by Billy Roper
At the ‘Rally For Forrest’ which the ShieldWall Network and our allies held in Memphis earlier this month, I was giving rapid-fire interviews one after another to the assembled media, when I did something that ticked them off. No, I don’t mean telling the black news cameraman who announced that “we all bleed red” if he cut me that if I cut a dog it would bleed red, too, but that didn’t mean that I considered the dog my equal, though I’ve heard that exchange was actually broadcast. Nor was it when the little negress said that there wasn’t much difference at all between the races genetically, and I informed her that there was more genetic difference between Whites and blacks than there is between blacks and bonobos. She said that was offensive. I said it was true, and if the truth offended her, that was her problem, not mine.
No, what really angered them was that I also took questions from non-media people who came into the rally area. How dare I talk to common people without press credentials, right? Some of them were constructive, such as my conversation with the Confederate statue supporters who left the Confederate 901 rally because it was too boring. They came away ready to accept full-blown White Nationalism. Others, though, were just wryly combative. A Jewish man wandered in and told me his name, which I identified as being Jewish even if I was unsure about it from his face. He began to ask why the statues were important. I told him that they represented my people, their heritage, and their identity. I said that if I went to Tel Aviv and tore down a statue of David Ben Gurion, he’d be upset, too. He smiled good-naturedly and walked away, knowing that I had him dead to rights. The media didn’t air that, of course.
But one of the final discussions I had was with a young man named Titus. He turned out to be a Judeo-Christian, one of the universalist, Kumbaya, anti-racist variety. We talked for a few minutes, but the police were getting nervous about me mixing with the crowd so much, so I gave him one of my cards and asked him to call or e-mil me so we could continue our conversation later. Much to my surprise, he did.
In several exchanges over the course of a week we discussed the Creation, the Flood, and in general, the Biblical views of race. He ended up stopping responding to me after he was unable to refute anything I said, and couldn’t rationalize away my scriptural explanations for my beliefs. I hope that perhaps I had an influence on him with my testimony and witnessing. If so, it was a worthwhile use of my time.
Like Titus, many modern ‘Judeo’ Christians are confused about the Bible’s view on race. It’s not their fault, they’ve been purposefully deceived. Some of them are even told that Ruth, an ancestor of Jesus, was of mixed racial ancestry, making Jesus himself mixed. Here is a discussion of that question from the StormFront forum which might help clear up that misapprehension.
|
Originally Posted by lucian_lacroix
 HiI’m told that Ruth was a Moabite (a non-white race), and that she was an ancestor of Jesus, and thus, there’s nothing unchristian about race mixing. I’m guessing this has been addressed somewhere, but it’s a little hard to search for. Does anyone have any light to shed on this issue? Thanks.
|
I have a study that should cover the subject.
Yes I understand the English Bible calls Ruth a Moabitess. But it is not saying what you think. First we must look at the Law of God that forbids a Moabite or Ammonite to enter into the congregation of God. It is found here:
(Deu 23:3 KJV) “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:”
We know that “the tenth generation” is a figure of speech for “forever”, because no one lives to be at least 600 years old.
We also know that the time frame was in the 15th century B.C. And we also know the Law was still in effect around a thousand years later as Nehemiah and Ezra reprimanded the Judahites (Jews) for violating this commandment. Ezra says this:
(Ezra 9:10-12 KJV) “And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments,…{12} Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.”
And when the Judahites had heard it they separated from the forbidden “marriages” including the offspring from those marriages:
(Ezra 10:3 KJV) “Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and
let it be done according to the law.”
And Nehemiah actually quotes the Law from Deut 23 which resulted in Israel separating themselves from the mixed multitude:
(Neh 13:1-3 KJV) “On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever…{3} Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they
separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.”
So we can see that this Law was still in effect over a thousand years after it was given. And when did Ruth marry Boaz? Ruth is estimated to be about 1010 B.C.
So we see that God required people at least 500 years later than Ruth to put away “spouses” and children of the forbidden lineages. Do you think that God would require man to put away his own children from these illicit
unions and then allow His only begotten Son to come from one? Would that not make Him a hypocrite?
Now to understand better that Ruth was not an physical Moabite we must go through a bit of Biblical history.
The territory of the Moabites was originally east and north east of the Dead Sea. Moab’s borders extended from the Arnon river on the south to the Jabbok river on the north. From the Dead Sea and Jordan river on the
west to the mountains on the east. It was called Moab after the people who once lived there. This land kept the name for many centuries even after all the Moabites were long gone from it.
The Moabites were destroyed by the Amorites. About 1450 B.C., the Moabites were conquered and driven from their land by Sihon, king of the Amorites:
(Num 21:26-29) “For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. (29) Woe to thee, Moab! thou
art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and
his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon, king of the Amorites”.
The Amorites were destroyed by invading Israelites. The land of Moab, (now
occupied by Amorites) was the first land conquered by the Israelites after
leaving Egypt:
(Deut 2:32-34) “Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to
fight at Jahaz. (33) And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we
smote him, and his sons, and all his people. (34) 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.”
The war continues:
(Numbers 21:30-35) “We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto
Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto
Medeba. (31) Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. (32) And
Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and
drove out the Amorites that were there. (33) And they turned and went up
by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he,
and all his people, to the battle at Edrei. (34) And the Lord said unto
Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his
people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon,
king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. (35) So they smote him, and
his sons, and all his people, until there was none left alive: and they
possessed his land”.
All the land of Moab was settled by the Israelite tribes of Reuben, Gad,
and Manasseh.
(Deut 3:12-16) “And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer,
which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities
thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. (13) And the rest
of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half
tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was
called the land of giants. (14) Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the
country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them
after his own name, Bashan-havothjair, unto this day. (15) And I gave
Gilead unto Machir. (16) And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I
gave from Gilead even unto the river Arnon half the valley, and the border
even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon;
By 1450 B.C. All the land of Moab was Israel territory. In 1142 B.C., we
have proof that, three hundred years later, the land of Moab was still
Israel territory.
(Judges 11:12- 26) “And Jephthah (of Israel) sent messengers unto the king
of the children of Ammon, saying, ‘What hast thou to do with me, that thou
art come against me to fight in my land? (13) And the king of the
children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel
took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto
Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.
Jephthanah’s “No, the land of Moab has belonged to Israel for the past 300
years and you have no right to the land today” answer is in verses 14-26.
Ruth lived in the middle of this 300 year time of proven Israelite
occupation of the land of Moab.
Note this verse:
(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.”
Note the accuracy of the Bible, not “among the people of Moab,” but “in the
country of Moab.” This is like saying, “Ruth lived in Kansas”. The State
of Kansas was named after a Siouan Indian tribe. In Ruth’s time the land
of Moab was occupied exclusively by Israelites just as Kansas is now
occupied, not by Indians, but by modern day Americans.
Ruth 1:22, “So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law,
with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to
Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
“Ruth the Moabitess” is like saying “Mary Jones the Californian” or “George
Bush the Texan.” Indeed it could not have been otherwise. All the people
in the Book of Ruth were Israelites. Long ago the Moabites had been
exterminated by the Amorites. Then the Israelites drove out and
exterminated the Amorites. The Israelites occupied the land of Moab for
the next several centuries.
In Ruth 4 there is an application of Israelite law to land inheritance. By
Israel’s law, only Israelites could inherit another Israelite’s real
estate. If Ruth were of the lineage of Moab, then she could have made no
lawful claim on the land. It’s in Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 27.
The word “Moabite” in Deut 23:3 as per the LXX, renders the word to be
Class: Noun Subclass 1st declension, Case: Nominative Number: Singular,
Gender: Masculine.
Now God has seen fit to give us an example of a Moabitess other than Ruth
in the Bible. That example is here:
(2 Chr 24:26 KJV) “And these are they that conspired against him; Zabad
the son of Shimeath an Ammonitess, and Jehozabad the son of SHIMRITH A
MOABITESS.”
The LXX shows this word to be Class: Noun Subclass: 1st declension Case:
Nominative Number: Singular Gender: Masculine.
The grammatical properties of this verse are exactly the same as Deut
23:3. The Moabitess in 2 Chr 24:26 is exactly the same type of person as
the one spoken of in Deut. They?re nouns, singular and masculine.
However when we look at the word “Moabitess” as applied to Ruth, we find a
totally different grammatical structure. It is Class: Adjective Subclass:
3rd declension Case: Nominative Number: Singular Gender: Feminine
So we see that this isn’t even a noun. That the word is an adjective and
feminine. Whatever you want to call her, she isn’t what is mentioned in
Deut. 23:3. She isn’t a “Moabitess”, in the idea of a noun. The phrase
“Ruth the Moabitess” would require that she be a Moabitess only if the word
“Moabitess” is a noun. As it appears the phrase is a verb identifying Ruth
as one from the land of Moab, i.e., the kind of nationality she was. She
was an Moabite resident. In this case the word “Moabite” is an adjective.
She was a Moabitized Israelite. Just as one from another country born and
raised here would be Americanized.
I do believe this is enough evidence to show that Ruth was not a
“Moabitess” in the sense Shimrith or one that is a blood Maobite is. She
was a Moabite in the sense she was born in the land of Moab. Either this
or Christ is through a forbidden lineage that Ezra and Nehemiah scolded the
Israelites for marrying into.
I would say, given, this understanding that Ruth was not a blood
Moabitess. But by resident only. To say otherwise is for God to break His
own Law against allowing a Moabite into the Congregation of God. A Law
that Ezra and Nehemiah observed long after Ruth.
To say that Ruth was a Moabitess, i.e., Shimrith or the Moabites mentioned
in Deut 23 is to say what the text does not say.
Leave a Reply