Skip navigation


a) This article will be dealing only with the issue of Abraham serving milk and meat together and its relationship to our understanding of kosher laws.

b) This article is a little long, however, when one thinks of the billions, not millions, but billions of dollars wasted each year, not each decade, but each year enforcing a misinterpretation of a single sentence in the Old Testament, I think it is worth a few extra minutes of reading time to carefully examine the issues involved.

c) I am not: “a Christian” or: “a Karaite” or: “whatever”. My ideas are based on those of Maurice Nicole, who wrote several books, about 60 years ago, outlining his belief in: “a secret language” of metaphors which existed in ancient times. While I agree with the basic thrust of Dr. Nicoles’ ideas, my interpretations of the individual metaphors is different than his (Basically he based his work on Greek texts and I have based mine on Hebrew texts).

d) It is my belief that the authors of the New Testament were trying to convince the Jews that Jesus was the messiah. Whether one agrees with them or not is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. The relevant point here is that in their arguments these authors would have used language, imagery and symbols that were well known 2,000 years ago amongst the Hebrews, otherwise they would have had no chance what so ever of convincing them that their ideas were correct. Their ideas were radical enough in themselves to create resistance: Why would they complicate matters even further by introducing metaphors that no one had ever heard of before? Yet, even amongst the Christians themselves there were misunderstandings and the Christian belief that: “Jesus declared all foods to be clean” is in my opinion incorrect because Simon/Peter in the Book of Acts clearly states that, even after the death of Jesus, he was still keeping a kosher diet. Basically, what Jesus said was that “bad fruit” is a metaphor for: “false teachings”. Thus, in his comments about: “what goes in the mouth and what comes out” he was trying to explain that when we: “digest false teachings” this does not affect the “purity” of our beliefs (the term: “un-clean” is a mistranslation from the Hebrew), if we eventually reject these teachings and remove them from our: “body of knowledge”. If, however, we incorporate these false beliefs into our body of knowledge and then begin to teach these false beliefs to others, then, of course, the purity of our status as teachers of the word of God has been blemished.

e) It is my opinion that by studying the Hebrew language of the Old Testament we can get a better idea of the meanings used in the New Testament and, vice versa: by studying the language used in the New Testament we can get a better appreciation for the language and metaphors used in the Old Testament.

To begin this article I would just like to remind the readers that although Paul of Tarsus was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, at one time he studied under the renown Rabbi Gamaliel and this same Paul of Tarsus described himself as a Pharisee. Likewise, although Ronald Reagan was a republican and went on to become President of the United States, when he was a younger man he was a democrat and a passionate supported of President Roosevelt. Never the less, even though he underwent a radical change in beliefs, I don’t think anyone is seriously going to argue that, “upon his conversion”, Ronald Reagan forgot how to speak English!

In the New Testament Paul of Tarsus tells his students that “the meat of his teachings” was too difficult for them, therefore he was going to provide them with the easier to understand (to digest) “spiritual milk”. In Hebrew the word for: “meat” forms the root of the word for: “preaching” and for: “gospels”. In addition to this, the word used for: “a female’s breast” forms the root of the word used in the New Testament for: “spirits” (usually in the New Testament these are described as “evil spirits”, but the spirits don’t all have to be evil spirits in the same way that not all angels are fallen angels).

Before actually dealing with the story of Abraham serving milk, butter and meat together and God actually eating this “forbidden” food, I believe it is necessary to discuss in detail all the various elements that come into play in the story. The key, I believe to understanding all the metaphors used in both the Old Testament and the New Testament is the phrase: “The Tree of Knowledge….”. Since Adam and Eve only eat the fruit of this tree we can then draw the conclusion that: “fruit” is a metaphor for: “knowledge”. When we “grasp this key”, we can then go on to conclude that: “eating” must be a metaphor for: “learning”. This is, of course, reinforced by the centuries old saying of the rabbis: “the Torah is the Bread of Life”.

Although I personally don’t agree with them, the rabbis also say: The Books of the Law (the Torah) are the Tree of Life. The important point, however, is that if: “fruit” represents: “knowledge” then: “a tree” must represent: “a source of knowledge” (i.e. a book). In Hebrew the word for: garden” forms the root of the word for: “archive” thus when we think of: “Adam working in the garden full of trees”, we can begin to appreciate that “Adam was working in an archive full of books”. Thus: “work” becomes a metaphor for: “study”. The crucial element in this story, however, is that we are clearly told that the animals were placed in the garden to help Adam work. Furthermore, one of those animals can talk! It is my belief that: “animals” in both the Old and New Testaments are metaphors for: “different types of religious scholars”. Hence, in the New Testament, Jesus tells a woman the bread was for the children, not for the dogs (remember: the rabbis said: “the Torah is the bread of life”). Then the woman says that even the dogs can eat the crumbs that fall under the table (In modern times, must rabbis agree that: “a kitchen table” is a symbol for: “an altar”).

Additionally, Jacob compared his son: “Dan” to: “a snake” and the name Dan means: “judge”. Jesus is described as: “the word of God” and in ancient Israel: “the word of God” meant: “the laws of God”. Thus when Jesus compares his death to: “the bronze snake” that Moses raised up to heal the Israelites, there should be no doubt he is referring to: “the law”. Also Jesus told his disciples that they should be: “as cunning as snakes….”. The important point here is that in Hebrew the word for: “cunning” and: “naked” are the same, which we see reflected in the English language by the term: “naked cunning” and we must recall that when Jesus was crucified he was naked.

Another, extremely important metaphor to deal with in relation to the story of Abraham serving milk and meat together is the idea of: “cooking”. When Joseph comes to Egypt he is part of a spice caravan and he is sold to Pontiphar who, in Hebrew, is: “a cook” (the English translations which say he was: “Captain of the Guards” are incorrect). Since Pontiphar was a cook and Joseph came with a spice caravan we can then easily appreciate why Pontiphar liked Joseph so much.

Therefore, we should recall that Paul of Tarsus compared: “meat” to” “difficult to understand religious preachings”. Also we should note that in ancient times there was no refrigeration and spices served a duo purpose of helping to preserve meat and making meat more appetizing. What we can then see is that Joseph also has a duo role as: “the favorite son of Jacob” and “a spice”, and in these roles he provided “religious insights” to the preachings of Pontiphar.

You would think, since there was no television, that cooking made up a major part of the ancient’s day time activities and thus the Old and New Testaments would discuss this activity more often. Surprisingly then, the only other times cooking is discussed in detail is when Jacob cooks for his brother Esau and Rebecca cooks for her husband Isaac. The “key ingredient” in both these stories is the removal of the birthrights of Esau thru guile and deception (or, if you prefer: “Jacob and his mother behaved in a very cunning manner to circumvent the law”). What we begin to appreciate then is that if: “various types of food” (i.e. fruit, meat, milk, bread, etc. etc.) represent: “various forms of religious teachings”, then: “a cook” played a very, very influential role in society. In other words: A cook shaped the thoughts of people by making more appetizing and more digestible: “the food of knowledge” which entered their mouths.

This then brings us to probably the most misunderstood sentence in the entire Old Testament: “Thou shall not cook a kid (baby goat) in its mother’s milk”. In order to appreciate what’s going on here, first one must understand that in Judaism there is a system of study called: “the Gemara” which insists that every letter in the Torah has a numerical value and the combinations of these letters reveals “deeper meanings”. In addition to this, with the advent of computers, people have been developing codes whereby they insist that the Old Testament reveals names and places to those who set up the letters in the proper sequence and these: “embedded codes” can even predict future events. Therefore, if one accepts these two systems, then it is absolutely crucial that the word: “cook” is the correct word and that it was not substituted for: “served together”, because if: “cook” is not the correct word that both the Gemara and the Biblical codes would then be thrown hopelessly out of whack.

In the same way, if the Old Testament (i.e. God) says: a young goat” then he doesn’t mean: “a young cow” and when God says: “its mother’s milk”, he doesn’t mean” “another mother’s milk” or: “another species of animal’s milk”. Other wise God would have just written: “thou shall not cook young animals in milk”.

When we discussed Paul of Tarsus earlier we mentioned his comparison to: “milk” and: “spiritual teachings” and we already have discussed the connection in Hebrew between the word for: “a female breast” and the word for: “spirit”. Therefore, what I would then like to focus on here is the image of: “the goat”.

In the Old Testament, basically, there are two stories surrounding goats. There first is about Esau: the older brother of Jacob who, thanks to goat’s meat and goat’s hair, loses his father’s blessing. The absolutely crucial element of this story is that Esau is described as: “a hunter” and we are specifically told that Isaac:

a) Loved the meat of Esau

b) Loved the taste of goats meat (because Rebecca could have told Jacob to bring her two young lambs or too young calves, but she specifically requested goats.

The second story has to do with Judah and Tamar and the union which brought into existence the twins: Peres and Zerah.

As an aside, in addition to dealing with goats, both stories mention the color red, although in the 2nd story the color is actually scarlet. The word: “scarlet” in Hebrew is written in the exact same way as the word for: “second” and Esau, the boy covered in red hair and Zerah, the boy with the scarlet string tied to his hand, both finish up in second place (but I am sure Madonna’s authority on the Cabala explained all that to her before convincing her to place the red thread around her wrist). Also, in relation to the color red, I believe that it is important to note that Herod the Great, who tried to kill the baby Jesus, is a descendant of Esau and was not really a Jew. Furthermore, when Pope John Paul II said that: “Israel is the older brother” of the Roman Catholic Church he had it backwards. Esau is the older brother, and the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church are covered in red cloth from head to toe, which is the exact definition the Old Testament gives of Esau. Finally, Herod the Great was made: “King of the Jews” thru appointment by the Roman Emperor, he was not selected by a Jewish seer or prophet as was King Saul and King David and then acclaimed by the people. It was also a Roman Emperor who made the Christianity of Paul of Tarsus the official religion of the empire; the people had no choice in the decision.

Returning to the story of Judah and Tamar, again the important element is deception. Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute in order to trick Judah into making her pregnant. Interestingly here, the Old Testament word used for: “prostitute” comes from the root of the Hebrew word for: “holy”. Unfortunately, Judah had left home without his American Express card, so they made a deal whereby Judah would give her a young goat in exchange for sex. What’s significant here is that we are clearly told that Judah was on the way to have his sheep sheared, so the question must be: Why did Tamar request a goat? Won’t it have been easier and more logical to have requested a lamb?

The most famous goat in the Old Testament is, of course, the scapegoat. This animal is selected to take away the sins of Israel and it is sent “to wander in the desert”. Significantly, when the Children of Israel refused to follow Moses into the Promised Land they too were sent “to wander in the desert”. In the New Testament there is the image of the “sheep being separated from the goats”. If Jesus is: “the lamb of God” and: “the word of God”, what then is being implied is that “a young goat” (i.e. a kid) is: “not the word of God”. Since we have shown clearly that: “meat” represents: “the preachings of men”, then what we are being told is that: “different types of meat” represent: “different types of preachings” and some meats are: “not pure” (the word: “un-clean” is a mistranslation).

In addition to this, it is forbidden to eat any meat, pure or not, with the blood still in it. What most people believe God says is that: “the life is in the blood”, but this too is a mistranslation from the Hebrew. What is written is that: “the soul is in the blood”. Hence, what we are really being told is that it is permissible “to eat” (to learn) meat (preachings) about certain religious subjects, except those dealing with the nature of the soul. This idea is reinforced in the New Testament when Jesus points out that all criticism will be accepted, except those criticisms against the Holy spirit.

In conclusion, we have shown that in the prohibition against cooking a kid in its mother’s milk, “cooking” is specifically mentioned, therefore serving goat’s meat together with goat’s milk is permissible as long as the meat is not cooked in the milk. We have also shown that it is the mother’s milk that is specifically mentioned and that mother’s milk is a metaphor for: “spiritual teachings”. We have also shown that “a goat” represents: “deceptive and false teachings”. This should be obvious since Isaac: “loved goat’s meat” and Isaac was: “blind”. Finally, we have shown that “a cook” has the ability to make “meat” more appetizing and more digestible (i.e. the preachings are: “easier to swallow”).

Since Abraham served beef, and not goat, the whole argument is irrelevant. Since Abraham did not cook the beef in the milk, again, the whole argument is irrelevant. Finally, since he served the beef together with the milk and God ate it, and we assume that: “God knows” a little bit more about: “the laws of God” than the rabbis do, then: eating beef and milk together must be okay, right?

Therefore, the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk has nothing what so ever to do with eating a cheeseburger in Mc Donalds! What this law means is that it is forbidden to take deceptive religious teachings (goat’s meat) and disguising them in easy to comprehend spiritual terms (mother’s milk) using the fire of God (the burning bush, the pillar of fire, the tongues of fire etc. etc.) and make these deceptive teachings much more appetizing to men (cooking them). That the rabbis have taken this simple concept and, somehow, have decided that: “eating beef from Argentina together with goat’s cheese from Holland is against Biblical law” is absolutely astounding !

Closing comment: In addition to Esau, the Old Testament describes two other hunters: Nimrod: the descendant of the slave Ham and Ishmael: also a descendant of Ham and the son of the Egyptian slave Hagar. Esau too is described as: “the slave of his brother”. The uniting thread here is that Nimrod built the Tower of Babel using: “bricks instead of stone” and the Egyptians compelled the Israelites to build with: “bricks made with straw”. Thus Esau is a hunter who is associated with: “goat’s meat” (and goat’s hair) and Nimrod and Ishmael are hunters associated with: “bricks”. What unites the 3 men together is that: “goat’s meat” represent: “men’s false preachings about the law” and “brick’s” represent: “man made laws”.

Image Credit


  1. Kosher foods
  2. What is Kosher Food, Kosher Rules, Products, Definition, What Does …