Deuteronomy 23:24 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 23:24 Commentary: Grapes, Generosity, and Property Rights
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
This study examines whether Deuteronomy 23:24 applies to hired laborers or all travelers, and what it reveals about God's heart for mercy within
Research Summary
- Meaning: Permission to satisfy immediate hunger in a neighbor’s vineyard, but no taking away.
- Key words: “Eat your fill” (satisfaction of need); “container” (boundary against storing).
- Main debate: Hired laborers only (Jewish tradition, Gill) versus all travelers (Calvin, Josephus, Keil & Delitzsch).
- Theological theme: Divine generosity tempered with respect for property; neighborly love codified.
- Best use: Illustrating how God’s commands protect both the needy and the owner, forming trust in community.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, but you must not put any in your basket.
WEB World English Bible 2000
When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat your fill of grapes at your own pleasure; but you shall not put any in your container.
KJV King James Version 1769
When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
When thou comest into thy neighbor’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat of grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`When thou comest in unto the vineyard of thy neighbour, then thou hast eaten grapes, according to thy desire, thy sufficiency; but into thy vessel thou dost not put any .
Darby Darby Bible 1890
When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, thou mayest eat grapes thy fill, according to thy desire, but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Going into thy neighbour's vineyard, thou mayst eat as many grapes as thou pleasest: but must carry none out with thee:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Cuando entrares en la viña de tu prójimo, comerás uvas hasta saciar tu deseo: mas no pondrás en tu vaso.
Quando entrares na vinha de teu próximo, comerás uvas até saciar teu desejo: mas não porás em teu vaso.
Si tu entres dans la vigne de ton prochain, tu pourras à ton gré manger des raisins et t’ en rassasier; mais tu n’ en mettras point dans ton vase.
[23:25] Wenn du in deines Nächsten Weinberg gehst, so magst du Trauben essen nach deinem Willen, bis du satt hast; aber du sollst nichts in dein Gefäß tun
Wanneer gij gaan zult in uws naasten wijngaard, zo zult gij druiven eten naar uw lust, tot uw verzadiging; maar in uw vat zult gij niets doen.
Quando entrerai nella vigna del tuo prossimo, potrai a tuo piacere mangiar dell’uva a sazietà, ma non ne metterai nel tuo paniere.
Gdy wnijdziesz do winnicy bliźniego twego, jedz jagody, ileć się podoba, aż do sytości; ale do naczynia twego nie bierz.
Когда войдешь в виноградник ближнего твоего, можешь есть ягоды досыта, сколько хочет душа твоя, а в сосуд твой не клади.
「 你進了 鄰舍 的葡萄園，可以隨意 吃 飽了 葡萄，只是不可 裝 在 器皿中。
When you go into your neighbour's vine-garden, you may take of his grapes at your pleasure, but you may not take them away in your vessel.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree on the law’s surface meaning: anyone entering a neighbor’s vineyard may eat grapes to satisfy immediate hunger, but may not take any away. Adam Clarke notes the old English proverb mirrored here: “Eat thy fill but pocket none.” The law rests on a balance of generosity and respect for ownership. Calvin argues that the permission extends to all people, not just hired laborers, because the Lawgiver’s intention is to grant relief to the hungry traveler. Gill reports that Jewish tradition (Mishna, Targum) restricts the law to workers employed in the harvest, who may eat of what they handle but not put any into their own vessels. Keil & Delitzsch and Lange side with Calvin, seeing the “hungry” passer-by as the primary subject. The shared core is clear: immediate need is met; taking a supply is theft.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Hired workers only: Jewish oral tradition (Mishnah, Targum), Gill, and some medieval commentators restrict the law to laborers during harvest, citing the worker’s right to eat of the crop they handle.
- All travelers or passers-by: Calvin, Josephus, Keil & Delitzsch, and Lange argue the law addresses anyone with immediate hunger, pointing to the broader context of humanitarian law and the parallel grain-field law.
What is clear: The permission to eat from the vineyard and the prohibition against taking any away are not in dispute; the contention lies solely in whom the law addresses.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Who may eat from the neighbor's vineyard? | The law permits eating grapes to satisfy hunger. | Jewish tradition and Gill limit it to hired laborers; Calvin, Josephus, and Keil & Delitzsch extend it to any passer-by. |
| Nature of the permission: immediate need or general license? | The law forbids taking produce away. | Some see the permission as limited to immediate consumption (hunger); others allow eating freely up to full satisfaction, as long as nothing is carried off. |
| Relationship to property rights | Property rights are respected; the owner is not deprived of significant yield. | Is the law a concession to poverty (Calvin) or a laborer's right during work (Mishna)? Both affirm the owner’s ultimate ownership. |
| Application in Christian ethics today | The principle of generosity and respect for others' property applies across time. | Some apply it literally to situations like gleaning or tasting at markets; others read it as a broad model for neighborly sharing without entitlement. |
Historical & Cultural Context
In ancient Israel, vineyards and grain fields were often unenclosed, making them visible and accessible to passersby. Grapes were remarkably cheap in vine-growing regions (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown), so the quantity a hungry person could eat was negligible to the owner. The law appears in a section of Deuteronomy (23:15, 25) that groups diverse social regulations, protection of fugitive slaves, exclusion from the assembly, sanitation in camp, lending at interest, and vows. Sandwiched between laws on vows and the parallel law on standing grain (v. 25), this verse addresses everyday neighborly conduct.
Jewish tradition (Mishnah Bava Metzia 7:2, 6) elaborated the law specifically for hired laborers: workers could eat of the crop they were harvesting, but only while working and not beyond their wages’ value. The Targum of Jonathan and medieval commentator Jarchi also take this line. However, Josephus (Antiquities 4.8.21) interprets the law for travelers of any kind, allowing them to eat freely. Calvin and Lange concur, noting that the law aims at humanity, not a narrow labor contract. The verse thus stands at a crossroads between a specific agricultural custom and a broader principle of mercy.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for Deuteronomy 23:24. The verse is stable across manuscripts and versions consulted.
Reception History
In Jewish tradition, the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 7:2, 6) and Targumim interpreted this law narrowly, applying it to hired laborers working in the vineyard. Medieval commentators like Jarchi followed that view. Early Christian writers, however, saw in the law a wider ethic of mercy. Calvin read it as a humanitarian provision for any hungry person, and the disciples’ act of plucking grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1) was defended by Jesus with this same principle of need over ritual. The verse has been cited in discussions of property rights and charity, reminding readers that God’s commands foster community trust.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Permission with purpose, God allows the hungry to eat from a neighbor’s vineyard, satisfying immediate need without guilt.
- Boundary of respect, The prohibition against putting grapes in a vessel protects property rights and prevents abuse.
- Heart of generosity, The law reflects God’s desire for community where need is met and ownership is honored.
Five-point outline
- God’s provision through neighbors, The land ultimately belongs to the Lord, and owners are stewards who share with those in need.
- Freedom to satisfy hunger, The permission shows that immediate needs take precedence over strict property claims.
- Limits prevent entitlement, The prohibition guards against taking advantage of generosity and turning it into theft.
- Applicability to all, Whether the law targets laborers or every traveler, its principle of neighborly care stands.
- New Testament echo, Jesus’ disciples plucked grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1), appealing to this very allowance of hunger.
Illustration hooks
- A neighbor’s fruit tree overhangs the sidewalk; children pick fallen fruit. The owner’s tolerance mirrors this law’s spirit.
- At a workplace potluck, a coworker takes a single cookie but leaves the rest for others. Respectful sharing, not hoarding.
- A u-pick farm allows tasting; customers may eat a few berries but cannot fill a bucket for free. A modern parallel to the biblical rule.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does this law justify taking a few items from a store without paying, if I’m hungry? (No, the context is personal property among neighbors, not commercial theft.)
- How do we balance generosity with protecting our own resources from misuse?
- What does this law teach about caring for the poor in our community today?
Leading a Discussion
This short, practical law opens a window into how God’s commands shape everyday relationships. It grants freedom while setting clear boundaries. As you discuss, consider both the generous permission and the firm prohibition, and how they work together to build trust in a community.
Discussion questions
- Read Deuteronomy 23:24, 25. What immediate problems does this law address? Who benefits from it?
- The permission allows the hungry to eat freely. Why do you think God included this law in Israel’s covenant code?
- The prohibition forbids taking grapes away. What does this limit protect? How does it prevent the permission from becoming exploitation?
- Some commentators (Calvin, Josephus) apply the law to all travelers; others (Mishna, Gill) restrict it to hired workers. How does each view affect the law’s application? Which do you find more persuasive and why?
- How does this law relate to New Testament principles like hospitality (Romans 12:13) and contentment (Hebrews 13:5)?
- What similar situations arise today where a Christian must balance generosity with respect for others’ property? Give an example.
- How does this law reveal God’s character? What does it tell us about His concern for both the needy and the property owner?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Romans 12:13 | contributing to the needs of the saints, and given to hospitality. |
| I Corinthians 10:26 | for “the earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.” |
| Hebrews 13:5 | Be free from the love of money, content with such things as you have, for he has said, “I will in no way leave you, neither will I in any way forsake you.” |
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
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke connects this biblical law to an old English proverb: eat your fill but pocket none. The law forbids carrying any food away in a vessel, requiring it to be consumed on the spot. He sees the proverb as directly founded on this principle.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin argues that the law's permission to eat from a neighbor's field applies to all hungry travelers, not only hired workers. The key limitation is that it allows only immediate refreshment, not gathering to carry away, since such greed would violate the lawgiver's intention of humane provision for present need.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note interprets this law as permitting a person to satisfy immediate hunger in a neighbor's vineyard but forbidding any harvesting for storage or later use. The distinction lies between eating for present need and gathering for profit or provision.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill notes that Jewish interpreters like Jarchi restrict this law to laborers working in the vineyard at harvest time. He prefers Josephus's broader reading, which allows any passerby to eat freely but still forbids carrying any fruit away.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB highlights the social and economic background behind this law. Because vineyards were often unenclosed and grapes were very cheap, allowing a traveler to eat freely was no real loss to the owner. The provision was a kindly privilege meant to benefit the poor and the wayfarer.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch draws a sharp line between satisfying present hunger and gathering for later use. Eating grapes or grain while passing through a neighbor's field is allowed, but taking any away in a vessel or using a sickle is not. This distinction, they note, is still observed among modern Arabs.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
For Matthew Henry, the command to shelter an escaped servant turns the land of Israel into a sanctuary for the oppressed. The law protects a fugitive from a harsh master, granting him freedom to settle where he chooses. Israel's borders become a place of refuge for the abused, not a place to return them to bondage.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley observes that the phrase "at thy pleasure" reflects a local custom, not a universal license. In those regions, abundant vineyards made such freedom permissible, but his point is that the allowance is tied to the extraordinary fruitfulness of the land there.