Was Ruth an Israelite?

[Stephen]

Where will I find the scriptures that define YHWH to be the capricious god you describe here?

I don't think "capricious" is the right word.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and Jesus Christ is a forgiving and merciful God.

Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.​

The only people enforcing that rule in Deut 23 were the Israelites. If they didn't enforce it, it wasn't enforced.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yep. Some have already mentioned that they weren't really devout at all...........especially the men folk.

In response to post #180.............

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

Impure bloodline is not the problem? Did you just say that? So ezra and nehemiah made those priests and other Israelites put away their foreign wives and children why? Did I just hear crickets? Do I get the 'stumped him

I don't think "capricious" is the right word.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and Jesus Christ is a forgiving and merciful God.

Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.​

The only people enforcing that rule in Deut 23 were the Israelites. If they didn't enforce it, it wasn't enforced.

I think capricious is exactly the right word; only your position conflicts with scripture. Only your position requires one to read into scripture what is not there.
One has to “suppose” a lot for your belief to rise to anything more than your belief.
I suppose we’re done here. May YHWH make His face to shine upon you.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

Yep. Some have already mentioned that they weren't really devout at all...........especially the men folk.

In response to post #180.............

Yeah, tradition is a hell of a drug.
None of us have any way of knowing how devout any individual was; it’s all supposition that only serves to obscure the lack of scriptural support for the traditions.

 

[Cynthia]

Where in the scriptures does God make such specifications?

Concerning repentance and conversion to God, see Paul in Romans. This question of Ruth's lineage is really a question of 'who is Israel'. Paul clarifies it. I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseum. If you want to start a new thread on the question 'who is Israel' then I'll join in that new thread. This one is finished.

 

[Rachel Redux]

Concerning repentance and conversion to God, see Paul in Romans. This question of Ruth's lineage is really a question of 'who is Israel'. Paul clarifies it. I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseum. If you want to start a new thread on the question 'who is Israel' then I'll join in that new thread. This one is finished.

No matter how snarky you choose to get with your answers, you can't change the fact that God very specifically named two groups of people that could not enter the assembly of God....iow they could not convert. Those people were Ammonites and Moabites.
You should deal with that fact rather than fight against it.

 

[Cynthia]

No matter how snarky you choose to get with your answers, you can't change the fact that God very specifically named two groups of people that could not enter the assembly of God....iow they could not convert. Those people were Ammonites and Moabites.
You should deal with that fact rather than fight against it.

There is absolutely no passage of scripture that identifies a group of people who not allowed to repent and convert to God. The entire Book of Ruth is a teaching of this, which you fight against.
You are providing a horrid assessment of our gracious loving Father and the meaning of redemption. The phrase 'enter the assembly of God' is being twisted to mean 'not allowed to convert' when it actually means 'gather to worship'.

Unconverted pagans are not allowed to gather to worship in the assembly of God.

The New Testament clarifies the Old Testament. Study Paul who clarifies that the true Israel is made up of believers of any heritage.

 

[Rachel Redux]

There is absolutely no passage of scripture that identifies a group of people who not allowed to repent and convert to God. The entire Book of Ruth is a teaching of this, which you fight against.
You are providing a horrid assessment of our gracious loving Father and the meaning of redemption. The phrase 'enter the assembly of God' is being twisted to mean 'not allowed to convert' when it actually means 'gather to worship'.

Unconverted pagans are not allowed to gather to worship in the assembly of God.

The New Testament clarifies the Old Testament. Study Paul who clarifies that the true Israel is made up of believers of any heritage.

You are making that up.
Not allowed to enter the assembly means not allowed to convert.
Go to the Judaism forum and ask the Jewish people there if Moabites could convert and inter-marry.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

Concerning repentance and conversion to God, see Paul in Romans. This question of Ruth's lineage is really a question of 'who is Israel'. Paul clarifies it. I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseum. If you want to start a new thread on the question 'who is Israel' then I'll join in that new thread. This one is finished.

You have no scriptural support for your suppositions. What you think it means is worthless.

 

[Hawkeye]

You are making that up.
Not allowed to enter the assembly means not allowed to convert.
Go to the Judaism forum and ask the Jewish people there if Moabites could convert and inter-marry.

My good friend...........she still doesn't understand that Ruth could not convert because she already was. No matter how many times you show people where they're wrong....tradition will always overcome common sense.

[Ruth 1:1] Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

[Latin Vulgate] in diebus unius iudicis quando iudices praeerant facta est fames in terra abiitque homo de Bethleem Iuda ut peregrinaretur in regione moabitide cum uxore sua ac duobus liberis

Latin definition:

• area, region
• neighborhood
• district, country

This was before biased, "touch/feelie" translators got a hold of scripture. If the Vulgate had been referencing the Nation of Moab the word would have been "Natio/Nationis".

 

[Bonnie]

We can only refer to the intent and spirit of the original passage in Deut as applied in the Book of Ruth as an example. I would assume the women/children were worshipping false gods even though it does not specify. You have assumed the same thing, since you said 'pagan' wives and children.

I simply cannot imagine a God that would demand converted believers be sent away!

Reading Ezra in context, it sounds as if the Israelites had intermarried with pagan women and not kept to the true worship of the one true God because of it. After all, in the LoM, foreigners could join the Israelites and be a part of their commonwealth, if the men were circumcised and both men and women obeyed the Law of Moses and believed in God, leaving their idols behind. So, Ruth must have been a believer in YHWH, and when she moved with Naomi back to Bethlehem, she must have followed the LoM, since she said that Naomi's God would be her God.

So, it seems to me that God makes exceptions for those foreigners who repudiate their idols and turn to the one true God in belief and trust. For, since when did God ever turn away from those who truly believed in Him and trusted in Him?

 

[Cynthia]

In reference to my post #157

The law in view would be the Mosaic Law.

The specific curse is referenced in Nehemiah10:29

The curse the Israelites put on themselves with an oath in Nehemiah 10:29

If it was not lifted when they later repented of not obeying the Law of Moses, they would still be under this curse, even today. Do you agree? Or not? Why or why not?

 

[Cynthia]

Reading Ezra in context, it sounds as if the Israelites had intermarried with pagan women and not kept to the true worship of the one true God because of it. After all, in the LoM, foreigners could join the Israelites and be a part of their commonwealth, if the men were circumcised and both men and women obeyed the Law of Moses and believed in God, leaving their idols behind. So, Ruth must have been a believer in YHWH, and when she moved with Naomi back to Bethlehem, she must have followed the LoM, since she said that Naomi's God would be her God.

So, it seems to me that God makes exceptions for those foreigners who repudiate their idols and turn to the one true God in believe and trust. For, since when did God ever turn away from those who truly believed in Him and trusted in Him?

Yes, and this was the point I tried to make, rather poorly perhaps.

 

[Cynthia]

You are making that up.
Not allowed to enter the assembly means not allowed to convert.
Go to the Judaism forum and ask the Jewish people there if Moabites could convert and inter-marry.

The Judaism forum? Why? So they can quote from an uninspired extra-biblical writing?

 

[Bonnie]

The Judaism forum? Why? So they can quote from an uninspired extra-biblical writing?

They would reject the NT and Jesus Christ, and that fact that He fulfilled the OT laws and rules and regulations. Some of the strongest Christians in the NT church were Gentiles.

 

[Bonnie]

Yes, and this was the point I tried to make, rather poorly perhaps.

No, what you wrote was just fine. I was just reinforcing what you said. Plus, gave that reminder from the LoM, that foreigners could be members of the Israelite community, if the men were circumcised and they all followed the LoM and repudiated their idols and only worshiped the one true God.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

Dear Lady. I apologize for taking so long to answer your post but it seems I just forgot.

[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:

On the surface this looks like a contradiction. Ten generations...........forever?

I mean.....what is it? Ten generations (about 250 years) or is it forever (eternal)?

Moabite man and Moabite woman are parents to a little girl (1st generation)

Little girl ends up marrying an Armenian and they have a little girl (2nd generation; 1/2 half Moabite)

This little girl ends up marrying a Macedonian and they have a little girl (3rd generation; 1/4 Moabite)

She marries a Gaul and little girl is born (4th generation; 1/8 Moabite)

Next marriage is with a Celt and little girl is (5th generation; 1/16 Moabite)

We're halfway there and after ten generations the brand new baby girl is 1/512th Moabite.

Yahweh says it's now O.K. for her daughter to marry an Israelite and be part of the congregation.

OK, the math makes sense until I get to the word forever; you point out that there’s a seeming contradiction there in the portion highlighted above. How do you rectify the fact that 250 years, though a long time, is not forever?

 

[Hawkeye]

OK, the math makes sense until I get to the word forever; you point out that there’s a seeming contradiction there in the portion highlighted above. How do you rectify the fact that 250 years, though a long time, is not forever?

I'm asking if there is a contradiction since 10 generations is obviously not forever but according to some....only about 250/300 years [Deuteronomy 23:3].

There is no contradiction because the 10 generations means....It take 10 generations to erase the Moabite blood from offspring if the carrier of Moabite blood continues to marry non Moabites. If this is the case then after 10 generations the final offspring would have 1/512th Moabite blood running through their veins and Yahweh says it would now be O.K. for their children to marry into the Israelite Congregation. The forever in the passage comes into play meaning that this sequence of Moabites marrying non Moabites could begin in 1450 B.C about the time of the Exodus......or could begin another sequence of Mobites marrying non Moabites about 950 B.C. about the time of Solomon.....or another sequence of Moabites marrying non Moabites about 500 B.C. after the return from Babylon. This original union of Moabites marrying non Moabits to achieve the eradication of Moabite blood in offspring is in effect forever.

If there were pure blood Moabites today (I doubt that there are) the offspring would still have to continue marrying non Moabites to achieve the same results after 10 generations. That's what is meant by forever. That sequence would probably take until 2270 A.D. to play itself out. Like I said......I doubt anyone today has pure Moabite/Ammonite blood so it's really a moot point...... anymore.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

Hawkeye, your thesis is brilliant, imho. The Book of Ruth had vexed me for years because of the seeming contradictions. I’ve had seekers point to the story of Ruth and declare it to be an example of error and therefore one of the reasons the Bible can be dismissed as fable.

It is encouraging to have an answer to their questions that doesn’t require one to abandon logic and reason. It does require one to acknowledge that, though inspired by YHWH, the scriptures are transcribed by mere mortals and therefore subject to error and duplicity by unscrupulous scribes.

The question here strikes me as a perfect example of divine inspiration for the Word. -
“To the tenth generation forever” raises questions that seem tailor-made for those seeking a way around the scriptures as a whole while simultaneously serving to perpetuate man-made traditions and myth. To come to a true understanding of Ruth, one must actually study, something the mainstream church ignores when not actively hostile to the notion.

The Internet is far from perfect but I thank YHWH for the way it has opened up scholarship/study of the Word. When I attended Bible study in my youth, the Book of Ruth was taught with no mention of the questions raised here, as if the point of the Book of Ruth was to present Our Creator as the touchy-feely King of Hallmark Cards, Inc. I see from many on CARM that such a notion persists among believers.
How one reconciles such a notion with the knowledge that the same GOD inspired Psalm 137, for but one example, escapes me.

ETA: This was meant to be an answer to post #199 Hawkeye. It began as such but... somehow appears here without the reference. NBD but I wonder what happened.?.

 

[Hawkeye]

Hawkeye, your thesis is brilliant, imho. The Book of Ruth had vexed me for years because of the seeming contradictions. I’ve had seekers point to the story of Ruth and declare it to be an example of error and therefore one of the reasons the Bible can be dismissed as fable.

It is encouraging to have an answer to their questions that doesn’t require one to abandon logic and reason. It does require one to acknowledge that, though inspired by YHWH, the scriptures are transcribed by mere mortals and therefore subject to error and duplicity by unscrupulous scribes.

The question here strikes me as a perfect example of divine inspiration for the Word. -
“To the tenth generation forever” raises questions that seem tailor-made for those seeking a way around the scriptures as a whole while simultaneously serving to perpetuate man-made traditions and myth. To come to a true understanding of Ruth, one must actually study, something the mainstream church ignores when not actively hostile to the notion.

The Internet is far from perfect but I thank YHWH for the way it has opened up scholarship/study of the Word. When I attended Bible study in my youth, the Book of Ruth was taught with no mention of the questions raised here, as if the point of the Book of Ruth was to present Our Creator as the touchy-feely King of Hallmark Cards, Inc. I see from many on CARM that such a notion persists among believers.
How one reconciles such a notion with the knowledge that the same GOD inspired Psalm 137, for but one example, escapes me.

ETA: This was meant to be an answer to post #199 Hawkeye. It began as such but... somehow appears here without the reference. NBD but I wonder what happened.?.

Well.....thank you very much for the kind words.

Earlier in this same thread the mention of "The Harlot Rahab" from Jericho marrying into the Messianic bloodline was brought up. If you would like to include her story here as well.....it might be apropos.