AFTER DISSECTING THE FIRST SEVEN BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE (FROM GENESIS) LIKE WE HAVE, WE WILL SEE MANY FAMILIAR TOPICS WOVEN INTO THIS STORY AND SO MANY LOOSE ENDS WILL BE TIED UP ALSO. IN FACT, RUTH OUGHT TO BE AT THE TOP OF ANYONE’S READING LIST TO STUDY BEFORE READING ANY LATTER (GOSPEL) ACCOUNTS, BECAUSE FOR A SHORT LITTLE 4-CHAPTER STORY, IT HAS AN INCREDIBLY COMPLEX STRUCTURE, THEME, AND THEOLOGY THAT DEFY SIMPLE SOLUTIONS. IN FACT AFTER CENTURIES OF TRYING TO STUDY THIS BOOK, MUCH OF RELIGIOUS ACADEMIA IS SO CONFOUNDED BY IT (OF COURSE THEY ARE) THAT MOST HAVE AVOIDED MAKING ANY COMMENTARY ON IT (I MEAN HOW CAN YOU UNDERSTAND RUACH-INSPIRED WRITING WITHOUT THE RUACH WITHIN YOU ENABLING YOU TO ABSTRACTLY DISCERN IT??). THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE HEADS OR TAILS OF THIS BOOK OF RUTH IF WE DON’T UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THE ANCIENT HEBREW CULTURE AND TRADITIONS, AND OF COURSE WE NEED TO READ EVERYTHING THROUGH THE UNDERSTANDING OF YAHUSHA’S (TURAH) INSTRUCTIONS. WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS ACCOUNT THROUGH MODERN WORLDLY TERMS OR THROUGH UTILISING WESTERN THINKING.
SO LET’S GET THE BASICS OUT OF THE WAY: RUTH IN HEBREW MEANS COMPANION OR FRIEND, FRIENDSHIP, OR TO BEFRIEND AND IT FITS IN WITH THE TONE OF THIS ACCOUNT VERY WELL ...
THERE IS MUCH DEBATE ABOUT WHEN RUTH WAS WRITTEN, BUT VIRTUALLY NO ARGUMENT ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD THE STORY IS SAID TO TAKE PLACE: THE ERA OF THE JUDGES, OCCURRING AROUND THE SAME TIME THAT GIDEON WAS JUDGING YISHARAL, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 900 AND 600 B.C. IT WAS ALSO PROBABLY WRITTEN SOMETIME AFTER KING SOLOMON, BUT WELL BEFORE THE EXILE OF THE YAHUDIM (JEWS) TO BABYLON, A RANGE OF AROUND 300 YEARS.
RUTH WAS NOT A HEBREW; SHE WAS A MOABITE, FROM THE OUTSIDE NATIONS (GOYIM/GENTILES). MOAB WAS LOT’S SON (OR MORE CORRECTLY BY OUR MODERN THINKING, HIS GRANDSON) BORN OF LOT’S DAUGHTER AND HE FOUNDED THE TERRITORY CALLED BY HIS NAME. RUTH’S GENEALOGY GOES BACK THROUGH LOT TO ABRAHAM’S BROTHER HARAN (HARAN WAS LOT’S FATHER). SO IT IS QUITE INTERESTING THAT RUTH IS ONE OF ONLY TWO OUTSIDE GENTILES WHO HAVE A BOOK OF THE SCRIPTURE NAMED AFTER THEM, THE OTHER ONE BEING JOB. THE FACT THAT SHE WAS A GENTILE AND ALSO A WOMAN IS ALL THE MORE FASCINATING TOO. THE ONLY OTHER WOMAN WHO HAD A BOOK IN THE SCRIPTURE NAMED AFTER HER WAS ESTHER; INFACT RUTH AND ESTHER HAVE MANY CONTRASTS JUST AS RUTH AND JUDGES DOES:
EVEN THOUGH RUTH AND JUDGES OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME, UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, RUTH’S STORY IS A PLEASANT TALE OF GOODNESS, AND FRIENDSHIP, AND BROTHERLY LOVE, AND KINDNESS, AND HOPE AND OF A GREATER PURITY OF SERVICE TO YAHUSHA. WHERAS THE BOOK OF JUDGES ON THE OTHER HAND TELLS OF EVIL, REBELLION, DARKNESS, DISOBEDIENCE, BROTHER TURNING AGAINST BROTHER, AND APOSTASY/FALLING AWAY FROM YAHUSHA. SO WHAT WE WILL SEE IS THAT (JUST AS IN ALL TIMES) EVEN IF THE WHOLE PEOPLE OF YAHUSHA ARE SEEMINGLY COMPLETELY OUT OF HARMONY WITH HIM, THERE WILL BE A REMNANT THAT SEEKS TO REMAIN OBEDIENT AND WHO ARE OPEN TO THE DELICATE MOVING OF HIS SPIRIT UPON THEM. EVEN IN THE DARKEST OF TIMES THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SMALL ENCLAVES OF DIVINE LIGHT (BUT ARE WE LOOKING FOR IT?) SO THE BOOK OF RUTH GIVES US INSIGHT INTO THE PRINCIPLE THAT WITH YAHUSHA, ALL IS NEVER LOST AND THAT HOPE REMAINS EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS THAT NONE COULD BE POSSIBLE.
THERE IS VERY LITTLE MENTION OF YAHUSHA IN THESE 4 CHAPTERS, SO
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR THE BOOK OF RUTH BEING WRITTEN?
1. TO PROVIDE A GENEALOGICAL LINK BETWEEN THE TRIBE OF JUDAH AND DAVID, SO AS TO CONTINUE THE MESSIANIC LINE, SINCE THERE IS NO GENEALOGY GIVEN OF DAVID IN THE BOOK OF 1ST SAMUEL.
2. TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS BELIEF AND OBEDIENCE EVEN IN THAT TERRIBLE TIME OF FALLING AWAY (THE TIME OF THE JUDGES), AND SO YAHUSHA STILL MAINTAINED A REMNANT TO WORK THROUGH.
3. TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONCEPT OF THE KINSMAN-REDEEMER IN ACTION (MORE TO COME ON THIS AMAZING UNDERSTANDING).
4. TO SHOW THAT YAHUSHA’S FAVOUR IS NOT LIMITED TO HEBREWS BUT CAN ALSO BE EXTENDED TO THE OUTSIDE NATIONS/GENTILES TOO, FULFILLING THE PROMISE TO ABRAHAM OF HIS FAMILY BLESSING THE WHOLE WORLD THROUGH HIS DESCENDANTS.
5. TO ESTABLISH THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID AS A PERMANENT SUCCESSOR TO THE HOUSE OF SAUL, AND THEREBY DEFEND THE CLAIMS OF DAVID TO THE THRONE OF YISHARAL OVER THE CLAIMS OF ISHBOSHETH (SAUL’S SON). VERY LIKELY THIS WAS FOREMOST IN THE WRITER’S MIND, EVEN IF HE COULDN’T FORESEE THE CONNECTION TO THE FUTURE MESSIAH. AFTER KING SAUL WAS KILLED IN BATTLE, AND HIS BODY HUNG ON THE WALLS OF BEIT-SHEAN, DAVID DID NOT IMMEDIATELY BECOME KING OVER ALL OF YISHARAL; AT FIRST HE WAS ONLY RULER OVER JUDAH. ISHBOSHETH RULED OVER THE 10 NORTHERN TRIBES AND THE TERRITORY THAT WAS AT THAT TIME CALLED EPHRAIM.
SO IN THE WRITER’S EYES THE BOOK OF RUTH IS A KIND OF APPENDIX TO THE BOOK OF THE JUDGES BUT THE PROBLEM THE WRITER WAS HAVING WAS THAT ESSENTIALLY THE BOOK OF JUDGES IS ALL ABOUT THE CANAANISATION OF YISHARAL. THAT IS, THROUGH SYNCRETISM THE TRIBES OF YISHARAL ABSORBED AND MELDED CANAAN’S CULTURE AND BELIEFS INTO THEIR OWN UNTIL IT WAS AN UN-SET-APART ILLICIT MIXTURE UNSUITABLE FOR YAHUSHA’S PEOPLE. THE BOOK OF RUTH IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANCESTORS OF DAVID WERE (FOR THE MOST PART IN THIS ERA ANYWAY) MORE OBEDIENT AND PURE, AND WERE NOT PART OF THAT UNSET-APART MIXTURE.
6. RUTH ALSO SHOWS THAT THE KINSMAN REDEEMER (BOAZ) WAS A TYPE OF MESSIAH.
SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED BY NOW THAT RUTH IS NOT IN THE SAME PLACE IN OUR HEBREW-BASED SCRIPTURES (JUST AFTER THE SONG OF SOLOMON) AS IT IS IN OTHER CHRISTIAN VERSIONS (RIGHT AFTER JUDGES). SO WHAT GIVES? THE ANSWER IS THAT THE LOCATION OF THE BOOK OF RUTH CAN BE USED AS A VERY QUICK WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOUR SCRIPTURE VERSION HAS BEEN TRANSLATED FROM EARLY HEBREW TEXTS OR THE GREEK OR LATIN BIBLES (OR IN MORE TECHNICAL TERMS FROM THE TANACH OR FROM THE SEPTUAGINT) BECAUSE THE HEBREW VERSIONS PLACE RUTH AS AMOUNG THE LAST OF THE 3 DIVISIONS THE HEBREWS ASSIGN TO THE TANACH, THE KETUBIM. THE SEPTUAGINT PLACES RUTH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE BOOK OF JUDGES. IF YOUR VERSION HAS RUTH RIGHT AFTER JUDGES, THEN YOUR "OLD TESTAMENT" WAS TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK OR LATIN AND NOT THE HEBREW (EXCEPT IN THIS BRS CASE). HOWEVER LET'S BE CLEAR: THE LOCATION OF RUTH DOESN’T MAKE YOUR SCRIPTURE VERSION A GOOD ONE OR A BAD ONE, BUT IT CAN EXPLAIN WHY IT MAY SOUND A LITTLE DIFFERENT ESPECIALLY FROM ONES TRANSLATED FROM THE HEBREW. OF COURSE THE SIMPLE REASON OUR BEHAVIOUR REVOLUTION SCRIPTURE PLACES RUTH AFTER JUDGES IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE EVENTS ARE HAPPENING AT THE EXACT SAME TIME . . . SO WHY NOT?
SO THIS SMALL BOOK IS QUITE COMPLEX AND DEALS WITH SEVERAL FOUNDATIONAL TURAH PRINCIPLES, OPPOSED TO THE STANDARD BOILER-PLATE SEMINARY EXPLANATION THAT SAY RUTH IS JUST A BOOK THAT IS ENTIRELY ABOUT PRESENTING US WITH A MESSIAH-TYPE FIGURE IN BOAZ, ALL FRAMED-UP IN A LOVE STORY ?? WHILE THAT THEME IS PRESENT IN THE BOOK, IT'S ONLY A SMALL PART OF IT.
WHO WAS NAOMI? (RUTH.1)
Before Yisharal was ruled by Kings, Elimelech lived in the town of Bethlehem with his wife Naomi and their two sons Mahlon and Chilion. But there was a famine and their crops were failing, so they moved to the country of Moab, where Elimelech died shortly after, leaving Naomi alone with only her two sons.
THE PEOPLE OF MOAB WORSHIPED IDOLS AND WERE USUALLY ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE OF YISHARAL.
TECHNICALLY THERE WAS NO NATION OF MOAB DURING THE TIME OF THE JUDGES, BUT IT WAS AN EASY WAY TO REFER TO THIS PARTICULAR TERRITORY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE JORDON, BORDERING ON THE DEAD SEA. MOAB WAS CONQUERED AND TAKEN OVER BY THE TRIBES OF REUBEN AND GAD EVEN BEFORE JOSHUA LED YISHARAL ACROSS THE JORDAN INTO CANAAN, PROBABLY AROUND 40 YEARS BEFORE THE TIME OF RUTH. SO SAYING “MOAB” WAS JUST A COMMON WAY OF SPEAKING AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER AS WE FOUND OUT IN OUR STUDY OF JOSHUA AND JUDGES, WHILE IT MIGHT SEEM THAT LARGE BLOCKS OF LAND WERE SETTLED AND FULLY CONTROLLED BY THE VARIOUS YISHARALITE TRIBES, IN REALITY WHEN WE LOOK CLOSER IT WAS THAT THESE 12 ALLOTTED YISHARALITE TERRITORIES HAD ALTERNATING POCKETS OF CANAANITE SETTLEMENTS AND HEBREW SETTLEMENTS IN THEM AND THEY GENERALLY CO-EXISTED PEACEFULLY. IT WAS THE SAME ON THE EAST BANK OF THE JORDAN; PEOPLE WHO WERE OF MOABITE ANCESTRY (LIKE RUTH) CONTINUED TO LIVE IN THEIR OWN VILLAGES SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH OTHER VILLAGES INHABITED BY THE RELATIVE NEWCOMERS, THE REUBENITES AND GADITES.
THE CLAN OF ELIMELECH WAS PROBABLY KNOWN FOR THEIR WEALTH (BASED ON FARMING) AND THUS THEY WERE RENOWNED AS THE FRUITFUL CLAN LIVING IN BETHLEHEM JUST AS WE MIGHT LOOK UPON A WEALTHY FAMILY IN A SMALL TOWN AND IDENTIFY THEM IN THAT REGARD.
WE’RE TOLD THAT THIS CERTAIN MAN ELIMELECH TOOK HIS FAMILY TO “SOJOURN” IN MOAB. IN HEBREW THE WORD BEING TRANSLATED IS GUR, AND IT MEANS TO GO SOMEPLACE FOR A WHILE BUT NOT WITH THE INTENT OF MAKING IT YOUR NEW HOME. SO THEY WERE NOT CHANGING THEIR NATIONALITY OR THEIR ALLEGIANCE; THEY WERE JUST LONG-TERM VISITORS IN MOAB.
Later, Naomi’s sons married Moabite women. One was named Orpah and the other Ruth. About ten years later, Mahlon and Chilion also died, leaving Naomi with no husband or sons.
THE TRAGIC RESULT OF ALL THIS WAS THAT NAOMI, A RELATIVELY OLD WOMAN (NOW WITH NO HUSBAND AND NO SONS) HAD NO MEANS OF INCOME; AND THE REST OF THE STORY ESSENTIALLY DEALS WITH THE VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS THIS CAUSES FOR NAOMI AND HOW IT WOULD BE REMEDIED BY THE EVER-TRUSTWORTHY YAHUSHA WHOM SHE STEADFASTLY WORSHIPPED EVEN IN A FOREIGN PLACE WHERE CHEMOSH WAS THE CHIEF DIETY.
WHY HAS THIS FAMILY EXPERIENCED SUCH DEVASTATING LOSS WHILE IN MOAB? WHILE THERE, NAOMI’S HUSBAND DIED AS WELL AS BOTH OF HER SONS, WHO HAD MARRIED MOABITE WOMEN. SUCH A HORROR COULD ONLY BE SEEN AS A CURSE FROM YAHUSHA. ALL 3 MALES DIED EARLY DEATHS, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AN INDICATION OF DIVINE ACTION. SO IF IT WAS A PUNISHMENT FROM YAHUSHA, WHAT WAS THEIR CRIME?
HERE IS THE “”JEWISH MIND”” (OF THE SAGES) ON THE SUBJECT: ELIMELECH, MACHLON AND CHILION WERE AMONG THE NOTABLES OF THEIR GENERATION AND THEY WERE LEADERS OF
THEIR GENERATION. WHY THEN WERE THEY PUNISHED? POSSIBLY BECAUSE THEY LEFT THE LAND OF YISHARAL FOR A FOREIGN COUNTRY. IT APPEARS THAT ELIMELECH’S FAMILY FELT THE WRATH OF YAHUSHA BECAUSE THEY LEFT THEIR LAND TOO EASILY (IN THAT IT WASN'T THAT THERE WAS NO FOOD AVAILABLE (NOTHING TO BUY), BUT RATHER THE MIDIANITES MADE THEIR LIVES DIFFICULT BY STEALING MUCH OF THEIR FOOD SUPPLY AND THUS MAKING FOOD MORE SCARCE AND MORE EXPENSIVE). IT ALSO MEANT THAT THIS WELL-TO-DO FARMING FAMILY HAD THE MOST TO LOSE BECAUSE THEIR LAND-HOLDINGS WERE LARGE AND THEY LOST SO MUCH OF THEIR CROP INCOMES TO THOSE MARAUDERS. SO RATHER THAN STAY IN THE PROMISED LAND UNDER DIFFICULT (BUT NOT NECESSARILY UNBEARABLE) CONDITIONS, AS THEY SHOULD, THEY LEFT FOR AN EASIER LIFE. THEY BELONGED IN THE PROMISED LAND, NOT JUST ANY PLACE THAT SUITED THEM. THEY BELONGED IN A LAND THAT YAHUSHA HAD SET ASIDE FOR THEM, AT THE COST OF MILLIONS OF EGYPTIAN LIVES, THOUSANDS OF YISHARALITE LIVES, AND THE LOSS OF LAND AND LIFE OF COUNTLESS CANAANITES. RESULT: YAHUSHA SEVERELY PUNISHED THE FAMILY. THIS SOUNDS PRETTY ACCURATE AND SHORTLY WE’RE GOING TO SEE NAOMI ADOPT THIS SAME LINE OF THINKING.
The Book of Naomi ??
WHILE THE BOOK IS NAMED RUTH, IN REALITY THE CENTRAL CHARACTER IS ACTUALLY NAOMI. RUTH HAS LOST HER HUSBAND (AS HAS ORPAH) BUT THAT CAN GENERALLY BE REMEDIED BY RE-MARRIAGE; AND IF THE GIRLS WERE YOUNG AND (EVEN BETTER) ATTRACTIVE, RE-MARRIAGE WAS THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME. FURTHER IT WAS THE CUSTOM OF THE ERA THAT YOUNG WIDOWS WOULD BE WELCOMED BACK INTO THEIR FATHER’S HOME AND CARED FOR INDEFINITELY JUST LIKE WHEN THEY WERE VIRGINS; SO THE PROSPECTS OF A DECENT LIFE FOR A YOUNG WIDOW WERE GENERALLY GOOD. BUT FOR AN
OLDER WOMAN, BEYOND CHILD-BEARING YEARS AND PROBABLY BEYOND THE ABILITY TO WORK HARD AND PROVIDE NEEDED LABOR FOR THE FAMILY .... TO BECOME A WIDOW AND HAVE NO SONS TO CARE FOR YOU WAS ALMOST A DEATH SENTENCE. AT THE VERY LEAST IT WAS AN EXISTENCE OF POVERTY AND DEPRAVATION. SO THE BOOK OF RUTH IS ESSENTIALLY A TALE OF HOW A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR NAOMI WAS GRACIOUSLY SOLVED BY YAHUSHA, THROUGH RUTH AND BOAZ. IF WE KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE GO, WE’LL GET THE MOST OUT OF THIS MARVELLOUS LITTLE BOOK.
SOME HAVE TAUGHT THAT ELIMELECH’S AND NAOMI’S SONS WERE WRONG FOR TAKING MOABITE WIVES (AND THUS ELIMELECH WAS WRONG FOR ALLOWING IT) BUT THAT’S NOT REALLY ACCURATE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO COMMAND OF YAHUSHA AGAINST THIS. DEUT 7:3 FORBADE MARRIAGE TO CANAANITES, BUT NOT TO MOABITES.
ONE ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS IS THAT DEUT 23:3 SAYS THAT NO MOABITE MAY ENTER “THE ASSEMBLY” OF YISHARAL UNTIL THE 10TH GENERATION (WHICH CAN ONLY MEAN THE 10TH GENERATION AFTER YISHARAL HAS ENTERED THE PROMISED LAND) AND IT’S UNLIKELY THAT 10 GENERATIONS HAD PASSED BY NOW. HOWEVER THE HEBREW WORD FOR "ASSEMBLY/CONGREGATION" IS "KAHAL" AND IT HAS A LITTLE MORE NUANCED MEANING THAN SIMPLY “YISHARALITES AT LARGE”, OR “THE GENERAL POPULATION OF YISHARAL”.
KAHAL USUALLY DENOTES FULL-CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT RESERVATION IN YISHARAL; IT DENOTES THE ABILITY AND STATUS TO SERVE AS A LEADER OR ELDER, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RITUALS AND OBSERVANCES, TO ASSEMBLE ON SET-APART OCCASIONS ON THE TABERNACLE GROUNDS, ETC.
RESIDENT ALIENS WERE NOT PERMITTED SUCH THINGS, AND APPARENTLY SOME FOREIGN WOMEN WHO MARRIED INTO YISHARAL WERE ALSO EXCLUDED (PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO STOP WORSHIPPING THEIR FORMER DEITIES AND FOLLOW ONLY YAHUSHA). IN ANY CASE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE TAKING OF FOREIGN WIVES WAS THE ISSUE OR REASON FOR THE TERRIBLE TRAGEDIES OF ELIMELECH’S FAMILY, IT WAS SIMPLY THE LEAVING OF THE SET-APART LAND FOR A FOREIGN LAND WHEN IT WAS NOT AT ALL NECESSARY FOR THEIR SURVIVAL.
THE ONE SON IS NAMED MACHLON (HEBREW “WEAK”) AND THE OTHER IS CHILION (HEBREW “FAILING”) AND NO ONE WOULD NAME THEIR CHILDREN WITH SUCH DEROGATORY NAMES, WHICH IS ALL THE MORE EVIDENCE THAT THESE WERE DESCRIPTIONS USED AS NAMES BY THE WRITER TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED EFFECT AND TO MAKE THE STORY MEMORABLE. HE MAY NOT EVEN HAVE KNOWN THE GIVEN NAMES OF ANY OF THE CHARACTERS EXCEPT ELIMELECH AND NAOMI, AND PROBABLY BOAZ, TOO.
SO THE WIDOW NAOMI, WHO NOW ALSO HAS NO SONS, HEARS THAT THE FAMINE IN HER HOMELAND HAS ENDED AND DETERMINES IT’S TIME TO RETURN. IT IS INTERESTING HOW HER VIEWPOINT IS THAT YAHUSHA HAD “VISITED” THE PROMISED LAND (ARETS) AND GIVEN THEM BREAD (LECHEM, WHICH IS JUST A COMMON EXPRESSION THAT ACTUALLY MEANS FOOD). WHAT THIS SHOWS US IS THAT IN NAOMI’S MIND THE FAMINE THAT FORCED HER FAMILY TO LEAVE THE LAND WAS DIVINELY BROUGHT ABOUT, AND THUS THE ENDING OF THE FAMINE WAS ALSO DUE TO YAHUSHA’S INTERVENTION. SAYING THAT "SHE AROSE WITH HER DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW" IS AN EXPRESSION THAT MEANS TO START A JOURNEY. SO IT WAS EXPRESSLY NAOMI’S INITIATIVE TO RETURN HOME TO BETHLEHEM AT THIS TIME, AND THE TWO GIRLS WERE MERELY TAGGING ALONG.
When Naomi heard that Yahusha had given His people a good harvest, she and her two daughters-in-law got ready to leave Moab and go to Judah. As they were on their way there, Naomi said to them, “Surely you both want to go back home to your own mothers? You don't have to hang around me anymore. I truly appreciate how kind you both were to my husband and my sons, and you've always been kind to me, so I ask that Yahuah will be just as kind to you both in the future. May He give each of you another husband and a wonderful home and family of your own.”
YAHUSHA’S WOMEN: NAOMI INSISTS THAT HER DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW GO HOME TO THEIR REAL MOTHERS (MOABITE MOTHERS OF COURSE). THE WORDING OF THE STATEMENT IS UNUSUAL, BECAUSE IT'S NOT NORMAL TO REFER TO THE FAMILY HOME AS “THE MOTHER’S HOME”; RATHER IT’S ALWAYS “THE FATHER’S HOME”. THE IDEA IS THAT THE WOMEN ARE TO GO HOME TO BE COMFORTED BY THEIR MOTHERS (WHO BETTER TO COMFORT A DAUGHTER?) AND IT
WILL BE TEMPORARY UNTIL THEY GET NEW HUSBANDS. THIS SOUNDS RIGHT, BUT THERE’S ALSO A SIMPLER SOLUTION THAT PLAYS A BIG ROLE: THIS IS A STORY THAT REVOLVES AROUND WOMEN AND IS TOLD FROM A WOMAN’S POINT OF VIEW. IT DEALS WITH WOMEN’S ISSUES OF THAT DAY (IN A MALE-DOMINATED SOCIETY), AND IT SHOWS THE VALUE OF WOMEN IN THE EYES OF YAHUSHA, AND HOW THEIR VALUE SHOULD BE REGARDED IN HEBREW SOCIETY, AND IT SHOWS THE IMPORTANT NURTURING ASPECT OF MOTHERS AND WOMEN IN GENERAL. THUS IT IS APPROPRIATE TO SPEAK OF THE MOTHER’S HOME AND NOT THE FATHER’S IN THIS CASE.
And Naomi kissed them, they cried together and the daughters said, “No, we wanna stay with you Mum and live among your people.”
“But my daughters, you should go home! What good will it do you hanging around a stale old woman like me? I’ve got no more sons for you to marry and I never will? I’m way too old to get
married again and even if I did, you’d have to wait too many years for my sons to become old enough for you to marry. No, my daughters! Life will be much harder for you staying with me because Yahuah my Alahim has turned against me.”
WHEN A MARRIED MAN DIED AND LEFT NO CHILDREN, IT WAS THE CUSTOM FOR ONE OF HIS BROTHERS TO MARRY HIS WIDOW. ANY CHILDREN THEY HAD WOULD THEN BE THOUGHT OF AS THOSE OF THE DEAD MAN, SO THAT HIS FAMILY NAME WOULD LIVE ON (LEVIRATE MARRIAGE). REMEMBER THE STORY OF JUDAH’S
SON ONAN IN GENESIS? HE WOULDN’T GO THERE BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT TO SHARE THE INHERITANCE AND WAS STRUCK DEAD BY YAHUSHA!! WHAT A WANKER!!
ARE YOU KIND TO DEAD PEOPLE?
WHAT DOES NAOMI’S BLESSING ON THESE GIRLS MEAN? WELL WHAT IT DEFINITELY DOES NOT MEAN IS THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN RESPECT AND KINDNESS TO THEIR HUSBANDS’ MEMORIES. WE’VE TALKED ABOUT ANCIENT BURIAL PRACTICES AND BELIEFS CONCERNING WHAT HAPPENED AFTER DEATH. AND EVEN AMONG THE HEBREWS, ANCESTOR WORSHIP STILL PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN THEIR THINKING. THE THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE DIED AND WENT TO “HEAVEN” JUST DIDN’T EXIST. RATHER IT WAS THAT THE DEAD EXISTED IN SOME OTHER FORM UNDER THE GROUND, IN `THE PLACE OF THE DEAD' AND THEY NEEDED TENDING TOO (ABRAHAM’S BOSOM AND THE PLACE OF TORMENTS WERE BOTH UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS). SO IT WAS UP TO THE CHILDREN OR THE WIFE (OR SOME OTHER CLOSE FAMILY MEMBER) TO BRING FOOD TO THE BURIAL SITE TO SUSTAIN THE SPIRIT OF THE DEAD PERSON, TO SAY PRAYERS ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED, AND ESPECIALLY TO CONTINUE SPEAKING OUT THE DECEASED PERSON'S NAME SO THAT IT DIDN’T DISAPPEAR. BECAUSE IF A NAME STOPPED BEING SPOKEN IT ESSENTIALLY ENDED THE AFTERLIFE OF THAT PERSON. APPARENTLY RUTH AND ORPAH WERE DILIGENTLY DOING ALL THE CUSTOMARY THINGS TO TEND TO THE DEAD; AND BY DOING THIS, THEY ARE SHOWING DIRECT KINDNESS TO THE DEAD MEN THEMSELVES.
FURTHER IT WAS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE TWO DEAD HUSBANDS THAT RUTH AND ORPAH GET REMARRIED SINCE THEY WERE CHILDLESS; BECAUSE BY CUSTOM THE ESSENCE OF THE DECEASED MALE LIVED ON IN HIS FIRSTBORN SON; THUS IF HE NEVER HAD SONS DURING HIS LIFE, HIS ESSENCE/SPIRIT HAD NO PLACE TO LIVE ON. SINCE THESE TWO FATHERS DIED CHILDLESS, IT WAS CUSTOMARY AMONG HEBREWS THAT WHEN THESE WOMEN REMARRIED, THE FIRST SON BORN TO THEM WOULD BE DEDICATED IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED HUSBAND, THUS THE DEAD MAN’S LINE WAS RESCUED AND IT CONTINUED. THE COMPLICATION HERE, OF COURSE, IS THAT THESE WERE MOABITE WOMEN WHO (IF THEY DID WHAT NAOMI ADMONISHED THEM TO DO) WOULD GO HOME TO MOABITE FAMILIES AND LIKELY WOULD MARRY MOABITE MEN, AND LIVE IN MOABITE TERRITORY, SO HOW WOULD THIS ALL WORK? AND THE ANSWER IS THAT WE DON’T KNOW. THE CONCEPT OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE (A BROTHER BEING RESPONSIBLE TO MARRY HIS DECEASED BROTHER’S WIFE AND THEN TO FATHER A CHILD WITH HER) WAS UNIQUELY HEBREW. HOWEVER THESE TWO DEAD SONS HAD NO BROTHERS TO PERFORM LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WITH THE WIDOWS, SO NOW WHAT? THIS DIFFICULT SITUATION THE WOMEN FIND THEMSELVES IN ALSO HELPS TO EXPLAIN WHAT COMES NEXT.
So they all cried together again and Orpah agreed to go, kissing her mother-in-law good-bye, but Ruth stayed by Naomi, clinging on to her tightly. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NAOMI WAS AT THE CENTRE OF A GREAT ATTACHMENT BETWEEN THE WOMEN.
Naomi then said to Ruth, “Look, your sister-in-law is going back to her people and to her deities! Why don’t you go with her?”
But Ruth answered,
“Please don’t make me leave you and return home!
I'll go wherever you go, I’ll live wherever you live . . . your people will be my people and your Alahim will be my Alahim. I will die wherever you die and be buried beside you. And may Yahuah punish me if we are ever separated, because only death will part us now!”
RUTH ESSENTIALLY MADE A BLOOD-COVENANT WITH NAOMI AND THEN BOUND IT WITH THE OATH, “MAY YAHUAH BRING TERRIBLE CURSES ON ME AND WORSE ONES AS WELL IF ANYTHING BUT DEATH SEPARATES YOU AND ME.” THE ORIGINAL HEBREW INVOKES THE NAME YAHUAH. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE RUTH HAS SWORN BY THE ALAHIM OF THE HEBREWS, NOT THE DEITY OF THE MOABITES. THIS SHOWS IN WHOM RUTH TRULY BELIEVED, AND IN WHOM HER ALLEGIANCE WAS GIVEN, AND WHOM SHE REJECTED (CHEMOSH).
WHILE ON THE SURFACE RUTH WAS COMMITTING BOTH HER SOCIAL LIFE TO THE PEOPLE OF YISHARAL, AND HER WHOLE BELIEF TO YAHUSHA, THERE IS SOMETHING DEEPER HAPPENING. RUTH ACTUALLY CROSSED-OVER (OR CONVERTED). SHE LEFT PAGANISM TO BECOME A YISHARALITE. AND YET AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS SHORT STORY, THERE IS A CERTAIN MYSTERY TO IT ALL. AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THE NARRATIVE IS HOW SOMEONE FROM THE OUTSIDE NATIONS BECAME AN YISHARALITE, AND JUST WHAT THAT ENTAILED.
WAS ORPAH WRONG FOR LEAVING?
ORPAH TURNS AND TEARFULLY LEAVES TO GO HOME TO MAMA BACK IN HER MOABITE HOMETOWN. DID ORPAH DO SOMETHING WRONG, OR SELFISH OR EVIL IN LEAVING NAOMI AND GOING BACK? NOT AT ALL; IT WOULD BE UNFAIR AND UNTRUE TO SAY THAT SHE WAS DISLOYAL OR UNCARING OR HAD COMMITTED SOME KIND OF EVIL. NOT ONLY DID SHE DO WHAT NAOMI SINCERELY INSISTED SHE DO, SHE DID WHAT WAS PERFECTLY REASONABLE IN RESPONSE TO HER SITUATION. ORPAH DID NOT MAKE A BAD CHOICE, BUT FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF HISTORY SHE COULD HAVE MADE A BETTER ONE; SHE COULD HAVE FOLLOWED NAOMI AND TRUSTED IN AN ALAHIM SHE KNEW VERY LITTLE ABOUT AND ATTACHED HERSELF TO A PEOPLE SHE KNEW ABOUT EVEN LESS. INSTEAD, SHE WENT HOME TO HER PEOPLE (THE MOABITES) WHO WORSHIPPED CHEMOSH, SO ESSENTIALLY SHE UNKNOWINGLY PUT HER FATE INTO THE HANDS OF A FALSE DEITY.
ORPAH’S DECISION AFFORDS US A GOOD PICTURE OF HOW IT IS THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK RIGHT UP TO THE BRINK OF ACCEPTING THE CALLING OF YAHUSHA, EVEN GET IMMERSED, BUT NOT TAKE THE TRAINING PROCESS AND PATH OF DELIVERANCE SERIOUSLY ENOUGH TO SURRENDER, GIVE OVER, DIE TO THE FLESHLY SELF AND BE TRANSFOMED, BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY OTHER INTERESTS, CARES AND PRIORITIES.
MATTHEW 8:19 "A TEACHER APPROACHED YAHUSHA AND SAID, 'RABBI, I WILL FOLLOW YOU WHEREVER YOU GO.' AND YAHUSHA SAID TO HIM, 'THE FOXES HAVE HOLES, AND THE BIRDS FLYING ABOUT HAVE NESTS, BUT THE SON OF MAN HAS NO HOME OF HIS OWN.' ANOTHER RELIGIOUS FELLOW SAID TO HIM, 'MASTER, FIRST LET ME GO AND BURY MY FATHER." BUT YAHUSHA REPLIED, "FOLLOW ME, AND LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR OWN DEAD.'"
NOW WE DON’T KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHAT CHOICES THESE TWO MEN MADE WHEN YAHUSHA TOLD THEM WHAT THEY MUST DO AND HOW UNCERTAIN LIFE WOULD BE FOR THEM IN FOLLOWING HIM. BUT THE POINT IS THAT THIS LITTLE EPISODE IS SO REFLECTIVE OF THE NAOMI STORY. THE MEN (LIKE RUTH AND ORPAH) INSIST ON FOLLOWING YAHUSHA, BUT HE WARNS THEM OFF AND SAYS HE REALLY HAS NO GOOD PROSPECTS OF COMFORT AND PLENTY AHEAD, TO SHARE WITH THEM. THE ONE MAKES A STATEMENT THAT HE WILL FOLLOW YAHUSHA RIGHT THEN AND THERE; THE OTHER OF THEM SAYS HE’D LIKE TO FOLLOW YAHUSHA BUT REALLY NEEDS TO RETURN HOME FOR A WHILE. WITH NO OTHER INFORMATION GIVEN IT’S PROBABLY REASONABLE TO SUSPECT THAT THE FIRST ONE DID GO WITH YAHUSHA (LIKE RUTH DID WITH NAOMI), BUT THE 2ND RETURNED HOME TO BURY HIS FATHER (CHOOSING ORPAH’S ROUTE). THEY SHOULD HAVE DROPPED EVERYTHING TO GO WITH HIM. AND BY THE WAY, WHILE WE TEND TO SPIRITUALISE THIS EVENT AND MAKE IT THAT THE CHOICE OF “FOLLOWING” YAHUSHA WAS ESSENTIALLY A CHOICE BETWEEN DELIVERANCE AND NO DELIVERANCE, THAT IS NOT WHAT IS STATED. RATHER IT WAS WHETHER THEY WOULD LEAVE THEIR CURRENT LIFE BEHIND AND TRAVEL WITH HIM AND SERVE HIM WHEREVER HE WENT. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY DID NOT TRUST YAHUSHA AS MESSIAH; IT WAS THEIR LEVEL OF COMMITMENT AND TRANSLATING THAT COMMITMENT TO ACTION AND BEHAVIOUR THAT WAS AT ISSUE. DO YOU SEE THAT?
And when Naomi saw that Ruth had strongly made up her mind to go with her, she stopped urging her to go back.
THE ELDERLY WIDOW NAOMI SIMPLY COULD NO LONGER DEFLECT SUCH A STUNNING IMPASSIONED COVENANT THAT RUTH UNILATERALLY MADE WITH HER; AND HOW UNUSUAL THAT MUST HAVE BEEN FOR THOSE TIMES AND IN THAT CULTURE. IN A PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY, HERE WE HAVE A WOMAN CHOOSING ANOTHER WOMAN. WHEN IN AN ERA WHERE ALL HOPE THAT A WOMAN HAS OF SUSTENANCE, FAMILY, PROSPERITY, PROTECTION, COMFORT, AND FULFILMENT RESTED ON THE MALES, HERE WE HAVE A YAHUSHA-INSPIRED STORY OF A WOMAN WHO PREFERRED TO GIVE UP SUCH HOPE IN FAVOUR OF HELPING AN OLD WOMAN WHO HAD NO SUCH HOPE AVAILABLE TO HER.
TOGETHER THEY JOURNEYED BACK TO NAOMI’S HOME IN BETHLEHEM OF JUDAH. IT WAS A VERY ARDUOUS JOURNEY OF AROUND 75 MILES AND ONE MUST WONDER HOW NAOMI COULD HAVE SURVIVED IT WITHOUT RUTH. THE PLATEAUS OF MOAB WHERE THEY LEFT FROM WERE AT AN ELEVATION OF AROUND 3500 FEET, AND THE HILLS LEADING UP TO BETHLEHEM OVER 2500. AFTER DESCENDING RUGGED TRAILS, CROSSING THE JORDAN RIVER AT PROBABLY THE BEST AND MOST KNOWN FORDING SPOT AT JERICHO, THE NEXT PHASE OF THEIR TREK WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WORST.
When they reached Bethlehem, the whole town was excited to see them, infact the women who lived there asked, “Can this really be Naomi?” IN OTHER WORDS IT WAS THE WOMEN OF THE CITY WHO NOTICED NAOMI AND APPROACHED HER, NOT SO MUCH THE MEN (REMEMBER, THIS IS A WOMAN-ORIENTED STORY). THEY SAW HER APPROACH AND COULD HARDLY BELIEVE THEIR EYES.
Then she told them, “Don’t call me Naomi (PLEASANT) any longer! Call me Mara (BITTER) because Alahim has made my life bitter. I had everything when I left, but Yahuah has brought me back with sweet diddly squat! How can you still call me Naomi, when Alahim has turned against me and made my life so very hard?” SHE TELLS THEM NOT TO REFER TO HER CHARACTER OR COUNTENANCE AS PLEASANT ANY LONGER, FOR NOW SHE IS MARA, BITTER. WHAT IS MORE SURPRISING IS WHAT THE STATED CAUSE OF HER BITTERNESS IS: YAHUSHA !! (complaint much?)
The barley harvest was just beginning when Naomi and her Moabite daughter-in-law Ruth, arrived in Bethlehem.
DOCTRINE OF COMPLAINT ?
NAOMI MAKES IT CLEAR THAT HER UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YAHUSHA HAS WITH FULL DIVINE INTENTION CAUSED HER INTRACTABLE CONDITION OF POVERTY AND HOPELESSNESS. SHE BELIEVES THAT SHE WAS POWERLESS BEFORE THE ALAHIM OF THE COSMOS AND THAT THERE IS NO STOPPING THE CURSE OF EMPTINESS THAT SHE BEARS ONCE YAHUSHA HAS DECIDED TO PLACE IT UPON HER. . . VERY WISE WOMAN !
THE MODERN 21ST CENTURY BRIDE TENDS TO BE RATHER SCHIZOPHRENIC OVER HOW THEY SEE YAHUSHA DEALING WITH THEIR LIVES. ON ONE HAND WE SAY THAT YAHUSHA CONTROLS OUR WHOLE LIVES AND EVERY ASPECT OF OUR EXISTENCE, THEN WHEN SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS WE ALWAYS BLAME THE DEVIL! WE SAY THAT EVER SINCE YAHUSHA CAME AND DIED, HE ONLY AFFLICTS HIS PEOPLE WITH MERCY AND LOVING-KINDNESS, SO THE BAD THINGS IN OUR LIVES ARE EITHER JUST NATURAL REPERCUSSIONS, CONINCIDENCES OR DEMONIC &/OR HUMAN IN SOURCE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE HEBREWS HAD IN SCRIPTURE TIMES AND IT’S DEFINITELY NOT YAHUSHA’S VIEW EITHER. IT'S A DOCTRINE OF MEN WHO WISH ONLY TO RECOGNISE YAHUSHA’S ATTRIBUTES AS THE MOST PLEASANT ONES. NAOMI AND THE PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE HAD NO SUCH DELUSIONS.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HEARD SOMEONE SAY “HE GIVETH AND HE TAKETH AWAY”; BUT THEY APPARENTLY DON’T MEAN IT OR BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IF SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS AS A RESULT OF ONE’S OWN EVIL BEHAVIOUR, THE STANDARD STATEMENT IS THAT YAHUSHA DOESN’T PUNISH OR FLOG OR DISCIPLINE OR CHASTISE THOSE WHO ARE HIS. HOW RIDICULOUS IS SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING!! AND THE FACT THAT YAHUSHA GIVES AND TAKES AWAY IS REALLY ALL NAOMI IS STATING. YAHUSHA GAVE TO HER (SENT HER OUT FULL), AND THEN YAHUSHA TOOK IT ALL BACK (BROUGHT HER BACK EMPTY). BUT SHE SAYS IT WITH NO HYPOCRISY AND UNDERSTANDS THAT IF YAHUSHA REALLY DOES CONTROL EVERYTHING, THEN WHETHER SHE HAS PLENTY OR SHE HAS NOTHING, IT'S ALL FROM HIS HAND.
YOU SEE THE OLDER TEXTS IN PARTICULAR EXPOSES WHAT I WOULD CALL “A DOCTRINE OF COMPLAINT”. AS A PERSON UNDER YAHUSHA’S BLOOD-COVENANT THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS LUCK OR HAPPENSTANCE; EVERYTHING WAS UNDER YAHUSHA’S PURVIEW AND PROVIDENCE. MANY TIMES A SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER WOULD HAVE TERRIBLE THINGS HAPPEN TO THEM AND THUS THEY FULLY ASSIGNED IT TO YAHUSHA; AND OFTEN THEY COMPLAINED TO ONE ANOTHER OR DIRECTLY TO YAHUSHA ABOUT IT. AND IN GENERAL YAHUSHA DOESN’T SEEM TO SEE SUCH DIRECT "COMPLAINT" AS WRONG.
THAT SAID, IT’S ONE THING TO STATE YOUR SITUATION AND THE DEEP PAIN YOU'RE IN, AND THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, AND ESPECIALLY THAT YOU DON’T LIKE IT ONE BIT. BUT ITS QUITE ANOTHER TO CONFRONT YAHUSHA AND TELL HIM HE’S WRONG, OR THAT HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S DOING, OR HAS NO RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE'S DONE. NAOMI OF COURSE WAS EXPRESSING THE FORMER VIEWPOINT AND SO WAS REALLY DOING NOTHING WRONG, NOR HAD SHE A BAD ATTITUDE, NOR WAS SHE BEING DISOBEDIENT OR HAVING UNBELIEF. SHE WAS BUT ACKNOWLEDGING (A LITTLE OVER DRAMATICALLY IF YOU ASK ME) THAT THE SOURCE OF HER TROUBLES WAS YAHUSHA’S DECISION, AND SHE WAS SUFFERING UNDER HIS HAND FOR WHATEVER HIS REASONS. SHE WAS IN NO WAY CHALLENGING YAHUSHA’S MOTIVES OR AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
THIS IS QUITE REFRESHING BECAUSE JUST AS WE CAN'T ACCEPT YAHUSHA WITHOUT ACCEPTING HIS BRIDAL-PEOPLE, NEITHER CAN WE ACCEPT THE KIND ASPECT OF YAHUSHA WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE SEVERE, IE THE PUNISHMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF DISOBEDIENT BEHAVOUR.
THE CHAPTER CONCLUDES BY STATING THAT THE GIRLS ARRIVED AT THE TIME OF THE BARLEY HARVEST, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND APRIL BY OUR CALENDARS, PUTTING IT AT THE TIME OF THE APPOINTED TIME OF SHABUOT (PENTECOST). AND THIS (AND ONLY THIS) IS THE REASON WHY THE BOOK OF RUTH IS READ TODAY IN RELGIOUS SYNAGOGUES AS A TRADITION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AT THAT TIME OF THE YEAR.
"TEMPTATION"
HEBREW: a testing or trial,
(of men - judicial) or
(of Yahusha - querulous)
Meaning of QUERULOUS - adjective: complaining in a rather petulant or whining manner. "she/he became querulous and demanding."
Similar: petulant, complaining, pettish, touchy, testy, tetchy, waspish, prickly, crusty, peppery, fractious, fretful, irritable, cross crabbed, crabby, crotchety, cantankerous, disagreeable, miserable, morose, on edge, edgy, impatient, bitter, moody, in a bad mood, grumpy, huffy, scratchy, out of sorts, out of temper, ill-tempered, bad-tempered, ill-natured, ill-humoured, sullen, surly, sulky, sour, churlish, bilious, liverish, dyspeptic, splenetic, choleric, snappish, snappy, chippy, grouchy, cranky, narky, ratty, eggy, like a bear with a sore head, whingy, whingeing sorehead, soreheaded, peckish, snaky, miffy.
Origin late 15th century: from late Latin querulosus, from Latin querulus, from queri ‘complain’.
WHAT IS A QUERULOUS PERSON? In the legal profession and courts, a querulant (from the Latin querulus - "complaining") is A PERSON WHO OBSESSIVELY FEELS WRONGED, PARTICULARLY ABOUT MINOR CAUSES OF ACTION. In particular the term is used for those who repeatedly petition authorities or pursue legal actions based on manifestly unfounded grounds.
SCRIPTURAL MEANING:
"Neither grumble, as some of them also grumbled, and were destroyed by the destroyer. And all these came upon them as "EXAMPLES," and they were written as "WARNING" to us, on whom the ends of the ages have come. So that he who thinks he stands, let him take heed lest he fall. No trial has overtaken you except as is common to man, and Yahuah is trustworthy, who shall not allow you to be tested beyond what you are able, but with the test shall also make the way of escape, enabling to bear it. 1 COR 10:10-13 BYNV
WITH THESE VERSES, IS YAHUSHA SHOWING US THAT HE HAS POWER OVER SATAN THE DESTROYER ? IS YAHUSHA SAYING THAT HE WILL TEST AND TRIAL US ?
With everything that's happening in our personal lives (because that's where Yahusha is with us, in our hearts), WE SHOULD BE ALWAYS THINKING IN THE "POSITIVE," NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE, WE ALWAYS LOOK FOR THE LIGHT AND THE WAY OUT, AS WE WALK ON HIS WORD.
The text above says says, "But with the TEST, He will make the way of escape, enabling us to bear it." When we combine the Hebrew language with the Turah we see the deeper meaning Yahusha wants us to glean from our experience with Him. We already know that Hebrews 12 tells us that our Messiah will put hands upon us, He will rebuke us, chasten us, discipline us and flog us, especially if we despise His discipline. But if we endure He will treat us as sons. Yahusha has given us a complete understanding of how He feels about complainers, HE ACTUALLY HATES COMPLAINERS and will punish them, especially those of the immersion.
YAHUSHA WILL BRING CALAMITY AFTER CALAMITY UPON COMPLAINERS UNTIL THEY STOP OR ARE DESTROYED.
Brothers and sisters we should always be aware of our surrounding situations in a positive mindset, looking for the light to guide us through our tests and trials so that Yahusha will be esteemed by our behaviour.
IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE/WOKE TO THIS LIFESTYLE, YOU ARE LIVING A PERPETUAL CALAMITY, AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PLEASE YAHUSHA. PASS YOUR TESTING AND TRIALS.
Being querulous is habitual behaviour and Yahusha wants no such behaviour in His bride. Is the Bride today behaving any of the adjectives above (listed)? THESE ARE THE FIRST STEPS TO OVERCOMING BEFORE YAHUSHA CAN REALLY TRUST US TO RECEIVE HIS FAVOUR. BEHAVING ANYTHING QUERULOUS IS MOST DAMAGING TO OUR BEING AND HEALTH.
Besides being addictive look what Turah says in PRO 17:22 "A REJOICING HEART CAUSES GOOD HEALING, BUT A STRIKEN SPIRIT DRIES THE BONES". Not only will querulous behaviour make you a slave to your emotions, it will destroy your own body. These are the choices we have, so which ones are you making ???