A continuing series by guest writer Keith Ward.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen 2:24). 

Though we often use the word, "cleave," in our wedding ceremonies, elsewhere in our times it is mainly used of a meat cleaver that cuts things apart.  Certainly not what God intended by Moses' inspired comment!  The Hebrew word means to cling but few translations use that and also have the true meaning of "one flesh."  The word for cleave also means "adhere," in our vernacular, "stick like glue" or to "cling like Velcro."  Obviously God intends that the husband hold the woman fast to him in a special way that is unique, different from any other relationship.

Unquestionably, God intends "one flesh" to be a full-time occupation and it is the man's primary responsibility.   "What God joined together" stays together though geography separates the couple by hundreds of miles.  The importance of developing this relationship is emphasized by the use of the same word in the same way in the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" (Deut 6:4).  Though we understand that God is three persons, He is ONE.  In the same way, the husband is to leave all else to make himself one with his wife.  Perhaps God intended this relationship as it approaches its ideal to teach us about Him.  If so, treating it casually reflects our disdain for God.
 
Becoming one first requires leaving. Moses refers to "father and mother" as the ultimate that a man must put behind him. They were the first people he knew and the first and primary relationship in his life. Again, geography has little to do with leaving and especially in that society where generations of extended family lived together. Jacob was probably not the first "Mama's boy" and he certainly has not been the last. Not only must he leave, the husband must act so decisively that his wife is confident of her primacy. "The way Mama did it" and large amounts of time spent with his family with or without the wife indicate a failure to leave. He must never allow his parents to criticize his wife even if that requires strong measures. I often tell Dene that she is my "only."  My actions prove that is not just "sweet nothings."
 
Parents are not the only obstruction to leaving and cleaving. Many men I have worked with spent more time hunting and fishing with their buddies than they spent with their wives. Hobbies can be wonderful and useful to a man's character, but when they regularly occupy more time than she does, the wife is justified in feeling that she is nothing more than a cook and a sex object to him. Couples who both work outside the home and for whom household chores occupy much of their time together must make special effort to keep their relationship strong. The fact is that they both spend more time with and have more conversation with co-workers than they do with one another. Children become another separator. If care is not taken, time will pass and no glue will remain to adhere them to one another; occasional sex will become the only sense of "one flesh" that remains.
 
Oneness must be nurtured with care—make mutual decisions about everything: where to live, whether to take a promotion, where to worship, the standards and rules to apply to raising children, whether she works outside the home and the division of labor for the housework. What others think does not matter. Otherwise, you neither left nor are you cleaving. A husband demonstrates commitment to his wife by never even thinking about flirting with another woman and the wife should see this and have this confidence. He must never criticize her to others, and care must be taken to not fight in front of the children. Not only must he not criticize, he must not allow others to criticize her in his presence. I should not have to say that women never appreciate male humor and she is well aware that "many a truth is spoken in jest. Don't. Just Don't.
 
Timothy was likely in his forties when Paul admonished, "flee youthful passions" (2Tim2:22). If he was not speaking of "midlife crises" than application certainly exists. Men begin to realize their dreams conceived in youthful idealism will never happen and they go wild in pursuit of youthful fancies. Observation leads me to believe that well over half of all Corvettes are owned by men over 40 which is also true for Harley motorcycles. "Arm candy" for gray headed men has spawned a major industry in Viagra and Cialis. Leaving and cleaving and one flesh are left in Satan's dust as husbands think of little but Self.
 
Many married couples have lived together for years in various residences and are no more married than the shacked-up couple who sees no need for a legal piece of paper to validate their relationship. The unmarried couple has a point, a piece of paper does not make a couple married in the sense God intends—He must leave and cleave, she must submit, he must dwell with her according to knowledge, he must love her as Christ loved the church, he is to lead and he is to nourish and cherish her. Notice how heavily these foundations of marriage are weighted toward the husband—this is the responsibility of being head. "Head" is not a right. If theirs is not a marriage that emulates the relationship among the Godhood, then the failure is his.
 
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. (1Pet 2:18).

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, (1Pet 3:1).

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1Pet 3:7).
 
Keith Ward

Part 3 in the series by guest writer Keith Ward.  The other 2 parts can be found in the archives on Jan 30, 2019, and Dec 31, 2018, always the last Monday of the month.

Paul addresses the issue of yieldingness in this sequence: wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, masters (Eph 5:21-6:9).   No one has the right of way.   Peter's list is shorter:  servants, wives, husbands (1Pet 2:18-3:7).   But, Peter adds an intensifier to both the command to the wife and that to the husband, "In the same way."  Our first question must be, "In the same way as what?"

If you have read the text quoted at the end of each of the devotionals in this series and noticed the emphasis, you know that a wife is to submit to her husband just as the servant is to submit to the unreasonable master and consequently, the husband is to live with the wife in an understanding way and honor her in the same manner as the wife and servant perform their obligations—whether she is good or bad, sweet or a terror. 

The older translations say that the servant must be in subjection not only to the good and gentle master, but also to the "froward."  A strange word that really underlines the extent of one's subjection.   Satan answered God that he had been "going to and fro in the earth" (Job 1:7 KJV).   I have been blessed with supervisors who were "to-ward" me and getting the job done.  I have been cursed with a few that were opposite or "fro-ward" in their attitude about me.   My obligation before God to both types is to submit.   We men tend to find this much easier to accept in 1Pet 3:1 than we do in 1Pet 3:7.   We wish to exercise our headship and cause her to conform to our desires.   Instead, we must use our headship to yield in a way that will draw her in toward becoming the wife God wants her to be.  Remember the last lesson, God never told the husband that he was the head of the wife.   He commanded the husband to love the wife. 

God's instructions through Peter are to "dwell with your wives according to knowledge."  That is without question the hardest command in the Bible.   Numberless jokes have been told about the difficulty of understanding women, but for God this is no joke.   He expects the husband to work at it until he understands his wife.   Our biblical examples of married life are few: clueless Elkanah who was unaware of or ignored the tensions in his own house (1Sam 1:8); Jacob who did not realize that Leah was the godly wife until the later years of their marriage (Gen 49:31); David who cut through Michal's complaint to the contempt in her heart (2Sam 6:16).  We are left to make our subjection to the needs of our woman into the concrete examples of God's principles.

We cannot treat this as a minor matter.   If we fail to honor our wives as this verse commands, our prayers will be hindered.   I NEED my prayers for forgiveness to get through loud and clear.   No doubt we already understand that women are different and what would honor one man's wife would not be a blip on the radar for another's wife.   If this makes no sense to you, read "The Five Love Languages" 3 times, the last one with your wife, chapter by chapter with discussion between you about every page.   Men, we must consider our woman and her personality and her character with a view to helping her as the weaker vessel, with the goal of her salvation.   And, our own salvation depends on our ability to do so.   (Unless you think you can make it without prayer!)

Just as being a help to you will be different for your wife than had she married a man in a different profession with a different personality, dwelling with her according to knowledge is unique to you two.   When we consider all that Christ did for his bride, we should at the least be willing to read books to learn about women and to learn to improve our relationship.   We should learn to do things we are not comfortable with for her.   We should meditate on her emotional needs and ways to adjust to fulfil them.   Above all, we should listen.  And, if this seems too great a task, remember, "Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ (Eph 5:21).

Some men only notice when their wives start screaming and crying and throwing pots and pans.   Then they are shocked for they had no clue there was a problem.   If the wife is too godly to act that way, the husband continues in a clueless way grinding her spirit to nothing.   How can a man claim to follow the Savior who became one of us in order to intercede for us, yet not listen to his bride?  If God purposed the church to be Christ's bride before creation, should not each man be gathering data and purposing to create in his wife the parallel to the Church (Eph 3:10-11)?  Is not the goal to become one, and can that be accomplished without mutual effort?  What if Jesus listened to our prayers the way we notice our wives' problems, complaints, and desires?  In fact, 1 Pet 3:7 promises exactly that! 

Jesus gave himself up to set apart the church to be a present for himself (Eph 5:25-27).   His mission was to cleanse the church to be without spot and blemish, a holy bride to himself.   To accomplish this he first became whatever it took on his part, servant, flesh, human (Phil 2, Jn 1).   Then he began to shape the church: he did not browbeat or demand; he washed her with water and the word.   He thoughtfully fashioned words that would transform her into the present he desired for himself.   God through Paul commands husbands to do the same for their wives. 

If husbands believe their role is merely to be the provider, they are carnal, having little spiritual understanding.   Physically providing food and shelter is the least of his duties.   Giving honor to her as the weaker vessel means to work with her spiritually to build her up to walk beside her husband spiritually.   He must know her spiritual and emotional weaknesses and help strengthen her and protect her as "heirs with you of the grace of life."  He must meditate and thoughtfully fashion words that will transform her into the present to himself that he wishes her to be.   He cannot do this with force but only with the same self-sacrificing kind of love Christ used to transform the church.

It is a shame on husbands that in many (if not most) families, it is the wife who is the spiritual leader: she helps the children with their Bible lessons, she makes certain all are ready for church on time, she insists that nothing interfere with church, she reminds him that he has a certain duty this Sunday so he can prepare.   He simply attends.    Such a one is not a head like Jesus is head, no matter how bossy he is.   [Ignoring these duties to preach and teach the gospel is no less carnal than failing them for other reasons.]

That ceremony did not make you a husband.   However many years "on the job" has not made you a husband either.   Only the considered imitation of the love of Christ for the church will make you the husband of your wife. 
 
Dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman…as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life. (1 Pet 3:7)

Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.  (1Pet 2:18).

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, (1Pet 3:1).

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.  (1Pet 3:7).

Keith Ward
 

Part 2 in a continuing series by guest writer Keith Ward, appearing on the final Monday of the month.  For Part 1, scroll down to December 31, 2018.
 
I have always known these principles: I memorized Ephesians for Homer Hailey's "Scheme of Redemption" class; I took Roland Lewis's "Home and Family" class; I preached sermons; I wrote the goals and objectives for the men when our church divided the men and women for family classes; with Dene's assistance, I taught marriage and parenting classes to both the High School and College age classes. So, WHY did I find myself riding my bicycle 13 miles home from work as slowly as possible because I did not know what to say or do about a situation between us?  I did not even know for sure whose fault it was or how to proceed to find out without creating a bigger problem.  Well, I did manage that, I was so late she worried and came looking for me. So, "Knowledge puffs up."  And, the answers are not always easy and there is a learning curve on applying what you know.

It might help us to note that God never said to the husbands that they are the head.  He said that to the wives.  It seems like a small distinction but the difference it creates in perspective has caused chasms in relationships for hundreds of years.  In fact, that small difference often leads to a domineering attitude in husbands that is foreign to the context of "subjecting [our]selves one to another," and especially to the first command to husbands, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it."

To understand our role as husbands, we men must consider that Christ was head, though he only gave—gave himself up over and over again.  And he did so without complaint or resentment.  First, he gave up his place with and equal with God to become a man.  A fact we treat as a theological argument rather than the tremendous yielding (emptying self) that it was (Phil 2:5-7).  The creator became a creature.  Next, he walked through a world of sin.  Sometimes city people cannot stand the sights and smells of real farm life.  Anyone who has gathered eggs knows they do not come as clean as they do in the grocery store carton.  Imagine the disgust an absolutely holy being would have toward rebellious, self-destructive sin.  And, he walked among and had compassion toward these sinners.  Last, he died and in dying became sin on our behalf (2 Cor 5:21).  At no point did or does this one who is "far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named" in his role as head of the church coerce anyone to do anything (Eph 1:21).  He
wooed his people to him by giving himself up.

When men discuss this, they end the matter with, "I would be willing to die for my wife. Next verse, brother ________."  Whoa!  Back up just a bit—Is dying all that Jesus did for us? 

The Word gave up who he was and became someone else, Jesus, for his bride.   Unscripturally, many men not only do not change when they become husbands, they see no need to change.  Jesus' example leaves no wiggle room at all for the husband about his willingness to change for his wife.  And, remember, Jesus did it before his bride subjected herself and as a motive to lead her to do so.  "That's just not who I am and she knew that when she married me," is not a valid excuse.  A man determined to belong to God must consider the changes he needs to make to be the head of his wife.  Not only may different women have different needs, but the same woman will have changing needs as life progresses.  That means the husband imitating Christ cannot stay the same either.  "But what about my rights as head?"  Go consider: What about Jesus' rights? No man ever had more power than Jesus. Yet, he never used any of it to get his way about anything. Even so ought husbands to act toward their wives.

Since "head" is the way the wife is commanded to treat him and not a license for the husband to boss, he should give himself up by working to develop mutual decisions and plans. He must show consideration for her ideas and her desires by listening to her as equal partners in your life before God. In fact, imitating Christ may require him to give up his desires, his way for hers.

A man may cling to his rights and privileges.  A husband may give up his hobbies, his plans, his buddies, his dreams to demonstrate his love for his bride.  He must not wait until she asks or cries about his neglect; he must wisely consider and use his power to act on her behalf by yielding. When she sees that he loves her so, she will submit joyfully and change into the help suitable for him so that they two become one in heart.

Elkanah gave up his right to overturn Hannah's vow, gave up his son, gave up a bull for a sacrifice (1Sam 1; Num 30:12).  God says that "the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife" (1Cor 7:4).  If a husband cannot be boss over his own body, why would he be boss over his time?  His preferences?  His habits?  His only goal as God's man is to give himself up with purpose to shape her into God's woman.

Approximately half the population is men; many are married, few are husbands.  Are you even on the journey to becoming one?
 
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. (1Pet 2:18). 

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, (1Pet 3:1).

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1Pet 3:7).
 
Keith Ward

It was almost amusing when it happened. 

              Many years ago at one of the congregations where Keith preached, one of the older men made it a point to say to him, “I know you are a hard worker.  But you still have children at home.  You need to make sure you spend time with them.” 

              We appreciated that.  Keith was a hard worker, spending at least 30 hours a week with the Word, just as Paul told Timothy and Titus they needed to be doing as young evangelists, plus the four hours preaching and teaching in the assembly every week, and then holding Bible studies, usually in the evenings, with interested people, or looking for more interested folks as he passed out flyers and meeting announcements, sent out and graded correspondence courses, and wrote articles in the local paper.  I often met him at the local pond loaded down with old towels and blankets, especially in the winter, for a baptism.  He seldom worked less than 60 hours a week.

              Yet not long afterward, the same man’s wife came up to him and scolded him because he had missed putting an article in the paper the week we moved from one house to another.  Everything else was done, but something had to give that week, and he preferred that one article not be written rather than his boys not have time with their father.

              I fear too many churches are more like the wife of that couple than the husband.  Especially if a man is supported mainly by other churches, the pressure is felt, even if it isn’t applied.  Then there are the men who do not even need that pressure to avoid their obligations at home, using the same excuse  Here is what Jesus had to say about that. 

              And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)-- then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."  Mark 7:9-13.

              Those people got out of their financial obligations to their elderly parents by claiming their money was “given to God,” whether or not it ever actually made it to the Temple coffers! 

              “And many such things you do,” Jesus tacked on the end of that. .”  As long as you can say you are using it for God, whatever “it” is, you don’t have to give it to anyone else.  Tell me that saying your time is given to God (Corban) so it’s all right if you don’t spend enough of it with your children to teach them basic skills of life, to discuss the Word of God “when you walk and talk,” to just listen to their childish concerns and give them the fatherly wisdom they crave, or enough time to nurture your relationship with the wife whom you have come to take for granted, aren’t “such things.

              I have seen old pioneer preachers lauded for sacrificing their family lives to go off for months at a time to preach the gospel.  I am not sure the Lord would have been among their admirers.  If they were single, fine, but choosing to have a family places other obligations on you.  Isn’t that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7?  I would rather you be like me (single) so you do not have the obligations that having a family puts on you, duties which God does expect you to fulfill.  Paul certainly didn’t say those obligations were negated by spiritual things.

              Churches need to look at their preachers’ schedules for this reason:  see if he is raising his children; see if he is spending time with his wife.  The Lord made a family with both a mother and a father present in the home.  He made the woman to be a help not a substitute father.  Jesus said, “Don’t blame what you do for God as the reason you neglect your family obligations.”  He says you make void the Word of God when you do that.  Churches, do you want to be a party, or perhaps the main cause, for a man to make void the Word of God?

              And we can also say this applies to anyone who hides behind “spiritual things” to avoid his family responsibilities—he is calling his family, “Corban.”

              We call the argument about “quality time” between working mothers and their children a “myth.”  Quality time can only happen when a quantity of time is being spent.  What applies to mothers, certainly applies to fathers too.  Jesus seems to agree.
 
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Ephesians 6:4.  Read that without the parenthetical statement—just the underlined words.
 
Dene Ward

Guest writer Keith Ward begins a series for husbands, which will run the last Monday of the month for the next few months.
 
For some years it has amazed me that from a section of 397 words (ASV) concerning subjection, preaching and teaching has focused on the 65 words addressed to "Wives be in subjection to your own husbands" while only cursory attention has been given to the 332 other words on submission and even less to the 220 words addressed to husbands (Eph 5:21-6:9).  Notice that the Holy Spirit spoke almost 4 times as many words to the men about their duties as husbands as he did to the wives about theirs. Further, He simply states the duty of the wives but understands the necessity of enforcing by strong analogies to Christ and the church and loving oneself the husband's duties toward the wives. Comparison of the history of the amount of teaching done on the two sets of duties shows that we men missed the message.

The section opens by commanding us all to "Subject[ing] yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ." Then God specifies the subjection of wives and husbands, children and fathers, and servants and masters. Some years ago in a small group meeting from church, I compared Christianity to traffic circles—No one has the right-of-way.  Unlike 4-way stops where the laws specify who has the right of way, traffic circles have yield signs at every entrance; NO ONE has the right of way.  So also does this section on subjection. (SHE "borrowed" the traffic circle idea for her own devo). In every one of the six relationships listed in the section, the command is to submit, not to control.

Let us note that in the other relationships discussed, the children are to obey their parents, but that does not make the fathers the boss. Rather, fathers are to "provoke not" and "nurture" them.  Slaves are to obey masters but masters are to treat slaves as they expect the Lord to treat them.  So, just where did we find in the expression that the husband is the head of the wife the concept that he is boss and Lord of the house?  Certainly we left the clearly written spirit of the context to discover it.

Considering the attitudes of our times, women do need the lessons on submission that the Holy Spirit teaches here. In fact, I must emphasize that God is speaking for so many accuse Paul of just being a misogynist bachelor. But, I see nothing in this text or any other that instructs men to force their wives into submission.

Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church; husbands are to give themselves up for their wives as Christ did for the church; husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies; husbands are to feed and warm their wives; husbands are to leave all others for their wives.  This is the headship that God commands the husbands to exercise toward their wives.  Just which of those sounds like control?

Over the next lessons, we will examine some practical ways husbands can follow Jesus' example in their relationship as head of their wives. The teachings and suggestions will not be exhaustive, but they should give the man with a willing heart enough to be able to adapt them to his wife and their situation.
 
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. (1Pet 2:18).
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, (1Pet 3:1).
You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1Pet 3:7).

Keith 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