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

How do you respond to Galatians 1:15–16?
“…when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me…I did not confer with any human being…” As with Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), John the Baptist (Luke 1:13–17) and other God-ordained prophets, Paul was aware that God had decided on a…

What about the Gospel of John and Calvinism?
Question: The Gospel of John seems to teach that people believe because God draws them, rather than that God draws people because they believe. If this is true, how can you deny the Calvinistic teaching that salvation is based on God’s choice, not ours? Answer: As you note, many people find support for the view…

Changing Beliefs
Stephen Mattson is a follower of ReKnew and a member of Woodland Hills Church who posted a piece on Sojourners titled Christians: It’s NOT a Sin to Change Your Beliefs. He points out that doubt and questions are a natural and needed part of any Christian’s life, and our community needs to change the ways we…

What is the significance of 2 Samuel 24:12–16?
The Lord gives David three options of how Israel will be judged. “Three things I offer you; choose one of them, and I will do it to you.” This verse reveals how the Lord gives people genuine alternatives and responds to their choices. If God foreknew what David would choose, however, the purpose of the…

What is the significance of Jeremiah 32:35?
As in Jeremiah 19:5, the Lord expresses his dismay over Israel’s paganism by saying they did this “though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination.” If this abomination was eternally foreknown to God, it’s impossible to attribute any clear meaning to his confession that this…

What is the “classical view of God” and what about it do you find objectionable?
The “classical view of God” refers to the view of God that has dominated Christian theology since the earliest Church fathers. According to this theology, God is completely “immutable.” This means that God’s being and experience never change in any respect. God is therefore pure actuality (actus purus), having no potentiality whatsoever, for potentiality is…