Can a Mo'avite (Moabite) enter the Assembly of Yahweh?

Answer From The Annual Reading Schedule - Week 46 Notes For Deuteronomy: No (Deuteronomy 23:3). Some people would then ask, "What about Rut (Ruth)?" In response to that, I would point out that Rut married into the tribe of Yehudah (Judah) (Ruth 1:1-4). Although perhaps they should not have married Rut to begin with, because they did marry her she became part of the tribe of Yehudah and therefore a Yisra'elite (Israelite) by law. Some studies exist claiming Rut was from the seed of Yisra'el (Israel) to begin with, but I see too much evidence in the book of Rut to show that she was in fact a foreigner originally from Mo'av (Moab) (that is, until she married into the tribe of Yehudah). My perspective is that once she got married, she became part of Yehudah by law; hence the right of having a kinsmen redeemer take her as wife when taking the land went into effect as well. This is also known as the "duty of the husband's brother" mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:5. The term "brother" here could mean more than just a literal brother, but another relative.

What about the divorces in Ezra 9-10 and possible divorces in Nehemiah 13:23-31? Why wouldn't these foreign women, like Rut, then be considered to have married into the tribes of the men? Good question. I would say that they were. However, Ezra 9:1 says, "The people of Yisra'eyl and the priests and the Lewites (Levites) have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, as to their abominations". The phrase "as to their abominations" shows that these were not only forbidden foreigners, but foreigners doing evil things, most likely living in idolatry and paganism. Also, Ezra 9-10 is unique in that the men swore to divorce in Ezra 10:5 – it says they swore. Once they did swear, they were bound to do what they said. However, now we know that we are to not swear because Yahushua says to not swear in Matthew 5:34 – so we could never take the same steps that they did.

Also, the decision at the time of Ezra was before the words of Yahushua were known, as evidenced by the disciples' surprise in their response in Matthew 19:10. Our understanding of adultery today is very clearly expanded now to be affected by a person's divorce status, which we learn from Yahushua in Matthew 5:32, 19:9, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:10-12. Before this, adultery was only commonly understood to include a woman who was still currently married – not a woman who had been divorced. If a divorced woman remarried, or if a divorced man remarried, this was never considered to be adultery before Yahushua came. So the words of Yahushua do change everything. We, today, have a fuller understanding of what adultery is in the eyes of Yahweh than they could have had in the time of Ezra, because we have the words of Yahushua written down, but they did not. To think that things are "just the same" now – is simply not correct.

In addition, we have a deeper understanding from the words of Yahushua of how much Yahweh is against divorce. They did not know that what Elohiym has joined, man cannot separate – we do know this. The understanding of divorce back then was that people were only viewed as prohibited from divorcing in specific, unique circumstances such as shown in Deuteronomy 22:19 and 22:29. So their view of what was right was limited to only what had been clearly revealed to mankind up until that time. So they did do what was right – to the best of their understanding with the information they had available at that time.

Regarding comparing the situations in Ezra and possibly Nehemiah to Rut – they are not exactly the same because Rut renounced the foreign elohiym and was essentially grafted into Yisra'el. Did any of the women divorced in Ezra or Nehemiah do this? It mentions abominations in Ezra 9:1 which would imply, no, they did not yet do this. We have no details indicating they did what Rut did, so we might assume maybe they were practicing paganism based on Ezra 9:1.

The men in Ezra wanted to do what was right, and since a bunch of women were wrongly married from forbidden nations and involved with abominations, if they were practicing idolatry and paganism, and since they didn't have the words of Yahushua to give them the same understanding on marriage, divorce, and adultery as we have today, they did what was understood to be the most righteous course of corrective action at that time. The marriages in Ezra are only comparable to if an entire assembly today, as believers, went out and blatantly disobeyed Yahweh and married self-proclaimed unbelievers. We should never, ever be in a situation where any believer knowingly marries an unbeliever, so we should never be in a situation comparable to the marriages in Ezra 9-10 in today's day and time.

Also, a believer married to an unbeliever when they both married as unbelievers is not comparable to Ezra 9-10 either. Two unbelievers getting married, and one becoming a believer, would be more comparable to if two Mo'avites got married in the Old Testament and one started sacrificing to Yahweh only – that's not what we see happening in Ezra. So Ezra is not comparable.

Rut said in Ruth 1:16, "Your people is my people, and your Elohiym is my Elohiym".

By her words and actions, she had forsaken her people and their false elohiym and therefore Yahweh accepted her and she was grafted in. This is how I view this situation at this time. I know there are studies online claiming Rut wasn't really a Mo'avite, but I think she was and once a marriage is started, Yahweh honors that marriage, even if it shouldn't have been started (unless it's impossible for it to be considered a marriage – like homosexuality can't result in a marriage because marriage can only be between a man and a woman).

If someone enters into a marriage they shouldn't have, that doesn't mean the marriage is entirely invalid. When Rut married an Yisra'elite, although it shouldn't have happened, it did – and once it did, Deuteronomy 25:5 kicked in and became active and applicable to her when her husband died. If the marriage was considered entirely invalid and unrecognized, then Deuteronomy 25:5 couldn't have taken effect at all.

We see a similar situation with something forbidden being required to be honored in Joshua 9 where the Giv'onites (Gibeonites) tricked the Yisra'eylites into a covenant that was forbidden by Yahweh. Although the covenant was forbidden, Yahweh required them to honor what they had agreed to.