Posted on 06/16/2007 5:09:43 PM PDT by stfassisi
To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ,” said St. Jerome.[2] Could we develop this statement further and conclude: To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Mary, the Mother of Christ?
The Bible is over 95% male-oriented. Of 1,426 names in the Bible only 111 names are women’s. … Mary of Nazareth, however, is among the women most mentioned in the Bible, that is, in the New Testament. She is an exception to the rule and almost for that reason an exceptional woman.[3]
The factual data we gain from the Scriptures on Mary’s life are by no means copious[4]. As far as details about Mary’s person are concerned, we do not know much about her liking, knowledge, exterior etc. However, through the spiritual intervention of God in her life, she becomes a person in terms of her religious vocation. Her process of individuation is initiated by her reflection on who she is and her mission as handmaid of the Lord.[5]
It is not possible to establish an exact chronological point for identifying the date of Mary’s birth … Her presence in the midst of Israel – a presence so discreet as to pass almost unnoticed by the eyes of her contemporaries[6] …Only in the mystery of Christ is her mystery fully made clear.[7]
Mary of Nazareth, daughter of Joachim and Anna,[8] is first mentioned by name in the Gospel of Mathew.[9] She was an ordinary woman, and her name was common enough that other women of the same name in the gospel had to be distinguished by their relatives or their place of origin.[10]
From tradition we can assume that she grew up as a young Jewish girl in a small town in the Palestinian Galilee. “Since Mary was born into Judaism, she experienced the Hebrew Scriptures both in her prayer and her mode of life as a woman of Nazareth.”[11] Mary’s education as a girl included listening to the readings of the Torah and the Prophets in the synagogue. We cannot know for sure but it is quite possible that Mary knew how to read.[12]
Although women probably were seated separately from men during the synagogue services, they could have learned the prayers and listened attentively to the readings from the Sacred Scripture. … There is no reason to question that Mary was present in the synagogue when Jesus read from Isaiah 61. Would she not have reflected on such passages already, wondering about their Messianic implications?[13]
It might be helpful to recall that until the completion of her eleventh year a Jewish girl was a minor and from her 12th birthday on she was considered to be of age. This means that from that day on, Mary was expected to keep those parts of the Torah, which were binding on women. At the same time she also became eligible for marriage.
Like all good Jewish girls, she would have been docile, submissive, and obedient to her earthly parents’ wishes. Thus, when she was of marriageable age, about fourteen, and her parents promised her to a man many years her elder, she accepted their decision. In all actuality, she had no choice.[14]
Consequently, we can presume that it was around that time that Mary was betrothed to Joseph. The time of betrothal generally lasted a year, with the exception of widows.[15] We know that the Annunciation[16] occurred during the phase of her betrothal.
God had addressed Himself to women before as in the case of the mothers of Samuel and Samson. However to make a Covenant with humanity, He, hitherto addressed himself only to men: Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Now, “at the beginning of the New Covenant, which is to be eternal and irrevocable, there is a woman: the Virgin of Nazareth.”[17]
This takes place … within the concrete circumstances of the history of Israel, the people, who first received God’s promises. The divine messenger says to the Virgin: “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you” [18]. He does not call her by her proper earthly name: Miriyam (= Mary), but by this new name: ‘full of grace’. What does this name mean? Why does the archangel address the Virgin in this way? In the language of the Bible, ‘grace’ means a special gift, which according to the New Testament has its source precisely in the Trinitarian life of God himself, God who is love[19].[20]
The One who called her His most beloved is Love Himself. It might well be the core experience of her life when Mary learns that she is loved for who she is and not for what she can do. This awareness leads her to identify herself as the handmaid of the Lord[21] and urges her to embrace the mission entrusted to her.
Indeed at the Annunciation Mary entrusted herself to God completely, with ‘the full submission of intellect and will,’ manifesting ‘the obedience of faith’ to him who spoke to her through his messenger. She responded therefore with all her human and feminine ‘I’, and in this response of faith included both perfect cooperation with the ‘grace of God that precedes and assists’ and perfect openness to the action of the Holy Spirit, who ‘constantly brings faith to completion by his gifts’.[22]
Thus, we learn that Mary conceived her son through the power of the Holy Spirit[23]. Both Mathew’s and Luke’s New Testament Infancy Narratives indicate that Joseph and Mary were faithful observers of the law. According to Mathew, Mary was legally espoused to Joseph, even though she did not live with him[24] in accordance with the Jewish requirement of pre-conjugal virginity. Hence, when Mathew tells of Mary’s pregnancy before sharing the life of Joseph, he makes it clear that she had become suspect to infidelity[25]. All the more we have to appreciate Mary’s faith in the angel’s message, since she knew that her life was at stake.
Following the Annunciation we encounter Mary on her way in order to serve her relative Elizabeth[26]. The visitation has a tremendous effect on Zechariah’s house. Elizabeth prophesied[27], the baby was sanctified in her womb[28] and the mute man of the house would eventually be able to speak again.[29]
The Virgin makes no proud demands nor else does she seek to satisfy personal ambitions. Luke presents her to us wanting only to offer her humble service with total and trusting acceptance of the divine plan of salvation. This is the meaning of her response: ”Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your word.”[30]
Mary’s Magnificat[31] harmonizes with Zechariah’s Benedictus[32] and reflects her deep roots in the Jewish tradition as well as in the Hebrew Scriptures. He has done great things for me: this is the discovery of all the richness and personal resources of femininity, all the eternal originality of the ‘woman’, just as God wanted her to be, a person for her own sake, who discovers herself ‘by means of a sincere gift of self’.[33] As a daughter of Israel, Mary sings in concord with such women as Miriam, sister of Moses or Hannah, mother of Samuel.
For St. Luke, Mary is the perfect example of awaiting the Messiah with a pure and humble spirit. Luke sees in Mary the Daughter of Zion who rejoices because God is with her, and who praises His greatness for pulling down the mighty and exalting the humble.[34]
The earliest reference to Jesus’ mother in any literature, and the only one in the Pauline letters and all of the epistles of the New Testament, appears in Galatians 4:4. There, Paul simply connotes that God’s son was ‘born of a woman, born under the law.’
The phrase, genomenon ek gynaikos, “born of a woman”, is a frequently used Jewish expression to designate a person’s human condition. It reflects ‘ādām yělûd ‘iššāh of Job 14:1 “a human being (that is) born of a woman " Paul does indirectly refer to her. But it is a reference to her simply as mother, in her maternal role of bearing Jesus and bringing him into the world.[35]
For the purpose of historical investigation, these phrases tell us only that Paul understands Jesus to have been born to a Jewish woman[36]. “The fact that he does not mention Mary’s name does not necessarily mean that he does not know it; but neither can it be assumed that he knows it and declines to use it.”[37]
It is significant that St. Paul does not call the Mother of Christ by her own name, Mary, but calls her woman: it coincides with words of the Proto-evangelium in the Book of Genesis (3:15). She is that woman who is present in the central salvific event, which marks the fullness of time: this event is realized in her and through her.[38] To be born under the law means, for Jesus, that he was fully integrated into the human condition in both time and place through his roots in the Jewish people. Mathew presents us with Jesus’ genealogy.
But the uniform repetitions of male progenitors is interrupted four times in order to mention women: Rahab and Ruth, both of them foreigners, are there to show that the rest of the human race is invited to share in salvation along with Israel; Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah, and Bathsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah before becoming David’s wife, are there to remind us that the promise makes its way despite the weaknesses of a patriarch[39] and of a king[40] and, paradoxically, even derives support from them. These four women and the four irregular births that occur due to them prepare the reader for the mention of Mary and for the birth of Jesus, the extraordinary character of which will be brought out later in the narrative.[41]
Mathew’s gospel affirms the legitimacy of Jesus as a Jewish boy born of Jewish parents. He is the offspring of a legally recognized married couple. Thus, Joseph is the lawful father of Jesus who, in turn, has the responsibility of naming the child. On the other hand, Mary is the mother of this child in an extraordinary way similar to the other women mentioned in the genealogy: Rahab, Tamar, Ruth and Beersheba. Mary is the Virgin Mother[42] of the promised Messiah who is called Emmanuel, God with us!
Clearly then, Mary plays a role in God’s plan of saving His people, and indeed she was foreseen from the time of Isaiah as the virgin who would give birth to Emmanuel. Yet, in the Matthean infancy narrative she remains an instrument of God’s action and her personal attitudes are never mentioned. Once she has given birth to Jesus, she and the child become the object of Joseph’s care. Joseph is center of the drama. [43]”[44]
This becomes evident immediately after the birth of Jesus. When the violence is unleashed against the child and his family[45], Joseph takes initiative upon the Angel’s request, fleeing with the child and his mother to Egypt. Like Mathew, Luke locates Jesus in the history of the Jewish people. For Luke however, “Mary is the guarantor of his roots; and she is the sign of this newness.”[46] The birth took place in conditions of extreme poverty. Luke informs us that on the occasion of the census ordered by the Roman authorities, Mary went with Joseph to Bethlehem. Having found ‘no place in the inn’, she gave birth to her Son in a stable and ‘laid him in a manger.'[47]
We are reminded again that Jesus was born under the law when, in Luke 2:22-24, Mary and Joseph present Jesus in the Temple and ransom him for a pair of turtle doves as prescribed by Jewish law.[48]
Simeon’s words seem like a second Annunciation to Mary; for they tell her of the actual historical situation in which the Son is to accomplish his mission, namely, in misunderstanding and sorrow. … She will have to live her obedience of faith in suffering at the side of the suffering Savior, and that her motherhood will be mysterious and sorrowful.[49]
The Holy family lived in Nazareth. Not much is said about their family life; but we know that Jesus and Mary were both under the care of Joseph and, most likely, lived a normal Jewish family life.
More about Mary of Nazareth can be learned through the simple metaphors and parables in the language of Jesus in his home. … Often the woman, because of her skills in planning and experience, was in control over the critical aspects of household life. In her natural role of parenting, a woman normally would have nearly double the amount of pregnancies in order to bear the desired number of children to carry on the chores and responsibilities of the household[50].
Archeological discoveries in households attest to devotions of a religious nature at home, for example;
If the practice in Nazareth was close to Pharisaic norm, Joseph would ask the family when darkness fell on the eve of the Sabbath: ‘Have you tithed? … Light the Lamp’. Thus would they collaborate in keeping the commandments at home.[51]
Throughout the years that followed, up to Jesus’ public ministry, Mary was, for Jesus, what every Jewish mother was supposed to be for her child. “While Joseph was alive Mary apparently went with him to Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.”[52] It is during such a pilgrimage that the 12-year-old Jesus was lost for three days and Mary and Joseph went in search of him[53]. Luke’s Gospel recalls the anxiety of a mother who thought her son was lost and who of finding him, reproached him.
Here as well as upon the shepherds’ visit to the ‘babe lying in the manger', Mary as a woman of Israel and daughter of Zion remembers and ponders over the words and events of God. The word symballousa used of her in Luke means to turn over and over again in one’s mind and heart in order to face what is happening either through life’s experiences or God’s revelation.[54]
Not much is known about Mary during Jesus’ public life.
A Jewish woman faithful to the law did not participate in public life. Even her chin was covered by the veil, which she wore so that none of her traits were distinguished. The fact that in Mark’s Gospel Mary is searching for Jesus and is familiar with his whereabouts leads to an almost certain conclusion that she is then a widow and has possession of all that Joseph owned.[55]
In John’s Gospel we are told that Mary and Jesus were guests at the wedding feast in Cana. The way she interacts with the servants and initiates the preparations for Jesus’ first sign is another indication “that she was now the only survivor.”[56] Mary’s presence at the wedding feast reveals much about her. It can be summarized in her intuitive grasp of the situation, her concern over the possible embarrassment of the young couple and her willingness to call upon her son.
Mary is present at Cana in Galilee as the Mother of Jesus, and, in a significant way, she contributes to that beginning of the signs which reveal the messianic power of her Son. ... The Mother of Christ presents herself as the spokeswoman of her Son’s will, pointing out those things, which must be done so that the salvific power of the Messiah may be manifested. ... Her faith evokes his first sign and helps to kindle the faith of the disciples.[57]
The meaning of Mary at Cana is exposed fully when His Mother stands ‘near the cross of Jesus,’ and hears Him say: ‘Woman, there is your Son’[58].
The Gospel means more than that the dying Jesus is providing for His Mother’s care. … Mary on Calvary symbolizes … the new Israel, the new People of God, the mother of all men, Jew and Gentile.[59]
Both times, at the beginning and at the consummation of his public life, Jesus addresses her as ‘woman’.
The words of Jesus to His Mother, ‘Woman, how does this concern of yours involve me? My hour has not yet come,’ were an invitation to deepen her faith, to look beyond the failing wine to His messianic career. … It is striking that no sign is done to help Mary believe. The Mother of Jesus requires no miracle to strengthen her faith. At her Son’s word, before ‘this first of his signs’ she shows her faith.[60]
Mary’s last appearance is found in Acts 1:14. We see her in the midst of the Apostles in the Upper Room, prayerfully imploring the gift of the Holy Spirit.[61] For the church of that time, Mary is now a singular witness to the years of Jesus’ infancy and hidden life at Nazareth. Now she can release what, until now, she has kept pondering in her heart.
In summary,
Mary of Nazareth – whose name is written at times in the Hebraic form, Mariam – was a chaste young Jewish girl betrothed to a devout Jewish man, Joseph. The portrait of her in the New Testament is that of a prayerful Jewish woman with very human traits who aspired to follow the practices set by Jewish law and religion. The picture of Mary that emerges through the Gospels is at times powerful and detailed. She celebrates. She suffers. She observes. She prays. She treasures things in her heart and reflects on them. ... To understand what seems to be a rather casual first appearance of Mary in Scripture, we need to place Mathew 1:16 in the context of the whole of Mathew’s first chapter and pull in John 1:1-5.[62]
And the Bible says the country of Moab, not the plains.
Now, why would Naomi want to go to Moab and not the plains?
Maybe the plains were not getting any water either.
Now, stop your Bible corrupting.
Ruth was a Moabite woman and you have not proven anything by attempting to change the words with a Strong's definition.
Well....now you have learned that Ruth was an Israelite. You have also learned that she was referring to the judges that ruled in Israel....not some heathen god which is a figment of your imagination.
We haven't learned any such thing.
What we learned is that you have a talent for twisting scripture, but we knew that already.
Orpah went back to her gods, not judges.
And the Hebrew word being used for Judges in the beginning of Ruth is not Elohim
There is nothing Roman Catholic about this.
Ruth was a Moabite and part of the genealogy of Christ.
But ofcourse, you know more than any translator of any translation.
Please hurry with that Bible, we need it!!!!
Diego never heard of the word Grace.
The Strong's definition of it really means....
Ruth the Moabitess could have learned the name of God from Mahlon or Naomi.
Gee, you think that is possible?
They were only dwelling in the land for 10 years! (Ru.1:4)
No thank you, I actually believe what the Bible says, not what Diego wants it to say.
And unlike Diego, I actually can read both languages, I don't use an interlinear.
He did!
My goodness and you know this how?
Well, lets see, Samuel said that the Ark of the Covenant was in the country of the Philistines seven months!(1Sa.6:1)
And he even uses the same Hebrew word for both!
Clearly, Samuel must have meant something else, because he would have said the 'Kingdom of the Philistines' and not country!
when God went out of his way to kill the heathen sons of Judah in [Genesis 38:1-10] to prevent just that from happening?
God did not kill the sons of Judah because they were heathen.
He killed them because they were wicked (Gen.38:7,10).
And not all the sons were killed, Shelah went into Egypt (Gen.46:12)
Is it lonely where you are?
No thank you, I actually believe what the Bible says, not what Diego wants it to say.....And unlike Diego, I actually can read both languages, I don't use an interlinear.
I am happy you have the intelligence to read both languages. Perhaps now you can work on actually "understanding" both languages.
The questions you pose have been answered scripturally but you can't see that. When you have calmed down and are ready to stop throwing nasty comments out I hope you take time to review some of the posts.
If Ruth and Rahab were just little old Jewish girls as you claim, then why would Matthew even bother to mention them in his genealogy of Jesus??? Why are not all the other little old Jewish girls listed by him???
I'm sure Diego will have a deep and scholaly answer that will tell us the answer. Until then, as a just beginning to understand Bible reader, I think it is because of the beautiful story it tells.
I have been taught that Ruth is symbolic of us, sinners that are weak and condemned while Boaz is kinsman redeemer - Jesus. Ruth will inherite the land of Boaz as we will inherite eternal life.
As far as Rehab goes - Is Rehab the harlot the same Rehab as mentioned in Matthew? Also, Matthew gives us the genealogy of Joseph, the step-father to Christ. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.
Who else would Rachab be??? and why mention her??? And the genealogies from David to Adam are the same.
I don't know. A month or so ago Diego, Seven_0 and I were discussing her. I thought she was one and the same (I also thought she wasn't really a harlot but I was out voted) but Diego said there was an age gap in the two Rehabs. If he is correct and they aren't the same Rehab I don't know why the name was mentioned in Matthew.
And the genealogies from David to Adam are the same.
True...The split is in the sons of David. Joseph is from the Solomon line where Mary is from the Nathan line.
Yes...this is true, but Samuel would not have recorded her using this word if she was not an Israelite.
[Deuteronomy 23:3] An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever. Mahlon and Naomi would have been very aware of this admonition from the Lord.
You say that God does not distinguish between “Israelite” and “Moabite.” Scripture refers to Ruth as a Moabite at least six times.
Ruth can be called a Woman of Moab the same way an Englishman being born and living in Australia can then be called an Australian. The key point I made in my post was when Boaz asked of his servant, "Whose damsel is this?" and was told, "It is the Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of "The Country of Moab". The Country of Moab was not The Kingdom of Moab. It was the plains of Moab and the Israelites controlled that area until they were taken to Assyria in 721 B.C. I showed the Hebrew word used in scripture to denote that area and it was not Heathen Moab. The simple fact is: Ruth was a woman of Moab....the same way my wife is a woman of California....but Mexico and Spain used to own California! My wife is not Mexican nor is she Spanish! And Ruth was an Israelite!
I think folks need to understand something here....the time in history is about 1100 B.C. and the Israelites have already been in Moab a few hundred years. Moses gave this land to Gad and Rueben before he died [Numbers 32:20-22]. He died in 1405 B.C. (it is estimated). So....the Israelites controlled this area, The Plains of Moab, east of Jericho and the River Jordan from Gilead in the North to The River Arnon in the south for about 700 years.
I asked in my first post(#117), "Why would Naomi and family really want to go to the Heathen Moab" below the River Arnon. They would have absolutely no reason. Their Brother tribes controlled this vast agricultural plain and since there was famine in Judah this would have been a natural destination for many of them.
Then you come down on the translators, they didn't know any better. Somehow they translated the word for judge rightly in Ruth 1:1 but missed it in verse 17.
Here is the first word....[Ruth 1:1] Translated "Judges" in the KJV: Strong's #8199. shaphat (shaw-fat')a primitive root; to judge, i.e. pronounce sentence (for or against); by implication, to vindicate or punish; by extenssion, to govern; passively, to litigate (literally or figuratively)+ avenge, X that condemn, contend, defend, execute (judgment), (be a) judge(-ment), X needs, plead, reason, rule.
Here is the second word...[Ruth 1:15-16] Translated "God" in the KJV: Strong's #430 'elohiym (el-o-heem')gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative; angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Two different words....but similar meaning and they certainly make sense with what we know about Ruth and this area of Moab......during the time of the Judges (verse 1). I guess the question you need to really ask yourself is: Why did the translators use the plural for "gods" in verse 15 but then use the singular for the same word in verse 16? The Hebrew word Elohim is a uni plural noun and would certainly not be used to describe our Lord. The translators erred!
The word translated The "Lord" in verse 17 is the true name for God and one has to ask.....why didn't Ruth use this word in verse 16 when she was ostensibly telling Naomi, "and thy God my God"? The answer to that question is this. She wasn't talking about God.....she was talking about the Judges!
[Ruth 1:17] Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
Strong's #3068. Yhovah (yeh-ho-vaw')the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God. This is the word she used in verse 17 but did not use in verse 16.
Everyone look at your maps in the backs of your Bibles for the location of the tribes after Moses. You will see that the Israelite territory of Moab (Gad and Rueben) is about three times as large as the Kingdom of Moab.
You are expecting me to believe that Ruth was a descendant of folks who really were not in God's favor...and to agree with translators who obviously were wrong...that Naomi and family went to live in hostile territory for ten years without an incident...intermarry with them and come back to Judah with a daughter of this Heathen Nation....and receive a royal welcome by the entire population of the land....and have her hailed as an equal to Rachel and Leah! It's touchy feely....but not scriptural.
[Ezra 9:1-2] Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.
After the return from Babylon (525 B.C.) the admonition from Our Lord [Deuteronomy 23:3] was still in effect.....600 years later!
Is it lonely where you are?
The list of heresies that you guys believe in is quite a list.
I frankly doubt you are saved.
Your rejection of the Trinity and grace lead me to come to that conclusion.
[ No thank you, I actually believe what the Bible says, not what Diego wants it to say.....And unlike Diego, I actually can read both languages, I don't use an interlinear. ]
I am happy you have the intelligence to read both languages. Perhaps now you can work on actually "understanding" both languages.
No, again unlike Diego, I actually believe the Bible in my own language and don't pretend that I am smart enough to correct it.
The questions you pose have been answered scripturally but you can't see that. When you have calmed down and are ready to stop throwing nasty comments out I hope you take time to review some of the posts.
None of the questions have been answered scripturally.
So stop throwing up smoke.
You are following a false teacher (2Pe.2) right into the pit of hell.
Moab is Moab!
Amen.
None of my thousnds of catholic cohorts believe this either.
The Catholic obsession with Mary seems out of whack, as illustrated by that above statement.
There is no obsession better than respect and reverence.
Yeah....I know......many folks are taken in by this false belief as you have been. That's why I included [Ezra 9:1-2] at the end of the post to show everyone it included females also.
Nice of you to notice!
Well....first of all I did not say that Ruth was a Jewish girl. I have said many times, on this thread and others, that Ruth was of the Tribe of Gad or Rueben....an Israelite. It is definitely possible, as well.....that she could have been of Manessah. [Numbers 32:28-33] So concerning them Moses commanded Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the chief fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel: And Moses said unto them, If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will pass with you over Jordan, every man armed to battle, before the LORD, and the land shall be subdued before you; then ye shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession: But if they will not pass over with you armed, they shall have possessions among you in the land of Canaan. And the children of Gad and the children of Reuben answered, saying, As the LORD hath said unto thy servants, so will we do. We will pass over armed before the LORD into the land of Canaan, that the possession of our inheritance on this side Jordan may be ours. And Moses gave unto them, even to the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, and unto half the tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph, the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, and the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, the land, with the cities thereof in the coasts, even the cities of the country round about.
The 33rd chapter of Numbers is interesting as it gives a route, step by step, from Egypt to "The Promised Land". Here is where they were before crossing the Jordan: [Numbers 33:48-52] And they departed from the mountains of Abarim, and pitched in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho. And they pitched by Jordan, from Bethjesimoth even unto Abelshittim in the plains of Moab. And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places.
These lands were "The Plains of Moab" taken from the Amorites who had previously taken them from the Moabites. They were located above the River Arnon....east of the Dead Sea and onward north to Gilead....East of the River Jordan. Your Bibles maps will show this to be a fact. The land was still called Moab and the Israelites controlled this area, under these three tribes, for about seven hundred years. [Numbers 21:31] Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites.
Ruth did become a Jewess by moving to Judah with Naomi and eventually becoming the wife of Boaz. In [Ruth 1:16] she is recorded telling Naomi that "your people will be my people and your Judges (Elohim) will be my Judges." Israel (all twelve tribes at that time) were ruled by Judges. Since Ruth was a young Israelite girl her God would be the same as Naomi's God and she indeed references "The Lord" in verse 17 by calling him Jehovah! The reason Matthew mentions Ruth is because Ruth is the mother of Obed, the grandmother of Jesse who was the father of King David. Samuel saw fit to include her story in his writings and they became Hebrew scripture. Matthew called Levi, was a Hebrew of Hebrews and I'm sure the Book of Ruth was dear to him and was the reason he included Ruth in his genealogy.
I'll deal with "Rahab" later. I'm sorry if my postings seem so redundant but there is so much history to be dealt with, and if you don't learn the background of some of these passages you won't understand.... why what happened..... happened!
Now what does intermarrying with unbelieving Moabites have to do with the curse placed on their not entering the congregration of the Lord (Deut.23:3)?
The forbidding was of marrying unbelieving women
the people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations.
Joseph married an Egyptian woman!
Well, as outlined in post #138...I never referred to Ruth as a Jewish girl. She indeed did become a Jewish woman because of her move to Judah and subsequent marriage to Boaz. She was an Israelite. On the other hand Rahab was not an Israelite. She was a Canaanite. The woman spoken of in Matthew 1:5 was "Rachab"....wife of Salmon....mother of Boaz....and an Israelite.
[Deuteronomy 7:1-6] When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
The Israelites that crossed over Jordan evidently observed this admonition for they had continued success for about 30 years or so after the initial problems at Ai mentioned in Joshua 7. Before crossing the Jordan they were camped on the Plains of Moab where previously the Lord caused a plague among the Israelites because of fornicating with beautiful young Moabite and Midianite women [Numbers 25] and in fact destroyed 24000 because of this. Paul speaks of this in [1 Corinthians 10:8]. He does not mention the 1000 Soldiers that were hung separately....thus the difference in the numbers.
God was serious about non intermarriage with these folks and the reason He probably had the Israelites burn everything in their path [Joshua 6:21] was because He wanted to cleanse the area of any disease....or pollution. Otherwise, He would have allowed the tribes to at least keep the cattle.
The fact that Rahab was a Canaanite is not arguable. Some have tried to say she was something else....even saying she really was not a prostitute. The mere fact that both Paul and James in the New Testament call her a prostitute... 1500 years later is ample, scriptural proof. In fact every time her name is mentioned in scripture it is followed by the adjective.....prostitute. As a side note here, Rachab in [Matthew 1] does not receive this distinction.
Rahab identifies herself in [Joshua 2:11] and fulfills a previous prophecy [Exodus 15:16] which says "Fear and dread will fall upon the Canaanites and they shall melt away". In [Joshua 2:10] she says "We (the people of Canaan) heard how God dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you (the Israelites). She and her family is rescued from Jericho but left outside the camp [Joshua 6:23] of Israel. It is with out a doubt that Rahab was a Cannaanite and would fall under God's command to Moses to not let the Israelites intermarry with them.
The Rachab of Matthew is not the Rahab of Joshua. She was the mother of Boaz and as I stated in my previous post.... Matthew Levi was a Hebrew of Hebrews and since the story of Ruth was Hebrew scripture he included her mother-in-law's name in the genealogy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.