Was it really the Lord that treated Naomi harshly?

Hey, thanks again for sending in questions related to our recent sermons. As you know, we’ve been continuing our study in the book of Ruth, tracking along with Naomi and Ruth, and then we’ve met Boaz, um, as God unfolds his plans, uh, in their lives. Question this week goes back, uh, to the first chapter where Naomi, after losing her husband and sons, speaks of how the Lord has treated her harshly, and she is bitter and feels empty.

And so the question is, um, was it really the Lord that treated her harshly or just circumstances in the world? Then by extension, would the Lord treat people harshly today? Um, well, there’s much that has been said and could be said, uh, really about the problem of evil. Um, why does God allow evil?

And some people really want to make a distinction between, uh, God’s we’ll say active will in causing disasters such as Naomi losing her husbands and sons, versus God’s maybe passive will, that he’s not the one actually making it happen, but, uh, that he still allowed it to happen. Um, and there are people who find it more comfortable to believe that, uh, God’s will is only passive in these kind of circumstances. Um, and I understand why people would, um, maybe feel more comfortable if his if his

will in disasters is only passive. But then I I would push back and ask, um, even if God’s will is only passively allowing these things to happen, we believe, right, that he could stop them from happening. Um, you know, he could have healed, uh, Naomi’s husbands and sons if they happened to be sick, or I mean, we don’t know the circumstances. You know, if there was some war and they got, um, injured in the war. I mean, he could have prevented the injury from happening. Uh, you know, if somebody

shot an arrow at them, a bird could have jumped in the way, right? I mean, anything God could have, could have prevented whatever it was that happened, um, to her family. And, and he chose not to, has to be our conclusion. Um, and so even if God’s will is only passive, and in my mind in the end, it’s not, it’s not, I agree there’s a technical difference, but there’s not a whole lot of difference in how comfortable it may make us. We our our question just switches from God, why did you do this to

God, why did you allow this when you were fully capable of preventing it? Why did you allow it when you could have easily stopped it, right? So it’s, we kind of end up with the same question, whether we go with believing that God’s will was active in these situations, or if God’s will is passive. We kind of end up back at the same place. Um, and what, what we see throughout scripture is, uh, that that question, like why did God allow this, um, is never fully answered.

What we find is God has a plan. God will somehow tie it back into our good. Um, you know, Romans 8:28, he uses all things for the good of those who love him. Um, so there will be some way that he uses it for good, which we see in Ruth and Naomi’s life for sure. But then we might ask, why didn’t you do it a different way? Uh, couldn’t you have accomplished this good some other way?

And then we’re left without an answer. Um, but two observations which are always comforting is one, uh, God welcomes the question. God never scolds us for asking or even accusing him, right? I mean, Naomi’s like, the Lord has treated me harshly. He doesn’t have a problem with her saying that. This is in his word.

She’s rewarded later on, right? With her life coming back together. He’s never scolds her for that. He doesn’t scold Job for that, right? Job 2:10. Job’s like, should we receive good things from the Lord and not, you know, difficult ones? And then the next verse is, in all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

So, I mean, it’s totally fine to be upset with God, to question God, to, um, to to to ask, right? What are you up to? I all God welcomes that. It’s many of the Psalms, right? He totally welcomes us, uh, being frustrated with us even making accusations against him of causing these disasters. Totally fine to do that with him.

That’s one comfort. The other comfort, of course, is the cross. Um, and we say often that while the cross, this is from Tim Keller, but while the cross doesn’t give tell us what the reason for suffering is, the cross does tell us what the reason for suffering isn’t. Um, it isn’t that he doesn’t love us, and it isn’t that he doesn’t care.

The cross shows us he absolutely loves us. He absolutely cares. He enters into our suffering. He wouldn’t do any of that, uh, if he didn’t love us and didn’t care. And so whatever, whatever the reason for difficulty and suffering and tragedy is, is not fully answered. But we do know for sure what it isn’t. Um, it isn’t that he love doesn’t love us, and it isn’t does he that he doesn’t care.

He loves us, he cares, he has a plan, he’s good, he’s in charge. He will somehow fold this back in to a big, bigger, grander story than we ever could imagine, you know? And then, um, from, from Corinthians, you know, our our present troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that that far outweighs them all. Um, and so there will come a day when we see how all these things as they fit in, achieved something in eternity that we wouldn’t have achieved without these things happening.

And that day we will praise him, um, because all of the tragedy will be redeemed. Um, and as Tolken says, all the sad things will come untrue. It’s for that day that we long. Um, so thanks for the question and we’ll see you next time.