Deuteronomy 23:4

[DomSavio2]

Hi everyone,
Deuteronomy 23:4 says “No Ammonite or Moabite may ever come into the assembly of the LORD, nor may any of their descendants even to the tenth generation come into the assembly of the LORD”. However, in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus we read “Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse,Jesse the father of David the king” (Mt 1:5-6).

Ruth was a Moabite and so wouldn’t the fact that she married into the Israelite community and that David, one of her descendants, became king violate the aforementioned law in Deuteronomy? Thanks ahead of time.

 

[sirach2v4]

I want to study this question and follow this thread. My initial reaction is that nobody probably kept track of anything to the tenth generation, for starters.

I think I’ll go to The Jewish Study Bible first.

 

[z_0101]

Read the Book of Ruth.
See if this clears things for you.

 

[Augustine3]

Hi everyone,
Deuteronomy 23:4 says “No Ammonite or Moabite may ever come into the assembly of the LORD, nor may any of their descendants even to the tenth generation come into the assembly of the LORD”. However, in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus we read “Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse,Jesse the father of David the king” (Mt 1:5-6).

Ruth was a Moabite and so wouldn’t the fact that she married into the Israelite community and that David, one of her descendants, became king violate the aforementioned law in Deuteronomy? Thanks ahead of time.

Some say “the assembly” is the gathering of the faithful Israelites every Sabbath for worship. That’s the only time the foreigners must be excluded.

You got to look at the historical context to see why Ammonites and Moabites were commanded to be excluded. Do you remember the story of Lot’s daughters in Genesis? They got their father drunk and committed incest with him and named their sons Moab and Ammon. All traces of sin was to be kept out of the Israelite community in order to keep them pure. Ruth did not infect the community. Quite the opposite, she taught the community heroic virtue. The commandments are for the Israelites benefit, not rules they must follow blindly.

 

[DomSavio2]

I guess it’s a law that can’t totally be taken at face value. It represents something bigger, namely God’s effort to make the Israelites into a holy people devoted entirely to him. Since, as you said, Ruth taught the Israelites virtue, she, if anything, helped the Israelites to remain pure.

And yes, I’ve heard different interpretations of the “assembly of the LORD.” So would Ruth and David not have been allowed into the gathering of the faithful Israelites for worship?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If I have counted correctly Solomon was the fourth generation from Ruth, and he built the Temple.

 

[Augustine3]

I guess it’s a law that can’t totally be taken at face value. It represents something bigger, namely God’s effort to make the Israelites into a holy people devoted entirely to him. Since, as you said, Ruth taught the Israelites virtue, she, if anything, helped the Israelites to remain pure.

And yes, I’ve heard different interpretations of the “assembly of the LORD.” So would Ruth and David not have been allowed into the gathering of the faithful Israelites for worship?

That’s it you got it!

I wouldn’t put much faith in that explanation of the assembly. It doesn’t hold much water in the case you have wisely pointed out with David. I couldn’t imagine David not participating in liturgical worship.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As I understand it, Jews today determine ancestry through the maternal line. That is, one is a Jew if his mother is Jewish. However, in biblical times it appears that ancestry was through the paternal line. Thus, a Moabite would be one whose father was a Moabite.

This is just my speculation. I don’t have a source for it.

 

[sirach2v4]

The Jewish Publication Society’s commentary on Deuteronomy discusses the prohibition at some length. The prohibition had always been problematic because of the tendencies of the Israelites to intermarry. Recall, later in Ezra/Nehemiah the intermarriages were mournfully broken up – this was after the return from exile.

I cannot begin to delve into the complexity of the discussion in Excursus 21 of this commentary.

However else you construe Deut 23:4, the trivial fact is that the gender of the Moabite who cannot be admitted is masculine, not feminine. So, there was no narrow literal prohibition to prevent Boaz from marrying Ruth – “the Moabitess.”

The Introduction to the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Ruth discusses the entire issue, also. But, one scholar noted that had not David actually descended from a Moabite ancestor, the writer would hardly have had reason to make up the story.

The book of Ruth also solves other dilemmas about the silence regarding conversion to Judaism (the possibility of it and one of the ways of it happening) in the Torah.

Another thread of discussion in the former commentary discusses that the prohibition itself was polemical, created by the Northern Kingdom to embarrass David.

Yet another problem that is covered is the timing of the writing of this prohibition in Deut. If I understand correctly, there were no strong motivations to write such a prohibition in the time of Moses, so it may have been due to a redaction (creative editing)of the book at a later time.