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

Why do you claim that everybody, whether they know it or not, believes that the future is partly open?
Whatever a person may theoretically believe, they act like the future is partly open. For, as a matter of fact, there’s no other way to act. Think about it. Every time we deliberate between options on the way toward making a decision, we assume (and we have to assume) that a) the future consists of…

Is homosexuality a sin?
There are three passages in the Old Testament (Gen. 19: 1-13; Lev 18:22; 20:13) and three in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10) that have traditionally been read as prohibiting homosexuality. On top of this, the entire biblical narrative presupposes that sex is supposed to take place between a man…

Q&A: If God is So Great, Why Would He Care About Us?
Question: I’ve read that scientists estimate that the number of stars in the universe is 10 to the 24th power (10 with 24 zeros after it). I’m told that finding the earth amidst all these stars would be like finding one particular grain of sand in a sand pile the size of the United States piled…

A Cross-Centered Evaluation of Responses to Tragedy
I’d like to pick up where I left off on my previous post about Draper’s article entitled “Aurora shooting inspires various perspectives on God and belief.” Toward the end of his article, Draper reports on an informal survey conducted by Stephen Prothero on his CNN Blog. Prothero simply asks people to respond to the question: “Where…

Are all believers baptized in the Holy Spirit?
All Christians believe that all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but there is debate over whether all believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist prophesied that while he baptized with water, the one who would come after him (Jesus) would “baptize…with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11). Jesus reminded…

What do you think of the classical view that God is impassible?
The classical view has historically held that God is impassible, meaning he is above pathos (passion or emotions). The main reason the church came to this view was that, following the Hellenistic philosophical tradition, they associated emotions with change while believing God was above all change (immutable). Moreover, experiencing emotions implies that one is affected…