Deuteronomy 23:6 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 23:6 Commentary: The Ban and Love for Enemies
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
This study explores Deuteronomy 23:6's command against seeking peace with Ammon/Moab and how it relates to the NT call to love enemies.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Israel as a nation is forbidden to make treaties, intermarry, or engage in close commerce with Ammon and Moab, to protect its religious identity.
- Key words: “Seek” (pursue deliberately), “peace” (formal amity or alliances), “prosperity” (good, welfare, including commercial ties).
- Main debate: Whether the command is fully abrogated in Christ or still informs principles of separation from corrupting influences.
- Theological theme: God’s holy love requires distinctiveness; judgment on hostile nations foreshadows the eventual inclusion of Gentiles through the gospel.
- Best use: As a case study for understanding Old Testament laws as culturally specific yet theologically instructive, pointing to the necessity of both separation and grace.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
You are not to seek peace or prosperity from them as long as you live.
WEB World English Bible 2000
You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.
KJV King James Version 1769
Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
thou dost not seek their peace and their good all thy days--to the age.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Thou shalt not make peace with them, neither shalt thou seek their prosperity all the days of thy life for ever.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
No procurarás la paz de ellos ni su bien en todos los días para siempre.
Não procurarás a paz deles nem seu bem em todos os dias para sempre.
Tu n’ auras souci ni de leur prospérité ni de leur bien-être, tant que tu vivras, à perpétuité.
[23:7] Du sollst nicht ihren Frieden noch ihr Bestes suchen dein Leben lang ewiglich.
Gij zult hun vrede en hun best niet zoeken, al uw dagen in eeuwigheid.
Non cercherai né la loro pace né la loro prosperità, finché tu viva, in perpetuo.
Nie szukaj pokoju ich, ani dobrego ich, po wszystkie dni twoje na wieki.
Не желай им мира и благополучия во все дни твои, во веки.
你一 生一世 永 不可 求 他們的平安 和他們的利益。
Do nothing for their peace or well-being for ever.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that this command addresses Israel as a corporate body, not as individual believers harboring personal hatred. Barnes explains that it forbids formal invitations to amity or treaties of peace (compare Deuteronomy 20:10). Gill clarifies that private acts of charity are not prohibited, David’s kindness to Hanun the Ammonite (2 Samuel 10:2) shows this, but the nation as a whole is prohibited from making alliances, intermarrying, or pursuing close commercial ties with Ammon and Moab. Wesley adds that the command amounts to a protective “wall of partition,” recognizing Israel’s tendency to adopt the corrupt practices of neighboring peoples. No commentator reads this as a license for personal cruelty or retaliation (cf. Deuteronomy 2:9, 2:19). The prohibition is structural, designed to preserve religious distinctiveness in a vulnerable geopolitical setting.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Historical-Israel only: The command was a specific judicial law for a theocratic state that no longer exists; the New Testament explicitly welcomes former enemies (including Moabites, as in Ruth) and commands love for all enemies (Matthew 5:44).
- Enduring principle of separation: The underlying principle — avoid close alliances with those who actively oppose God’s people — still applies, as seen in 2 Corinthians 6:14–18 and the prohibition of unequal yoking.
- Typological fulfillment: The exclusion of Ammon and Moab foreshadows the hardening of Israel’s enemies, but the gospel opens the assembly to all nations, as illustrated by the inclusion of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27–39).
What is clear: The verse commands the Israelite nation, not individuals, to avoid formal alliances with Ammon and Moab for religious protection; it does not permit personal hatred or cruelty.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of the command (corporate vs. personal) | It forbids the Israelite nation from entering treaties or alliances with Ammon and Moab; it does not command personal hatred or forbid private acts of charity. | Some traditions emphasize that individuals may still practice neighborly kindness (Gill); others stress that the command implicitly restricts any form of close friendship that would lead to spiritual infection. |
| Applicability to the church today | Christians agree the Old Covenant theocratic state is not directly binding on the church; the gospel creates a new humanity without ethnic barriers (Ephesians 2:11, 18). | One view sees the command as entirely superseded; another holds it as a wisdom principle that warns against unequal partnerships with those hostile to the faith (2 Corinthians 6:14, 16). |
| Relationship to love for enemies | The passage does not contradict Jesus’ command to love enemies, because love for enemies applies to individuals and does not require the church to form alliances with those who oppose the gospel. | How to hold both: some say the command teaches protective separation without malice; others argue that the prohibition was limited to Israel’s unique theocratic situation and has no bearing on Christian ethics. |
| Permanence of the ban ('all your days forever') | Within the Old Covenant context, the ban was intended to last as long as Israel existed as God’s covenant nation. | Whether this ended with the destruction of the temple and the end of the theocratic state, or whether it was fulfilled in the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts (e.g., the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8:27, who was likely a descendant of converted Moabites). |
Historical & Cultural Context
The context of Deuteronomy 23 is a list of those excluded from “the assembly of Yahweh”, the worshipping congregation of Israel. Verses 3, 5 give the specific reason: Ammon and Moab refused to offer bread and water when Israel passed through their territory during the exodus, and they hired Balaam to curse Israel. God turned that curse into a blessing because of His love for Israel, but the memory of the nations’ hostility stood as a permanent barrier.
This ban is exceptional. Edomites and Egyptians, by contrast, were to be welcomed in the third generation (vv. 7, 8). The sharp distinction highlights the particular danger posed by Ammon and Moab: they were near neighbors to the east, occupying the region directly across the Jordan from where many Israelite tribes would settle. Proximity made them a constant source of religious and cultural pressure. Gill notes that the prohibition was designed to prevent Israel from “learning their evil ways and customs.” The cross-references in Ezra 9:12 and Nehemiah 13:23, 25 show how post-exilic leaders applied this law to forbid intermarriage with surrounding peoples, treating the ban as still in force. Later Jewish tradition (as cited by Gill) restricted the ban to overtures of peace before waging war, the nations were not to be given the same offer of peace as other enemies (Deuteronomy 20:10).
Permanence is stressed by the double phrase “all your days forever.” This is Israel’s settled policy for as long as it exists as a theocratic nation. The geographical and historical reality, two hostile nations ringed by Israel’s tribal lands, made the ban a practical safeguard, not a license for ongoing vendettas.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Deuteronomy 23:6 across the major Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions (LXX, Vulgate, Syriac). The phrase “all thy days for ever” is consistent across translations, with minor stylistic variation (e.g., “as long as you live” in the BSB).
Reception History
Jewish tradition, represented in the Mishnah (Hilchot Melachim 6.6, cited by Gill), restricted the command to forbid making an offer of peace to Ammon and Moab before attacking them in war, a narrower interpretation than the plain reading. Early Christian writers such as Irenaeus and Origen read the Old Testament exclusionary laws allegorically, seeing in them a warning against heretical teachings. The Vulgate’s translation (“Thou shalt not make peace with them”) influenced medieval interpretations that applied the principle to relations with non-Christian powers. Reformation commentators (Calvin, Luther, and the Geneva Bible) stressed the historical context, treating the verse as a case-specific judicial law. Matthew Henry, while acknowledging the difficulty, emphasized that it did not forbid personal kindness. In modern scholarship, the verse is understood as part of Israel’s identity as a holy people, fulfilled in Christ who breaks down dividing walls, yet still relevant as a warning against close fellowship with those who oppose the gospel.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Corporate command, not personal hate. The ban addresses Israel as a nation (Gill, Wesley). Individuals were not forbidden from showing kindness to Ammonites or Moabites in private life.
- Protective separation, not racial animosity. The reason was religious: close contact would lead to syncretism and moral corruption. The same heart for purity appears in the New Testament call to avoid unequal yoking (2 Corinthians 6:14).
- Judgment that prepares for mercy. God’s severity toward these nations sets the stage for a better hope. The law’s temporary wall points to Christ, who “broke down the middle wall of partition” (Ephesians 2:14) and welcomes believers from every nation into one assembly.
Five-point outline
- The incident that triggered the ban (vv. 4, 5).
- The specific prohibition (v. 6).
- The contrast with Edom and Egypt (vv. 7, 8).
- The permanent nature of the command for the Old Covenant community.
- The trajectory toward the gospel, where God’s love extends beyond ethnic boundaries without erasing the call to holiness.
Illustration hooks
- A church board discussing whether to partner with an organization that teaches values contrary to Scripture. The issue is not personal dislike but corporate discernment.
- A Christian student whose closest friend belongs to a religion that denies Christ. The prohibition challenges them to consider how close the friendship should become without breaking the link of kindness.
- A couple from different religious backgrounds exploring marriage. The command warns about the spiritual drift that often follows, even when sincere affection exists.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does this verse mean God hates the Ammonites and Moabites personally?
- How can we reconcile this with Jesus’ command to love our enemies?
- Are there modern “Ammonites and Moabites”, groups we should avoid close association with?
Leading a Discussion
Deuteronomy 23:6 sits in a section about who belongs to God’s assembly. The prohibition against seeking the peace or prosperity of Ammon and Moab seems harsh to modern readers. This passage helps us understand the balance between holy separation and love for enemies, a tension that runs throughout the Bible and finds its resolution in Christ.
Discussion questions
- Observation: Read Deuteronomy 23:3, 6. What specific acts did Ammon and Moab commit that led to this prohibition (v. 4)?
- Observation: Compare verses 7, 8 with verse 6. Why are Edomites and Egyptians treated more favorably than Ammonites and Moabites?
- Interpretation: In what sense is this a command to the whole nation, not to individual Israelites? How do the commentators support this reading?
- Interpretation: What does “seek their peace nor their prosperity” mean in practical terms? Does it forbid all acts of kindness?
- Interpretation: How does the cross-reference in Ezra 9:12 show the post-exilic community applying this principle?
- Application: How should Christians today balance the call to love enemies (Matthew 5:44) with the call to avoid close fellowship with those who reject the faith (2 Corinthians 6:14)?
- Application: Does this passage have any bearing on how the church relates to other religions or secular institutions? What would it look like to “be in the world but not of it” in this context?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| II Samuel 8:2 | He defeated Moab, and measured them with the line, making them to lie down on the ground; and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive. The Moabites became servants to David, and brought tribute. |
| II Samuel 12:31 | He brought out the people who were in it, and put them to work under saws, under iron picks, under axes of iron, and made them go to the brick kiln; and he did so to all the cities of the children of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem. |
| Ezra 9:12 | Now therefore don’t give your daughters to their sons. Don’t take their daughters to your sons, nor seek their peace or their prosperity forever, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children forever.’ |
| Nehemiah 13:23 | In those days I also saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab; |
| Nehemiah 13:25 | I contended with them, cursed them, struck certain of them, plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves. |
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
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes stresses that the command is not a call to hatred or revenge. It forbids making treaties or seeking the welfare of these nations, but does not license personal hostility. He observes that later history records ongoing conflict, yet the original instruction stays within those limits.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note emphasizes the absolute permanence of this command: the prohibition against seeking their peace or prosperity is not temporary but binds the people for their entire lives and beyond, with no time limit or exception ever.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill clarifies that the command not to seek peace with Ammon and Moab forbade Israel as a nation from forming alliances or trade, not individuals from showing private kindness. David's kindness to Hanun shows personal goodwill was allowed, but national separation was required to keep Israel from adopting their evil customs.
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 emphasizes that the command against seeking peace with Israel's neighbors targets the nation as a whole, not individual Israelites. The prohibition forbids treaties, marriages, or commerce, but allows personal acts of humanity. This separation was necessary to protect Israel from spiritual infection, especially given their close proximity to these peoples.