Deuteronomy 23:25 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 23:25 Commentary: Neighbor's Grain
Hebrew · 6 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore how this law balances property rights with provision for the hungry, and its use by Jesus in the Gospels.
Research Summary
- Meaning: A hungry person may pluck and eat grain from a neighbor’s field by hand, but may not use a sickle to harvest for storage.
- Key words: “pluck the ears” (taking only what can be eaten on the spot); “sickle” (implement for harvesting, symbolizing taking more than needed).
- Main debate: Whether the law applies to a hungry traveler (most commentators) or to a hired worker (Jarchi, Targum of Jonathan).
- Theological theme: The balance between property rights and compassionate provision for the needy; later used by Jesus to defend mercy over ritual.
- Best use: To understand Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath and to inform Christian ethics on generosity and boundaries.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
When you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pluck the heads of grain with your hand, but you must not put a sickle to your neighbor’s grain.
WEB World English Bible 2000
When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hand; but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor’s standing grain.
KJV King James Version 1769
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
When thou comest into thy neighbor’s standing grain, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor’s standing grain.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
When thou comest in among the standing-corn of thy neighbour, then thou hast plucked the ears with thy hand, but a sickle thou dost not wave over the standing-corn of thy neighbour.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, thou mayest pluck ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not wave the sickle against thy neighbour's standing corn.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
If thou go into thy friend's corn, thou mayst break the ears, and rub them in thy hand: but not reap them with a sickle.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Cuando entrares en la mies de tu prójimo, podrás cortar espigas con tu mano; mas no aplicarás hoz á la mies de tu prójimo.
Quando entrares na plantação de teu próximo, poderás cortar espigas com tua mão; mas não aplicarás foice à plantação de teu próximo.
Si tu entres dans les blés de ton prochain, tu pourras cueillir des épis avec la main, mais tu n’agiteras point la faucille sur les blés de ton prochain.
[23:26] Wenn du in die Saat deines Nächsten gehst, so magst du mit der Hand Ähren abrupfen; aber mit der Sichel sollst du nicht darin hin und her fahren.
Wanneer gij zult gaan in uws naasten staande koren, zo zult gij de aren met uw hand afplukken; maar de sikkel zult gij aan uws naasten staande koren niet bewegen.
Quando entrerai nelle biade del tuo prossimo, potrai coglierne delle spighe con la mano; ma non metterai la falce nelle biade del tuo prossimo.
Także gdy wnijdziesz między zboże bliźniego twego, tedy narwiesz kłosów ręką twą; ale sierpa nie zapuszczaj w zboże bliźniego twego.
Когда придешь на жатву ближнего твоего, срывай колосья руками твоими, но серпа не заноси на жатву ближнего твоего.
你進了 鄰舍 站著的禾稼，可以用手 摘 穗子，只是不可 用鐮刀 割取 禾稼。」
When you go into your neighbour's field, you may take the heads of grain with your hand; but you may not put your blade to his grain.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Across the supplied commentaries, a firm agreement emerges. This law permits a hungry person passing through a neighbor’s grain field to pluck ears by hand and eat to satisfy immediate hunger. It strictly forbids using a sickle, that is, harvesting for storage or profit. Adam Clarke calls it “a considerate and humane law.” John Gill explains that the permission covers plucking and rubbing the ears, just as Jesus’ disciples did. The law protects the owner’s crop while making space for compassion. Keil & Delitzsch note that the same practice still exists among Arabs. The consensus is clear: the law legislates a precise balance, generosity toward the hungry without allowing theft or abuse.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Traveler's provision: The verse assumes a person passing through a field, not a hired worker. The parallel vineyard law (v. 24) and the Gospel accounts support this.
- Worker's right: Rabbi Jarchi and the Targum of Jonathan interpret it as a day-laborer’s permission, based on the context of agricultural work and other labor laws.
What is clear: The law permits plucking ears of grain by hand to satisfy immediate hunger but forbids using a sickle to harvest for storage, protecting the owner's crop while caring for the needy.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Who is the 'neighbor'? | The neighbor is another Israelite, a fellow member of the covenant community. | Some (Jarchi) limit it to the landowner-employer relationship; most read it as any fellow Israelite whose field one passes through. |
| Applicability to workers vs. travelers | The law grants permission to eat from the field under certain conditions. | Rabbi Jarchi and the Targum of Jonathan see it as a workman’s right during his labor (based on the context of hired laborers in other laws). Protestant commentators (Gill, Keil, Clarke) argue it is for any hungry passerby, citing the similar vineyard law and the Gospel accounts. |
| Relationship to the Sabbath controversy | Jesus uses this law to argue that human need can override ceremonial regulations. | Some Christians view this as a precedent for setting aside any Old Testament law when need arises; others see it specifically as a principle about the Sabbath’s purpose, not a general override of moral law. |
| Contemporary relevance | The law shows God’s care for the hungry and the importance of protecting property. | Some see it as directly applicable: Christians should allow the needy to take small amounts of food without permission. Others treat it as an ancient cultural practice, replaced by broader New Testament principles of generosity (e.g., 2 Corinthians 9:7). |
Historical & Cultural Context
Ancient Israel was an agrarian society where land belonged ultimately to God, and the people were stewards. Laws about gleaning (Leviticus 19:9-10, Deuteronomy 24:19-22) already required leaving edges of fields and fallen grain for the poor. Deuteronomy 23:25 extends a similar kindness to anyone, not just the destitute, who is traveling through a field and feels hunger.
The phrase “come into your neighbor’s standing grain” implies that paths often ran through planted fields, a common practice in the ancient Near East. A traveler could pluck only what could be eaten on the spot. The prohibition against swinging a sickle (an implement with a curved blade, used for harvesting) prevented someone from taking a field’s yield for later use. This prevented the law from becoming a loophole for greed.
Rabbi Jarchi, cited by Gill, offered an alternative reading: the law addressed a day laborer hired to work in the field, giving him the right to eat standing grain while working. Most Protestant commentators, including Gill, Keil, and Matthew Henry, favor the traveler interpretation. The immediate literary context, a vineyard law in verse 24 that speaks of “your neighbor’s vineyard”, strengthens the case that the neighbor is a fellow landowner, not an employer.
The law thus operated within a web of provisions that guarded against extreme poverty while honoring the property of others. It assumed a community where neighbors knew each other and generosity was expected, but also where boundaries were clear.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for Deuteronomy 23:25. The verse is stable across the Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions represented in the translations provided.
Reception History
Jewish interpreters, such as the Targum of Jonathan and Rabbi Jarchi, read this law as a workman’s privilege, integrating it into rabbinic discussions of laborers’ rights. The earliest Christian reading appears in Matthew 12 and Mark 2, where Jesus appeals to the passage to defend his disciples’ plucking grain on the Sabbath. Church fathers such as Augustine and Chrysostom used the incident to argue that mercy takes precedence over ritual law. During the Reformation, Calvin and the Geneva Bible notes treated the law as a simple provision for the hungry, not connected to labor. John Wesley, through Adam Clarke’s commentary, praised its humanity. In modern ethics, the verse is often cited in discussions of food-sharing, gleaning laws, and the limits of property rights. Its enduring legacy is as a biblical foundation for social safety nets that respect both dignity and ownership.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God makes room for hunger. The law permits taking grain from a neighbor’s field, but only enough to satisfy immediate need. It shows God’s care for physical hunger, even of a passerby.
- Property rights are not absolute. The owner’s crop is protected (no sickle), but compassion takes priority over rigid ownership. Christians have wrestled with this tension throughout history.
- Jesus appeals to this law to defend mercy. When the Pharisees accused the disciples of unlawful Sabbath work (Matthew 12:1-8), Jesus pointed to this very permission. He argued that human need, even on the Sabbath, echoes God’s original intention.
Five-point outline
- Permission for the passerby: The law addresses a hungry person, not a thief. It assumes that acting out of need is different from acting out of greed.
- Boundary of the sickle: The restriction prevents systematic harvesting. Generosity has limits that protect the giver from exploitation.
- Community trust: The law works only in a society where neighbors know each other and generosity is reciprocated.
- Gospel grounding: Jesus validates the law’s spirit in Mark 2:23-28, declaring that the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.
- Application for today: How do we balance the right to own property with the call to care for the hungry? Christian ethics inherit this tension.
Illustration hooks
- Neighbor’s fruit tree: Imagine a child picking an apple from a neighbor’s tree that hangs over the fence. The owner sees it and smiles, provision for the small hungry one. But if the child brings a basket and starts filling it, that changes. This law makes that instinctive permission into a formal right with a clear limit.
- Office snack drawer: At work, a common snack drawer is for anyone hungry. Taking a granola bar is fine; emptying the drawer into your bag is not. The boundary shows trust and respect.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does this Old Testament law still apply to Christians, or is it just background for Jesus’ teaching?
- How can I practice generosity without being taken advantage of?
- What does this law say about the balance between my rights and others’ needs?
Leading a Discussion
This short law sits in a collection of miscellaneous commands that reflect God’s concern for both justice and mercy. As you discuss it, notice how it creates a space for hunger without removing the neighbor’s rights. The same law later becomes key to Jesus’ defense of his disciples on the Sabbath. Use the questions below to explore what it reveals about God and about our own responsibilities.
Discussion questions
- What does this law allow, and what does it forbid? Why do you think the boundary is drawn exactly there?
- Read Deuteronomy 23:24-25 together. How does the vineyard law (v. 24) compare to the grain field law (v. 25)? What does the parallel teach?
- Rabbi Jarchi interpreted this law as applying to a hired worker; most commentators apply it to a traveler. Which reading seems more faithful to the text, and why?
- How does Jesus use this law in Matthew 12:1-8 to respond to the Pharisees? What does his argument reveal about his view of Scripture and his authority over the Sabbath?
- In what situations today might a similar “law of small permissions” be helpful, protecting property while allowing for genuine need?
- Does this law make you think differently about hunger and generosity in your own community? How might you apply its principle without having the exact same agricultural setting?
- How does Jesus, as Lord of the Sabbath, expand or reinterpret the spirit of this law?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Matthew 12:1 | At that time, Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the grain fields. His disciples were hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. |
| Matthew 12:2 | But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said to him, “Behold, your disciples do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” |
| Mark 2:23 | He was going on the Sabbath day through the grain fields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of grain. |
| Luke 6:1 | Now on the second Sabbath after the first, he was going through the grain fields. His disciples plucked the heads of grain and ate, rubbing them in their hands. |
| Luke 6:2 | But some of the Pharisees said to them, “Why do you do that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath day?” |
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
5 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke sees this law as a thoughtful and compassionate provision for the poor, allowing them to take a little grain from a neighbor's field. He notes that the disciples later acted on this very permission when they plucked grain, as recorded in Matthew, showing the law's humane intent.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The note draws a sharp line between what a person may take to satisfy immediate hunger and what counts as stealing a harvest. Plucking a few ears by hand is allowed, but moving a sickle across a neighbor's field is not, because that would be reaping what belongs to someone else.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill draws a clear distinction between two actions: plucking a few ears by hand to satisfy hunger, which is permitted, and using a sickle to cut down a neighbor's standing corn, which is theft. He notes that some Jewish interpreters apply the verse to hired workers, but he prefers the plain sense of a traveler passing through.
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.