23:1–2 The first stipulation excludes an emasculated individual from participation in the covenant community. Two usual methods of sterilization are referred to here, one involving the destroying of testes and the second involving another form of castration. Intentional emasculation is forbidden to anyone wishing to belong to the assembly. The text does not specify whether the same regulation applies to those born with the condition. Voluntary emasculation, usually done for religious reasons, is forbidden in 14:1. In the cultures surrounding Israel, royal officials were sometimes made eunuchs, readily identifiable on inscriptions, but this was forbidden to Israel. In the ancient Near East, castration was also a form of punishment.

Bodily mutilation violates the concept of cleanness, namely, that which is normal and can be sanctified. This would be reason enough for exclusion, but there may be an additional practical consideration. All members of the assembly share in a perpetual family inheritance (Num. 26:52–56). The maintenance of the boundaries of this inheritance is the responsibility of the assembly (Mic. 2:5), but this could not be maintained for those who could not father children. Inability to bear children is always a painful and problematic situation.

Those “born of a forbidden union” (Hb. mamzer) are also prohibited from membership in the assembly. The tenth generation is a way of saying they may never be a part of the assembly, as is explained by the gloss in verse 3. There is no indication that the rare Hebrew word mamzer means “one born out of wedlock” (“bastard”). Judging by the context, these are likely marriages outside the covenant. The term might refer particularly to one permanently excluded, such as a Moabite or Ammonite. If one parent is not part of the covenant, the family does not share in allegiance to God or in the land God has given as a gift.

23:3–6 The prohibition against Moabites and Ammonites as part of the assembly is first stated, then the explanation given. The reasons are historical—facts well known to the generation of Israel about to enter the Promised Land. The Moabites and Ammonites in these verses are those living as residents among the Israelites. Such a prohibition would not apply to an individual such as Ruth, who married into an Israelite family while in Moab and then migrated with her husband’s mother, Naomi, as a family member. Ruth comes into the inheritance of the family of Naomi through her marriage to Boaz and is the means of preserving the family property for future generations. Israelite law does not forbid foreigners’ becoming a part of the covenant and the assembly. Those forbidden are residents who have opposed Israel and the covenant from the time God gave them the land.

The lands of Moab and Ammon were forbidden to Israel (Deut. 2:9, 19); there was to be no conflict with these peoples. The text is very cryptic concerning the actual events. Ammon did not assist Israel with provisions. Moab did supply Israel with food and water (2:28–29), but their encounter with Israel was not friendly. The actions of Balak, king of Moab, in hiring Balaam to curse Israel are evidence of Moab’s attitude. Although the account of Balaam includes no indication of the direct involvement of Ammon in seeking to curse Israel, they were at least complicit in the affair. The attempt to curse Israel was reversed, and the curse fell upon those who attempted to turn God against Israel. The curse is experienced in Israel’s perpetually not seeking the welfare (Hb. shalom) or prosperity of Moabites and Ammonites in their territory. The word shalom is the most inclusive sense of well-being. It involves the absence of conflict in all areas of life, which could include health, finances, or neighborly relations. God’s reversal of the attempted curse of Balaam was no credit to the merits of Israel. Israel’s blessing was dependent on her acceptance of the love of God in the covenant.

23:7–8 Edomites and Egyptians hold a different status than Ammonites and Moabites. They are permitted membership in the assembly in the third generation after taking up residence in Israel. Their desire for allegiance after that period would be demonstrated as genuine. The sentiment of this stipulation is quite the opposite of the later kingdom period in the day of Obadiah and Isaiah, prophets with strong condemnation of Edom and consistent warnings against reliance on Egypt.

23:9–14 In Deuteronomy God is generally depicted as the Holy One, whose presence is seen as a fire in the middle of the heavens. But God is immediately present among his people, a truth particularly to be remembered in the case of war. The wars of Israel are holy in the sense that they can be successful only when God is fighting on their behalf and granting them victory. Therefore, confessions of holiness must be rigorously observed by following all of the rituals of cleanliness. The concept of cleanliness can be understood only in reference to holiness, as represented by the temple, a structure never directly named in Deuteronomy but clearly assumed. Cleanliness is expressed in foods acceptable for consumption, as directed in chapter 14, but also in other activities and bodily functions. This is a system of categorization that distinguishes that which may be conceived of as contrary to life and order and therefore belonging to the realm of death and disorder. Bodily emissions and contact with a corpse are obvious examples of circumstances that require the ritual of cleansing in order for one to express the proper order of life and holiness.

Two examples of the need for cleanliness are given, one in relation to the purity of the body and one regarding purity of space. The first concerns unspecified bodily emissions, which conceivably could be various secretions. “Nocturnal emission” is drawn from Leviticus 15:16, where the emission is specific, but the language of Deuteronomy 23:10 is more generic. Excrement must always remain outside the camp and must be covered. This might seem a practical requirement for a military encampment, but the requirement here holds deeper significance, as it gives testimony to consciousness of the source of life (v. 14). God must be present in Israel’s midst. “Anything indecent” refers to bodily exposure or nakedness, matters in which ritual cleanliness is particularly observed. Bodily exposure to others is generally inappropriate (Gen. 9:22) and may constitute a reason a husband disapproves of his wife (Deut. 24:1). These are but samples of “every evil thing” (23:9), which could be interpreted broadly. The War Scroll at Qumran excluded all those with permanent bodily defects or skin eruptions. The Temple Scroll included every type of sexual sin or impurity.

23:15–16 The requirement to provide asylum to a slave provides that this person will settle in Israel in a place of his own choosing (v. 16). The obvious implication is that the slave has come to seek refuge in Israel from foreign control. This is not relevant to the laws of forgiveness of debts and release of slaves in the seventh year (15:12–18). These people have voluntarily entered the service of another as a means of paying debt they owe. One of the most common circumstances of slavery was from being taken as a prisoner of war. There is no comparable regulation for an Israelite slave who might escape to a foreign country, such as the slaves of Shimei (1 Kings 2:39–40). The stipulation is part of the humanitarian character of Deuteronomy, which is contrary to the practice of all other ancient Near Eastern law. The Law of Hammurabi is characteristic: “If a seignior has harbored in his house either a fugitive male or female slave belonging to the state or to a private citizen and has not brought him forth at the summons of the police, that householder shall be put to death.”61 In the ancient Near East, property had priority over life. The regulations of the Torah are the converse.

23:17–18 Although the general prohibition of sacred prostitution is obvious, the specific interpretation of the practices referred to here must be inferred from the meaning of the Hebrew terms qedeshah and qadesh (“cult prostitute”) in extrabiblical literature. There is no doubt that these are women and men dedicated to the service of a temple, but there is no specific evidence that this service involved prostitution as part of a cultic ritual to increase fecundity and fertility. Herodotus, a fifth-century-BC Greek historian, says that every Babylonian woman had to prostitute herself at least once in her life in the precincts of the Ishtar temple (Histories 1.199). The accuracy of this information is doubted, and in any case the significance of the requirement does not suggest a fertility cult.62 Many references to the use of proceeds from prostitution as temple revenue or for paying vows can be found in both the Bible and other literature. This appears to be one of the practices prohibited in this section.

The following interpretation assumes that verse 17 and 18 belong together and that the second proscription should be understood as an expansion of the first. Verse 17 prohibits any woman or man from serving in the cult of a foreign temple. Verse 18 prohibits the use of any proceeds from such service as temple revenue or for paying a vow. Various biblical texts refer to the use in the temple of the revenues of a prostitute. Micah speaks of Samaria’s shrines that had been built through the proceeds of a prostitute (Mic. 1:7), the same word used in Deut. 23:18. The woman seeking to seduce the young man in Proverbs 7:14–20 must pay her vows with a bag of money when her husband has gone off on a distant journey. References to the proceeds of a prostitute may help to explain “the wages of a dog.” If the word for dog (keleb) is being used metaphorically, its referent is a servant. The root klb is used widely in the ancient Near East as an equivalent to “faithful servant.”63 This verse would be a prohibition against using the wages of foreign cults in exchange for temple obligations.

The presence of such temple servants is mentioned four times in Kings (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). They are introduced under Rehoboam, then removed by Asa and Jehoshaphat, but then have their own special rooms in the temple during the time of Manasseh, which are later removed by Josiah. Raising revenue for the temple was probably a part of all these activities, which would have included prostitution. Hosea condemns the drinking, sexual promiscuity, and adultery that were part of Israel’s worship festivities, some of which involved temple personnel’s (qedeshot) participation in sacrifice (Hos. 4:11–14). Festivities, usually involving some cult ritual, were always times of increased sexual activity, as at the scene of the golden calf (Ex. 32:6).

Sexual seduction by the women of Moab led to the idolatry of Israel at Baal-peor just before Israel was to enter the Promised Land (Num. 25:1–15). During the time the Israelites were in the plains of Moab, many of the Israelites, including a chieftain, were lured into sacrificial feasts by the Moabite and Midianite women. In time this chieftain attempted to introduce a Midianite woman, a daughter of a chief, to his family, probably with the intent of marriage. As part of the ritual a special chamber was erected at the door of the tent of meeting in the presence of the entire assembly. The purpose of the sexual act between the son and daughter of official leaders is not specified, but it was not merely for pleasure; it belonged to the practice of the Moabite cult. This was Israel’s introduction to the religions of Canaan, exposing the moral dangers they posed.

23:19–20 Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35–37 require loans without interest to be made in order to help the poor, whether of money or goods in kind. These verses in Deuteronomy are a similar regulation, even though they do not specify that the loans are given because of poverty. Borrowing for commercial purposes was not customary, if it existed at all, so it is probable that the same situation is envisaged here. In the ancient Near East, interest rates of over 25 percent for silver and up to 50 percent for grain are known. Interest of any kind is not helpful for a person who has become poor because his revenues are simply too low. The gratitude of the poor person and the approval of God are reason to loan money to someone in need (Pss. 15:5; 37:26). As part of community equilibrium, every seven years the loans themselves are forgiven and indebted individuals are set free, as required in Deuteronomy 15:1–11. Money loaned to a foreigner does not fall under this regulation because it is part of regular commercial business.

23:21–23 Commitments are easier to make when the time to fulfill them is in the future. Vows are a way of setting apart a portion of one’s life to God. That which has been so dedicated is therefore sanctified and holy, even if the fulfillment is still future. Vows are a voluntary way of exercising the discipline to do what one wants to do, which is to be a part of the work of God in his world. The passing of time may change the sentiments of the person who has freely made a vow. This may be true especially if the vow was made in time of duress, when life was in danger, as was often the case (e.g., Ps. 22:25–26). Further, financial fortunes sometimes do not materialize as expected. But the repayment of a vow could be something as emotional as the giving up of a child, as with Hannah (1 Sam. 1:11, 26–28). Vows carry with them a time commitment. In the case of Hannah, the set time was the weaning of her child. Her dedication of Samuel was more demanding than she could have known once she had shared the life of her only child for a couple of years. More often the time frame would be the crop cycle of a field or the timing of festivals such as a jubilee, the time being determined by the circumstances of the vow. Delays are already a denial of the intent of the vow. Vows are a matter of integrity in a life lived for God. Failure to carry out promises made is an offense of being untrue to one’s word.

23:24–25 Tensions arise between property owners who have invested considerable work and time in a crop and those who live within their own environment without boundaries. The oppression of Gideon’s day was when herdsmen came along and helped themselves to the crop of the Israelite farmers with no sense of obligation (Judg. 6:3–6). Nomads are always looking for ways to feed their herds, and the Midianites had found a very convenient source of pasture because they knew when Israelite seeding time came. They were numerous enough that they could not be stopped. But ordinary travels would often take a person through someone else’s field or vineyard. There was no prohibition against satisfying hunger as one walked along. The Gospels record just such an activity with Jesus and his disciples (Matt. 12:1–8). This law apparently applies to travelers; it does not suggest that townspeople can regularly have their fill of another person’s crop. Traveling, however, is a different matter, which is why the expectations of hospitality are so important. The fruit of a field for a meal is a way for hospitality to be shown, and it is therefore an obligation.