"No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly..." = Implications

by EdenOne 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    Deuteronomy 23:3 - "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord, even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of the Lord for ever, because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came forth from Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you".

    Now, consider the following.

    Ruth 1:3-5 "Now Elimelek, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left with her two sons. They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years, both Mahlon and Kilion also died, and Naomi was left without her two sons and her husband."

    So, this Israelite, Mahlon, marries a moabite woman named Ruth. She isn't an Israelite living in the former territory of Moab, otherwise the author of the book of Ruth would made that clear. Instead, it's clear that, before her conversion to the worship of Yahweh, Ruth belongs to the people that had been accursed by Yahweh, the moabites, and used to worship other gods of the land.

    Ruth 1:15 - "“Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her.”

    Ruth converts to the worship of Yahweh and travels to Israel with Naomi. The Book of Ruth then tells us that Ruth meets a man named Boaz. He then takes Ruth as his wife.

    Ruth 4:9, 10 - "Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelek, Kilion and Mahlon. I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife."

    The fruit of this marriage was a son named Obed. He came to be the grandfather of King David.

    Ruth 4:13-17 - "So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When he made love to her, the Lord enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. (...) Then Naomi took the child in her arms and cared for him. The women living there said, “Naomi has a son!” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David."

    As we know, Jesus' geneology is traced back to King David by the writers Matthew and Luke:

    Matthew 1:5-16 - "Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. Jesse was the father of David the king. (...) Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

    Luke 3:23-32 - "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli (...) the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz (...)"

    Now here's the puzzling question:

    How come David, the cherished founder of the Israelite-Judean monarchy, was a descendant of a Moabite?

    The clear instructions that Yahweh gave concerning the Moabites and their descendants meant that they were to be banned and barred from partaking in the "assembly of the Lord forever". Why was this ignored in the case of David? And why is the Messiah Jesus a descendant from a Moabite, through Ruth and her son Obed?

    Some may argue that there was an exception for those who converted to the worship of Yahweh. But why would a Moabite enter the "assembly of the Lord" unless with the intention of worshipping Yahweh? No written concession is made to open an exception for those who convert to Yahwism. It seems clear that the ban of the Moabites was based on ethnicy rather than religious affiliations.

    Some others may argue that this only applied to male Moabites, and therefore, Ruth, the moabite female, wasn't included in the ban. But this doesn't stand either, since, in post-exilic times, the Jew men who married women from Moab were severely reprimanded:

    Neemiah 13:23-27 - "In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women ofAshdod, Ammon, and Moab...I contended with them and CURSED THEM and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons or for yourselves...Shall we do all thisgreat evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?" (...)"

    Ezra 10:2, 3, 44 - "We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us (...) Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law. (...) All these had married foreign women, and some of them had children by these wives."

    Notice that, in accordance with the "commands of our God" [such as the ones found in Deuteronomy 23:3 regarding the foreign women of Moab], not only the ethnical Moabites were to be cast out, but also their mixed progeny. By this token, Obed should have been ousted, along with his mother Ruth. Jesse and David too.

    Question is:

    Why is that King David and the Messiah Jesus descend from an "accursed" Moabite, Ruth, who should have never been allowed into God's assembly - not her, nor any of her mixed progeny with an Israelite?

    In the same vein, also consider that there was Ammonite mixed blood in the ancestry of Jesus:

    Matthew 1:6, 7 - " and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa".

    Now, we are informed in 1 Kings 14:21, 22: "Now Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah...His mother's name was Naamah the Ammonitess."

    Eden

  • Laika
    Laika

    Why is that King David and the Messiah Jesus descend from an "accursed" Moabite, Ruth, who should have never been allowed into God's assembly - not her, nor any of her mixed progeny with an Israelite?

    God seems to change his mind a lot. Like in the book of Jonah.

    What do you think the implications are Eden? Personally I like the implied universalism.

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    That crossed my mind too, Laika ;)

    Eden

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    Eden:

    The difference here is 'entering the assembly,' which is not the same as being part of the covenant community. From the NAC-Deuteronomy commentary (Eugene H. Merrill, p. 307):

    • 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 (vv. 1- 3, 8), a verb that suggests participation with the assembly and not initial introduction or conversion to it.

    With reference to "down (or "even") to the tenth generation," the NAC commentary takes that as meaning basically "forever." (In WT generational thinking it would certainly be a very long time, considering all the overlapping and so on. :)

    With reference to Ruth, the commentary says:

    • For this reason [the hatred they showed the Israelites] they [Moabites and Ammonites] could never enter the assembly of the Lord though there is no reason to think they were denied affiliation with Israel as such (cf. Deut 2:9, 19; Ruth 4:10; 1 Sam 22:3-4). They and any other peoples could qualify as proselytes to Yahwism (cf. Exod. 12:38) though this did not give them automatic access to the worshiping assembly.

    I take it in David's case, his official ancestry was considerd to be through Boaz, not Ruth. Israelite kings had to be Israelite, not foreigners.

    Edited to add:

    I wonder if the addition of foreigners to the lineage of Jesus, even if only on the mother's side, presaged the fact that the Christian community (the Israel of God of Gal 6:16) would be of international makeup? I can't think of any text that presses that point, but it would certainly have been prophetically appropriate.

    Take Care

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    Bobcat, the problem remains, because Deuteronomy 23:3 extends the ban to those "belonging to them", that is, their progeny. The post-exile authorities Ezra and Neemiah considered that the children of those mixed marriages were also under the ban, regardless if they had an Israelite father and a foreign mother. What caused David to be an exception?

    Also: The hebrew term usually translated "forever" doesn't actually mean 'from here to eternity'. Rather, it means, 'from here into the foreseeable future'. So, that ban might well be lifted one day, as it were.

    Eden

  • Decided
    Decided

    Nobody can explain the bible to me, it's too complicated and doesn't make any sense to me anyway. I guess I'm included in some group that God hates and will never get the holy spirit that makes some Christains lay on the floor and speak some wierd lanquage, or jump up and down and feel like God just saved them.

    Of course if you want to be a JW you don't need a spirit you feel going inside you.

    Religion is a snare and a racket according to some religious leaders. Who should I believe?

    Should I just have faith in something I can't understand or prove and be happy? Should I just blow up a bunch of people and get a bunch of virgins?

    Ken P.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Should I just have faith in something I can't understand or prove and be happy?

    God is just a poor communicator (since only 1/3 of Earth's population even claim to believe and follow the Bible).

    Additionally, He has chosen an extrememly poor PR representative in the WTS since only 1/10th or 1% follow the doctrinal teachings of JWs.

    Satan seems to be having a field day in the Universal Soverignty game and I'm not aware of any book he endorses.

    Doc

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    Eden:

    Regarding "forever," the NAC commentary was saying, in effect, that "to the tenth generation" shouldn't be taken in a numerically literal way. That it had an unending sense to it, or, at least as long as the covenant was in force. (The commentary actually said "basically forever.")

    On the the Moabite & Ammonite question, The Bible Knowledge Commentary posits (Vol I, p. 303):

    • The treatment of Ruth, however, by Boaz along with other Israelites of Bethlehem demonstrates that this law [Deut 23] was never meant to exclude one who said, "Your people will be my people and your God my God" (Ruth 1:16). Isaiah seemed to have held a similar interpretation (cf. Isa 56:3, 6-8) but perhaps those verses in Isaiah apply only to end times.

    The accounts in Nehemiah and Ezra seem to focus on the fact that the "foreign wives" had taken no such stand towards Yahweh worship as Ruth had taken. And, as pagan worshipers, they and their foreign speaking children posed a threat to the future of the restored nation in connection with its standing with Yahweh. (Nehemiah compares them with Solomon taking foreign wives, which he did while they were, and remained, pagan worshipers.)

    For the record (and so as not to distract the thread), I'm not commenting here on the morality of dismissing one's children and wife, as the accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah describe. But it should be noted that the law covenant made a distinction between foreigners who took up the worship of Yahweh (e.g. Ruth) and those who didn't. (Compare e.g. Exodus 12:43-49.)

    One thing your thread might prompt me to do is get a copy of The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. I gained some interest in it after seeing it referred to in the WT study the other week. Reviews of it at bookseller websites seem to reccommend it as a great resource for the Jewish view of the Law.

    Take Care, Eden

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    You'll find more narrative consistency in Michael Bay's Transformers movies than in the Bible.

    Trust me; I know.

    I have them all on Blu-ray.

  • SAHS
    SAHS

    “Bobcat”: “They and any other peoples could qualify as proselytes to Yahwism (cf. Exod. 12:38) though this did not give them automatic access to the worshiping assembly.”

    This certainly begs the question as to the appropriateness of Jesus, evidently the Firstborn Son of God, being a descendent of a Moabite parent, with all that entails or implies as to the status of someone from such national stock.

    In other words, since Ruth was clearly a Moabitess and as such would ‘not have automatic access to the worshiping assembly,’ would it really be appropriate for such person to be so elevated in the lineage of the Messiah, especially given Jehovah’s reputation for exacting a very high and pure standard of holiness and consistency with everything else, and all the more so regarding matters of spiritual integrity and ethnic exclusivity? Was not Jehovah known for being most particular in not accepting any animal for sacrifice or even any person for service with any notable defect, including a man with leprosy or a missing limb or whose testicles were crushed, etc.?

    All things considered, I believe this is still something which should make anyone at least say, “Hmm.”

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit