Deuteronomy 28:55 Commentary: Covenant Curses and Dehumanization

Ancient Near Eastern siege warfare was brutal. Armies would surround a city, cut off all supplies, and wait for starvation to force surrender. The Hebrew word matsor (H4692) refers to the entrenchments and siege-works built around a city, while matsok (H4689) captures the emotional and physical pressure of being trapped. In Deuteronomy 28, Moses describes a siege so severe that all normal sources of food are gone, livestock, crops, even the leather of belts and shields become food (as Gill notes from Josephus). Cannibalism appears elsewhere in Scripture as a sign of absolute judgment (Leviticus 26:29; 2 Kings 6:28, 29). The phrase "all your gates" (v. 52, 55, 57) refers not just to the city entrances but to every town in Israel, the curse is comprehensive.

This passage belongs to the covenant curses section of Deuteronomy 28 (vv. 15, 68). Its structure mirrors the blessings in vv. 1, 14, but now every promised good is reversed. The verse immediately follows the statement that a man who was once tender and delicate will turn his eye against his own family (v. 54). The progression is deliberate: first, desperation leads to cannibalism; then, even that desperate act is twisted into selfishness. The father eats but refuses to share. The law code of the ancient Near East often included curses for treaty violations, Hittite and Assyrian treaties, for example, threatened famine and child loss. But Deuteronomy goes further, exposing the internal corrosion of the soul. The enemy is not just the attacking nation but the disintegration of love itself.

The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for Deuteronomy 28:55. The Hebrew text is stable across the Masoretic tradition. The main interpretive question is not textual but theological and historical: how should readers understand such extreme language in the covenant curses? The verse is part of a consistent pattern in Deuteronomy 28, and the vocabulary (matsor, matsok) also appears in vv. 53 and 57, showing no scribal difficulty.

This verse has been read primarily as a warning and as historical explanation for Israel’s national disasters. Jewish commentators such as Rashi understood it as a literal description of the horrors of siege, fulfilled in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC) and later in the Roman siege (AD 70). Christian commentators like Gill and Matthew Henry emphasized the moral lesson: sin leads to the ruin of both body and soul, dehumanizing even the most natural affections. The third-century church father Origen, in his homilies on Deuteronomy, allegorized the siege to spiritual famine, but later interpreters generally insisted on the historical reality. The passage is rarely preached in the lectionary due to its disturbing content, but it remains a sobering testimony to the cost of covenant unfaithfulness. In the Reformation era, Calvin read it as a demonstration of God's righteous judgment, warning against taking grace for granted.

Three-point outline

1. The covenant curse reaches into the most intimate human bonds. The siege strips away food, shelter, and finally the instinct to protect one’s children. Sin does not just bring external punishment; it rots the heart. The same man who once treasured his children now hoards their flesh.
2. Complete loss leaves no room for compassion. The text says “he has nothing left”, the Hebrew verb hisʼir (Hiphil of shaʼar) means to leave over or spare. When nothing is spared, even the image of God in human love can be crushed. This is not hyperbole; it is the trajectory of rebellion pushed to its end.
3. God’s judgment reveals the true nature of sin. The curse does not create something new; it uncovers what sin already is: a rejection of God that leads to the rejection of neighbor. In the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, Josephus (as cited by Gill) reported such horrors. The warning is for every generation.

Five-point outline

1. Context: the covenant structure of Deuteronomy 28, blessing and curse.
2. The siege as a tool of divine judgment, matsor and matsok as inescapable pressure.
3. From tenderness to brutality: the transformation described in vv. 54, 55.
4. Refusing to share: the final breakdown of community, even in a cannibalistic act, the father withholds.
5. Historical fulfillment: the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC and again in AD 70.

Illustration hooks

• Rationing in wartime: Stories of families in besieged cities who had to choose who would eat, and the moral weight of those decisions. This text pushes such choices to an extreme, showing what human beings are capable of when stripped of every resource.
• The hoarding instinct: In natural disasters, people have been known to guard food while others starve. The verse exposes a deeper selfishness that covenant faithfulness should have prevented.

Questions your congregation is asking

• Why does the Bible include such graphic descriptions of violence?
• Is God cruel to threaten this?
• How does this passage relate to the New Testament teaching on judgment?

This small group guide is for mature groups only. The text describes extreme human suffering as a consequence of breaking covenant with God. Approach it with reverence and humility, focusing on what the passage reveals about sin, God's holiness, and the seriousness of covenant relationship.

Discussion questions

1. Read Deuteronomy 28:53, 57. What words and images stand out to you? Why do you think Moses includes this level of detail?
2. Look at the Hebrew words for "siege" (matsor) and "distress" (matsok). Both come from roots meaning to press or confine. How does this help you understand the psychological and physical reality of the curse?
3. Verse 55 says the father "will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children." Why do you think the text emphasizes this refusal to share, rather than just mentioning cannibalism?
4. The commentator Gill quotes Josephus describing people eating leather, dung, and even children during the Roman siege of Jerusalem. Does knowing this actually happened (in AD 70) change how you read the passage? How so?
5. Compare this curse with the blessings in Deuteronomy 28:1, 14. What does the contrast say about God's character and His expectations for His people?
6. Some Christians struggle with passages like this, asking if God is harsh. How would you answer someone who finds this description of God troubling? What other parts of Scripture speak to God’s justice and mercy?
7. This passage is a warning, not an instruction. How does it shape your understanding of the seriousness of sin and the value of covenant faithfulness?