Judeo-Christian leaders teach:
"Moses' wife was an Ethiopian, a Moabite, Numbers 12:1, so there! "
"Jesus Christ's ancestor was Ruth. She was a Moabite, so there! "
"Acts 26 says we are all of one blood. The Pastor said so!"
The same arguments are always made in attempt to legitimatize interracial mixing; constant appeals to the same passages. In doing so, these "teachers" are telling us that Jesus was a mamzer, and that He cannot be on His Throne today! Let's prove it - beginning by looking closely at the claims that Ruth and Rahab were from another race.
Was Rahab of another race than Salmon?
In Matthew 1 (the lineage of our Savior) we read:
And Salmon [a Judahite] begat Booz [Boaz] of Rachab [Rahab]....Matthew 1:5
It is often assumed that the Rahab of this text is the Rahab of Joshua 2, who was a Canaanite, and helped two Israelite spies escape. It is only an assumption. Rahab was a common Hebrew name. Moreover, it is an assumption that the Rahab of Joshua 2 was a racial Canaanite, simply because she lived in Jericho .
The Canaanites were not of a different race than the Israelites. They were of a forbidden lineage. Thus, even if Rahab was not an Israelite, her marriage to Salmon would not have been an interracial marriage!
We find this in Deuteronomy Chapter 7:
When YHWH thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites ... thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (Deuteronomy 7:1-3 )
Are we to believe that the Rahab listed in the genealogy of Yehshua was a Canaanite, when the law specifically forbade marriages between the children of Jacob/Israel and the Canaanite? For this to be so, the prophet Zechariah would have to be wrong:
Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. (Zech 14:21)
Remember, Zechariah was a prophet to the House of Judah, from which Jesus came, and was describing 1 st century events leading up to (and including) the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Even with a futurist view that Zechariah's phrophecies are yet to come, the idea that Jesus can have a true Canaanite lineage is untenable.
Also, our Jesus could never sit on the throne if he had a Canaanite lineage:
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom YHWH thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. (Deuteronomy 17:15)
There is another scenario. If Rahab really was of the lineage of our Savior, she could have been called a "Canaanite" but not actually have been one. We can prove this by addressing a common assumption. If a black man lives in, and is a citizen of, the sovereign state of Texas , is he an African or a Texan? You see, nothing has changed! In Moses' time, Moses was called an "Egyptian":
And when they came to Reuel their father ... they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds....Exodus 2:18-19
Where a person lives is often use to determine what they are called. Rahab very well could have been called a "Canaanite" and not be of the forbidden lineage!
There are yet more things to consider that would leave us to conclude that the Rahab of Joshua Chapter 2 might indeed have been an Israelite. For instance, why would the Israelite spies seek out Rahab's home for safe habor (especially when Rahab is identified as a harlot?)
Was Ruth of another race than Naomi and Boaz?
Is it really true that we can use Ruth as an example of how " God views the issue of marriage between those who are from different people groups but trust in the true God?" Here are some more commonly-heard statements made by those who would say "YES!":
... Since this was clearly a union approved by God, it underlines the fact that the particular 'people group' she came from was irrelevant – what mattered was that she trusted in the true God of the Israelites.
The same can be said of Ruth, who as a Moabitess, also married an Israelite, and is also listed in the genealogy in Matthew 1 that leads to Christ. Prior to her marriage, she had expressed faith in the true God (Ruth 1:16 ). ( www.onehumanrace.com )
One should also remember both Rahab and Ruth, Gentile women of faith; they were both accepted into the community of believers (they are even in the genealogical line of Jesus! Matthew 1:5). (www.christiananswers.net)
There is much in the book of Ruth that would make it appear that Ruth was an Israelite, like her mother-in-law Naomi. It's actually difficult to draw a conclusion that she wasn't, were it not for the proliferation of false doctrine coming from our pulpits. For instance, consider the wording of this passage:
And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, [or] to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people [shall be] my people, and thy God my God...
Where does is say that Ruth was not of the same race as her mother-in-law, Naomi? It doesn't. It can easily mean that Ruth, who had lived among the Mohabites, was now determined to live among her racial kin: the Israelites, unlike her sister. Ruth's sister – also widowed - returned to the Moahbite gods :
And she [Naomi] said, Behold, thy [Ruth's] sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
Let's get some background about the Moahbites. According to Judges 11:12-13, By 1450 B.C. All the land of Moab was Israel 's territory . in 1142 B.C.. Three hundred years later, the land of Moab was still Israel 's territory. Long before Ruth, 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, though the gods of those people persisted.
Ruth could not be of a different race than Naomi. Even if she was descended from the Moabites, she would have been a descendant of Lot through his incestuous relationship with his eldest daughter. So – once again – this cannot be a case of an interracial to begin with.
Ruth was truly an Israelite.
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 a racial Moabite, then she could have made no lawful claim on the land. It's in Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 27.
Israelites (in this case, Boaz) were forbidden to marry Moabite descendants:
... The people of Israel ... have not separated themselves from the people of the lands ... even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites .... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands...(Ezra 9:1-2)
Quoting Pastor Ted Weiland:
"Yashua could not have become king of the Israelites if He was from a forbidden lineage or mixed-race relationship. Therefore, Ruth must have been known as a Moabite because she had lived in the country of Moab – a possession of the Reubenites at the time of Ruth."
As a nail in the coffin, consider that Boaz (stated as a close kinsman several times in Ruth) applied the levirate law to her. The levirate law requires Israelite men to raise up a male heir for a deceased kinsman, thereby preserving his name and estate:
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother [or "nigh of kin," Leviticus 25:48-49] shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel . (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)
And he [Boaz] said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth ... thou art a near kinsman. And he said, ... it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit ... will I do the part of a kinsman to thee.... (Ruth 3:9-13)
Again quoting Pastor Weiland:
"Had Ruth been from the forbidden lineage of Moab or from another race, the levirate law would not have applied because her previous relationship with Boaz's kinsman Mahlon would have been unlawful and, therefore, adulterous. Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, the nearer kinsman (Ruth 3:12 , 4:5-6) would have only needed to raise this objection to keep from having to redeem Ruth along with Mahlon's land."
Today's Judeo-Christian leaders erroneously teach that Ruth and Rahab were of a different race than Salmon and Boaz, respectively. As a result, they believe that Jesus was a bastard (mamzer) and does not sit the Throne today.
Much of Pastor Ted R. Weiland's material can be found at http://www.missiontoisrael.org