Isa. 56:10-11: “¹⁰ His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. ¹¹ ...greedy dogs which can never have enough ...shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain ....”

Nearly all of today’s inept clergy will insist that Ruth was a racial Moabite, and that the Almighty made an exception in her case. Geographic History will prove otherwise!To understand that Ruth was an Israelite instead of a Moabite, we must know some of the history which led up to Ruth’s time.

Amorites absorb Moabites:The most important thing we must understand is the fact that the Amorites had conquered and absorbed the Moabites. The Moabites descended from Lot’s incest with one of his two daughters, named Moab. By the time of the incident at Baalpeor, the Moabites were no longer a racially pure people. We can be quite sure of this as Paul called Israel’s sexual encounter with the Moabite women ‘fornication’ i.e., race-mixing (1 Cor. 10:8). What we can be certain of is, shortly before the Israelites arrived in the Transjordan, Sihon, a king of the Amorites, had defeated the previous king of Moab (Num. 21:26) and absorbed much of the Moabite territory as far south as the Arnon(The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. K-Q, p. 414). For verification of this fact, Num. 21:26 reads:

“For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amor- ites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.”

What the serious Bible scholar must understand is that during the Joshua period, the Israelites destroyed the Amorites, who had absorbed the Moabites, killing and/or displacing both of them. Upon driving the Amorites (+ absorbed Moabites) out of the promised land, it is recorded at Joshua 18:7 that half of the tribe of Manasseh, along with the tribes of Gad and Reuben, moved into the former land of Moab east of the Jordan. It was later, during the Judges period, that an Israelite lady from the conquered land of Moab by the name of Ruth journeyed with her mother-in-law Naomi from the land of Moab back to Bethlehem. Yes, Ruth was an Israelite, and surely NOT a Moabite!

We read at Genesis 26:34-35:“³⁴ And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite: ³⁵ Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.”

Not only “a grief of mind unto Isaac and Rebekah”, but a “grief of mind” unto Yahweh Almighty Himself. And for good rea- son, for at Malachi 1:2-3 it assuredly states:“² I have loved you, saith Yahweh. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith Yahweh: yet I loved Jacob, ³ And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

It is essential to recognize that Esau’s two Hittite wives were descended from the ten cursed Canaanite nations of, Gen. 15:19-21, especially the Kenites, who are traceable to Cain who murdered Abel, and the Rephaim, who were descended from giants. Thus, not only did Yahweh hate Esau, but it is also stated of Edom at Psalm 137:9:“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”(cf. v. 7.)

There are many who, when they attend a church func- tion or other stage-play featuring the manger scene, with the three wise men, along with their visit to consult Herod to determine the location of the then recently born Christ Child, fail to fully comprehend all of the events taking place in the surrounding history which are seldom revealed. This will be an effort to divulge some of the missing data.

First of all, the Herod family were Edomites who were converted to Judaism about 105 B.C., which we find record- ed at Josephus’ Antiq. bk. 13: ch, 9: par. 1, in part:

“... Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews ....”[Note: These “jews” were NOT Judah!]

This is a very serious Biblical story seldom, if ever, addressed anywhere in the various sects of churchianity! I attended church for about 35 years, and I never heard this subject mentioned one single time, so I doubt very much whether any of my readers have heard it either. For evi- dence on this matter, I will cite Eusebius’ The History of the Church, translated by G.A. Williamson, published by Pen- guin Books. pp. 18-19, (and this passage will demand editing to properly comprehend the context):

“Extinction of the native Jewish [sic Judahite] dynasty: Herod, the first foreign [Edomite] king: 6. At this time Herod became the first foreigner to be king of the Jewish [sic Judaean] nation, fulfilling the words of Moses:

“‘There shall not be wanting a ruler from Judah • Nor a leader sprung from his loins • Until he come for whom it is reserved.’

“Moses adds that he will be the expectation of the Gentiles [sic ethnos, nations]. There could be no fulfilment of the pre- diction as long as they were free to live under rulers of their own [Israelite] race, beginning with Moses himself and continuing to Augustus’ reign; in his time the first foreigner, Herod, was entrusted by the Romans with the government of the Jews [sic Judahites]. Josephus informs us that he was an Idumaean on his father’s side and an Arab on his mother’s; but according to Afri- canus – and he was no ordinary historian – the best authorities say that Antipater, Herod’s father, was son of a certain Herod of Ascalon, one of the ‘temple-slaves’ of Apollo. This Antipater was taken prisoner by Idumaean bandits when a medium child, and re- mained in their hands because his father was too poor to put down his ransom. He was brought up in their ways and later befriended by Hyrcanus, the Jewish [sic Levitical Israelite] high priest. His son was the Herod of our Saviour’s time.

“An Associated Press Release from Victoria Falls, Rhodesia, dated February 18, 1960, reads in part as follows:

“... However, [Billy] Graham declared, ‘I don’t see how the South African approach (of rigid segregation) can possibly work’ ... ‘Christ was not a European,’ he said, ‘He wasn’t fair skinned. I should say He was swarthy ...’.”[Destiny, June 1962]

It is quite surprising, to say the least, to find Graham teach- ing that Christ ‘wasn’t [FAIR] skinned – but [SWARTHY]’!

In The American Heritage Dictionary with Indo-European Roots, the word “fair” as an adjective means: “1. Visually beauti- ful or admirable; lovely: a fair maiden2. Of light color, as a. Blond: fair hair ....” Webster’s New World Dictionary has on the adjective “fair”: “1. attractive; beautiful; lovely. 2. unblemished; clean ... 3, [< notion that dark coloring was foul] light in color; blond [fair hair] ....” Webster’s definition for “swarthy” is: “... having a dark complexion; dusky ...”. One of the meanings of “dusky” is “lacking light; dim; shadowy” somewhere between intense light and deep darkness, which would be “arab” in the Hebrew at Strong’s #6150, where it means, “... to grow dusky at sundown ...” & #6154 where it means, “... a mixture, (or mongrel race) ....” Thus, we have four words to pursue here; “fair”, “ruddy”, “swarthy” & “arab”.

Not only is it the height of insanity to promote this supposition, but it borders on blasphemy! Many mediocre Bible students are aware of the original Temple built by Solomon and the 2nd more humble Temple rebuilt by Zerubbabel after the seventy years of Judah’s captivity in Babylon. But they are entirely oblivious to the Temple which Herod built after tearing down Zerubbabel’s Temple to, and including, its foundations (Josephus’ Antiq. 15:11:3).

Testimony is found at The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. R-Z, p.p. 550-551, under subtitle “Temple, Jerusalem”:

“THE TEMPLE OF HEROD:As was pointed out above, this temple lasted a much shorter time than the other two. Begun ca. 20 B.C.,the basic structure was completed in about a year and a half, but subsidiary construction was still in process a half-century later (John 2:20),and may not have been entirely finished when the destruction came in A.D. 70. Although on the same site as the two preceding temples, this one involved an almost complete rebuilding according to the new and then prevailing style of architecture, the Hellenistic-Roman, but with retention of the Solomonic arrangement of rooms within the sanctuary itself. It is logically absurd, therefore, to confuse Herod’s and Zerubbabel’s temples under the name of ‘second temple.’ Herod’s was definitely the third temple, no matter what tradition may say.[Note: Herod’s temple was satanically inspired. C.A.E]