Wrong to enter a church if you were born out of wedlock?

I was roaming about online and found this strange verse, I had never heard of this before but apparently it means, until 10 generations have passed, a person born out of wedlock cannot enter a church…is this accurate?

“A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)

What law do we live under - answer that and you will have your answer. There are thousands upon thousands of Catholics born out of wedlock who regularly worship in Church.

Don’t confuse the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. This decree was for the OC, where God was separating the Israelites as His people. He was making them special, keeping them separate from the surrounding cultures and people who worshipped false gods.

If you understand this concept, it clears up many Old Covenant requirements/restrictions that don’t seem to make sense at first blush. They Israelites has special diets, special clothing, special activities and worship, special meals, etc. They looked different, acted, different, and WERE different than those around them. (until they decided to abandon the covenant).

Those who were not Israelite could not enter the Temple area for the sacrifices and worship. The outer court (IIRC) is where the gentiles and others could come, but they couldn’t come any closer.

Jesus told us that He was perfecting the Old Covenant and making a New Covenant, which was for all peoples. This requirement you cited does not apply to the NC.

IF this is true, I wonder how the millions of children born out of wedlock over the years have not only entered the church but been baptized and confirmed!

How did the pope and bishops and priests miss this!!


A rabbi once told me that the term b-----d in Jewish scripture refers not to one born out of wedlock but to one born of an adulterous union.

Forgot to ask him if that would that include Samuel, who built the Temple.

Yes, the previous respondents are correct regarding the fact that we are in a new covenant. Please refer to the book of Romans concerning the Law and how it applies to us. Also the Council at Jerusalem addresses this fact in the book of Acts if you’re looking for more detailed Biblical understanding.
But, leaving that aside, you’re understanding is completely incorrect regarding two major issues:

First. Deut 23:2 refers to “… those born of an illicit union …”
In this case “illicit” does not mean unmarried; it is understood to mean incest. (Mishnah Yebamot 4.13)

Next, please note that the next verse is:
Deuteronomy 23:3
“No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the 10th generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted …”

Now we know that Ruth was a Moabite so, counting 10 generations from that we have:

  1. Ruth’s son Obed who was the father of
  2. Jesse who was the father of
  3. David (oops, what was King David thinking when he went to church?) :wink:
  4. who was the father of Solomon who was the father of
  5. Rehoboam who was the father of
  6. Abijah who was the father of
  7. Asaph who was the father of
  8. Jehoshaphat who was the father of
  9. Joram who was the father of
  10. Uzziah …

None of these people would have been allowed in “church” if this were a big deal even back then.

Which brings me to the *second *misunderstanding.
Actually the “Lord’s assembly” was much more than just “church”. It was a cohort of adult male Israelite, i.e., the covenant community functioning as a restricted religious, military, and political association.

How on Earth was this brought to your attention? What translation of the Bible are you using? Just curious.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.