We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to Ruth 1:13?
Because her husband and two sons had died, Naomi says to her two daughter-in-laws (Ruth and Orpah), “[I]t has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the Lord has turned against me” (1:13, cf. vs. 20).
Some compatibilists cite this passage to support the conclusion that all misfortune is ordained by God. Several considerations show that this conclusion is not necessary.
First, it’s not entirely clear that the opinion Naomi expresses in this passage is an opinion that the inspired author of the book of Ruth intends to endorse. The author may intend only to communicate Naomi’s despair.
Second, ancient near eastern people sometimes spoke of things happening under the watch of a ruler or god as coming from that ruler or god. When we combine this observation with the strong emphasis in the Hebrew Bible on Yahweh as the only Creator-God and the one who alone was ultimately responsible for the world, it seems we should take care not too read too much into expressions about events “coming from” the Lord. When Naomi says the “hand of the Lord” had “turned against” her, she may only be expressing a belief that Yahweh had created the kind of world where misfortunes such as she had endured can occur and that Yahweh was ultimately responsible for this.
A parallel case may be when the author of Job reports that Job’s family consoled him for all the misfortune “the Lord had brought on him” (Job 42:11) even though the prologue (chapters 1-2) makes it clear that it was Satan, not God, who brought about this misfortune.
Finally, even if we conclude that Naomi’s misfortune was specifically willed by God, this wouldn’t justify the conclusion that all misfortune comes from God. The point of Naomi’s complaint has nothing to do with such a general metaphysical conclusion.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Providence, Predestination and Free Will, Responding to Objections
Verse: Ruth 1
Related Reading
What is the significance of Numbers 16:20–35?
After Israel’s sin under the leadership of Korah, the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Separate yourselves from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment” (vs. 21). Moses and Aaron pleaded with the Lord to only judge those who were most guilty. In response, the Lord modifies his judgment and gives…
What is the significance of Exodus 32:33 ?
The Lord says “I will blot out of my book” all those who persist in rebellion against him. If everything is eternally foreknown by God, one wonders why he would have recorded in his “book” the names of people who were to be blotted out eventually (cf. Rev. 3:5). Indeed, if God foreknew that certain…
Is Open Theism Incompatible With a Chalcedonian Christology?
Question: The Chalcedonian Creed says Jesus was “fully God and fully human” and that these “two natures” remained distinct in the Incarnation, even though Jesus was one united person. I’m told that part of the reasoning behind the concern to keep Jesus’ humanity distinct from his divinity was to protect the “impassibility” of the divine…
What did Jesus mean when he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:34)?
Given Jesus’ uniform teaching about loving enemies and abstaining from violence, and given that his followers were known for their refusal to engage in violence for the first three hundred years of church history, it’s obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying he came so that his disciples would use swords. The context of Jesus’ comment makes…
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 2:27–31?
Because Eli “scorned” God’s sacrifices and did not punish his sons for their vile behavior, the Lord says, “‘I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will…
Does the Bible forbid interracial marriages?
Absolutely not! Racist Christians used to argue against interracial marriage by quoting Old Testament passages that prohibited Jews from marrying non-Jews. This prohibition had nothing to do with race, however. In fact, there was no concept of different “races” until white Europeans invented it during the Colonial period, partly to justify their enslavement of other…