And Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, Because you believed not in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them. (Num 20:12)
 
             I grew up hearing about Moses' not being allowed into the Promised Land.  It made a great point about obedience in scores of sermons I heard as a child.  While I was absolutely positive back then about the reason, it has become a little more obscure to me as an adult who has studied these things for so long from so many angles at the feet of so many great preachers.  But that is not my point today.

              I recently finished reading Deuteronomy.  I want you to notice something with me this morning.  If you have not read that book lately, please take the time to read the following passages:

               Even with me the LORD was angry on your account and said, ‘You also shall not go in there. (Deut 1:37)
              And I pleaded with the LORD at that time, saying,‘O Lord GOD, you have only begun to show your servant your greatness and your mighty hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as yours? Please let me go over and see the good land beyond the Jordan, that good hill country and Lebanon.' But the LORD was angry with me because of you and would not listen to me. And the LORD said to me, ‘Enough from you; do not speak to me of this matter again. (Deut 3:23-26)
              Furthermore, the LORD was angry with me because of you, and he swore that I should not cross the Jordan, and that I should not enter the good land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance. For I must die in this land; I must not go over the Jordan. But you shall go over and take possession of that good land. (Deut 4:21-22)
 
             Did you notice something about those three passages?  Moses was not bashful at all about blaming the Israelites for his predicament.  He says God was angry with him "on your account" or "because of you."  After reading that book myself in about five days' time, I understand exactly where Moses was coming from.  I would have been frustrated, disgusted, and angry myself.  In fact, since I read those first four chapters on the same day, I almost felt like Moses was trying to lay a guilt trip on them.  He reminds them again in chapters 31, 32, and 34 that he cannot go where they can.  And I am not sure I blame him.

              Yet still God held Moses accountable for his actions no matter the provocation.  He still had to pay the price for his "unbelief."  A sin "in the passion of the moment" as some of our laws describe it, is still a sin to God.

              The same is true for everything else we want to blame our sins on—our culture, our community, our parents, our circumstances.  God expects us to overcome, and we are held responsible for the things we do no matter what or who the causes.  Ezekiel said it plainly:  The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)  Just as our God will never change, that principle of his judgment never will either.

              We are all responsible for what we do.  Period.
 
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. (2Cor 5:10)
 
Dene Ward

The first time I received a bushel of pears from a neighbor out here in the country I was disappointed.  I was used to the pears in the store, especially juicy Bartletts, and creamy, vanilla-scented Boscs.  As with a great many things here in this odd state, only certain types grow well, and they are nothing like the varieties you see in the seed and plant catalogues or on the Food Network shows.  We always called them Florida Pears, but recently learned they were Sand Pears, and in this sandy state that makes good sense.  They are hard and tasteless.  In fact, Keith and I decided you could stone someone to death with them.  We nearly threw them away. 

              Then an older friend told me what to do with them.  They make the best pear preserves you ever dripped over a biscuit—amber colored, clear chunks of fruit swimming in a sea of thick, caramel flavored syrup.  Then she made a cobbler and I thought I was eating apples instead of pears.  No, you don’t want to eat them out of hand unless they are almost overripe, but you most certainly do want to spoon out those preserves and dig into that cinnamon-scented, crunchy topped cobbler.  They aren’t pretty; they are hard to peel and chop; but don’t give up on them if you are ever lucky enough to get some.

              A lot of us give up on people out there.  We see the open sin in their lives and the culture they come from and decide they could never change.  Have you ever studied the Herods in the New Testament?  If ever there was a soap opera family, one that would even make Jerry Springer blush, it’s them.  They were completely devoid of “natural affection,” sons trying to assassinate fathers, and fathers putting sons and wives to death.  Their sex lives were an open sewer—swapping husbands at a whim; a brother and sister living together as a married couple; leaving marriages without even a Roman divorce and solely for the sake of power and influence.

              Yet Paul approaches Herod Agrippa II, the son of Herod Agrippa I who had James killed and Peter imprisoned, the grandnephew of Antipas who took his brother's wife and then had John the Baptist imprisoned and killed, great-grandson of Herod the Great who had the babies killed at Jesus’ birth, a man who even then was living with his sister, almost as if he expected to convert him.  Listen to this:

              I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am going to make my defense today against all the accusations of the Jews, especially because you are familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews. Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently, Acts 26:2,3.

              Yes, I am sure there was some tact involved there, but did you know that Agrippa had been appointed advisor in Jewish social and religious customs?  Somehow the Romans knew that he had spent time becoming familiar with his adopted religion—during the time between the Testaments the Herods were forced to become Jews and then later married into the family of John Hyrcanus, a priest.  No, he didn’t live Judaism very well, but then neither did many of the Pharisees nor half the priesthood at that point.  But Agrippa knew Judaism, and Paul was counting on that.

              Paul then spends verses 9 through 23 telling Agrippa of the monumental change he had made in his own life.  Here was a man educated at the feet of the most famous teacher of his times, the rising star of Judaism, destined to the Sanhedrin at the very least, fame and probably fortune as well.  Look at the list of things he “counts as loss” in Philippians 3.  Yet this man gives it all up and becomes one of the hated group he had formerly imprisoned and persecuted to the death, forced to live on the charity of the very group he had hated along with a pittance from making a tent here and there.  Talk about a turnaround.  Do you think he told Agrippa his story just to entertain him?  Maybe he was making this point—yes, you have a lot to change, but if I could do it, so can you.

              In verse 27, he makes his final plea--King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you believe!  Paul had not given up on changing this man whom many of us would never have even tried to convert.  And it “almost” worked.

              Who have you given up on?  Who has a hard heart, a lifestyle that would be useless to anyone but God?  Who, like these pears, needs the heat of preaching and the sweet of compassion?  Who could change if someone just believed in them enough?

              Sand pears seem tasteless to people who don’t work with them, who don’t spend the time necessary to treat them in the way they require.  Are we too busy to save a soul that is a little harder than most?  Who took the time to cook you into a malleable heart for God?  It’s time to return the favor.
 
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses... Ezek 36:26-29.
 
Dene Ward

Rahab was a harlot, what we would call a prostitute.  I have come across many commentators who have tried their best to turn her into an “innkeeper,” but the word just won’t allow it.

            The Hebrew word in Josh 2:1 is zanah.  It is also translated commit fornication, go awhoring, play the harlot, play the whore, whorish, whore, etc.  It is used in Lev 19:29; Hos 4:13; Ex 34:16; Isa 23:17 and many other places where the meaning is quite clear.  In the New Testament, the word is porne, in James 2:25 for example, and I do not imagine I need to tell you the English word we get from that Greek one.  This same word is translated whore in Rev 17:1,15,16; 19:2.  Rahab was a harlot, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

            So what is the problem with commentators who insist on “innkeeper?”  The same one the Pharisees had.  If Jesus was the Messiah, how could he possibly associate with publicans and sinners?  If Rahab was a harlot, how could she possibly be in the genealogy of Christ?  Yet they talk about the grace and mercy of God like they understand it better than we do.

            And sometimes we are no better.  Whom do we open our arms to when they walk through our doors?  Whom do we actively seek and label “good prospects for the gospel?”  Yet the people we choose to shun are the people who understand grace because they understand their need for it.  We are a bit like the rich, young ruler, who, though he knew something was missing in his life despite all the laws he kept faithfully, still thought his salvation depended upon something he could do.

            Rahab showed her dependence on God with a scarlet line she hung from her window.  Did you know that word is only translated “line” twice in the Old Testament, counting this occurrence in Josh 2:21?  The other translations are expectation (seven times such as Psa 62:5), hope (23 times, such as Jer 17:13; Psa 71:5), and the thing that I long for (once, Job 6:8).  I do believe it was a literal rope of some sort, but it seems more than passing coincident that the word most of the time has those other meanings.  I have often wondered what her neighbors thought of that cord hanging there, but every day Rahab was reminded of the salvation she did not deserve, that she hoped for, longed for, and expected to receive when those people marched into the land. 

            When we get a little too big for our britches, a little too proud of our pedigree in the kingdom, maybe we need to hang a scarlet cord in our windows to remind us what we used to be, and what we have waiting for us in spite of that.
 
But when the kindness of God our Savior, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by his grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  Titus 3:4-7
 
Dene Ward

I find Job to be one of the most perplexing books in the Bible.  After trying many years to understand it, I have come up with this:  the book of Job does not answer the question of why bad things happen to good people; it is merely God saying, “You do not need to know why.  You just need to trust me no matter what.”
 
           We all know the story.  In an attempt to make Job renounce God, Satan took away every good thing in his life.  What did he lose?  Seven sons, three daughters, seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred female donkeys (remember, wealth was measured mainly by livestock in the patriarchal times), many servants, standing in the community, and even his health.  About the only things he didn’t lose were his house (42:11), his wife, and his closest friends--if you can call them that.  In fact, when you think about it, Satan probably knew those people would be a help in his own cause, and that is why he left them.  He certainly would not have left Job with a support system if he could have helped it.

            And that brings us to Mrs. Job.  Now let’s be fair.  When Job lost everything, so did she.  And as I have grown older I have learned to be very careful about judging people who are going through any sort of traumatic experience. 

            Keith and I have been through a lot together.  I have had to take food off my plate and put it on my children’s plates because they were still hungry and there was no more.  We have dug ditches next to each other in a driving rainstorm to keep our house from washing away.  I have held a convulsing child as he drove 90 mph to the emergency room thirty miles away.  We have carried all the water we used in the house back and forth for a month because the well collapsed and we could not afford to repair it.  I have bandaged the bullet wounds he sustained as a law enforcement officer.  We have both endured threats on our lives and scary medical procedures.  But all that happened over a period of forty years, not in one day.  And never have I lost a child, much less all of them.  What I would do if I were Mrs. Job, I do not know.  What I should do is easy to say, but however glibly it rolls off my tongue, that does not mean I would have the strength to do it. 

            She was suffering just as much as her husband.  But somehow, Job hung on, while his wife let her grief consume her.  Job actually lost his wife in an even more painful way than death because she failed the test of faith.

            So what happened to her afterward?  Job did have a wife or he would not have had more children (42:13).  Without further evidence to the contrary, the logical assumption is that it was the same wife.  Since they had a continuing relationship perhaps he is the one who helped her, and she repented both of her failure to be a “helper suitable” and of her faithlessness.

            So what should we learn about sharing grief as a couple?  What I hope we would all do when grief and suffering assail our homes is support one another.  The thing that Job did not have from anyone is the thing that should make all single people desire a good marriage:  support and help.  Troubles should pull us together, not tear us apart.  What I cannot lift by myself, I can with help. Sometimes he is the reason she makes it over a personal hill and other times she is his light to make it through the dark places, and that is how God intended it.

            Now here is the question for each of us.  If Satan were going to test my spouse, would he take me, or leave me?
 
Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor.  For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow, but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up.  Again, if two lie together, then they have warmth, but how can one be warm alone?  Eccl 4:9-11
 
Dene Ward

Today's post is by guest writer Lucas Ward.
 
On my tenth birthday, my parents gave me The Complete Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales. I’ve always been a bookworm. I can’t claim to have read every single tale in the book, but I did read a great deal. There is one that I vaguely recall, in which a king needed some great thing to be accomplished, the Roc’s Egg brought back to him or some such. He decreed that anyone who did this would be given his daughter’s hand in marriage. A peasant boy who had always dreamed of marrying the princess, undertook the quest. He braved mystic forests and foreboding mountains, fought ogres and elves, and returned, having been successful. He married the princess and became the hero of the kingdom.

Stories like this pervade most, if not all, cultures. Heracles went mad one night and killed his wife and children. Regaining his senses and overcome with grief, he undertook his famous 12 Labors to try to win redemption. Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table spent their lives looking for the Holy Grail. The Asian cultures also have their stories of quests and epic feats in the search of riches or immortality or redemption. Our culture is not without such stories: to save Middle Earth, Frodo goes on a long quest to return the One Ring to Mount Doom. Again and again, great treasures require monumental feats to acquire.

This teaches us good things. Get rich quick schemes rarely, if ever, work. If we want to accomplish something in this life, we have to put in the work, the effort, and the time to achieve it. However, this reinforced belief does leave us suspicious of any easy answer and that sometimes is a detriment.

The Bible contains a story about this. The first half of II Kings 5 will be our text. The first verse:

“Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master and in high favor, because by him the LORD had given victory to Syria. He was a mighty man of valor, but he was a leper.”

Who was Naaman? He was the general of the Syrian armies. He was very well thought of by the king. He was a “mighty man of valor”. This was an important man, a proud man, a celebrity and hero in his country. He was SOMEBODY. But he had leprosy. Leprosy in the ancient Middle East was probably not the flesh rotting disease known in Middle Ages Europe. It was a skin disease that made the skin white and scaly. Often, it caused odors. Basically, it made the sufferer look, and even smell, like a corpse. Under the Law of Moses, lepers were to be quarantined away from the general population, but even in countries that did not follow the Mosaic Law, lepers were generally shunned and became secluded. Naaman, a proud man in a public career, was looking at losing all he had because of this disease. Do you think he was desperate for a cure? I imagine that he had tried every potion offered by every quack in Syria. To no avail. Keep reading with me:

“Now the Syrians on one of their raids had carried off a little girl from the land of Israel, and she worked in the service of Naaman's wife. She said to her mistress, "Would that my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy." So Naaman went in and told his lord, "Thus and so spoke the girl from the land of Israel." And the king of Syria said, "Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel." So he went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten changes of clothing.” (vs 2-5)

Can you feel the desperation here? This small child, prattling on like small children do, mentions the prophet in Israel and his God-given abilities. Seizing on this last hope, Naaman goes to the king for permission to enter Israel and, receiving it, takes a huge gift with him to entice the prophet into helping him. The size of this gift is instructive. Ten talents of silver is 30,000 shekels of silver, which tells you nothing until I explain that the average ANNUAL salary of a laborer at that time was 10 shekels of silver. The silver alone that Naaman brought was the equivalent of 3,000 years pay for a common man! Or, another way to look at it, the silver would have weighed 750 lbs in modern measure, and the gold 150 lbs. I haven’t checked the spot price today, but one fairly recent book estimates the value at $750 million in modern buying power. Plus, ten really nice suits of clothes. How badly did Naaman want to be clean? Look at what he was willing to pay!

After some confusion as to where to go, Naaman arrives at Elisha’s house in verse 9:

“So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha's house. And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean." But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, "Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage.” (vs 9-12)

Naaman, great man of Syria, mighty man of valor and general of the armies, comes to Elisha’s modest house and . . . Elisha doesn’t even bother to come out to see him. He sends a servant. That had to have punctured Naaman’s ego a bit and then the instructions given are just ridiculous. ‘If it was as easy as washing, don’t you think I’d have done that?!’ He had expected an impressive display, chanting and arm waving and hocus pocus. Instead he is told to wash in the Jordan. ‘Our Syrian rivers are better for washing than that muddy stream.’ He goes away angry precisely because the answer was too easy. If there is any doubt on that, read on:

“And his servants came near, and spoke unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid you do some great thing, wouldn’t you have done it? how much rather then, when he says to you, Wash, and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.” (vs 13-14)

The servant points out that if a great feat had been prescribed, Naaman would have been all in for that. Remember what he was willing to pay; would there be anything he wouldn’t do? Imagine if Elisha had said ‘Bring me the heads of 100 lions’ or ‘Climb to the top of the tallest mountain’ and he’d be clean. You know that Naaman, mighty man of valor, would have been on his way with zest to complete such a quest. That wouldn’t have upset him at all. But washing was too easy. His servant finally convinced him that if he were willing to undertake the difficult thing, he ought to do the easy as well, and he washed and was cleaned.

Many people today make the same mistake Naaman almost did. We, too, have a problem. He had leprosy, we are disfigured by sin. Leprosy affects the body, sin rots the soul. If Naaman was willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars and go on exotic quests to be rid of leprosy, what should we be willing to do to be rid of sin? It can’t be something easy, right? That thought is why many modern denominations teach that forgiveness isn’t something that we can reach, but that it takes the direct working of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit must overcome you and lead you to forgiveness. How do we know that has happened? We begin babbling in “tongues” or fall into the aisles in religious fervor. Surely it takes big things like that to be rid of sin, right? Well, what does the Bible say?

Rom 10:9 “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Rom 10:14 “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”

Combining these verses, we must hear the word taught, believe in our hearts that Jesus was raised from the dead, and be willing to confess Him as Lord. What’s interesting is that we have an example of people just like that in Acts 2. They had heard the Gospel preached by Peter, including that Jesus had been raised from the dead – vs 32 “This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.” – and that He was Lord – vs. 36 “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” They believed, being pricked in the heart (vs 37) and asked Peter what they should do. His answer? “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

Understanding all of this, then, means that we must hear the word preached and believe it. Believe in our hearts the gospel of the resurrection and be willing to confess Him as Lord. Then we repent of our sins and are baptized for the remission of those sins and we will be saved, have our sins removed, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit overwhelming us or of babbling in “tongues” or religious frenzies. It is much simpler than that. Too simple, in fact, for many people to believe in it. Like Naaman, they turn away.

But having achieved so great a salvation from so merciful and loving a God, how are we to worship Him? Surely so great a God demands extravagant, awe-inspiring worship. We need rock-and-roll bands combined with shouting, dancing, and rolling in the aisles, right? Or perhaps we need to build monumental temples to Him filled with statuary and decorated by beautiful artworks in which imposing priests in impressive robes conduct ancient rites in a dead language? Again, our great God deserves such impressive worship, right? Well, what does the Bible say?

Col. 3:16 We are to sing praises to Him and teaching to each other.
1 Tim. 4:13 We are to teach and preach God’s word.
Eph. 6:18, 1 Thess. 5:17 We are to pray.
1 Cor. 11:23-25, Acts 20:7, We are to partake in His supper on the first day of the week.
1 Cor. 16:1-2 On the first day of the week we are to take up a collection.

And that’s it. It is simple. Too simple for some to accept, but we don’t apologize for the simplicity of our worship to God because it is precisely what He asked us to do.

Paul warns us in 1 Cor. 1:21-23 that many will be turned away by the simplicity of the Gospel and the teaching of the New Testament. Like Naaman almost was, these will be turned off because it is just too easy. They can’t grasp that something so great can be achieved in such a simple manner. So they turn away.

Don’t be like them. For once, take the easy way out.

Lucas Ward

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. 

              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 about 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