Ruth Was An Israelite


A mamzer 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

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 forever: Deuteronomy 23:3

And he struck Moab, and measured them with a line; making them to lie down on the ground. And he measured two lines to cause them to died, and one full line to keep alive. And the Moabites were slaves to David, bearers of a gift, 2 Samuel 8:2







It is time to know the

Truth About RUTH



horizontal rule


Here is the surprising truth about the identity of a young Israelitish widow, Ruth, the central figure of the Book of Ruth, in your Bible.

Why is the identity of this woman important? How does this relate to our time or to Christianity? The answer to these questions and more, you will find as the truth unfolds about this amazing woman of the Bible.

Historical perspective: Ruth lived in "the land of Moab", which had been conquered several generations earlier, at the time of Joshua, by the Israelites. They had killed all the Moabites and Ammonites north of the Arnon river, and it became their territory.




horizontal rule



The Controversy of Race and the Lineage of Christ

The nationality of Jesus Christ has become obscured, by controversy. Four of the women in Matthew's account of Christ's lineage are said to be Gentiles, by both Jewish and Christian theologians. These women are Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba.

Recently, Christ's nationality has been the focus of controversy. On March 29, 1997, The Vancouver Sun, Saturday Review, G4, had an article "The Many Faces of Jesus". He was depicted as being both Negro and Caucasian. A little confusing?

In a book, "Beyond Roots: In Search of Blacks In The Bible", a black American author argued that a white Jesus had to be invented because He was useful to white slave masters. The author said that, far from being the white, European-looking man of popular imagery, Jesus was definitely middle eastern in appearance, and could even have been of African descent.

The Executive Director of a group called Men Enhancing Community Cultural Awareness, based in Gary, Indiana, declared that it is actually harmful to depict Jesus as white. He feels that this causes psychological damage to black peoples.

In this age of being politically correct, it is easy to see how the "white Jesus" of established Christianity is under attack. The colour of His skin has taken precedence over the strength of His message.

In his book, "Mystery of The Ages", the late evangelist Herbert W. Armstrong made several striking statements on this issue. He wrote: "Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah, and it was necessary that He be of the original pure racial strain, even as Noah was" (page 173, hard copy edition). He further wrote: "God's chosen nation Israel was white. Jesus was white" (page 148, hard copy edition).

What is the truth? Was Jesus a Jew? Was He white? Can anything about this issue be found and proven from the pages of your Bible?

The specific purpose of this article is to take the story of one of Christ's ancestors, Ruth, and make plain what the Bible says about the lineage of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.




horizontal rule



The Dilemma of Race in the Book of Ruth

It has always been a DILEMMA, that God would allow a GENTILE -- a racial Moabite -- to alter the family tree of the Messiah. It was strictly FORBIDDEN for any Israelite to marry a Moabite FOREVER: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the congregation of the Lord FOREVER". (Deuteronomy 23:3)

This is a real problem for the Royal House of Judah. The truth of the matter is, God would never instruct His people NOT to allow a Moabite into the congregation, and then leave us an example of doing just the opposite, especially within the Israelite Royal Family. God does not say one thing and do another. God DOES NOT LIE!

The simple fact is that God kept the lineage of the coming Messiah pure up to the time of Noah. For we read in Genesis 6:9, "Noah was a just man, PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS." The Hebrew could easily be translated: "undefiled in his descent", in what is a clear reference to his family tree.

It is interesting that the term Semitic goes back to the time of Noah. A Shemite is the origin of the term Semite, where we get the modern derivation "Semitic". It comes from Noah's son Shem. These Shemites lived in Mesopotamia, and later migrated to modern Europe. The Germanic and Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples are from the line of Shem. The Jews are not Semites, but the majority of Europeans, Americans, Canadians, and Australians are.

The kings of the nation of Israel had to come from the tribe of Judah. The Messiah was to come from that line of Israelite kings. God instructs: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes..." (Genesis 49:10).

God made it clear that no foreigner is to rule over the nation of Israel. "...You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you MAY NOT set a FOREIGNER over you, who is not your brother." (Deuteronomy 17:15). God makes race an issue, with the kings of Israel. This is NOT for man to change!

This is true of Jesus Christ, our Messiah. He had to be an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah. After all, if He was a gentile or genetically more gentile than Israelite, He could not come back "to His own" (John 1:11). He might as well have come back as the Messiah of the Canaanites or Moabites, if His racial background were such.

The Messiah was born as King of the Israelite and King of Kings. He could NOT be a foreigner.

Several times the lineage of the Messiah could have been subverted. One example, is when Judah married a Canaanite. The lineage would have produced NO offspring of PURE Hebrew descent. God intervened through the Hebrew woman Tamar. She put her life on the line, when she foresaw the problem was with Judah, not Shelah, Judah's half-breed son. Tamar seduced Judah and produced twin Hebrew boys, Perez and Zerah as heirs to the Royal House of Judah, and the throne which Jesus Christ will ultimately occupy.

As Judah himself said of this situation with Tamar: "She has been more righteous than I..." (Genesis 38:26).




horizontal rule




The Lineage of King David

More proof that the lineage of the kings of Israel had to be of the tribe of Judah, comes from the pages of history. During the Maccabean Period lead by the Hasmoneans, 142 to 63 B.C., the controversy of bloodline arises again.

We read in the Encyclopedia Judaica, under the title, Genealogy: "Thus the Hasmoneans, who had to defend themselves against the contention that only Davidic descendants could lay claim to kingship, in turn questioned the purity of King David's blood, in view of his descent from Ruth the Moabite."

We further read in this article, why Israelite families marry so closely within immediate family lines, to maintain their family roles in the Levitical temple worship. "...Herod, who also had to face a challenge to the legitimacy of his rule, forged for himself a pedigree going back to King David, after first DESTROYING THE GENEALOGICAL RECORDS maintained in the temple..."

The racial purity and lineage of the Kings of Judah were important right up to the time of Christ. That is why Matthew and Luke record the genealogies of both Joseph and Mary. Genealogy was critical to kingship! The Messiah had to come from the lineage of King David!




horizontal rule



The Book of Ruth

The book of the Bible, that both the Jews and the Church of God associate most with The Feast of Weeks or "Pentecost", is the Book of Ruth. The scenario takes place during the spring harvest season.

This story of Boaz finding a wife, Ruth, is analogous of Christ and the Church -- Christ taking a bride. This book centers around the Israelite royal family and the redemption of their inheritance, through the child Obed.

The Book of Ruth is a story of a young ISRAELITISH widow, who produced offspring for the Royal House of Judah, whose descendants were residing in the area of Bethlehem.

Ruth had been living in the territory still known as the land of Moab. This territory north of the Arnon River, and east of the Jordan River, was occupied by the tribes of Israel known as Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. Like their brothers on the western side of the Jordan (who retained the name of the land of Canaan), the three tribes to the east were said to live in the "land of Moab".

Ruth moved to Bethlehem, with her mother-in-law, and married a man named Boaz, of the Royal House of Judah. When she bore the child Obed, the stage was being set for the future kings of the nation of Israel, and the coming of the Messiah.




horizontal rule




There are three basic proofs as to Ruth's true nationality. These are found in a book entitled: Far Above Rubies, by Isabel Hill Elder, published in 1957.

The first deals with the question of who inhabited the "land of Moab", mentioned in the Book of Ruth. The second involves Ruth's own very famous statement to her mother-in-law. The third relates to who has the legal right to inherit land under the ancient Levirate Law of Marriage and the Jubilee System of land redemption.



Proof Number One:

The Israelites conquered the land of Moab, east of the Jordan river, and north of the Arnon River. Israel took all the cities and killed ALL the inhabitants of the land.

"So the Lord our God also delivered into our hands Og king of Bashan, with all his people, and we attacked him until he has no survivors remaining." "And at that time we took the land from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were on this side of the Jordan, from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon..." (Deuteronomy 3:3,8).

In another place the Bible records that no racial Moabites were left alive in the land (Deuteronomy 2:34). The land was now inhabited by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh (Deuteronomy 29:8).

This territory retained the name "land of Moab", just as the land west of the Jordan remained "the land of Canaan". Joshua 13:32 summarizes the conquest: "These are the areas which Moses had distributed as an inheritance in the PLAINS OF MOAB on the other side of the Jordan, by Jericho eastward."

In the first chapter of the Book of Ruth, the expression the "country" of Moab is used. This word used for "country" in the original Hebrew translates best as "land". The reference is to the PHYSICAL LAND not to the occupying people of the land. This term is not pointing to the nation, but to the territory.

At the time of Joshua, the most dramatic statement relating to Israelites dwelling in the plains of Moab, comes in the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Joshua.

The western tribes of Israel almost went to war with their brothers living on the eastern side of the Jordan, because of a misunderstanding over an impressive monument built near the eastern bank of the Jordan River. The tribes of Reuban, Gad, and Manasseh built a replica of an altar, to remind the western tribes that Israelites lived on the eastern side of the river.

Here is the explanation: "Therefore we said, 'Let us now prepare to build ourselves an altar, not for burnt offering nor for sacrifice, but that it may be A WITNESS between you and us and our generations after us...that your descendants may not say to our descendants in time to come, "You have no part in the Lord."'" (Joshua 22:27)

The tribes on the eastern side of the Jordan were afraid of losing their identity. In effect they were saying: "We are the SAME PEOPLE and we worship the SAME GOD." (Remember this, for proof number two.)

It has been a habit of Israelites to keep the name of the original inhabitants of the land -- even to this day. Are the men living in the Dakotas all Dakota Indians? Are Albertans all Albertan Indians? How about those living in the city of Miami, Florida, are they all Miami Indians. How about the peoples in the Province of Manitoba, Canada, are they all Manitoban Indians? (The name "Canada" is of North American Indian origin.) Again, are they all Native Indians living in these places? The answer is, certainly NOT! Yet, we have retained the names of the original inhabitants of the land.

Do you get the point? We do the same thing today in the United States of America, and in Canada. Ruth was an Israelite living in the land of Moab, occupied by the eastern tribes of Israel.



Proof Number Two:

The most amazing proof that Ruth was an Israelite comes from her most famous and misunderstood statement to her mother-in-law, Naomi.

"...For wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. (Ruth 1:16).

It is important for you to notice that in most Bibles, the words "shall be" are in italics. This is done because the words ARE NOT in the original text. Hebrew is written with consonants only, NO VOWELS. The vowels are added in the spoken language. One of the things this does, is leave word 'tense' for the individual to add when reading. You have to understand THE CONTEXT in order to correctly read aloud the Hebrew.

To put things in plain English, it is impossible for Ruth to become (ie. "shall be") a part of Naomi's tribe, if she was not of the same genetic strain. "A Gentile in the woodpile", would make Ruth a Gentile, not an Israelite of pure racial strain. The future tense, then, is not correct.

If Ruth's ancestors were, at one time, of the same tribe, then the translation "used to be" would not be correct, because somewhere a Gentile would have entered her pedigree, changing it to that of a Gentile. The past tense would not be logical.

The only translation which makes sense, and fits the situation is: "...Your people are my people, and your God, is my God." Ruth's statement is one of CONFIRMATION. She is saying the same thing as her ancestors, of the eastern side of the Jordan, said to the tribes of the western side, earlier in history. She is paralleling, what was said in the twenty-second chapter of Joshua. Remember proof number one.

Ruth is confirming that she worships the same God of Israel, just as her forefathers did in the time of Joshua. That is why God placed that story of the altar on the western shore of the Jordan River in the Book of Joshua.

God intended that the Book of Ruth be a "mystery" until our time. Even the Hasmoneans did not understand the TRUTH of the matter two millennia ago. Joseph and Mary understood, and so did the apostles!

We read in Ephesians 5:31,32: " 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This a GREAT MYSTERY, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." There are things which God intends to be known in "the end time". He has kept these things hidden for His own purpose.

It IS TIME to realize the truth about this woman, Ruth.



Proof Number Three:

Only an Israelite could inherit land under the nation's Jubilee System, and receive restoration of that inheritance, under the Levirate Law of Marriage. An understanding as to the historical background of these two laws, is necessary to grasp the restrictions placed on inheritances within the nation of Israel.


Levirate Law Of Marriage

In the story of Ruth, a single man, a relative of her dead husband, is supposed to intervene and marry Ruth. The purpose of this is to "...raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance..." (Ruth 4:10). This custom is known as the "levirate Law of Marriage". This Hebrew law predates the nation of Israel. The purpose is to not let an inheritance go out of the family. This law protects the inheritance and birthright of rulers from Adam to Noah and then to his son Shem, after the Great Flood.

The first time it is mentioned in the Bible is in Genesis 38:8. "Go in to your (dead) brother's wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother." This is part of the story of Judah and Tamar.

Instructions were given to the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy 25:5,6: "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husbands brother to her, and it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel."

Note the importance of keeping the inheritance within the family. No STRANGER is to inherit!

No Gentile would have been allowed to inherit land under the levirate Law of Marriage. This law was there to keep the inheritances and the land of Israel in the possession of Israelites ALONE!




horizontal rule



From Noah to Abraham

What is not commonly known is that the inherited line of rulers goes from Noah to Abraham and to the kingly line of David. The story of Ruth is the rescuing of this royal lineage -- a coveted inheritance!

Noah lived three years into the life of Abraham. Shem lived seventy-five years into the life of Abraham. Abraham was told to depart from the land of the Hebrews: "Get out of your country, from your kindred and from your father's house..." (Genesis 12:1), at the AGE of SEVENTY-FIVE.

The details of the passing of the authority of Noah to Shem and Abraham, are not recorded in history or the pages of the Bible. The principle followed by the patriarchs is using the "laying on of hands" to pass on an inheritance and kingly authority.

Shem had the authority of God, and an army, which traveled to Egypt and killed Nimrod. In the Compendium of World History Book I, by Dr. Hermon L. Hoeh, pages 246-247, we read of Shem's exploits: "...Mes-kiag-gasher is the Sumerian name of Shem!...Mes-kiag-gasher was also a high priest. From Egyptian records historians have discovered that Semsem -- the Great Shem -- of Dynasty I of Thinis was also pictured as a HIGH PRIEST! This famous man crossed from Asia over the water to the mountains of Europe. Shem traveled far and wide to put down the government of Nimrod."

Abraham had an army of three hundred and eighteen "trained men" (Genesis 14:13). Abraham was a PRINCE, who had influence in Mesopotamia. Abraham was also a priest of God, as he could SACRIFICE on an altar, and this was acceptable to God. He gave up the opportunity to use this influence when he followed God's instructions to leave the land of the Hebrews. Upon Shem's death, and Abraham's leaving the scene, an opening was made for Gentile world-ruling empires to influence and shape the known world. God was removing His direct hand from secular history, as was present through His servants from Seth to Shem.

What is not said, in the Bible, is that if Abraham had not left for Egypt when God instructed, other Shemites would have conspired to put Abraham to death. Before he died, Shem laid hands on Abraham and "anointed" Abraham, passing on his authority given to him from Noah.

Shemites in Assyria, covetous of that authority, and the birthright carried with it, would have killed Abraham, and claimed the birthright for their side of the family. This is the same birthright passed on down to the kingly line of David. Therein lies the importance of the inheritance. It is the inheritance of KINGS and PRIESTS of God.

God had chosen to grant rulership through a lineage that came from Seth to Noah, and then to Abraham and the nation of Israel -- His CHOSEN people. This lineage would also provide the Messiah, or King of Kings. Jesus Christ is to rule over a nation of King-Priests, in the World Ahead.




horizontal rule



Racial Purity a Must

The significance of an unbroken link between Adam and Jesus Christ is of the utmost importance. That is why God inspired us to know that up to the time of Noah, there is a chain of inheritors to the kingly line -- an unbroken genetic racial strain (Genesis 6:9). God is particular of the national characteristics which would be inherent in His nation of Priest-Kings! National characteristics are PASSED ON by our genes. There is other evidence in the Bible that genetic background is important to God and the nation of Israel.

Levites were not to marry outside of their tribe, in order to preserve their characteristics as teachers and men who could carry out duties as priests. God instructed in Leviticus 21:14,15: "...he shall take a virgin OF HIS OWN PEOPLE as wife. Nor shall he PROFANE his POSTERITY...". The Levites were to set an example for the nation, by marrying within their own tribe. Racial purity WAS an ISSUE in ancient Israel.

The sons of Shelah (Shelanites) were considered half-breeds (half-Canaanites). They were not granted the same status within the nation of Israel as were the rest. This family became the weavers of cloth, gardeners and greenhouse workers (I Chronicles 4:29-23). They were not given the same royal duties as the families of Perez and Zerah.

What is interesting, is that Shelanites were allowed to rule over Moabites. (I Chronicles 4:22) They were not rulers in Israel.

During the Second Temple Period, Israelites were very conscious of the purity of their family tree. They established ten categories of families to determine eligibility to work in the temple. Record of descent was of prime importance.

The Israelites would not even eat a meal with a Gentile, never mind allow one of them to marry into the Royal House of Judah. This presence of mind carried right on into the time of Christ. Gentiles were considered "unclean". An Israelite considered his posterity "defiled" if any of his family married a Gentile.




horizontal rule



A Modern Perspective

A simple way of looking at it today, is with the present royalty in Britain. Would the English take it lightly if Prince Charles, the heir of the throne of England, brought home from the British Commonwealth, a dark woman to be his bride and the next Queen of England? The British tabloids would have a field day with that one. It is not acceptable today! It was not acceptable then.

You would think that church historians would have seen the paradox of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, listed amongst the lineage of Christ, in the book of Matthew, and the fact that both the Protestant and Jewish communities falsely consider all four women to be all, or part Gentile, in their racial origin.

The truth is, Tamar was a Hebrew woman, the other three were Israelites. Their stories are fascinating and inspiring, as to God's intervention in the lives of His chosen people, Israel.




horizontal rule


"A Restorer of Life"

The Book of Ruth is one of RESTORATION. Naomi was the equivalent to the "Queen Mother" in Britain today. She was as beloved then as the Queen Mother is today. Notice Ruth 1:19: "...ALL THE CITY was EXCITED because of them; and the women said, 'Is this Naomi?'" It was Naomi who anguished over the possibility of her family name and inheritance disappearing into oblivion.

The essence of the story is in Ruth 4:13-17: "So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son." (It appears that God intervened and made sure that a male heir was conceived.) "Then the women said to Naomi, 'Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a NEAR KINSMAN ; and may his name be famous in Israel! And may he be to you a RESTORER OF LIFE...'. "Also the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, 'There is a son BORN TO Naomi.'"

This ancient levirate Law of Marriage was fulfilled and the Royal House of Judah was rescued, with an heir to the future throne!

Boaz tells of his actions in Ruth 4:9-10: "You are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, from the hand of Naomi. Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on HIS INHERITANCE, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his place."

Boaz paid off the family debt of Naomi, and proclaimed the occupancy of the property to be given back to Naomi, all according to the Jubilee System of the restoration of property rights.

Furthermore, the elders of the city proclaimed their knowledge of the importance nationally, of this event. Following the story in Ruth 4:11,12: "And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, 'We are witnesses. The Lord make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two WHO BUILT the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah (the equivalent to the Queen's Windsor castle, in England) and be famous in Bethlehem. May your house be like the house of Perez, whom TAMAR bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the Lord will give to you from this young woman.'"

These elders saw the parallel to the story of Tamar rescuing the Royal lineage for Judah. They saw how critical the situation was for the nation.




horizontal rule




In looking into the concepts surrounding the Book of Ruth and facing the reality of the details of the story, it is obvious that the lineage of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, has to be of pure racial strain. This is only one aspect of the message -- that of RACE.

The aspect thatmostconcerns us is that of GRACE, that is: redemption, salvation, inheriting the Kingdom of God, and the analogy of Christ and the Church. These are weightier matters. In order to understand these things we must FIRST get the story of Ruth correct.

Ruth was an Israelite, who in analogy, represents the Bride of Christ.

Links to Similar Articles on other Web Sites:

1. The Book of Ruth





horizontal rule





  1. Far Above Rubies; by Isabel Hill Elder; Chapter viii: Ruth (Book of Ruth); The Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd.; 1957
  2. Mystery Of The Ages; by Herbert W. Armstrong; Chapter 4: Mystery of Civilization; Chapter 5: Mystery of Israel; Dodd, Mead & Company, Inc.; 1985; First Edition; (hard cover only -- in later editions some material is edited out and reworded.)



horizontal rule


Wesley Swift

Mary is of the House of Levi, so by no stretch of imagination could she be called a jewess .  Levi was given for the true priesthood from the days of Aaron right on down to the present time; the ministry was called the ministry of Yahweh “forever” Let us turn back to the hour of the birth of Yahshua.  This was in the days of Herod the King of Judea, and there was a certain priest named Zacharias (his wife was Elisabeth the daughters of Aaron).  John the Baptist was born of Elisabeth, and Yahshua came forth from the womb of Mary.  Now Elisabeth and Mary were cousins, one family, and one Household.  In Luke 1:36 we read (as the angel addresses Mary): “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth hath also conceived a son in her old age.” Now this will help us to understand.  The priesthood of Aaron was continued in the Levitical priesthood.  This proves Mary was of the Household of Levi.

horizontal rule

To believe that Ruth was a Moabitiss by race rather than by residency would require us to believe that Israelite law, history, customs, religion, and traditions were abandoned on a whim, because Israelites liked Ruth, rather than that Boaz was "one of our near kinsmen" as Ruth stated in Ruth 2:20.   It would also require us to believe that Jesus Christ was not a pure Israelite, and instead had Moabite ancestors.  Abandoning centuries of Israelite religion would have required major celebrations, debates amongst the prophets, demands from the people, none of which is described in the entire Chapter of Ruth, nor in any other part of the Holy Bible.

If Ruth was one of the Israelites who were known to be living in Moab at the time, she would have been referred to as a "Moabitiss" just as a Caucasian or Negroid who moves to Texas is known as a "Texan".   Nothing changed about the purity of her Israelite race even though she lived amongst the historical enemies of the Israelites. 

horizontal rule

The following exchange on the usenet demonstrates the great lengths to which jews and judeochristians will go to attempt to discredit the pure Israelite lineage of Jesus Christ, insisting that He was a mamzer not worthy as a pure sacrifice to God:

> Willie Martin wrote:
> Indeed, it could not have been otherwise. From the
> beginning God very strongly condemned the Moabites and
> Ammonites. In Deuteronomy 23:3 He commanded: "An Ammonite or
> Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of God; even
> to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the
> congregation of God Forever."

Royce Buehler ( replied:
Only males were members of "the congregation"; only males counted
toward a minyan. Ruth, if you hadn't noticed, was female. So the
proscription didn't apply to her.

This is truly an amazing admission. Evidently Mr. Buehler hadn't noticed that Ruth's husband was a man who WAS subject to Israelite law.   And that he also was an Israelite.  And that he was also a member of  the Congregation of the Lord.   And that this Israelite law did apply to him, even though he did move to Moab.   He also didn't notice that neither Elimelich nor any of his descendants were ever granted any exception to the law, which means that the Holy Bible is a permanent record that the law DID apply to him.  Esau and his descendants were banned from his people, not just to the tenth generation, but forever, just for marrying Canaanite women.

Had Ruth not been an Israelite, Ruth's [read: Elimelich's] descendants would have been mamzers who could not have entered the Congretation of the Lord, even to the tenth generation, much less could they have moved back and lived amongst the Israelites.   So this is proof positive that Ruth WAS an Israelite who lived in Moab.  Even he acknowledged that both Israelites and Moabites lived in Moab at that time.

His is a truly disingenuous argument.  They weren't exempt from the law just because Ruth was the subject of the story.  They weren't exempt just because they moved temporarily to Moab.  They weren't exempt just because she was a widow, or because Israelites died in Moab.  They certainly knew the law, and you can't find any place in the entire Holy Bible where they were exempted from the law.

What jews expect us to believe by this incredible assertion is that any time a woman enters the genealogy of Israelites, the law doesn't count.  Can they even comprehend what an absurd assertion this is?  They also expect us to believe that both David and Jesus Christ were descendants of a bastardized race made up of Israelite and Moabites, but if this were the case, the Holy Bible would be a LIE. According to Royce, if a woman enters into the genealogy of a race, then the law no longer applies to that race. So let's see if we can understand the depths of the depravity of the jewish mind. This would also mean that David and Christ, Ruth's descendants, are no longer under the law. If they miscegenated with Ammonites or Moabites, their descendants would no longer be banned from the congregation of God, even to their tenth generation, simply because Ruth was an ancestor. And because Ruth had male ancestors, the law no longer applies to them. Her grandfather who moved to Moab wouldn't have to worry about marrying a non-Israelite because one of his grandchildren would be a woman, and because"the proscription didn't apply to her", it no longer applies to him.

Royce has already demonstrated why jews like him are so desperate to discredit Jesus Christ as being a jew, or a Moabite, or some other mixed breed: he sincerely believes that if we don't buy his jewish fairy tales then we'll immediately start shoveling the jews into the ovens.

The fact is, this is a classic demonstration of why 86 nations before us banned jews from their countries and burned their silly Talmuds as they exited stage left. Russia is #87, and if we don't hurry, we'll be #89 because France is already well on its way to banning the jews again and becoming #88.

Then he compounded the error with the following:

> Mr. Martin wrote:
> We have the clearest proof that, both as God the Father and
> as God the Son, He was consistently true to His own
> commandments: Ruth was a pure Israelite, from the land of
> Moab, but not from the race of Moab. But even if she were,
> the Moabites were descended from Lot, Abraham's nephew, and
> as such were not racial aliens either.

And he responded:
"But they *were* one of the groups with whom intermarriage was
forbidden. So, Ruth's story is proof that what was at issue was
not the race of the bride, but her religion."

Does he also believe that when David had all the Moabites lined up face down in three separate lines, and when all of those in two lines were killed, and all of those in the third line were made slaves, that they could suddenly "confess" that they were actually Israelites rather than Moabites and save themselves?

And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts. 2Sa 8:2

If their religious conviction were a concern at all to David, this is exactly where it would have been mentioned.  But David clearly made this decision based solely on their *race*, not what they think, or what their religion was, or whether or not they had gone to confession that morning, or agreed to "become Israelites".  Does this Rolls Royce of Racists really believe that David included any Israelites in these three lines of Moabites?  Certainly not on purpose, but any mamzers who were born to any mixed marriages between Moabites and Israelites probably were.

This is proof positive that Moabites were a *race*, and that Ruth was an Israelite by race, not a mamzer, and not a racial Moabitiss.

horizontal rule

Viewing message <>
From: Royce Buehler (
Subject: Willie Martin Vs the Bible [Was: Miscegenation - 8]
View: Complete Thread (8 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2002-02-03 08:08:36 PST

Willie Martin wrote:
>         Ruth Was An Israelite.
>         Recently someone made the statement that Ruth was not an
> Israelite, which I believe to be incorrect.

It is essential to your anti-Christian, racist, genocidal agenda
that the story of Ruth be twisted into the opposite of what it is
in the Bible.  So of course you "believe it to be incorrect."

>         It is unfortunate that many preachers, in their ignorance,
> teach so much false doctrine. One such false doctrine is the
> statement that Jesus Christ was not of pure Israelite blood;
> they say that one of His Ancestors was Ruth, "a Moabitess."

Well, no, that's not what "they" say. The BIBLE says that Ruth was
Jesus' ancestor (Matthew 1:5, naming both Ruth and her Israelite husband
Boaz); and the BIBLE says that Ruth was "a Moabitess"
 Ruth 1:4. "And they [Naomi's sons] took for themselves Moabite
        women as wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the
        name of the other was Ruth."
 Ruth 2:2. "And Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi..."
        Ruth 2:6. "She [Ruth] is the young Moabite woman who returned
 with Naomi from the land of Moab."  (And so on...)

> From the use of this term, they believe that she was
> racially, not just geographically, Moabite.

Because no other interpretation of the text makes a particle of
sense. Not just "from the use of this term" - although we certainly
see no other case in the Bible where someone is called "A Moabite"
or "An Ammonite", or called by the name of any of the other regions
around Canaan, and later turns out to be really descended from Jacob.
So, in the absence of ANY evidence to the contrary, the term by
itself does indeed indicate that Ruth was "racially" a Moabite.

>         When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, after their
> 40 years wandering in the Exodus, the land of Moab was the
> first territory they conquered. God had commanded them to
> totally exterminate the former occupants of the lands they
> were to settle; and in Moab, they did just that.

Fine, until the last four words. The Israelites did very little
of what God commanded them to do. In particular, they failed to
annihilate the Amalekites (which is why Haman was still around to
trouble Esther), and they certainly didn't eliminate the Moabites.
King David was Ruth's grandson, and he was still busy making war
with the Moabites:
  II Samuel 8:2. "And he [David] defeated Moab, and measured them
  with the line, making them lie down on the ground; and he
  measured two lines to put to death and one full line to keep
  alive. And the Moabites became servants to David, bringing

"No," says Willie, "the Bible is lying.  There were no Moabites by then,
they were all killed in Moses' time.  If there were still Moabites
then, why, Ruth wouldn't have been an Israelite, and God wouldn't be
a racist like me. Of COURSE God is a racist like me; so the Bible
must be lying."

Afraid not, Willie.  The Bible is not the liar here.  You are the liar.

>         The Israelites conquered the land of Moab, killing all the
> people they found therein. We read in Deuteronomy 2:32-34:
> "Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to
> fight at Jahaz.
> And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote
> him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his
> cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the
> women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to
> remain."

Read it more carefully, Willie.  It says that all the people in
the *cities* of Moab were destroyed.  It wasn't our urbanized
21st century yet. In those days, the vast majority of every country's
population lived in the countryside. So most of the Moabites remained