Commentaries on the Bible: How do we explain Deuteronomy 23:2 in relation to the Church's inclusion of all people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gbertrand
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not sure what you are asking in regards to the encyclopedia article, for a quick search on that article shows nothing about Deuteronomy specifically. It is an overview of commentaries throughout the ages.

Perhaps you could be more specific?

As far as Deuteronomy 23:2 is concerned, King David’s line is from Ruth and Booz, Ruth being a Moabitess and Booz having a soiled pedigree as an Israelite already.

In the case of Ruth, However, she married an Israelite and so entered the covenant in that fashion – marrying Booz afterward when her first husband had died.

So, with respect to Deuteronomy 23:2 on its own – this passage had only limited legal authority. King David, apparently, was not considered a Moabite for the purposes of entering the congregation… Though (a cursory, and weak check since geneologies can skip generations) the Generations from Ruth to King David are less than 10.

I believe the Geneology in Matthew 1:5 shows Ruth quite plainly … and Jesse, David’s father.

Though it is possible this is a different Booz and Ruth, for the name is spelled one letter differently.

A few years ago, I thought the passage you indicate might have been the reason David was forbidden the building of the temple – which was passed to his son Solomon. However, I am fairly certain, now, that his murderous sprees were the reason this was forbidden to him.

Could you, perhaps, elucidate the meaning of your question?

Peace.
 
Maybe this from the Haydock Bible Commentary will help you with you understand Deut. 23:2
Ver. 2. Mamzer, &c. The author of the Vulgate adds the explication of mamzer, which only occurs again, Zacharias ix. 6. It may in both places denote a stranger, or one of a different religion from the Jews, as Jephte was the son of a prostitute, (Judges xi. 1,) and yet became a judge of Israel. But strangers, as long as they professed a false religion, could not be entitled to the privilege of Jewish citizens; and even after they had relinquished their false worship, they were bound to wait ten whole generations, or a long time, before they could fill the posts of honour and command. (Calmet) — This, however, seems to be contrary to the disposition made in favour of the Idumeans and Egyptians, who were admitted in the third generation. A mamzer may, therefore, be (Haydock) a bastard of a different nation from the Jews, (Menochius) which was not the case of Jephte. (Haydock) — The Rabbins specify three sorts of mamzers: 1. those born of parents who, by the law, are forbidden to marry, being to near akin; 2. those who are the fruit of adultery, or some criminal commerce, which is punished with death; and 3. those whose birth subjects the parents to be cut off or retrenched from the people. (Selden, Jur. v. 16.) — the Septuagint, &c., exclude the children “of a harlot,” which is the sense of mamzer in the canon law. The Christian Church rejects such from holy orders, and the Athenians would not suffer bastards to offer sacrifice in the city, but only in the cynosarge, dedicated to Hercules, whose birth any doubts might be entertained. (Calmet) — It is observable, that such often imitate the wicked conduct of their parents; in which case, they are unfit for the magistracy; and though they may lead a very exemplary life, the law is intended to discourage such practices in parents, which may entail dishonour and loss upon their children; that, if they be not sufficiently restrained by their own personal disgrace, they may at least by the love for their innocent offspring. (Haydock) — Tenth. In the 11th generation, when the stain was obliterated, the descendant might become a magistrate. (Menochius) — Some understand that they were excluded for ever, as when the judges of the Areopagus ordered a man to appear again before them in 100 years’ time, they meant that his cause was entirely rejected. (Vatable; Casaub. in Athen. vi.)
 
Aha! in Luke 3:32 Where the same geneology names exist – Luke spells it spells Booz(s) (βοος) --eg: in the same way as the book of Ruth. Since Luke is familiar with the LXX, his copying of it verifies that Matthew is using a different phonetic spelling… Luke quotes the LXX.

So it definitely is the same Booz and the Same Ruth of the book of Ruth.
 
That verse is a specific reference to God’s covenant with Israel (i.e. “follow all my rules as I’ve given them to you through Moses and I’ll make you into a great nation”).

Deuteronomy 23:2
“No bastard shall enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”

This means no bastards would be allowed to be Jews. Of course God’s covenant with the Israelites was restrictive, and not just in terms of these specific rules of Deut 23. I’m not even sure if they had conversions back then, and even if they did this was first and foremost a covenant between God and a specific Semitic tribe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top