Was Ruth an Israelite?

Cynthia

Active member
Well....Boaz sure seemed to be devout [Ruth 2:4]. Naomi seemed to be as well [Ruth 2:20]....but I could be wrong. Same family.

Doubt it.............
Doesn't say one way or the other does it. Stephen just handed you a ploy to avoid answering my post #129. now get back to that.......
 

Stephen

Well-known member
Well....Boaz sure seemed to be devout [Ruth 2:4]. Naomi seemed to be as well [Ruth 2:20]....but I could be wrong. Same family.

Doubt it.............

Boaz didn't move, he's not really of concern.

Naomi may have been devout, Ruth 2:20 is evidence that she has respect for God. Elimelech, Mahlon and Kilion show nothing of the sort.


The story is about Ruth's devoutness, and is in contrast to Orpah.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
Doesn't say one way or the other does it. Stephen just handed you a ploy to avoid answering my post #129. now get back to that.......
O.K. Let's rephrase that question for your benefit.

Why would Naomi and family travel to a foreign nation which worshiped a different god and seek relief from a famine in Judah?

All they had to do was cross Jordan and be among fellow Israelites in an area that was known for fertility and plenty [Joshua 22:1-4][Numbers 32:1-5].
 

Cynthia

Active member
In the case of Moab and Ammon it was the curse. Now....you know that. Don't pretend.
Not pretending. We actually have different beliefs. I know its hard to accept.

I actually really believe that the curse applied to nonrepentant unbelievers. And that the curse was lifted if they converted.

But.

You have not answered my post on #129. You responded by accusing me of pretending something different than what I had stated.

Answer the question posed to you on #129 or cry uncle
 

Cynthia

Active member
O.K. Let's rephrase that question for your benefit.

Why would Naomi and family travel to a foreign nation which worshiped a different god and seek relief from a famine in Judah?

All they had to do was cross Jordan and be among fellow Israelites in an area that was known for fertility and plenty [Joshua 22:1-4][Numbers 32:1-5].
not part of the OP. redirect ploy to change the topic.
 

Stephen

Well-known member
This is really a stretch my friend.........

The text doesn't offer any guidance one way or the other on them being "devout".

Ruth 1
1 During the time of the judges, there was a famine in the land of Judah. So a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to live as a resident foreigner in the region of Moab, along with his wife and two sons. 2 (Now the man’s name was Elimelech, his wife was Naomi, and his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were of the clan of Ephrath from Bethlehem in Judah.) They entered the region of Moab and settled there. 3 Sometime later Naomi’s husband Elimelech died, so she and her two sons were left alone. 4 Both her sons married Moabite women. (One was named Orpah and the other Ruth.) And they continued to live there about 10 years. 5 Then Naomi’s two sons, Mahlon and Kilion, also died.

Exhausting all of the information regarding the three:
  • Elimalech left and died (only things ascribed to him)
  • Mahlon and Kilion left, married, and died (only things ascribed to them)

The text is absent guidance on whether they are devout. It isn't a stretch.




Which people did Orpah go back to since they are different than Naomi's?
 

Hawkeye

Active member
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' award?
[Nehemiah 13:23-26] Also, in those days, I have seen the Jews [who] have settled women of Ashdod, of Ammon, of Moab. And of their sons, half are speaking Ashdoditish — and are not knowing to speak Jewish — and according to the language of people and people. And I strive with them, and declare them vile, and smite certain of them, and pluck off their hair, and cause them to swear by God, ‘Ye do not give your daughters to their sons, nor do ye take of their daughters to your sons, and to yourselves. ‘By these did not Solomon king of Israel sin? and among the many nations there was no king like him, and beloved by his God he was, and God maketh him king over all Israel — even him did the strange women cause to sin.

Where did Nehemiah....."Put them away"?

[Ezra 9:1-2] And at the completion of these things, drawn nigh unto me have the heads, saying, ‘The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not been separated from the peoples of the lands, as to their abominations, even the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, the Ammonite, the Moabite, the Egyptian, and the Amorite, for they have taken of their daughters to them, and to their sons, and the holy seed have mingled themselves among the peoples of the lands, and the hand of the heads and of the seconds have been first in this trespass.’

Where did Ezra "Put them away"?
 

Cynthia

Active member
[Nehemiah 13:23-26] Also, in those days, I have seen the Jews [who] have settled women of Ashdod, of Ammon, of Moab. And of their sons, half are speaking Ashdoditish — and are not knowing to speak Jewish — and according to the language of people and people. And I strive with them, and declare them vile, and smite certain of them, and pluck off their hair, and cause them to swear by God, ‘Ye do not give your daughters to their sons, nor do ye take of their daughters to your sons, and to yourselves. ‘By these did not Solomon king of Israel sin? and among the many nations there was no king like him, and beloved by his God he was, and God maketh him king over all Israel — even him did the strange women cause to sin.

Where did Nehemiah....."Put them away"?

[Ezra 9:1-2] And at the completion of these things, drawn nigh unto me have the heads, saying, ‘The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not been separated from the peoples of the lands, as to their abominations, even the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, the Ammonite, the Moabite, the Egyptian, and the Amorite, for they have taken of their daughters to them, and to their sons, and the holy seed have mingled themselves among the peoples of the lands, and the hand of the heads and of the seconds have been first in this trespass.’

Where did Ezra "Put them away"?
Ezra did, as described in chapters 9 and 10.

The Masoretic Text is quite different from that in the Septuagint. If you would like a link to the Septuagint, let me know. Masoretic Ezra 10.11 and 19 where they pledged to send them away.

LXX I Ezra 10:36 "All of these married foreign women, whom they sent away along with their children"

Now, if their ethnic bloodline was not a problem, as you stated, what was the problem? Wasn't it because they had not converted to the God of Israel?
 
Last edited:

Cynthia

Active member
In the Masoretic Text, Ezra10.2, the term 'foreign women' is used.

In the Septuagint, 2 Ezra 10.2, the term 'pagan wives' is used.

You can see the difference this makes. A foreign women is a pejorative term as used (incorrectly) by the Masoretic Text, when in fact their being foreign was NOT the problem. The problem was they were unconverted to the God of Israel.

The Septuagint shows by using the term "pagan wives' that they in fact were not converts, they were still pagans! Unconverted!

Priests were not allowed to marry anyone but a virgin of their tribe Levi or a widow of another priest. But other tribes were allowed to marry anyone who was a believer. The Masoretic text really confuses the issue.
 

Cynthia

Active member
Ezra did, as described in chapters 9 and 10.

The Masoretic Text is quite different from that in the Septuagint. If you would like a link to the Septuagint, let me know. Masoretic Ezra 10.11 and 19 where they pledged to send them away.

LXX I Ezra 10:36 "All of these married foreign women, whom they sent away along with their children"

Now, if their ethnic bloodline was not a problem, as you stated, what was the problem? Wasn't it because they had not converted to the God of Israel?
I accidentally quoted from 1 Ezra (LXX) which is somewhat questionable as the author is not confirmed and it contains portions of other books.. It was dated about 150BC. Whereas 2 Ezra is dated from 538 to 410 BC and the author was Ezra.

All mentions in 2 Ezra (LXX) all use the term 'pagan wives' which reinforces the idea they were unconverted. being foreign was not the problem.
 
Last edited:

Rachel Redux

Active member
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' award?
This is really simple, Cynthia.
God made a decree that Ammonites and Moabites could not enter the Assembly/inter-marry with Jews forever.

Deuteronomy 23:3 (ASV) An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Jehovah for ever.

Other groups of people were allowed to convert but not Moabites.
What's so hard about this for you?
 

Cynthia

Active member
Nehemiah did also, LXX Neh10:28 ...and all those separating from the peoples of the land
LXX Neh13.3 'So it was after hearing the Law, they separated all the mixed multitude from Israel.
LXX Neh13.26 and 27 uses the term 'pagan women' (not foreign women as the MT uses)

It is my understanding that the law from Deut in its intent and spirit was concerning unconverted pagans.
 

Cynthia

Active member
This is really simple, Cynthia.
God made a decree that Ammonites and Moabites could not enter the Assembly/inter-marry with Jews forever.

Deuteronomy 23:3 (ASV) An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Jehovah for ever.

Other groups of people were allowed to convert but not Moabites.
What's so hard about this for you?
The Book of Ruth. And its not hard. We simply have a different belief about it. But I am in good company with most Christians who also believe it this way, especially after you read Paul's teaching, he was clarifying it.

Do you believe Paul?
 

Cynthia

Active member
What was the curse that the people of Israel put on themselves if they did not obey the Law (re in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah)

They didn't keep the Law and so they were a cursed people, right?
 

Stephen

Well-known member
How is it that a Moabite is in the lineage of Yeshua when there was a curse on such unions at the time?

Solomon married the Ammonite Namaah (1 Kings 14:21), who bore a son, a future king of Judah (Rehoboam) and is in the lineage of Christ (Matthew 1:7).

The objection about an Ammonite or Moabite being in the lineage of Christ is answered by the fact that men and women aren't ruthlessly obedient to the law, and God gives them the latitude to do so.


God made a decree that Ammonites and Moabites could not enter the Assembly/inter-marry with Jews forever.

Deuteronomy 23:3 (ASV) An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Jehovah for ever.

Other groups of people were allowed to convert but not Moabites.
What's so hard about this for you?

See above. Claiming the Jews ruthlessly followed the law is to deny that they went to Babylon and all of the preaching of Jeremiah and other prophets that they did the opposite.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
Solomon married the Ammonite Namaah (1 Kings 14:21), who bore a son, a future king of Judah (Rehoboam) and is in the lineage of Christ (Matthew 1:7).

The objection about an Ammonite or Moabite being in the lineage of Christ is answered by the fact that men and women aren't ruthlessly obedient to the law, and God gives them the latitude to do so.




See above. Claiming the Jews ruthlessly followed the law is to deny that they went to Babylon and all of the preaching of Jeremiah and other prophets that they did the opposite.
Ruthlessly obey?
 

Hawkeye

Active member
Solomon married the Ammonite Namaah (1 Kings 14:21), who bore a son, a future king of Judah (Rehoboam) and is in the lineage of Christ (Matthew 1:7).

The objection about an Ammonite or Moabite being in the lineage of Christ is answered by the fact that men and women aren't ruthlessly obedient to the law, and God gives them the latitude to do so.
Not so.
Matthew does not give the "Blood" lineage of Yeshua. You find that in [Luke 3] down from Nathan, son of David. This is Mary's blood line. Her father was "Heli".

You find the scriptural authority for that in [Numbers 27]. Mary had no brothers....only one sister and no Moabite or Ammonite blood.

The line down through Solomon is the "Royal" line and the right of the scepter promise to Joseph who then gave it to his adopted son, Yeshua.



 

Stephen

Well-known member
Not so.

Matthew does not give the "Blood" lineage of Yeshua. You find that in [Luke 3] down from Nathan, son of David. This is Mary's blood line. Her father was "Heli".

You find the scriptural authority for that in [Numbers 27]. Mary had no brothers....only one sister and no Moabite or Ammonite blood.

The line down through Solomon is the "Royal" line and the right of the scepter promise to Joseph who then gave it to his adopted son, Yeshua.


Presuming this is true, we still have direct evidence that the supposed law behind the the argument that Ruth was not a Moabite was not very well obeyed.
 
Last edited:
Top