Deuteronomy 23 commentary

DEUTERONOMY 23 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Exclusion From the Assembly
1 [a]No one who has been emasculated by
crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of
the Lord.
BARNES, "Compare Lev_21:17-24. Such persons, exhibiting a mutilation of that
human nature which was made in God’s image, were rejected from the covenant
entirely. However, they could be proselytes (compare Act_8:27). The Old Testament
itself foretells Isa_56:3-5 the removal of this ban when under the kingdom of
Messiah the outward and emblematic perfection and sanctity of Israel should be
fulfilled in their inner meaning by the covenanted presence and work of the Holy
Spirit in the Church.
CLARKE, "Shall not enter into the congregation, etc. - If by entering the
congregation be meant the bearing a civil office among the people, such as
magistrate, judge, etc., then the reason of the law is very plain; no man with any such
personal defect as might render him contemptible in the sight of others should bear
rule among the people, lest the contempt felt for his personal defects might be
transferred to his important office, and thus his authority be disregarded. The
general meaning of these words is, simply, that the persons here designated should
not be so incorporated with the Jews as to partake of their civil privileges.
GILL, "He that is wounded in the stones,.... In any of them, not accidentally,
but purposely; which are crushed and bruised by the hands of men, with a design to
make him unfit for generation, or to make an eunuch of him:
or that hath his privy member cut by himself or another, and is a thorough
eunuch by the hands of men; for of such eunuchs that are made by men, and not
born so, the law speaks; so Maimonides interprets it (f); See Gill on Mat_19:12.
shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; which is to be understood
not of the sanctuary of the Lord, or of being refused admittance into the church of
God, and to join in religious rites, and partake of sacred ordinances, which all
Israelites, and strangers that were proselytes, had a right unto; such might bring
1

their offerings, keep the passover, &c. Exo_12:48 nor of the commonwealth of Israel,
as if unfit to be members of civil society; it cannot be thought that such defects
should abridge them of their civil rights and privileges: but by the congregation is to
be understood the elders, judges, and representatives of the people, that met together
in some one place to execute judgment; see Num_35:12, into which such persons
were not to be admitted; either because disgraceful and dishonourable, or because of
the influence such defects have on their minds, they thereby becoming effeminate,
irresolute, and wanting courage, as well as in opposition to the customs and usages of
the Heathens, with whom it was common to admit such persons to civil offices;
hence the word eunuch is sometimes used for an officer, Gen_37:36 and elsewhere;
the Jews (g) restrain this law to marriage, but unnecessarily.
HENRY 1-5, "Interpreters are not agreed what is here meant by entering into the
congregation of the Lord, which is here forbidden to eunuchs and to bastards,
Ammonites and Moabites, for ever, but to Edomites and Egyptians only till the third
generation. 1. Some think they are hereby excluded from communicating with the
people of God in their religious services. Though eunuchs and bastards were owned
as members of the church, and the Ammonites and Moabites might be circumcised
and proselyted to the Jewish religion, yet they and their families must lie for some
time under marks of disgrace, remembering the rock whence they were hewn, and
must not come so near the sanctuary as others might, nor have so free a communion
with Israelites. 2. Others think they are hereby excluded from bearing office in the
congregation: none of these must be elders or judges, lest the honour of the
magistracy should thereby be stained. 3. Others think they are excluded only from
marrying with Israelites. Thus the learned bishop Patrick inclines to understand it;
yet we find that when this law was put in execution after the captivity they separated
from Israel, not only the strange wives, but all the mixed multitude, see Neh_13:1-2.
With the daughters of these nations (though out of the nations of Canaan), it should
seem, the men of Israel might marry, if they were completely proselyted to the
Jewish religion; but with the men of these nations the daughters of Israel might not
marry, nor could the men be naturalized otherwise than as here provided.
It is plain, in general, that disgrace is here put,
I. Upon bastards and eunuchs, Deu_23:1, Deu_23:2. By bastards here the Jewish
writers understand, not all that were born of fornication, or out of marriage, but all
the issue of those incestuous mixtures which are forbidden, Lev. 18. And, though it
was not the fault of the issue, yet, to deter people from those unlawful marriages and
unlawful lusts, it was very convenient that their posterity should thus be made
infamous. By this rule Jephthah, though the son of a harlot, a strange woman (Jdg_
11:1, Jdg_11:2), yet was not a bastard in the sense of this law. And as for the eunuchs,
though by this law they seemed to be cast out of the vineyard as dry trees, which they
complain of (Isa_56:3), yet it is here promised (Deu_23:5) that if they took care of
their duty to God, as far as they were admitted, by keeping his sabbaths and choosing
the things that pleased him, the want of this privilege should be made up to them
with such spiritual blessings as would entitle them to an everlasting name.
JAMISON,
CALVIN, "1He that is wounded. What is here delivered respecting those who
are mutilated, and who are bastards, has a similar object; lest the Church of God
should be onctaminate by foul stains, and thus religion should lose its honor.
2

Moses rejects from the congregation of the faithful two sorts of men, viz, eunuchs
and bastards. But, before we treat of the subject itself, the definition of the words
is to be considered. The first question is, that it is to enter into the congregation;
the second, what it is to be wounded in the stones; the third, who are the ‫,ממזרים‬
mamzerim, which we have translated bastards, (spurios ). Many understand that
both are rejected from the church, lest they should undertake any public office in
it; others, lest they should marry wives of the seed of Abraham; because it would
not be fair that women should be thrown away upon bastards, (Lat, mamzeris ;)
and it would be absurd that those who were created to multiply God’s people,
should marry impotent persons, (effoeminatis ). But both these opinions appear
to me to be tame. For what is afterwards added respecting certain foreign
nations cannot be so taken, that no government or dignity should be entrusted to
them; besides, by “the congregation of the Lord,” the purity and holiness of
religion is sufficiently expressed. I do not doubt, then, but that Moses prohibits
those who are defiled by these two stains from communicating in the sacrifices.
For although they were circumcised as well as the rest of the chosen people, still
God would have them bear this mark of their disgrace, that they might be an
example to others, and that the people might be more diligent in preserving
themselves from all pollution. This, then, is to be concluded that the privilege
which was peculiar to the legitimate Israelites, was to be denied them of being
participators and associates (19) in the sacrifices. As to the wounded testicles, the
Jews dispute more curiously, in my opinion, that the subject warrants, and after
all miss the right meaning. For God intended nothing else than to exclude from
the congregation of His people, wherever holy assemblies were held, those who
were mutilated or defective in the genital organs; although by synecdoche, He
comprehends more than are specified. Finally, by condemning this external
bodily defect He commends the excellency of His people that they may remember
themselves to be His chosen property, not that they should pride themselves
upon it (20) but that the holiness of their life may correspond with such high
nobility.
COFFMAN, "Moses proceeded in this chapter to give instructions regarding the
purity and sanctification of the corporate Israel, their official "congregation,"
"giving directions for the exclusion of certain persons from it, and the reception
of others into it (Deuteronomy 23:1-8), and for the purity of the camp in time of
war (Deuteronomy 23:9-14), as to the reception of foreign slaves into the land,
and the removal of licentious persons out of it (Deuteronomy 23:15-18), and as to
certain duties of citizenship."[1]
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not
enter into the assembly of Jehovah.
"A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah, even to the tenth
3

generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Jehovah.
"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even
to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of
Jehovah forever: because they met you not with bread and with water in the
way, when ye came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against thee
Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. Nevertheless
Jehovah thy God would not hearken to Balaam; but Jehovah thy God turned the
curse into a blessing unto thee, because Jehovah thy God loved thee. Thou shalt
not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days forever.
"Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an
Egyptian; because thou wast a sojourner in his land. The children of the third
generation that are born unto them shall enter into the assembly of Jehovah."
Concerning the laws in this chapter, Watts declared, that, "They have been
reworked in the preachy style of the editor."[2] This of course is incorrect. There
is no "editor" of Deuteronomy. It is amusing to this student that critical scholars
pretend to know everything, except the names of any of those editors and
redactors they are always talking about! The "preachy" characteristics of
Deuteronomy are exactly what should be expected from a long address like this
delivered by one of the greatest preachers of all time.
The exclusion of eunuchs from the official assembly of Israel was given in
Deuteronomy 23:1 here, and the reasons are not clear to us. It could be that the
widespread use of eunuchs in the pagan religions of the times lay behind this
prohibition. That God never excluded eunuchs from the eternal hope of true
religion is certain; because Isaiah foretold that the day would come when God
would give unto eunuchs a name better than that of sons and of daughters and
"an everlasting name that shall not be cut off" (Isaiah 56:6). The conversion of
the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) stands as an epic fulfillment of this. See Leviticus
21:17-24.
"Bastard ..." (Deuteronomy 23:2). Technically, any person born out of wedlock,
but Cook stated that persons "born of incest or adultery" were also included in
this category.[3] Also, persons excluded for ten generations were, in fact,
perpetually excluded, as indicated by the last word "forever" in Deuteronomy
23:3. "Ten is the number of perfection and completeness"[4] and should be
understood as meaning "forever" or "always."
Regarding the Ammonites and Moabites whose descendants, along with
bastards, were forbidden to enter the assembly of Jehovah, we reject the
distortions of the critical scholars who place the rise of the Ammonites in times
long after Moses, consequently affirming that the mention of the Ammonites
here "is not of equal antiquity with the mention of the Moabites, being a later
4

explanation."[5] Any person familiar with Genesis 19 must be aware of the fact
that the Ammonites and the Moabites originated simultaneously in the incest of
Lot with his daughters and that, therefore, there is no reason whatever to make
the rise of the Ammonites a later historical development. The error of the critics
here is based on the fact that the Bible does NOT specifically mention the
Ammonites during the passage of Israel through Trans-Jordan. Very well, but
they are specifically mentioned here! And, as we have already pointed out a
hundred times in this series, "When the sacred writings refer to events already
mentioned, there is almost always the inclusion of additional information. So it is
here; and this is a far more acceptable understanding of Deuteronomy 23:3 than
the radical splitting of the verse in two, dating the parts from different historical
periods.
It is of the greatest interest that this prohibition of the Ammonites and Moabites
from the assembly of Jehovah "forever," did not prohibit the intermarriage of
Israelite men with Moabite women or Ammonite women, as exemplified by Boaz
who stands in the ancestry of Jesus. He married Ruth, the Moabitess.
"Ruth's mother, Naomi, according to Jewish tradition was an Ammonite."[6]
This was not a reciprocal privilege, however, for Moabite and Ammonite men
were NOT permitted to marry JEWISH women.
This exclusion of Moabites and Ammonites was discerned by Jamieson as a
hedge against the possibility that these prolific peoples might amalgamate with
the tribes east of Jordan and through the sheer weight of their numbers become
a dominating force in Israel.[7]
All of the exclusions here should be understood as necessary to the times and
peoples in which these rules applied, and, as Ackland said, "This admixture of
exclusion and concession would eventually give place to a gospel which says,
`Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely!'"[8]
Kline pointed out that the danger of viewing these verses (Deuteronomy 23:3-8)
as primarily concerned with racial or ethnic factors was prevented by the rules
concerning Egyptians and other foreigners, making it clear that, "Mercy and
morality were the vital principles of covenant administration."[9]
The rules in Deuteronomy 23:7,8, regarding Edomites and Egyptians made
provision for relaxing any ban against them in the third generation. "Israel was
to keep the bond of kindred sacred in the case of Edomites (`he is thy brother'),
and not to forget in the case of the Egyptians the benefits derived from their
sojourn in their land."[10]
COKE, "Ver. 1. Shall not enter into the congregation— This law is directed
against the infamous practice of making eunuchs: such persons were not to be
5

deemed Israelites, nor have their names entered in the public register, and
consequently were not to be accounted members of the Jewish community. See
Selden de Jure N. & G. lib. 5: cap. 14 and Nehemiah 13:1-3, compared with 23,
24, 25. Eunuchs were so much abhorred by some of the pagans, that Lucian, in
Eunucho, tells us, they were not only excluded from the schools of the
philosophers, but from their lustrations, their holy offices, and all common
meetings. It should, however, be observed, that paganism, in some places,
recommended this practice; the priests of Cybele, the mother of the gods in
particular, were all of this class. Casaubon observes upon Athenaeus, that some
heathens anciently put such a mark of infamy upon bastards, mentioned in the
next verse, as to prohibit both males and females from coming to their sacred
offices.
ELLICOTT, "(1) The rule that a eunuch should not enter into the congregation
was doubtless intended to prevent the Israelitish rulers from making eunuchs of
their brethren the children of Israel. As a set off to this apparent harshness
towards the man who had been thus treated, we must read Isaiah 56:3-4, in
which a special promise is given to the eunuchs that keep God’s Sabbaths and
take hold of His covenant. God will give to them within His house and within His
walls “a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters—an everlasting
name that shall not be cut off.” As a special calamity it was foretold to Hezekiah
that some of his descendants should be eunuchs in the palace of the King of
Babylon. But Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in whom this prophecy
was fulfilled, have ennobled the “children that are of their sort” for evermore.
We have no means of knowing whether the eunuchs that were in the service of
the kings of Israel or Judah (1 Samuel 8:15; 1 Kings 22:9; 2 Kings 8:6; 2 Kings
9:32, &c.) were Israelites by birth or not. Ebedmelech, the Ethiopian, who
received a special blessing from Jeremiah (Jeremiah 39:15-18), was a foreigner,
and so very possibly were most, if not all, of his kind in Israel.
As to the second clause of this verse, it must be remembered that circumcision
was the sign of the covenant of Jehovah; mutilation a form of heathen self-
devotion. (See Gal. 5, 12, Revised New Testament, Margin, and Bishop
Lightfoot’s comment on that place.) St. Paul’s words in Galatians receive a
double meaning from this law. By doing what he refers to, they would cut
themselves off from the congregation of the Lord. Rashi also gives another
meaning, which would connect the precept with Leviticus 15:2.
WHEDON, "PERSONS WHO ARE NOT TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE
CONGREGATION, Deuteronomy 23:1-8.
1. Cut off — No doubt Moses aimed to keep the people of God free from those
pernicious customs so prevalent among the Eastern nations. At an early date
eunuchs were employed at the courts of the Egyptian and Assyrian kings. On the
6

exclusion of these classes from the priesthood compare Leviticus 21:17-24.
BENSON 1-2, "Deuteronomy 23:1-2. He that is wounded — It is generally
agreed that Moses is here speaking of eunuchs. Shall not enter into the
congregation of the Lord — The meaning is, not that they should be debarred
from the public worship of the true God, as the phrase sometimes signifies, for
that privilege was granted to all nations indiscriminately, provided they
renounced idolatry, Exodus 12:48; Leviticus 22:18; Numbers 9:14. But the sense
seems to be, that such a one should not be deemed an Israelite, nor have his name
entered in the public register; and especially that he should not be admitted to
honours or offices, either in the church or commonwealth of Israel, or be allowed
to be one of the society of elders, or rulers of the people, or to sit in council with
them. The same privilege was denied to those here termed bastards, under which
name the Jews comprehended not only those begotten in simple fornication, but
also the offspring of all such incestuous marriages, as are prohibited Leviticus
18. One chief reason of this law, no doubt, was, to deter people from such
unlawful connections as would both offend God, and leave an indelible blot upon
their posterity.
CONSTABLE, "Public worship 23:1-8
In the preceding chapter Moses explained the proper types of marital union. In
this chapter he set forth the proper types of union of individuals with the
covenant community.
This section of verses (Deuteronomy 23:1-8) deals with people who were not born
in Israel but wished to worship with full members of the nation.
"The 'assembly' (qahal) refers here to the formal gathering of the Lord's people
as a community at festival occasions and other times of public worship and not to
the nation of Israel as such. This is clear from the occurrence of the verb 'enter'
(bo') throughout the passage (Deuteronomy 23:1-3; Deuteronomy 23:8), a verb
that suggests participation with the assembly and not initial introduction or
conversion to it." [Note: Merrill, Deuteronomy, p. 307. Cf. Craigie, The Book . . .,
p. 296; and Kalland, p. 140.]
God apparently excluded eunuchs (Deuteronomy 23:1) because lack of wholeness
symbolized lack of holiness. Likewise God excluded an illegitimate child-
probably one born out of incest, adultery, or the union of an Israelite and a
Canaanite (Deuteronomy 23:2; cf. Zechariah 9:6). [Note: Keil and Delitzsch,
3:413-14.] This restriction would have discouraged Israelites from marrying
Canaanites since their children could not participate in public worship, and
7

public worship events were the most important ones in Israel. The illegitimate
child category may have included the offspring of Canaanite temple prostitutes.
[Note: Payne, p. 130.] "To the tenth generation" (Deuteronomy 23:2-3) means
forever. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:414.]
"One was an Israelite and therefore a member of the covenant community by
birth. Only by some act of his own will could he lose that privilege. On the other
hand, Israelite birth did not automatically qualify one for full participation in
community worship, the very point of Deuteronomy 23:1-2." [Note: Merrill,
Deuteronomy, p. 308.]
The Israelites were to admit no Ammonite or Moabite into public worship
(Deuteronomy 23:3-6). The Ammonites and Moabites were descendants of Lot
through his incestuous relationship with his daughters ("illegitimate birth,"
Deuteronomy 23:2; cf. Genesis 19:30-38). Evidently Ammonites, Moabites, and
any other people could become members of the nation of Israel by becoming
proselytes to Yahwism (cf. Deuteronomy 2:9; Deuteronomy 2:19; Exodus 12:38;
Ruth 4:10; 1 Samuel 22:3-4). Evidently they were excluded, however, from the
public worship of Israel.
The main reason for the exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites was the
extreme hostility that these nations demonstrated toward Israel when Israel was
approaching the Promised Land. Evidently Ammon participated with Moab in
resisting Israel's passage, in seeking to curse the Israelites with Balaam's
assistance, and or in corrupting the Israelites through sacred prostitution
(Numbers 22-25). God treated the Edomites and Egyptians less severely. The
great-grandchildren of people from these nations could become worshippers
with the Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:7-8). The rationale again lay in Israel's
relationships to these two nations in her history. Even though not all these people
could participate in Israel's public worship, they could, of course, trust in
Israel's God and experience personal salvation. Many individuals who were not
even members of the covenant community enjoyed personal salvation (e.g.,
Melchizedek, Job, the widow of Zarephath, the "God-fearers" among the
Gentiles in Jesus' day, et al.).
"Disbarment from the assembly was not synonymous with exclusion from the
covenant community itself as the one example of Ruth the Moabite makes
clear.... There can be no doubt that Ruth was welcomed among the people of the
Lord as one of their own though presumably never with access to the assembly."
8

[Note: Ibid., p. 309.]
Another possibility is that the Israelites did not enforce this law and that she did
participate in public worship. From these verses we learn that God's people
should be careful about whom they allow to worship with themselves and admit
to full privileges among themselves (cf. Romans 16:17-18).
HAWKER, "Verses 1-6
The disqualification to the privileges of GOD'S people, is expressed by these
marks, which imply defect. Who shall say, except the great searcher of hearts,
what are the causes of prevention, to unite souls really and spiritually to the
congregation of the LORD. And, perhaps, as the prospect of the holy seed in the
person of the Messiah, was the great object unto which all Israel looked forward,
with the hope that it might be in their household and family; the LORD was
pleased, by this precept, to manifest how important a matter it was, that there
should be no intercourse by marriages with the idolatrous neighbours around
them. In after ages we find the breach of this precept deeply lamented by the
fathers; see Nehemiah 13:1-3; Neh_13:23-25.
LANGE, "The perfection of Israel
Deuteronomy 23:1 to Deuteronomy 26:19
The Commonwealth of Jehovah
( Deuteronomy 23:1-8)
1He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off [one through
bruising injured or emasculated] shall not enter into the congregation of the
Lord 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his
tenth generation3[member] shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even
to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord
for ever: 4Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when
ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they , the Moabite] hired against thee
Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee 5 Nevertheless
the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam: but the Lord thy God turned
the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee 6 Thou
9

shalt not seek their peace, nor their prosperity [welfare, margin: good] all thy
days for eDeut Deuteronomy 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy
brother: thou shalt not abhor an 8 Egyptian, because [for] thou wast a stranger
in his land. The children [sons] that are begotten of them shall enter into the
congregation of the Lord in their third generation.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
After the close of this exposition, application and completion of the decalogue,
there is indicated now a delineation of Israel in the most varied aspects,
especially as the Kahal Jehovah from the beginning to the close of the section.
Deuteronomy 23:1. Wounded, sq, through crushing, (the pressing and rubbing of
the testicles) designates the eunuch as the crushed◌ֿ ‫ֿ±־¯־´־±־»־¸־‬, (Septuagint). Cut
off, the urethra, the completely castrated. The refusal to admit them into the
communion of the covenant is explained by the congregation of the Lord, the
community consecrated to Him. If of animals, Leviticus 22:24, how much more
of men! Comp. Leviticus 22:18 sq. Israel is a priestly ( Leviticus 21:17 sq.)
community. Comp. Exodus 20:22. Only the unmutilated image of God as in its
creation can come before Jehovah, the Elohim, and the people who should be
permanent must possess the fitting organs of generation ( Numbers 16:3;
Numbers 20:4); comp. Isaiah 56:3 sq.—[They could not be admitted to the full
privileges of the congregation of Jehovah; but they were received as proselytes,
Acts 8:27; and the prophets show that this ban was to be removed when the
reason for this restriction should be done away by the fuller presence and work
of the Holy Spirit.—A. G.]—There was somewhere ever human guilt in the
circumstances. So also with the ‫׳‬‫׳·ײ‬‫׳°ײ‬‫ײ‬µ‫׳‬, Deuteronomy 23:3 (only elsewhere in
Zechariah 9:6). Meier: 1) a foreigner, 2) heterogeneous, i.e., bastard; Knobel
(Keil) in the sense of corruption, foulness, filth, one stained in his conception and
birth; Delitzsch: equivalent with mongrel; others: as contracted from ‫׳‬‫׳‬‫׳¼ײ‬ and
‫׳‬‫,¨׳¸ײ‬ or from ‫׳‬‫¨׳¸ײ‬ ‫׳‬‫ײ‬µ‫׳¸ײ¢׳‬ Sept. and Vulg, as the child of fornication, which
neither agrees with the connection here nor with the rest of the Old Testament;
rather as the Syriac: the conception of adultery; still better: the child born of
incest [so Keil, Wogue, the Bib. Com, and the Rabbins.—A. G.], ( Genesis 19:30
sq.), whence the religious and political application to the mingling of the
Israelites and heathen may be more fully comprehended. Comp. Isaiah 56:3;
John 8:41. (The Jew Salvador designates Jesus as a mamser)—To the tenth
generation, the number10 denoting the perfect, absolute exclusion from Israel, as
also, Deuteronomy 23:3, the addition forever. If the ground in Deuteronomy 23:1
is found in the human deed upon the body, so now in the immorality through the
human will. With the physical, the moral, there is now connected, Deuteronomy
10

23:3, the religio-political, with respect to the theocratically forever-excluded
Ammonites and Moabites ( Lamentations 1:10). Deuteronomy 23:4. The reason:
the still freshly remembered hostility restrained only by fear on their side, as on
the side of Israel by the respect enjoined upon them Deuteronomy 2:19 sq.; 9 sq.
(4sq.; 29). In violation of every custom of hospitality (even in savage tribes,
Isaiah 21:13 sq.), not to speak of the natural affection of kindred, they did not
meet Israel with the necessaries of life. This is the point which is made against
both. As the Moabites only dwelt in Ar (chap2), so now the transaction with
Balaam on the part of Moab in which the intense hostility against Israel appears,
is viewed as common with both. Comp. upon Numbers 22, [See Smith’sBib. Dic.
Art. Ammon.—A. G.] As the singular, ‫׳©׳‬‫׳‬‫,¨׳‬ is used of Moab, represented by its
king, so also Israel is spoken of in the singular, thee. Person against person, God
Himself must intervene, Deuteronomy 23:5; there is no failure in the will of
Moab. The designed cursing of Israel, as the highest degree of hostility, God
turns to blessing, and uses the service of the prophet in doing it. It is only the
necessary line of Israel’s conduct, therefore, which, Deuteronomy 23:6
announces, since according to the promise of God resting upon Israel, Genesis
12:3, which Balaam himself must repeat, Numbers 24:9, this could not cease at
the present stand-point of this growing (werdens) and wrestling soldier of God.
Comp. still Ezra 9:12. Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:28; Romans 12:14, are possible first
in Christ, in whom David reaches perfection in Solomon. It is not “malicious
zeal” (Knobel), or even national hatred or revenge, which is spoken of here,
comp. Deuteronomy 2:9, and also the immediately following direction. Comp.
further Jeremiah 29:7; Nehemiah 13:1 sq. (In reference to Ruth, the Talmud
limits the exclusion to males.) Comp. also 2 Samuel10. for personal exceptions.—
[Bib. Com.: “Such a law would certainly never have suggested itself to the mind
of a writer after the time of David, whose great-grandmother was a
Moabitess.”—A. G.]
Deuteronomy 23:7. ‫׳¢׳×׳‬, the expression for the technical theocratic abhorrence,
e.g. Deuteronomy 22:5. In the case of Edom the tie of brotherhood should
prevail, notwithstanding all its acts of hostility; in Egypt, the hospitality they had
received, although they had been oppressed by Pharaoh. Comp. Doct. and Eth6,
upon Deuteronomy 1:6 to Deuteronomy 4:40, Hengstenberg, Moses and Egypt.
“In a statement springing from a view of the living relations, the contrasts or
opposition which actual life every where presents are suffered to appear; in a
mythical statement they would be carefully obliterated.” Such motives as are
here urged were only near and of force at the time of Moses. Deuteronomy 23:8
concerns the great-grandsons of those who had united with Israel by
circumcision, or who had settled among them. Others: the grandchildren.
11

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Circumcision, not concision, or the entire excision. Philippians 3:2 sq.
2. “How great the contrast between Jehovah and the heathen gods, in whose
service the very mutilation in this respect availed as a peculiar consecration and
holiness.” Baumgarten.
3. The moral blamelessness of the Lord’s people, and its sacred nobility of birth.
4. Ammon and Moab as they are one in their origin, so throughout in their
relation to Israel. Leaving out of view their incestuous origin, with which they
are not charged, they were still, as to their origin, much farther removed from
Israel than Edom. Their opposition to Israel is not in their origin, but rather out
of their origin, as it asserts itself immediately in the disposition, in conscious
enmity. In Edom the injustice done to their tribe-father may humanly be
regarded as an excuse. Still more love may hope for a solution of the conflict
between natural revengefulness and the divine choice. The fear of Edom before
the divine in Israel need not strengthen itself into hatred. In any case Israel must
hold its privileges open to Edom, which is directly forbidden with reference to
Moab and Ammon through their conscious enmity; they are by demonic
reflection what Amalek was by demonic passion. As to what is warlike, Ammon
gave the tone to the boastful and tragico-comical Moab. Its hostility to the Lord’s
people continues to the end. Lust and cruelty characterize its religion. Comp.
Schultz, p 164 sq.
5. [“God shows here that He regards nations as having a corporate existence, and
deals with them according to their national acts. Egypt was to be kindly dealt
with for its past favors to Israel. Former kindnesses were to be remembered, and
past injuries to be forgotten.” Wordsworth—A. G.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
12

Deuteronomy 23:2. Richter: “Ideally no one can attain to heavenly citizenship
who is not born of God in the true way,” John 3. Deuteronomy 23:3. Reichel:
“The Moabites hated the priestly kingdom of God as such, and would have it
cursed throughout. On the other hand, they were not so ignorant as the other
heathen, but sinned against their better knowledge. Whoever wishes good to such
enemies, he helps to condemn and persecute the people of God,” 2 John 1:10.
Deuteronomy 23:4. Richter: “Thus many a one still draws down upon himself
the anger of God. Balaam, Balak, have their places in the Apocalypse.”
Deuteronomy 23:5. Osiander: “God’s love, not ours, is the cause of all
blessedness.” Deuteronomy 23:6. Schultz: “It is opposition to godlessness, indeed
to enmity to God, which is not removed even by Romans 12:18, which is here
fundamentally regarded.” Deuteronomy 23:7. The import of kinship. Theodoret:
“He will teach us never to forget former kindnesses.” Osiander: “Early
kindnesses should avail with us above later injuries.” Schultz: “Notwithstanding
all hostility, we should recognize the good in our opponents.” Deuteronomy 23:8.
Starke: “In the Old Testament even the door of grace stood open to the heathen;
the partition wall is done away in Christ, Ephesians 2:12-14.” Berl. Bib.: “This
also has its spiritual significance for the congregation of believers in the New
Testament, Ephesians 5:27. Hence all must be put away who are unfruitful in
good, who are of no use to their brother in bodily or spiritual things, all rough
worldly men,” etc.
PETT, "Introduction
The Covenant Stipulations, Covenant Making at Shechem, Blessings and
Cursings (Deuteronomy 12:1 to Deuteronomy 29:1).
In this section of Deuteronomy we first have a description of specific
requirements that Yahweh laid down for His people. These make up the second
part of the covenant stipulations for the covenant expressed in Deuteronomy
4:45 to Deuteronomy 29:1 and also for the covenant which makes up the whole
book. They are found in chapters 12-26. As we have seen Deuteronomy 1:1 to
Deuteronomy 4:44 provide the preamble and historical prologue for the overall
covenant, followed by the general stipulations in chapters 5-11. There now,
therefore, in 12-26 follow the detailed stipulations which complete the main body
of the covenant. These also continue the second speech of Moses which began in
Deuteronomy 5:1.
Overall in this speech Moses is concerned to connect with the people. It is to the
13

people that his words are spoken rather than the priests so that much of the
priestly legislation is simply assumed. Indeed it is remarkably absent in
Deuteronomy except where it directly touches on the people. Anyone who read
Deuteronomy on its own would wonder at the lack of cultic material it contained,
and at how much the people were involved. It concentrates on their interests, and
not those of the priests and Levites, while acknowledging the responsibility that
they had towards both priests and Levites.
And even where the cultic legislation more specifically connects with the people,
necessary detail is not given, simply because he was aware that they already had
it in writing elsewhere. Their knowledge of it is assumed. Deuteronomy is
building on a foundation already laid. In it Moses was more concerned to get
over special aspects of the legislation as it was specifically affected by entry into
the land, with the interests of the people especially in mind. The suggestion that
it was later written in order to bring home a new law connected with the Temple
does not fit in with the facts. Without the remainder of the covenant legislation in
Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers to back it up, its presentation often does not make
sense from a cultic point of view.
This is especially brought home by the fact that when he refers to their approach
to God he speaks of it in terms of where they themselves stood or will stand when
they do approach Him. They stand not on Sinai but in Horeb. They stand not in
the Sanctuary but in ‘the place’, the site of the Sanctuary. That is why he
emphasises Horeb, which included the area before the Mount, and not just Sinai
itself (which he does not mention). And why he speaks of ‘the place’ which
Yahweh chose, which includes where the Tabernacle is sited and where they
gather together around the Tabernacle, and not of the Sanctuary itself. He wants
them to feel that they have their full part in the whole.
These detailed stipulations in chapters 12-26 will then be followed by the details
of the covenant ceremony to take place at the place which Yahweh has chosen at
Shechem (Deuteronomy 27), followed by blessings and cursings to do with the
observance or breach of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28).
V. FURTHER REGULATIONS (Chapters 22-25).
14

We have all heard sermons where the experienced preacher suddenly begins to
roam far and wide, jumping swiftly from one subject to another in rapid
succession, picking out information here and there, in order to present an overall
picture. Sometimes there may seem to be no logic to it, but there usually is. And
that is partly what Moses was doing here The regulations that follow may not
seem to come in any discernible overall pattern, although Moses probably had
one in his mind. But items are grouped together, or joined by key words and
thoughts. Moses had a wide collection of laws from which he here extracted
examples covering a wide range of circumstances so as to turn their thoughts
back to Yahweh’s written Instruction. It was not intended to be comprehensive
or detailed, but to convey an impression. (In the same way a similar lack of
connections was found in many law codes).
While in some cases there is, and has been, a connection with the ten
commandments, that is not sufficient to explain the miscellany of laws which we
must now consider, although for such a connection see, for example,
Deuteronomy 19:15-21 - ‘you shall not bear false witness’; Deuteronomy 21:1-9 -
‘you shall not murder’; Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ‘honour your father and your
mother’; Deuteronomy 22:22-27 - ‘you shall not commit adultery’; Deuteronomy
23:24-25; Deuteronomy 24:7 (compare Deuteronomy 19:14) - ‘you shall not
steal’. But we note that there is no mention anywhere of the Sabbath day,
something which is quite remarkable if, as some think, parts of Deuteronomy
were written later. It would have been seen as an obvious gap that had to be
filled. But Moses may well have classed that as priestly regulation, which he
rarely touches on in the speech. But these regulations which have the particular
commandments in mind are found other regulations which do not obviously fit
into the pattern, although attempts have been made to do it. Such attempts do,
however, require a lot from the imagination.
From this point on therefore we have a miscellany of regulations which cap what
has gone before. While certain connections are unquestionably at times
discoverable there seem in some cases to be no particular pattern to them, apart
from the important one of consideration for others, and a need to consider
covenant regulations. The essence of the message was that they were to love their
neighbours, and resident aliens, as themselves (Deuteronomy 10:19 compare
Leviticus 19:18; Leviticus 19:34).
Chapter 23 Regulation Concerning Those Whom Yahweh Makes Welcome and
15

Unwelcome (1-18): Regulations Concerning Honest Dealings (19-25).
Moses now came to the question as to whom in the future were to be welcome to
become true Israelites with full rights in the community and who would not, and
them went on to deal with the question of honest dealings.
Verses 1-8
Chapter 23 Regulation Concerning Those Whom Yahweh Makes Welcome and
Unwelcome (1-18): Regulations Concerning Honest Dealings (19-25).
Moses now came to the question as to whom in the future were to be welcome to
become true Israelites with full rights in the community and who would not, and
them went on to deal with the question of honest dealings.
Exclusion From And Entry Into The Assembly Of Yahweh (Deuteronomy
23:1-8).
Having dealt with different aspects of concern for one another within the
covenant details were now given of those who for various reasons were welcome
or unwelcome within the full covenant. First Moses considered those who were
seen as restricted from becoming full citizens by being enrolled in the assembly
of Yahweh. This did not exclude them from a covenant relationship with
Yahweh, for they could still worship and pray and offer sacrifices (see Numbers
15:14-16; Numbers 15:26 compare Leviticus 16:29; Leviticus 17:8; Leviticus
22:18). But they could not be seen as full members.
Behind this lies the fact that it was considered to be a great privilege to be a
member of the assembly of Yahweh. The 'congregation of Yahweh' were
regarded as 'holy, every one of them' (Numbers 16:3). They were seen as 'set
apart' as Yahweh's. They were 'a holy nation, a kingdom of priests' (Exodus
19:6). Theirs was a unique privilege and they had to be seen to be a holy nation,
at least outwardly. Even then those who were under twenty years of age were not
seen as full members of the congregation. See Numbers 1:18; Numbers 26:2;
Joshua 22:12; Judges 20:1 but compare 2 Chronicles 31:16; 2 Chronicles 31:18
16

where they were in some way accepted as connected with the congregation if they
were over three years of age. In its pure form the congregation also probably
excluded women as well for they could not be circumcised. See Numbers 1:2-3;
Numbers 1:18 where 'the congregation' appears to refer to the men only. See also
Joshua 22:12; Judges 20:1; Judges 21:5; Ezra 2:64. But again see 2 Chronicles
31:16; 2 Chronicles 31:18.
Certainly their women’s later position is blatantly brought out in that in Herod’s
temple women were excluded from 'the court of Israel'. On the other hand they
did have a special position of their own. They had the Court of the Women and
were not limited to the court of the Gentiles.
So membership in the assembly of Yahweh was not granted easily to those not
born within the covenant. It should be noted that the exemptions now mentioned
evidence further that we are dealing with words of Moses. The exemptions were
probably intended to cover all known likely applicants, Ammonites, Moabites,
Edomites and Egyptians, all described previously in the book as having current
contact with Israel. It is quite likely that approaches were being made at this
time by Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites who wanted to join up with Israel.
This indicates the early date of this passage. The favourable view of Edom also
indicates an early date. In contrast the prophets later castigated Edom which
was then seen as a mortal enemy. Canaanites are excluded because the purpose is
that they will not be alive to become members. Any others are ignored. They
have not come within Israel’s purview. The non-mention of the class of other
resident aliens and foreigners generally, often mentioned elsewhere, was
probably an indication that they might be accepted on individual terms in terms
of Exodus 12:48-49. They could never present the threat that neighbours could
(see what follows).
The first part of the chapter deals with the purity of the assembly, and who was
and who was not to be welcomed (Deuteronomy 23:1-8), the purity of the
military camp and behaviour that was not welcomed (Deuteronomy 23:9-14), the
welcoming of an escaped slave (Deuteronomy 23:15-16 - probably because Israel
themselves had been escaped slaves from Egypt), and in contrast the non-
welcome of prostitutes and practising homosexuals (Deuteronomy 23:17-18). In
each case the question is of who can be Yahweh’s chosen ones. This is then
followed by covenant matters such as not taking from the poor interest on loans
(Deuteronomy 23:19-20), not taking from God was has been avowed to Him
(Deuteronomy 23:21-23), and not taking from their neighbours what belongs to
17

them. There was the presumption in the first case that the poor would have loans
available to them, in the second that freewill offerings would be available for
others to partake of, and in the third of the availability to all of ready meals from
growing grapes and grain (Deuteronomy 23:24-25). The three are thus closely
connected by the thought of honesty and provision.
The chapter uses ‘thou, thee’ throughout apart from Deuteronomy 23:4 a where
the thought is of them as a multitude of people.
Regulations Concerning Who Can Enter the Assembly of Yahweh (Deuteronomy
23:1-9).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
a He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall
not enter into the assembly of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 23:1).
b A foreigner of doubtful background (mamzer) shall not enter into the
assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the
assembly of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 23:2).
c An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh,
even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly
of Yahweh for ever (Deuteronomy 23:3).
d Because they did not meet you with bread and with water in the way,
when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam
the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you (Deuteronomy 23:4).
d Nevertheless Yahweh your God would not listen to Balaam, but Yahweh
your God turned the curse into a blessing to you, because Yahweh your God
loves you (Deuteronomy 23:5).
c You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days for ever
(Deuteronomy 23:6).
b You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not
abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land (Deuteronomy
23:7).
18

a The children of the third generation who are born to them shall enter into
the assembly of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 23:8).
Note that in ‘a’ one who has been emasculated cannot enter the assembly of
Yahweh, but in the parallel an Edomite or Egyptian of the third generation can
enter he assembly of Yahweh. In ‘b’ a foreigner of doubtful background shall not
enter the assembly of Yahweh, but in the parallel Edom and Egypt are not to be
looked on as foreigners of doubtful background. In ‘c’ the Ammonite and
Moabite cannot enter the assembly of Yahweh ‘for ever’, and in the parallel they
are seen as so untrustworthy that no treaties must be made with them ‘for ever’.
In ‘d’ they hired Balaam against Israel, and in the parallel Yahweh did not listen
to Balaam.
The Mutilated Cannot Enter the Assembly of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 23:1).
As entry into the land became nearer it was important to guard against the
practises of the land. There might be a temptation for Israelites to mutilate
themselves as they learned what the Canaanite cult prostitutes had done, or were
still doing, in unoccupied territory. Let them therefore recognise that to do that
would be for them to ever disqualify them from being in the assembly of Israel.
There would be no way back for they would be permanently blemished. For no
one religiously mutilated could enter the assembly of Yahweh.
Deuteronomy 23:1
‘He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not
enter into the assembly of Yahweh.’
This in a curious way connects back to Deuteronomy 22:30 which spoke of
‘uncovering his father’s skirt’. Here a man’s private parts were ‘uncovered’.
This probably indicates deliberate mutilation, and is possibly intended to
contemptuously dismiss the whole of Canaan as religious rejects, with the
mutilated person seen as representing Canaanite religion and its adherents.
These descriptions could well have been basically representing Canaanite
religious rites which were an abomination to Yahweh and were seen as
representative of Canaanite religion, which included the castration of male
religious prostitutes. There would thus be total exclusion for Canaanites from
the assembly of Israel, consonant with the fact that they were to be destroyed.
19

(Even then Rahab was welcomed in - Joshua 6:25. God’s grace always has its
exceptions).
But as mentioned above any copycat tactics by Israelites would have the same
effect for them as well. Such practises would exclude anyone from the assembly
of Yahweh. They were making themselves into Canaanites.
Those mentioned here would necessarily be prevented from circumcision because
of their previous past ritual act which was also thus seen as excluding them for
ever. In the case of the Canaanites it was because they bore on them the
permanent mark of some other deity. In the case of the Israelite it might indicate
excessive but mistaken religious fervour. But that would not excuse them.
Yahweh demanded wholesomeness and perfection, not mutilation (compare
Deuteronomy 14:1). To so mutilate themselves would exclude them from the
assembly. We do not know whether exclusion of eunuchs was intended here, or
not. Eunuchs would later be perfectly acceptable (Isaiah 56:3-4). It probably
does not refer to men mutilated by accident.
There is no mention of the exclusion of their descendants because speaking
literally they would be unable to father children. But the intention was also in
the case of the Canaanites that there would be no descendants. Any descendants
of non-Canaanites to whom this referred would not, however, themselves
necessarily be mutilated.
Some, however, see the significance of this as referring to the non-functioning of
a man’s lifegiving potential. Thus the point would be that the man could no
longer ‘go forth and multiply’. He was therefore seen as blemished and not
‘fitted’ to be a part of the assembly of Israel, the holy people, although it would
not necessarily prevent him from being within the covenant and able to worship
Yahweh. But he would not be able to be an acting priest. It was in that view a
ritual matter rather than a personal one indicating the perfection of Yahweh as
the source of life.
The ‘assembly of Yahweh’ was Israel as gathered at the central Sanctuary with
the main emphasis on the adult males (compare Deuteronomy 4:10;
Deuteronomy 5:22; Deuteronomy 9:10; Deuteronomy 10:4; Deuteronomy 18:16).
20

These basically constituted ‘Israel’ with their households coming under their
‘umbrella’. It would exclude resident aliens who had not fully submitted to the
covenant (those who had submitted would be seen as full members - compare the
principle in Exodus 12:48). To enter into the assembly of Yahweh indicated
obtaining full, unrestricted membership, with all its rights and privileges.
K&D, "Introduction
Regulations as to the Right of Citizenship in the Congregation of the Lord -
Deuteronomy 23
From the sanctification of the house and the domestic relation, to which the laws
of marriage and chastity in the previous chapter pointed, Moses proceeds to
instructions concerning the sanctification of their union as a congregation: he
gives directions as to the exclusion of certain persons from the congregation of
the Lord, and the reception of others into it (Deuteronomy 23:1-8); as to the
preservation of the purity of the camp in time of war (Deuteronomy 23:9-14); as
to the reception of foreign slaves into the land, and the removal of licentious
persons out of it (Deuteronomy 23:15-18); and lastly, as to certain duties of
citizenship (Deuteronomy 23:19-25).
Verses 1-8
The Right of Citizenship in the Congregation of the Lord. - Deuteronomy 23:1.
Into the congregation of the Lord there was not to come, i.e., not to be received,
any person who was mutilated in his sexual member. ‫פּ‬‫צ‬‫וּ‬‫ע־‬‫דּכּ‬‫ה‬ , literally wounded
by crushing, i.e., mutilated in this way; Vulg. eunuchus attritis vel amputatis
testiculis. Not only animals (see at Leviticus 22:24), but men also, were castrated
in this way. ‫שׁפכה‬ ‫כּ‬‫ר‬‫וּ‬‫ת‬ was one whose sexual member was cut off; Vulg. abscisso
veretro. According to Mishnah Jebam. vi. 2, “contusus ‫דּכּ‬‫ה‬ est omnis, cujus
testiculi vulnerati sunt, vel certe unus eorum; exsectus ( ‫כּ‬‫ר‬‫וּ‬‫ת‬ ), cujus membrum
virile praecisum est.” In the modern East, emasculation is generally performed
in this way (see Tournefort, Reise. ii. p. 259, and Burckhardt, Nubien, pp. 450,
451). The reason for the exclusion of emasculated persons from the congregation
of Jehovah, i.e., not merely from office (officio et publico magistratu, Luth.) and
from marriage with an Israelitish woman (Fag., C. a Lap., and others), but from
admission into the covenant fellowship of Israel with the Lord, is to be found in
the mutilation of the nature of man as created by God, which was irreconcilable
with the character of the people of God. Nature is not destroyed by grace, but
sanctified and transformed. This law, however, was one of the ordinances
intended for the period of infancy, and has lost its significance with the spread of
21

the kingdom of God over all the nations of the earth (Isaiah 56:4).
2 No one born of a forbidden marriage[b] nor
any of their descendants may enter the assembly
of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
BARNES, "A bastard - Probably, a child born of incest or adultery.
Even to his tenth generation - i. e. (see the next verse and Neh_13:1), forever.
Ten is the number of perfection and completeness.
CLARKE, "A bastard shall not enter - ‫ממזר‬ mamzer, which is here rendered
bastard, should be understood as implying the offspring of an illegitimate or
incestuous mixture.
GILL, "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord,.... That
is born of whoredom, as the Targum of Jonathan; and for the sake of avoiding
whoredom and deterring from it was this law made, according to Maimonides (h),
that adulterers might see, as he observes, that they affect their whole family with an
irreparable stain, should they commit such an infamous action; though the Jews
commonly interpret it of one that is born of any of those incestuous copulations
forbidden in Lev_18:1 which they gather from this following upon, and being near
unto one of those incests mentioned in the last verse of the preceding chapter (i); and
it is a rule with them (k), that persons born of such copulations were reckoned
bastards; now such an one, according to Jarchi, might not marry an Israelitish
woman, or rather might not be admitted into the assembly of elders, or bear any
public office. Jephthah may seem to be an objection to this, who was the son of an
harlot, Jdg_11:1 which might be owing to the badness of the times, the laws of God
being neglected, or to the providence of God so ordering it, who is not bound by his
own laws, though men are; nor was he the son of a common harlot, nor of an
incestuous person, but of his father's concubine; besides some think such only are
intended who were born of strangers and not Israelites:
even unto his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of
the Lord; which seems as if he might at the eleventh; but it is generally interpreted
never, as is gathered from the following verse, and from the tenth number being an
absolute and perfect one; yet according to the Jewish writers there were ways and
22

means by which their posterity became legitimate; so they say, bastards may be
purified (or legitimated), how? if one marries a servant maid, the child is a servant,
who if he becomes free, (his) son is a free man (l).
K&D, "Deu_23:2
So also with the ‫ר‬ֵ‫ז‬ ְ‫מ‬ ַ‫,מ‬ i.e., not persons begotten out of wedlock, illegitimate
children generally (lxx, Vulg.), but, according to the Talmud and the Rabbins, those
who were begotten in incest or adultery (cf. Ges. thes. p. 781). The etymology of the
word is obscure. The only other place in which it occurs is Zec_9:6; and it is neither
contracted from ‫מוּם‬ and ‫ר‬ָ‫ז‬ (according to the Talmud, and Hitzig on Zec_9:6), nor
from ‫ר‬ָ‫ז‬ ‫ם‬ ַ‫ע‬ ֵ‫מ‬ (Geiger Urschr. p. 52), but in all probability is to be derived from a root
‫ר‬ַ‫ז‬ ָ‫,מ‬ synonymous with the Arabic word “to be corrupt, or foul.” The additional clause,
“not even in the tenth generation,” precludes all possibility of their ever being
received. Ten is the number of complete exclusion. In Deu_23:3, therefore, “for ever”
is added. The reason is the same as in the case of mutilated persons, namely, their
springing from a connection opposed to the divine order of the creation.
CALVIN, "2.A bastard shall not enter. All agree that by the word ‫,ממזר‬ mamzer,
a bastard is signified, who is born of an uncertain father; but they take it in
different ways, For some extend it to all bastards who spring from fornication,
whilst others imagine that it refers to those only whose origin is doubtful, and
who are called vulgo geniti; viz, whose mothers, in their base and common
prostitution of themselves, have brought it about by their gross licentiousness,
that their children should be born from this monstrous medley, as it were. This
second opinion I approve of most. But, by this symbol God would admonish the
seed of Abraham how exalted was its dignity, as being separate from the polluted
heathen. Meanwhile, He would not altogether exclude these unhappy persons
from the hope of salvation, although, by no fault of their own, they were unable
to give the name of their father; but He only humbled them by a temporal
punishment, and desired that their example should be profitable to others.
COKE, "Ver. 2. A bastard shall not enter, &c.— Some render these words, a
foreigner or an alien. See Spenc. p. 105. But Mr. Locke observes, upon the
original word ‫ממזר‬ mamzer, that it is his opinion, with Maimonides, that the
mamzer here spoken of, is one who cometh of any of the nakedness, i.e.
incestuous or unlawful intercourses, forbidden in Leviticus 18. See Zechariah
9:6. Houbigant is of the same opinion with Mr. Locke. "They who translate it, a
stranger," says he, "when they add the condition; unless he become a proselyte,
which Moses does not add, entirely change the sentence: for they assume, that if
the stranger become a proselyte, he shall by this means enter into the
congregation of the Lord; whereas Moses positively enjoins concerning ‫ממזר‬
mamzer, that he shall not be admitted into the congregation of the Lord, even to
the tenth generation; which signifies the same as never, as is evident from the
23

next verse: ten and tenth are taken for an indefinite number. So Jacob said to
Laban, thou hast changed my hire these ten times, i.e. very frequently.
Moreover, to enter into the congregation of the Lord, was the same as to be made
citizens among the Romans, or to be esteemed in the same rank with the citizens
themselves; i.e. in a civil, not religious capacity: for it is not forbidden that
Ammonites or Moabites should be received, who turned to the religion of the
Israelites; but a community of civil privileges is interdicted them, lest the twelve
tribes should be mixed with them. The reason of this law was, evidently, to deter
people from such unlawful commerce as would leave an indelible blot on their
posterity."
WHEDON, "2. A bastard shall not enter — The Hebrew word which our
translators have rendered bastard is of doubtful meaning. It occurs in only one
other passage, Zechariah 9:6. The rabbins understand it to mean one born of
incest or adultery.
Even to his tenth generation — This is equivalent to forever.
PETT, "Deuteronomy 23:2
‘A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth
generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh.’
It is an open question what was meant by ‘a bastard’ (mamzer). The English
translation give the impression of clarity but not the Hebrew (to us). The word is
only used twice in the Old Testament and in its other use refers to ‘a mongrel
people’ dwelling in Ashdod having replaced the true people (Zechariah 9:6). It
could therefore mean a ‘foreigner’ but in a contemptuous sense, a foreigner of
doubtful background. Notice how in the analysis it contrasts with Edomites and
Egyptians, the former ‘brothers’ and the latter those who welcomed them as
resident aliens.
It has been seen as referring to the product of an incestuous relationship
(compare Deuteronomy 22:30) or the product of a forbidden marriage (compare
Deuteronomy 7:3) or a half-breed, especially if connected with those otherwise
forbidden (for racism was otherwise unknown), or the children of cult
prostitutes (by relating mamzer to manzer which means ‘consecrated’).
Theoretically at least a bastard as we know it could rarely be born in Israel for
adulterers were put to death, and those who engaged in sex outside marriage
were compulsorily married. Thus true bastards would be rare. It is not possible
for us to be certain who was really in mind.
24

The exclusion ‘to the tenth generation’ puts them on a parallel with Ammonites
and Moabites and excludes their descendants from full membership in Israel in
the foreseeable future. The phrase could indicate ‘many generations’ as
something thrust into the distant future, or it may mean ‘for ever’ (Deuteronomy
23:3).
K&D, "Deuteronomy 23:2
So also with the ‫,ממזר‬ i.e., not persons begotten out of wedlock, illegitimate
children generally (lxx, Vulg.), but, according to theTalmud and the Rabbins,
those who were begotten in incest or adultery (cf. Ges. thes. p. 781). The
etymology of the word is obscure. The only other place in which it occurs is
Zechariah 9:6; and it is neither contracted from ‫מ‬‫וּ‬‫ם‬ and ‫זר‬ (according to the
Talmud, and Hitzig on Zechariah 9:6), nor from ‫מעם‬ ‫זר‬ (Geiger Urschr. p. 52),
but in all probability is to be derived from a root ‫,מזר‬ synonymous with the
Arabic word “to be corrupt, or foul.” The additional clause, “not even in the
tenth generation,” precludes all possibility of their ever being received. Ten is the
number of complete exclusion. In Deuteronomy 23:3, therefore, “for ever” is
added. The reason is the same as in the case of mutilated persons, namely, their
springing from a connection opposed to the divine order of the creation.
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their
descendants may enter the assembly of the
Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
CLARKE, "An Ammonite or Moabite - These nations were subjected for their
impiety and wickedness, (see Deu_23:4 and Deu_23:5), to peculiar disgrace, and on
this account were not permitted to hold any office among the Israelites. But this did
not disqualify them from being proselytes: Ruth, who was a Moabitess, was married
to Boaz, and she became one of the progenitors of our Lord.
Even to their tenth generation - That is, for ever, as the next clause explains;
see Neh_13:1.
25

GILL, "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of
the Lord,.... Or marry an Israelitish woman, as Jarchi, and so the Targum of
Jonathan,"the male Ammonites and Moabites are not fit to take a wife of the
congregation of the Lord;''for the Jews restrain this to men, because it is, as Aben
Ezra observes, an Ammonite, not an Ammonitess, a Moabite, not a Moabitess; they
allow that females of those nations might be married to Israelites, that is, provided
they were proselytesses, as Ruth was (m):
even to their tenth generation, shall they not enter into the congregation
of the Lord for ever; that is, not only to the tenth generation, but for ever; and this
law was understood as in force in Nehemiah's time, which was more than ten
generations from the making of it; though now, as these nations are no more a
distinct people, they suppose it is no longer binding (n).
K&D, "Deu_23:3-8
Also no Ammonite or Moabite was to be received, not even in the tenth generation;
not, however, because their forefathers were begotten in incest (Gen_19:30.), as
Knobel supposes, but on account of the hostility they had manifested to the
establishment of the kingdom of God. Not only had they failed to give Israel a
hospitable reception on its journey (see at Deu_2:29), but they (viz., the king of the
Moabites) had even hired Balaam to curse Israel. In this way they had brought upon
themselves the curse which falls upon all those who curse Israel, according to the
infallible word of God (Gen_12:3), the truth of which even Balaam was obliged to
attest in the presence of Balak (Num_24:9); although out of love to Israel the Lord
turned the curse of Balaam into a blessing (cf. Num 22-24). For this reason Israel
was never to seek their welfare and prosperity, i.e., to make this an object of its care
(“to seek,” as in Jer_29:7); not indeed from personal hatred, for the purpose of
repaying evil with evil, since this neither induced Moses to publish the prohibition,
nor instigated Ezra when he put the law in force, by compelling the separation of all
Ammonitish, Moabitish, and Canaanitish wives from the newly established
congregation in Jerusalem (Ezr_9:12). How far Moses was from being influenced by
such motives of personal or national revenge is evident, apart from the prohibition in
Deu_2:9 and Deu_2:19 against making war upon the Moabites and Ammonites, from
the command which follows in Deu_23:8 and Deu_23:9 with reference to the
Edomites and Egyptians. These nations had also manifested hostility to the
Israelites. Edom had come against them when they desired to march peaceably
through his land (Num_20:18.), and the Pharaohs of Egypt had heavily oppressed
them. Nevertheless, Israel as to keep the bond of kindred sacred (“he is thy brother”),
and not to forget in the case of the Egyptians the benefits derived from their sojourn
in their land. Their children might come into the congregation of the Lord in the
third generation, i.e., the great-grandchildren of Edomites of Egyptians, who had
lived as strangers in Israel (see at Exo_20:5). Such persons might be incorporated
into the covenant nation by circumcision.
CALVIN, "3.An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter. As God has lately
prohibited His people from all connection and alliance with the Canaanitish
nations, so He now distinguishes between the aliens, and shews upon what
26

conditions, and whom they might admit (into the Church. (305)) The Moabites
and Ammonites He altogether rejects; because they not only refused the common
rites of humanity to the people, but also took arms against them, and even hired
Balaam to curse them. They were the descendants of Lot, and ought to have
embraced the children of Abraham as brethren. It was, then, inexcusable
barbarity in them to make a violent attack upon those who had voluntarily
offered them peace; who had promised by their messengers that they would
make their way without injury or wrong; and who finally had besought that a
passage might be granted them, provided they honestly paid the price of bread
and water; although doubtless God took vengeance rather on their impiety than
their cruelty, since they had not only endeavored to make His goodness of none
effect, but also to annihilate His faithfulness. Since, therefore, it was not their
fault that the Church did not perish, and the effect of His promise fail, whereon
the salvation of man was based, and this they had done knowingly and wilfully,
no wonder that they were excluded from the Church.
WHEDON, "3-6. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter — Not as such. The
case of Ruth shows they might on embracing Judaism. Knobel considers that the
reason for the prohibition of the text was because Ammon and Moab were
begotten in incest. Here Moses gives as reasons that they had failed to meet the
Israelites with hospitality, and had hired Balaam to curse them.
BENSON, "Deuteronomy 23:3. An Ammonite or a Moabite — The Jews will
have it, that the women of these two nations were not concerned in this law. And
that though an Israelitish woman might not marry an Ammonite or Moabite, yet
a man of Israel might marry one of their women, after she professed the Jewish
religion. For ever — This seems to denote the perpetuity of this law, that it
should be inviolably observed in all succeeding ages.
PETT, "Deuteronomy 23:3-5
‘An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to
the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of
Yahweh for ever, because they did not meet you (ye) with bread and with water
in the way, when you (ye) came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired
against you (thee) Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse
you (thee). Nevertheless Yahweh your God would not listen to Balaam, but
Yahweh your God turned the curse into a blessing to you, because Yahweh your
God loves you.’
The exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites was on the basis of their unsuitability
as evidenced by their actions. Ammonites were included with Moabites because
they were brother nations and often acted as one (compare Judges 3:12-13;
27

Judges 11:12-28 especially 17, 18, 25). What one did the other did. Thus they
were lumped together as hiring Balaam, even though in Numbers no mention is
made of the Ammonites. But they had continually demonstrated their enmity
towards Israel by their attitude. They had refused hospitality to a refugee nation
who were related to them, in the time of need, they had hired a false prophet
against them, and they had sought for them to be cursed. They were thus
untrustworthy. Even from a practical point of view they were not the kind of
people that should be introduced into the inner counsels of Israel.
The reasons mentioned must not be minimised. To refuse hospitality was
repugnant in the Ancient Near East. It was to brand someone as an enemy or an
outcast. This thus demonstrated deep enmity. The hiring of Balaam was an even
deeper display of enmity. The purpose had been to put Israel under a permanent
curse. They wanted to be rid of them for ever. It was only due to Yahweh’s love
for Israel that that curse was turned into a blessing.
The idea is that this demonstrated that they were so untrustworthy that while
individuals might be allowed within the covenant and to worship Yahweh, none
could ever in the foreseeable future become full members of the assembly. For
they would never be able to show themselves as sufficiently detached from the
attitude of their nations. Part of their disqualification might also arise from the
fact that they were seen as descended from an incestuous union of Lot with his
daughters (Genesis 19:30-38), so that they were seen as permanently blemished.
The contrast with Edom as ‘your brother’ may hint at this. It should, however,
be noted that their womenfolk could be absorbed into Israel on marriage to an
Israelite, as witness Ruth the ancestress of David (Ruth 4:21-22) whose children
were welcomed into the assembly of Israel.
“Even to the tenth generation -- for ever.” ‘Ten’ regularly means ‘many’
(compare Genesis 31:7). Thus this may mean for the foreseeable future until
some great event occurs that makes it possible, possibly the coming of Shiloh? -
see Genesis 49:10. ‘For ever’ means a similar thing, ‘unto the ages’, that is into
the distant future. Moab and Ammon were clearly seen as a deceitful and wild
people and totally untrustworthy.
K&D, "Deuteronomy 23:3-8
Also no Ammonite or Moabite was to be received, not even in the tenth
28

generation; not, however, because their forefathers were begotten in incest
(Genesis 19:30.), as Knobel supposes, but on account of the hostility they had
manifested to the establishment of the kingdom of God. Not only had they failed
to give Israel a hospitable reception on its journey (see at Deuteronomy 2:29),
but they (viz., the king of the Moabites) had even hired Balaam to curse Israel. In
this way they had brought upon themselves the curse which falls upon all those
who curse Israel, according to the infallible word of God (Genesis 12:3), the
truth of which even Balaam was obliged to attest in the presence of Balak
(Numbers 24:9); although out of love to Israel the Lord turned the curse of
Balaam into a blessing (cf. Num 22-24). For this reason Israel was never to seek
their welfare and prosperity, i.e., to make this an object of its care (“to seek,” as
in Jeremiah 29:7); not indeed from personal hatred, for the purpose of repaying
evil with evil, since this neither induced Moses to publish the prohibition, nor
instigated Ezra when he put the law in force, by compelling the separation of all
Ammonitish, Moabitish, and Canaanitish wives from the newly established
congregation in Jerusalem (Ezra 9:12). How far Moses was from being
influenced by such motives of personal or national revenge is evident, apart from
the prohibition in Deuteronomy 2:9 and Deuteronomy 2:19 against making war
upon the Moabites and Ammonites, from the command which follows in
Deuteronomy 23:8 and Deuteronomy 23:9 with reference to the Edomites and
Egyptians. These nations had also manifested hostility to the Israelites. Edom
had come against them when they desired to march peaceably through his land
(Numbers 20:18.), and the Pharaohs of Egypt had heavily oppressed them.
Nevertheless, Israel as to keep the bond of kindred sacred (“he is thy brother”),
and not to forget in the case of the Egyptians the benefits derived from their
sojourn in their land. Their children might come into the congregation of the
Lord in the third generation, i.e., the great-grandchildren of Edomites of
Egyptians, who had lived as strangers in Israel (see at Exodus 20:5). Such
persons might be incorporated into the covenant nation by circumcision.
4 For they did not come to meet you with bread
and water on your way when you came out of
Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from
Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a
curse on you.
29

BARNES, "Deu_23:4
Compare the marginal reference. The Moabites and the Ammonites are to be
regarded as clans of the same stock rather than as two independent nations, and as
acting together. Compare 2Ch_20:1.
GILL, "Because they met you not with bread and with water,.... To supply
them therewith, either as a gift, which was a piece of humanity to strangers and
travellers, or rather to sell unto them, for on no other terms did the Israelites desire
their bread and their water:
in the way when ye came forth out of Egypt; not as soon as they came forth
from thence, for it was near forty years after; but it was while they were in the way
from thence, as they were journeying to the land of Canaan, and so were travellers,
and should have had kindness shown them as such; for though they needed not
bread and water, God providing both for them, yet this does not excuse the
inhumanity of these people: the words are to be understood by way of distribution;
this charge here only belongs to the Ammonites, for it appears that the Moabites did
give them bread and water for money, Deu_2:28 as what follows belongs peculiarly
to the Moabites and not the Ammonites:
and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Pethor of
Mesopotamia, to curse thee; this the Moabites did in conjunction with the
Midianites, but the Ammonites had no concern in it; see Num_22:7, it was not
therefore because the Moabites and Ammonites were born in incest that they were
forbidden entrance into the congregation of the Lord; which might have been
thought to have been the reason of it, these instances following upon the former, had
not these reasons been assigned.
CALVIN, "4.And because he hired. (306) Although there was a common reason
why both nations should not be admitted, yet the number of the verb seems to be
changed designedly, because Balac king of Moab hired Balaam; yet, inasmuch as
they conspired together, the same crime is justly imputed to the Ammonites.
Herein indeed their detestable impiety especially betrayed itself, that by hiring a
mercenary man, to launch the thunders of his curse against the people, they
sought to overwhelm God by magical incantations. Nor did they err through
ignorance, since they obstinately persevered in their madness until Balaam was
confounded from heaven. And on this ground it is expressly stated that he was
not “hearkend unto,” but that rather his curses and prayers were “turned into a
blessing.” Hence it appears how awful is the vengeance which awaits all who of
deliberate malice oppose God’s grace and the welfare of the Church. Thus now-
a-days no stone is left unturned by the defenders of the Papacy, whereby they
may disturb the course of heavenly doctrine, nay, whereby they may altogether
silence the Gospel if they could.
30

Since another reason for this rejection is plainly signified, it is foolish in some to
attribute this sentence upon them to their origin, as if the Ammonites and
Moabites were excluded from the Church because they sprang from an
incestuous connection.
COKE, "Ver. 4. Because they met you not with bread and water— It was a piece
of ancient hospitality, to give strangers in their travels refreshment of bread and
water; that is, of meat and drink. The Israelites, therefore, might well expect this
civility from the Ammonites and Moabites, not only as fellow-creatures, but as
their kindred people; and further still, on account of the respect which they had
shewed them. See chap. Deuteronomy 2:19.
BENSON, "Deuteronomy 23:4. They met you not with bread and water — That
is, meat and drink; as the manner of those times and countries was, with respect
to strangers and travellers, which was the more necessary because there were no
public-houses of entertainment. Their fault, then, was unmercifulness to
strangers and afflicted persons, which was aggravated both by their relation to
the Israelites, as being the children of Lot, and by the special kindness of God
and of the Israelites to them, in not fighting against them. Because they hired
against thee Balaam — As the foregoing passage peculiarly refers to the
Ammonites, so this doth to the Moabites, Numbers 22:5-7.
5 However, the Lord your God would not listen
to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing
for you, because the Lord your God loves you.
GILL, "Nevertheless, the Lord thy God would not hearken unto
Balaam,.... To his solicitations, and the methods he took to prevail on the Lord to
suffer him to curse Israel, which he gladly would have done for the sake of Balak's
reward:
but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee; in the very
mouth of Balaam, as the Targum of Jonathan; for when he opened his mouth and
Balak expected he would have cursed Israel, and he intended it, could he have been
permitted, the Lord overruled his tongue, and put such words into his mouth, that
instead of cursing Israel, he blessed him; see Num_23:11,
because the Lord thy God loved thee; and therefore would not suffer them to be
31

cursed; for whom the Lord loves they are blessed, and shall be so in time and to
eternity.
BI, "The Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing.
Balaam’s curse turned into a blessing by God
Here a difficult question meets us. Was there any reality whatever in Balaam’s curse!
Or was it altogether a harmless thing—in fact, nothing at all? If there was nothing in
it, why should it have been averted Why should it be said that God “would not
hearken unto Balaam”? Why not let it be pronounced? The result would have shown
that there was no power or reality in it. On the other hand, it is difficult to suppose
that such power could reside in a curse, especially when spoken by such a man as
Balaam. One thing is certain, that God Himself never did give false prophets power to
curse. Could they, then, derive it from any other quarter? Why not from Satan? No
creature is absolutely independent; all are instruments in the hands of another. If
through grace we have been placed in the kingdom of light, then we are instruments
in the hands of God. If we are in the kingdom of darkness, we can only he
instruments in the hands of Satan; a curse and not a blessing to others. Now,
heathenism is one great territory of Satan’s power—one chief part of his kingdom of
darkness. He reigns supreme there. We believe, then, that within the sphere of his
kingdom of darkness Satan has power to employ false prophets as his instruments—
has power to enable them to curse, and to fulfil their curse when pronounced. The
conflict here, then, was not merely one between the king of Moab and Israel, but
between the kingdom of light in Israel and the kingdom of darkness in Moab and
Midian. Balaam’s curse would have been the utterance of the power of darkness; but
he was obliged, however reluctantly, to confess his impotency before God. It was an
act of Divine power when God turned the curse into a blessing. It showed His
watchful care and love towards His people. And what is it that God is accomplishing
now by the gift of His son and the power of His grace, but turning the curse into a
blessing? Oh, there is a widespread curse, which has long been resting upon this
guilty world, the curse pronounced on man’s disobedience; and what makes it so
awful is, that it is a righteous curse. Wherever we look we see its tokens—man
doomed to a life of weary labour, suffering from different kinds of sickness, and at
last seized with the irresistible hand of death; so that St. Paul says, “The whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” But to the children of
God this three-fold curse is changed by the grace of God into a blessing. Look at the
lowest element of the curse, that of labour, according to the sentence, “In the sweat of
thy face shalt thou eat bread.” How wearisome is ceaseless toil in itself! But to the
true Christian how different is toil and labour! He consecrates his powers to Him
who has redeemed him with His precious blood! Or look at sickness. What is it but
the visible reflection of a spiritual disease within? If the image of God had not been
obliterated from the soul by sin there would have been no sickness or sorrow in the
world. No miracle is exerted to exempt the Christian from this trial. But its nature is
changed; there is no longer any curse in it. How many can bless God for it, painful as
it may have been—can bless God for His sanctifying and sustaining power—for the
near communion with Jesus which they then enjoyed—for the hallowed impressions
made upon their souls; and, most of all, for the manifestations of God’s faithfulness
and tenderness—of His power and gentleness. But of all the elements of the curse the
most manifest and the most awful is death—so universal in its reign—so tremendous
in its power—so mysterious in its nature. We can scarcely stand by a dying bed
without the question pressing itself upon our thoughts—oh, why this convulsion?
Why this distressing and humiliating close to our life here? One answer can only be
32

given—It is because of sin. “Death passed upon all men in that all have sinned.” To
the Christian its sting is drawn. It is but the rending of the veil which separates his
soul from the visible presence of his Redeemer. (G. Wagner.)
6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as
long as you live.
BARNES, "i. e. “thou shalt not invite them robe on terms of amity with thee
(compare Deu_20:10 ff), nor make their welfare thy care”: compare Ezr_9:12. There
is no injunction to hatred or retaliation (compare Deu_2:9, Deu_2:19); but later
history contains frequent record of hostility between Israel and these nations.
GILL, "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days
for ever. Not that they were to retain malice towards them, or indulge a spirit of
revenge, or not do them any good offices in a private way, which is contrary to the
law of love; nor does this contradict any offices of kindness and friendship that might
be performed in a personal way: so we find that David had a kindness for Hanun the
Ammonite, and showed it, though ill rewarded for it, yet is not blamed for doing it;
2Sa_10:2 for these words respect not persons in a private capacity, but the people of
Israel as a body politic, who, as such, were not to carry on trade and commerce with
those people, nor intermarry with them, nor make leagues and enter into alliances
with them; the reason of which was, because being very near neighbours to them,
had there not been such a law, as a wall of partition between them, they might have
become very familiar, and so have learnt their evil ways and customs, which this was
designed to prevent: the Jews restrain (o) this to overtures and proclamations of
peace, which they were not to make with these nations, as they were directed to do
when they went out to war with others, Deu_20:10.
HENRY, "II. Upon Ammonites and Moabites, the posterity of Lot, who, for his
outward convenience, had separated himself from Abraham, Gen_13:11. And we do
not find that he or his ever joined themselves again to the children of the covenant.
They are here cut off to the tenth generation, that is, (as some think it is explained),
for ever. Compare Neh_13:1. The reason of this quarrel which Israel must have with
them, so as not to seek their peace (Deu_23:6), is because of the unkindness they
had now lately done to the camp of Israel, notwithstanding the orders God had given
not to distress or vex them, Deu_2:9, Deu_2:19. 1. It was bad enough that they did
not meet them with bread and water in the way (Deu_23:4), that they did not as
allies, or at least as neutral states, bring victuals into their camp, which they should
have been duly paid for. It was well that God's Israel did not need their kindness, God
himself following them with bread and water. However this omission of the
33

Ammonites should be remembered against their nation in future ages. Note, God will
certainly reckon, not only with those that oppose his people, but with those that do
not help and further them, when it is in the power of their hand to do it. The charge
at the great day is for an omission: I was hungry, and you gave me no meat. 2. The
Moabites had done worse, they hired Balaam to curse Israel, Deu_23:4. It is true God
turned the curse into a blessing (Deu_23:5), not only changing the word in Balaam's
mouth, but making that really turn to the honour and advantage of Israel which was
designed for their ruin. But though the design was defeated, and overruled for good,
the Moabites' wickedness was not the less provoking. God will deal with sinners, but
according to their endeavours, Psa_28:4
COKE, "Ver. 6. Thou shalt not seek their peace— All that is here forbidden is,
the entering into public confederacies and alliances with them; notwithstanding
which prohibition, they were bound to treat those people according to the rule of
common justice and humanity. The words may be considered as a declaration of
the inflexible resolution of these two nations to maintain idolatry, and to keep up
the same hostile spirit towards the Hebrews, which their ancestors had begun;
otherwise, if they had publicly renounced their idolatry, and courted the favour
of the Israelites, this law would have been abrogated of course, the reasons for
which it was made then ceasing.
BENSON, "Deuteronomy 23:6. Thou shalt not seek their peace — That is, make
no contracts, either by marriages, or leagues, or commerce with them; but rather
constantly keep a jealous eye over them, as enemies who will watch every
opportunity to insnare or disturb thee. This counsel was now the more necessary,
because a great part of the Israelites lived beyond Jordan in the borders of those
people, and therefore God sets up this wall of partition between them, as well
knowing the mischief caused by bad neighbours, and Israel’s proneness to
receive infection from them. Individual Israelites were not hereby forbidden to
perform any office of humanity to them, but the body of the nation are forbidden
all familiar conversation with them.
‘You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days for ever.’
This is not as harsh as it sounds. Its meaning is that they are not to establish
peace treaties with either nation. To ‘seek their peace and prosperity’ was a
traditional way by which entering into such treaties was described. The ban was
signifying that there was something so unstable in the characters of the nations
that they were never to be trusted in a treaty. Their curse returned on their own
heads. This would confirm that the problem therefore lay in their basic attitude.
34

7 Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites
are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian,
because you resided as foreigners in their
country.
BARNES, "The Edomite, as descended from Esau the twin brother of Jacob
(compare Deu_2:4), and the Egyptian, as of that nation which had for long shown
hospitality to Joseph and his brethren, were not to be objects of abhorrence. The
oppression of the Egyptians was perhaps regarded as the act of the Pharaohs rather
than the will of the people Exo_11:2-3; and at any rate was not to cancel the memory
of preceding hospitality.
GILL, "Thou shall not abhor an Edomite,.... Or an Idumean, the descendants
of Esau, whose name was Edom, Gen_25:30 the Targum of Jonathan adds, "that
comes to be made a proselyte"; he was not to be rejected with abhorrence, because of
the old grudge between Jacob and Esau, and which was become national in their
posterity:
for he is thy brother; the Israelites and the Edomites were nearest akin to each
other of all the nations; for Jacob and Esau were own brothers by father's and
mother's side, yea, were twin brothers; the relation was very near:
thou shall not abhor an Egyptian; that comes to be made a proselyte also, as the
same Targum; though the Israelites were so ill used by them, their lives made bitter
with hard bondage, and their male infants slain by them, and they for a long time
refused their liberty to depart:
because thou wast a stranger in his land: and at first received many favours
and kindnesses from them, being supported and supplied with provisions during a
long famine; and had one of the richest and most fruitful parts of the country
assigned them to dwell in; and old favours were not to be forgotten, though they had
been followed with great unkindness and cruelty.
HENRY 7-8, "III. The Edomites and Egyptians had not so deep a mark of
displeasure put upon them as the Moabites and Ammonites had. If an Edomite or
Egyptian turned proselyte, his grand-children should be looked upon as members of
the congregation of the Lord to all intents and purposes, Deu_23:7, Deu_23:8. We
should think that the Edomites had been more injurious to the Israelites than the
Ammonites, and deserved as little favour from them (Num_20:20), and yet “Thou
shalt not abhor an Edomite, as thou must an Ammonite, for he is thy brother.” Note,
The unkindness of near relations, though by many worst taken, yet should with us,
35

for that reason, because of the relation, be first forgiven. And then, as to the
Egyptians, here is a strange reason given why they must not be abhorred: “Thou wast
a stranger in their land, and therefore, though hardly used there, be civil to them, for
old acquaintance' sake.” They must not remember their bondage in Egypt for the
keeping up of any ill will to the Egyptians, but only for the magnifying of Gods power
and goodness in their deliverance.
CALVIN, "7.Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite. In order that the punishment
denounced against the Moabites and Ammonites should be more strongly
marked, he commands the Edomites and Egyptians to be admitted in the third
generation; the former, because they derived their origin from the same ancestor,
Isaac, since they were the descendants of Esau; the latter, because they had been
their hosts. For hence it was manifest that the Ammonites and Moabites had
been dis-honored on account of their guilt, when not even aliens were thus dealt
with. Now, although Esau had cut himself off from the prerogative of believers,
yet the door was again opened to his children, provided they returned to their
source and origin, and in the humility of faith admitted the primogeniture of
Jacob, who had been chosen when their father was passed by or degraded. But
what is meant by this inequality of punishment, when the crime was identical?
for Edom appeared in arms against Israel before Moab, and compelled them to
take their journey by another way. It did not contend with hired imprecations
for Israel’s destruction, but since, when humbly entreated on the score of their
old relationship, it had not only refused them a passage, but had advanced
against them with a great army, it should have been dealt with no less severity
than Amalek or Ammon. Besides, being connected to them by a closer of blood,
the Edomites were less excusable in their hostility. I find, then, no reason why
God shewed greater clemency to them than the others whom He treated more
severely; except that He wished to shew that it depends on His own will to
chastise more lightly in some the same sins on which He takes more severe
vengeance in others; and, inasmuch as all are deserving of utter destruction, He
justly retains in His own hand the free right of sparing whom He will. We must
here adore His judgments, into the depths of which we cannot penetrate. Nor is
this inequality a ground for the noisy cavils of the ungodly, as if He were
inconsistent with Himself, and acted in contradiction to the rules of His Law;
since in so doing He does not judge in diverse ways, but, condemning all alike,
indulges whom He pleases, or remits a part of their punishment. A question may
also arise as to the Egyptians, why God lays His people under an obligation to
them, because they sojourned in their land. For it was barbarous and
inhospitable cruelty in them to oppress the wretched fugitives who had trusted to
their good faith. But God here refers to their first reception; as in Isaiah 52:4,
where, comparing the Egyptians with the Assyrians, He says that the latter
oppressed them like robbers, whilst the former had ruled over them not without
a cause, because the people had gone down thither of their own accord.
36

Although, therefore, the Israelites had been unworthily oppressed by their fierce
tyranny, still God would have their old kindness acknowledged; since their
dearth and famine had been relieved, and the refugees were kindly received,
when the inhabitants of Canaan were perishing of hunger.
COKE, "Ver. 7, 8. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite—an Egyptian— The first,
the descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob, were thereby more than
neighbours; they were the brethren of the Israelites: and as to the Egyptians,
though they at length cruelly oppressed the Jewish nation, yet were their
ancestors at first very hospitably received by them; the memory of which benefit
God would not permit them to lose. The children begotten of them were to enter
into the congregation in the third generation. Though neither the father nor the
son could be incorporated into the Jewish community, the grandchild might; for,
according to the Rabbis, the grandchildren are the third generation. See Selden
de Jure N. & G. lib. 5: cap. 14.
Note; (1.) Near relations, though they may have treated us unnaturally, must be
regarded by us with affection still. (2.) The unkindness that we may have
received must not cancel our grateful acknowledgment for former favours; we
must forget the one, and remember the other.
ELLICOTT, "(7) Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite . . . an Egyptian.—The
contrast between these and the Moabite and Ammonite is drawn rather well by
Rashi in this passace. “Learn here,” he says, “that he who makes a man to sin,
treats him worse than he who kills-him; for he that kills, kills only in this world,
but he who causes him to sin, banishes him both from this world and from the
world to come. Edom, therefore who met them with the sword (Numbers 21:18;
Numbers 21:20) they must not abhor; nor, again, Egypt, that would have
drowned them (Exodus 1:22); but those who made them to sin are to be
abhorred of them, because of the counsel wherewith they counselled them to
cause them to sin.” The counsel of Balaam and the whoredoms of Moab are
referred to; the Midianites who joined in this effort had been chastised already
(Numbers 31).
WHEDON, "7. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite — The Edomites, descendants
of Esau, twin brother of Jacob, held closer relations to Israel.
Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian — The memory of the favours shown to Jacob
and his sons in Egypt may have been a reason for this command. The oppression
which the nation endured in Egypt may have been ascribed to the Egyptian king.
BENSON, "Deuteronomy 23:7-8. Thou wast a stranger — And didst receive
habitation, protection, and provision from them a long time, which kindness
thou must not forget for their following persecution. It is ordinary with men that
one injury blots out the remembrance of twenty favours. But God doth not deal
37

so with us, nor will he have us to deal so with others, but commands us to forget
injuries, and to remember kindnesses. In the third generation — When they had
been proselytes to the true religion for three generations, they might be
incorporated with the Jewish community. And, according to the Hebrew
masters, the grand-children are the third generation.
‘You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an
Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land.’
In contrast were the Edomites and the Egyptians, the former because they were a
genuine brother nation, the latter because in contrast with the Moabites and the
Ammonites they had welcomed Israel to live among them at their time of need.
Thus whenever they wished to enter the assembly of Israel this was possible after
completing a probationary period which established their genuineness.
“Shall not abhor.” Abhorrence had in mind what was contrary to God. It was
the opposite of ‘covenant love’. They were not to be looked on as of such a nature
that they were utterly unable to be received by Yahweh. Later this position
would be partly reversed in the case of Edom because they would criminally take
advantage of Judah’s misfortunes (Obadiah; Amos 1:11-12; Ezekiel 35:5; 2
Chronicles 28:17; Psalms 137:7). They took possession of lands in the south. It
rebounded on them, for in the end these were joined by refugees from the
destruction of Edom and were later (under John Hyrcanus) actually forced then
to be circumcised and become Jews at the point of the sword, being gradually
absorbed into God’s people.
The prophets would later prophesy that one day large numbers of Egyptians
would turn to Yahweh (Isaiah 19:18-25; Isaiah 45:14), something which became
a reality through the preaching of the early church so that Alexandria became a
major centre of Christianity in its early days.
8 The third generation of children born to them
may enter the assembly of the Lord.
38

Deuteronomy 23 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to Deuteronomy 23 commentary

Similar to Deuteronomy 23 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Deuteronomy 23 commentary