Deutoronomy 23:2

[aggiemavsfan]

I've read a lot about certain verses in leviticus and Deutoronomy that seem nasty out of context, but this one doesn't get much discussion.

" 2A 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"

I've heard explanations about how its referring to the priesthood, and God trying to keep a certain lineage pure. But no explanation has been put forth to me about why this rule isn't discriminatory. Why would God withhold a privilege from someone because of something their parents did?

 

[dcyates]

I've read a lot about certain verses in leviticus and Deutoronomy that seem nasty out of context, but this one doesn't get much discussion.

" 2A 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"

I've heard explanations about how its referring to the priesthood, and God trying to keep a certain lineage pure. But no explanation has been put forth to me about why this rule isn't discriminatory. Why would God withhold a privilege from someone because of something their parents did?

The relatively rare Hebrew word 'mamzer' applies not only to those born out of wedlock but also to those born through incest or marriages that otherwise violated the prohibited degrees of relationship. Nevertheless, your point that these people were denied full rights of worship out of no fault of their own but rather because of the sins of their parents still remains. I believe this has largely to do with the fact that God's creation was intended to act as his temple/palace ("'Heaven is my throne', says YHWH, 'and the earth is my footstool'"; Isaiah 66.1; cf. Matt 5.34-35). Where else would we find a throne and footstool but in a palace which is, after all, what a temple is to a god to whom the temple is dedicated? As such God had intended his creation and all that was in it to be perfect and whole. Similarly, humanity was created in God's image in order to represent him and his sovereignty to the rest of his creation. As such God had created humans to be perfect and whole, as well. Thus the tabernacle and later the temple in Jerusalem were supposed to be what all of creation was supposed to be, but in microcosm. One of the primary reasons Israel was not to have any graven images of God within the temple was because, whenever the people of Israel--particularly the priests and high priest--entered the temple to worship, the image of God was already there. But, given what the temple represented, the image was to be as close to perfect and whole as possible, which is the reason worshipers needed to be expiated of their sins before entering.

 

[dimwhitt]

remember that the Law of Moses often reflects for us the character, nature, and ministry of Christ

what does such a law tell us about the nature of God

that he is too pure to abide sin and that no sin is found in Him
points relevant to Jesus and us as His people
Jesus hates sin
Jesus is pure

that might be a place to begin verses considering what it means to you and i in the context of our culture

also remember this was a culture from the middle east some 3500 years ago
what made sense to them appears illogical to us or vice versa

 

[aggiemavsfan]

If you're analyzing this solely based on a secular cultural basis, I can certainly see how it got in there.

But I'm mainly asking those who view the Bible as inerrant and written by God what the justification for this decree is.

 

[dcyates]

If you're analyzing this solely based on a secular cultural basis, I can certainly see how it got in there.

But I'm mainly asking those who view the Bible as inerrant and written by God what the justification for this decree is.

I do believe the Bible to be inerrant and inspired by God. Nevertheless, we still need to take into account the socio-cultural context in which it was written in order to properly and accurately understand it. The Bible was certainly written FOR us, but it was not written TO us.

 

[childofGod31]

People have discovered that things in the Old Testament were symbols of things in the New Testament. Jesus said: he came to fulfill the law. In other words, the law is symbolism about Jesus. For example, a sacrificial lamb was a symbol of Jesus being crucified.

I believe that certain things like not eating pig meat and about certain cleannes rituals, including the one you mentioned, and the rest of the law was like a story about the future and Jesus and what Jesus will do and what will happen to believers.

For example, a child out of wedlock could not enter congregation - COULD mean (applied to a future event) that a child who was not born of God (born again) could not enter the Church of God, could not become a part of God's family (in the future).

Another example of something similar is when God told the prophet to marry a prostitute, in order to paint a picture of Israel's unfaithfullness. So the prophet was actually LIVING what God was trying to show Israel.

So the OLD Testament people were LIVING the future.

 

[dimwhitt]

but the law had to have some meaning to those to whom it was given

it not good communication to speak on such a level that there is no meaning for the immediate audiance
and God is a good communicator

the law definetly points to Christ
or better leads us to Christ
as Paul writes in his letters