If you really want to hurt a woman, hurt her children.  If you think no one would do such a thing, you haven’t been to as many places as I have nor lived as long. 
            I have seen grandmothers pass their favoritism on to the next generation.  If one child is not particularly liked, then his children won’t be either.
            I have seen grandmothers show that favoritism in gifts, in words, and most shameful of all, in hugs.  I have seen grandchildren pitted against one another, one side always believed over the other, regardless of evidence.  I have seen grandchildren used to create tension between their parents, either siblings of one another, or spouses.
            Children should be sacred ground when it comes to family squabbles.  You never hurt a child, regardless whose he is.  If there is something unnatural about a mother hurting her own child, there is something just plain loathsome about a grandmother doing it.  Isn’t that why the story of Athaliah, the wicked queen who had all her grandchildren killed to secure her own reign, horrifies us?  Women like that deserve the worst of punishments, and God made sure Athaliah got hers.
            Then there is the matter of “blood.”  I have seen blood grandchildren obviously favored over adopted.  I have seen step-grandchildren totally ignored.  A child cannot help where he came from.  If he has been specially chosen to be in the family, he should be treated as family as much as any other child—he IS family.
            Naomi is the perfect example.  Ruth was her daughter-in-law, not her daughter.  Boaz may have been a distant relative, but he was not her son.  Yet how did she accept their child?  So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son…Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse, Ruth 4:13,16.  According to Keil, “became his nurse” is tantamount to adopting him as her own son, not just her grandson.  Could she have made her love and acceptance of this child any clearer?
            Surely a grandmother should not need to be told to love her grandchildren.  Even if there is some legitimate reason for an estrangement with their parents, do not take it out on the children.  It is not their fault how their parents act.  The list of pagan sins in Romans 1:28-32 includes “without natural affection” in the KJV and ASV.  That is translated “heartless” in the ESV.  Only a heartless grandmother refuses her grandchildren.  Only a heartless mother-in-law does it to retaliate against a daughter- or son-in-law she doesn't like. 
            Naomi’s love and acceptance of Ruth in all the ways we have discussed made for a relationship that has transcended the ages.  Ruth returned that love with her own genuine affection, with acceptance, and with the physical care every older parent has a right to expect.  Naomi and Ruth were not physically related in any way at all, but they treated one another as if they were, in fact, better than some blood relatives treat one another.  This is the way it is supposed to work.  May we all work harder to make it happen in our own homes.
 
So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in unto her, and Jehovah gave her conception, and she bare a son. And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be Jehovah, who has not left you this day without a near kinsman; and let his name be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto you a restorer of life, and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him, Ruth 4:13-15
 
Dene Ward
 

Is there anything more ticklish than the subject of advice between the older and younger generations?  Yet the Bible clearly teaches that older women are “to train the young women,” Titus 2:4, among many other passages.  So why is giving advice such a source of friction?  Naomi gave an awful lot of advice that was well-accepted.  Maybe we can learn a thing or two from her.
            In the first place, we don’t see much advice given in the book of Ruth until the two women return to Israel.  This was a brand new experience, a brand new culture with a new set of traditions for Ruth, and Naomi knew it.  So did Ruth.  She had no familiarity with the gleaning system of “welfare” practiced by the Hebrews.  Even though it reads as if she were the one to suggest her gleaning, she would not have known the laws unless Naomi had previously taught her.  And so Naomi likely told her, “This is how it’s done,” and she listened because she knew she needed it to get along in her new environment.
            Do you give advice when you have a different way of doing ordinary things, or when you know your daughter-in-law is in a completely new situation?  Young people nowadays are very well educated, so I have tried to keep quiet unless asked, but once in awhile the asking can be done with a sigh of frustration.  If you aren’t sitting there trying to change all of her methods simply because they don’t match yours, and if there has been some indication that it is wanted, your advice will probably be graciously accepted.  And if, after trying it out, she decides not to follow it, that’s fine.  Don’t mention it again.  We all have our own comfortable ways of doing things. 
            Don’t be judgmental with your advice.  Just because she uses more convenience food than you did, doesn’t mean she is a bad wife and mother.  Probably the time saved she uses on something that was not your talent and that you did not have time for because you cooked from scratch.  Despite modern catch phrases, you can’t do it all, and different doesn’t always mean worse.
            Remember, as we have seen previously, Naomi had carefully nurtured this relationship with acceptance, love, and friendship.  If you haven’t done that, don’t even try to give advice. Pay close attention to Naomi’s motivation.  Some of her advice came with the name of God attached (2:20).  Other times it was for the sake of Ruth’s safety (2:22), or for her future welfare and reputation (3:1ff).  Why, exactly, are you giving advice?  Is it to impart the will of the Lord?  Is it a matter of health and safety?  Or do you simply think she should fold the towels the same way you do?  If you are giving advice for every little petty thing that comes along, especially if it comes with that disapproving nasal whine we all recognize, it’s time to stop.  If it comes with a tone of superiority, don’t bother.  You might as well be holding up a sign saying, “Don’t pay any attention to me,” because she won’t.  You wouldn’t either if it were your mother-in-law.
            Listen to the way young women give each other advice.  Never a hint of superiority or criticism, just simple sharing—“This worked for me…I read this once…I never tried it myself, but my neighbor said…”  Their advice never comes with the unspoken but clearly heard, “And if you don’t do it my way, I’m going to take it as a personal affront.”  No wonder they go to their peers for advice instead of us older women.  But no wonder Ruth listened to Naomi.  Ruth’s attitude toward advice in chapters 2-4 testifies to the manner in which Naomi must have advised and taught in those early years of chapter 1. 
            So, all mothers-in-law out there listen to Naomi!  Giving advice is about content, manner, and motive.  It should be given seldom, carefully, and for all the right reasons.  I hope I’m getting better at it.
 
​Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his [or her!] earnest counsel, Prov 27:9.
 
Dene Ward

Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household, Matt 10:34-36.
 
            What Jesus says in the above passage clearly shows the expected atmosphere of the home.  It was not considered normal for a daughter-in-law and mother-in-law to have strife between themselves.  Even in a day of extended family in one compound, and often one house, the relationships were expected to be good ones.  For that to happen in such close quarters, beyond the mere acceptance we discussed last week, there had to be love.
            And such it was with Naomi and her daughters-in-law.  Notice in Ruth 1:4-6, even after their husbands died, these young women stayed with Naomi.  This was now a house of mourning and a house of poverty as well.  We do not understand the plight of the widow in that culture and time.  They had no widows’ pensions, no life insurance policies, no food stamps, and getting a job was pretty well limited to selling oneself as a bondservant.  Yet Naomi had cultivated such a wonderful relationship with these girls that they didn’t leave her, even though they both had families they could have gone home to (1:8).  These girls knew they were loved and that counted far more than food on the table.  Can you imagine what such a relationship must have been like? 
            When Naomi heard the famine had left Israel and she decided to go back home, even then both of them were determined to go back with her.  Not just to go on a trip, but to leave the culture they grew up in, to go where strangers were not particularly appreciated, where they would depend upon those very people to leave enough in the fields for them to survive on.
            And because of her genuine concern for them, Naomi did her best to send them back to their families.  I have heard people criticize her for this, as if she were sending them to Hell herself.  Once again our misunderstanding of culture has made us harsh and judgmental.  Their very survival could depend upon where they settled.  At home they would once again be under their father’s care and he would probably waste little time making a marriage transaction.  Marriage was more about survival than love in those days.  The love usually followed after years of handling the trials of life together.
            And why couldn’t they have continued to worship God, even in Moab?  Pockets of believers still dotted the landscape that far back.  Job for one.  I have heard a pretty good case made for him being an Edomite.  Then there was Jethro, a priest of God who was a Midianite.  And how about Naaman, who when he went back home prayed to God, In this thing Jehovah pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, Jehovah pardon your servant in this thing, 2 Kings 5:18.  Naaman fully intended to continue serving Jehovah, even though his occupation sometimes had him enter an idol’s temple.  Elisha’s answer was, “Go in peace.”  So why in the world couldn’t these girls serve Jehovah in Moab?  Naomi wanted what was best for them in their lives and evidently she had enough faith in them to know they could stay faithful to God even without her standing over them.
            And so Orpah did go back, crying all the way, (1:14).  But Ruth would not.  I am not sure her level of faith was any higher than Orpah’s, but I am sure her level of love for her mother-in-law was as high as it gets.  You don’t inspire that level of love and devotion without consistency and a large amount of time.  Especially in that culture, I have no doubt they worked together, laughed together, maybe even shared a few secrets as women are prone to do—sisterhood we call it nowadays, but one that also came with respect for an older woman who proved her love was genuine over and over and over.
            What are you inspiring in your daughter-in-law?  You can’t build a good relationship if she thinks you look down on her, if she thinks you resent her, if she thinks nothing she does is good enough.  She will never learn to trust that you have her best interests at heart if you are constantly criticizing, taking offense at her words, finding hidden meanings where there are none.  When you say to her, “I decided I would accept whoever my son brought home as his wife no matter what!” you are being far more transparent than you realize.  There would have probably been a “no matter what” no matter who he brought home.
            Genuine love and friendship, not something forced or pretended, that’s what every daughter-in-law needs from her mother-in-law.  And it will show in everything you do and say.
 
But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you." And when Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more. Ruth 1:16-18.
 
Dene Ward

Let’s just start our study with this simple observation:  Naomi accepted her daughters-in-law the way every young woman wants to be accepted by her husband’s family. 
            And Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelt there about ten years. Ruth 1:3-4.
            If any mother-in-law could have complained about a foreign daughter-in-law, one raised in an idolatrous culture, Naomi could have—and she had not one, but two of them.  Instead she seems to have accepted them with open arms and without judgment.  In fact she seems to have taught them.  How easy would that have been if they had sensed resentment and suspicion?  I am sure her sons taught their wives as well, but those girls stayed with Naomi even after the death of their husbands, even before she decided to go back to Israel, and then they both wanted to go with her, not just Ruth.  Here is a mother-in-law who knew how to cultivate a loving relationship with those of another culture, with the women who came into her boys’ lives and became more important to them than she was.  That is hard for a mother, but her example says it can be done and is important in establishing a lasting and loving relationship with a daughter-in-law.
            Mothers-in-law today have the same obligation.  If your daughter-in-law is a Christian, count your blessings.  That should take care of any reservations you may have about her.  Now treat that new daughter like an especially beloved sister in Christ.  You would be surprised how many times people forget to treat family that way—“that’s church stuff,” I’ve heard.  Yes, and you are a member of the Lord’s church even in your home.  Act like it.
            But if she isn’t a Christian, cultivate that relationship for the thing that matters most—her soul.  You owe her that.  Paul said that as a Christian he was a debtor to everyone else to tell them the good news (Rom 1:14).  So are you.  Be kind, be patient, do not give her any reason to look down on Christianity or the church if you ever hope to gain her soul. 
            No matter what her background, accept her whole-heartedly.  Trust me, she will always be able to tell if you do not like her, no matter how hard you try to hide it.  Do not talk about “my son.”  He is now her husband, a relationship that supersedes the parent-child relationship.  A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, Gen 2:24.  That’s what God said about it. In your mind, their two names should always be attached. 
            If you want a continuing relationship with your son, then do not come between them in any way.  Do not allow him to disparage her to you, and certainly do not revel in it if he does!  Do not ever allow him to say to her in your presence, “That’s not how Mom does it.”  Do not expect him to visit without her.  Do not expect him to drop everything and leave her and his family for anything less than an emergency.  From now on it is not “him,” it is “them.”  They are “one flesh.”  If it is wrong for man to put it asunder, it’s wrong for a mother-in-law to amputate it.
            Welcome your new daughter into the family with open arms.  You are the one with the obligation here, not her.
 
And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Will you go with this man? And she said, I will go…And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife…Genesis 24:58,67
 
Dene Ward

I do not appreciate mother-in-law jokes.  If you tell them and you have a mother-in-law, then you must realize that your mother is also a mother-in-law.  Are you talking about her too?
            As a mother-in-law myself, I try hard to be what I ought to be both for my son and his wife, who is now not just my daughter-in-law, but in my mind, my daughter, especially in the spirit.  I think I might be a bit more sensitive to this than most—you see, my mother-in-law did not like me.  Even after 39 years of trying, I never made the cut.
            To her credit, she was a fine Christian woman.  She stayed faithful to the Lord despite family opposition, her husband’s severe illnesses and injuries, financial woes, and worst of all, losing a child to cancer.  She converted her husband and raised both of her remaining children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.  After all, I married one of them, and I know much of what she went through and exactly how she raised him. 
            She had many things going against her but managed to stay faithful, raise godly children, and never lose the joy of her relationship with her Lord.  To have done all that despite her many and severe trials makes our lack of a relationship more than forgivable.  I was certainly less than the least of all those things she did accomplish.
            But I do not want my daughter-in-law to miss out on what should be a wonderful relationship.  So I have decided to begin a new study—the ideal mother-in-law, which is what I want to be for Brooke.  That’s what we will be discussing together this week, Monday through Friday.
            It is not difficult to find mothers-in-law in the Bible.  The difficult thing is finding a detailed relationship between a mother- and daughter-in-law.  Isaac and Rebekah both were “grieved” by the first two women Esau married, but they were Canaanites, Hittites to be specific, Gen 26:34,35.  Although their complaints came before the actual marriage, Samson’s parents had the same problem with their future daughter-in-law, Judges 14:3—she was a Philistine. 
            Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law but that is a situation so complex as to be unusable in our discussion.  I can know that others surely had in-laws, but I do not know how they got along without making suppositions far beyond the realm of authenticity.
            No, the best example we can find is the usual one—Naomi and Ruth, and let’s not forget Orpah, who is often tarred with accusations she does not deserve.  So I plan to study those in depth this week to see how we can all improve our in-law relationships.  I hope you will make a point to join me.
           
…a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband. Then she arose with her daughters-in-law to return from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the fields of Moab that the LORD had visited his people and given them food. So she set out from the place where she was with her two daughters-in-law, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah, Ruth 1:1-7.                                                                                                 
 
Dene Ward

Today I am giving you a list of passages.  You may look at them and say, "So what?"  It may look like a bunch of useless information to you.  But first, should we automatically discard anything in the Bible and label it useless?  And second, wait till you see what I can do with these.

All of these passages are in the book of Genesis:
11:26 Terah was 70 when he had his first son.
11:32 Terah died at 205.
12:4 Abram was 75 when Terah died and he left Haran.
16:16 Abram was 86 when Ishmael was born.
17:1ff Abraham was 99 when circumcision was instituted and his name was changed.
17:17; 21:5 Abraham was 100 and Sarah 90 when Isaac was born.
23:1 Sarah was 127 when she died.
25:7 Abraham was 175 when he died.
25:20 Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah.
25:26 Isaac was 60 when Jacob and Esau were born.
26:34,35 Esau was 40 when he married to the two Hittite women.
30:25,26 Joseph was born at the end of Jacob's 14 years of labor.
31:41 Jacob was in Haran 20 years altogether. 
35:16 Benjamin was born on Jacob's trip home.
35:28 Isaac was 180 when he died.
37:2 Joseph was 17 when his brothers sold him.
41:46 Joseph was 30 when he interpreted Pharaoh's dream.
45:6 Joseph was 39 when the family moved to Egypt.
47:9 Jacob was 130 when the family moved to Egypt.
47:28 Jacob died at 147.
50:26 Joseph died at 110.

               So what is the point?  I imagine that you are just like me and have mental pictures of the stories in Genesis because of the way they were told to you as a child.  Some of those mental pictures are completely wrong.  Here are just a few things you can figure out using the list above.
               Abraham could not possibly have been the eldest son and if Haran, who died in Ur, was the oldest, then nephew Lot, Haran's son, could have been older than Uncle Abraham!
               When Pharaoh thought Sarah was so beautiful that he whisked her into his harem, she was 65 years old!
               When Isaac said, "I am old," in 27:2, he was indeed 137, but was certainly not on his deathbed because he lived another 43 years.
               Jacob was 77 when he fled to Haran and 84 when he married Leah and Rachel.  He had been in Haran a month before he fell for Rachel and bargained his labor to marry her.  So much for sweet young "love at first sight."
               Jacob and Esau were 15 when their grandfather Abraham died.  That means they had plenty of time to hear the old stories, including how their grandfather had felt so strongly about finding the woman who became their mother that he wouldn't even let Isaac leave the land.  Yet, Esau still married Hittite women, a tribe of Canaanite, whom they should also have known were cursed since the flood. 
               Isaac was alive when Joseph "disappeared," but died 12 years before he was found in Egypt.
               Joseph was 56 when Jacob died.
               Depending upon how much time you want to put into it, you can figure out a lot of other things too.  In fact, you should probably print this list out and then keep it tucked into your Bible in the book of Genesis.  It will not only give you a more accurate picture of these events, but it might help you see them as real people, people you can learn from in far more ways than you ever thought possible.
 
These things happened to them as examples and were written for our instruction, on whom the ends of the ages have come 1Cor10:11.

Dene Ward

Perhaps you remember Abraham's servant, the one he sent to Haran to find Isaac a wife.  First, let's realize that though we might automatically assume this is the Eleazar of Genesis 15, it is now so many years later that Eleazar would have been about 100.  Sending him on a trip hundreds of miles long that would possibly take over a month, might not have been realistic.  The Hebrew term we translate "oldest [servant] in his house who ruled over all he had," might be better translated, "Senior Administrator" (Gen 24:1)  I am certain that Abraham gave his elderly servants who had spent their lives serving him a retirement of sorts, lowering the task difficulty and the number of hours of real labor accordingly.  So we really do not know who this servant is. 
            However, whoever he is, he has learned about God from his master.  So when he arrives in Haran he asks God to be with him and give him this sign:  that the maiden who not only offers him a drink but also offers to water his camels, is the one he is meant to find (24:12-14).  And almost immediately it seems, Rebekah arrives on the scene.  She performs exactly as the servant had prayed. 
            Let's talk a minute about that task.  It was not uncommon for women and even older children to be charged with retrieving the water for the household.  I am sure we have all seen those jars they carry on their heads.  I am not sure how much those jars weighed, but I am told that a gallon of water weighs 8.33 pounds.  If the jar held five gallons, or the ancient equivalent, it would have weighed 41.67 pounds plus the weight of the jar.  That's quite a load.
            Now let's consider the camels.  The servant did not have just a couple of camels—he had ten (24:10).   I am told that a thirsty camel will drink 25 gallons of water.  Multiply that by 10 and then divide by the number of gallons in the jar, of which we are uncertain, but the more it held the better as far as having to draw up the water.  If it held 5 gallons, Rebekah would have had to draw water up from the well 50 times.  If the jar were smaller, we could be approaching 100.
            Rebekah was a teenager, probably 14-15.  Girls in ancient times were considered marriageable as soon as they reached puberty.  Some want to say that they reached puberty far later than our girls do today because they were not well-nourished.  Seems to me we are not talking about peasants here, but wealthy, or at least comfortable, families.  No malnourishment to worry about.  John MacArthur says that by the first century most all girls reached puberty by 13 based on social and marriage customs of the time.  Another thing we need to come to grips with as we study Genesis:  teenage girls sometimes married 40 year old men, or sometimes even older.
            Rebekah, and all teenagers in the Bible for that matter, did hard and heavy jobs that benefited the running of the entire family.  That doesn't mean their parents were abusers.  The children were raised to be responsible enough and strong enough to do it.  What about our children?  Are they raised thinking that they should be waited on hand and foot?  Do they have any idea what it takes to make a household run?  Do we tell them how important what they do is for us?  Have they ever come in tired and worn out because of actual work they have done?  No wonder employers nowadays have such a difficult time finding people who know how to work and have the will to do it.  A friend of mine actually told her children, "If you don't get the day's chores done, you don't get supper," based on 2 Thes 3:10.  Evidently, it worked, but only because she actually carried it out.
            Teaching your children to work, and to work hard, is a life skill they simply must have in order to be successful, both in this life and our spiritual lives.  We are not being good parents when we shirk that duty.
 
The one who is lazy becomes poor, but the one who works diligently becomes wealthy. The one who gathers crops in the summer is a wise son, but the one who sleeps during harvest is a shameful son Prov 10:4,5.
 
Dene Ward
 

Up in North Florida, we heated with wood.  A thirty-six-year-old Ashley wood stove sat in the heart of our home—the kitchen and family room area.  Our boys grew up watching their father labor with a chainsaw, axe, and splitting maul, eventually helping him load the eighteen inch lengths of wood into the pickup bed and then onto the wood racks.  Every time a friend or neighbor lost a tree or several large limbs fell, the phone rang, and the three of them set off for a Saturday’s worth of work that kept us warm for a few days and the heating bill down where we could pay it.
            At first those small boys could only carry one log at a time, and a small one at that.  Wood is heavy if still unseasoned, and always rough and unwieldy.  By the time they were 10, an armful numbered two or three standard logs, even the lighter, seasoned ones.  They were 16 or older before they could come close to their father’s armload of over half a dozen logs, and grown men before they could match him log for log.  Even that is a small amount of wood.  In a damped woodstove, it might last half the night, but on an open fire barely an hour.
            So I laugh when I see pictures of an 8-10 year old Isaac carrying four or five “sticks” up Mt Moriah behind his father Abraham.  To carry the amount of wood necessary to burn a very wet animal sacrifice, Isaac had to have been grown, or nearly so, not less than 16 or 17, and probably older and more filled out.  In fact, in the very next chapter, Genesis 23, Isaac is 37 years old.  In chapter 21, his weaning, he is somewhere between 3 and 8, so all we can say for certain is he is between 3 and 37 at the time of his offering.  Our experience with wood carrying tells me that he was far older than most people envision.
            Do you realize what that means?  This may well have been a test of Abraham’s faith, but it also shows that Isaac’s faith was not far behind his father’s.  He could easily have over-powered his father, a man probably two decades north of 100, and gotten away.  He, too, trusted that God would provide, even as he lay himself down on that altar and watched his father raise his hand.
            How did he know?  Because he watched God provide everyday of his life.  He saw his father’s relationship with God, heard his prayers and watched his offerings, witnessed the decisions he made every day based solely on his belief in God’s promises, and his absolute obedience even when it hurt, like sending his brother Ishmael away (Gen 21:12-14). Isaac did not know a time when his family did not trust God, so he did too.  “God will provide” made perfect sense to him.
            When that young man carried that hefty load of wood up that mountain, he went with a purpose, based upon the example of his father’s faith and his Father’s faithfulness.  Would your children be willing to carry that wood?
 
The living, the living, he thanks you, as I do this day; the father makes known to the children your faithfulness. Isaiah 38:19
 
Dene Ward

     How many times have I heard people read about Abraham and Sarah's subterfuge, "She is my sister," and then say something like, "How could 'the Friend of God,' 'the Father of the Faithful' do such a thing?  Where is all that faith he is so renowned for?
     The problem is, we judge them by what they eventually became, forgetting that they did not start there, any more than we started where we now are in our journey of faith.  We don't allow them to grow.  The Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 12 were not the Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 22.  So where did Abraham and Sarah really come from?
     Ur, of course, but what was that?  Ur was a city-state in an alliance of other Sumerian city-states.  We have already seen that it was a thriving metropolis.  Besides that, it was thoroughly pagan.  Every city in the alliance had a ziggarut at its center, devoted to the pagan god it worshipped.  (All of this comes from the Holman Bible Atlas.)  Abraham grew up not only in a pagan culture, but also in a pagan family.
     And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods (Josh 24:2).  The real wonder is that Abraham and Sarah came to have any faith in God at all.  Yet they did, which is a clear vindication of Paul's statement in Romans 1 that the pagans were "without excuse" in their failure to recognize God (Rom 1:18-22).  Somehow that couple believed and God got them out of that culture where He could carefully cultivate their faith over the last half of their lives.
     And so here is the lesson: in our society it has become the rule to blame our culture, our parents, our community, whatever else we can blame for our failure to live righteous, godly lives, or at least a law-abiding, productive life that recognizes a standard of goodness toward others.  Even people in the government are ready to excuse criminals "because they don't know better."  If they do not know better, it is their own fault.  At least that is what God says about it.  Anyone in any culture can pull themselves out of it and do right.  In fact, it you were to find people who did that and ask them about it, they would be the ones who most staunchly deny that how you are raised is an excuse that counts for anything at all.  Is it difficult to get yourself out of the mess you find yourself in?  Of course it is, but life is never easy.  When we teach our children that it should be, we are setting them up for failure every time.
     Even the people who came out of Ur with Abraham and Sarah never really lost their cultural baggage.  Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole her father's household gods (Gen 31:19).  But Joshua told their descendants, as they came to the Promised Land, that the choice was theirs—they were not bound by their raising.  And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD (Josh 24:15).
     We always have a choice.  No one can take it away from us.  It may be difficult, but that has never constituted a valid excuse to God.  He wants us to serve Him.  He may have given Abraham and Sarah a little boost by removing them from their culture, but why can't we do exactly the same thing?  We can, if we truly want to.  No one is ever forcing us to do otherwise.

I have Your decrees as a heritage forever; indeed, they are the joy of my heart. I am resolved to obey Your statutes to the very end (Ps 119:111-112).

Dene Ward

I’ve seen it all my life, everywhere I’ve ever been—a brand of false teaching that even the best of us participate in, that even the best of us fall prey to.
            Over and over we teach people to follow the examples of Herod and Herodias, of Ahab and Jezebel, of practically every evil king ever mentioned in the Bible.  We teach that example and we follow it ourselves.  The examples of Simon and David are left ignored, at least in that one area.  What am I talking about?  How to accept correction, how to appreciate the one who loves us enough to rebuke us or try to teach us better. 
            What did Simon the sorcerer say when Peter rebuked him? “Pray for me that none of the things that you have spoken may come upon me.”  Simon was only interested in being right before God, not in saving face or somehow turning the rebuke back on Peter because he was so angry or hurt by it.
            What did David say when Nathan stung him with the simple words “Thou art the man,” and followed it with a horrifying list of punishments, including the death of a child?  “I have sinned against the Lord.” And what did he do later?  He named a son after Nathan (1 Chron 3:5).  Every time he saw that child for the rest of his life, he was reminded of his namesake, the man who rebuked him and prophesied such devastating punishment.  All you have to do is read his penitent psalms to understand David’s attitude.  He was grateful to Nathan, not angry; heartbroken over his sin and joyful that God would even consider forgiving him.
            Simon and David set the bar high for us, a brand new Gentile convert and a king who could have lopped off his accuser’s head at a word. Yet how often are we counseled to follow their examples?  Instead, we are coddled by people who blame the rebuker for being so hard.  Never have I heard anyone say the kinds of things that Peter and Nathan said.  “Your money perish with you.”  “You are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.”  “Your heart is not right before God.”  “You have despised the word of God.” 
            What examples do we teach instead?  We may not throw people into prison for their words as Ahab and Herod did, but we isolate them from others by spreading tales of “how mean they were to me,” allowing their name and reputation to be chewed up in the rumor mills.  We may not have them murdered as Herodias and Jezebel did, but we do a fine job of character assassination.  We follow faithfully in their evil steps and teach others to do the same when we pat them on the back and agree with their assessment of the one who dared tell them they were wrong.  In other words, we do it out of “love.”  I imagine Herod said the same as he turned the prison key on John, and then signed off on the death warrant.
            Why is this example of how to accept correction so neglected?  Why do we reinforce the examples of evil people instead?  Is it because someday it might be us receiving that rebuke?  Someday it might be our turn to feel the hot embarrassment spreading like a fire across our faces and the acid churning in our stomachs? 
            God meant us to love each other in exactly this way.  Brethren, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, looking to yourself lest you also be tempted, Gal 6:1.  We all take turns at this.  We all need it.  And I have an important piece of information for you, one that should be obvious but apparently is not:  it never feels “gentle” when you are on the receiving end.  I have knocked myself out prefacing correction with “I love you” statements, with praise for the good in a person’s life, only to have to endure a cold shoulder for weeks or months or even years, only to hear later from others how “mean” I was.  I have also felt that sting of conscience when it was my turn to listen, and even when I knew the person speaking loved me.  But the good God meant to come from these things will be completely lost if all we do is tell the erring brother or sister that it’s just fine to be like Herod and Herodias.
            So you think this isn’t false doctrine?  Then tell me what it is to teach others to be like evil men and women.  Whatever you come up with, it still isn’t right.
 
My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. James 5:19-20.
 
Dene Ward