The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Miscellaneous Laws
Deuteronomy 23:15–25 — Miscellaneous Laws. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
15Do not return a slave to his master if he has taken refuge with you.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō- ṯas·gîr ‘e·ḇeḏ ’el- ’ă·ḏō·nāw ’ă·šer- yin·nā·ṣêl mê·‘im ’ă·ḏō·nāw ’ê·le·ḵā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“You-shall-not shut-up a-slave to his-master, who has-rescued-himself to-you from-with his-master.”
Where the English smooths the original
The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land. It is of course assumed that the refugee was not flying from justice, but only from the tyranny of his lord.
Now it is not strange nor unjust, if the great God, who hates all tyranny, and styles himself the refuge of the oppressed, doth interpose his authority, and help to rescue such persons from their cruel masters, who otherwise would be too strong for them.Poole's full note labors to bound the law — it does not protect every idle or fugitive servant — and grounds the protection in God's own self-naming as refuge of the oppressed.
A slave who had escaped from his master to Israel was not to be given up, but to be allowed to dwell in the land, wherever he might choose, and not to be oppressed. The reference is to a slave who had fled to them from a foreign country, on account of the harsh treatment which he had received from his heathen master. The plural `adoniym denotes the rule.
Even on Israelitish ground the escaped slave was free. Rashi adds, “Even a Canaanitish slave who has escaped from abroad into the land of Israel.”The opening reference-string “Deuteronomy 23:15-16. — REFUGEES. Thou shalt not deliver . . . the servant.” has been trimmed; the quoted core is Ellicott's verbatim gloss.
16Let him live among you wherever he chooses, in the town of his pleasing. Do not oppress him.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
‘im·mə·ḵā yê·šêḇ bə·qir·bə·ḵā bam·mā·qō·wm ’ă·šer- yiḇ·ḥar bə·’a·ḥaḏ šə·‘ā·re·ḵā baṭ·ṭō·wḇ lōw lō tō·w·nen·nū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“With-you he-shall-dwell, in-your-midst, in-the-place that he-chooses, in-one of-your-gates, where-it-is-good for-him; you-shall-not oppress-him.”
Where the English smooths the original
he was not to be detained by the person that took him up in his own house, or be obliged to dwell in any certain place under, a restraint, but he might take up his abode in any of the cities of Israel, which would be most for his good, profit, and advantage: thou shalt not oppress him; by words, as the Targum of Jonathan adds,"calling him a fugitive servant, or by any opprobrious name.''
Taking advantage from his low and afflicted condition to be unreasonable or injurious to him.Poole's gloss on “thou shalt not oppress him.”
A slave that had escaped from his master was not to be given up, but allowed to dwell in the land, in whatever part he might choose. The reference is to a foreign slave who had fled from the harsh treatment of his master to seek refuge in Israel, as is evident from the expressionThe Pulpit Commentary treats vv. 15-16 as a single note (printed at v. 15); this verbatim excerpt, bearing directly on v. 16's grant of free residence, is trimmed before the editor's Hebrew citation.
17No daughter or son of Israel is to be a shrine prostitute.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō- mib·bə·nō·wṯ wə·lō- yiś·rå̄·ʾēl mib·bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl yih·yeh ṯih·yeh qə·ḏê·šāh qā·ḏêš
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“There-shall-not-be a-cult-harlot of-the-daughters of-Israel, nor shall-there-be a-cult-sodomite of-the-sons of-Israel.”
Where the English smooths the original
The word for "whore" is "kedeshah", which properly signifies an "holy" one; and here, by an antiphrasis, an unholy, an impure person, one that is defiled by man
It is remarkable that the original words, which we render whore and sodomite, import a man or woman consecrated to some deity, who served their gods by prostitution.
On the other hand, male and female prostitutes of Israelitish descent were not to be tolerated; i.e., it was not to be allowed, that either a male or female among the Israelites should give himself up to prostitution as an act of religious worship. The exclusion of foreign prostitutes was involved in the command to root out the Canaanites. קדּשׁ and קדשׁה were persons who prostituted themselves in the worship of the Canaanitish Astarte (see at Genesis 38:21 ).
18You must not bring the wages of a prostitute, whether female or male, into the house of the LORD your God to fulfill any vow, because both are detestable to the LORD your God.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō- ṯā·ḇî ’eṯ·nan zō·w·nāh ke·leḇ ū·mə·ḥîr bêṯ Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā lə·ḵāl ne·ḏer kî šə·nê·hem ṯō·w·‘ă·ḇaṯ Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā gam-
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“You-shall-not bring the-hire of-a-harlot, or the-price of-a-dog, into the-house of-YHWH your-God for-any vow; for an-abomination to-YHWH your-God are both of-them.”
Where the English smooths the original
Even a lamb or a kid might not be sacrificed for them, if obtained as the wages of sin ( Genesis 38:17 ). The price of a dog. —The ass might be redeemed with a lamb, and the lamb could be sacrificed. The dog could not be treated thus.Ellicott's note closes by linking the “dog” to Revelation 22:15 — “without are dogs and sorcerers... and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”
Forbidding that any income gained from evil things should be applied to the service of GodThe Geneva marginal note ‘i’; its citation “Mic 2:7” (more aptly Micah 1:7) is the editor's cross-reference.
"The price of a dog" is not the price paid for the sale of a dog (Bochart, Spencer, Iken, Baumgarten, etc.), but is a figurative expression used to denote the gains of the kadesh
19Do not charge your brother interest on money, food, or any other type of loan.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō- ṯaš·šîḵ lə·’ā·ḥî·ḵā ne·šeḵ ke·sep̄ ne·šeḵ ’ō·ḵel ne·šeḵ kāl- dā·ḇār ’ă·šer yiš·šāḵ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“You-shall-not bite your-brother — bite of-silver, bite of-food, bite of-anything that may-be-bitten.”
Where the English smooths the original
Usury in such cases means oppression; and so it is proved to be by the examples given in Nehemiah 5:2-5 ; Nehemiah 5:10-12 . The connection between this exaction and modern investments is not obvious, except in a very few cases. The Mosaic law against usury does not belong to commerce with other nations; it is part of the poor law of the land of Israel.Ellicott reads the usury law as poor-relief, not a blanket condemnation of interest; he grounds it on the “poor man” of Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35-36.
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. This, among them, would be little or no loss to the lender, because their land was so divided, their estates so settled, and there was so little merchandise among them, that it was seldom or never they had occasion to borrow any great sums, but only for the subsistence of their families
Of his brother (i.e., his countryman), the Israelite was not to take interest for money, food, or anything else that he lent to him; but only of strangers (non-Israelites: cf. Exodus 22:24 and Leviticus 25:36-37 ).
20You may charge a foreigner interest, but not your brother, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything to which you put your hand in the land that you are entering to possess.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lan·nā·ḵə·rî ṯaš·šîḵ lō ū·lə·’ā·ḥî·ḵā ṯaš·šîḵ lə·ma·‘an Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā yə·ḇā·reḵ·ḵā bə·ḵōl miš·laḥ yā·ḏe·ḵā ‘al- hā·’ā·reṣ ’ă·šer- ’at·tāh ḇā- šām·māh lə·riš·tāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“To-the-foreigner you-may-cause-to-bite, but-to-your-brother you-shall-not cause-to-bite — so-that YHWH your-God may-bless-you in-all the-sending-out of-your-hand, in the-land where you are-entering to-possess-it.”
Where the English smooths the original
The Israelites lived in a simple state of society, and hence they were encouraged to lend to each other in a friendly way without any hope of gain. But the case was different with foreigners, who, engaged in trade and commerce, borrowed to enlarge their capital, and might reasonably be expected to pay interest on their loans. Besides, the distinction was admirably conducive to keeping the Israelites separate from the rest of the world.
Unto a stranger, i.e. to a person of any other nation, for so that word is generally used, and therefore they who restrain it to the cursed Canaanitish nations seem to do so without any solid or sufficient grounds.
This was permitted for a time because of the hardness of their hearts. (l) If you show charity to your brother, God will declare his love toward you.The Geneva notes ‘k’ and ‘l’; note ‘k’ reads the foreigner-permission, like Christ's divorce saying, as a concession to hardness of heart.
21If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to keep it, because He will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî- ṯid·dōr ne·ḏer Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā lō ṯə·’a·ḥêr lə·šal·lə·mōw kî- Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā dā·rōš yiḏ·rə·šen·nū mê·‘im·māḵ wə·hā·yāh ḇə·ḵā ḥêṭ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“When you-vow a-vow to-YHWH your-God, you-shall-not delay to-fulfill-it, for surely-require-will YHWH your-God require-it of-you, and-it-will-be in-you sin.”
Where the English smooths the original
The three yearly feasts are mentioned by Rashi and the Rabbis as occasions for the payment of vows. (See 1Samuel 1:21 .) This precept is cited in Ecclesiastes 5:4 , but with sufficient verbal variation to prevent its being called a quotation.Ellicott's own caution — Ecclesiastes 5:4 echoes this law but is not a strict quotation — is the warrant for our tiering the link “verbal” on the rare shared vow-vocabulary while noting it is not a citation.
Not slack or delay , because delays may make thee both unable to pay it, and unwilling too, the sense of one’s obligation growing every day weaker than other, &c. It would be sin in thee, i.e. it would be laid to thy charge as a sin, and bring judgment upon thee.
thou shall not slack to pay it; or delay the payment of it, but do it immediately; since zeal and affection might abate, and there might not be hereafter an ability to perform, or death might come and prevent it
22But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty of sin.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ḵî ṯeḥ·dal lin·dōr lō- ḇə·ḵā yih·yeh ḥêṭ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“But-when you-refrain from-vowing, there-shall-not-be in-you sin.”
Where the English smooths the original
But if thou shalt forbear to vow,.... That a man might do, though there was ability; it was expected indeed that men should vow and bring freewill offerings in proportion to their ability; whether they were of the greater sort, of the herd and flock, or of fowls, or even of fine flour, these were acceptable to the Lord: but if they were not vowed and brought: it shall be no sin in thee; no charge of guilt be brought or punishment laid; it should not be reckoned a crime, nor be punishable in any respect, and especially where there was a willing mind and no ability; otherwise negligence, stubbornness, and ingratitude, are not well pleasing in the sight of God.Trimmed at the ellipses within a single contiguous note; Gill balances the freedom not to vow against the displeasure of mere negligence.
Vows vowed to the Lord were to be fulfilled without delay; but omitting to vow was not a sin. (On vows themselves, see at Lev and Numbers 30:2 .) נדבה is an accusative defining the meaning more fully: in free will, spontaneously.
23Be careful to follow through on what comes from your lips, because you have freely vowed to the LORD your God with your own mouth.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
tiš·mōr wə·‘ā·śî·ṯā mō·w·ṣā śə·p̄ā·ṯe·ḵā ka·’ă·šer nə·ḏā·ḇāh nā·ḏar·tā ’ă·šer Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā dib·bar·tā bə·p̄î·ḵā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“The-going-out of-your-lips you-shall-keep and-do, just-as you-vowed to-YHWH your-God a-freewill-offering, which you-spoke with-your-mouth.”
Where the English smooths the original
That which is 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.Drawn from Henry's running note on the whole passage (23:15-25).
A free-will offering; which though thou didst freely make, yet being made, thou art no longer free, but obliged to perform it.
A vow to the Lord, once made, was to be religiously kept; the Lord would require it, and to refuse or neglect to pay it would be held a sin. No one, however, was under any obligation to vow - that was to be a purely voluntary act.From the Pulpit Commentary's note on vv. 21-23, bearing directly on the freewill-yet-binding logic of v. 23.
24When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, but you must not put any in your basket.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî ṯā·ḇō rê·‘e·ḵā bə·ḵe·rem wə·’ā·ḵal·tā kə·nap̄·šə·ḵā śā·ḇə·‘e·ḵā ‘ă·nā·ḇîm lō ṯit·tên wə·’el- kel·yə·ḵā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“When you-enter into the-vineyard of-your-neighbor, you-may-eat grapes according-to-your-soul, to-your-fill; but into your-vessel you-shall-not put [any].”
Where the English smooths the original
Rashi tries to limit both this and the following precept to the labourer engaged in gathering the vintage or the harvest, when vessels are used and sickles employed. But the plain meaning will stand, and is accepted by our Lord in the Gospel. The objection made to His disciples was not that they plucked their neighbour’s corn, but that they did it on the SabbathEllicott rejects Rashi's narrowing of the law to hired laborers and reads it, with the Gospel, as a general traveler's right — the basis Jesus assumes in Matthew 12.
Vineyards, like cornfields mentioned in the next verse [De 23:25], were often unenclosed. In vine-growing countries grapes are amazingly cheap; and we need not wonder, therefore, that all within reach of a person's arm, was free; the quantity plucked was a loss never felt by the proprietor, and it was a kindly privilege afforded to the poor and wayfaring man.
In the vineyard or cornfield of a neighbor they might eat to appease hunger, but no store of grapes or of grain might be carried away. At thine own pleasure ; literally, according to thy soul , i . e . desire or appetite (cf. Deuteronomy 14:26 ).
25When 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.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî ṯā·ḇō rê·‘e·ḵā bə·qā·maṯ wə·qā·ṭap̄·tā mə·lî·lōṯ bə·yā·ḏe·ḵā lō ṯā·nîp̄ wə·ḥer·mêš ‘al rê·‘e·ḵā qā·maṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“When you-enter into the-standing-grain of-your-neighbor, you-may-pluck the-ears with-your-hand; but a-sickle you-shall-not swing over the-standing-grain of-your-neighbor.”
Where the English smooths the original
In the vineyard and cornfield of a neighbour they might eat at pleasure to still their hunger, but they were not to put anything into a vessel, or swing a sickle upon another's corn, that is to say, carry away any store of grapes or ears of corn. כּנפשׁך, according to thy desire, or appetite (cf. Deuteronomy 14:26 ). "Pluck the ears:" cf. Matthew 12:1 ; Luke 6:1 . - The right of hungry persons, when passing through a field, to pluck ears of corn, and rub out the grains and eat, is still recognised among the Arabs
Passest through it to go to some other place, the road lying through it, as it often does through standing corn; so Christ and his disciples are said to go through the corn, Matthew 12:1 ; but Jarchi says this Scripture speaks of a workman also, and so the Targum of Jonathan,"when thou goest in to take thine hire according to work in thy neighbour's standing corn;''but the other sense is best, and is confirmed and illustrated by the instance given, as well as best agrees with what follows: then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; the ears of wheat, and rub them, to separate the grain from the husk or beard, and eat it, as did the disciples of Christ; Luke 6:1 ; to satisfy hunger: but thou shall not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn to cut it down and carry any of it off; which would have been an unjust thing.Trimmed at the ellipses within Gill's single contiguous note; he reads the law of the passing traveler and links it directly to the disciples' grain-plucking in the Gospels.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The unit opens with one of the most startling statutes in the ancient world: lō ṯasgîr ʻeḇeḏ ʼel-ʼăḏōnāw — “you shall not shut up a slave back to his master.” Where every neighboring law-code commanded the return of fugitives, Israel was forbidden to hand one back. The commentators are nearly unanimous on the case in view. Barnes: “a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land,” one “not flying from justice, but only from the tyranny of his lord.” Keil & Delitzsch and the Pulpit Commentary both anchor this in the grammar — the foreign-slave reading is “evident from the expression... ‘in one of thy gates,’ i.e. in any part of thy land,” since an Israelite's own servant already dwelt among them. The reflexive verb yinnāṣêl (“has rescued himself”) tells the story: this is a man who tore himself free, and Poole grounds the protection in God's own character — “the great God, who hates all tyranny, and styles himself the refuge of the oppressed.” The freed man then receives what no slave expects: he chooses where to live (“in the place that he chooses... where it is good for him”), and his rescuers are forbidden to oppress (yânâh) him — Gill, citing the Targum, even forbids “calling him a fugitive servant, or by any opprobrious name.”
From mercy the law turns to purity. Israel was to harbor no qəḏêšāh or qāḏêš — the female and male “consecrated ones” of Canaanite worship. The horror is folded into the word itself: as Gill observes, qəḏêšāh “properly signifies an ‘holy’ one; and here, by an antiphrasis, an unholy, an impure person.” Benson notes the same: “the original words... import a man or woman consecrated to some deity, who served their gods by prostitution.” Keil identifies them as devotees “in the worship of the Canaanitish Astarte.” Then v. 18 closes the circuit at the altar: neither the ʼeṯnan (the harlot's “hire,” a word the prophets will hurl at faithless Israel in Micah 1:7 and Hosea 9:1) nor “the price of a dog” may pay a vow — “for an abomination (tôwʻêbah) to YHWH are both of them.” Keil presses the grammar: it is not merely the dirty money but “the prostitute and dog” themselves that are abomination. The Geneva Bible states the abiding principle in a line: nothing “gained from evil things should be applied to the service of God.”
Here the Hebrew is sharper than any translation. To charge interest is, literally, to make money bite: the verb nâshak means “to strike with a sting, as a serpent,” and the noun nešeḵ (“interest”) means “a bite.” The verse tolls it three times — bite of silver, bite of food, bite of anything — naming usury for its venom on the poor. The brother (ʼāḥ) may not be bitten; the foreigner (nokrî) may. The older commentators read this not as a blessing on commerce abroad but as poor-law at home. Ellicott: “usury in such cases means oppression... the Mosaic law against usury... is part of the poor law of the land of Israel.” JFB and Benson explain the foreigner-exception by trade: the nokrî “borrowed to enlarge their capital, and might reasonably be expected to pay interest.” And the reward of the open hand is covenant blessing — yəḇāreḵḵā, “that the LORD may bless you in all the sending-out of your hand.” The Geneva note draws the reciprocity: “If you show charity to your brother, God will declare his love toward you.”
The vow-law turns on a single, exact tension: vowing is wholly free, but a vow once made is wholly binding. To vow is voluntary — “when you refrain (châdal) from vowing, there shall not be in you sin” (v. 22); Keil: “omitting to vow was not a sin.” But to delay payment is to loiter (ʼâchar) with God's due, and “surely require will YHWH require it” — the doubled verb dārōš yiḏrəšennû marking certain demand. Poole warns of the delay itself: “delays may make thee both unable to pay it, and unwilling too.” Verse 23 holds the paradox in one image: the vow is “the going-forth of your lips,” a word that has departed beyond recall. Henry: “that which is gone out of thy lips... must not be recalled.” And though it was a nəḏāḇāh, a freewill offering, Poole names the binding exactly: “which though thou didst freely make, yet being made, thou art no longer free, but obliged to perform it.” Ellicott observes that Ecclesiastes 5:4 echoes this very law — “but with sufficient verbal variation to prevent its being called a quotation.”
The unit ends in a neighbor's field, with a law of generous limit. A passer-by may eat grapes “according to your soul (nephesh), to your fill” — the allowance measured by appetite, not ration — and pluck (qâṭaph) ears of grain by hand. But he may put none “into your vessel,” nor swing (nûwph) a sickle. The dividing line is precise: hand to mouth is mercy; hand to basket is theft. JFB sets the social picture: fields were “often unenclosed,” and “all within reach of a person's arm was free... a kindly privilege afforded to the poor and wayfaring man.” The rarest word in the unit closes it — ḥermêš, “sickle,” which occurs nowhere in all Scripture but here and at Deuteronomy 16:9, where the first stroke of that same sickle to the standing grain begins the count to the Feast of Weeks. The Gospels assume this whole law: Keil and Gill both note that when Jesus' disciples “plucked the ears” passing through the grainfields (Matthew 12:1), the objection was never theft, only the Sabbath.
Read under the rule that Scripture alone is the final authority, this scatter of “miscellaneous laws” discloses a single grammar — and it is offered here as a reading to be tested, not a verdict to be trusted. The God who legislates here is the refuge of the powerless. The unit opens by forbidding the slave-catcher and granting the runaway a free choice of home (vv. 15–16); it forbids the venom of usury against a brother in need (vv. 19–20); it guards the hungry traveler's right to eat from any field (vv. 24–25). Across three unrelated spheres — bondage, debt, hunger — the same hand restrains the strong and shelters the weak. What is owed to God may never be paid with what dishonors God. The cult-prostitute's hire and the dog's price are barred from the sanctuary (vv. 17–18) not because money is unclean but because the persons and acts are abomination; worship cannot be funded by the very sins it renounces. The same seriousness governs the vow: a word freely spoken to God becomes a binding debt the moment it leaves the lips (vv. 21–23). And the line between mercy and theft is always drawn at the hand. Eat to your soul's fill, but put nothing in your vessel; pluck with the hand, but do not swing the sickle. Generosity is commanded up to the very edge of the neighbor's right — and stops there. The thread that runs the whole length is restraint that protects: the powerful held back so the powerless may live. Note one forward lean: the traveler's law of vv. 24–25 is the precise statute the Lord of the Sabbath stands upon in Matthew 12, defending the hungry against those who would make mercy a crime.
Eat to your soul's fill from your neighbor's field — but the hand that may pluck for hunger may never swing the sickle for gain.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The rare word for sickle, ḥermêš, ties this verse to its only canonical twin. Deuteronomy 16:9 begins the count to the Feast of Weeks “from the start of the sickle on the standing grain” — the very two rare words paired here, where a passer-by may pluck ears by hand “but you shall not swing a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain.” The doubled rare vocabulary (sickle + standing-grain) makes the link verbal, not merely thematic: the same blade that opens Israel's harvest-feast is the blade forbidden against another man's crop.
Deuteronomy 16:9
basis: shared rare lexemes H2770 chermêsh (sickle, freq 2 — occurs only in these two verses) and H7054 qâmâh (standing grain, freq 8); the doubled rare vocabulary makes the verbal link definitive, as the Verifier confirms for this pair
The euphemistic-religious term for the cult-prostitute, qəḏêšāh (“consecrated one”), is one of the rarest words in the Hebrew Bible — four verses in all. It links this prohibition to the narrative where Judah seeks Tamar, mistaking her for a qəḏêšāh by the roadside (Genesis 38:21–22), and to Hosea's indictment of a people who “sacrifice with qəḏêšāh” (Hosea 4:14). Keil & Delitzsch make the Genesis link explicit, sending the reader “see at Genesis 38:21.” The rare shared word draws the law, the patriarchal narrative, and the prophetic charge into one witness: the “holy ones” of the fertility-cult are the antithesis of holiness.
Genesis 38:21 · Genesis 38:22 · Hosea 4:14
basis: shared rare lexeme H6948 qᵉdêshâh (cult-prostitute, freq 4 — occurs in only these few verses); the Verifier confirms the verbal link for Deut 23:17 with both Genesis 38:21 and Hosea 4:14. Not a quotation but a rare-word verbal correspondence binding law, narrative, and prophecy
The vow-law of vv. 21–23 shares its core vocabulary — nâdar/neder (“to vow / a vow”), shâlam (“to fulfill/pay”), and ʼâchar (“to delay”) — with the foundational vow-statute of Numbers 30:2 (“when a man vows a vow... he shall not break his word”) and with Ecclesiastes 5:4 (“when you vow a vow to God, defer not to pay it”). Ellicott flags the Ecclesiastes connection precisely while cautioning that it falls short of a citation: the precept “is cited in Ecclesiastes 5:4, but with sufficient verbal variation to prevent its being called a quotation.” We follow his honesty and deliberately under-claim. Although the Verifier returns ‘verbal — confirmed,’ the shared words here are simply the ordinary vocabulary of vows (neder, freq 57; nâdar, freq 28; the rarest, ʼâchar, freq 17) — common to nearly every vow text — not a rare fingerprint or a quoted formula. The genuine link is a shared statute-pattern: the same vow-law restated across the canon, with Ecclesiastes self-consciously echoing it. So we record it as structural/thematic, not verbal.
Numbers 30:2 · Ecclesiastes 5:4
basis: shared vow-vocabulary H5087 nâdar (freq 28), H5088 neder (freq 57), H7999 shâlam (fulfill, freq 107), and H309 ʼâchar (delay, freq 17, with Ecclesiastes 5:4). The Verifier flags this ‘verbal,’ but none of the shared lexemes is rare — they are the common vocabulary of every vow text — and per Ellicott no formula is quoted; we therefore under-claim to structural/thematic: one vow-statute restated across Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Ecclesiastes
The usury law of vv. 19–20 is bound to the Holiness-Code statute of Leviticus 25:36–37 by the rare word nešeḵ — “a bite,” the Hebrew name for interest — which occurs in only ten verses across the whole Bible. Both passages forbid taking the “bite” from a brother (ʼāḥ), and Keil, Ellicott, and JFB all read the two together (Keil cites “Exodus 22:24 and Leviticus 25:36-37”). The shared rare lexeme, applied to the same case (a needy fellow-Israelite), makes this a genuine verbal correspondence between the Deuteronomic and Levitical codes.
Leviticus 25:36 · Leviticus 25:37
basis: shared rare lexeme H5392 neshek (interest, lit. ‘a bite,’ freq 10) with the limiting term H251 ʼâch (brother); the Verifier confirms ‘verbal — confirmed’ for Deut 23:19 ↔ Leviticus 25:36 — the same statute restated across two codes
The male cult-functionary of v. 17, qāḏêš (freq 6), is one of the rarest words in the Hebrew Bible — and apart from this law and Job 36:14 it surfaces only in the regnal histories, as the standing measure of Judah's decline: “there were also qāḏêš in the land” (1 Kings 14:24), recurring through the reform-notices (1 Kings 15:12; 22:46) until Josiah “broke down the houses of the qāḏêš” in the temple precincts itself (2 Kings 23:7). The Verifier confirms the rare shared lexeme between Deuteronomy 23:17 and these verses, so the correspondence is genuinely verbal — Deuteronomy forbids the very figure the histories report Israel tolerating for centuries. It is a rare-word verbal tie, not a quotation: no formula is cited, and the genres differ (cultic statute vs. regnal indictment), which is why we mark it verbal-by-vocabulary and not “quotation.”
1 Kings 14:24 · 1 Kings 15:12 · 2 Kings 23:7
basis: shared RARE lexeme H6945 qâdêsh (male cult-prostitute, freq 6 — occurs in only six verses); the Verifier returns ‘verbal — confirmed’ for Deuteronomy 23:17 ↔ 1 Kings 14:24 and ↔ 2 Kings 23:7. A rare-word verbal correspondence binding the law to the regnal histories, NOT a quotation (no formula cited; the verdict word tôwʻêbah, freq 112, is the broader thematic frame)
The technical word ʼeṯnan (“the hire of harlotry”), barred from the sanctuary in v. 18, becomes a prophetic weapon. Micah declares Samaria's idol-wealth “gathered from the hire of a harlot, and to the hire of a harlot they shall return” (Micah 1:7); Hosea charges Israel with loving “a harlot's hire on every threshing-floor” (Hosea 9:1). The Geneva Bible already pointed v. 18 toward Micah, and Gill cites Micah 1:7 in his note. ʼeṯnan is genuinely rare (freq 8 — only eight verses in all Scripture), and the Verifier confirms the shared lexeme between Deuteronomy 23:18 and both prophetic verses, so the tie is verbal by vocabulary: the prophets read Israel's faithlessness through Deuteronomy's own word, even reusing its alliterative pairing of ʼeṯnan with zānāh (“harlot”). It is a rare-word verbal correspondence, not a quotation — no formula is cited, and the genre shifts from law to oracle.
Micah 1:7 · Hosea 9:1
basis: shared RARE lexeme H868 ʼethnan (the hire of harlotry/idolatry, freq 8 — only eight verses), plus H2181 zânâh (harlot); the Verifier returns ‘verbal — confirmed’ for Deuteronomy 23:18 ↔ Micah 1:7 and ↔ Hosea 9:1. A rare-word verbal tie, NOT a quotation: the prophets reuse Deuteronomy's exact specialized term to indict Israel, but cite no formula and shift genre from law to oracle
The law forbidding the return of a fugitive slave (vv. 15–16) finds its deepest New-Testament resonance in Paul's letter to Philemon, where Onesimus, the runaway, is to be received back “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16). This is a cross-Testament correspondence between a Hebrew text and a Greek one: because no original-language lexeme is shared, it cannot be a verbal link. It is argued, not asserted — from the shared situation (the fugitive bondman) and the shared movement (from chattel to free, dignified personhood) that the gospel carries to its fullness. Deuteronomy shelters the runaway in the land; Philemon receives him into the family.
Philemon 1:15 · Philemon 1:16
basis: no shared Strong's lexeme (cross-Testament Hebrew↔Greek; the Verifier returns none, so this cannot be tiered verbal). The link is the shared case — the fugitive slave not returned to bondage but raised toward freedom and brotherhood — read figurally and offered as such, not asserted from words
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
When the Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples of plucking heads of grain as they passed through the fields on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1; Luke 6:1), the charge was never theft — because Deuteronomy 23:25 expressly permits the hungry passer-by to pluck ears by hand. The objection was only the day. Christ answers by claiming lordship over the Sabbath itself and citing the mercy that law was made to serve. Keil and Gill both read the Gospel scene directly back into this verse; Ellicott notes the traveler's right “is accepted by our Lord in the Gospel.” The merciful field-law of Moses becomes the ground on which the incarnate Lawgiver vindicates compassion over ritual rigor — “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice” (Matthew 12:7). This is a cross-Testament reading argued from the shared statute, not from shared Hebrew words, and is offered as such.
Matthew 12:1 · Matthew 12:7 · Luke 6:1
Two of this unit's laws converge on Christ. The vow-law (vv. 21–23) demanded a word, once spoken to God, be kept “punctually and fully” (Henry) — and where every man's word fails, the Son comes saying “I have come to do Your will, O God” (Hebrews 10:7, 9), the one vow never delayed and wholly paid. And the runaway-slave law (vv. 15–16), which forbade returning the fugitive to his master and granted him a free home, anticipates the gospel that does not send the bondman back to his old master but sets him free: “if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36), received “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16). The law that sheltered the runaway and bound the vow points beyond itself to the One who keeps every vow and breaks every yoke. This reading runs from the shape of the laws, not from shared words, and is offered as a fallible synthesis to be weighed.
Hebrews 10:7 · John 8:36 · Philemon 1:16
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). The parses, Strong's numbers, and roots are taken as sourced from the Berean/Strong's apparatus; the ⚙ synthesis above never contradicts them. Every ✦ voice is a verbatim, contiguous excerpt of the public-domain commentary supplied for this unit, trimmed only at the ends (and at internal ellipses, where marked, within a single continuous note) and attributed in place. On the cross-references: three of the strongest links rest on genuinely rare shared Hebrew lexemes and are marked “verbal — confirmed,” each confirmed by running the Verifier on the pair: the sickle/standing-grain tie to Deuteronomy 16:9 (ḥermêš, freq 2 — the word occurs only in these two verses), the cult-prostitute tie to Genesis 38:21–22 and Hosea 4:14 (qəḏêšāh, freq 4), and the usury tie to Leviticus 25:36–37 (nešeḵ, “a bite,” freq 10). The vow-law link to Numbers 30:2 and Ecclesiastes 5:4 we have deliberately under-claimed to structural/thematic: the Verifier flags it “verbal,” but its shared words (nâdar, freq 28; neder, freq 57; ʼâchar, freq 17) are the ordinary vocabulary of every vow text, not a rare fingerprint, and we follow Ellicott's own caution that the Ecclesiastes 5:4 echo shows “sufficient verbal variation to prevent its being called a quotation” — so we tier it as one statute-pattern restated across the canon, not a verbal correspondence. Two further links rest on rare shared words but carry no quoted formula, so we mark them “verbal” by vocabulary while stating plainly they are not quotations: the male qāḏêš (freq 6) tie from Deuteronomy 23:17 to the regnal-history notices (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 2 Kings 23:7), where the Verifier confirms the rare shared lexeme even though the genres differ (cultic law vs. regnal indictment); and the ʼeṯnan (“harlot's hire,” freq 8) tie from v. 18 to Micah 1:7 and Hosea 9:1, where the prophets reuse Deuteronomy's exact specialized term to indict Israel. Both are rare-word verbal correspondences, not citations — the broader verdict word tôwʻêbah (freq 112) supplies only the thematic frame, never the tier. The two cross-Testament links are the ones most worth weighing carefully: the runaway-slave law to Philemon and the grain-plucking law to Matthew 12 / Luke 6 are connections between a Hebrew text and a Greek one, so by definition they share no Strong's number and cannot be tiered “verbal.” The Verifier returns no shared lexeme for these, exactly as expected; we have marked them typological and argued them from the shared case (the fugitive bondman; the hungry traveler's right) rather than asserting them from words. On the “dog” of v. 18: the commentators genuinely divide — most older voices (Keil, Barnes, Benson, Ellicott) read it figuratively for the male cult-prostitute of v. 17, while the Jewish tradition (per Gill) reads a literal dog; we have presented both and not forced the question. On the plural ʼăḏōnāw (v. 15): the Pulpit Commentary and Keil both insist this plural-of-rule carries no note of severity — “there is no reference to severity of rule, as if this were a plural intensive” — and we have followed them rather than over-reading the form. All ⚙ readings are fallible and carry no authority; weigh them against the Word.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)