Deuteronomy Chapter 23
Instructions to the Assembly, Various Laws
A. Those excluded from the congregation of Israel
1. (Deuteronomy 23:1)
“He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”
This command concerns men who had been emasculated, whether by crushing injury, mutilation, birth defect, accident, or deliberate castration. Such men were forbidden to enter into the congregation of the LORD. The phrase “congregation of the LORD” does not always refer to public worship assemblies of all Israel, but in several contexts refers specifically to governmental or judicial participation among the elders and leaders of the nation. For example, in Deuteronomy 31:28-30, Moses speaks to “all the congregation,” which is then defined as the elders, officers, and tribal heads. Therefore, the exclusion here is best understood not as a denial of relationship with God, worship, or salvation, but as exclusion from civil authority and leadership within the covenant nation.
This restriction is tied to the theological importance of the seed in God’s covenant with Israel. God’s promise to Abraham was, “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:7). The physical ability to produce offspring symbolized participation in this covenantal promise. Emasculation, especially when practiced in pagan cultures for temple service or idol worship, was considered a mutilation of the divine design of the male body and a dishonor to the covenantal principle of posterity. This is why the Law prohibited Israel from making eunuchs and required that priests be physically whole (Leviticus 21:17-20).
However, God also made provision for grace toward those who feared Him among the excluded. Isaiah 56:3-5 proclaims, “Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters.” Though they could not serve in leadership or priestly office under the Mosaic Law, they could still worship, believe, and belong to the Lord by faith. This transition anticipates the greater grace found in the New Covenant, where Christ says, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” concerning those made eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Matthew 19:12), and where in Christ there is no caste exclusion, “for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
2. (Deuteronomy 23:2)
“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”
The term “bastard” (Hebrew mamzer) refers to one born from a prohibited or unlawful union. Jewish tradition interpreted this term in several ways: some said it referred to a child born from incest or adultery, others believed it referred to children born of forbidden marriages between Israelites and pagans, such as the mixed marriages condemned in Nehemiah 13:23-27. Because of the phrasing “to the tenth generation,” this exclusion signified a long-lasting social and governmental restriction upon the descendants of such a union.
This was not a matter of personal guilt upon the child, for Scripture is clear that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20). Rather, this law functioned to uphold the sanctity of marriage, sexual purity, and the covenantal distinctiveness of Israel as a holy nation. It was a deterrent against immoral unions and a safeguard against the influence of surrounding pagan nations. The number “ten” in Scripture signifies completeness or fullness, meaning this exclusion lasted until the family line demonstrated a long record of covenant faithfulness.
However, Scripture also records God overriding this law through grace. Ruth the Moabitess, who by Deuteronomy 23:3 should have been barred from the congregation, was brought into Israel by faith, married Boaz, and became the great-grandmother of David. Likewise, Perez, son of Judah and Tamar (a union arising under scandalous circumstances in Genesis 38), became an ancestor of Christ (Matthew 1:3). These examples demonstrate that while the Law maintained holiness and order, God’s mercy could redeem and elevate the outcast who came to Him in faith.
3. (Deuteronomy 23:3–6)
“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: 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 of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. 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. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.”
The Ammonites and Moabites were permanently barred from entering the congregation of the LORD, meaning they were excluded from Israel’s governing assembly and civil leadership. The basis for this judgment was both historical and theological. Historically, when Israel journeyed from Egypt, Moab and Ammon refused common hospitality and instead responded with hostility. Moab hired Balaam to curse Israel (Numbers 22–24), demonstrating active intent to harm God’s people rather than bless them. Spiritually, their very origin was a disgrace. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s daughters, believing no men remained to preserve lineage, made their father drunk and bore sons by incest; “And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab...and the younger...called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day” (Genesis 19:36–38). Thus these nations were marked both by moral corruption at their root and by ongoing rebellion against God’s covenant people.
The Lord commanded Israel not to seek the peace or prosperity of these nations. This was not a command to hate individuals, but to reject political alliances, treaties, or dependence upon them. This separation upheld Israel’s holiness, for friendship with such pagan nations would eventually lead to idolatry, as proven later in Solomon’s downfall when he took Moabite and Ammonite wives who “turned away his heart after other gods” (1 Kings 11:1–7). Yet this law did not prohibit individuals from these nations from being received by faith. Ruth the Moabitess is the greatest example. Though Moabite by birth and therefore excluded from the assembly, she declared, “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” (Ruth 1:16), and was brought into Israel by grace. She married Boaz and became the great-grandmother of David (Ruth 4:17). This proves that while national identity brought judgment, personal faith brought redemption. God’s grace did not abolish the law, but it worked beyond it when there was repentance and faith.
Furthermore, Israel could see in God’s refusal to curse them a reminder of His covenant love. “Nevertheless the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam”, echoing how God overrules the curses of men. Numbers 23:8 says, “How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed?” and Numbers 23:23, “Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob.” The Lord turned Balaam’s curse into a blessing because He loved Israel, illustrating Romans 8:31 in type, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” The exclusion of Moab and Ammon therefore warned Israel not to align with those whom God had judged, and not to despise the love God had shown them through His protection.
4. (Deuteronomy 23:7–8)
“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.”
God distinguishes between outright enemies (like Moab and Ammon) and those who, while pagan, shared either familial connection or had shown kindness in history. The Edomites descended from Esau, the brother of Jacob (Genesis 36:1). Despite the long-standing tension between their descendants, God reminded Israel that they were still brothers, and personal hatred or racial contempt was forbidden. Ironically, one of the most infamous later Edomites was Herod the Great, who, though ruling Judea, was despised by the Jews as an Edomite usurper. Yet this command shows that Israel was not to harbor generational hatred simply because of ethnic difference.
Likewise, Egypt was not to be abhorred. Though they had enslaved Israel, they also provided a place of preservation during famine and were used by God to multiply Israel from a family into a nation. Egypt served as a “womb” where Israel developed, fulfilling Genesis 46:3, “Fear not to go down into Egypt...I will there make of thee a great nation.” Therefore, the Lord allowed Egyptians and Edomites to be admitted into the congregation by the third generation, meaning after sufficient time of faithfulness to the covenant. This demonstrates both justice and mercy within God’s law. He remembers sin, yet He also remembers kindness, and He makes provision for restoration to fellowship.
This balance of separation and grace is consistent throughout Scripture. Israel must remain holy, yet God always leaves the door open for the repentant foreigner. Exodus 12:48 declares, “And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD...he shall be as one that is born in the land.” Ultimately, this foreshadows the New Covenant, where in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28), yet holiness and separation from sin remain essential.
B. Miscellaneous Laws
1. (Deuteronomy 23:9–14) Cleanliness in the Camp
“When the host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing. If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water, and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again. Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon, and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.”
The Lord commanded Israel that when they went out to battle, the camp must remain free from impurity and moral defilement. Holiness was not suspended during warfare. They were still God’s covenant people, and even on the battlefield, they were commanded to keep themselves from wickedness. The phrase “uncleanness that chanceth him by night” refers to ceremonial impurity such as nocturnal emission, which under the Law rendered a man unclean until evening. Leviticus 15:16 says, “And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.” The unclean man had to leave the camp, wash himself, and only return after sunset. This showed that God’s presence among His people required reverence, purity, and obedience, even in times of war.
The Lord also commanded sanitary order. They were to have a place outside the camp for relieving themselves, and each man was to carry a tool or paddle to cover his waste. This developed personal responsibility, modesty, and hygiene. This law was far ahead of its time. Ancient armies and civilizations commonly suffered disease and death through unsanitary conditions, but God gave Israel a system that preserved both cleanliness and health. Yet the primary reason was not merely physical but spiritual. “For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp.” This was the same reason given earlier for holiness in the tabernacle. Leviticus 26:12 says, “And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.” His presence demanded purity. Any negligence in physical cleanliness reflected a deeper negligence in reverence for God.
The practical obedience of this law reinforced a spiritual truth. The people of God were not free to live carelessly just because they were in battle. Victory was not secured by numbers or strength but by the presence of the Lord. Psalm 33:16–17 says, “There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. An horse is a vain thing for safety.” Therefore, the camp had to remain holy so that God would not turn away. The principle is repeated in the New Testament spiritually. The church is called the temple of God, and 2 Corinthians 7:1 says, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” Likewise, 1 Peter 1:16, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.”
The rabbis later debated how this applied to Jerusalem, calling it the “camp of the LORD.” Therefore, they argued a person must leave the city to relieve themselves. Yet on the Sabbath, travel was restricted to a Sabbath day’s journey, making obedience complicated. This demonstrated that human tradition often complicates what God intended to be simple. Christ later rebuked such burdens in Matthew 23:4, saying the Pharisees “bind heavy burdens...but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”
Ultimately, this law taught Israel that God is present not only in the tabernacle but also in daily life, in war, in the camp, and in secret places. Holiness is not confined to worship services but must govern every area of life. God walked in the midst of their camp to defend them. Therefore, their camp must reflect His holiness. If they neglected purity, He would withdraw His presence, and withdrawal of His presence would mean the loss of victory.
2. (Deuteronomy 23:15–16) Israel to Provide Asylum for the Foreign Escaped Slave
“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”
Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel was commanded to grant asylum to a foreign slave who fled from an oppressive master. This law did not concern Hebrew slaves, who were already regulated under the covenant with laws of redemption, release in the seventh year, and protections against harsh treatment (Exodus 21:2–6, Deuteronomy 15:12–18). Rather, this applied to a slave from a pagan nation seeking refuge in the land of Israel. In contrast to the oppressive systems of Mesopotamia, Egypt, or Canaan, God required Israel to be a sanctuary for the oppressed. They were not to return the slave, nor force him into another servitude, but allow him to settle freely wherever he chose within their gates.
This command was rooted in Israel’s own history as former slaves. Exodus 22:21 states, “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” God reminded them repeatedly that compassion for the oppressed is not optional for a redeemed people. The slave could live in any town he desired, and Israel was specifically commanded, “thou shalt not oppress him.” This emphasized voluntary refuge, dignity, and protection. This law anticipated a much greater spiritual truth, namely that God Himself provides asylum to all who flee from the bondage of sin. Proverbs 18:10 declares, “The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.” Likewise, Christ says, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). Just as Israel was not to hand the slave back to bondage, Christ does not return repentant sinners to Satan’s dominion.
3. (Deuteronomy 23:17–18) Sacred Prostitution Forbidden
“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
God strictly prohibited ritual prostitution of any kind within Israel. The term “whore” refers to a female prostitute, while “sodomite” (Hebrew qadesh) refers to a male prostitute involved in pagan temple rituals. Among the Canaanites and other pagan cultures, sexual immorality was falsely presented as sacred worship, believed to invoke blessing, fertility, or agricultural prosperity. Temples of Baal, Ashtoreth, Molech, and other false gods were filled with male and female cult prostitutes. God declared such practices to be an abomination, utterly incompatible with His holiness. Israel was called to be separate. Leviticus 19:29 commands, “Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.”
Not only was the act forbidden, but the wages gained from prostitution were also rejected by God. “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD.” The term “price of a dog” is a Hebrew euphemism for the earnings of a male prostitute. God will not accept money earned through sin. His work does not depend on corrupt funding. This principle still stands. Proverbs 21:27 says, “The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?” No offering, no matter how large, can sanctify immoral gain. Holiness cannot be purchased, and the ends do not justify the means in the service of the Lord.
Later, Israel fell into this very sin during periods of apostasy. Under kings such as Rehoboam and Manasseh, male cult prostitutes were found even near the temple (1 Kings 14:24, 2 Kings 23:7). However, righteous kings like Asa and Josiah removed them in reforms, “And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols” (1 Kings 15:12). These reforms show the ongoing struggle between holiness and pagan corruption among God’s people.
This commandment also confronts the idea that culture determines morality. Pagan society normalized sexual perversion and called it worship. God called it an abomination. The same holds true today. Holiness is not defined by the majority but by Scripture. The believer is still called to flee fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18) and to glorify God in body and spirit, which are His.
4. (Deuteronomy 23:19–20) No Interest to Be Charged to a Fellow Israelite
“Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury. Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.”
God commanded that Israelites were not to charge interest to their “brother,” meaning a fellow Israelite within the covenant community, especially in cases where the loan was given out of necessity or poverty. The inclusion of “money or victuals” shows this mainly concerned loans given for survival, food, or basic needs. This law is emphasized also in Exodus 22:25, “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer.” The purpose was not to restrict business entirely, but to prevent exploitation of the poor and to preserve compassion and brotherhood among God’s people. Loans given to relieve distress were acts of mercy, not opportunities for profit. God had redeemed them freely from Egypt, therefore they must not treat one another with cold calculation or greed.
However, God allowed interest to be charged to a foreigner. This distinction was not rooted in hatred or racism but in covenant identity. Foreign traders or wealthy merchants who came into Israel for commercial gain were not under the same protections as the poor within the covenant. The law recognized the reality of international trade and allowed interest in that sphere. Yet toward their own people, God expected generosity and compassion, not financial exploitation. Leviticus 25:35–37 reinforces this, saying if thy brother be poor, “take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy God.” In doing so, Israel would reflect the character of the God who freely gave them the land and all their blessings. God promised that obedience in this matter would result in His favor, “that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to do.” Prosperity in Israel was not meant to come from the oppression of one another but from the blessing of God upon righteousness.
5. (Deuteronomy 23:21–23) The Importance of Keeping Vows
“When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.”
A vow made to God was a voluntary promise, but once spoken, it became a binding obligation before the Lord. The command is clear, do not delay in fulfilling a vow, for God will surely require it, and neglect becomes sin. This teaches that words spoken to God are never casual. Ecclesiastes 5:4–5 warns, “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it...better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.” Vows were often made in times of distress or thanksgiving, such as Jacob at Bethel (Genesis 28:20–22) or Hannah promising Samuel to the Lord (1 Samuel 1:11). God does not require vows, but He requires truthfulness if a vow is made.
Jesus warned against careless or manipulative oath-making. Matthew 5:34–37 says, “Swear not at all...but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” Christ was not abolishing solemn vows completely, since God Himself swears oaths (Hebrews 6:13, Luke 1:73) and Jesus answered under oath at His trial (Matthew 26:63–64). Rather, He condemned the flippant use of oaths to make oneself appear credible while living without integrity. The Christian’s normal speech should be so honest that vows are unnecessary. Still, Scripture shows legitimate vows in marriage, ordination, and covenant commitments, but only when entered reverently and truthfully.
God would rather a person not vow at all than vow and break it. He takes no delight in insincere promises. This also includes foolish vows. Jephthah’s vow in Judges 11:30–35 is a tragic example of an impulsive promise made without wisdom. However, there is one vow all believers can rightly make and keep continually, the vow to give God praise. Psalm 56:12 says, “Thy vows are upon me, O God: I will render praises unto thee.” True worship is a vow of the heart that must be fulfilled in obedience and gratitude.
6. (Deuteronomy 23:24–25) The Right to Glean is Given to Travelers
“When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.”
God provided a gracious balance between personal property rights and compassion for human need. This law allowed a traveler passing through another’s vineyard or grainfield to eat enough to satisfy immediate hunger but not to gather or harvest for later use. The traveler could eat grapes freely, but could not carry them in a container. He could pluck grain with his hand, but could not use a sickle to cut and collect large quantities. The purpose was mercy for the traveler, not license for theft. Property was still protected under the law, yet generosity was expected from every landowner in Israel because the land ultimately belonged to the Lord, who gave it to them as a trust. Leviticus 25:23 says, “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.”
This principle extended the spirit of gleaning found in Leviticus 19:9–10 and Leviticus 23:22, where landowners were commanded not to harvest the corners of their fields and not to pick up what fell, but to leave it for the poor and the stranger. An example of this law in action is seen in the book of Ruth, where Ruth gleaned in the fields of Boaz. Yet here in Deuteronomy, the provision is not only for the poor, but also for any passing traveler in need. It created a society of open-handedness, where loving one’s neighbor was interwoven even into agricultural life. This stands in contrast to pagan cultures where private ownership was absolute and mercy was often neglected.
Jesus and His disciples made use of this very law. Luke 6:1–5 and Matthew 12:1–2 record how they plucked ears of grain on the Sabbath and ate, rubbing them in their hands. The Pharisees did not accuse them of stealing, because they knew this command in Deuteronomy permitted it. Instead, they accused them of violating the Sabbath by doing what they interpreted as work. Jesus corrected them by pointing to Scripture and declaring Himself Lord of the Sabbath. This shows that the law was never designed to prevent mercy or to elevate tradition above human need.
This command also reinforces that God values honest labor and immediate provision, not greed. It preserves the dignity of the hungry traveler while also respecting the labor and resources of the landowner. It prevents both stinginess and abuse. Spiritually, this reflects God’s heart. He provides daily bread. Proverbs 30:8 says, “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me.” Jesus taught His disciples to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11). This law reminds Israel that God cared not only for His sanctuary or sacrifices, but for the ordinary hunger of a man walking down a road.
