What Yah showed me tin this year’s reading of these scriptures is that in effect, as it is written, no Moabite nor the child of an illegitimate child can EVER enter the congregation of Yahveh, Deu 23:2-3, which would very much affect David's stance. I am aware the rabbinate claims that it did not affect Ruth as she was a female and all but the Hebrew language, like in other languages, is inclusive of both male and female when referring to a group that includes both sexes. So the language itself denies this rabbinical posture. In addition history itself shows that, as is also claimed by the rabbis Ruth could not possibly have been a Moabite princes, daughter of King Eglon who for 18 years reclaimed part of the Moabite territory the Amorites had taken from Moab earlier relegating Moab to south of the River Arnon. It is to be noted Israel, namely Ruben, Gad and half of Manasseh, had possession of the land between the Arnon to the River Jabbok (to Mount Hermon at some point) for over 300 years corresponding with the time of Judges and Ruth. This land under Israelite dominion included what continued to be known as the fields, plains or country of Moab. It laid east of the Jordan river slightly north of the Dead Sea.
The Moabites would have nothing to do with the Israelites (just as Muslims won’t), in fact we see how they tried to have Balack curse them. It is highly doubtful that given their history of lack of trust and hateful dislike of Israel that Moab would have allowed a Jewish family to live among them. So why would Torah call Ruth and the other lady (her name escapes me) a “Moabite”? The definition of the word "Moabite” includes ‘CITIZEN'. Ruth was indeed a citizen of the land, country, or fields of Moab! However, Israel as it often did, worshiped the pagan deities of the land which is why Yah allowed King Eglon to rule them for 18 years. It is also why Ruth did teshuva, complete repentance, turning back to the true Elohim which Judah more or less still followed. Ruth like the prodigal son, was repenting of her idolatry in a statement of faith professing trust in Yahveh.
Ruth was never an ethnic Moabite but rather a citizen of what continued to be known as the country of Moab. She was one of the many Israelites (possibly Rubenite) that lived the way the pagans did. Had she not been an ethnic Moabite she could not have been permitted to enter the assembly of greater Israel because of what is written both in Deu 23:2-3 and in Nehemiah 13:1. No way Ruth could have married Boaz under the levirate laws had she not been an ethnic Israelite, and no way the elders of Judah would have bestowed on her the usual blessing given to the descendants of Abraham, Yitzhak and Yacob.
Most importantly Yeshua's (Jesus) lineage on both mother and father side had to be as squeaky clean as that of the red heifer. If Noah was clean in ALL his generations, how much more so shouldn't Yeshua’s generation be to qualify as the perfect lamb of Yahveh? Yeshua’s generation were clear all the way to Adam. There was no contamination of any forbidden SEED in His lineage. While there were Gentiles that left Egypt with Israel who joined Israel when they accepted the terms of the covenant along with Israel, these did not include certain forbidden people from ever intermarrying with Israel. As you may recall Yahveh told Israel to kill ALL the people in certain areas, including at times their animals and plants. Yahveh Himself did likewise during the flood, save Noah, as He did later with Sodom and Gomorrah. So where did the Moabites come from? If Yahveh killed all the inhabitants of Sodom and then made a prohibition for Israel to allow them to join them why would He make an exception with Ruth going against His own pronouncements? That would put Yah’s word in question, moreover in this case it would put in question Yeshua Himself as the promised Messiah; exactly what satan did in the garden questioning Yahveh’s words and trying to supplant Him.