Is the Davidic Dynasty/Messiaship of Jesus Illegitimate?

Question

Deuteronomy 23:4-5 clearly forbids a Moabite from marrying into the L0rd's people/creating offspring from such a union. We see this prohibition being observed as late as the second temple time period (Ezra 9, 10, Nehemiah 9, 13)-much later than King David. And both Ezra and Nehemiah took this prohibition very seriously.
Now David is descended from Boaz's union with Ruth the Moabitess (see the whole book of Ruth. Also, in this incident- the relative took this prohibition very seriously - Ruth 4:6- and was not even willing to marry Ruth at all because of it).
Now Jesus is descended from David (Matthew 1 and Luke 3). The whole basis of Jesus Messiahship is his descendancy from David. But now David's whole lineage is illegitimate and invalid, due to his descendancy from a Moabitess. Thus Jesus is an illegitimate/invalid Messianic candidate (whether we consider his lineage from Mary or that from Joseph, since
both are from David) as well.

Please dont bring OT verses (of which there are a plethora) endorsing David's dynasty as an answer, as this just

further complicates the matter by showing that the Bible contradicts itself.
Please dont bring NT ideas (regarding the New Covenant, Love replacing Law, all things being possible with

G0d..etc...) as an answer either. Since Jesus is hidden in the OT and revealed in the NT, the OT is our pointer and

barometer regarding Jesus. It is circular reasoning to use ideas that the NT informs us of to resolve difficulties

with the OT. That doesnt make sense.
Please dont state that the Israelites accepted David and we know from them that he is legitimate. According to that

reasoning- the Israelites rejected Jesus and we should therefore know that he is not the Messiah.

Stephanie-Suzanne quoted the verse that you are referring to in her answer.
The reason for the law is not specifically based on a fear that the Moabites will turn the Israelites to paganism

(as the bible says many times regarding the Israelites intermarrying), but rather as the verse that I referenced

[Deut 23:5] itself states- because they didnt give you provisions when you were on the way in the desert after

leaving Egypt, and because they hired Balaam to curse you. Even if someone converts and no longer embraces

paganism, it is still true that the reason of verse 5 applies to them.
Please also read my reply to Suzanne. :)

Suzanne-Scripture does not bear out your hypothesis that conversion removes the Moabite prohibition. Deut.

22:13-23:8 (of which section these verses fall right in the middle) all deal with issues involving marriage- laws

for those who are already part of the Israelite people (whether by prior conversion or birth). Chapter 23 even

begins with explicitly saying "a man should not marry..."Also, 23:9 says that the third generation can marry. Moses

was givinghere the Israelites a law that they must count three generations and then they can marry- three

generations from what- obviously three generations from conversion (otherwise the whole statement of three

generations makes no sense at all!) Verse 4-5 are talking of an already converted Moabite and scripture still says

that they cannot marry into the Israelite people.

The fact that conversion does not remove the prohbition is further made obvious from context- by your line of

reasoning- the male with damaged genitals or the bastard (the two laws mentinoed right previously) should be able

to convert and then marry into the Israelite people. But these people are already Isrealites and conversion is not

applicable to them. We see that this section is discussing people- even if they are already Israelites (by birth or

conversion)- and telling us that they still cannot marry into G0ds congregation. Furthermore, in Ruth 1:4 Mahlon

married Ruth before she converted (the verses that you quoted) and we see that he did not worry about this

prohibition of marrying a Moabite. BUt in 4:6 the relative did worry about this and refused to marry Ruth. This is

because in truth this added prohibition specifically only applies after a Moabite converts to the Hebrew faith.

You tell us G0d's point about bringing paganism into our midst- interesting- for that is not what G0d himself says.

For G0d often tells us that we shouldnt intermarry so as not to bring paganism into our midst, but here G-d gives

us another reason: "For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt,

and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim [b] to pronounce a curse on you." This same

statement is even repeated almost verbatim in Nehemiah 13:2 (just in case you didnt catch it the first time).

Regarding Rahab- that is irrelevant to the point- for Jesus' whole claim for messiaship is based on descendancy

from David and has nothing to do with Rahab. Rahab is not the source for the line of kings, and I am sure that you

will agree with me that kings must descend from the tribe of Judah- of which Rahab- a convert- was not. I am sure

that this is obvious to you and that I don't need to bring you scriptural support for this point. So leave Rahab

out of it. Jesus total claim to messiaship is based on descendancy from David, and according to G0d's own word,

David was not even valid to come into the congreation og the L0rd!

Regarding G0d legitimazing David's lineage- like I said initially- you just further complicate the issue without

answering the question. Instead of explaining how it is ok for someone who cannot even come into G0d's congregation

at all to be Messiah, you just say that approved of David- which just makes G0d into one who would contradict

Himself and doesn't make any sense at all.

gratvol-The Hebrew language is gendered. And it is the nature of the Hebrew language (like many languages) that when speaking with reference to a mixed-gender audience, the masculine grammatical form is used and includes the feminine. The Bible usually speaks in this manner. Based on scripture alone- there is no reason to draw any distinction between male and female Moabites with reference to this law, based on the masculine noun that is found in the original Hebrew. Furthermore- to do so would be illogical. For in the law the just preceeds this one- the law of the bastard- will you say that scripture is telling us that only a bastard cannot marry into the congregation, but not a bastardess? That doesn't make any sense.

You say that the book of Ruth draws this distinction. I am curious to see where it says that in the scripture (as I have read Ruth many times and have never seen such a verse). The text of Ruth does not explain at all how it is that Ruth is valid to mother Israelite children, and that is the basis for my entire question. Your reasoning is circular- Ruth presents us with the difficulty that I have raised. You are attempting to answer and say that since Ruth discusses this- it is no longer a difficulty. That is backwards reasoning

World- I appreciate your replying twice, and I will ask you to reply a third time. I really do want an answer to the question. I am not looking for a loophole and I dont want to feel right. I am trying to study the scripture. The question is very legitimate, as I will now demonstrate to you why your answer is not true either.
Please read my reply to Suzanne and you will see that it is clear that the reason you are providing for the prohibition is not correct (for it does not correlate with that which G0d says).

I don't agree with what you said about the ISraelites lineage becomming tainted, but that is not at all relevant to this point, so I won't elaborate. I will say that regarding the phrasing of you point, "trace his or her line back to Moses" demonstrates that you are not up on your scripture- since most Israelites never descended from Moses in the first place.
I too, agree with you that G0d did not create arbitrary rules but rather that they all have meaning behind them. Now I will explain to you the meaning behind this law. G0d says that the reason for the law is because of the fact that Ammon and Moab did not come out to provide Israel with provisions while in the desert, and because Moab further attempted to curse Israel.

So why is this so horrible that they should be permanently barred from intermingling their seed with that of the Israelites? I'll tell you why. Think for a second to the very first thing that the Bible tells us about Amon and Moab- lets go all the way back to Genesis 19. Who were Amon and Moab? They were the children of Lot/Lot's daughters (who although they made a horrible mistake, indeed acted with pure intent of heart. Their chastity and their faith in G0d and are evidenced by Genesis 19:8, and 19:12-15 respectively). Who was Lot? He was Abraham's nephew. Who were the Israelites? They were the descendants of Abraham's grandson Israel (thus they are called Israelites). So, indeed we see that Amon and Moab were cousins to Israel. When a cousin sees his kinsmen in need- traveling as a nomad through a desert- a place without food or water- it is obvious that a kinsmen specially should extend himself to help his cousin. But what did Amon and Moab do? They ignored their brethren in need.

Not only that- Moab actually tried to curse Israel- kick a man when he's down- so to speak. Now it is true that their deeds were not as evil as those of one of Israel's other cousin's- Amalek (who tried to decimate them by waging war against them, and who therefore require destruction)- but their deed is still very evil- evil enough that they be excluded from being able to marry into the Israelite nation.

Not only that, but the point goes further than that. Let's go back to Genesis again. If we look at Genesis 14 we are reminded how Lot was captured and Abraham gathered an army and waged a war and saved Lot. When Lot was in need- Abraham risked his life to save him. If Abraham had not done this, Amon and Moab (who were born afterwards) would not have existed at all. Thus, the very deed (saving a relative in need) that lead to their own existance they did not repay (by saving that same relative’s descendants when they were in need).
Not only that, but let's now move foward to Genesis 19 again. 19:29 tells us that if not for the merit of Abraham, Lot would not have been saved from Sodom at all! Thus not once, but twice, Amon and Moab owe their existance to Abraham.
So, this is how Amon and Moab repay Abraham for the good he did for them- this is how they treat his descendants! Certainly, such people cannot come into the congreation of the L0rd!

Now we know that the whole book of Deuteronomy is Moses' review of the law in the last days of his life. That is what the very word Deuteronomy means (Deutero=second and nomos=law). As such there is no new law contained within this book. And indeed, this law is not new either. It is just an expansion and application of Leviticus 19:2 "'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy." and of Leviticus 20:26:"You are to be holy to me [c] because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own."
Indeed, this rule is by no means arbitary.

I agree wholeheartedly with your attestation to the greatness of Ruth as well as to the attestation to the greatness of Boaz. I am not trying to criticize neither Ruth nor Boaz. But this does not change the fact that Ruth was not eligible to mother Israelite seed, based on what G-d teaches us in the text of the scripture itself. And Boaz's actions are still in express violation of the Law of Moses, a law which Boaz's uncle (the relative) was aware of (and certainly Boaz was therefore aware of it too, based on his interaction with his uncle regarding this matter in the book of Ruth) and a law which Ezra and Nehemiah took very seriously later on.

I do need to correct a few misunderstandings of scripture that you still have. (1)YOu are still misunderstanding the phrase "come into the congregation of the L0rd.” This has nothing at all to do with entering the temple. The hebrew word used for "congregation" in this verse is always used to connote a group of people and never used to connote a physical strcuture. Based on everything I have posted on this page, the meaning of this prohibition should be clear to you now. (2)YOu said "Boaz did not refuse to marry Ruth because she was a Moabitess." I never said that and the scripture certainly does not state that. But the scripture clearly states this to be the case about Boaz's uncle (again, look at Ruth 4:6). This again ties into the whole basis for my question- here we see Boaz willing to marry Ruth in express violation of the law when others in the same incident (his uncle) were careful and concerned about this law. This is why David is invalid, and this is why Jesus is invalid.

You state that my question is not legitimate. Please consider everything I have posted on this page and please acknowledge that this is a major scriptural problem- and that the question is very valid.
You say that I just want to poke loopholes and don't want a true response. I promise you that I most certainly will accept a true answer that indeed resolves the difficulty. I am trying to understand scripture.

Answer 1

The group who canonized the Bible in 325 A.D. screwed up big time. They missed that point and a lot of others too. Too many people working on it, they got confused, were in a hurry, and produced a book that is so contradictory as to render it unbelievable.

What about Deut.23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Ooops - Jesus did not have a legitimate father. What can I say?

Answer 2

Thanks for telling us not to answer your question. You don't want a real answer - you just want to feel right. Your entire question is based on what you think is a loophole in the Bible.

You don't understand WHY that was a prohibition. God did not want His people marrying into the Moabites because He did not want them worshipping other Gods. Unfortunately, they disobeyed God on both counts. Thus, by the time of Jesus, I would venture to say that few, if any, Israelite could trace his or her line back to Moses without a single foreigner being included.

Ruth became an Israelite culturally and religiously. She was accepted by the Israelites. Let me ask you a question - if you are 75% French, but have 25% British blood, yet you live in France, speak French, eat French food and are otherwise entirely French in culture and language, wouldn't you consider yourself French? Similarly, our hodgepodge of races in America forms a people that has this is common - they are all American.

God did not create arbitrary rules - they all have meaning behind them. Ruth is lifted up as an amazing example of faith and obedience in the Bible. She may not have been allowed in the temple (which has nothing to do with anything dynastic - after all, it wasn't the king who performed the temple duties; he was restricted from doing so), but her offspring certainly would be, including David.

By the way, if you want a true answer, then ask the question. If you just want to poke loopholes, BE READY TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSE. You don't want a true answer. You've added to the mix a lie in your desperate (and far fetched) attempt to make Christianity invalid. Boaz did not refuse to marry Ruth because she was a Moabitess. He was simply following God's law by offering her marriage to the closest relative first. As a matter of fact, Boaz used rhetoric to get that relative to deny that he wanted her! Boaz risked his family's inheritance (this was of extreme importance in the culture) by marrying this amazing woman. There is no reason to believe that Boaz had decided anything other than that.

Please, stop asking this question. There is no legitimacy to it.

Answer 3

You must consider the fact that Ruth became one with Naomi, effectively becoming a proselyte Jew. At that moment, she was no longer a Moabitess, per se. Ruth 1:16-17 reads:

16 But Ruth said:

“ Entreat me not to leave you,
Or to turn back from following after you;
For wherever you go, I will go;
And wherever you lodge, I will lodge;
Your people shall be my people,
And your God, my God.
17 Where you die, I will die,
And there will I be buried.
The LORD do so to me, and more also,
If anything but death parts you and me.”

Jesus is also descended from Rahab, a non-Jew who became a proselyte.

God's point was this: don't bring pagans into your midst. Once these Gentiles converted to what we now refer to as Judaism, this was not an issue.

David's lineage is NOT illegitimate, since GOD HIMSELF legitimized it.

EDIT: "Bandycat," Jesus was not considered a "bast*rd." He was born while Mary and Joseph were married. Better do more research!

2nd EDIT: I've read your comments, asker, and disagree. I think you've committed the same error that the Pharisees tended to do: you removed God's mercy from the Law. You've also mischaracterized the Moabite's transgressions.

MERCY #1: The Law prohibits a MOABITE from marrying into the Jewish people. Ruth became a proselyte Jew by virtue of her oath to the Lord and Naomi. Therefore, Boaz was free to marry Ruth in this Levirite marriage. Had Ruth not made her oath, you would be absolutely correct.

(And speaking of Levirite marriage, are you aware that, in God's eyes, Obed is actually NAOMI'S son, not Ruth's? This is yet another reason why Ruth isn't a problem in David's lineage.)

MERCY #2: I cannot stress to you enough that God's acceptance of David is adequate proof that you are incorrect. If David was included in the number who could not enter into the congregation, God would never have anointed him and neither would God tell us that the Messiah would be his descendent. As I also wrote, you could apply the same logic that David is unworthy because he's a descendent of Rahab; see Deut. 7:2, for example. Yet, God permitted Rahab's entrance into the congregation. Why? Because of her vow. These two examples show that, logically, your argument is incorrect. God extended mercy to these women and sanctified them. Not because of a loophole, but because they had become one with the Jews and were no longer pagans.

As for the Moabites, they did TWO things wrong: 1) they refused mercy to the Jews by withholding water and food during a time of need; and 2) at Balaam's urging, sexual temptation was used to lure Jewish men into idolatry.

Answer 4

well Deuteronomy says a moabite could not marry into the nation of Israel, it says nothing about a moabitess, or a female moabite.

If you read the book for Ruth it shows that.


My apologies. I thought this question was more out of sarcasm than out of scholarly interest.

I do believe that their is evidence in the book of Ruth that testifies to the legitamacy of the union of Ruth and Boaz. Namely that the union was agreed in full blessing with the elders of the city. These elders would be experts in biblical law and would know if their is a distinction between a male and female moabite, because your right without a tradition that says otherwise we would assume that Ruth could not convert.

but lets for the sake of argument say that Ruth could not convert because she was a moabitess. This still would not affect the ligitimacy of David.

remember Ruth was not David's mother. She was his great-grandmother. Let's assume for now that she did not convert. If her son Oved married a Jewish woman, then his son Jesse was Jewish anyway. Even if Oved married a Gentile woman, if their son Jesse married a Jewish woman then their son David was still Jewish

If we follow the line by the father instead of the mother then David's grandfather was already Jewish.

This is just a simple argument. If you desire more or have more questions feel free to email me.

Answer 5

Israel has a modern Parliamentary Democracy with a best Minister. Jesus replaced right into a Greek secret Cult styled Messiah, no longer a Warrior/King Priest like David. Jesus is the outcome of the efficient conversion of a few Jews to a Hellenic subculture. they in basic terms ought to no longer examine and understand their own subculture's texts any more.

Answer 6

I think you are wrong in saying the Israelites rejected the Messiah. Many accepted Him. Probably a large proportion were from the Galilee area rather than the sophisticated and proud inhabitants of Jerusalem.

They were peobably forced to align as Jews or christians after the destruction of Jerusalem in 66 AD. There were many Jews across the Roman Empire, so they probably went there, and eventually abandoned strict Jewish ritualism.

Actually its a theme of Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament that only a remnant normally accepts God's prophets, and anointed men:
- Joseph was rejected by his bros; they tried to kill him
- Moses had to flee when he wanted to deliver the Israelites from Pharoah. Even when he delivered them with staggering miracles, they were constantly complaining and rebelling
- The Israelites refused to have judges, and insisted on a King, even though God warned it would be bad
- The northern kingdom was so rebellious that God gave it up - they became captives
- The southren kingdom had to spend time in captivity because of gross disobedience
- Many of the Old Testament prophets were severly persecuted, e.g Isaiah is regarded by tradition as having been sawn in two.

Answer 7

If the Moabite converts to Judaism doesn't that change things?
I thought the conflict of interest would be a racist thing, but rather a religious thing because God wouldn't want His people turning to paganism.
And Ruth converts to Judaism. She says to her mother-in-law, "your God shall be my God".

I'm sorry could you quote the whole verse?

Answer 8

Sure sounds like it is very illegitimate, assuming such a person as jesus ever existed, which is also doubtful.

Answer 9

therefore you don't exist because you can't even trace your ancestry back 25 generations.

Answer 10

Wrong!