Biblical Ruth was a “foreigner”, geographically, but not ethnically

by Damien F. Mackey “Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground, and said to him, ‘Why have I found favor in your eyes that you should notice me, when I am a foreigner?’.” Ruth 2:10 One of the readings at Mass last Saturday (23rd August, 2025) was on the story of Ruth, introduced by the Marist priest as: “Boaz was ruthless [Ruth-less] until he got married”. From a surface level reading of the biblical text one would gain the strong impression that Ruth was an alien to the House of Israel. She is called “Ruth the Moabite” (2:2) and “the Moabite” (2:6). These texts, coupled with 2:10, “a foreigner”, would seem to put the matter past doubt that Ruth could not ethnically have been an Israelite woman. However, there is one insurmountable problem with Ruth’s belonging to the race of Moab, and it can be neatly coupled with Achior in the Book of Judith’s supposedly being an Ammonite. It is this unequivocal statute from Deuteronomy 23:3: “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation”. In my article: Bible critics can overstate idea of ‘enlightened pagan’ (3) Bible critics can overstate idea of 'enlightened pagan' I proposed that various biblical characters who have traditionally been regarded as being ‘enlightened pagans’ were, in fact, Israelites - and this included Ruth and Achior. Two of these supposedly ‘enlightened pagans’, Rahab and Ruth, emerge as ancestors of Jesus Christ himself (Matthew 1:5-6): Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. But, that neither of these two may have been Gentiles, I have argued (based on the research of others) as follows: Regarding … Rahab, Ruth and Achior, to have been former Gentile pagans, Canaanite in the first case … and Moabite and Ammonite in the other two instances … then this would have meant a serious flouting of Mosaïc law and prohibitions: Deuteronomy 7 for Rahab, and Deuteronomy 23:3 for Ruth and Achior. …. 1. RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rachab (Hebrew: רָחָב), whose ‘faith’ both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised, may not have been she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught. The likely situation, as explained in the following article, is that Rachab the harlot is to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling), whose name is to be found in the Davidic genealogical list. Thus we read at: http://dancingforyeshua.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/bible-lies-part-4-ruth-and-rahab.html … the name of the harlot is NOT, after all, Rahab because no woman by the name of Rahab is in the entire Book of Scripture! In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Rahab is a poetic or metaphorical name applied three times to the land of Egypt, with the meaning of being 'arrogant' or 'proud' (Psalm 87:4 See, and Isaiah 89:10 51:9). But these three passages have nothing to do with Joshua, Jericho, or the prostitute who lived there. The same Hebrew word 'Rahab' is, in fact, quite correctly translated in the authorized as 'proud' in Job 9:13 and 26:12 version, but in Isaiah 30:7 which is mistranslated as ‘force.’ This verse says - in the Hebrew text - "Help from Egypt is futile and useless I have called her Rahab still" - (or 'stationary Egypt'). The name of the prostitute is' Rakhab ' … a different Hebrew word for ‘Rahab,’ with a totally different meaning to 'expand' or ‘to make wide.’ It is not written with the Hebrew letter 'He,' like in Rahab, but with the letter 'Khet' (which has a guttural sounded hard as the `ch' in 'loch' or the German 'macht).' The Greek alphabet, however, has no equivalent letters that correspond to 'he' or 'Khet.' Therefore, in the Septuagint version of the Book of Joshua, the name of the harlot is written 'Ra'ab' and all the passages where it occurs. And exactly the same spelling is used in the New Testament in the Greek text of Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 - but NOT in Matthew 1:5. Also, her name is always linked to the name 'whore,' either directly or by association with that name in the same context in which her name appears. If the wife of Salmon was indeed 'Rahab' the whore, why is it then that in the Greek text of Matthew 1:5, is written 'Raxab' and not 'Ra'ab' as in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 and in every passage of the Greek text of the Septuagint where the name of the woman prostitute is found? And why it is that the name Raxab in Matthew 1:5 is not coupled with the term 'whore'? This is the first and only appearance of this name in the New Testament. So if Rahab was really the whore of Jericho, then it is even more necessary to identify her here as the prostitute in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25. …. [End of quote] 2. RUTH. I have long believed, too, that Ruth of the Judges era could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3), but considered especially in my extensive research on the identity of Achior, presumably an Ammonite, in the Book of Judith (see 4. next). 3. I discussed Achior at length in Volume Two of my university thesis (2007), A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973). Whilst Ruth, a woman, apparently gets away with it, Achior (Ahikar), a male, does not (see 4. next). The necessity of Ruth’s being an Israelite is well argued in the above-mentioned “Ruth” article: http://www.israelofgod.org/ruth.htm The Story of Ruth the Israelite!? Have you been taught that the Moabitess Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi, was a Moabite? Yes, that is the question, it is neither intended as jocular nor facetious, although it may well be rhetorical. Ruth 1:4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. In the first chapter of the book of Ruth it appears to be quite clear that Ruth and her sister Orpah were Moabite by descent or lineage. 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. Further, as we can see in the above verse, Naomi, with her husband and sons, went to sojourn “in the country of Moab.” Now, if we stop here, we got about as far into this matter as the traditional scholars, theologians, biblical historians, and the vast masses of people who look to the bible as the word of God. By stopping here we are doing what so many do with the bible and in bible study, we take what appears to be “obvious” and indisputable as fact, then either ignore or find it imperative to “explain away” the contradictions within scripture created by our newly created “fact.” What contradictions are we referring to? Glad you asked. For just one (there are several): Deut. 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: While “forever” in the Hebrew does not mean for the rest of eternity, it does mean so far into the future as to be impossible to “see” (or foresee from that vantage point). Thus, the expression, “even to their tenth generation” is not literally specific, but an idiom meaning that they can forget it, it won’t happen. So, the difficulty in justifying the two positions- (1) that Ruth was a Moabite by lineage, and (2) Naomi’s sons, as well as Boaz, would marry a Moabite and not only bring her into the “camp,” but in turn bring her into the line of David and Jesus (Yeshua), is in stark contrast with Deut. 23:3 and what a God-fearing Israelite would possibly do, especially when we consider what God had to say about such actions, not just in this time frame, but even in the time of Ezra. It then makes God look incompetent or extremely forgetful in His old age, or maybe God is just double-minded? Not to mention that this all transpires little more than a century after God declared His stand concerning this very matter to Israel in Deut. 23 above. …. The Problems 1. How could a law abiding Israelite, whether Mahlon or Boaz, legally marry a Moabite? 2. How can we circumvent Deut 23:3 in order to accept the actions of Mahlon, Elimelech, Naomi, and later Boaz to let Ruth become a part of their family by law and bring her into Israel? 3. The women of Israel welcomed Ruth into the “family” in Ruth 4:11 … The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: 4. If Ruth was a Moabite by race, why would there be such attention to detail concerning the law of redemption by Naomi, Boaz, and the “near-kinsman” more near than Boaz? It would all have been performed in complete opposition to the very law being invoked to settle the issue being settled! 5. Judah’s eldest two sons were slain by God, Er for his wickedness and Onan for his disrespect for the very law Boaz invokes to accomplish his goal to marry Ruth. Now Er and Onan were both from a Canaanite mother, the first wife of Judah. Point being, God slew Onan for not obeying a part of the very law that Mehlon and Boaz would likewise have been guilty of breaking had Ruth really been Moabite. …. [End of quotes] 4. ACHIOR. I argued at length in the above-mentioned university thesis that Achior was not an Ammonite at all but a Naphtalian Israelite. He was Ahikar (var. Achior, Vulgate), the nephew of Tobit (Book of Tobit 1:22). The mistaken notion that Achior was an Ammonite leader is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of the scriptural canon. I live in the hope that this, one day, can be rectified. For further clarification of this subject, see my article: Achior was an Israelite not an Ammonite (4) Achior was an Israelite not an Ammonite according to which “Ammonite” needs to be replaced by “Elamite” - Elam being the province that the Israelite Ahikar (Achior) would govern for the Assyrians. Even the famous Delilah of the Book of Judges may not have been a Gentile Philistine: Samson’s Delilah may have been an Israelite (5) Samson’s Delilah may have been an Israelite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ruth’s husband, Boaz, for his part, may find his alter ego in the Judge, Ibzan, as according to Hebrew tradition: Boaz and Ibzan https://www.academia.edu/117280247/Boaz_and_Ibzan