Deuteronomy 28:57 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 28:57 Commentary: The Horror of Covenant Brokenness
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why does the covenant curse include a mother eating her afterbirth and children? A study of the severity of covenant breaking in Deuteronomy 28:57.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The covenant curse reduces a mother to eating her afterbirth and children during siege, showing total ruin as consequence of abandonment of God.
- Key words: shilyah (afterbirth, H7988); cheser kol (lack of all, H2640+H3605); ba'sater (in secret, H5643); matzor (siege, H4692).
- Main debate: Whether shilyah means afterbirth (Clarke, Gill) or "young one" (KJV), and whether Kennicott's emendation to "boil" is valid.
- Theological theme: Covenant unfaithfulness inverts creation: the source of life becomes death.
- Best use: As a sobering warning to take covenant seriousness; not for graphic sensationalism but to show the depths of God's judgment and thus the magnitude of His grace in Christ.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
the afterbirth that comes from between her legs and the children she bears, because she will secretly eat them for lack of anything else in the siege and distress that your enemy will inflict on you within your gates.
WEB World English Bible 2000
toward her young one who comes out from between her feet, and toward her children whom she bears; for she will eat them secretly for lack of all things in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy will distress you in your gates.
KJV King James Version 1769
And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
and toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children whom she shall bear; for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly, in the siege and in the distress wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and against her seed which cometh out from between her feet, even against her sons whom she doth bear, for she doth eat them for the lacking of all things in secret, in the siege and in the straitness with which thine enemy doth straiten thee within thy gates.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
because of her afterbirth which hath come out between her feet, and her children whom she shall bear; for she shall secretly eat them for want of everything in the siege and in the straitness wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And the filth of the afterbirths, that come forth from between her thighs, and the children that are born the same hour. For they shall eat them secretly for the want of all things, in the siege and distress, wherewith thy enemy shall oppress thee within thy gates.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y para con su chiquita que sale de entre sus pies, y para con sus hijos que pariere; pues los comerá escondidamente, á falta de todo, en el cerco y en el apuro con que tu enemigo te oprimirá en tus ciudades.
E para com sua criança que sai dentre seus pés, e para com seus filhos que der à luz; pois os comerá ocultamente, a falta de tudo, no cerco e em apuros com que teu inimigo te oprimirá em tuas cidades.
elle ne leur donnera rien de l’arrière-faix sorti d’ entre ses pieds et des enfants qu’ elle mettra au monde, car, manquant de tout, elle en fera secrètement sa nourriture au milieu de l’ angoisse et de la détresse où te réduira ton ennemi dans tes portes.
die Nachgeburt, die zwischen ihren eigenen Beinen ist ausgegangen, dazu ihre Söhne, die sie geboren hat; denn sie werden vor Mangel an allem heimlich essen in der Angst und Not, womit dich dein Feind bedrängen wird in deinen Toren.
En dat om haar nageboorte, die van tussen haar voeten uitgegaan zal zijn, en om haar zonen, die zij gebaard zal hebben; want zij zal hen eten in het verborgene, vermits gebrek van alles; in de belegering en in de benauwing, waarmede uw vijand u zal benauwen in uw poorten.
per non dar loro nulla della placenta uscita dal suo seno e de’ figliuoli che metterà al mondo, perché, mancando di tutto, se ne ciberà di nascosto, in mezzo all’assedio e alla penuria alla quale i nemici t’avranno ridotto in tutte le tue città.
I łożyska swego, które wychodzi z niej przy porodzeniu, i synów swych, które urodzi; bo je poje w niedostatku wszystkiego potajemnie w oblężeniu i ściśnieniu, którem cię ściśnie nieprzyjaciel twój w bramach twoich.
и не даст им последа, выходящего из среды ног ее, и детей, которых она родит; потому что она, при недостатке во всем, тайно будет есть их, в осаде и стеснении, в котором стеснит тебя враг твой в жилищах твоих.
她兩腿 中間 出來 的嬰孩 與她所 要生 的兒女，她因缺乏 一切 就要 在你 受 仇敵 圍困 窘迫 的城中 將他們暗暗地 吃了。
And to her baby newly come to birth, and to the children of her body; for having no other food, she will make a meal of them secretly, because of her bitter need and the cruel grip of your haters on all your towns.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Deuteronomy 28:57
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that this verse depicts the most extreme consequence of covenant rebellion: a mother reduced by siege-famine to eat her afterbirth and child. Adam Clarke notes that the Hebrew shilyah means the afterbirth or outer membrane of the fetus, and the image of a woman lamenting that her child was born into such suffering marks "the deepest distress." John Gill elaborates that the delicate woman, who would not set her foot on the ground, now hides her cannibalism in secret. Matthew Henry places the verse in the series of curses that would "pursue" Israel until destruction if they abandoned Yahweh. The Cambridge Bible emphasizes that the threat is not merely conditional; it is predicted absolutely because of actual disobedience. Wesley's Explanatory Notes observes that such acts were fulfilled in Jewish history as a perpetual reproach. All agree the purpose is to show that covenant infidelity brings total ruin, ruin so complete that it inverts natural bonds of mother and child.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Afterbirth interpretation: The Hebrew shilyah means afterbirth; supported by most commentators (Clarke, Gill, Geneva Bible) and modern translations (BSB, ESV, NASB).
- Child-as-young-one interpretation: KJV reads 'young one', possibly referring to the infant itself, and connects it parallel to 'children' in the same verse.
- Boiled/ritual interpretation (Kennicott): Emendation to 'boil' based on 2 Kings 6:29, where a woman boils her son. This reading links the curse explicitly to a historical fulfillment.
What is clear: The verse describes a mother eating her child and even the afterbirth during a siege, as the most extreme consequence of abandoning the covenant with God.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Literal vs rhetorical interpretation | All commentators see the description as a real possibility under siege conditions, not merely symbolic. | Some read it as a literal prophecy that was historically fulfilled (2 Kings 6). Others emphasize it as a rhetorical extreme to shock the original audience into obedience. |
| Meaning of shilyah | The Hebrew word occurs only here, and most translations and commentaries identify it as the afterbirth or outer membrane covering the fetus. | The KJV renders it 'young one', referring to the child itself. Adam Clarke argues strongly for 'afterbirth', while Kennicott suggests emending to 'boil' (based on 2 Kings 6:29). |
| Conditional or absolute curse | It is part of the covenant curses that would come upon Israel for disobedience. | The Cambridge Bible says the prediction is absolute because of actual failure to obey. Others (e.g., Wesley) treat it as conditional on continuing disobedience, consistent with the covenant's 'if...then' structure. |
| Pastoral use today | The verse shows the seriousness of sin and the holiness of God. | Some traditions apply it directly as a warning to believers today; others see it as historically fulfilled and now superseded by the new covenant, focusing instead on the gospel. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Deuteronomy 28 forms the covenant ratification ceremony for Israel at Moab. After the blessings (vv.1, 14), the curses escalate from agricultural failure to military defeat, siege, and finally cannibalism. This specific curse targets the most tender and protected relationship: mother and newborn.
The Hebrew phrase b'cheser kol ("for lack of all things") echoes the covenant provision: Israel had served God with abundance (v.47), but now will serve enemies "in want of all things" (v.48). The siege is described as occurring "in your gates", the same places where justice formerly ruled (Deut 16:18). The word shilyah (afterbirth) appears only here in the Old Testament, showing the unique horror being described. The mother eats not just her child but even the membrane that held it, nothing is spared.
This curse is a direct reversal of creation. In Genesis 3:16 God told Eve that childbearing would come through pain, yet here the child becomes food. The cross-reference from Isaiah 49:15 frames the contrast: God says "Can a woman forget her nursing child? Yet I will not forget you." In Deuteronomy 28:57, the covenant, not God, has been forgotten, and the natural bond is undone. Historical fulfillments include the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:28-29) where two women agreed to eat their own children, and Josephus records a similar event during the Roman siege of Jerusalem (Jewish Wars 6.3.4).
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Deuteronomy 28:57. The word shilyah (גירליה) appears to be a hapax legomenon in this form, but its meaning is well established from Arabic and other Semitic cognates as 'afterbirth'. Adam Clarke mentions a conjectural emendation by Kennicott to read ubashelah ('and she shall boil') instead of ubes hilyathah, but this is an interpretive suggestion rather than a manuscript variant. Standard Hebrew manuscripts (MT) support the reading as above.
Reception History
Early Jewish interpretation (Targum Jonathan, Rashi) understood the verse literally: the afterbirth would be eaten. Josephus (1st century AD) records a similar event during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, where a woman named Mary killed and ate her child. This account shows how Jewish tradition saw the curse as historically realized. Early Christian writers used the verse as a warning against apostasy; e.g., Origen (Homilies on Joshua) pointed to the breakdown of natural affection as proof of sin's effects. After the Reformation, Calvin and Luther used the passage to underscore the law's terror, driving hearers to Christ. Wesley applied it directly to the Jewish nation as 'a perpetual reproach'. Modern commentaries (e.g., Ellicott, Keil) treat it as a fixture of covenant theology, emphasizing that such judgments demonstrate God's holiness and the seriousness of the covenant relationship.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The breaking of natural bonds: In covenant faithfulness, family relationships reflect God's care. Under the curse, the most intimate bond (mother and child) is destroyed. The Hebrew word shilyah (afterbirth) shows that even the physical sign of birth becomes food. The curse touches the very moment of new life.
- The horror of a silent siege: The verse says she eats them "secretly" (ba'sater). Shame accompanies the sin. The siege not only starves the body but also isolates the soul. The mother cannot even cry out for help.
- The purpose of the graphic warning: This is not gratuitous. As the Cambridge Bible notes, the curse is predicted absolutely to show that covenant breaking is not a minor mistake but a life-or-death choice. The severity is meant to drive Israel back to God.
Five-point outline
- Context: The curses of Deuteronomy 28: the breakdown of every provision.
- Verse 54-57 focuses on the most tender: the delicate man and woman.
- Verse 57 specifics: mother, afterbirth, children, secret eating.
- Fulfillment in history: 2 Kings 6, Josephus, and later sieges.
- Application: The covenant is not optional; it is the fabric of life.
Illustration hooks
- A family's dinner table: after a job loss, the tension rises; parents skip meals for their kids. This curse inverts that: the parent eats the child. The covenant was meant to protect the table.
- A locked pantry during a disaster: when resources run out, people's character shows. The curse reveals total emptiness inside and out.
- The afterbirth (shilyah) is a medical detail that becomes a symbol: the source of life becomes the object of consumption.
Questions your congregation is asking
- "If God is love, why does He threaten such extreme punishment?"
- "Does this curse apply to Christians?"
- "How do I read these verses without becoming traumatized?"
Leading a Discussion
Begin by acknowledging the difficulty of this passage. It describes a mother eating her own afterbirth and child during a siege. The purpose is not to shock but to show what happens when people abandon the covenant that holds life together. Start the discussion by reading Deuteronomy 28:47-57 to see the progression.
Discussion questions
- What do you notice about the progression of curses in Deuteronomy 28:15-57? How does verse 57 function as the climax?
- Why do you think the curse specifically targets the mother-child relationship? Look at the contrast with Isaiah 49:15.
- The Hebrew word shilyah means afterbirth or outer membrane. Why is this detail included? How does it intensify the horror?
- How does the phrase "in secret" (ba'sater) shape the shame involved? What does this say about the isolation that sin brings?
- This curse was historically fulfilled in the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6) and Jerusalem (Josephus). How do these fulfillments affect your reading of Deuteronomy as prophecy?
- What does this verse teach about the seriousness of covenant faithfulness? How does it show that God's warnings are not empty threats?
- How can Christians read Old Testament curses like this without either ignoring them or being overwhelmed by fear? Where does the gospel speak into this?
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)
| Genesis 49:10 | The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs. The obedience of the peoples will be to him. |
| Isaiah 49:15 | “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yes, these may forget, yet I will not forget you! |
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke avoids what he sees as a tautology by translating the Hebrew word as "secondines," the afterbirth. This reading intensifies the mother's anguish: the child was born only to enter a world of such suffering and death that even the afterbirth becomes part of the horrific scene.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
Cambridge Bible Schools stresses that this passage is not a conditional warning but an absolute prediction, already certain because Israel had failed to serve God. The horror reaches its peak in a mother who eats her own child during the siege, a distinction from merely grudging a share of that awful food.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva annotators highlight the stark horror of a mother forced to eat her own afterbirth and children in secret, driven by total deprivation during an enemy siege. This extreme act underscores the utter desperation and straitness that God's judgment brings upon the people.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill sees this passage as a remarkably exact prophecy of the cannibalism that actually occurred during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, as recorded by Josephus. He notes that a proposed textual emendation to include "boil" would make the fulfillment even more precise, matching the historical account of a woman boiling and eating her own child.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange sees the exhaustive listing of every blessing and curse as deliberate—it proves that nothing in life is accident or human achievement, but God directly rules every particular. For him religion here is not knowledge or worship but daily experience, one day teaching another. This moral framing strips earthly prosperity of its attraction and gives suffering its purpose toward repentance.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry points out that Israel's punishment was a precise reversal of their sin. Because they refused to serve God with joyful hearts while enjoying every good thing, they would be forced to serve merciless enemies in desperate lack. The curses were not random but reflected the exact failure of their gratitude.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley emphasizes the unique horror of the prophecy: Jewish mothers would eat their own young, including the after-birth, a practice unparalleled among Greeks or Barbarians. He interprets this as the dreadful consequence of divine abandonment, bringing perpetual reproach upon the nation.