Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 22:6
If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, [whether they be] young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:
6, 7. Of Sparing the Mother-bird. Peculiar to D. No reason of ritual such as we found from Deu 14:21 is traceable here. The motive may be prudence; had it been kindness to animals (as in Deu 25:4, and H. Lev 22:27 f.) we should have expected an injunction not to take the whole brood. Either D or possibly a later editor has in Deu 22:7 added the same inducement which is attached to the Fifth Commandment, as if reverence for motherhood were the motive. Steuern.’s idea that this was suggested by Deu 24:16 is far-fetched. Cp. Luk 12:6.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
These precepts are designed to cultivate a spirit of humanity. Compare Deu 25:4; Lev 22:28; and 1Co 9:9-10.
Deu 22:8
The roofs of houses in Palestine were flat and used for various purposes. Compare Jos 2:6; 2Sa 11:2; Act 10:9, etc. A battlement was almost a necessary protection. It was to be, according to the rabbis, at least two cubits high (about 3 ft.).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Deu 22:6-7
If a birds nest chance to be before thee.
How to take a birds nest
Does God take thought for birds, then? Yes, even for birds. They sow not, neither do they reap; yet our heavenly Father feedeth them. Christ: cared for birds, then; and therefore we may be sure that God cares for them. And this God, says Jesus, is your Father. He loves you even more than He loves the birds, and guards you with a more watchful care. You would laugh if I were to ask you, What does your mother love best, the canary that sings in the cage, or the little girl who sits in her lap? And you may be quite as sure that you are better to your Father in heaven than many sparrows; yes, and better than all the birds He ever made. But if you are so dear to God, your Father, should you not love Him because He loves you, and prove your love by caring for what He cares for? Well, He cares for birds. He marks the trees where the birds build their nests, and sing among the branches; and He shows us, in one of the Psalms (Psa 104:12; Psa 104:17), that He observes what kinds of trees the different birds select for use; does He not say, As for the stork, the fir trees are her house? Now, I dare say some of you boys are pleased to find that there is such a law, or rule, as this in the Bible. You have not been quite sure in your minds, perhaps, whether it was right or wrong to take a birds nest, or even to take the eggs from the nest. And, I dare say, when you heard me read my text you thought, Well, thats a capital rule! If I mustnt take the old bird, at least I may take the young ones or the eggs. But are you sure that that is the right way to read the Rule? But, to be honest with you, I am afraid it is wrong. As God loves the birds and takes care of them, so will you, if you are good children of our Father who is in heaven. And is it taking care of them to rob them of the beautiful little houses which they have spent so much toil in building? Of course, if we really want eggs or birds we may take them, whether we want them as food for the body or food for the mind; for God has put them all at our service. But to take them wantonly, without thought, without necessity, simply for the fun of it, is to wrong creatures whom God loves.
I. It set a limit to the natural greed of men. What would be the first impulse of a Jew who found the nest of a quail, or a partridge, with the mother bird sitting on the young ones or the eggs? Of course, his first impulse would be to take all he could get, the old bird as well as the eggs or the young. But to do that might be very poor thrift, and very poor morality. For in destroying the parent bird with the young the man might be helping to destroy a whole breed of valuable birds. He would get a dinner for today, but he would be lessening his chance of finding one tomorrow, tie would be helping himself, but he might also be injuring his neighbour. Dont be greedy, then, is the first lesson we find in our birds nest. Dont snatch at all you can for today, careless about tomorrow.
II. Another lesson taught by this law about a birds nest is this–it brings the law of God into the little things of life. And that is just where we most need it, and are most apt to forget it.
III. But this rule about birds nesting teaches us that all love is sacred; and this is the most beautiful lesson I have found in it. Now, think. If you were to find a nest, and saw the mother bird with a brood of young ones under her wings, what would it be that would give you a good chance of catching her? It would simply be her love for her nestlings. If she cared only for herself she could fly away out of your reach. But if the love of a bird is sacred, how much more sacred is the love of a boy or a girl, of a woman or a man! All love is sacred. It is base and wicked to take advantage of it, to turn it against itself, to use it for selfish ends. I would have you think, therefore, how great a power love gives you, and how base and wrong it is to abuse that power. Love is the strongest thing in the world. People will do for love what they would do for nothing else. And there are those who know that, and who take such base advantage of it that they sometimes ruin the character and spoil the life of those who love and trust them. There is nothing in the world so wicked, so base, so vile. If you have parents, or brothers and sisters, or young companions and friends, who love you dearly, oh take heed what you do! Their love will be the comfort and joy of your lives if you retain and respond to it. But that love puts them in your power. You may hurt them through it, and grieve them through it, and make them go wrong when, but for you, they would have gone right. And if you do, you will be scorned by all good men and women. If you do, what will you say to the God of all love, and what will He say to you, when you stand before Him? And that brings me to the very last word I have to say to you. Who is it that loves you best of all, most purely, most forgivingly, most tenderly? And perhaps you are abusing Gods love. (S. Cox, D. D.)
The law of the birds nest
Does God think it worth while to make mention of the nest of a bird? Yes, He does. In those old Hebrew days, if the people saw a lad coming with a birds nest, and bringing the old bird as well as the young, they could tell him that his father and mother would most likely live to attend his funeral! He would not live to be a grey-headed man. No; length of days went with obedience. Birds nests are much more wonderful things than many people think. What labour, skill, and patience each little builder displays before he has at home for his bride! Has it ever occurred to you that each kind of bird builds its own kind of nest? The thrush makes his home very like the blackbird, only always papers it. By a clever mixture of decayed wood and clay he puts a lining inside the home. But it is in foreign lands, where birds have other enemies besides men to fear, that greater ingenuity is displayed. Some build their little homes so as to hang from the bough of a tree right over a sheet of water, so that if the monkey finds the nest he cannot get at it, because his weight would sink him into the water. The entrance to the nest of others is made at the bottom, and the little house is suspended from the branch of a tree. There is one kind of bird called the tailor, who sews two leaves together so as to deceive the eye, for they look like one leaf and not two, We should think it a wonderful thing if we saw a horse building its own stable, yet this is not more wonderful than the bird building its own dwelling. God has shown His wisdom and power in putting the skill into the life of the bird, and this skill gives him rights. We always count it due to originality that it should be benefited by its productions. Invention gives rights. If this be so, does not Gods originality give Him a claim? What I am anxious to teach is this: Where you see the mark of Gods hand, listen for His voice. Where creation comes, kingly claims must be mot. Let this rule be followed, and what a change would come over the world! None but God can make things grow. Ought He not, then, to be revered and obeyed wherever He creates? Who but God could have designed the horse, so strong and fleet? What a marvellous combination of muscular and nervous force there is in the noble animal! Did the Creator endue this splendid beast with this vigour and activity that men should meet by the thousand to win or lose money? But it is time we considered the law of the birds nest. If you saw the mother bird sitting, you might take eggs or young birds, but you must let the dam go. Why? Because God sees that it is not wise to take all that is within your reach. Let the old bird fly; she will live to have another brood. This law acts beneficially on all sides. If George III had known this, he would not have been so greedy with the settlers in America. He strove to grasp all, and lost the United States. What might not that land have been under the Union Jack? It is a great nation, but not what it might have been. And how it would have nourished England, instead of being her rival! Many a family would have been saved irritation and heartbreak if grasping at all had not been the rule. Taking all within reach often means that affection is slain by selfishness, and duty driven away for want of knowing that God wants you to leave something for others to enjoy. When will Capital and Labour learn that to take all you can is to injure self? To grasp at too much is to lose greatly. When men have learned to let the old bird go, strikes and lock-outs will be no more. Commerce flourishes by not grasping at too much. One of the cleverest tradesmen I ever knew told me that one secret of his success was the way he bought his stock. He had great skill in this matter, and, said he, When I buy well, I say, how much of this extra profit can I give to my customers? Is it any wonder that his shop had a name for good stuff at a low price, and that he made money when others lost it? When men have learned to let the old bird go they will keep the Sabbath day holy. God gives men six days but claims the seventh. But we shall fail to get all the good taught in the text if we do not see that here we have Gods tribute to maternal affection. It is wonderful how brave a little timid bird will become in the defence of her young. She will sit there, and not try to save herself in her anxiety for the helpless brood which nestles under her wings. Is there some poor woman reading this who wonders how she is to provide for the children, now that her husband is no more? Poor widow, dost thou not see that if God cares for the birds nest He cares for thy home, and if He would protect the thrush or the wren He will not forget thy little ones? Does not God speak to young people here? If He thinks so much of a mothers love as to mark the affection of a bird for her young, how does He feel when He sees us treat our parents with neglect or cruelty? It is an old, and we fear true, proverb, that The old cat catches mice for the kittens, but the kitten never brings the old cat one. Should that old saying apply to us? Yes, God has shown His approval here of a mothers affection. Do not let any of us feel as some men feel when they are summoned to see their mother die. I dont want you to feel as a man did who had been sent for to bid his mother goodbye. She had worked hard for her large family; washed and baked and wrought to bring them up and save a bit of money to start them in the world; and just when she ought to have been in her prime she broke down and had to die. As the young man looked at her face, wrinkled and faded, he thought of the way she had toiled for her children, he remembered that he had never shown her any attention, had not ever kissed her since he was a little child, and the tears came into his eyes! He bent down and put his lips to hers, lovingly though awkwardly, and said, You have been a good mother to us, you have that! She looked at him as though she could not understand the kiss and the words of appreciation, and said with a sigh, Eh, John, I wish thou had said so before! (T. Champness.)
The birds nest
We are very much struck with this law, not because it has to do with a matter apparently trifling, but because there is annexed to it the same promise as to commandments of the highest requirement. The commandment may have to do with a trivial thing: but it is evident enough that it cannot be a trivial commandment; indeed, no commandment can be which proceeds from God. Let us endeavour to ascertain on what principles the precept before us is founded, what dispositions it inculcates, and we shall find that there is no cause for surprise in the annexment of a promise of long life to obedience to the direction, If a birds nest chance to be, etc. Now, you will see at once that, had the precept been of a more stringent character, it might, in some sense, have been more easily vindicated and explained. Had it forbidden altogether the meddling with the nest, had it required that not only should the mother bird be let go, but that neither the young birds nor the eggs should be taken, it would at once have been said that God was graciously protecting the inferior creation, and forbidding man to act towards them with any kind of cruelty. But the precept permits the taking the nest; it does not even hint that it might be better to let the nest alone; it simply confines itself to protecting the parent bird, and thus allows, if it does not actually direct, what may be thought an inhuman thing, the carrying off the young to the manifest disappointment and pain of the mother. It should not, however, be unobserved that the precept does not touch the case in which there is an actual looking for the nest. It is not a direction as to what should be done if a nest were found after diligent search, but only as to what should be done if a nest were found by mere chance or accident. Without pretending to argue that God would have forbidden the searching for the nest, it is highly probable that there was something significant in this direction as to taking the nest, in the particular case when that nest had been unwisely placed. We are sure, from various testimonies of Scripture, that God has designed to instruct us in and through the inferior creation, the birds of the air and the beasts of the field being often appealed to when men have to be taught and admonished. And we know not, therefore, that there can be anything far fetched in supposing that, by sanctioning a sort of injury to the bird, which had built its nest in an insecure place, God meant to teach us that, if we will not take due precautions for our own safety we are not to expect the shield of His protection. But now as to the permission itself. Were not the Israelites here taught to be moderate in their desires? It was like giving a lesson against covetousness, a lesson so constructed as to be capable of being reproduced in great variety of circumstances, when the finder of a prize, who might fancy himself at liberty to appropriate the whole, was required to content himself with a part. There was also in the precept a lesson against recklessness or waste. It required man, whilst supplying his present wants, to have due regard to his future; yea, and to the wants of others as well as to his own. You may apply the principle to a hundred cases. Whenever men live upon the capital, when the interest would suffice; whenever they recklessly consume all their earnings, though those earnings might enable them to lay something by; when, so long as, by eager grasping, they can secure what they like for themselves, they are utterly indifferent as to interfering with the supplies and enjoyments of others–in every such case they are violating the precept before us; they are taking the old bird with the young: as, on the other hand, by treating as a sin anything like wastefulness, by a prudent management of the gifts and mercies of God, by such a wise husbandry of resources as shall prove a consciousness that the Divine liberality, in place of sanctioning extravagance, should be a motive to economy, they may be said to be virtually obeying the precept; they are taking the young, but letting the dam go. But now let us look more narrowly into the reasons of the precept: we shall probably find, if we examine the peculiarities of the case, that the commandment before us has a yet more direct and extensive application. It could only be, you will observe, the attachment of the mother bird to its young which, for the most part, would put it in the power of the finder of the nest to take both together. And when you bring this circumstance into the account you can hardly doubt that one great reason why God protected the mother bird by an express commandment was, that He might point out the excellence of parental affection, and teach us that we were not to take advantage of such an affection, in order to any injury to the parties who displayed it. You must be all quite aware that the affection which one party bears to another may be taken advantage of, and that, too, to his manifest detriment. For example, circumstances place the child of another in your power; you are about to oppress or ill-use that child; the parent entreats; you agree to release the child, but only on conditions with which the parent would never have complied had it not been for the strong pleadings of natural affection–what do you do in such a case but make use of a power, derived solely from the parents love, to effect the parents injury? you seize, so to speak, the mother bird, when it is only her being the mother bird which has given you the opportunity of seizure. But evidently the involved principle is of very wide application. A parent may take improper advantage of a childs love, a child of a parents. A parent may work on the affections of a child, urging the child, by the love which he bears to a father or mother, to do something wrong, something against which conscience remonstrates; this is a case in which improper advantage is taken of affection, or injurious use is made of a power which, as in the case of the bird and her young, nothing but strong affection has originated. But our text has yet to be considered under another point of view. We have hitherto contended that, though it be apparently an insignificant matter with which the commandment before us is concerned, principles are involved of a high order and a wide application, so that there is no reason for surprise at finding long life promised as the reward of obedience. But we will now assume the Jews opinion to have been correct; they were wont to say of this commandment, that it was the least amongst the commandments of Moses. Admit it to have been so; yet is there any cause for wonder that such a blessing as long life should be promised by way of recompense to obedience? God enjoins a certain thing; but we can hardly bring ourselves to obey, simply because He has enjoined it. We have our inquiries to urge–why has He enjoined it? if it be an indifferent thing, we want to know why He should have made it the subject of a law; why not have let it alone? Why not? Because, we may venture to reply, He wishes to test the principle of obedience; He wishes to see whether His will and His word are sufficient for us. In order to this, He must legislate upon things which in themselves are indifferent, neither morally good nor bad; He must not confine laws to such matters as robbing a neighbours house, on which conscience is urgent: He must extend them to such matters as taking a birds nest, on which conscience is silent. It is the same as with a child. He is walking in a strangers garden, and you forbid his picking fruit; he knows that the fruit is not his, and therefore feels a reason for prohibition. But he is walking on a common, and you forbid his picking wild flowers; he knows that no one has property in these flowers, and therefore he cannot see any reason for your prohibition. Suppose him, however, to obey in both cases, abstaining alike from the flowers and the fruit, in which case does he show most of the principle of obedience, most of respect for your authority and of submission to your will? Surely, when he does not touch the flowers, which he sees no reason for not touching, rather than when he does not gather the fruit, which he feels that he can have no right to gather. It is exactly the same with God and ourselves. He may forbid things which we should have felt to be wrong, even had they not been forbidden; He may forbid things which we should not have felt wrong, nay, which would not have been wrong unless He had forbidden them. But in which case is our obedience most put to the proof? Not, surely, as to the thing criminal even without a commandment; but as to the thing indifferent till there was a commandment. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
Birds nest
A singular word to be in a Book which we might have expected to be wholly occupied with spiritual revelation. Men are anxious to know something about the unseen world, and the mystery which lies at the heart of things and palpitates throughout the whole circle of observable nature, and yet they are called upon to pay attention to the treatment of birds nests. Is this any departure from the benevolent and redeeming spirit of the Book? On the contrary, this is a vivid illustration of the minuteness of Divine government, and as such it affords the beginning of an argument which must forever accumulate in volume and force, on the ground that if God is so careful of a birds nest He must be proportionately careful of all things of higher quality. Jesus Christ so used nature. If, then, God so clothe the grass, said He, how much more will He clothe you, O ye of little faith? So we may add, If God is so careful of birds nests, what must He be of human hearts, and human homes, and the destinies of the human family? Gods beneficence is wonderfully displayed in the care of the birds nests. God is kind in little things as well as in great. The quality of His love is one, whether it be shown in the redemption of the race, in numbering the hairs of our head, in ordering our steps, or giving His beloved sleep. Did we but know it, we should find that all law is beneficent–the law of restriction as well as the law of liberty. The law which would keep a man from doing injury to himself, though it may appear to impair the prerogative of human will, is profoundly beneficent. Was not man to have dominion over the fowls of the air? Truly so, but dominion is to be exercised in mercy. The treatment of birds nests is a sure indication of the mans whole character. He who can wantonly destroy a birds nest can wantonly do a hundred other things of the same kind. To be cruel at all is to be cruel all through and through the substance and quality of the character. Men cannot be cruel to birds nests and gentle to childrens cradles. The man who can take care of a birds nest because it is right to do so–not because of any pleasure which he has in a birds nest–is a man who cannot be indifferent to the homes of children and the circumstances of his fellow creatures generally. It is a mistake to suppose that we can be wanton up to a given point, and then begin to be considerate and benevolent. We are all apt scholars in a bad school, and learn more in one lesson there than we can learn through much discipline in the school of God. The little tyrannies of childhood often explain the great despotism of mature life. Is not kindness an influence that penetrates the whole life, having manifold expression, alike upward, downward, and laterally, touching all human things, all inferiors and dependants, and every harmless and defenceless life? On the other hand, we are to be most careful not to encourage any merely pedantic feeling. Hence the caution I have before given respecting the purpose for which a man considerately handles even a birds nest. Every day we see how possible it is for a man to be very careful of his horse, and yet to hold the comfort of his servant very lightly. We have all seen, too, how possible it is for a man to be more careful of his dogs than of his children. But the care which is thus lavished upon horse or dog is not the care dictated by moral considerations, or inspired by benevolence; it is what I have termed a pedantic feeling, it is a mere expression of vanity, it is not an obedience to conscience or moral law. There are men who would not on any account break up a birds nest in the garden, who yet would allow a human creature to die of hunger. The birds nest may be regarded as an ornament of the garden, or an object of interest, or a centre around which various influences may gather; so whatever care may be bestowed upon it, it is not to be regarded as concerning the conscience or the higher nature. We must beware of decorative morality; calculated consideration for inferior things; for selfishness is very subtle in its operation, and sometimes it assumes with perfect hypocrisy the airs of benevolence and religion. What if in all our carefulness for dumb animals we think little of breaking a human heart by sternness or neglect? Kindness to the lower should become still tenderer kindness to the higher. This is Christs own argument: when He bids us behold the fowls of the air, that in their life we may see our Fathers kindness, He adds, Are ye not much better than they? When He points out bow carefully a man would look after the life of his cattle, He adds, How much, then, is a man better than a sheep? It ought to be considered a presumptive argument in favour of any mans spirit that he is kind to the inferior creatures that are around him; if this presumption be not realised in his cases then is his kindness bitterest wrong. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
6, 7. If a bird’s nest chance to bebefore theeThis is a beautiful instance of the humanizingspirit of the Mosaic law, in checking a tendency to wantondestructiveness and encouraging a spirit of kind and compassionatetenderness to the tiniest creatures. But there was wisdom as well ashumanity in the precept; for, as birds are well known to serveimportant uses in the economy of nature, the extirpation of aspecies, whether of edible or ravenous birds, must in any country beproductive of serious evils. But Palestine, in particular, wassituated in a climate which produced poisonous snakes and scorpions;and the deserts and mountains would have been overrun with them aswell as immense swarms of flies, locusts, mice, and vermin of variouskinds if the birds which fed upon them were extirpated [MICHAELIS].Accordingly, the counsel given in this passage was wise as well ashumane, to leave the hen undisturbed for the propagation of thespecies, while the taking of the brood occasionally was permitted asa check to too rapid an increase.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in any tree, or on the ground,…. Which are the usual places in which birds build their nests; and this, as Jarchi observes, excepts such nests that are prepared, that is, that are purposely made for fowls kept at home; and with which agrees the Jewish canon, which says t
“the letting go (the dam out of) the nest is not used but of a fowl, and it is not used but of what is not prepared; what is that which is not prepared? such as geese and hens, whose nest is in an orchard; but if their nest is in the house, and so doves kept at home, a man is free from letting (the dam) go;”
that is, he is not obliged to let it go; and this is to be understood of clean birds only; so the Targum of Jonathan,
“the nests of clean birds;”
agreeably to the same canons and the explanation of them u,
“an unclean bird is free from letting go; so an unclean bird, that sits upon the eggs of a clean bird, also a clean bird that sits upon the eggs of an unclean bird, are free from letting go,”
or persons are not obliged to let such go:
whether they be young ones or eggs; that are in the nest; and the Jewish canon is w,
“if there is but one young one, or one egg, a man is obliged to let go the dam, as it is said a nest: a nest is a word of a large sense:”
and the dam sitting upon the young or upon eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young; according to the above canon,
“if she is flying at the time her wings reach the nest, a man is bound to let her go; but if her wings touch not the nest, he is free from letting her go–if the young ones are capable of flying, or the eggs rotten, he is free from letting her go, as it is said, and the dam sitting, c. as the young are alive, so the eggs must be firm and sound, rotten ones are excepted and as eggs have need of their dam, so the young have need of their dam; those (therefore) that can fly are excepted:”
the dam is not to be taken with her young upon any account; yea, it is said x, not even to cleanse a leper; and whoever does take her is to be beaten: this law was made partly to preserve the species of birds, and prevent the decrease of them; for a dam let go might breed again, and to this purpose are the verses ascribed to Phocylides y, which contain the substance of this law, and this reason of it: and partly, as Maimonides observes z, that the dam might not be afflicted at the sight of the spoil of her young; for this law does not prohibit the taking of her in any other place but in her nest, nor after her young are taken, but not together; and, as the same writer remarks, if the law would have such care taken of beasts and birds, that they might be freed from sorrow and distress, how much more of man? Wherefore the intention of this law is to teach humanity, compassion, and pity in men to one another, and to forbid cruelty, covetousness, and such like vices; as also to instruct in the doctrine of Providence, which has a respect to birds; and our Lord may be thought to have this law in view, Lu 12:6.
t Misn. Cholin, c. 12. sect. 1. u Ib. sect. 2. w Ib. sect. 3. x Misn. Cholin, c. 12. sect. 5. y , &c. Poem. admon. l. 80, 81. z Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 48.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 6, 7:
This text commands humane treatment for lower creatures. It recognizes the principle of affection between parents and offspring, which God Himself established among living creatures. Compare this text with Exo 23:19; Lev 22:28; Pro 12:10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Since by this precept God instructed His people in the, law of kindness, it is a Supplement to the Sixth Commandment. Regard was had, indeed, to the preservation of the breed; but, besides, when birds are sitting, as being very lean, it is certain that they are not wholesome food; still there is no question but that it was God’s intention to accustom His people to study humanity. For, if there be one drop of compassion in us, it will never enter into our minds to kill an unhappy little bird, which so burns either with the desire of offspring, or with love towards its little ones, as to be heedless of its life, and to prefer endangering itself to the desertion of its eggs, or its brood. Wherefore, it is not to be doubted but that in this elementary lesson, God prohibited His people from savageness and cruelty.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) NESTING BIRDS (Deu. 22:6-7)
6 If a birds nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: 7 thou shalt surely let the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 22:6, 7
364.
What lesson, or lessons, is in this concern of our heavenly Father for the mother bird?
365.
What possible connection does the length of life have to do with saving a bird from death?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 22:6, 7
6 If a birds nest chance to be before you in the way in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother bird is sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother bird with the young.
7 You shall surely let the mother bird go, and take only the young, that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.
COMMENT 22:6, 7
The young birds, and apparently the eggs, could be taken. But not the mother (dam). In Lev. 22:28, similarly, a cow or ewe could not be killed on the same day as its young.
Jesus said of the sparrows, . . . not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God. And if God takes such graceful note of the insignificant matters of life, Fear not: ye are of more value than many sparrows (Luk. 12:6-7).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(6) If a birds nest.On this precept there is a remarkable comment in the Talmud (Kiddushin, p. 39, b). Rabbi Akiba says, You will not find a single duty prescribed in the Law with a promise of reward attached to it, which has not also the resurrection of the dead hanging thereby. In the command to honour thy father and mother, it is written (Deuteronomy 5) that thy days may be prolonged and that it may go well with thee. In the liberty of the nest it is written (here), that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. Suppose a mans father says to him, Climb up the tower and bring me the young birds. He ascends the tower, lets the dam go, and takes the young. But on his way back, he falls and is killed. Where is the going well in his case, and where is the prolonging of his days? Aye, but that it may go well with thee in the world where all goes well, and that thy days may be prolonged in that world where all is abiding.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6, 7. A bird’s nest Comp. Lev 22:28.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Taking Both A Bird and Its Young or Eggs Is Forbidden ( Deu 22:6-7 ).
Here what was seemly with regard to nature is in mind. Man was able to look on nature as a provider, but was not to treat it with disregard. Rather he should receive all with gratitude and watch over the provider. Compare the attitude required with regard to trees which were also providers (Deu 20:19-20). A general principle was being taught here of preserving the sources of supply.
Deu 22:6-7
‘ If a bird’s nest chance to be before you in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother sitting on the young, or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young, you shall surely let the mother go, but the young you may take to yourself, that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.’
There were two principles involved here. The first was the unseemliness of taking the young or the eggs of a bird for consumption, and at the same time eating the mother, who was fulfilling her God given responsibility of ‘multiplying’, thus taking the provision and eating the provider. This was seen as an offence against creation and against decency. The second was the principle of conservation. Some of what was found should be left so that it could reproduce further food in the future. To take the supplies and kill off the supplier was foolishness.
This has to do with taking eggs for food, not as an interesting hobby. The latter would have been looked on as waste. A bird could, of course, be shot down with a slingstone, and eaten, but it was not to be slain while it was fulfilling its God-given function. Thus this was very much a matter of principle. The point may also be of the impropriety of finding a bird nesting and killing the bird as well as stealing her young. It had similarities to boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (Deut. 14:31).
A further thing that may be in mind could be that in normal circumstances the bird could have flown to safety. It had remained to defend its young. It was fulfilling its motherhood. Under such circumstance it was to be spared on a parallel with the fatherless and widows, as an act of compassion. It inculcated a sense of decency and fair play.
“That it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.” That this is especially added here would seem to confirm that this was seen as an exceptionally ‘good’ thing to do, and as recognition that it was conforming to creation’s purpose. It may on the one hand simply signify the benefits that would be obtained. The ready food would make it well with them, while preserving the mother would ensure future provision though their lives. But comparison with Deu 5:33; Deu 6:3; Deu 6:18; Deu 12:25; Deu 12:28; Deu 19:13 suggests that it was more because they would have obeyed Yahweh’s commandment and shown compassion and thought for God’s creative purposes and for living things. Thus they would benefit within those creative purposes. The phrases may have been added to emphasise the importance of what might have seemed to some, who were harder hearted, to be an unnecessary imposition.
Some might question whether a mother bird should be of such importance. But perhaps that should draw out the further fact that this was a real test of goodness, goodness towards something that would not appreciate it and would give no reward in return. This was one of many laws which taught that consideration should be given to the defenceless, whether human, beast or bird. Such behaviour revealed what true men who obeyed God were like. They were considerate and thoughtful in all their ways, people of compassion in all circumstances, even with the weakest.
In the end this was not saying that someone who just obeyed this particular commandment would have long life. It was rather pointing out that those who were like this would live long lives, while those not considerate in all their ways would in general not. For the fact is that righteousness contributes to long life just as being dissolute does not. Righteous behaviour tends towards good health. Furthermore a man who made friends was more likely to live longer (especially in a turbulent society) than one who made enemies. These are general principles which God supports. It brings out that God is with and guides the righteous in what contributes to health and happiness.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 6. Thou shalt not take the dam with the young This is one of those merciful constitutions in the law of Moses, which, inspiring the minds of his people with a regard for the animal creation, tended much to humanize their hearts, to breed in them a sense of the Divine Providence extending its care to all its creatures; and to teach them to exercise their dominion over that animal creation with gentleness. The law seems also to regard posterity; for, by letting the dam go free, the breed may be continued; and as the reason of the law subsists now as well as then, it is doubtless obligatory upon us. Thomas Aquinas alleges, that this law also is opposed to the practice of some idolaters, who fancied they should have good fortune if they could catch the dam upon the nest with the young. Phocylides has enjoined the same practice as Moses:
“Who spoils a nest, would act extremely wrong, With greedy hands to take both old and young; To leave the dam has this apparent good, Thou hence may’st haply find a second brood.” HARTE’S Translation, ver. 125.
To this law Moses adds an exhortation; that it may be well with thee, &c. as much as to say, “This humanity, this compassion, is one of the things which will very much contribute to draw down upon you the blessing of God.” Nothing can be more just than the following observation of a Rabbi in the Mischna: “If upon a precept of the least importance, the law says, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days; what may not they reasonably promise themselves, who carefully observe those duties which are of the highest importance in the law?”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
All I would desire the Reader to remark with me upon this precept is this, that if a gracious GOD judged it proper, to give such a demonstration of his mercy, over all his works, so as to issue a precept to his people to be merciful; what an argument is this for believers in JESUS to repose themselves with full confidence on a GOD so gracious and merciful. Doth GOD take care for oxen? saith the apostle: or to use an higher authority; If GOD so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more shall he not clothe you, O ye of little faith! Mat 6:30 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Birds’ Nests
Deu 22:6-7
A singular word to be in a Book which we might have expected to be wholly occupied with spiritual revelation. Men are anxious to know something about the unseen worlds, and the mystery which lies at the heart of things and palpitates throughout the whole circle of observable nature, and yet they are called upon to pay attention to the treatment of birds’ nests. Is this any departure from the benevolent and redeeming spirit of the Book? On the contrary, this is a vivid illustration of the minuteness of divine government, and as such it affords the beginning of an argument which must for ever accumulate in volume and force, on the ground that if God is so careful of a bird’s nest he must be proportionately careful of all things of higher quality. Jesus Christ so used nature. “If then God so clothe the grass,” said he, “how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?” So we may add, If God is so careful of birds’ nests, what must he be of human hearts, and human homes, and the destinies of the human family? It is not enough to keep the law in great aspects, such as appeal to the public eye, and by keeping which reputation is sometimes unjustly gained. We are called upon to pay attention to minute and hardly discernible features of character, for these often indicate the real quality of the man. God’s beneficence is wonderfully displayed in the care of the birds’ nests. God is kind in little things as well as in great. The quality of his love is one, whether it be shown in the redemption of the race, in numbering the hairs of our head, in ordering our steps, or giving his beloved sleep. Did we but know it we should find that all law is beneficent the law of restriction as well as the law of liberty. The law which would keep a man from doing injury to himself, though it may appear to impair the prerogative of human will, is profoundly beneficent. Was not man to have dominion over the fowls of the air? Truly so; but dominion is to be exercised in mercy. Power that is uncontrolled by kindness soon becomes despotism. The psalmist heard that power belonged unto God; at that point he might have trembled with awe or bowed himself down in servile fear, for little and frail is the strength of man; but the psalmist seems to have heard at the same time the other and comforting truth namely, “Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy.” This is completeness of sovereignty: this is not only a hand that can rule but a heart that can love. We are apt to think that right and wrong are terms which only apply to great concerns, and so we lose the element of morality in things that are comparatively insignificant in volume and temporary in duration. The Bible insists that right and wrong are terms which belong to everything in life. There is a right way of appropriating the contents of a bird’s nest, and there is a way that is equally wrong. We may do the right thing in the wrong way. All men know what it is to speak the right word in the wrong tone, and so deprive the word of all its natural music and proper value as a moral instrument. There is a right way of chiding, and there is a chastisement which becomes mere malice or the wanton expression of superior physical force. The morality of the Bible goes down to every root and fibre of life. In offering a salutation, in opening a door, in uttering a wish, in writing a letter, in using titles of deference, in every possible exercise of human thought and power the moral element is present. Phebe was to be received by the Christians at Rome “as becometh saints.” A New Testament injunction is “Be courteous.” Charity itself is courteous, graceful, savoured with the highest degree of refinement, and expressive of the completest reach of dignity. So the Bible will not allow our life to fray itself out in loose ends, content if the middle portion of the web be comparatively well-connected and serviceable; every thread-end is to be attended to, every fibre is to be considered of value, and conscience is not satisfied until every question which righteousness can ask has been answered in a satisfactory manner. The treatment of birds’ nests is a sure indication of the man’s whole character. The act does not begin and end in itself. He who can wantonly destroy a bird’s nest can wantonly do a hundred other things of the same kind. It is here that we see the value of all such moral restriction and injunction. To be cruel at all is to be cruel all through and through the substance and quality of the character. Men cannot be cruel to birds’ nests and gentle to children’s cradles. The man who can take care of a bird’s nest because it is right to do so not because of any pleasure which he has in a bird’s nest is a man who cannot be indifferent to the homes of children and the circumstances of his fellow-creatures generally. It is a mistake to suppose that we can be wanton up to a given point, and then begin to be considerate and benevolent. We are all apt scholars in a bad school, and learn more in one lesson there than we can learn through much discipline in the school of God. The little tyrannies of childhood often explain the great despotism of mature life. Is not kindness an influence that penetrates the whole life, having manifold expression, alike upward, downward, and laterally, touching all human things, all inferiors and dependants, and every harmless and defenceless life? On the other hand, we are to be most careful not to encourage any merely pedantic feeling. Hence the caution I have before given respecting the purpose for which a man considerately handles even a bird’s nest. Every day we see how possible it is for a man to be very careful of his horse, and yet to hold the comfort of his servant very lightly. We have all seen, too, how possible it is for a man to be more careful of his dogs than of his children. But the care which is thus lavished upon horse or dog is not the care dictated by moral considerations, or inspired by benevolence; it is what I have termed a pedantic feeling, it is a mere expression of vanity, it is not an obedience to conscience or moral law. There are men who would not on any account break up a bird’s nest in the garden who yet would allow a human creature to die of hunger. The bird’s nest may be regarded as an ornament of the garden, or an object of interest, or a centre around which various influences may gather; so whatever care may be bestowed upon it, it is not to be regarded as concerning the conscience or the higher nature. We must beware of decorative morality; hand-painted feeling: calculated consideration for inferior things; for selfishness is very subtle in its operation, and sometimes it assumes with perfect hypocrisy the airs of benevolence and religion. What if in all our carefulness for dumb animals we think little of breaking a human heart by sternness or neglect? According to an ancient authority it was better to be Herod’s pig than to be Herod’s child; an anomaly which in literature is impossible, but in actual experience is an indisputable and tragical fact.
Kindness to the lower should become still tenderer kindness to the higher. This is Christ’s own argument when he bids us behold the fowls of the air that in their life we may see our Father’s kindness, he adds, “Are ye not much better than they?” When he points out how carefully a man would look after the life of his cattle, he adds, “How much then is a man better than a sheep?” It ought to be considered a presumptive argument in favour of any man’s spirit that he is kind to the inferior creatures that are around him; if this presumption be not realised in his case, then is his kindness bitterest wrong.
It is true that all such injunctions are not literally repeated in the Christian economy. We have not in the Christian Church to guard ourselves by sections and sub-sections of technical precepts. How then does the case stand with us who have come into a complete inheritance of so-called liberty? We have passed from the letter to the spirit; God has put within us a clean heart, so that we are no longer true, or kind, or noble, merely because of a literal direction which is guarded by solemn anction, but because the Holy Ghost has sanctified us, made our hearts his dwelling-place. It is utterly in vain for us to attempt to satisfy even our own sense of right by attending merely to what is known as duty or propriety. If we have not within us the Holy Spirit as our Teacher and Ruler, the efforts of our hand will but disappoint and mock our expectation. We cannot build a great character with the hand. At first the hand was called into active requisition, and was made to do a great deal in the way of moral industry, but he who called the hand into such service intended through it to find a way into the heart. Again and again we must repeat, “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” If we pass by a bird’s nest and forbear to destroy it simply because a law has forbidden its destruction, we are in our souls as if we had torn the little home to pieces and slain its helpless occupant. We do the things which we would do, even though they be not accomplished by the action of the hand. We pass through the wheat-field and do not touch a single ear of corn, yet if in our heart we covet the produce, or begrudge the farmer the result of his labour, we are in the sight of God spiritually guilty of having burned the wheat-field and thus destroyed the bread of man. The morality of Christianity is intensely spiritual. To hate is to murder. To covet is to steal. To desire is to appropriate. We are prone to measure things by vulgar aspects and broad appeals to human attention; consequently we have come to think that thieving can only be accomplished by the hand, whereas Christ teaches us that without laying our hands upon a single article of property belonging to another man we may in reality be guilty of the most wicked appropriation. Our prayer should continually be, “Create in me a clean heart, O God.” The hand may commit mistakes, it is the heart that commits sin. No matter how pedantically we may fulfil the literal law, if the spirit of righteousness is not in us we are not credited with obedience: the light that is within us is darkness, and when that is the case, who can estimate the gloom of so terrible a night?
Prayer
Almighty God, thou knowest what is good for us; we will not choose: to choose is to spoil the life when thou hast undertaken to choose for us. Do with us what thou wilt; thou canst not do wrong: God is Light; God is Love. We rest in God; we wait patiently for him. Let him come when he may: at the cock-crowing, or in the hot mid-day, or in the depth of the darkness. Come when thou wilt, as thou wilt; delay not thy coming is the one prayer upon which our faith and hope would venture; and thou hast permitted us to go thus far in our pleading with thee: thou hast not forbidden it to be written in thy Book, Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly. We know not what quickly means: it is a word that expresses our present failing, but we know not all that it contains. A thousand years are in thy sight as yesterday when it is past: one day is as a thousand years. Thou dost not reckon as we do. So we stand speaking our little language, uttering words which express only part of our thought, knowing that thy love will interpret our meaning and send an answer to itself rather than to our pleading. Thou dost permit us to pray. It relieves the heart to talk upward; the life is the better for the vision directed on high; there we see majesty, vastness, grandeur, points of light as tender as they are dazzling, and behold gates open upward into heaven, and we hope to enter the gleaming portals. We bless thee for the thought that is upward, for the aspiration that is like fire, for every wish of the heart that purifies the lips that utter it. These are thy creations; these are the testimonies of God to man; these are the proofs that thou hast not forsaken thy creatures. Pardon us wherein we have done wrong; grant unto us a sense of forgiveness; give us to feel as men feel who, staggering under great burdens, lose the way, and are permitted to spring forth into liberty. That will be early heaven; that will be a pledge of immortality; that will be the crown of Christ. O Christ! we bless thee. Our hearts know none other; they love thee: thou hast redeemed them. Our whole life is a tribute to thy power and thy grace. We come to thee, we rest upon thee; touching thy wounds, we say, These shall save us; opening thine hand to see the print of the nails, we say, This hand is mightier than all other; it will protect and deliver us; and to Christ shall be the praise of every age. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 22:6-7
6If you happen to come upon a bird’s nest along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; 7you shall certainly let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, in order that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.
Deu 22:6-7 These verses seen to relate to the preservation of food sources through many generations of Israelites. After Genesis 3 humanity could eat meat, but they must guard against the destruction of the source of the meat for the benefit of future generations of covenant brothers (i.e., that you may prolong your days, cf. Deu 4:40). Wild animals were God’s gift of protein for His people. Many of these specific detailed regulations were meant to cause Israelites to think about their covenant responsibility to love, protect, and provide for the health and growth of the covenant people.
Deu 22:7 you shall certainly let the mother go The same type of emphasis found in Deu 22:1; Deu 22:4 (i.e., INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE and IMPERFECT VERB of the same root, BDB 1018, KB 1511) is repeated.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
young. A special various reading called Sevir (App-34) reads “their laying nest”: i.e. before all the eggs are laid.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
young ones: Luk 12:6
thou shalt not: Gen 8:17, Gen 32:11, Lev 22:28, Pro 12:10, Hos 10:14
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Deu 22:6-7. Thou shalt not take the dam with the young This and such like merciful precepts of the law of Moses tended to humanize the hearts of the Israelites, to produce in them a sense of the divine providence extending itself to all creatures, and to teach them to exercise dominion over them with gentleness. The command also respected posterity, restrained a selfish and covetous disposition, and taught them not to monopolize all to themselves, but leave the hopes of a future seed for others.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
22:6 If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, [whether they be] young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, {e} thou shalt not take the dam with the young:
(e) If God detests cruelty done to little birds, how much more to man, made according to his image?