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]
Well every time that Ruth's name is mentioned in scripture, it is followed by the adjective "the Moabitess", except for Matthew 1. So then does that mean that the "Ruth" listed by Matthew is not the "Ruth, the Moabitess" in the Old Testament as well?
Matthew does not include that adjective "prostitute" beside Rachab's name because after the fall of Jericho, she was no longer a prostitute, and she was certainly not a prostitute after Salmon took her for his wife, and most certainly not after the birth of her son.
The Israelites were not supposed to do a lot of things according to the Law of Moses, but they did them anyway, and God used even their disobedience in His plan of redemption. And a Jew [Israelite] was a Jew [Israelite] from the inside out not the outside in, and Rachab and Ruth had more of a heart for the God of Israel than probably most Jewish [Israelite] women of their day.
God sees the heart and He saw it in these case and rewarded them both with Jewish [Israelite] husbands and sons, through which they were sanctified into the congregation of Israel.
Nonsense --- is this some kind of Possibility Thinking?
Ruth is clearly said to be a Moabitess --- and that is not because she is living in the Plains of Moab or even in Moab itself. She and others are identified on the basis of national origin, familial descent --- not location. There were Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, etc all living and migrating from one area to another all the time. Did that change them from one nationality to another as they migrated??? No.
And there were Edomites, Amorites, Moabites, etc all living in the Land of Israel. Did their living in Israel or even amongst the Israelites make them Israelites???
The map in my Bible shows that the area given to the Reubenites overlapped with the Moabites and that border between them was very fluid and floated back and forth over time. There were more than likely plenty of Moabites living amongst the Reubenites, and vice versa, and as the Book of Ruth says so clearly:
"And Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died, and she was left and her two sons, and they took themselves wives of the women of Moab" [not the Plains of Moab, but Moab, the nation of Moab]
BTW: If she were from the Plains of Moab, as you claim, and identified by her last known address, then the writer of the book of Ruth would have called her Ruth the Plainswoman :) --- but it doesn't].
She "was" a Moabite woman because she lived in the Israelite territory of Moab.....not the Kingdom of Moab. There were no genetic Moabite people left here. The King of the Amorites saw to that and then Moses took "The Plains of Moab" away from him. This was part of Israel for over 700 years and it was still called Moab.
Matthew does not include that adjective "prostitute" beside Rachab's name because after the fall of Jericho, she was no longer a prostitute, and she was certainly not a prostitute after Salmon took her for his wife, and most certainly not after the birth of her son.
The reason for this is very simple. Matthew is not referring to the prostitute....James and Paul are! Rachab was not Rahab.
Nonsense --- is this some kind of Possibility Thinking? (Chip)
[Joshua 1:12-15] And to the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh, spake Joshua, saying, Remember the word which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, saying, The LORD your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land. Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valor, and help them; Until the LORD have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which the LORD your God giveth them: then ye shall return unto the land of your possession, and enjoy it, which Moses the LORD's servant gave you on this side Jordan toward the sunrising.
[Joshua 13:8-12] With whom the Reubenites and the Gadites have received their inheritance, which Moses gave them, beyond Jordan eastward, even as Moses the servant of the LORD gave them; From Aroer, that is upon the bank of the river Arnon, and the city that is in the midst of the river, and all the plain of Medeba unto Dibon; And all the cities of Sihon king of the Amorites, which reigned in Heshbon, unto the border of the children of Ammon; And Gilead, and the border of the Geshurites and Maachathites, and all mount Hermon, and all Bashan unto Salcah; All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out.
This used to be Moab also before the Amorites killed them all and took it for themselves. Moses then did likewise to the Amorites. This is why the land was still called Moab until the Assyrian dispersion 700 years later. Ruth was an Israelite resident of this Moab.....not the Heathen Kingdom of Moab.
“Mary Did You Know” has to be one of the prettiest songs ever!! I listen to it all year long!
Well some of them, along with Ruth, must have survived because Ezra saw them in the Land of Israel as late as the 4th century BC:
"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".[Ezra 9:1]
Would you say that Baoz is the same person as Booz?
Yes it is and the Kathy Mattea (?) version is my favorite. It brings tears to my eyes each time she sings, “Did you know you touched the face of God”. Wow, here I go again.....
My favorite version, and you should listen to it, is Kenny Rogers and the fat daughter of Naomi Judd...can’t remember her name....but it is FABULOUS!!!!! FABULOUS!!
That would be Wynonna - the other is the beautiful Ashley Judd, the actress.
I'll look for the version you're telling me about. I can't wait to hear it if it's better than the one I have.
I guarantee you it’s the BEST!! One day Hugh Hewitt played every version of this song but Missed the best!! Go figure!
You know....I think part of the problem here is that I pinged you too late in the thread.
[Numbers 21:26] For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. The King of the Amorites had taken all of Moab away from them......to the River Arnon. This was about half of the Kingdom of Moab. The land above the river was now occupied by the Amnorites and the surviving Moabites lived below the river and south to Edom. This is directly east of the Dead Sea. Above the River Arnon and north to the River Jabbock was the captured territory of "The Plains of Moab". Here is where Moses settled the people prior to crossing the Jordan to fight the Canaanites. [Numbers 21:21-25] And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, saying, Let me pass through thy land: we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the waters of the well: but we will go along by the king's high way, until we be past thy borders. And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness: and he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon was strong. And Israel took all these cities: and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all the villages thereof.
[Numbers 21:31] Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. This area is called in scripture as "The Plains of Moab". North of the River Arnon, east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River all the way north to Gilead. These lands previously belonged to the Moabites and they (the ones that lived there) were defeated by the Amorites. They (Amorites) now possessed "The Plains of Moab". Along comes Moses, Joshua and the Israelites and they take "The Plains of Moab" from the Amorites....killing them all: [Deuteronomy 2:32-34] Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
The Israelites now possessed "The Plains of Moab". All previous residents had been killed. The Moabites who lived in that part of Moab had been killed earlier by the Amorites and Moses had now seen to it that the Amorites were destroyed. These 'Plains of Moab" are the areas that were promised to the tribes of Gad, Rueben and Manasseh if they crossed the Jordan and helped their fellow Israelites defeat the Canaanites. They did and then returned to these "Plains of Moab" which they then called home for about 700 years. This was where Ruth had been born and lived about 100/150 years later. She was an Israelite.....of Moab. This is the same as my wife being described as a German/Californian. California used to be the possession of Spain and Mexico but is now held by the U.S. We still call it California and my wife is accurately described as a California woman.
Baja California is still around but their northern territory has been held by us now for over 150 years. We still call it California.....and folks still live in Baja also.
You are correct. The Kingdom of Moab was still around years later....much smaller and a shrunken population....but still around.
Yup....it was fluid...that's for sure. It was the River Arnon: [Numbers 21:13][Numbers 21:26][Deuteronomy 2:24][Deuteronomy 2:36][Deuteronomy 3:8][Deuteronomy 3:12][Deuteronomy 3:16][Joshua 12:1][Joshua 12:2][Judges 11:13][Judges 11:18][Judges 11:22][Judges 11:26][II Kings 10:33].
There were Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, etc all living and migrating from one area to another all the time. Did that change them from one nationality to another as they migrated???
They did not migrate into Israelite held Moab for at least three hundred years: [Judges 11:26] While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? This takes place in the early 1100 B.C. time frame and Israel is still in control of these lands. There is no mention of anyone floating back and forth over a fluid border. This is longer than the United States has been a country and Israel continues to control this land until the Assyrian exile (721 B.C.)....400 years later.
The reason I believe Ruth was not a Moabite woman of the Kingdom of Moab is really because of this scripture. [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. King David was only three generations down from Ruth and could not have possibly ascended the throne of Israel without making a mockery of God's words. To further teach that Our Lord would have descended from a marriage which was condemned by God's word would be further mockery.
[Ezra 9:1-4] 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. 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. And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonished. Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the transgression of those that had been carried away; and I sat astonished until the evening sacrifice.
Why do you think it would be O.K. for a Moabite to Marry Boaz.... but yet have Ezra speak against it in scripture 800 years later?
Check your map for the land under the United Monarchy --- Moab is well north of the Arnon River by then.
The reason I believe Ruth was not a Moabite woman of the Kingdom of Moab is really because of this scripture. [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.
To be accurate, Ruth was a Moabitess, female not a Moabite, male. That may seem like hair-splitting, but that is exactly the detail that the Rabbinical lawyers would look at. And while they were told in the Law of Moses not to give their sons and daughters to those within the land of Canaan, Ruth as a Moabitess was from outside of the land of Canaan.
Why do you think it would be O.K. for a Moabite to Marry Boaz.... but yet have Ezra speak against it in scripture 800 years later?
It is possible that she was no longer a Moabite in her heart, just as Rachab was no longer a Canaanite in her heart. After all that is what we learn from Paul in Romans --- a Jew is a Jew from the inside out not the outside in.
And they are types of the Gentile Church --- two women who wanted to be part of the Congregation of Israel so intently that they would leave their own people to do it. The God of Israel had to set the Law of Moses aside in order to accomplish it.
Here is a map showing the divisions of the tribes. Another map shows the Kingdom under David and Solomon. I still see Moab below the Arnon....directly east of the Dead Sea.
Tell me where to find your map for the "United Monarchy".
The King James New Scofield Reference Bible, Map 4, The United Monarchy shows Moab extending far north of the Arnon.
Also Isaiah in the 8th century BC records this prophecy regarding Moab in Chapter 15:
1The burden of Moab. Because in the night Ar of Moab is laid waste, and brought to silence; because in the night Kir of Moab is laid waste, and brought to silence; 2He is gone up to Bajith, and toDibon, the high places, to weep: Moab shall howl over Nebo, and over Medeba: on all their heads shall be baldness, and every beard cut off. 3In their streets they shall gird themselves with sackcloth: on the tops of their houses, and in their streets, every one shall howl, weeping abundantly. 4And Heshbon shall cry, and Elealeh: their voice shall be heard even unto Jahaz: therefore the armed soldiers of Moab shall cry out; his life shall be grievous unto him. 5My heart shall cry out for Moab; his fugitives shall flee unto Zoar, an heifer of three years old: for by the mounting up of Luhith with weeping shall they go it up; for in the way of Horonaim they shall raise up a cry of destruction ......
The cities of Ar [Aroer], Dibon, Medeba, and Heshbon are well north of the Arnon River and the Moabites obviously were residing there.
I do not have this Bible...tried to find it on line and ran across this. You may want to bookmark this as it seems to be very accurate.
Map of Ancient Israel It is clickable. Just click anywhere on the map and it will bring up the comments.
Isaiah's ministry lasted from 740/687 B.C. so he was present when the Northern Kingdom was taken captive to Assyria. In fact, he prophesied of this event. This would have been 721 B.C. The tribes of Gad, Rueben and Manasseh which occupied the "Plains of Moab" were part of the Northern Kingdom so this absence did indeed create an opportunity for the Kingdom of Moab to attempt a reacquisition .... you might say.
And of course this chapter 15 of Isaiah could also be yet in the future.
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.