Showing posts with label Magna Carta. Show all posts

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Pentecost and the Book of Ruth

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Pentecost. This follows this post about feminism in the military. This follows this post about mob attacks. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Pentecost and the Book of Ruth

by Graemme Marshall 1 comment

Add to my study list

The book of Ruth is a delightful story of romance, simplicity and purity. It conversationally tells of a mother bereft of husband and sons, yet still faithful to God. Also described is a daughter-in-law widowed of her husband (and childless) who demonstrates outstanding devotion to her mother-in-law and God. Further included in the narration is an upright and generous farmer blessed both by employees and God alike. The historical setting is Bethlehem in Judah in the days of the Judges around 1100 B.C.

A study of the book of Ruth is worthwhile for gleaning great principles and truths.

Although a specific purpose is not clearly stated, there is considerable connection with the meaning of the biblical festival known as the “Feast of Weeks,” the “Feast of Firstfruits” or “Pentecost” (Exodus 23:16; 34:22; Acts 2:1). A study of the book of Ruth is worthwhile for gleaning great principles and truths.
Ethnically, Ruth was a Moabitess, only distantly related to the Israelites through Lot, Abraham’s nephew (Genesis 11:27; 19:37). She didn’t grow up worshipping the God of Israel. However, the book of Ruth shows that, in God’s sight, conversion to God’s true religion is incomparably more important than one’s ethnicity.

Royal lineage

Ruth’s marriage into the royal Davidic line foreshadowed the eventual composition of the larger Church to come. The book foreshadows how gentiles would be called to join with “spiritual Israel” upon repentance and faith. In Ruth’s life we also discover how God at times circumvents the norm.

The book foreshadows how gentiles would be called to join with “spiritual Israel” upon repentance and faith.

The author takes care to trace David’s ancestry all the way back to Perez to encompass Abraham’s blessing (Genesis 49:10). Interestingly, Perez is the illegitimate, yet chosen, son of Judah and Tamar. This “unexpected” type repeats again with Boaz. He was the son of Salmon by Rahab (Matthew 1:5). Then later, still contrary to convention, we have David, who wasn’t the eldest son but the youngest. Finally, David’s heir, Solomon, is not the eldest either and was born through inauspicious circumstances of Bathsheba.
Ruth herself was a Moabitess who by marriage to Boaz now symbolically reunites the wayward clan of Lot’s son (Moab) back into Abraham’s family. Ruth thus becomes a vital link to David as his great-grandmother.
God’s generous providence is exhibited by the inclusion of a gentile into the royal lineage of the Messiah. When Ruth says, “Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God” and “The LORD do so to me, and more also, if…’ (Ruth 1:16-17), her words imply that Ruth, who once lived by the gods of Moab, now lives by the standards of Israel’s God.
The setting of Bethlehem, too, is interesting. It is here later that Jesse and David will live. And it is also here, in Bethlehem, that Christ our “Redeemer” is born.

A near kinsman

Boaz acted as the Old Testament “kinsman redeemer,” which also serves as a Messianic type. His actions were based on the “levirate law” given in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. The Hebrew word gaal describes the one who fulfills this function. The book makes it clear that the gaal alone possessed the right to redeem, yet was under no obligation to do so. The graciousness of God towards sinful humans is a type of the love and generosity exhibited by Boaz towards Ruth.
We are told that Boaz was a righteous man who kept the law (Ruth 2:20, 9, 11-12; 3:9, 12). But there were others who did not. Boaz encourages Ruth to continue gleaning (according to the law in Leviticus 19:9) but acknowledges the dangers for a young woman to do so on her own in some fields (Ruth 2:8). Bethlehem appears to have been an exceptional town, considering the chaotic period of the Judges—generally characterized by idolatry, syncretism (mixing of paganism with true faith), social injustice, intertribal rivalries and sexual immorality. However, the way the people of Bethlehem greeted one another (verse 4) shows a degree of conscious allegiance to God.

God is often portrayed in the role of Israel’s near kinsman, because He is the Creator, Redeemer and Savior of His people.

God is often portrayed in the role of Israel’s near kinsman, because He is the Creator, Redeemer and Savior of His people. Redemption from Egypt was not only an act of purchase but also the action of a kinsman moved by love. God told the Israelites, “I have remembered My covenant [with Abraham]… I am the LORD; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will rescue you from their bondage, and I will redeem [gaal] you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. I will take you as My people, and I will be your God” (Exodus 6:5-7).
When Israel became God’s by redemption as well as by creation, they could trust Him to deliver them in the future. Believers today can also count on God. As our Redeemer, He has made us His own and will act to deliver us.
The near kinsman had to be a blood relative, and Christ became our Brother by the virgin birth to become a human being. The kinsman had to have the money to purchase the forfeited inheritance (Ruth 4:9). Christ alone has the worth to pay the price for sinners. The kinsman had to be willing to buy back the forfeited inheritance (verse 6), even as Christ laid down His life of His own free will. The kinsman also had to be willing to marry the wife of his deceased relative (verse 10), a type of the bride-and-groom relationship between Christ and the Church.

The Day of Pentecost

From this standpoint, the four brief chapters of Ruth are most instructive concerning the redemptive and saving work of Jesus.
God’s Spirit has been available from that first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection to all who truly repent and are baptized (Acts 21:1, 38-39). The Day of Pentecost is an annual reminder that God poured out His Spirit to establish His Church, the group of believers redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice and led by His Spirit. With these marvelous truths in mind, a study of the small book of Ruth can be uplift and strengthen us as we think about our “near Kinsman” who acts on our behalf.

transforming your life The Day of Pentecost The Book of Ruth principle and truth Pentecost God's Holy Days Conversion Christian Living

You might also be interested in...

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Why Doesn’t The GOP Adopt The Ann Coulter Playbook?

An interesting article from www.vdare.com about Ann Coulter as a GOP strategist. This follows this post about impeaching an amnesty judge. This follows this post about the TPP. This follows this post about drought and immigration. This follows this post on HOW amnesty is funded in ways other than the DHS. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

Why Doesn’t The GOP Adopt The Ann Coulter Playbook?

Alexander Hart

Whatev

er you think about Ann Coulter, she cannot be accused of mincing her words. Beginning with her new book’s title—Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole—Coulter departs decisively from the usual GOP playbook—soften the “tone” on immigration, avoid any mention of that our immigration policy is making Europeans a minority in the country they founded, etc. Of course, this has gotten the GOP nowhere. Coulter’s playbook, on the other hand, seems to be working.
Often talk of “tone” is just a euphemism for supporting amnesty, but sometimes immigration patriots will make this argument, too. Even Senator Ted Cruz agreed that “The tone of immigration contributed” to Mitt Romney’s losing the Hispanic vote 71% to 27%. The Center for Immigration Studies’ Jerry Kammer[Email him] criticized John Tanton for having a “tin ear for the sensitivities of immigration.”
If Tanton has a tin ear, Coulter’s is tungsten. Most of the Main Stream Media coverage of the book is little more than what Steve Sailer calls “point and splutter” at her Political Incorrectness. As you can’t literally point and sputter on the internet, this literally involves tweeting: “Wow, just . . . wow” and ”I can’t even.” Last year, Hamilton Nolan at Gawker tried to justify not engaging or trying to refute Coulter’s arguments:

Ann Coulter is not a “serious” political commentator. Ann Coulter is a troll. To the extent that you take Ann Coulter’s words seriously, Ann Coulter wins. You cannot “win” an “argument” against Ann Coulter’s “position,” because her positions—which are plainly wrong, and which do not require lengthy arguments to refute—exist only to draw attention to Ann Coulter. This is how she eventually makes lots of money selling books and giving speeches to dumb people.
[Reminder: Ann Coulter Is a Troll, June 11, 2014]

And in a relatively more sympathetic profile of Coulter and Adios America on the Daily Beast, Lloyd Grove asked: “Does Coulter actually believe the tendentious claim in that title. . . [o]r is she merely engaging in perverse, albeit attention-getting, performance art?” He believes it’s a little bit of both.
I cannot speak for Coulter’s motivations, but it’s clear that her provocative language helps bring attention to serious and often ignored issues. And far from “trolling,” Coulter’s “wow, just, wow” statements are all, in fact, irrefutable.

Browning of America: Grove’s Daily Beast article is entitled “Coulter Hates ‘the Browning of America’” Numerous other articles also quote this as scandalous.

Yet Coulter did not coin the term. Many others like demographer James Johnson and MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry used it to celebrate the immigration created transformation of the country. (It was the title of a cover story in Time as long ago as April 9, 1990.) Coulter simply pointed out that this is not inevitable:

Everyone acts as if the “browning of America” is a natural process, and immigration opponents are like King Canute trying to hold back the ocean’s tide. It’s more like Americans are trying to stop an Army Corps of Engineers project that will flood the valley where they live in order to build a hydroelectric plant that will help one powerful corporation.

Immigration or ISIS? Coulter told Jorge Ramos: “If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria. If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you.”

Many in the MSM claimed to believe this meant she had said that all Mexicans are terrorists. Thus Mediaite’s Matt Wilstein characterized Coulter’s argument as “‘Illegal Aliens’ Way Scarier than ISIS” and goes on to question her claims about immigrant crime rates to debunk her.
Even if Wilstein was right that Coulter had overstated immigrant crime statistics (which he isn’t), he missed her point. ISIS terrorists have killed four Americans, and none of them were in America. Iraq and Syria are an ocean and six thousand miles away, while Mexican drug Cartels and gang members are operating within our country right now. So the terrorists simply do not pose as grave a threat to Americans. As Coulter explains in Chapter Eight:

Iraqi terrorists may long to maim and rape Americans, get them hooked on heroin, burn down hundreds of acres of our national parks, and kill Americans in drunk driving accidents. But it’s Mexicans who are actually doing these things.

Unless Wilstein asserts that no illegal aliens have committed crimes in the United States, then yes, illegal aliens pose a greater threat than ISIS to your average American.

Give us your disabled and obese: Coulter refused to hug a fat illegal alien on Jorge Ramos’ show, and later quipped: “When I’m in charge of immigration (after our 10 year moratorium), I will not admit overweight girls.”

This led to the predictable cries of “fat shaming” alongside xenophobia and racism from Rick Sanchez and others. [from]
Then, in an interview with Simon Conway, Coulter said she noted that special accommodations for disabled immigrants taking the naturalization tests will likely mean we know these immigrants will impose social costs: “How about the wheelchair-only section? How about the section for the blind? Look, [I] wish these people well, but we’re not running an international charity here.”
Thus Scott Sutton of the Chicago Sun Times complained that Coulter “doesn’t like the idea of any immigration policy that could allow people into the U.S. that she doesn’t deem worthy.” [Ann Coulter doesn’t want to give citizenship to people with disabilities, June 5, 2015] But any immigration policy except Open Borders requires that some aliens are “worthy” for entry and others are not.
Sutton continued: “Coulter seems to be implying the disabled people — specifically those in wheelchairs and the blind — are somehow worse than ‘us’ (as in Americans?) and we shouldn’t make exceptions to allow them into our country.”
No, Coulter’s point isn’t that Americans are “better” than the disabled—and certainly not that disabled Americans are somehow less American. In fact, she spends much of her book discussing why our immigration policies should be aimed at helping the most disadvantaged Americans.
Rather, she argues that because our immigration policy isn’t “an international charity,” we should not let in people who are likely going to run up social costs, which includes the blind and disabled.
In Adios America, Coulter recounts the story of the illegal Silverio family. While pretty much every member of the family managed to cost taxpayer dollars, one disabled anchor baby ran up $300,000 in neonatal care, and then $1,000 a month in welfare funds (compared to the $400 a month for the healthy anchor baby).
And, in addition to aesthetic concerns, the obese also impose costs on tax payers. According to the Chan School of Public Health at Harvard, per capita healthcare costs were $2,741 higher for the obese. Obesity-related healthcare costs accounted for 11.8% of Medicaid spending. And these figures were pre-Obamacare.
Other countries with relatively sane immigration policies like New Zealand have “medical assessors . . . consider to what extent there might be indications of future high-cost and high-need demand for health services” and accordingly deny visas to the obese. [Pictured: Obese chef weighing 20 stone six pounds who is being kicked out of New Zealand for being too fat, Daily Mail, July 27, 2013]
In contrast, the United States lets in HIV positive immigrants, who are almost guaranteed to be a public charge, to say nothing of the public health risk.[ IMMIGRATION: Testing HIV-positive no longer prevents an immigrant from getting a green card by Allan Wernick, NY Daily News, May 24, 2013]
I can’t speak for Coulter, but I would be willing “make exceptions” for otherwise extraordinarily talented people who happen to be obese or disabled. I could imagine a point system where these problems would be weighed against possible factors such as education, wealth, etc. But this is not what her critics propose.
Back in 2010, when I responded to Jerry Kammer’s criticism of Tanton’s “tin ear,” I noted that the most popular patriotic immigration reform books, such as Alien Nation, Death of the West, State of Emergency, Mexifornia, and Who Are We? all focused on the Hispanic nature of immigration, often (though not always) with strong rhetoric.
Debuting at #2 on the New York Times bestseller list, Adios America now joins this group.
Of course, there is a place for wonky and measured responses to immigration. But sometimes it takes some “perverse, albeit attention-getting, performance art” to make the media take notice.
Ann Coulter’s Adios America has done just that.
Alexander Hart (email him) is a conservative journalist.

brianlee

Thursday, June 9, 2016