Was Ruth an Israelite?

Cynthia

Active member
This entire question is really about 'who is Israel'.

Paul clears up all confusion for who is Israel. But as Christ was born under the Old Covenant Law of Moses, the interpretation of the Law is needed for those times. Boaz redeemed Ruth along with the property of Naomi's husband. The entire community welcomed Ruth joyfully in Ruth 4:11-12. Not a peep about her being cursed per Deut23.4.

And that is that. The entire discussion that she and her descendants would be disallowed is moot. Only those who didn't convert to the God of Israel were cursed. (Jesus was born well after the 10th generation in any event.) If this was meant to curse 10 believing generations, then King David (anointed by Samuel and by the Holy Spirit) could not have been in his position as a 'man after God's own heart'. Those who are trying to make it curse converted believers are not understanding the intent of the law, and are choking on the letter of the law, which was perverted by later Jewish writings that were not inspired of God.

Now, deal with the Harlot Rahab, who lived in Jericho! Same situation! She acknowledged the God of Israel, repented and saved her family from death. She married an Israelite man, named Salmon, who was the father of Boaz! The curse was lifted because she believed and repented!

Matthew 1:5 Hebrews 11.31, James 2:25
 
Last edited:

Hawkeye

Active member
This entire question is really about 'who is Israel'.

Paul clears up all confusion for who is Israel. But as Christ was born under the Old Covenant Law of Moses, the interpretation of the Law is needed for those times. Boaz redeemed Ruth along with the property of Naomi's husband. The entire community welcomed Ruth joyfully in Ruth 4:11-12. Not a peep about her being cursed per Deut23.4.
That's because she was Israelite to begin with. She was of either Reuben, Gad or Manasseh who were residents and owners of "The Plains of Moab" when she was born there.
And that is that. The entire discussion that she and her descendants would be disallowed is moot. Only those who didn't convert to the God of Israel were cursed. (Jesus was born well after the 10th generation in any event.) If this was meant to curse 10 believing generations, then King David (anointed by Samuel and by the Holy Spirit) could not have been in his position as a 'man after God's own heart'. Those who are trying to make it curse converted believers are not understanding the intent of the law, and are choking on the letter of the law, which was perverted by later Jewish writings that were not inspired of God.
If all it took was 10 successive generations (250 years) why did Yahweh remove the Kingdom from Solomon for doing what was forbidden [I Kings 11:1-13] about 400 years later (about 16 generations)?

Why were Ezra and Nehemiah so upset about intermarriage with Mobites 800 years later (32 generations) [Ezra 9:1-2][Nehemiah 13:23-27]?
Now, deal with the Harlot Rahab, who lived in Jericho! Same situation! She acknowledged the God of Israel, repented and saved her family from death. She married an Israelite man, named Salmon, who was the father of Boaz! The curse was lifted because she believed and repented!

Matthew 1:5 Hebrews 11.31, James 2:25
This is not the same woman. Rachab is not Rahab. I'll deal with this later....but in the meantime you should probably answer the aforementioned questions to retain any credibility. One translation error at a time............
 

Cynthia

Active member
That's because she was Israelite to begin with. She was of either Reuben, Gad or Manasseh who were residents and owners of "The Plains of Moab" when she was born there.

If all it took was 10 successive generations (250 years) why did Yahweh remove the Kingdom from Solomon for doing what was forbidden [I Kings 11:1-13] about 400 years later (about 16 generations)?

Why were Ezra and Nehemiah so upset about intermarriage with Mobites 800 years later (32 generations) [Ezra 9:1-2][Nehemiah 13:23-27]?

This is not the same woman. Rachab is not Rahab. I'll deal with this later....but in the meantime you should probably answer the aforementioned questions to retain any credibility. One translation error at a time............
:LOL: I'm not going to waste my time. I have already told you that the curse applied to those not converted to the God of Israel. Saying that repeatedly will not help. Their women were sent away, because they were still worshipping false gods and had not converted. They married them because of the lust of their flesh. Solomon didn't simply marry foreign wives, he built temples for the false gods and worshipped them with his wives in his old age.
 
Last edited:

Hawkeye

Active member
:LOL: I'm not going to waste my time. I have already told you that the curse applied to those not converted to the God of Israel.

So....evidently....If you're including Ruth here....you're saying that the curse was upon the three tribes on the plains as well....since that was where Ruth was born. And.....there were no Moabites in existence upon those plains after Israel took them from Sihon [Deuteronomy 7].
Saying that repeatedly will not help. Their women were sent away, because they were still worshipping false gods and had not converted. They married them because of the lust of their flesh. Solomon didn't simply marry foreign wives, he built temples for the false gods and worshipped them with his wives in his old age.
Oh....??? It will help those who have been taught from childhood the tender, false story of Ruth the pagan who overcame Yahweh's curse and married into Israel. Fairy Tales!

Stop and think how ridiculous this fraudulent story is to scripture. Why would devout Hebrews go to a pagan nation when their own tribes maintained a fertile, lush area above the Dead Sea...across Jordan which probably was doing fine during the famine in Judea? Then.....why would these devout folks intermarry with heathens after what Moses ordained a short time before that over 20,000 were killed by for disobedience to same restrictions [Numbers 25].

That's the whole reason Yahweh did not want Israel to marry within these pagan nations. They would begin to worship pagan gods!

Just let the story stand on its own two legs with the ample scriptural proof I have provided.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Only by marriage. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest she was an Israelite raised in Moab.

Ruth 1, NASB:

4 They took for themselves Moabite women as wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. And they lived there about ten years....

“Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. 17 Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried.

IF Ruth had actually been of Israelite descent, then why would she tell Naomi that she wanted to make Naomi's people HER people? IF she were already an Israelite by birth and born to Israelite parents? Would they not already be her people? Living in Moab would not make Ruth less "Israelite."
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Deut 23:3 “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, 4 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. 5 But the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam; instead the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loved you. 6 You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever.​

I think the lesson is that "Ruth the Moabite" stopped being a "Moabite" and became an "Israelite". It isn't about genetics, but rather who you worship. Those who worship the Moabite God can never enter the assembly of the Lord.
Ruth believed in Israel's God, the one true God. She was kind to Naomi. She must have been one heck of a daughter-in-law and Naomi must have been a real jewel of a mother-in-law!
 

Stephen

Well-known member
Only by marriage. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest she was an Israelite raised in Moab.



IF Ruth had actually been of Israelite descent, then why would she tell Naomi that she wanted to make Naomi's people HER people? IF she were already an Israelite by birth and born to Israelite parents? Would they not already be her people? Living in Moab would not make Ruth less "Israelite."

This is bolstered by fact that Ruth chose to go with Naomi and declare that Naomi's people are her people, while at the same time a contrast is shown where Orpah's people are not Naomi's people. Both Ruth and Orpah are described as Moabites in the beginning. One made Israel her people and stopped being a Moabite. In contrast, the other went back to her people.

If there were no contrast Hawkeye's argument could be valid as only one people would be in view. However, there are in fact two people in view, Naomi's people (Israel) and Orpah's people (Moab). Orpah went back to one set of people, and Ruth went to another set of people.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
:LOL: I'm not going to waste my time. I have already told you that the curse applied to those not converted to the God of Israel. Saying that repeatedly will not help. Their women were sent away, because they were still worshipping false gods and had not converted. They married them because of the lust of their flesh. Solomon didn't simply marry foreign wives, he built temples for the false gods and worshipped them with his wives in his old age.
What about Ezra 9-10. The Israelite men had to send away their pagan wives and children. No mention of converting them.
 

Cynthia

Active member
What about Ezra 9-10. The Israelite men had to send away their pagan wives and children. No mention of converting them.
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!
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
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.
Again...they weren't offered the opportunity to convert. They were sent away.
 

Cynthia

Active member
Again...they weren't offered the opportunity to convert. They were sent away.
The passage doesn't say they were or weren't offered the opportunity to convert. The fact they were sent away infers they had not converted.

I plan to reread some of the old laws pertaining to when men of war brought home girls captured in battle with other ungodly nations. Should be interesting.....

What is your take on Rahab the Harlot? And her being considered righteous for her siding with Israel?

Why weren't the mixed multitude that came along from out of Egypt sent away? They were NOT racially Israel........impure bloodline......

Why didn't Moses sent his Midianite wife Zipporah away? impure bloodline
 
Last edited:

Rachel Redux

Active member
The passage doesn't say they were or weren't offered the opportunity to convert. The fact they were sent away infers they had not converted.

I plan to reread some of the old laws pertaining to when men of war brought home girls captured in battle with other ungodly nations. Should be interesting.....

What is your take on Rahab the Harlot? And her being considered righteous for her siding with Israel?

Why weren't the mixed multitude that came along from out of Egypt sent away? They were NOT racially Israel........impure bloodline......

Why didn't Moses sent his Midianite wife Zipporah away?
 

Cynthia

Active member
Deut 21.10-14 states all that had to be done to marry a foreign woman captured in battle was to have her :
1-shave her head
2-trim her nails
3-take her clothes away and presumably give her unpagan clothing (like pure cotton or pure linen, not mixed fabrics), although he doesn't say so

If after this the man does not want her any longer, he could send her away. Doesn't say whether or not she must convert.

But we can assume that if she did not convert, she should be sent away anyway, right? Unless she was really really pretty.....after her hair grew out. I guess nobody cared that it was an impure bloodline, if she was attractive...

See, the scripture is not specific. We have to assume from the intent and spirit of the law that pagans had to convert or be sent away.
 
Last edited:

Hawkeye

Active member
Only by marriage. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest she was an Israelite raised in Moab.
Except the fact that scripture does not ever refer to the "Nation of Moab" in this book. It refers to the "Fields of Moab" and everyone knows what that means. There are countless scriptures referring to Israel's conquest of King Sihon and taking that portion of Moab from him....and giving it to Reuben, Gad and Manasseh. That's why she's called a woman of Moab.
IF Ruth had actually been of Israelite descent, then why would she tell Naomi that she wanted to make Naomi's people HER people? IF she were already an Israelite by birth and born to Israelite parents? Would they not already be her people? Living in Moab would not make Ruth less "Israelite."
She didn't........that is if you read the literal translation and not what some medieval translator beholding to King James had written. Everyone knows that the KJV is full of mistranslated scripture. Take off your blinders and tell tradition goodbye.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
Deut 21.10-14 states all that had to be done to marry a foreign woman captured in battle was to have her is:
1-shave her head
2-trim her nails
3-take her clothes away and presumably give her unpagan clothing (like mixed fabrics), although he doesn't say so

If after this the man does not want her any longer, he could send her away. Doesn't say whether or not she must convert.

But we can assume that if she did not convert, she should be sent away anyway, right? Unless she was really really pretty.....after her hair grew out.

See, the scripture is not specific. We have to assume from the intent and spirit of the law that pagans had to convert or be sent away.
This is so silly. Sure they could....only if the women were not Ammonite or Moabite [Deuteronomy 23:2-6].....one and one half chapters later.

Do you think Yahweh just had Moses write down these words fort practice? Good grief....Israel had many enemies but Moab and Ammon were special cases.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
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!
It seems that much of what you cannot imagine is documented in scripture.
 

Cynthia

Active member
That's because she was Israelite to begin with. She was of either Reuben, Gad or Manasseh who were residents and owners of "The Plains of Moab" when she was born there.

If all it took was 10 successive generations (250 years) why did Yahweh remove the Kingdom from Solomon for doing what was forbidden [I Kings 11:1-13] about 400 years later (about 16 generations)?

Why were Ezra and Nehemiah so upset about intermarriage with Mobites 800 years later (32 generations) [Ezra 9:1-2][Nehemiah 13:23-27]?

This is not the same woman. Rachab is not Rahab. I'll deal with this later....but in the meantime you should probably answer the aforementioned questions to retain any credibility. One translation error at a time............
You have proved nothing.

Plus I don't use the Masoretic Text.

My Septuagint doesn't say plains of Moab. It says country of Moab. It was MOAB either way dude!
 

Hawkeye

Active member
The passage doesn't say they were or weren't offered the opportunity to convert. The fact they were sent away infers they had not converted.

I plan to reread some of the old laws pertaining to when men of war brought home girls captured in battle with other ungodly nations. Should be interesting.....

What is your take on Rahab the Harlot? And her being considered righteous for her siding with Israel?
There are two separate women in scripture.....one named Rachab and the other named Rahab. Are you certain you have the right one?
Why weren't the mixed multitude that came along from out of Egypt sent away? They were NOT racially Israel........impure bloodline......

Why didn't Moses sent his Midianite wife Zipporah away?
impure bloodline
The Midianites were not under a curse!
 
Top