Deu. 23 : 1 - 8 Not entering into the assembly

[Ely]

Hey guys,

Recently, some folks have challenged me concering the words in Deuteronomy 23:1-8 which prohibit certain groups of people from entering into the assembly of Adonai. From what I gather, rabbinical tradition (e.g. Tractate Yevamot 76) interprets this as being a ban on certain men from marrying Israelite women.

What do you guys make of the passage?

[Mark]

Hi Ely,

I appreciate you joining us. I know that when I'm new to a group, I often check in a lot to see if anything is happening, especially if I've asked a question. I wantto apologize for not responding right away; but... well, it's not such a quick and easy question, and this is a very busy time of year for me as we begin to set our sights on the High Holy Days and begin evaluating the direction our fellowship will be taking this coming year. Please be patient and we'll get to you soon. Usually, Sunday and Monday are days that I commit to answering questions like this; but if it's quite fine with me if someone else answers (provided, I like what they say ).

Mark

[Ely]

Hey Mark,

Thanks for replying and I appreciate this being a busy time of year. There are plenty of other very meaty threads for me to read through in the meantime!

Shalom
Ely

[Yitzchak]

ely said:

Hey guys,

Recently, some folks have challenged me concering the words in Deuteronomy 23:1-8 which prohibit certain groups of people from entering into the assembly of Adonai. From what I gather, rabbinical tradition (e.g. Tractate Yevamot 76) interprets this as being a ban on certain men from marrying Israelite women.

What do you guys make of the passage?

Here is what I think

I think we have to begin looking at the context as it relates to the Hebrews, and the peoples who they would come in contact with. Naturally, these peoples were worshipers of pagan gods, with
Baal leading the pack.

This section of verses (vv. 1-8) deals with those of the nations, not born to Israel, who wished to worship with full members of the nation.

The assembly (kahal) refers here to the gathering of the community at G-d's appointed feasts as well as other times of public worship.

The distinction should be made between joining the community for worship, and entering into the community as a covenant member. 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.

In verse 1 we see that eunuchs were excluded. This was based on the possibility that their lack of wholeness symbolized lack of holiness. It must also be noted that the Canaanites practiced castration and self mutilation as part of their worship of Baal. It could be argued that a Canaanite who had submitted to this operation may have been such a strong devotee of Baal that he would not be acceptable as a worshiper.

Based on this context, I would say that verse 2 now deasl with a restriction that would discourage Israelites from marrying Canaanites since their offspring would be denied participation in the most significant assemblies of the community.

There was also the issue of cult prostitutes amongst the Caananites. We see in verse 17 &18 regarding the prohibition of the sons and daughters of the Israelites entering into this prostitution . An argument could be made from this context, that this was related to illegitimate offspring of Canaanite temple prostitutes.

One was an Israelite and therefore a member of the covenant community by birth. Only by some act of his own will could he lose that privilege. On the other hand, Israelite birth did not automatically qualify one for full participation in community worship, the very point of verses 1&2.

We are told in the Brit Chadasha as well to avoid those who cause divisions, and offenses which are foreign to the Laws which we have learned.

Just some thoughts.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Tuviya ben-Chesed]

yitzchak said:

ely said:

Hey guys,

Recently, some folks have challenged me concering the words in Deuteronomy 23:1-8 which prohibit certain groups of people from entering into the assembly of Adonai. From what I gather, rabbinical tradition (e.g. Tractate Yevamot 76) interprets this as being a ban on certain men from marrying Israelite women.

What do you guys make of the passage?

Here is what I think

I think we have to begin looking at the context as it relates to the Hebrews, and the peoples who they would come in contact with. Naturally, these peoples were worshipers of pagan gods, with
Baal leading the pack.

This section of verses (vv. 1-8) deals with those of the nations, not born to Israel, who wished to worship with full members of the nation.

The assembly (kahal) refers here to the gathering of the community at G-d's appointed feasts as well as other times of public worship.

The distinction should be made between joining the community for worship, and entering into the community as a covenant member. 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.

In verse 1 we see that eunuchs were excluded. This was based on the possibility that their lack of wholeness symbolized lack of holiness. It must also be noted that the Canaanites practiced castration and self mutilation as part of their worship of Baal. It could be argued that a Canaanite who had submitted to this operation may have been such a strong devotee of Baal that he would not be acceptable as a worshiper.

Based on this context, I would say that verse 2 now deasl with a restriction that would discourage Israelites from marrying Canaanites since their offspring would be denied participation in the most significant assemblies of the community.

There was also the issue of cult prostitutes amongst the Caananites. We see in verse 17 &18 regarding the prohibition of the sons and daughters of the Israelites entering into this prostitution . An argument could be made from this context, that this was related to illegitimate offspring of Canaanite temple prostitutes.

One was an Israelite and therefore a member of the covenant community by birth. Only by some act of his own will could he lose that privilege. On the other hand, Israelite birth did not automatically qualify one for full participation in community worship, the very point of verses 1&2.

We are told in the Brit Chadasha as well to avoid those who cause divisions, and offenses which are foreign to the Laws which we have learned.

Just some thoughts.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

Wow, Yitzchak! That's a thorough answer. Here's a quick thought. In Deuteronomy 23: 3 we see Moabites listed among the people to be excluded. As we know, however, Ruth the Moabitess not only gained acceptance later on but also married a prominent Hebrew, Boaz, and wound up in the genealogy leading to the Messiah.

From all this, I gather that Adonai's exclusions were based on His knowledge of the human heart. Whoever genuinely converted and repented could join the assembly. Ruth's professed faith to Naomi is key: "Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God" ( Ruth 1: 16 NASB). It's as Kefa later learned: "God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him" ( Acts 10: 34, 35 ibid ).

In the Messiah Yeshua,
Tuviya

[Ely]

Yitchak,

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll have to mull over it and come back to you on the weekend. In the meantime, here are some coments from Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary, which seem to make sense to me:

“To enter into the congregation of the Lord” means either admission to public honors and offices in the Church and State of Israel..."

This would be in keeping the prohibitions on priests with defects ministering near the veil or altar (Levticus 21). JFB continue:

"...or, in the case of foreigners, incorporation with that nation by marriage. The rule was that strangers and foreigners, for fear of friendship or marriage connections with them leading the people into idolatry, were not admissible till their conversion to the Jewish faith. But this passage describes certain limitations of the general rule. The following parties were excluded from the full rights and privileges of citizenship: (1) Eunuchs - It was a very ancient practice for parents in the East by various arts to mutilate their children, with a view to training them for service in the houses of the great. (2) Bastards - Such an indelible stigma in both these instances was designed as a discouragement to practices that were disgraceful, but too common from intercourse with foreigners. (3) Ammonites and Moabites - Without provocation they had combined to engage a soothsayer to curse the Israelites; and had further endeavored, by ensnaring them into the guilt and licentious abominations of idolatry, to seduce them from their allegiance to God."

With this latter category, apparently, masculine Hebrew forms are used which (apparently) shows that the restrictions only apply to Ammonite and Moabite males. This would explain how Ruth the Moabitess' illustrious sons and daughters including David, Hezekiah, Mariam and Yeshua were not banned.

Another commentary suggests that all such restrictions will be lifted in the Olam Haba when even the eunuchs will have free and open access to the House of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56).

[Mark]

It's probably nottoo surprising that this is a text that few Jewish commentaries have much to say about. I'd like to draw you attention away from the text just for a minute to look at 1st Timothy 3:1-7.

1Ti 3:1-7 KJV This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (6) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. (7) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

The reason I want you to look at this is, from a Christian background, most realize that this text which qualifies (or disqualifies) a leader in the Church is interpretted in a whole range of ways. The phrase"husband of one wife", to some, means that the pastor must never have been divorced. To others it means he must not be currently involved in poligamy. Still others it simply means that he must not have the reputation of a roving eye.

The same is done with Deuteronomy 23:1-8. And, the truth is, we don't know exactly what it means. As has already been stated, Ruth was a Moabitess and was accepted into the community as the wife of Boaz. Also, in Acts 8:27-39, an Ethiopian Eunuch was returning from Jerusalem to worship. He must not have been totally rejected if he was still reading the scrolls when on his journey home.

Illigitimacy is a difficult concept in Judaic culture. Children are altogether a blessing from Adonai. It is our inclination to think of illigitimacy as from birth; but this may refer to those who have rejected the authority of the father, and thus been rejected themselves. Placing verses 1 and 2 together in context might suggest that declaring one's son a bastard is as extreme as immasculating oneself: to do so is has a sense of totallity and finality to it; and thus Adonai thus equally responds with a sense of totallity and finality. It can be interpretted not so much as an injunction, to keep these people out, so much as an admonition to keep such practices far away from you.

The children of Amon and the children of Moab were descendants of Lot, Abraham's nephew. Adonai gave each of them their own inheritance and blessing outside of Israel.

Edom is the descended line of Esau, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham.

The ancestral culture of these families represent distinct practices: Ammon and Moab co-mingled with the pagan cultures around them. Edom, as a descendant of Abraham, remained distinct.

Since immasculation and illigitimacy were common in the pagan culture; and the only context that a Jew may conceive of being immasculated or illigitmized is due to association with such culture, this may be seen as simply a strong message to stay distinct as a people, not intermingling or living in participation with foreign (not Jewish neighbors). A Moabitw who becomes Jewish, is no longer a Moabite (in this sense). And a Eunuch who has demonstrated a love for has his place as well.

Hope this is helpful,

Mark

[Prodigal Girl]

I believe the ban against marrying a Moabite was just until after the 10th generation. Which Ruth was. Also, the children of Lot were illegitimate as they were the products of incest.

[Ely]

Hey mark,

Thanks for those thoughts. You're right, this is a difficult passage to nail down completely. I guess we need to continue to walk in the mitzvot we do understand and pray that Adonai will give us understanding of the other ones that we do not understand.

[Mark]

Prodigal Girl,

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that Ruth is ten generations from Israel's intering into the Promised Land?

Mark

[Mark]

Hi Ely,

It's disturbing when people challenge your faith with confusing or difficult passages. The truth is that, in most cases, they are being less than honest. To reply with the same tactics, you could easily ask about "the baptism that saves us" (1st Peter 3:21) or how women are saved in child-bearing (1st Peter 2:15). There are a myriad of difficult and confusing passages in the New Testament that your adversaries would not be interested in discussing too deeply. Yet, I tend to refer to this sort of thing as theological gorilla warfare. Swoop down and take potshots at someone's faith and then run away. They're really not interested in hearing an answer; just in putting you off balance.

My position has been not to answer people who are not really seeking an answer, even when I've got one. In most cases, a response only agitates the person further. Then later, when they hear me answering their argument indirectly (either teaching or in a discussion with someone else who is truly interested) they are put off balance- recognizing that my not answering their argument was an extension of grace.

Paul told Titus to avoid foolish questions, geneologies, contentions, and strivings about the Law; because they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:9). Remember the end of the Law (that to which all of is focused upon achieving) is love out of a pure heart (1st Timothy 1:5). This means any other use of (to include justification your theological platform or the dissentigration of another's faith) is a misapplication of . It's sometimes very, very difficult to be meek. It is something that I fail at continually. Yet, we strive even to be at peace with our enemies- particularly those whom we once walked with as dear friends.

[Ely]

Hey Mark,

You've hit the nail absolutely on the head there. This issue was actually raised by a couple of Muslims with whom I have regular discussions with. As you said, these particular folks are not interested in gaining an understanding of the text's meaning. They are just interested in making the scriptures look as bad as possible. Of course, when you take the same approach to their own religous book and traditions, they can't handle it!