Defending God's Word on Interracial Marriage

If people would use God's word as their final authority, we wouldn't have to defend Him. But the scriptures have been twisted to fit a world view that God never created or intended in His Holy Word. Biblical "scholars," teachers, preachers, and religious leaders all say that the Bible does not teach that interracial marriage is wrong. Ken Ham wrote a book, One Blood, that even goes so far as to claim that as long as both are believers in Christ, it doesn't matter what color you are, go ahead and get married.

Teaching that it's okay to destroy God's unique creation through interracial mixing

Teaching people to be indifferent to their own race by destroying their Heritage for future generations by using the Word of God against one of God's own unique creation

Theologians, pastors and religious leaders will says that God only disapproves of interfaith marriages, not interracial marriages. As stated in the previous section, these "theologians" will say that God's Word only talks about the forbidden races turning the Israelites to other gods. These same theologians won't show you what we've shown you in the Word of God.

And then these same "theologians" will go to great lengths to "prove" from God's word that there are cases where interracial marriage was accepted. They even try and claim that in the lineage of Christ there are non-Israelite "heathens."

Moses was from the tribe of Levi (Exodus 2:1). After he killed the Egyptians and fled to the wilderness, he lived in the land of Midian. The Priest of Midian was named Reuel or Jethro (Exodus 2:18; 3:1). And Jethro gave his daughter, Zipporah, to Moses to be his wife. (Exodus 2:21)

Reuel means "friend of God." He was the Priest of Midian. Obviously they were worshippers of the God of heaven.

At first glance this appears to be interracial mixing. We know who the tribe of Levi was. Levi was the son of Jacob. Jacob was the son of Isaac. Isaac was the son of Abraham.

Who were the Midianites? Genesis 25:1 gives us the answer. "Abraham took another wife (after the death of Sarah) whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.

Well, how about that! Abraham was the father of the Midianites! The Midianites were descended from Abraham and racially were of the same stock as Moses.

Any theologian could have figured that out. Anyone reading the Bible can figure this out.

In Numbers 12 Miriam and Aaron, the siblings of Moses, get themselves into trouble because of their jealousy over the authority that Moses has. They decide to use his wife against him.

Sibling rivalry at it's best. Miriam is stricken with leprosy, Aaron is contrite, and they both recognize the God given authority of Moses.

Biblical "scholars" just love this example. They gleefully point to Moses and his Cushite wife claiming that she was black and therefore Moses married outside his race.

Good grief. Do these "scholars" not use their Hebrew concordance! The "Ethiopian" woman was from Cush (a Cushite), descended from Ham (Genesis 10:6) and was of the same racial stock as Abraham! Therefore

Exodus 2:19 calls him just that, "An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds." Moses looked like an Egyptian because of the way he was dressed and the cut of his hair. After living in Egypt, he looked Egyptian. But he was an Israelite.

One of Ham's sons was Mizraim, meaning Upper and Lower Egypt, Egyptians. It's historical fact that the first rulers of Egypt were white. We just showed you that Cush was another of Ham's sons. Where was the country of the Cushites?

Again, ask the Bible. God will tell you. Genesis 10 tells us where the descendants of Ham spread and if you read you'll notice that Cush's son founded Babylon which is in Iraq, not Ethiopia. The sons settled in what today is considered Asia, not African Ethiopia. The cities, such as Nineveh, were in Asia. Canaan was the Promised Land.

In another location in the Bible, Judges 3:8 it says, "Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia: and the children of Israel served Chushanrishathaim eight years." Chushanrishathaim means "Chushan of double wickedness". Chushan or "Kuwshan" comes from "Kuwsh" which is translated "Cush". The king was the king of the Cush and he was the king of Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia means the land between the rivers and refers to the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. It was in Iraq. Now how can Cush be in Ethiopia if Cush is in Mesopotamia?

Habakkuk 3:7 says, "I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble." Here a derivative name of Cush is associated with Midian in the northern Arabian Peninsula and not African Ethiopia.

Everywhere that the King James Version of the Bible uses the word "Ethiopia" in the Old Testament, it's the word "Cush." There was no Ethiopia in the Old Testament

In Jeremiah 13:23 when we're asked, "Can the Cushite change his skin or the leopard his spots?" even modern versions of the Bible can't help themselves and put the word "Ethiopian." But the question is rhetorical, not racial.

Cush was in eastern Mesopotamia and at times was part of the Babylonian Empire. They certainly were not a black race. This "CUSH" flourished around 1500 BC, right when Moses was alive and fleeing into the land of Midian and being called an Egyptian.

Genesis 25:6 tells us that Abraham gave gifts to all his sons, other than Isaac, and sent them away eastward into the east country. Isaac was the son of promise, the covenant son. But Abraham loved his other sons and treated them fairly.

Logic tells us that Midian, the son of Abraham, went and dwelled in the land of Cush. This is the land that would have been east of Abraham when he sent his sons away.

The Bible only has Moses marrying one wife, Zipporah the Midianite. Moses then found her living in the land of Cush in the Tigris-Euphrates valleys. She most certainly was not black but of the same racial stock as Moses, descended from Abraham.

Moses, who was raised in the palace of the Pharaoh and educated as an Egyptian by the royal family, would have considered the Negroes as wild animals, to be killed on sight. The son of royalty would not take a wife from the Negro Cush in Africa.

Don't like that thought? Tough. It's truth. Truth is not racist. Truth is fact. And those were the facts of the times that Moses lived in.

Yes, Moses did not marry an Israelite and his brother and sister taunted him with this fact. But she was of his race and a descendant of Abraham.

Mongrelization is the sin that God speaks against. Mongrelization is against both races and both need protected from this act. It doesn't matter if it's White/black, black/Asian, Asian/White...all were made by God and

Although not specifically identified as Egyptian, most likely the wife of Joseph was Egyptian.

One of Ham's sons was Mizraim, Strong's #4714 meaning Upper and Lower Egypt, Egyptians. It's historical fact that the first rulers of Egypt were white. Asenath was a daughter of a priest of On, obviously from the ruling class.

Psalm 78:50-51 Tells us that when God smote all the first-born of Egypt, that this was the children of Ham. Psalm 105:23 says that "Then Israel came to Egypt; Jacob sojourned in the Land of Ham." The Psalm continues to give the story of how fruitful the Israelites were and that Ham became hateful. God sent Moses and Aaron, "They wrought His signs among them, and miracles in the land of Ham." (verse 27) Psalm 106:21, 22 tells us that the Children of Israel forgot God, their Savior, and the great things He had done for them in Egypt, "wondrous works in the Land of Ham."

Joseph was an Israelite, son of Jacob, descended from Shem, the first-born of Noah. Asenath was a Hamite, a descendant of Ham, the second-born of Noah. Joseph did not marry out of his race. Like Moses, he did not marry a fellow Israelite.

The Priest of On, you have been taught, was a pagan god. You will have to rethink that belief. On was called Heliopolis in Greek, meaning the city of the sun, which points to the worship of RA, the sun god. Ra is the Egyptian equivalent of the One True God, manifest through His spectacular creation, the sun. The religion was closely akin to the original Hebrew religion. A religion that we have little or no information about. The ancient city was famous for its obelisks, and two of them survive today, one in London and the other in New York's Central Park. Harper's Bible Dictionary says that this was one of the five cities in Egypt where Hebrew speaking people would worship.

So no clash of religion between Joseph and his wife. It's possible, likely even, that Potiphera practiced the old religion of Melchizadek.

One more thought, if Joseph had married outside of both his race and religion, he could not have inherited the birthright of Israel. And since Joseph did inherit the birthright of Israel, his children had to be of the chosen seed. God's laws will not be mocked or changed, not even for Joseph.

Oh my, the stranger is to be as the native among you. Seems like the critics scored one there. Or did they? Because we know that God will never violate his own laws, including the law of kind after his kind as established in Genesis Chapter 1. God's love and mercy extend to all His glorious creation. However, His original design is for every race to preserve their unique creation.

So what does this text mean? Stranger is the Hebrew word "ger" and is Strong's #1616 meaning a guest, by implication a foreigner, alien, sojourner.

There's more than one word for stranger in Hebrew. The two most commonly used are Strong's #1616 and Strong's #2114. It's critically important that a distinction is made between the two words.

...and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death (talking about the sanctuary) (Numbers 3:38)

Obviously this stranger isn't allowed in the congregation of Israel. What's the difference?

Stranger in these two verses is the Hebrew word "zuwr" and means to turn aside (espec. for lodging); hence to be a foreign, strange, profane; spec. (act. part.) to commit adultery:--(come from) another (man, place), fanner, go away, (e-) strange (-r, thing, woman).

The difference between the two is subtle but clear. The first stranger is by implication a foreigner. The second stranger is a foreigner. Not only that, the second stranger is profane.

We don't have the space to get into the history of Israel here, but believe it or not, not all the Israelites made the Exodus from Egypt. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Israelites either left Egypt before the Exodus or left the encampment in the wilderness. This will be proved in a different study.

It's these "foreigners" that Leviticus 19:33, 34 and Ezekiel 47:22-23 is talking about. They were "strange" to the Israelites. But racially, they were brothers

God does not change. He doesn't tell the Israelites not to marry or mix with foreigners at one point and then tell them to go ahead and accept the practice at another time. Scripture provides no acceptance for those who advocate interracial marriage. God's word is clear. Only racial kind are accepted as mates.

In Numbers 31 the Israelites went to war against the Midianites and killed all the men. But they kept the women and children. When the warriors returned to the camp Moses said, what have you done? You let the women and children live! These are the same women who caused Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the Lord at Peor.

So they killed all the male children and adult women and kept 32,000 virgin girls.

As stated previously, the Midianites were of the same race as the Israelites since both were descended from Abraham. Race trumps religion. You can change your religion, not your race.

Religious leaders and theologians love to cite the instance in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 where the Israelites are told they can capture a beautiful woman in war and keep her for their wife.

Really, think about it. Would God go to all the trouble of ensuring the racial purity of His chosen people only to then tell them that when they go to war they can keep any beautiful woman they see?!!!

Read the books of I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles, how many times did the Children of Israel war between each other?

God would never go against His own laws. And neither should you. Bottom line.

Another favorite "gotcha" that the religious leaders and advocates of interracial marriage love to point out is that Deuteronomy 23:7-8 provides for the children of the Egyptian and Edomite, after three generations, to be accepted into the assembly of the Lord.

Being allowed into the sanctuary meant full communion with Israelites, including marriage. So those who have an inclusive world view pounce on these texts with glee as "proof" that God accepts marriages among all people.

If only they would do their homework! As previously shown, The Egyptians were descended from Mizraim who was the son of Ham, who was the son of Noah. Same racial stock as the Israelites. Both were descendants of Adam.

The Edomites were descended from Esau, brother of Jacob. Esau, father of the Edomites, was obviously from the same racial stock as the Israelites.

But notice, they had to wait three generations. So even though they were of the same race, God made them wait. Three generations is at least 60 to 75 years. It would take that long to ensure that they assimilated into the faith of the Israelites.

Now we're getting to the big ones. Rahab and Ruth. Everyone knows that there are two "heathens" in the genealogy of Christ. If no other "proof" can convince skeptical Christians who just can't decide what to do about interracial marriage, the case of Rahab and Ruth is the icing on the cake for theologians. Just read the stories to people. Show them how "inclusive" the Bible is. And all objections go away. Right?

The stories of Rahab and Ruth are no more inclusive then the sky is green with purple and pink polka dots.

Matthew 1 lists the genealogy of Jesus, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Verse 5 says,

We've already learned about the doctrine of Balaam and the resulting deaths of 24,000 Israelites. The execution of this large number of the Israel people not only cleansed the nation of all idolatrous practices (for a time) but provided a real and vivid example of what would happen if they failed to keep God's Laws and commandments in the future.

Immediately after the capture of Jericho, God again inflicted sudden death on the Israelites when one soldier (Achan) disobeyed the instruction not to take anything for themselves from that city, for all the gold and silver found in Jericho was to go into the Lord's treasury. But Achan took some of the gold and silver which he found and hid it in his tent. Therefore God caused 36 of the Israel forces to be slain by the men of Ai in the next battle. When Joshua learned the reason for those deaths, he located the guilty soldier and, after his summary court-martial in front of all the people, the stolen goods were brought out and placed on the ground. Then, the whole family of Achan was assembled and the Israelites stoned Achan, his sons and his daughters to death. Even his cattle were slaughtered, his tent burned including all that he and his family had possessed, and everything that remained, including the stolen goods, was covered with a mound of stones. Read about it in Joshua chapter 7.

Threatened with such swift and drastic punishment on this scale if even one of His people disobeyed the least of God's commands, it is unlikely that any male of Israel would have dared to be so foolish as to marry an idolatrous Canaanite woman in open defiance of the Law of Deuteronomy 7:3-4, which expressly forbade such marriages. The fact that the Israelite armies suffered no more setbacks for the next 25 to 30 years is sufficient evidence in itself that no further transgressions of God's Law occurred during that period.

Who, then, was this female ancestor of Jesus Christ, named Rachab in the King James Version of the Bible, who is stated, in Matthew 1:5, to have married Salmon the son of Naashon, a prince of the Royal line of Judah, some time either before or after the Israelites occupied the Promised Land?

Jesus is our High Priest, after the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:6). He has entered the inner shrine behind the curtain "as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 6:20)

Leviticus 21:7, 9 and 14 make it perfectly clear, no priest of God could take a harlot for his wife and even the daughter of a priest, if she played the harlot, was to be killed and burnt with fire.

It's impossible that Christ, our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, had a harlot as an ancestor.

That the Rahab of the Jericho story was a harlot there is no doubt. Both Paul and James, 1500 years later and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said so (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). If she was NOT a harlot, then Paul, a learned disciple of Gamaliel, would most certainly have taken swift action to correct the mistake in the ancestry of the revered king of Israel, David, not to mention the Lord Jesus Christ!

Some have claimed that Rahab was an Israelite, descended from Sherah, the daughter of Ephraim who went to Canaan about two centuries before the Exodus and built the strongholds of Beth-horon and Uzzen-sherah about 25 miles west of Jericho.

If this were the case then why didn't Joshua say so and correct the mistake? Joshua was a ninth generation descendant of Ephraim (1 Chronicles 7:24-27) and would have been related to Rahab if she was actually a descendant of Ephraim's daughter Sherah.

As a matter of fact, if Rahab was related to Joshua he certainly would have made sure that his spies knew about her and gave them careful instructions for her rescue on the grounds of blood relationship. He also would have cleared her name of any accusation of being a harlot, if it wasn't true.

And wouldn't she have sent a direct appeal to her kinsman if she was a racial Israelite? "Hey guys, here I am! Come rescue me."

Yet she had no hesitation in identifying herself as a Canaanite, "And as soon as we heard our hearts melted..." (Joshua 2:11). She fulfilled a prophecy made 40 years earlier in Exodus 15:16, where it is stated that "fear and dread" would fall upon the Canaanites and that "all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away". In Joshua 2:10, she states that we (the people of Canaan) heard how the Lord dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you (the Israelites); and in verse 11 she says that when we heard these things our hearts did melt.

Rahab is obviously including herself among the Canaanites, not the Israelites.

Thank you, all the inclusive world viewers are saying, you just made our point.

So the young men who had been spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father and mother and brothers and all who belonged to her; and they brought all her kindred, and

What! You didn't know this part? That's right. Rahab and her family were not allowed into the assembly of Israel because they were not Israelites. The last we hear of Rahab is in verse 25 where is says that Rahab the harlot, her father's household and everyone else dwelt in Israel to this day because she hid the messengers.

But they dwelt in Israel as guests, not as Israelites. The fact that they were left outside the camp once again emphasizes the fact that they were members of a foreign race whose presence within the camp of Israel would have polluted it in God's sight and brought God's swift punishment upon the Israel forces.

So the Rahab in Joshua was a Canaanite by race and a harlot. The Canaanites were so evil and diseased, both spiritually and as a people, that God ordered the armies of Israel to slaughter every living thing in the cities they captured (Joshua 6:21), men, women, children and animals. Then the cities were to be burned to the ground in order to cleans the area by fire and prepare it for the Israelites.

This fact alone, quite apart from the Laws forbidding marriage with members of other races, makes it unthinkable that either Salmon, a prince of the Royal line of Judah, would even have considered a marriage with such a woman, or that his comrades in arms would have allowed him to do so when they themselves would, most likely, be the very ones to suffer sudden destruction by God for condoning such a deliberate transgression of God's commands.

Joshua does not mention such a marriage. There's no mention anywhere in the Bible of any marriage between the harlot Rahab and anyone.

As a matter of fact, the harlot's name isn't even Rahab. The name Rahab isn't even in the Bible. That's right. The word Rahab, in the Old Testament, is mentioned three times in a poetic or metaphorical sense for the land of Egypt, with the meaning of being "haughty" or "proud." (see Psalms 87:4, 89:10 and Isaiah 51:9). But these three passages have nothing to do with Joshua, Jericho, or the harlot who lived there. The same Hebrew word `rahab' is, in fact, quite correctly translated in the King James Version as `proud' in Job 9:13 and 26:12, but in Isaiah 30:7 it is incorrectly translated as `strength'. This verse reads, in the Hebrew text, "Egypt's help is vain and worthless therefore I have called her Rahab sitting still" (or `Egypt the motionless').

The harlot's name is `Rakhab' (English pronunciation: `Raackharb') A different Hebrew word to `Rahab', with a totally different meaning of "to widen" or "to make broad". It is not spelt with the Hebrew letter `He' as in Rahab, but with the letter `khet' (which has a hard gutteral aspirated sound like the `ch' in `loch' or in the German `macht'.)

The Greek alphabet, however, has no equivalent letters corresponding to either `he' or `khet'. Hence, in the Septuagint version of the Book of Joshua, the harlot's name is spelt `Ra'ab' in all passages where it occurs. And exactly the same spelling is used in the New Testament in the Greek text of Hebrews 11:31 and of James 2:25 but not in Matthew 1:5.

In both Hebrews and James her names is accompanied with, "The Harlot." In Matthew, it is not. A clear distinction is being made between the two women.

If Salmon's wife was indeed `Rakhab' the harlot, why is it then that, in the Greek text of Matthew 1:5, it is spelt `Raxab' and not Ra'ab as it is in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 and in every passage of the Greek text of the Septuagint where the harlot's name appears? And why is it that Raxab's name in Matthew 1:5 is NOT coupled with the term `harlot'? This is the first and only occurrence of this name in the New Testament. Therefore, IF Raxab was in actual fact the harlot of Jericho, then it is even more necessary to identify her here as the harlot than it is in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25. It should be noted that the letter `x' in Raxab's name is the Greek letter `chi' which has the hard `ch' sound as in the English `chord' or `Christ'. Therefore the English pronunciation of the Greek name `Raxab' in Matthew 1:5 should be `Rachab' — with a short second `a' as in cab — NOT `Rahab' and NOT `Raackharb'.

This is not just another way of spelling or of pronouncing `Rahab' or `Rakhab' either in Greek or in Hebrew. `Rachab' is a different name altogether in the `original' Greek. Therefore it cannot refer to Ra'ab the harlot, it can only refer to a different woman.

The whole evidence of Scripture is that Salmon's wife was not the harlot of Jericho, and in the absence of any other conflicting information concerning her, then the conclusion must be that her ancestry was as impeccable as that of her husband.

The reference to Rakhab's `faith' in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 does not refer to any `religious conversion' on her part, for, as a Canaanite, she would not even have been allowed into the Assembly or Congregation of Israel, let alone to partake of the holy things. Both Paul and James were simply contrasting her faith, and the action she took as a result of it, with that of the Israelites of her day and also of Paul's day. Besides, Satan and the demons believe and tremble. This does not constitute conversion.

Here again we have a case of biblical translators having preconceived ideas of what something should be.

Here is the last that the inclusive world viewers, Bible teachers, preachers, biblical "scholars" and religious leaders use to absolutely prove that interracial marriage is acceptable to God. When all other arguments fail, Ruth, in their opinion, cannot be refuted.

Deuteronomy 7:1 says that there are seven nations mightier than Israel
Notice that the Moabites are to the east of the Dead Sea (Salt Sea)

Before the Children of Israel entered the land, the Moabites and Ammonites, who were descendants of Lot and his daughters through the incestuous sex that the daughters forced on Lot after getting him drunk. (Genesis 19:30-37), occupied the land east of Jordan. The "Plaines of Moab" were a small area on the east side of the Jordan. When the Amorites, who were descendants of Canaan (also the result of incest), moved east, they drove the Moabites out of the northern section of their land and south of the River Arnon. The Amorites then occupied the Plains of Moab and all the country of Moab north of the River Arnon to the River Jabbok, (part of where the Ammonites are in the above map. The River Jabbok is not marked but it's the one on the north of the word Ammonites).

Numbers 21:13 tells us that Arnon was the border of Moab at the time when the Israelites came north out of the Wilderness. The Israelites followed a path right around the territory in which the Moabites were then living and came into Amorite occupied territory just north of the River Arnon. (Marked as Ammonites on this map).

Numbers 21:22 states that they then asked permission of the Amorite King Sihon to pass through his land. When this was refused, the Israelites, under God's instructions, fought and destroyed the whole Amorite nation (men, women and children). Numbers 21:24 states that the Israelites then possessed all the land from Arnon to the River Jabbok, including the Planes of Moab. (Again, marked as Ammonites on this map.)

The Israelites continued their campaign northwards and conquered all the land of Bashan, north of the River Jabbok, right up to Hivite territory. And they completely wiped out the entire population of Bashan as they had done with the Amorites. They then returned south and camped in the Plains of Moab ready for crossing the Jordan, opposite Jericho, into Canaan.

In Deuteronomy 2:9 the Lord tells the Israelites not to harass Moab or contend with them in battle. He tells them that He will not give them any of their land for a possession. And they did not take any Moabite land. They took land that the Amorites had previously taken, but it was still called The Plains of Moab.

Judges 11:14 reinforces this by reminding the Ammonite king that Israel did not take away the land of Moab and did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was the boundary of Moab. (verse 18). They conquered the lands north of the Arnon that used to be the Plains of Moag.

Now Numbers 32 states that the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, elected to take their inheritance in those conquered lands on the eastern bank of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, north of the River Arnon. These lands, as we have seen, included the "Plains of Moab" and were never called the "Land of Israel" even though occupied by these tribes continuously until the fall of Israel under Assyrian attack 700 years later (1 Chronicles 5:26.)

This land was granted to them providing their fighting men crossed the Jordan and helped to drive out the Canaanites. This they agreed to do.

It should be easy to see that all the references to "a land of Moab" and to "plains of Moab" and "wilderness of Moab" (which the Israelites occupied) did not have racial Moabites living in them.

The Moabites were south of the River Arnon

In fact history tells us that the Moabites were a determined enemy continually at war with the Tribes of Israel. Yet our "theologians" and religious leaders would have us believe that Naomi and her family could live with the hostile Moabites and inter-marry with them, then after ten years living with the enemy they could come back and receive a royal welcome by the whole Tribe of Judah and be hailed as the equal to Rebekah!

Good grief

Last point about this, Jeremiah, the prophet, tells us in chapter 40 of his book that he had been bound in chains along with all the captives of Jerusalem and Judah who were being exiled to Babylon and then released. He dwelt with the people who had been left, the women, children and poorest of the land who had not been taken into exile in Babylon.

Most people think that everyone living in Israel, the entire House of Judah, went into the Babylonian exile. That's not the case. The Babylonians only took the educated, the higher class, the nobles and priests. They left the farmers and workers in the land.

Why do we tell you this?

Because Jeremiah tells us that he gathered the "remnant" who did not go into exile up at Mizpah. This remnant was living in all kinds of places, including "all the Jews who were in Moab and among the Ammonites and in Edom." (Jeremiah 40:11)

Several hundred years after Ruth, the Israelites were still living in their territory known as Moab.

This map shows the land of Canaan as divided up among the twelve tribes after it had been conquered. Notice that the tribes of Reuben and Gad each had a part of the Plains of Moab. And why was it these tribes elected to stay on the east side of the Jordan? Numbers 32:1 gives us the reason, because it was excellent cattle country, plenty of water and grass, and it could withstand droughts and famines.

So now that we've looked at the maps, let's look at God's word. Because we know by now that God does not break His own laws. So something has been lost, either in translation or in explanation, in the story of Ruth.

Deuteronomy 23:3 undeniably states that neither an Ammonite or Moabite can ever mingle with the Israelites.

No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of the Lord for ever

God doesn't say, give them a chance to convert and learn your ways. God doesn't say, the eleventh generations will be just fine.

No!

God says never, ever, can these people be a part of Israel

These people were the result of incest. Defective from the start. The daughters of Lot got their father drunk and had sex with him. These people are the result. (Genesis 19:30-37). So even if the argument can be made that racially these were "kin" to Israel, genetically, they were twisted. God always has a reason for His commands. We should never second guess the ways of God.

And the religious leaders of today want to say that God doesn't know what He's talking about.

Shame on them

Ruth was the great-grandmother of King David. So using the statements of theologians that she was a Moabite by race, then:

Ruth could not, by law, have married an Israelite. Not her first husband, Mahlon, nor Boaz, her second husband.
God Himself could not have chosen David to be king over Israel without making a mockery of His own law
The women of Israel could not have welcomed Ruth into their midst and likened her to Rebekah without making a mockery of God's laws.
The meticulous observance to God's laws, after Naomi and Ruth returned, would have been a mockery of God's laws and an insult to God. If Ruth was a racial Moabite, she was disqualified from associating with any Israelite and her marriage with Boaz forbidden. Ezra and Nehemiah's racial reforms would have been worthless since every person excluded from fellowship could have simply pointed to Ruth and demanded to remain in Israel based on her inclusion.
God destroyed the two oldest sons of Judah in order to prevent the Royal Line from coming down through a Canaanite woman. Why would He now make a mockery of His own laws and allow His Royal Line to be descended from a Moabite woman? He would not because God does not change.

Bible teachers, preachers and Church leaders are making a mockery of God when they claim, even by inference, that God ignores His own law whenever it suites Him.

Or maybe they just want you to believe that, oops

God made a mistake

When the truth is that

God means what He says and never changes

It's man that has the problem with God's laws. When the Word of God doesn't fit into man's new and "enlightened" word view, then God's law has to change, in order to "fit" into this new world and "improved" world view.

Let's take a good look at the book of Ruth.

This can get technical, but stay with us. It's important that you understand the truth about Ruth

Verse 1 says that it was in the days when the Judges ruled Israel and a man of Bethlehem in Judah left his home and went to live in the country of Moab because of famine in the land. The word for country is Strong's #7704 and the Hebrew word is "saday", to spread out; a field. Remember, the "land" of Moab wasn't a "country" any more, they had been conquered. So it's not a foreign land. It's a territory of Israel.

Elimelech was a "man of Bethlemen in Judah, in other words, a Judahite. Yet his sons were called Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. Ephrath was the ancient name of Bethlehem. What's the importance of this?

People were called not only by their tribal name, but by the local name of the district in which they lived.

Israelites from the Tribes of Gad and Reuben who lived in "a land of Moab" were called Moabites!

Just like Moses called an Egyptian (Exodus 2:19) and Jacob was called a Syrian or Aramean (Deuteronomy 26:5; Hosea 12:12) and an Englishman who settled Australia is called Australian.

Your race does not change just because your location changes

Ruth was an Israelite living in the "Field of Moab." Geography made her a "Moabitess," not race.

After the death of the men of the family, Naomi decides to return to her tribal homeland near Bethlehem. She urges her daughters-in-law to return back to their own homes. She tells them that she is too old to bear more sons.

Why would Orpah and Ruth care about this? Because of exactly what happens later with Boaz and Ruth. The near kin marries Ruth. If Naomi had another son, that son would have been obligated, by Israelite law, to marry one of the widowed daughters of Naomi and Elimelech.

Why would Naomi have cared about this if the women had not been racial Israelites? Non-Israelites are not under Israelite law.

Orpah returns but Ruth refuses to to leave Naomi. In verse 15, Naomi says to Ruth, "Behold, thy sister-in-law has gone back to her `elohiym', return after your sister-in-law". But Ruth answered and said, "Urge me not to leave you … for whither thou goest, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy `elohiym', my `elohiym'. Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: The Lord (Jehovah) do so to me and more also, if ought but death part thee and me."

Not exactly the way you remember the text, is it!

There's a reason for reading it this way. Because even though we've proved that Ruth was not a racial Moabite. There still might be a niggling of doubt in your mind.

The word, ELOHIYM, is translated as Gods, and God. In doing the research for this section of our site, we decided to look up the word "God" in our concordance for Ruth 1:16, knowing that there are several names for God in the Hebrew language. The first concordance that we used did not have a reference for "God" in Ruth 1:16. That was a stumper! Luckily we have a much older concordance and looked God up in that one and found our reference.

This got us thinking. Why? Why didn't the newer concordance have a reference for God in Ruth 1:16? Choosing to test all things to see if they're of God, we did some digging, a lot of digging. And what a surprise!

The word ELOHIYM which both Naomi and Ruth use and which some Bibles translate as the "heathen gods" (plural) of Orpah, but the "Holy God" (singular) of Ruth was obviously confusing for translators. Especially since their world view needed this word to be Gods and God. In other words, the translators didn't know how to translate it in this context, so literally they tossed for it, and some of them made it plural and some made it singular. How can you trust what's right? Let the Bible be your guide!

What then does this word `elohim' mean? It's Strong's #430 and and is the plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plur. thus, espec. with the art) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, x exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly) x (very) great, judges, x mighty.

With all those definitions you have to let the context in which God has used it tell you which one is correct
Not the bias of the translator

In the Bible we find the word `elohiym' used in several different ways:

It is used of angels (incorrectly) Psalm 8:5
It is used of heathen gods Exodus 20:3
It is used of a woman (a goddess) 1 Kings 11:5
It is used of God Almighty (but generally only in conjunction with another word or Name of God)
It is used of the Creators of Genesis 1
It is used 5 times of Judges, human judges. (Exodus 22:8,9 or in the marginal notes)

If you were asked to translate this passage in Ruth, how would you translate this word `elohiym'? Look at the problem yourself.

It is a plural word.
It is used in exactly the same way for both Orpah and for Ruth; therefore it must be translated the same way, either both singular or both plural.
It can not refer to God or gods because when Ruth has finished speaking to Naomi, she appeals to God to bear witness to what she has said, and she does not use the word elohiym. She uses the name Jehovah which only an Israelite would use in such a personal manner.
When Naomi speaks of God Himself in verses 6 & 8 & 9, she also uses the name Jehovah, not elohiym. Therefore both Naomi and Ruth demonstrated beyond question that when they used the word elohiym in verses 15 and 16, they were not referring to God at all. They used Jehovah to refer to God.

So who were the Elohiym?

Let us go back to the first clue that God gave us in the very first verse of Chapter 1 where we are told that "it was in the days when the Judges ruled". Then look at the definition of elohiym which shows that elohim can be translated as judges, and there we find the complete and the only satisfactory translation of this word in this context, for it satisfies every single condition.

Naomi said, "Behold they sister-in-law has gone back to her people (her own tribe) and to her judges." Now why would they be Orpah's Judges? Because in those days the people of each tribe elected their own judges. Why did Ruth say that Naomi's Judges shall be her (Ruth's) Judges? Because Ruth, being of a different tribe, would have had no part in electing the Judges which ruled over Naomi's Tribe on the other side of the Jordan. And finally, the fact that Ruth called upon God using the Name Jehovah is indisputable evidence that Ruth was not using the word elohiym to mean God; and proof also that she was of pure Israel stock, for the Name Jehovah was revealed and given to Israel only. (Exodus 6:3).

Our "theologians" and religious teachers, who should know better, are quick to toss the law of God and allow Ruth to be a Moabite when she marries Boaz.

Yet at the same time they trumpet their approval and delight at the way Boaz observed every detail of God's Law in his dealings with Ruth!

Not one of these commentators and Bible teachers seem to have noticed that, since these kinsmen of Naomi were so carefully observing the law then the only reason they were doing it was because every single one of them recognized Ruth as a pure racial Israelite!

Is it willful deception on the part of our so-called religious leaders who are eagerly teaching the "unity of the races" to the point of biblical deception? Or are they truly spiritually blind to the point that they all gladly hail Ruth as a descendant of a people abhorrent to God, and proclaim her as the "hallowed and saintly ancestor of our Lord Jesus!" They boldly proclaim that in selecting such a repugnant foreigner as His ancestor, Jesus was "showing His condescension in taking on our' nature." They ought to be ashamed.

The religious leaders claim that in Ruth 2:12 when Boaz says to Ruth, "May Jehovah reward your decision, and may Jehovah, the God of Israel, pay thee well since thou hast come to `shelter under His Wings'" that these words "prove" Ruth was an idolater. They claim that Boaz was praising her for changing over to Jehovah worship.

This is quite wrong. Boaz is simply referring to her decision to leave her own tribe and land to come to Naomi's land and tribe, trusting in God for the future, not to the Judges in her own land who were duty bound to look after her and to find a husband for her.

In Psalm 17:8, King David also asks God "to hide him in the shadow of God's Wings" using the same metaphor that Boaz uses. Nobody would assume that King David was changing from idolatry to the worship of Jehovah so why should Ruth be accused of it?

As pointed out previously, Ezra was so ashamed and appalled when he discovered that the Israelites had intermarried with the heathen, including Moabites, that he tore his hair and beard. He said that the Holy Seed had been polluted. The people separated from their midst not only the foreigners but also the children that had already been born to them.

Consider the implications of this. How could Ezra and Nehemiah enforce the law if Ruth had been a racial Moabitess?

Ruth was not a racial Moabitess under any circumstances, and the falseness and hypocrisy of any teaching otherwise has been shown.

God Will Not be Mocked

He knows the truth

And now -- so do You

We hesitated to include this one in our list for fear of appearing to give validity to this ridiculous argument. But just in case some people out there still believe "The Curse of Ham" we decided that we should err on the side of caution and include this on our list.

In times past the so-called Hamitic curse was interpreted to mean that Ham's curse was the negro race. This is completely false and has never been demonstrated to be true, not historically, linguistically or factually. The descendants of Ham were Caucasian, White, just like their father was. The race of a person doesn't change.

The "Curse of Ham" has also been used by those with an incorrect world view to "prove" that the races of man came from the three sons of Noah. The White race came from Shem, the Asians from Japeth, and the Negroes from Ham. This again, is refuted by history, linguistics, and science. All these descendants were White, just like their fathers and their father, Noah.

The last point to be made on the Hamitic curse is that the curse wasn't even on Ham, but on his son, Canaan.

Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.
Genesis 9:25

Let's take a brief look at what happened starting with Genesis 9:20. The Bible tells us that "Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent." And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside." The two brothers take a garment and cover their father's nakedness backwards so that "they did not see their father's nakedness." When Noah wakes up he knows what Ham has done, but curses Canaan.

Scholars have forever declared that because Ham saw his father naked he performed a homosexual act on him and that's why Ham was cursed. But since Canaan was cursed, we must look deeper.

Leviticus chapter 18 is the chapter that has the Laws on sexual relations, most of them having to deal with

Here's where it gets interesting. Let's see what God has to say about this subject

"Ham...saw the nakedness of his father" clearly means that Ham committed incest with his mother

Shem and Japeth did not "see the nakedness of their father" clearly means that they did not commit incest with their mother

Canaan was the result of incest. That's why the Children of Israel were never to intermarry or mix with them. Just like the Moabites and Ammonites, they were a cursed race from the start due to incest.

The Israelites were told to destroy all the Canaanites before occupying the Promised Land. But they didn't. Joshua 16:10 tells us that the Ephraimites didn't drive out the Canaanites and they dwelt in the midst of them, "but have become slaves to do forced labor." Joshua 17:13 says that the tribe of Manasseh did the same thing, kept the Canaanites in their midst, "but when the people of Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, and did not utterly drive them out."

Just like God had said, through Noah, centuries before. Canaan became the slave of Shem.

Up until this point the critics will say, "that's fine, that's all under the 'Old Covenant.' Now we live under the New Covenant of Grace." Or the critics might say, "those laws were only for Israel of old. Now that we're 'spiritual Israel' we live under a different set of rules."

If only they would study their Bible just a little better, they might know the truth!

The New Testament is more complicated due to the fact that it's been mistranslated. That's right. You read correctly. Can we prove what we just wrote? Of course!

You've learned up to this point that context and interpretation are key in understanding the Word of God. But you've also learned that correctly translating the Word of God is also important. Who translated and what was their world view? The Roman Church had great power when the first translations were being made. If a translator didn't "correctly" interpret according to the church's world view or "tradition" then the translator could be burned at the stake! The Church of Rome burned a lot of "heritics."

In order to adequately understand the New Testament, you have to first understand the meaning of the word Gentile. Click below for a study on this word. Then come back and continue with our Defense of God's Word.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Not what you expected, was it. But now that you have a better understanding of what the word Gentile means. We can move on to our Defense of God's word in the New Testament.

Theologians and churches have been spouting this lie for decades. Ken Ham with his heretical book, ONE BLOOD, The Biblical Answer to Racism, is at the forefront of the lie that "we're all one blood." Why does Ken Ham and other theologians and Bible scholars so want the one blood lie to be perpetuated? I'll let Ken Ham himself tell you why:

This, of course, emphasizes that we are all related
page 53 from One Blood

If the one blood "doctrine" can be refuted, then Ken Ham's entire book, and the belief system built around it, comes crumbling down around his lily white ears.

The biblical text used to "support" Ken Ham's "theory" that we're all related is found in Acts 17:26 where Paul says

Yet biblical scholars agree that the word "blood" does not appear in the original Greek!

Most people understand that biologically, we're not of "one blood." Do a google search on "blood enzyme haplotype" and you'll quickly discover that Africans have predominately a different haplotype not found in other populations. On a genetic and biological level, blood varies considerably and is a distinctive characteristic which sets the races apart.

That's why when physicians are looking for organ donors they need to find people in the same racial and ethnic group in order to find a match. That's why people who are of mixed race parents have a difficult time when they need a new organ.

Even IF the word blood was in Acts 17:26, the word blood never indicated relationship in the Bible! The ancient people didn't know about DNA. They didn't have an understanding of genetics. The idea of who is related to who was conveyed using the words "bone and flesh" in the Bible. For instance:

Genesis 2:23: Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Genesis 29:14: And Laban said to him (Jacob), Surely thou art my bone and my flesh.
Judges 9:2: Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh. (Abimelech speaking to his relatives)
2 Samuel 5:1; 1 Chron. 11:1: Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto hebron, and spoke, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.
2 Samuel 19:12: Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh.
Ephesians 5:30: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Today we probably would have said, "you are of my blood." But in the Bible that meaning did not exist.

Read from Acts 17 starting at verse 16 and let's look at the entire section. First, who was Paul speaking to? Paul was in Athens, Greece. God showed him that the city was full of idols. The people of Greece had a lot of pride in their culture and nation. They divided mankind into two classes of people, the Greeks and the barbarians. So you were either a Greek or a no count barbarian. So Paul's issues with the men of Athens was their idolatry and their national conceit.

Paul told them that there was one God who made all things, including ALL NATIONS! And that's the key, the word "nations." Let's see the text again:

Paul is telling the conceited Greeks that God established all the nations, including their own. This fact would have deflated the egos of the Greeks and hopefully left them open to the Gospel. So the issue is nations, not individual men.

Bullinger's Companion Bible -- One Blood -- The texts omit "blood." The "one" here means either Adam, or the dust of which he was formed.
The Interpreter's Commentary -- from one (some manuscripts add "blood"), i.e. from Adam.
Peake's Commentary on the Bible -- "From one." The Western text adds "blood', probably failing to realize that the reference is to Adam
The Oxford Annotated Bible -- From one, i.e. one man (Adam).

All these Bible commentaries agree that the word ONE in Acts 17:25 is referring to ADAM, or the dust of the ground, from which Adam was formed. So the text would be saying,

Paul is stating biblical history. This verse is cross-referenced to Deuteronomy 32:8 which reads:

Both texts talk about God dividing the nations within their own boundaries. The message is that God establishes nations and boundaries but

God's Word is true and infallible, men have made some errors in copying and translating that Word.

Only a Pharisaical minded individual would not see the accuracy of what we have pointed out.

For a more in-depth look at the one-blood issue refuted you can purchase a copy of Charles A. Weisman's book, NOT OF ONE BLOOD at the following link:

Even those who cross-referenced the Bible understand that 1 Peter 2:9-10 is talking about Israel!

There's lots more, but you get the idea. So what about the texts, and there are plenty of them, where the biblical writers are saying that God shows no partiality and God is no respector of persons? (Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; James 2:1-9; Acts 10:34, 35)

Assuming that you read the information on who is a Gentile, you now know that Gentile means NATIONS. So WHO WAS PAUL WRITING TO? To those that Christ said He was sent to, the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Paul was writing to those that Jesus sent the disciples out to find, the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6). Paul was writing to those that James was writing to:

To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood
1 Peter 1:1

If you don't think that this is where the Israelites were after their Assyrian captivity then study this link to the Assyrian captivity of the House of Israel

Using these texts as "proof" that it's permissible to intermarry is not only wrong but unbiblical and, quite frankly, not historically accurate!

And, by the way, this would also apply to such texts as Galatians 3:28, 29, "There is neither Jew (Judean) nor Greek..." and Colossians 3:11, "there is no distinction between Greek and Jew (meaning Judean)..."

This New Testament passage more than any other is probably used to justify interracial marriage. Preachers, biblical "scholars" and theologians gleefully point out that the only prohibition that Paul made in these verses was the marriage between unbelievers. Some even boldly link 1 Corinthians 7:16 to this passage stating that even if you do marry an unbeliever, Paul said you never know, you might be able to "save" your unbelieving husband or wife.

Let's take a closer look at the 2nd Corinthians passage. The first question to ask yourself is, who was Paul speaking to? The answer,

Well, that puts a kink in the traditional way of looking at things! Now let's go back to 2 Corinthians 6 and starting with verse 14 look at the passage with new eyes.

Now that we know WHO this text is speaking to, it's easy to see that Paul here is warning the racial Israelites in dispersion at Corinth not to intermarry with unbelievers. The cross reference to this text is Deuteronomy 7:2, 3 where God has warned the Children of Israel not to make marriages with the surrounding nations! Now isn't that ironic. The "theologians" don't expect the average Christian to use their cross-referencing. And if they do, not to understand the implications. So taken in context, Paul is warning racial Israelites in dispersion not to marry unbelievers outside their race.

Here Paul is directly quoting from the Old Testament. Biblical scholars and theologians can't get around that fact. But what they can do is twist the Word of God to fit their world view. And that world view says that physical Israel vanished in the dispersion. God's promises are now "transferred" to "spiritual Israel."

The cross reference to this text is Jeremiah 31:1, "At that time, says the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people." What time is Jeremiah referring to? The latter days when the physical descendants of the House of Judah and the House of Israel are reunited and restored. Read about it in Jeremiah 30 and 31.

The other cross reference for this text is Ezekiel 37:27, "My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God and they shall be my people." Paul knew that the believers in Corinth were racial Israelites, promised by God to be His children.

Here Paul is quoting Isaiah 52:11, "Depart, depart, go out thence, touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of her, purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the Lord." verse 12 says, "For you shall not go out in haste, and you shall not go in flight, for the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rear guard."

Chapter 51 of Isaiah talks about God's mercy to ABRAHAM being bestowed on the descendants of Abraham. Don't miss this folks, Paul is directly quoting prophecies that the racial Israelites in Corinth would recognize and know pointed to them!

The cross-reference for this last part is probably the most powerful. Isaiah 43:6 says, "I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth." The Israelites had been dispersed over the whole "known" earth and these Corinthians knew it because they were part of the dispersion!

The other cross-reference is Hosea 1:10. Hosea is a book that most people miss but is a wonderful promise of the restoration of both houses of Israel. Hosea is told by God to marry an unfaithful woman, Gomer. Gomer represents the unfaithfulness of Israel. The prophecy of the restoration of Israel is beautifully portrayed in the book of Hosea. Verse 10 says, "yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Sons of the living God."

The text in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 is not "proof" that God allows interracial marriage any more than any of the other "proofs" of the theologians are acceptable by God.

There are those who will take the words on this page, twist them, and claim that we're bigots, racist, hate mongers...you get the idea.

Have we written one word expressing hate toward any racial group on this page?

Have we written one word expressing the superiority of one race over another on this page?

Don't let the politically correct, fear mongering of the day keep you from truth.

Then come back and take a look at the more recent past and interracial marriage