What Does It Mean That God Punishes to the 10th Generation?
Question:
When we talked about God punishing the children to the 3rd and 4th generation for idolatry, it made sense to me that this was punishment of a family in which all the family members (young and old covering 3-4 generations) are punished for their own sins. But this passage in Deuteronomy makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would God blame and punish people born 10 generations later for a sin they did not commit?
Deuteronomy 23:2-4: No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord. No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the Lord forever, because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.
Response:
Unfortunately, most English bibles translate several Hebrew/Greek words into “assembly.” This is the source of confusion. The Hebrew word found in Deuteronomy 23:2-4 is lh'q' (pardon the font/transliteration). This word is used to describe military assemblies and often has a different meaning than the Hebrew words for “people of God,” “synagogue,” etc. So, I get the sense that Moabites and Ammonites are not allowed to fight on behalf of Israel for a period of time. However, this does not exclude individual Moabites and Ammonites from the Holy Community, just fighting on its behalf.
Within the context of the passage, this makes some sense. Deuteronomy 23:1-16 is about military encampment and preparations for war. Also, the punishment fits the crime, so to speak. Because Ammon and Moab did not help Israel in the wilderness, but rather fought against them, they are excluded from fighting on Israel’s behalf in future wars, for some period of time. As for Deuteronomy 23:1-2, bastards, eunuchs, illegitimate children, etc. the same applies. They may not fight in Israel’s wars either.
I am sure that more context would help illuminate the passage, but there is sufficient evidence in Deuteronomy 23:1-16 that this exclusion from military assembly is certainly not equivalent to damnation, nor is it a punishment for the sins of the fathers. When you look at the Holy Wars, it’s clear that God wants to exclude as many people as possible from fighting. Perhaps, God’s concern was that bastards, eunuchs, etc. had some “issues” that might make them too good at fighting (see the Jephthah narrative). In war, God generally excludes just about everyone since the battle is His and He doesn’t need any help. In particular, he tends to exclude those the World would perceive as good fighters. I hope this helps. I think this theory is pretty credible, based on the language and context of Deuteronomy 23:1-16.
In Christ, Marty
When we talked about God punishing the children to the 3rd and 4th generation for idolatry, it made sense to me that this was punishment of a family in which all the family members (young and old covering 3-4 generations) are punished for their own sins. But this passage in Deuteronomy makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would God blame and punish people born 10 generations later for a sin they did not commit?
Deuteronomy 23:2-4: No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord. No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the Lord forever, because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.
Response:
Unfortunately, most English bibles translate several Hebrew/Greek words into “assembly.” This is the source of confusion. The Hebrew word found in Deuteronomy 23:2-4 is lh'q' (pardon the font/transliteration). This word is used to describe military assemblies and often has a different meaning than the Hebrew words for “people of God,” “synagogue,” etc. So, I get the sense that Moabites and Ammonites are not allowed to fight on behalf of Israel for a period of time. However, this does not exclude individual Moabites and Ammonites from the Holy Community, just fighting on its behalf.
Within the context of the passage, this makes some sense. Deuteronomy 23:1-16 is about military encampment and preparations for war. Also, the punishment fits the crime, so to speak. Because Ammon and Moab did not help Israel in the wilderness, but rather fought against them, they are excluded from fighting on Israel’s behalf in future wars, for some period of time. As for Deuteronomy 23:1-2, bastards, eunuchs, illegitimate children, etc. the same applies. They may not fight in Israel’s wars either.
I am sure that more context would help illuminate the passage, but there is sufficient evidence in Deuteronomy 23:1-16 that this exclusion from military assembly is certainly not equivalent to damnation, nor is it a punishment for the sins of the fathers. When you look at the Holy Wars, it’s clear that God wants to exclude as many people as possible from fighting. Perhaps, God’s concern was that bastards, eunuchs, etc. had some “issues” that might make them too good at fighting (see the Jephthah narrative). In war, God generally excludes just about everyone since the battle is His and He doesn’t need any help. In particular, he tends to exclude those the World would perceive as good fighters. I hope this helps. I think this theory is pretty credible, based on the language and context of Deuteronomy 23:1-16.
In Christ, Marty
You post very interesting posts can't wait for more articles
Reply to this