Deuteronomy 23:25

Translation
King James Version
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.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
When thou comest H935 into the standing corn H7054 of thy neighbour H7453, then thou mayest pluck H6998 the ears H4425 with thine hand H3027; but thou shalt not move H5130 a sickle H2770 unto thy neighbour's H7453 standing corn H7054.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
When you enter your neighbor's field of growing grain, you may pluck ears with your hand; but you are not to put a sickle to your neighbor's grain.
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
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.
Ask
American Standard Version
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.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hand; but you shall not move a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
When thou commest into thy neighbours corne thou mayest plucke the eares with thine hand, but thou shalt not moue a sickle to thy neighbours corne.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
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.
Ask
See also
Mark 2:23Matthew 12:1Matthew 12:2Luke 6:1Luke 6:2
In the KJVVerse 5,526 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

Deuteronomy 23:25 presents a compassionate and ethically balanced law within ancient Israel's agrarian society, permitting an individual passing through a neighbor's standing grain field to hand-pluck and eat enough ears to satisfy immediate hunger. This provision ensures basic sustenance for travelers or the needy without formal begging, reflecting God's concern for the vulnerable. Crucially, the law simultaneously prohibits the use of a sickle or any harvesting tool, thereby rigorously upholding the property rights of the landowner and clearly distinguishing between an act of personal need and an act of theft or commercial harvesting. It beautifully exemplifies God's heart for both mercy towards the vulnerable and respect for private property, fostering a just and ethical community under His covenant.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: Deuteronomy 23 is situated within a larger block of laws (chapters 12-26) that detail the specific statutes and ordinances governing Israel's life in the Promised Land, serving as a practical outworking of the covenant established at Sinai. This chapter, in particular, addresses a diverse array of social and cultic regulations, including rules for assembly, cleanliness, lending, vows, and the treatment of foreign workers. Verse 25 is immediately preceded by laws concerning the treatment of runaway slaves and the prohibition of certain cultic practices (e.g., Deuteronomy 23:15-18), and it is followed by regulations concerning vows (e.g., Deuteronomy 23:21-23) and the use of vineyards (e.g., Deuteronomy 23:24). It stands as a practical, compassionate provision within a broader legal framework designed to establish a just and merciful society, reflecting the covenantal relationship between God and His people. The law demonstrates how the principles of justice and mercy are to be lived out in daily interactions, particularly concerning basic needs and property.
  • Historical & Cultural Context: Ancient Israel was fundamentally an agrarian society, where land ownership and agricultural produce were central to economic stability and survival. Grain, such as barley and wheat (often referred to as "corn" in older translations, meaning any cereal grain), constituted a staple food. Fields of "standing corn" (grain ready for harvest) represented the primary livelihood and wealth of a family. In such a society, travel often necessitated passing through cultivated lands, and immediate hunger could be a pressing concern for travelers or the poor. This law, therefore, addresses a common scenario, providing a safety net for immediate hunger while simultaneously protecting the farmer's property. It reflects a communal ethic where the welfare of the individual, even a stranger, was considered within the framework of established property rights—a stark contrast to many surrounding cultures that might not have such provisions. This balance underscores the unique covenantal identity of Israel, called to be a light to the nations through its just and compassionate laws, as seen in other provisions like gleaning laws in Leviticus 19:9-10 and Deuteronomy 24:19-22.
  • Key Themes: Deuteronomy 23:25 powerfully articulates several core themes prevalent throughout the book of Deuteronomy and the broader Pentateuch. Firstly, it highlights Covenantal Compassion and Care for the Vulnerable, a recurring motif where God commands His people to extend mercy and provision, especially to the poor, the sojourner, and the needy, mirroring His own gracious character (e.g., Deuteronomy 15:7-11). Secondly, it underscores the importance of Respect for Property Rights, establishing clear boundaries for ownership and preventing theft or exploitation, which is foundational to a stable and just society (e.g., Deuteronomy 5:19). Thirdly, the verse demonstrates the principle of Ethical Boundaries and Responsible Consumption, distinguishing between satisfying immediate, personal need and systematic, commercial harvesting. This distinction teaches discernment and integrity in interactions, emphasizing that while generosity is commanded, it does not negate the rights of the owner. These themes collectively paint a picture of a society striving to live out God's righteous standards in practical, everyday life.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • Pluck (Hebrew, qâṭaph', H6998): This verb signifies "to strip off" or "crop off." In this context, it specifically refers to the manual action of taking ears of grain by hand, emphasizing a limited, personal gathering for immediate consumption rather than a systematic harvest. This word choice underscores the compassionate intent of the law, allowing for the satisfaction of hunger without infringing upon the landowner's livelihood.
  • Sickle (Hebrew, chermêsh', H2770): This noun denotes "a sickle (as cutting)." The explicit prohibition against "moving a sickle" into the field highlights the stark distinction between a small, personal act of gathering and a large-scale, commercial act of harvesting. The use of this specific tool signifies an intent to take a significant portion of the crop, which would constitute theft and undermine the property rights of the owner.
  • Standing Corn (Hebrew, qâmâh', H7054): This term refers to "something that rises, i.e., a stalk of grain" that is still upright in the field, ripe for harvest. It signifies the farmer's investment, labor, and anticipated yield. The permission to pluck from "standing corn" specifically addresses the situation where the grain is still the property of the farmer and has not yet been gathered, thus requiring a specific legal provision that balances immediate need with property rights.

Verse Breakdown

  • "When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour": This clause sets the scene, describing a common scenario for travelers or those passing through agricultural lands. It establishes the context of entering another's private property, specifically a field of grain ready for harvest, which is central to the farmer's livelihood and represents a significant investment of time and resources. This opening phrase grounds the law in the practical realities of an agrarian society.
  • "then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand": This is the permissive clause, granting the right to an individual to gather a small quantity of grain. The emphasis on "with thine hand" is crucial, limiting the action to what can be manually taken for immediate consumption, thereby preventing large-scale collection or damage to the field. It reflects a compassionate provision for immediate hunger, demonstrating God's concern for the basic needs of individuals within His covenant community.
  • "but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn": This is the prohibitive clause, establishing a clear and unequivocal boundary. The explicit ban on using a "sickle" (or any harvesting tool) unequivocally distinguishes between satisfying personal hunger and engaging in an act of theft or commercial harvesting. This prohibition rigorously safeguards the property rights of the owner and prevents exploitation of the compassionate allowance, ensuring justice and order within the community by defining the limits of permissible action.

Literary Devices

Deuteronomy 23:25 employs Contrast as its primary literary device, sharply delineating between a permissible action and a forbidden one. The phrase "pluck the ears with thine hand" is set in direct opposition to "shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn." This stark Antithesis highlights the ethical boundary: one action is a compassionate allowance for immediate personal need, while the other is a clear infringement on property rights, tantamount to theft. The specificity of the actions—manual plucking versus using a harvesting tool—serves as a Metonymy, where the tool represents the act of large-scale harvesting or stealing. This precise legal language, characteristic of Deuteronomic law, uses Juxtaposition to emphasize the fine line between grace and transgression, illustrating the careful balance God's law strikes between individual need and communal justice. The concise formulation ensures clarity and leaves no room for misinterpretation regarding the limits of the allowance.

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

This law in Deuteronomy 23:25 is a beautiful illustration of God's character, which is both just and merciful. It reflects the broader biblical principle of balancing individual rights with communal responsibility and compassion for the vulnerable. The allowance for plucking grain by hand aligns with other Old Testament provisions for the poor and the stranger, such as the laws of gleaning (leaving portions of the harvest for the needy) and the tithe, which included provisions for the Levite, the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow. These laws collectively demonstrate God's concern for equitable distribution and the prevention of extreme poverty within His covenant community. They underscore the theological truth that all resources ultimately belong to God, and landowners are stewards, called to administer their possessions with generosity and justice, reflecting divine benevolence. The prohibition against the sickle reinforces the sanctity of private property and the importance of ethical boundaries, teaching that compassion does not negate justice, nor does need justify theft.

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

While the specific context of "standing corn" may seem distant from modern life, the timeless principles embedded in Deuteronomy 23:25 remain profoundly relevant for contemporary believers. This verse challenges us to cultivate a heart of generosity and discernment, recognizing that true compassion extends beyond formal charity to practical, everyday acts of kindness. It encourages us to be mindful of the immediate needs of those around us, whether it's hunger, loneliness, or a lack of resources, and to consider how we can offer relief without enabling exploitation or disrespecting the efforts and property of others. The law also serves as a powerful reminder of ethical consumption and stewardship. It calls us to reflect on how we acquire and use resources, urging us to distinguish between genuine need and covetousness, and to respect the labor and property of others. Ultimately, this ancient statute invites us to live out the spirit of God's law—a law rooted in love, justice, and mercy—in all our interactions, fostering communities marked by both grace and integrity, reflecting the character of our benevolent God.

Questions for Reflection

  • How does this verse challenge my understanding of generosity and property rights in today's society?
  • In what practical ways can I extend compassion to those with immediate needs, while also respecting the boundaries of others' resources or labor?
  • How can I apply the principle of "plucking by hand" versus "using a sickle" to my own consumption habits and stewardship of resources?

FAQ

Is this law still applicable today, given that most people don't encounter "standing corn"?

Answer: While the literal context of "standing corn" is less common in modern, industrialized societies, the underlying principles of Deuteronomy 23:25 are profoundly applicable. It teaches us about compassionate provision for immediate need, respect for private property, and the importance of ethical boundaries. In contemporary terms, it encourages us to find ways to alleviate basic human suffering (e.g., food insecurity, homelessness) while also upholding the rights of individuals and businesses. It calls for discernment, distinguishing between genuine need and exploitation, and fostering a society that balances generosity with justice, reflecting the heart of God's law.

How does this law relate to the New Testament account of Jesus and His disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath?

Answer: This Deuteronomic law provides the legal backdrop for the incident described in Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, and Luke 6:1-5. The Pharisees did not criticize Jesus' disciples for plucking the grain itself, as Deuteronomy 23:25 explicitly permitted this act for immediate hunger. Their contention was that doing so on the Sabbath constituted "work," thereby violating their interpretation of Sabbath law. Jesus' defense, appealing to the spirit of the law and the example of David, highlighted that human need and God's compassionate intent often supersede rigid legalistic interpretations. This demonstrates that the Mosaic Law, including Deuteronomy 23:25, was given not as an oppressive burden but as a framework for life, mercy, and justice, ultimately pointing to Jesus as the Lord of the Sabbath.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

Deuteronomy 23:25, with its delicate balance of compassion and justice, finds its ultimate fulfillment and deepest meaning in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This Old Testament law, which provides for the hungry while upholding property rights, foreshadows the boundless generosity and perfect righteousness embodied in Christ. Jesus Himself, as the bread of life, fully satisfies the deepest hunger of humanity, not merely physical sustenance but spiritual nourishment (John 6:48-51). He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, demonstrating its true spirit of love and mercy (Matthew 5:17). His willingness to allow His disciples to pluck grain, defending their action against legalistic scrutiny, underscores His compassion for human need and His authority as Lord of the Sabbath. Furthermore, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the ultimate act of divine provision, where He, the Lamb of God, gave Himself completely to meet humanity's greatest need—redemption from sin—without infringing upon divine justice. In Him, both the compassionate provision for the needy and the upholding of God's righteous standards are perfectly reconciled, inviting believers to live lives of both radical generosity and unwavering integrity, empowered by His Spirit to be stewards of His abundant grace.

Copy as

Commentary on Deuteronomy 23 verses 15–25

Orders are here given about five several things which have no relation one to another: -

I. The land of Israel is here made a sanctuary, or city of refuge, for servants that were wronged and abused by their masters, and fled thither for shelter from the neighbouring countries, Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16. We cannot suppose that they were hereby obliged to give entertainment to all the unprincipled men that ran from service; Israel needed not (as Rome at first did) to be thus peopled. But, 1. They must not deliver up the trembling servant to his enraged master, till upon trial it appeared that the servant has wronged his master and was justly liable to punishment. Note, It is an honourable thing to shelter and protect the weak, provided they be not wicked. God allows his people to patronise the oppressed. The angel bid Hagar return to her mistress, and Paul sent Onesimus back to his master Philemon, because they had neither of them any cause to go away, nor was either of them exposed to any danger in returning. But the servant here is supposed to escape, that is, to run for his life, to the people of Israel, of whom he had heard (as Benhadad of the kings of Israel, Kg1 20:31) that they were a merciful people, to save himself from the fury of a tyrant; and in that case to deliver him up is to throw a lamb into the mouth of a lion. 2. If it appeared that the servant was abused, they must not only protect him, but, supposing him willing to embrace their religion, they must give him all the encouragement that might be to settle among them. Care is taken both that he should not be imposed up on in the place of his settlement - let it be that which he shall choose and where it liketh him best, and that he should not exchange one hard master for many - thou shalt not oppress him. Thus would he soon find a comfortable difference between the land of Israel and other lands, and would choose it to be his rest for ever. Note, Proselytes and converts to the truth should be treated with particular tenderness, that they may have no temptation to return.

II. The land of Israel must be no shelter for the unclean; no whore, no Sodomite, must be suffered to live among them (Plm 1:17, Plm 1:18), neither a whore nor a whoremonger. No houses of uncleanness must be kept either by men or women. Here is, 1. A good reason intimated why there should be no such wickedness tolerated among them: they were Israelites. This seems to have an emphasis laid upon it. For a daughter of Israel to be a whore, or a son of Israel a whoremaster, is to reproach the stock they are come of, the people they belong to, and the God they worship. It is bad in any, but worst in Israelites, a holy nation, Sa2 13:12. 2. A just mark of displeasure put upon this wickedness, that the hire of a whore, that is, the money she gets by her whoring, and the price of a dog, that is, of the Sodomite, pimp, or whoremaster (so I incline to understand it, for such are called dogs, Rev 22:15), the money he gets by his lewd and villainous practices, no part of it shall be brought into the house of the Lord (as the hire of prostitutes among the Gentiles was into their temples) for any vow. This intimates, (1.) That God would not accept of any offering at all from such wicked people; they had nothing to bring an offering of but what they got by their wickedness, and therefore their sacrifice could not but be an abomination to the Lord, Pro 15:8. (2.) That they should not think, by making and paying vows, and bringing offerings to the Lord, to obtain leave to go on in this sin, as (it should seem) some that followed that trade suggested to themselves, when their offerings were admitted. Pro 7:14, Pro 7:15, This day have I paid my vows, therefore came I forth to meet thee. Nothing should be accepted in commutation of penance. (3.) That we cannot honour God with our substance unless it be honestly and honourably come by. It must not only be considered what we give, but how we got it; God hates robbery for burnt-offerings, and uncleanness too.

III. The matter of usury is here settled, Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20. (1.) They must not lend upon usury to an Israelite. They had and held their estates immediately from and under God, who, while he distinguished them from all other people, might have ordered, had he so pleased, that they should have all things in common among themselves; but instead of that, and in token of their joint interest in the good land he had given them, he only appointed them, as there was occasion, to lend to one another without interest, which among them would be little or no loss to the lender, because their land was so divided, their estates were so settled, and there was so little of merchandise among them, that it was seldom or never that they had occasion to borrow any great sums, only what was necessary for the subsistence of their families when the fruits of their ground had met with any disaster, or the like; and, in such a case, for a small matter to insist upon usury would have been very barbarous. Where the borrower gets, or hopes to get, it is just that the lender should share in the gain; but to him that borrows for his necessary food pity must be shown, and we must lend, hoping for nothing again, if we have wherewithal to do it, Luk 6:35. (2.) They might lend upon usury to a stranger, who was supposed to live by trade, and (as we say) by turning the penny, and therefore got by what he borrowed, and came among them in hopes to do so. By this it appears that usury is not in itself oppressive; for they must not oppress a stranger, and yet might exact usury from him.

IV. The performance of the vows wherewith we have bound our souls is here required; and it is a branch of the law of nature, Deu 23:21-23. (1.) We are here left at our liberty whether we will make vows or no: If thou shalt forbear to vow (some particular sacrifice and offering, more than was commanded by the law), it shall be no sin to thee. God had already signified his readiness to accept a free-will offering thus vowed, though it were but a little fine flour (Lev 2:4, etc.), which was encouragement enough to those who were so inclined. But lest the priests, who had the largest share of those vows and voluntary offerings, should sponge upon the people, by pressing it upon them as their duty to make such vows, beyond their ability and inclination, they are here expressly told that it should not be reckoned a sin in them if they did not make any such vows, as it would be if they omitted any of the sacrifices that God had particularly required. For (as bishop Patrick well expresses it) God would have men to be easy in his service, and all their offerings to be free and cheerful. (2.) We are here laid under the highest obligations, when we have made a vow, to perform it, and to perform it speedily: "Thou shalt not be slack to pay it, lest if it be delayed beyond the first opportunity the zeal abate, the vow be forgotten, or something happen to disable thee for the performance of it. That which has gone out of thy lips as a solemn and deliberate vow must not be recalled, but thou shalt keep and perform it, punctually and fully." The rule of the gospel goes somewhat further than this. Co2 9:7, Every one, according as he purposeth in his heart, though it have not gone out of his lips, so let him give. Here is a good reason why we should pay our vows, that if we do not God will require it of us, will surely and severely reckon with us, not only for lying, but for going about to mock him, who cannot be mocked. See Ecc 5:4.

V. Allowance is here given, when they passed through a cornfield or vineyard, to pluck and eat of the corn or grapes that grew by the road-side, whether it was done for necessity or delight, only they must carry none away with them, Deu 23:24, Deu 23:25. Therefore the disciples were not censured for plucking the ears of corn (it was well enough known that the law allowed it), but for doing it on the sabbath day, which the tradition of the elders had forbidden. Now, 1. This law intimated to them what great plenty of corn and wine they should have in Canaan, so much that a little would not be missed out of their fruits: they should have enough for themselves and all their friends. 2. It provided for the support of poor travellers, to relieve the fatigue of their journey, and teaches us to be kind to such. The Jews say, "This law was chiefly intended in favour of labourers, who were employed in gathering in their harvest and vintage; their mouths must not be muzzled any more than that of the ox when he treads out the corn." 3. It teaches us not to insist upon property in a small matter, of which it is easy to say, What is that between me and thee? It was true the grapes which the passenger ate were none of his own, nor did the proprietor give them to him; but the thing was of so small value that he had reason to think were he present, he would not deny them to him, anymore than he himself would grudge the like courtesy, and therefore it was no theft to take them. 4. It used them to hospitality, and teaches us to be ready to distribute, willing to communicate, and not to think every thing lost that is given away. Yet, 4. It forbids us to abuse the kindness of our friends, and to take the advantage of fair concessions to make unreasonable encroachments: we must not draw an ell from those that give but an inch. They may eat of their neighbour's grapes; but it does not therefore follow that they may carry away.

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 15–25. Public domain.
Copy as
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying Deuteronomy 23:25 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

Read & Compare

Commentaries

Original Language & Research

Sermons, Hymns & Audio

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.