Deuteronomy 20:20 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 20:20 Commentary: Limits on Destruction in War
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why does God permit cutting non-fruit trees for siege works but protect fruit trees?
Research Summary
- Meaning: God permits cutting non-fruit trees for siege works while protecting fruit-bearing trees.
- Key words: Matsor (siege works), ‘etz (tree), ma’akhal (food).
- Main debate: The exact rationale for sparing fruit trees, practical (food supply) or symbolic (tree of life).
- Theological theme: God’s care for creation and limits on human destruction even in the context of war.
- Best use: As part of a study on the ethics of warfare, environmental stewardship, or God’s concern for the material world.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
But you may destroy the trees that you know do not produce fruit. Use them to build siege works against the city that is waging war against you, until it falls.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Only the trees that you know are not trees for food, you shall destroy and cut them down. You shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls.
KJV King James Version 1769
Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Only the trees of which thou knowest that they are not trees for food, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it fall.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
Only, the tree, which thou knowest that it is not a fruit-tree, it thou dost destroy, and hast cut down, and hast built a bulwark against the city which is making with thee war till thou hast subdued it.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Only the trees which thou knowest are not trees for meat, thou mayest destroy and cut them down, and build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it fall.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
But if there be any trees that are not fruitful, but wild, and fit for other uses, cut them down, and make engines, until thou take the city, which fighteth against thee.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Mas el árbol que supieres que no es árbol para comer, lo destruirás y lo talarás, y construye baluarte contra la ciudad que pelea contigo, hasta sojuzgarla.
Mas a árvore que souberes que não é árvore para comer, o destruirás e o cortarás, e constrói baluarte contra a cidade que luta contigo, até subjugá-la.
Mais tu pourras détruire et abattre les arbres que tu sauras ne pas être des arbres servant à la nourriture, et en construire des retranchements contre la ville qui te fait la guerre, jusqu’ à ce qu’ elle succombe.
Welches aber Bäume sind, von denen du weißt, daß man nicht davon ißt, die sollst du verderben und ausrotten und Bollwerk daraus bauen wider die Stadt, die mit dir kriegt, bis du ihrer mächtig werdest.
Maar het geboomte, hetwelk gij kennen zult, dat het geen geboomte ter spijze is, dat zult gij verderven en afhouwen; en gij zult een bolwerk bouwen tegen deze stad, dewelke tegen u krijg voert, totdat zij ten onderga.
Potrai però distruggere e abbattere gli alberi che saprai non esser alberi da frutto, e ne costruirai delle opere d’assedio contro la città che fa guerra teco, finch’essa cada.
Tylko drzewa, które obaczysz, że owocu nie rodzą, te psować będziesz i wycinać: i budować będziesz baszty przeciwko onemu miastu, które z tobą walczy, póki go nie opanujesz.
только те дерева, о которых ты знаешь, что они ничего не приносят в пищу, можешь портить и рубить, и строить укрепление против города, который ведет с тобою войну, доколе не покоришь его.
惟獨 你所 知道 不 是 結果子 的樹木 可以毀壞、砍伐，用以修築 營壘，攻擊 那 與你 打 仗 的城，直到 攻塌了。」
Only those trees which you are certain are not used for food may be cut down and put to destruction: and you are to make walls of attack against the town till it is taken.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Deuteronomy 20:20
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The commentators agree that this verse applies the principle of v19 specifically: fruit trees must not be cut, but non-fruit trees may be used for siege works. Gill explains that such trees could be cut if it helped the siege, whether for building ramps or making war machines. Keil and Delitzsch note that the Hebrew maṣor (besieging rampart) shows the wood was used to hem in the city. Matthew Henry sees a broader lesson: even in war, destruction has limits, the land and its resources are not ours to waste. The Cambridge Bible adds that the term “bulwarks” refers to circumvallation works, as seen in Assyrian reliefs. The consensus is that this law values what sustains life, distinguishing sharply between trees that provide food and those that do not. War is not a license for total destruction.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: God permits cutting non-fruit trees for siege works while strictly protecting fruit-bearing trees, establishing a clear limit on destruction even in war.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The prohibition on cutting fruit trees | All traditions agree that fruit trees are not to be destroyed during a siege because they provide food. | Some emphasize the practical reason (sustenance for the army and future inhabitants); others see a deeper principle about valuing God's creation. |
| The permission to cut non-fruit trees for siege works | All agree that non-fruit trees may be cut and used to build siege ramps and war engines. | Disagreement exists over what constitutes a 'non-food' tree, wild trees only, or also immature trees that might one day bear fruit? The text says 'trees you know are not for food,' leaving room for judgment. |
| Application of the principle to modern warfare | Most Christians see this passage as part of a broader biblical ethic of restraint in war. | Conscientious objectors argue the entire Old Testament war ethic is superseded by Christ; just-war theorists use it to limit 'collateral damage' in terms of food supply and environment. |
| The interpretive difficulty of v19's parenthetical clause | All agree that v20 focuses on non-fruit trees and does not reopen the question of v19's meaning. | Some read v19 as 'for man is a tree of the field' (man depends on trees), while others read it as a rhetorical question: 'Is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged?' This debate does not directly affect v20, but influences its theological rationale. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Ancient siege warfare required vast amounts of wood. Armies built ramps (Hebrew maṣor), towers, and battering rams to assault walled cities. The Egyptians routinely cut down fruit orchards to starve an enemy, a tactic the Torah explicitly forbids. This law, set within Deuteronomy 20, distinguishes two kinds of warfare: against Canaanite nations (total destruction) and against distant cities (offer peace, spare non-combatants and fruit trees). The surrounding verses (v16-18) command the complete removal of Canaanite peoples to prevent their idolatrous influence. But even in that severe judgment, the land itself is not to be ravaged.
Verses 19-20 create a careful exception: you may fell only those trees you know are not food-producing. The Hebrew phrase ‘etz ma’akhal (tree of food) is the same idiom used of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9). The land is a gift from Yahweh, and the army that conquers it must treat it as such. Siege works were typically made of earth and timber; the permission here allows using wild or non-fruit trees for that purpose. Jeremiah 6:6 later condemns Israel’s enemies for felling trees as a judgment, a sign that even in siege, indiscriminate cutting is a curse. The law thus instills restraint: war has a goal, but the creation that sustains life is not an enemy.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Deuteronomy 20:20. The Masoretic Text is stable, and the key terms (‘etz, ma’akhal, maṣor) present no serious manuscript difficulties. The main textual question surrounds v19, not v20.
Reception History
Jewish interpretation in the Mishnah (e.g., Sotah 8:7) treated this verse as part of the laws of siege, specifying that fruit trees a day’s journey from the city were also protected. Medieval commentators like Rashi emphasized the practical logic: trees that produce food are to be spared because the army itself eats from them. Christian interpreters have allegorized the text: Gill applies it to the cutting down of fruitless branches in the Church (Matthew 3:10), while others see a lesson in stewardship. In modern just-war discourse, this passage is cited to argue that destruction must be proportionate and necessary, never wanton. Environmental readers find here a biblical mandate for sustainable resource use even in crisis.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God draws a line around what gives life. Fruit trees feed people. Even in the extreme context of a siege, these are protected. The principle: necessities of life are not expendable.
- Non-fruit trees may be used for a greater purpose. Siege works are legitimate military means. God does not forbid all destruction, only wasteful destruction that harms human flourishing.
- The goal of war is not annihilation but a just end. “Until it falls” (Hebrew ridtah, “until it comes down”) signals a limited objective. The city is to be subdued, not the land ravaged.
Five-point outline
- The context: v19 prohibits cutting food trees; v20 permits cutting non-food trees for siege works.
- The rationale: food trees sustain both the besiegers and future inhabitants (creation care).
- The method: “bulwarks” (Hebrew maṣor) refer to siege ramps or forts, not casual destruction.
- The restriction: only trees you know are non-fruit, knowledge implies intentionality, not haste.
- The application today: this principle can guide Christians in debates about war, economy, and environmental stewardship, do not destroy what sustains life.
Illustration hooks
- A farmer clearing land builds a barn from scrub trees but protects the apple orchard for harvest.
- A city council votes to cut a dead tree for a playground but moves to save a century-old oak.
- In war, commanders must choose between burning an orchard for fuel or sparing it for the local food supply.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does the Bible allow any destruction in war, or does this command apply today?
- How do we discern what counts as a “fruit tree” in our own conflicts, what are the non-negotiable resources we must protect?
- Does this verse have anything to say about environmental care outside of war?
Leading a Discussion
This passage sits within a chapter that governs how Israel wages war. It distinguishes between types of cities (distant vs Canaanite) and between types of trees (fruit vs non-fruit). The principle is striking: even when a city is under siege for a long time, the food-supplying trees are off-limits. Why does God care so much about trees in the middle of war?
Discussion questions
- Read v19-20. What distinction does the law make between trees? How does it define which trees may be cut?
- Look at the cross-reference Jeremiah 6:6. How does the command to “cut down trees” against Jerusalem differ from the permission here?
- Why do you think God forbids cutting fruit trees even when the army needs siege materials? What does this reveal about God’s character?
- The Hebrew word for “bulwarks” (maṣor) is the same word used in Isaiah 29:3 for siege works. How does understanding ancient siege tactics shape your reading?
- Does this law apply to Christians today? Should it influence how believers think about war, conservation, or even personal stewardship of resources?
- What “fruit trees” in your life, relationships, health, time with God, might need protection even when other demands seem urgent?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Deuteronomy 1:28 | Where are we going up? Our brothers have made our heart melt, saying, ‘The people are greater and taller than we. The cities are great and fortified up to the sky. Moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there!’” |
| II Chronicles 26:15 | In Jerusalem, he made devices, invented by skillful men, to be on the towers and on the battlements, with which to shoot arrows and great stones. His name spread far abroad, because he was marvelously helped until he was strong. |
| Ecclesiastes 9:14 | There was a little city, and few men within it; and a great king came against it, besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. |
| Isaiah 37:33 | “Therefore Yahweh says concerning the king of Assyria, ‘He will not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither will he come before it with shield, nor cast up a mound against it. |
| Jeremiah 6:6 | For Yahweh of Armies said, “Cut down trees, and cast up a mound against Jerusalem. This is the city to be visited. She is filled with oppression within herself. |
| Jeremiah 33:4 | For Yahweh, the God of Israel, says concerning the houses of this city and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah, which are broken down to make a defense against the mounds and against the sword: |
| Ezekiel 17:17 | Pharaoh with his mighty army and great company won’t help him in the war, when they cast up mounds and build forts to cut off many persons. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes points out the practical reasoning behind sparing fruit trees during a siege: they sustain human life, so destroying them cuts off the very provision people depend on. He contrasts this command with the total destruction required for the Canaanite nations and notes that Egyptian armies routinely cut down fruit trees in war.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator clarifies that the word rendered "bulwarks" in this passage means siege-works or circumvallation, a military construction built to besiege a city. This interpretation is drawn from the Hebrew root meaning to besiege, consistent with similar uses elsewhere in Scripture and confirmed by ancient Assyrian depictions.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The note draws a strict line: only trees you know for certain do not provide food may be cut down and used to build siege fortifications against a hostile city. This conditional permission governs what can be destroyed during warfare, protecting food-bearing trees from unnecessary harm.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill draws a practical wartime distinction: fruit trees are spared to feed the besieging army, while other trees may be cut for building siege works. He then applies this as a spiritual emblem, noting that fruitless lives face judgment, but those bearing genuine righteousness are preserved and never uprooted.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that this command assumes the use of siege engines, not just earthworks. The Israelites learned their military tactics in Egypt, where sieges involved advancing with movable towers or a testudo formation of overlapping shields.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch argues that the command not to destroy fruit trees during a siege rests on a rhetorical question: Is a tree a man that it should be besieged? They defend reading the Hebrew with an interrogative, making the point that trees provide food and should not be treated as enemies.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that the diverse laws in this section—cities of refuge, boundaries, witnesses, warfare, and the unsolved murder ritual—all stem from the sixth commandment’s reverence for human life. He shows that even commands about property and testimony are interpreted through the lens of protecting life. Each regulation flows from the sacredness of life.