on Exo 33:19 points out); that both in E and J it immediately follows the offering of first-fruits suggests that this meaning was connected with the security of the harvest or of the fertility of the soil: ‘a superstitious usage of some of the Gentiles, who, ’tis said, at the end of their harvest seethed a kid in its dam’s milk, and sprinkled that milk pottage in a magical way upon their gardens and fields to make them the more fruitful the next year [135] .’
[134] Some have even supposed that it was meant to exclude kids from use as food till they were weaned, which is neither ‘agreeable to reason’ (Calvin) nor to H’s law quoted above.
[135] M. Henry on Exo 23:19. He may have got this from Maimonides through Bochart, or through Spencer whose Leges Hebraeorum was published some years before his own commentary. W. R. Smith ( Ret. Sem. 204 n.) suggests that as certain primitive peoples appear to regard milk as equivalent to blood, the seething of a kid in its mother’s milk would involve the partakers of the flesh in the guilt of ‘eating with the blood.’ Calvin had made the same suggestion with a more apposite emphasis: ‘God would not admit a monstrous thing in His sacrifice, that a kid’s flesh should be cooked in its dam’s milk, and thus, as it were, in its own blood.’ From its wording this law cannot mean the prohibition of any milk in sacrifice (to-day in Arabia sheep and goats are said to taste better when boiled in milk, Musil, Ethn. Ber. 149, and are frequently so cooked), yet it is significant that milk nowhere appears among the festal offerings of Israel, probably because of its ready fermentation (W. R. Smith).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Deu 14:21
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mothers milk.
Cultivation of the feelings a Christian duty
I. That which commentators upon Scripture have found intricate and uncertain, writers of a more secular character have seized upon and read rightly. Some of you may remember the use made of it in one of those classical works of fiction of which Englishmen are so justly proud; where the intended victim of a deep-laid plot is lured to her destruction by an imitation of her husbands signal, and one of the conspirators says to his more guilty accomplice, Thou hast destroyed her by means of her best affections. It is a seething of the kid in the mothers milk! A just and thrilling application of the inspired charge; of which the simplest meaning is the true one. Thou shalt not blunt thy natural feelings, or those of others, by disregarding the inward dictate of a Divine humanity: human nature shrinks from the idea of using that which ought to be the food of a newborn animal, to prepare that animal to be mans food; of applying the mothers milk to a purpose so opposite to that for which God destined it: harden not thy heart against this instinct of tenderness on the plea that it matters not to the slain animal in what particular way it is dressed, or that the living parent, void of reason, has no consciousness of the inhumanity: for thine own sake refrain from that which is hardhearted; from that which, though it inflicts not pain, springs out of selfishness, indicates a spirit unworthy of man and forgetful of God, and tends still further to blunt those moral sensibilities which once lost are commonly lost forever, and with them all that is most beautiful and most attractive in the human character.
II. The text seems to teach us most of all the wickedness of using for selfish or wrong purposes the sacred feelings of another; of availing ourselves of the knowledge of anothers affections to make him miserable or to make him sinful; of trifling, in this sense, with the most delicate workings of the human mechanism, and turning to evil account that insight into character with which God has endowed us all, in different degrees, for purposes wholly beneficent, pure, and good.
III. In proportion as you learn and practise early that regard for others feelings which is almost synonymous with Christian charity, in that same degree will you become, not effeminate, but in the best of all senses manly; having put away childish things, and anticipated the noblest qualities of a Christian maturity. We pray in the Litany, From hardness of heart, good Lord, deliver us. Hardness of heart has two aspects; towards man, and towards God. Towards God it is brought about by acts of neglect, leading to habits of neglect; by a disregard of His word and commandments, issuing in what is called in the same petition, a contempt of both. Towards man, it is produced in us in a similar way; by repeated acts of disregard, leading to a habit of disregard; by blinding ourselves to others feelings, and saying and doing every day things which wound them, till at last we become unconscious of their very existence, and think nothing real which is not, in some manner, our own. That is hardness of heart in its full growth; selfishness unrestrained and unlimited. Many people are walking about in that state; with a heart hardened utterly both towards man and towards God. And they pass for respectable men too: in them religion and charity, worship and almsgiving, have become alike workings of selfishness regulated by calculations of self-interest, and never looking beyond earth for their reward. That you may not become thus seared, you must watch and pray, while you can, against hardness of heart. You must practise its opposite. Try to think more than you do of others, and less than you do of yourselves. Enter into the feelings one of another. Think not only what is your right, or what you can get, or what you are used to, in such and such a matter; but also what others would like, what would give pleasure, what would make their life happy, in small things or great; and sometimes do that; form the habit of doing that. (Dean Vaughan.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 21. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.] Mr. Calmet thinks that this precept refers to the paschal lamb only, which was not to be offered to God till it was weaned from its mother; but See Clarke on Ex 23:19.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Unto the stranger; not to the proselyte, for such were obliged by this law, Lev 17:15, but to such as were strangers in religion as well as in nation.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. Ye shall not eat of any thingthat dieth of itself(See on Le17:15; Le 22:8).
thou shalt give it unto thestranger that is in thy gatesnot a proselyte, for he, as wellas an Israelite, was subject to this law; but a heathen traveller orsojourner.
Thou shalt not seethe a kidin his mother’s milkThis is the third place in which theprohibition is repeated [Exo 23:19;Exo 34:26]. It was pointed againstan annual pagan ceremony (see on Ex23:19; Ex 34:26).
[De14:22-29. LAW OF THETITHE].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself,…. This law is repeated from Le 17:15,
[See comments on Le 17:15]:
thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; not to the proselyte of righteousness, for he might not eat of it any more than an Israelite, and if he did, he was obliged to wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and was unclean until the evening, as in Le 17:15 but to a proselyte of the gate, who took upon him, as Jarchi observes, not to serve idols, one that has renounced idolatry, but has not embraced the Jewish religion; such an one might eat of things that died of themselves, or were not killed in a proper manner. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan call him an uncircumcised stranger or proselyte, who had not submitted to circumcision, as the proselyte of righteousness did:
or thou mayest sell it unto an alien; an idolater, one that was neither a proselyte of righteousness nor of the gate, an entire alien from the commonwealth of Israel; one that was occasionally in the land of Canaan, or was travelling in it or through it, to such an one it might be sold:
for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; separated from all others, and devoted to his service, and therefore must live on clean, food and good meat, and not eat what others might:
thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk; this is the third time this law is mentioned; refer to the notes, [See comments on Ex 23:19],
[See comments on Ex 34:26]; the reason of which repetition, the Jewish writers say s, is, that it is once said to forbid the eating it, a second time to forbid any use of it or profit by it, and a third time to forbid the boiling of it.
s Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 9.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verse 21:
Compare this verse with Lev 17:15 and comments thereon.
“The stranger” likely refers to an uncircumcised foreigner who lived among the Israelites.
“Alien,” a foreigner who is not a resident in Israel.
For the prohibitions of seething or boiling a kid goat in its mother’s milk, see Exo 23:19; Exo 34:26.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Deu 14:21
. Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself. The eating of any carcase, or of flesh torn by wild beasts, is reckoned among the causes of defilement; but we must understand it to be the carcase of an animal which has died of hunger or disease, for, from the nature of its death, it contracted impurity, although in itself it were otherwise pure. The end of the precept is gathered from the reason which is immediately subjoined, “for thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God,” and from the ablution which is prescribed in the passage from Leviticus. The same thing is, secondly, enjoined respecting flesh that has been torn, as before with regard to the carcase, for the deformity of its laceration is counted as uncleanness. The holiness of the people is again referred to, that they may more diligently beware of defilements. Hence it follows that those were contaminated who should eat of torn flesh. Therefore, in the third passage, he confirms it that the Jews were to abstain, and were prohibited from the eating of a carcase or the flesh of an animal torn by beasts, lest they should pollute themselves. Nor is it an objection that the eating of carrion and of blood are here prohibited in conjunction with each other; for we know that Moses does not always arrange his precepts in order, but promiscuously adduces such as appertain to different classes. Therefore, I have thought it well to separate these two prohibitions which have distinct objects, and whose dissimilarity manifestly appears from the difference of their punishment. He who shall have eaten blood shall be cut off from the people; whereas he who shall have eaten carrion, shall wash himself and be unclean till the evening. A question might again arise respecting torn or lacerated flesh; but it seems in my judgment to be plain enough from the context, that flesh torn by beasts is counted amongst unclean meats; for the reason of the law is expressed, viz., because those who were chosen to be a holy people should keep themselves pure and incorrupt. Nor would God command that meat intended for man should be thrown to dogs, unless it were infected with a contagion, which would pollute His holy ones. As to the command, in the first passage, to give it to a stranger, or to sell it to an alien, that he might eat it, it does not appear reasonable, since that would be to supply the materials for sin, as though one should offer a sword to a madman, or transfer illicit goods to others. But the solution of this difficulty is easy: for the Gentiles were permitted to eat indifferently of all sorts of food, since no distinctions were placed between them; but the prohibition of certain meats was a mark of separation between them and the elect people of God. A more difficult question arises from a kind of contradiction, because Moses in another passage binds both the stranger and the home-born by the same law, and declares them to be alike unclean if they shall have tasted of carrion. But we must bear in mind that he sometimes calls those strangers who, although born of heathen parents, had embraced the Law. Circumcision, therefore, connected them with God, just as if they had derived their origin from Abraham; whilst there were other strangers, whom uncircumcision separated from the children of Abraham as profane and excomnmnicate. The sum is, that whosoever allege God’s name, and boast themselves to be His people, are called to cultivate holiness, and to keep themselves pure from every stain.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) That he may eat it.Literally, and he will eat it. The common practice, and not the intention of the writer, may be indicated. It should be remembered that these rules and restrictions were intended to raise the Israelites above the common level; not to degrade the other nations in comparison of them. Strangers were not compelled to eat what Israel refused; they were left free to please themselves.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk.This is the last appearance of a command repeated twice in Exodus (Exo. 23:19; Exo. 34:26). See Notes there.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Not eat that dieth of itself See Exo 22:31, and Lev 22:8.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk See Exo 23:19.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deu 14:21 a
‘You (ye) shall not eat of anything that dies of itself: you (thou) may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you (thou) are a holy people to Yahweh your God.’
They must thus not eat of what dies of itself. What has died is already committed to Yahweh in death, and is lifeless, and is not suitable for them as a holy people to Yahweh their God, for He is the Lord of life. They must only eat that which has life, and of which they have been able to commit the blood, and in cases of things that died of themselves the blood would not have been properly dealt with. However resident aliens and foreigners were not a holy people, therefore such food could be given to the one or sold to the other. Note the distinction. The resident alien must be cared for, the foreigner must pay for what he gets.
“For you (thou) are a holy people to Yahweh your God.” This is also cited in Deu 14:2. In view of its placing in the analysis this is remarkable confirmation of the chiastic framework (otherwise why just here?) and doubly emphasises the holiness of His people.
Here their being a holy people contrasts with resident aliens and foreigners (both of whom are not proselytes, otherwise they would be ‘holy people’). Here then the stress is very much on the fact that Yahweh’s people keep to a pure environment and only eat what comes from it.
Deu 14:21 b
‘You (thou) shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.’
See Exo 23:9; Exo 34:26. Its being placed here connects with the idea that Israel are His holy people (just as verse 1 connects with Deu 14:2 and with Yahweh’s fatherhood of His people. Here though the son is of a clean beast. It is thus not to be put into an unsuitable environment. But the comparison with verse 1 would suggest that it has religious connections.
Whether this does refer to a pagan mystical practise, or is just seen as unseemly in view of the relationship between mother and kid is debated. For a kid to be boiled in the very milk which was supposed to feed it and be its source of life meant that it was not in its ‘proper sphere’. It would be an ‘unclean’ practise, and unwholesome. A person would have to be totally insensitive to do such a thing. So in view of the emphasis on outward appearance in this chapter the latter could well be the case. The example sometimes cited from Ugarit is of doubtful translation and relevance. But the way in which it is connected with the Passover in Exo 23:19 with 15 may indicate a mystical and unacceptable practise (see commentary on that passage).
So the emphasis all through this passage has been on doing what is seemly, and avoiding all appearance of lowering themselves to the level of the world of predatorial beasts and birds, and creeping things, and death. Especially of avoiding all things that were seen as consigned to the dust to which the serpent had originally been consigned, and the avoidance of contact with the sphere of ‘the dust of death’. In Leviticus the connection with Genesis 1-3 is more apparent. They were to look Godward and not earthward. This would then protect them from disease and from idolatry, but equally importantly, from being unwholesome. The aim of such teaching was not only to prevent their eating what might physically harm them, but to give them an attitude to life that was pure.
The lesson for us is that our lives too should have the appearance of the heavenly. We too should abstain from all appearance of evil. We now have a different conception of creation so that the specific restrictions no longer apply, nor would they teach the same lessons to us as to those who lived so close to nature. What we are called on to avoid is rather the lowering of ourselves in the moral sphere. We too are thus to be ‘clean’.
Jesus, in another context, makes this clear. He stressed that it is what comes from men’s hearts that defiles (Mar 7:14-23), and must therefore be avoided. Act 10:14-15 also demonstrates that nothing in creation is ‘unclean’ of itself. It becomes unclean by what it does. There is, of course, still the need to discriminate, but on a different basis depending on health risk.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 21. Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself To this discourse about food it was proper to add a caution, that though they might kill and eat any clean creature, yet, if it died of itself, it was unlawful to eat it, because the blood was in it. Proselytes of the gate, who were not obliged to observe these laws, or mere Gentiles who might happen to be in their country, might eat such food; but as to those who were called proselytes of righteousness, i.e. circumcised Gentiles, who had embraced the Jewish religion, they were obliged to abstain from such food as much as the native Jews. The Egyptians, in the same manner, sold to others what they might not eat themselves. So Herodotus tells us, that they first imprecated many curses upon the head of the victim, and then carried it to those who trafficked with the Greek merchants, that they might sell it to them; but, if no such Greeks were there, they cast it into the river.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Deu 14:21 Ye shall not eat [of] any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that [is] in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
Ver. 21. Thou shalt not seethe, ] See Trapp on “ Exo 23:19 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 14:21
21You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.
Deu 14:21 You shall not eat anything which dies of itself This may reflect Exo 22:31. One reason was because the blood was still in it (cf. Deu 12:16; Deu 12:23-25; Gen 9:4). This law did not apply to everyone in the Promised Land (i.e., aliens and foreigners were exempt, but note Lev 17:15). These food laws were meant to separate Israel from Canaanite society and worship practices.
You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk The Ras Shamra (see Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook, p. 174) texts show that this was done in other cultures as a symbol of fertility. Judaism developed strict dietary rules (separate cooking vessels and plates for meat and dairy products) based on this verse. However, the thrust seems to relate to Canaanites’ sacrificial worship (cf. Exo 23:19; Exo 34:26). It has little or nothing to do with disease or hygiene.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
dieth, &c. Compare Exo 22:31. Lev 11:39; Lev 17:15; Lev 22:8. Eze 4:14.
seethe = boil. Compare Exo 23:19; Exo 34:26.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
any thing: Lev 17:15, Lev 22:8, Eze 4:14, Act 15:20
the stranger: Exo 12:43-45, Lev 19:33, Lev 19:34
an holy: Deu 14:2, Dan 8:24, Dan 12:7, 1Pe 1:16
Thou shalt: Exo 23:19, Exo 34:26, Rom 12:2
Reciprocal: Gen 9:4 – the life Exo 19:5 – a peculiar Exo 22:31 – holy Lev 7:24 – beast Lev 11:40 – eateth Lev 22:28 – ye shall not kill it Deu 23:20 – a stranger Isa 65:4 – broth Eze 44:31 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Deu 14:21. Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself The blood being in it, rendered it unlawful to be eaten. Proselytes of the gate, not being obliged to observe these laws, or mere Gentiles, who might happen to be in their country, might eat such meat. But those who were termed proselytes of righteousness, that is, circumcised Gentiles, who had embraced the Jewish religion, were bound to abstain from such food as much as the native Jews.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
14:21 Ye shall not eat [of] any thing that {c} dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the {d} stranger that [is] in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
(c) Because their blood was not shed, but remains in them.
(d) Who is not of your religion.