Deuteronomy 23:4 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 23:4 Commentary: Exclusion of Ammon and Moab
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore why Ammonites and Moabites were banned from Israel's assembly for inhospitality and hiring Balaam, and how Ruth's inclusion shows God's grace.
Research Summary
- Meaning: This verse explains why Ammonites and Moabites were excluded from Israel’s assembly: for their inhospitality and for hiring Balaam to curse Israel.
- Key words: “met you not with bread and water”, a failure of hospitality; “hired…Balaam…to curse”, a deliberate attempt to harm God’s people.
- Main debate: Whether the exclusion is based on ethnic origin or on specific historical sins. The supplied commentaries argue it is based on their hostile actions, not their lineage.
- Theological theme: God’s justice against covenant-breaking enmity, and His sovereignty in turning curses into blessings.
- Best use: To teach about the seriousness of hospitality, the reality of spiritual warfare, and the grace of God in including outsiders (Ruth, and ultimately the Gentiles in Christ).
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
For they did not meet you with food and water on your way out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram-naharaim to curse you.
WEB World English Bible 2000
because they didn’t meet you with bread and with water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.
KJV King James Version 1769
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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
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.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
because that they have not come before you with bread and with water in the way, in your coming out from Egypt, and because he hath hired against thee Balaam son of Beor, of Pethor of Aram-Naharaim, to revile thee;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
because they met you not with bread and with water on 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.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Because they would not meet you with bread and water in the way, when you came out of Egypt: and because they hired against thee Balaam, the son of Beor, from Mesopotamia in Syria, to curse thee.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Por cuanto no os salieron á recibir con pan y agua al camino, cuando salisteis de Egipto; y porque alquiló contra ti á Balaam hijo de Beor de Pethor de Mesopotamia de Siria, para que te maldijese.
Porquanto não vos saíram a receber com pão e água ao caminho, quando saístes do Egito; e porque contratou contra ti a Balaão filho de Beor de Petor de Mesopotâmia da Síria, para que te amaldiçoasse.
parce qu’ ils ne sont pas venus au-devant de vous avec du pain et de l’eau, sur le chemin, lors de votre sortie d’Égypte, et parce qu’ ils ont fait venir contre toi à prix d’ argent Balaam, fils de Beor, de Pethor en Mésopotamie, pour qu’ il te maudisse.
[23:5] darum daß sie euch nicht entgegenkamen mit Brot und Wasser auf dem Wege, da ihr aus Ägypten zoget, vielmehr wider euch dingten den Bileam, den Sohn Beors von Pethor aus Mesopotamien, daß er dich verfluchen sollte.
Ter oorzake dat zij ulieden op den weg niet tegengekomen zijn met brood en met water, als gij uit Egypte uittoogt; en omdat hij tegen u gehuurd heeft Bileam, den zoon van Beor, van Pethor uit Mesopotamie, om u te vloeken.
non v’entreranno mai, perché non vi vennero incontro col pane e con l’acqua nel vostro viaggio, quand’usciste dall’Egitto, e perché salariarono a tuo danno, Balaam figliuolo di Beor, da Pethor in Mesopotamia, per maledirti.
Dla tego, że wam nie zabieżeli z chlebem, ani z wodą w drodze, gdyście szli z Egiptu, a że najęli za zapłatę przeciw tobie Balaama, syna Beorowego , z Pethor Mesopotamii Syryjskiej, aby cię przeklinał.
потому что они не встретили вас с хлебом и водою на пути, когда вы шли из Египта, и потому что они наняли против тебя Валаама, сына Веорова, из Пефора Месопотамского, чтобы проклясть тебя;
因 為 你們出 埃及的時候，他們沒有 拿食物 和水 在路上 迎接 你們，又因 他們雇了 美索不達米亞 的毘奪人 比珥 的兒子 巴蘭 來咒詛你們。
Because they gave you no bread or water on your way, when you came out of Egypt: and they got Balaam, the son of Peor, from Pethor in Aram-naharaim to put curses on you.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that this verse gives the explicit historical reasons for excluding Ammonites and Moabites from the congregation of the Lord. Barnes' Notes on the Bible explains that the law targets the nations as political entities, not individuals, and that individual Moabites like Ruth could be proselytes. Calvin points out a shift in the Hebrew verb number, from the plural “they met you not” to the singular “he hired”, indicating that while both nations failed to provide hospitality, the Moabites were primarily responsible for hiring Balaam, yet the Ammonites share the guilt through their alliance. Gill argues that the reason is not the incestuous origin of these peoples (which some might infer from the previous verses), because that would condemn Edom and Egypt as well, but rather their specific hostile acts: refusing bread and water and attempting to curse Israel. The law is a judicial response to covenant-breaking enmity, not a blanket ethnic condemnation.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Ethnic exclusion view: Some interpreters have argued that the permanent ban is based on the incestuous origins of Moab and Ammon (Genesis 19:30-38) and perpetual enmity. However, the supplied commentators (Calvin, Gill) reject this, noting that the text itself gives the specific historical reasons.
- Historical/judicial view: The exclusion is a just divine decree for specific sins committed by these nations against Israel during the wilderness period. It applies to the national entities within the theocracy, not necessarily to every individual (Barnes).
- Christological fulfillment view: The ban is fulfilled and abolished in Christ, who welcomes all nations into the one household of God. The inclusion of Ruth and the command to love enemies (Matthew 5:44) are seen as anticipations of this fulfillment.
What is clear: The verse explicitly states two historical reasons for excluding Ammonites and Moabites from the assembly: their failure to provide hospitality and their hiring of Balaam to curse Israel.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Reason for exclusion | All cited commentators agree that the exclusion is based on the two historical sins: refusal of hospitality and hiring Balaam to curse Israel. | Some early interpreters thought the exclusion also stemmed from the incestuous origins of Moab and Ammon. Calvin and Gill argue that this is not the case, because the text gives the reason explicitly. |
| Permanence of the exclusion | The text says ‘forever’ and ‘to the tenth generation,’ indicating a lasting ban within the theocracy of Israel. | Barnes notes that the law applies to the nations as corporate entities, not to every individual. The inclusion of Ruth the Moabitess shows that individuals who converted could be welcomed. Some Jewish traditions held that the ban applied to all descendants, while others allowed proselytes. |
| Applicability for the church today | Christians agree that the church is not bound to exclude descendants of Moab or Ammon today. | Some see the law as entirely abolished in Christ (Ephesians 2:14-18). Others view it as a type or example of discipline within a covenant community, but not as a literal rule for the church. |
| Role of the Balaam incident | The hiring of Balaam is seen as a serious attempt to use spiritual means to harm God’s people. | Calvin emphasizes the conspiratorial nature of the act, while others focus on Balaam’s own moral failure (2 Peter 2:15). The exact role of the Ammonites in the Balaam hiring is debated, as the narrative in Numbers 22 identifies Moab and Midian as primary instigators. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The events behind this verse span the wilderness journey. When Israel approached Moab and Ammon, they sent a peaceful request to pass through, offering to pay for food and water (Deuteronomy 2:28-29). According to Wesley's Notes, the custom of the time required hospitality to travelers, as there were no public inns. The Moabites and Ammonites refused to provide bread and water, a violation of ancient Near Eastern hospitality ethics. Furthermore, they hired Balaam from Pethor in Mesopotamia (Numbers 22:5) to curse Israel. Balaam is called a soothsayer in Joshua 13:22, though God used him to speak prophecy. Despite his efforts, God turned the intended curse into a blessing (v.5). The location Pethor is identified with Aram-naharaim, near the Euphrates. This passage is part of a larger section (Deuteronomy 23:1-8) defining who may enter the assembly, emphasizing the holiness of Israel as a priestly community (Lange). The contrast with Edom and Egypt (vv.7-8), who are treated more leniently, highlights that the exclusion is based on specific sins rather than mere ethnicity.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentary excerpts note no significant textual variants for this verse. The Hebrew text is well-attested across manuscripts, and the differences in English translations (e.g., ‘met you not’ vs. ‘would not meet’) reflect interpretive choices rather than manuscript variation. The verse is quoted in a similar form in Nehemiah 13:2.
Reception History
In Jewish tradition, this passage was understood as a permanent prohibition against the naturalization of Ammonites and Moabites, yet the book of Ruth (a Moabitess who became an ancestor of David) was always included in the canon, demonstrating that God could make exceptions for faithful individuals. The Mishnah discusses the precise application of the ban, allowing female proselytes from Moab but debating male ones. Early Christian interpreters, such as Augustine, saw in this law a contrast with the gospel, where the dividing wall of hostility is broken down in Christ (Ephesians 2:14). The prophecy of Isaiah 56:3-8, which promises that eunuchs and foreigners will be welcomed in God’s house, was seen as fulfilled in the New Covenant. Medieval commentators often used the passage to discuss the boundaries of the church and the fate of those who oppose God’s people. The story of Ruth remains a key text for demonstrating that God’s grace can overcome even the harshest legal exclusions.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The sins that exclude: Inhospitality (refusing bread and water) and malice (hiring Balaam). Both reveal a heart opposed to God’s people and purposes.
- God’s sovereign protection: “Nevertheless Yahweh your God wouldn’t listen to Balaam” (v.5). No curse or opposition can prevail against those God loves.
- The hope of inclusion through grace: Ruth the Moabitess, the Samaritan woman, the Gentile nations, all show that God’s mercy can overrule even a permanent ban when hearts turn to Him.
Five-point outline
- The violation of hospitality: They “met you not with bread and with water”, a failure that ancient cultures viewed as a grave offense.
- The conspiracy of evil: They hired Balaam, a mercenary prophet, to curse Israel, an attempt to undo God’s blessing through magic and divination.
- The futility of cursing God’s beloved: God “would not hearken to Balaam” and turned the curse into a blessing, because Yahweh loved Israel.
- The justice of God’s judgment: The ban was a just response to covenant-breaking hostility, protecting the holiness of the community.
- The demonstration of grace in Ruth: A Moabitess becomes an ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ, showing that no exclusion is absolute when faith responds.
Illustration hooks
- A neighbor who refuses to help when a family moves in, no welcome meal, no offered hand. The cold inhospitality leaves a lasting wound.
- A colleague who anonymously sabotages a coworker’s project by spreading lies. The attempt to harm through hidden means mirrors the Balaam strategy.
- The irony of paying for a curse: efforts to undermine people God loves often backfire, revealing God’s protective hand.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does God permanently exclude entire ethnic groups today? How does this verse relate to the gospel call to “go and make disciples of all nations”?
- What does this passage say about the importance of hospitality in our own lives?
- How do we reconcile the harshness of this Old Testament law with the grace we see in Ruth and in Jesus?
Leading a Discussion
This verse lists two reasons for the permanent exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites from Israel’s assembly: their failure to show hospitality (bread and water) and their hiring of Balaam to curse God’s people. Yet later Scripture shows a Moabitess, Ruth, welcomed into the community of faith. Use the following questions to help your group explore the interplay of divine justice and grace.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What specific actions are cited in verse 4? Which nation(s) are responsible for each action according to the text?
- Interpretation: Why do you think the failure to provide bread and water is considered such a grave sin? What does it reveal about the Ammonites’ and Moabites’ hearts?
- Interpretation: How does the Balaam incident (Numbers 22-24) demonstrate both human hostility and God’s sovereignty?
- Application: In what ways might Christians today be tempted to “meet not with bread and water”, to withhold hospitality from those in need?
- Application: How does the example of Ruth challenge us to see beyond group labels and extend grace to individuals?
- Christ-centered: How does Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (who showed hospitality) connect to the lesson of this Old Testament law?
- Hope: What reassurance does verse 5 offer when we face opposition from those who wish us harm?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 14:17 | The king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). |
| Genesis 14:18 | Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High. |
| Numbers 22:5 | He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the River, to the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, “Behold, there is a people who came out of Egypt. Behold, they cover the surface of the earth, and they are staying opposite me. |
| Numbers 22:7 | The elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand. They came to Balaam, and spoke to him the words of Balak. |
| Numbers 22:17 | for I will promote you to very great honor, and whatever you say to me I will do. Please come therefore, and curse this people for me.’” |
| Numbers 23:7 | He took up his parable, and said, “From Aram has Balak brought me, the king of Moab from the mountains of the East. Come, curse Jacob for me. Come, defy Israel. |
| Deuteronomy 2:28 | You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink. Just let me pass through on my feet, |
| Deuteronomy 2:29 | as the children of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar, did to me, until I pass over the Jordan into the land which Yahweh our God gives us.” |
Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes clarifies that the law excludes Moabites and Ammonites as nations, not as individuals. It did not forbid their dwelling in the land or marriage with individuals who became proselytes, as Ruth's example shows. He also notes these two peoples were related clans acting together.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin points out that the shift in verb number from plural to singular shows that, while both nations conspired, King Balak of Moab personally hired Balaam. Their real crime was deliberate malice, trying to overwhelm God through magic and curses. They were rejected not because of their incestuous origin but because of their persistent, knowing opposition to God's grace.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Notes point out two specific sins that brought God's judgment: the Moabites and Ammonites refused to offer basic hospitality like bread and water to the Israelites, and they actively hired Balaam to curse them. Their cold indifference and open hostility together show a hardened rejection of God's people.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill carefully separates the two charges: the failure to offer bread and water involved only the Ammonites, since the Moabites did sell provisions. The hiring of Balaam involved only the Moabites. He stresses that exclusion from the congregation rests on these hostile acts, not on the nations' incestuous origins.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch argues that the exclusion of castrated men and those born from forbidden unions rests on their violation of the divinely created order of human nature, which grace sanctifies rather than destroys. For Ammonites and Moabites, the permanent bar stems from their active hostility against God's kingdom, not personal revenge.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange emphasizes that these exclusion laws are not arbitrary but rooted in Israel's identity as a priestly community consecrated to God. Physical wholeness, moral purity, and national hostility all matter because the congregation must reflect the unmutilated image of God, a standard later fulfilled in Christ.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry argues that being barred from the congregation meant a temporary restriction on full religious privileges, not an absolute ban from God's people. Those affected, including eunuchs, bastards, and certain foreigners, could still be members but carried marks of disgrace to remind them of their origins.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley highlights that their sin was not merely a lack of hospitality but a deliberate unmercifulness toward strangers in distress. This was especially serious because they were relatives of Israel through Lot and because God had shown them special kindness by commanding Israel not to fight them.