Hix,
In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [ie, the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).
Firstly: it is "they" and not "he". “He” is often generic in scripture.
Secondly: your inference does not take cognisance of the stewardship emphasis of the text. The message is the protection of future (unborn) progeny of those to whom such protection was important: the Jewish father or mother. (Similarly, Christians today consider the uncertainty of religious direction for their progeny a major reason for not marrying non-believers.)
The passage is not concerned with technicalities of lineage. To infer that it does, is simply to cross a bridge before it is built. Moses was appealing to their hearts, to their protective and survival instinct, and not to their family trees.
Accordingly note the conclusive counter-example in Deut 21:10-13, where a woman captured from a foreign nation would become a valid wife of the Jew who desired her, thus providing for Jewish progeny.
Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (ie, a Jew).
The story leans in fact to the opposite of your implication:
1. It is said that "the son of an Israelitish woman strove with a man of Israel", thus at the very least indicating a notionally lesser status to the son than to him is unreservedly called a "man of Israel". In line with this, that the parentage of such son is spelt out (father:Egyptian, mother: Israelitish), an otherwise unnecessary detailing (it was not spelt out for the "man of Israel"), puts us on notice that all is not usual.
2. If the son was considered fully a man of Israel (which appears unlikely), it is more likely that such was by virtue of his acceptance of the Jewish belief, as was the case with Caleb the son of a Kennizite, than by virtue of birth.
3. The son was he that blasphemed and was stoned to death, which puts his Jewish faith in dubious light. And in fact, his being cut off from Israel declares him a non-Jew retrospectively.
On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.
This is invalid argmument for it presumes Jewry is solely by virtue of physical descent.
Jewry must also be in accord with the law 100%. For it is the law which cements Israel, and the transgression of the law, which cuts off its participants.
That these born to non-Jewish wives were born in contravention of the law, rendered them non-Jews by definition. Such is the very reason for the account.
Accordingly, you will note the declaration of the cooperative Jews: "and let it be done according to the law". Such law was laid out in Deut 7:1-4, and Deut 23:3.
Of the same principle was the reason for the death of David’s son born of adultery with Bethsheba.
Several people have written to me asking about King David: was he a Jew, given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew? This conclusion is based on two faulty premises: first of all, Ruth was a Jew
No, Ruth was a Moabite, and always a Moabite.
A Moabite was forbidden to "enter the congregation of the Lord" (Deut 23:3), which presence amongst the congregation of Israel you have above (the example of the Egyptian man’s son) declared to be synonomous with conversion.
This prohibition was because of the poor treatment the Jews received at the hand of Moab. That is, it was punishment, and was not to be waved for Moabites who desired entry to the congregation. Else there were no reason for the law: for there was no need for a law to prohibit Moabites who did not desire entry.
In line with the disregard of the Moabite’s intent in respect of this prohibition, you will note that only 2 verses prior we are told that one wounded in the testicles was also not permitted entry to the congregation of the Lord, regardless of his religious disposition. The law is inflexible, thus Moses declaration: “thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish ought from it”.
and even if she wasn't, that would not affect David's status as a Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed.
Again, her desire to convert was prohibited from legal affirmation, by virtue of her parentage. This prohibition of Deut 23:3 was punishment for Moab, and was never to be revoked.
The story of Ruth thus indicates the once-and-for-all severing of the household of law from the household of faith. And within the emphasis of this discussion, the negation of any strict Jewry of Christ Himself.
(Note also, that Mahlon and Chilion were in contravention of the law, supports such rendering of this book. For it was of no concern to Naomi that her sons had not only married Moabites, but Moabites who had not even thought of converting.
The book is thus teaching that love and grace transcends the law. And that Christ has no part in the law.
So Paul: ”But now ye have become dead to the law through the Body of Christ, that ye might be married to another”.)
Summary:
You have had to search deeply for anything which remotely supports your position. Such is logically dubious: the saturation of Jewry-by-male-lineage texts can never be replaced by a few spurious examples of the other side. The vast majority, for the purposes of integrity, must rule: it is Jewry by Dad.
