When Sovereignty is Not Sweet

What Do We See if not God’s Sovereignty?

[RUTH IS FILLED WITH DOUBLE MEANING AND WORD PLAYS! IT IS A DELIGHTFUL HIGLY NUANCED READING EXPERIENCE.] AT THE CENTER OF RUTH’S STORY IS THE SWEEPING STATEMENTS THAT GOD IS SOVEREIGN AND THAT GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY CAN BE TRUSTED ( BUT NOT CONTROLLED)

Please let me be clear: This first point is one that becomes necessary in modern times, but which the ancients would have understood from the start as a default part of their worldview:

We tend to view the circumstances of life through the natural lens of cause-and-effect with a smattering of chaotic randomness..

They, on the other hand, saw all happenings in this world through the supernatural lens of divine activity carried out behind the scenes.

Neither does this mean that they dismissed the role of cause-and-effect in the natural realm. They simply saw no contradiction between the two and I believe that they were right.

As to the question, “What do we see when we fail to see God’s sovereignty?”...

When we fail to recognize God’s Sovereignty--the fact that God is sits enthroned as King over all creation great and small--we are left with only the bare whims of circumstances, as though life were made up of a string of random events randomly intersecting.

Beware this way of thinking which is --- >

(a) Dangerous since it robs us of meaning, responsibility, and hope,

There are only two alternatives:

Theism or nihlism, because if life’s only meaning is that which I read into it, then life has no meaning at all. Either Providence provides purpose, or there is no purpose.

(b) Ludicrously illogical since uncontrolled chaos can never give rise to order.

When is the last time somone dropped a set of paints and a blank canvas from the top of a tall building, only to discover that upon impact the Mona Lisa was produced?

However, beyond such rational/moral/philosophical arguments that God is in control , as compelling as they are, for the believer there is an even more pressing reason to hold a worldview wrapped in God’s sovereignty. It is because the Scriptures insist on in. In Ruth this reality may be hinted from the very first verse.

v. 1a - It happened in the days of the judges’ rule, that there was a famine in the land.

--- > Read the Old Testament book of Judges carefully, and you will discover that the time of the judges was characterized by a loss of the knowledge of God as Israel began to assimilate herself and her worship with that of the peoples in Canaan.

The text tells us:

(Judges 2:10–13, 17 NIV): “After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel. Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals. They forsook the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who had brought them out of Egypt. They followed and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them. They aroused the Lord’s anger because they forsook him and served Baal and the Ashtoreths..”

(Judges 2:17 NIV): “Yet they would not listen to their judges but prostituted themselves to other gods and worshiped them.”

Judges 3:5–6 (NIV): “The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 6 They took their daughters in marriage and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods.”

--- > This is called syncretism and its effects on ancient Israel were visceral, as the people forgot who their God is, and what He is like, and how we expects to be worshipped. (Christians must be very careful of this same type of trap today, as globalization erodes away cultures and languages and belief systems.)

Even the heroes in Judges are problematic in this regard. Some examples:

After Gideon’s stunning victory over the Midianites, the Israelites ask him to be their king, to which Gideon very rightly responds: (Judges 8:23 NIV): “I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will rule over you.”

So far so good. Gideon is trying to be faithful to God the best he knows how, but because of syncretism he doesn’t understand the God he serves. Therefore, he doesn’t understand how to lead the people to serve the LORD. The text goes on to tell us, (Judges 8:27, NIV): “Gideon made the gold into an ephod, which he placed in Ophrah, his town. All Israel prostituted themselves by worshiping it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and his family.”

Later, in what turns out to be a bit of an Old Testament pre-telling of Robin Hood, the judge named Jepthah wins a great victory over the Ammonites. However, because of a rash vow to God (Judges 11:30-31), the judge feels compelled to sacrifice his daughter as a burn offering to God, a thing he apparently follows through with in Judges 11:39.

Jepthah is trying to be faithful to God, but because of the loss of the knowledge of God during the era of the judges, he does not even realize that he is doing something God has outright forbidden: (Deuteronomy 12:31, NIV): “You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.”

In fact, hear through the words of the prophet Jeremiah how antithetical Jephthah’s act is to who God is: (Jeremiah 19:4b–5 (NIV, emphasis added): “...they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”

So we see that when the text informs us that ...in the days of the judges rule, there was a famine in the land, the “famine in the land” is ominous doublespeak: There was a far worse famine in Israel than a lack of bread; there was a famine of the knowledge of God, leading to syncretism and even apostacy in the worship of God!

--- > From this alone there is probably not enough evidence to assume that the text is arguing for causation of the spiritual famine to the the physical. However, it is almost certainly implying correlation. That God is sovereign over all these circumstances will become clearer in short order.

v. 1b - So a man from Bethleham in Judah, emmigrated to the arable farmland of Moab—he, and his wife, and his two sons.

Elimelech is sometimes castigated for this move, but I find no justification for it. Each of the patriarchs had all acted similarly under similar circumstances:

Abraham - emmigrated to Egypt

Genesis 12:10 (NIV): “Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe.”

Isaac - went to Gerar

Genesis 26:1 (NIV): “Now there was a famine in the land—besides the previous famine in Abraham’s time—and Isaac went to Abimelek king of the Philistines in Gerar.”

Jacob - emmigrated to Egypt

Genesis 41:57–42:2 (NIV): “And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere. When Jacob learned that there was grain in Egypt, he said to his sons, ‘Why do you just keep looking at each other?” He continued, “I have heard that there is grain in Egypt. Go down there and buy some for us, so that we may live and not die.’”

Genesis 47:11–12 (NIV): “So Joseph settled his father and his brothers in Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the district of Rameses, as Pharaoh directed. Joseph also provided his father and his brothers and all his father’s household with food, according to the number of their children.”

--- > To summarize we aren’t given enough information to know for certain all the nuance that motivated the migration of this family into Moab. We do know:

There was a famine, which in the ancient world would have been flatly assumed to be a consequence of divine activity, and

The stories of the patriarchs, who stood as paragons of Jewish faith, very likely bolstered their resolve to leave home for a place where food was more plentiful.

The two facts alone are enough to see the move of this family as motivated and enacted by God Himself.

(This will become even more like clear when the text in the next verse gives us some hints about the two sons.)

Some would see the famine as a random event randomly intersecting the lives of the people of that time and place. However, the Holy Spirit will allow none of that! The text of Ruth forces to reckon with the question...

What if God is Sovereign?

Two options:

Either the cosmos is random, or

it is ordered.

-----

Either it is all chaos, or

it is all under control..

-----

There are two basic types of people in this world:

(1) Those who fail to find God anywhere despite glaring evidence, and

(2) Those who find God everywhere, even in the mundane.

The first (1) reminds us of those Nazarenes spoken about in Matthew 13:54–57 (NIV): “Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. ‘Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?’ And they took offense at him.” Despite the depths of His wisdom, and the might of his power they could only see the boy who grew up down the street.

The second (2) on the other hand, remind us of the group to whom the evangelist refers in John 1:14 (NIV): “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Despite the fact that he was clothed in flesh and ate and drank and went to work and sweated and slept at night and woke up in the morning, they could see the special, intense one-of-kind glory of God all about Him!

-----

In Ruth, the Author wants us to be sure that there is more going on here than a random famine effecting a random family in a random location. The Author wants us readers to know that God is behind these events!

v. 2a - Now the name of the fellow was Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Machlon and Kilion. Epathrites from Bethlehem, Judah, they went to the farmland of Moab and lived there.

[Memory device for sci-fi fans who want to easily remember the names of the two sons: “My clone kill yo’n.” :) ]

--- > Names in the Old Testament are often meaninful, serving too reinforce the message of the story or even to move its plot along. Three examples:

Abram (“great father” which was ironic considering his childlessness), becomes Abraham (father of peoples)

Jacob’s youngest son is nearly named Ben-oni (“Son of my sorrow”) by Rachel because of the pain she feels and the death that encroaches while she gives birth. But Jacob steps in an renames the lad Ben-yamin (“Son of my right hand”) probably because of his great love for the child’s departed mother.

Elijah means “My God is Yah(weh)” which is a perfectly apropos name for a guy whose ministry notably fought against the proliferation of Ba’al worship.

--- > However, in this case the names of this family are so entirely poignant and closely related to the events taking place that some suspect the actual names of these charactershave been changed! (This is not to say that the history is ahistorical. The fact that the text (a) differentiates which Bethlehem serves as the setting, and (b) ties the events of the story directly to the rise of David as King over Israel, make it celar that what we are reading is to be understood as historical.)

What we should see clearly, however, is that the author (and also the Author!) clearly intended for the readers to be struck by the insinutation of the names of the characters. In other words these names are not simply sermon fodder for preachers to latch on to and have something to talk about but they are intentionally used by the author draw the reader into the tale.

Elimeleck = My God is King

Naomi = Pleasant

Machlon = Sick (weak)

Kilion = Tired (frail; failing)

(Even the town and family names are significant!

Bethlehem = House of Bread, and

Epathraits = Fruitful ones)

--- > Given this information let’s paraphrase the information from the first two verses in order to reflect on the message the author is trying to tell.

v. 1 - During the time of the judges’ rule, spiritual famine was joined by physical famine in the land of Judah. So a man departed from the ironically named House of Bread, along with his wife and two sons, in order that they might find sustainance in the greener pastures of Moab.

v. 2 - In this family Israel’s God was King, and life was pleasant, even if the two sons were sick and frail. Overall their lives had been fruitful in the previously well-stocked House of Bread, but now they traveled to the farmland of Moab and lived there.

Don’t miss the key element here: This story is about Naomi, but Naomi’s husband is named Elimeleck, or “My God is King.” Notice, then how tighly linked Naomi is to the soverenty of God. One might say that she is married to the Kingship of God! This is what the book of Ruth is all about. Somewhat like Job, it explores how sovereignty might manifest itself when intertwined with hardship in the life of Yahweh’s follower.

What do we mean when we speak of God’s Sovereignty?

We certainly speak of God’s Rule as King. However that definition probably does not go far enough lest we be tempted to imagine him in terms of a mere earthly king, only with a larger domain. It is so much more than that!

--- > God’s Sovereignty is...

His radical free will,

guided by His immeasurable wisdom,

as He exercises His eternal domion.

This is God’s Sovereignty...

* By sheer willpower and vast wisdom He formed the cosmos out of nothing (Jer. 10:12). What modern cosmologists coloquially term “the Big Bang” was neither more nor less than an exercise of God’s sovereignty, His radical free will.

* By his dominion the universe itself is held together (Col. 1:17). Quantum theory tells us that matter is made up of atoms, which are themselves made up of particles called electrons and protons, which themselves are made up of quarks, which themselves may very well me made of tiny vibrating strings. The result of this is that those things we perceive as solid objects are actually mostly empty space. What then holds the atoms together? Scientists might name weak and strong nuclear forces. Colossians 1:17, though names a more ultimate sourse, “in him all things hold together” (NIV). Creation continues to exist only because the sovereignty of God continues to actively will it so.

* By his authority Yahweh Sabaoth sits as commander-in-chief of all the armies—all of them (angelic (Josh. 5:14), insect (Joel 2:11 by implication), national Israel (1 Sam. 17:45), and the Gentile nations (Is. 13:3-5)

* Furthermore, His heavenly servants are powerful enough to shake the pillars of the throne room at the sounds of their voices (Is. 6:4), yet they contritely worship Him and do His will (Is. 6:2-3, 6-7).

(We should understand a bit about the nature of God’s sovereignty by reflecting on the fact that we are made in his image (Ge. 1:26-29). What is God’s Image in which we are stamped?

--- > The image of God in us is...

our own free will,

guided by our own intelligence,

as we exercise our own internal dominion.

--- > After Jesus Christ into whose image we are renewed, the image of God is probably the greatest gift we have.)

Since God’s sovereignty is His exercise of His own free will in ruling His creation as He sees fit, there are definitely times when God’s sovereignty is a difficult cross to bear. This leads to the question with which Naomi’s character arc must contend in the book of Ruth:

What if God’s Sovereignty is Not Sweet?

What do we do when despite our best efforts it feels like God’s sovereignty is punishing us?

First: We need to stop apologizing for God, as though He does not know what He is doing. The Bible never hides from the more painful implications of God’s sovereingty. God never apologizes for being in control of the bad times as well as the good.

Just watch the downward trajectory of Naomi’s path as the quality of her existence degrades at the lightning quick speed of life:

in v. 3 - “Elimelek, Naomi’s husband, died, but she was left with her two sons.” Something about the Hebrew text seems raw and heartbreaking to me in this verse as it sadly announces that her husband died, but she was left. Thousands of years later, read by speakers of a different language, living in a very different society, the heartbreak inherent in this statement remains nearly palpable.

in v. 4a - “…they carried off for themselves Moabite wives, the first named Orpah, and the second named Ruth.” Hindsight is 20-20, but it is easy to imagine that as she was living through it, these foreign women, unfamiliar with Naomi’s ways and her God may have brought more stress than comfort to Naomi.

in v. 4b - “And they remained there for about 10 years” we are reminded again of the acute lonliness Naomi must have felt so far from her own home and her own people, and how this loneliness dragged on and on and on for about a decade. Finally, the bottom drops out entirely

in v. 5 - “ Then also those two died—Machlon and Kilion—and she remained without her two boys and without her husband.” Now loneliness reaches it’s zenith. So far from home, so far from her family and friends, and religion, and culture, without her husband for maybe a decade, and now she must bury her own children, a circumstance no parent should ever have to face. Everything she ever loved is gone, so much so, that the phrase in that verse which almost feels the cruelest are the words “and she remained”. Why must she be in this place alone? Naomi has essentially become the Old Testament’s female version of Job, except that Job at least got to keep his wife.

Now hear this: If the Bible’s historical record is true, then we know for certain that God’s sovereignty is not always sweet.

God is not an algorithm, or a formula whose behavior can be predicted with pinpoint precision. God is free to do what He wants, when He wants, how He wants, with whom He wants, through whom He wants, without your permission, and without your approval, no matter how sacrosanct you consider your perspective to be. Whether the churh board agrees or not, or granpa and them agree or not...

God can tell Hosea to marry a prostitute (Hos. 1:2)

Or bless the Egyptian midwives fore their actions which includedtelling lies (Ex. 1:15-21)

Or select the infidel Persian King Cyrus to function in a quasi-Messianic capacity (Is. 45:1)

Or include that adulteress Bathsheba in the bloodline of Christ (Mt. 1:6), or Rahab the prostitute (Mt. 1:5a), or Ruth who was a Moabitess (Mt. 1:5b, cf. Ruth 1:4) who was therefore technically under God’s curse (cf. Deut. 23:3-4)

Or forgive the enemy city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:10)

Or allow His own beloved city of Jerusalem to be ransacked (Is. 6:11-13; 2 Ki. 25:1-21)

Or sanction a lying spirit to go out into the mouths of the so-called prophets (1 Ki. 22:19-23)

Or ask the Father to restore Peter despite the fact that Peter denied Christ before men (Luke 22:31-34), and Christ previously warned that in such a circumstance he would deny the person before the Father (Luke 12:9; cf. Mt.10:33)

Or depose Saul for his sin (1 Sam. 15:26-28), but uphold David despite his (2 Sam. 12:7-9; cf. 2 Sam. 7:11b-16)

These are complicated situations to be sure, but the point in listing these examples is to emphasize that God’s Sovereignty means He is free to act freely!

On the other hand, God’s character means that he we can be sure that whatever free actions He takes, those actions are motivated by His love and intended for our ultimate good--even when we are too shortsighted to understandwhat His long term plans. We must always keep this in mind when God’s sovereigty is not as sweet as we’d prefer.

Furthermore realize that as much as God loves you, your moment-to-moment happiness is not His top priority. His Kingdom which he runs extends further and deeper and higher than we can ever even begin to imagine, and therefore many of His decisions will be inexplicable to us with our severly limited perspective.

The clay has no right to ask the Potter, “How could you do this to me?” even if the Potter’s creativity did not match the clay’s expectation. The clay may know that the Potter is good, but the clay may be entirely wrong about how that goodness will manifest itself. In fact as the clay is slid into the kiln and the heat rises, it may seem as if the Potter has turned against the clay with this harsh treatment. But in the midst of the fire the clay has no way of seeing what a beutiful thing the Potter is turning it into.

Look what God’s Sovereignty Wrought in the opening verses of the Book of Ruth. God’s Sovereignty...

brought the famine onto the land of Judah (1:1a)

led Elimelek’s family to Moab (1:1b-2)

took Naomi’s husband away in death (1:3)

brought the extra “baggage” of Moabite women into Naomi’s life (1:4)

took Naomi ‘s two sons away (1:5)

Look at it another way. Because of God’s sovereignty...

Naomi is lonely without her husband

Naomi is forced to “bury” her sons

Naomi has no heir

Naomi has no clear means of support and very little hope for a bright future

Mistaken View of Sovereignty:

So much of today’s popular theology is out of balance and therefore un-Biblical. Too many want to say my God is king and therefore my life always will be pleasant. Realize though that the King rules the entire Kingdom and is working for the ultimate good of the entire kingdom, and that may sometimes necessiate that He gives me a difficult assignment.

The Health-and-Wealth/Prosperity-Gospel theology confuses now with later, the end with the means. Further it seeks to control God rather than allowing God to give the marching orders.

Jesus said of Lazarus that his sickness would not ultimately end in death (Jn. 11:4), not that he would not tread through death’s territory.

Jesus gave up everything, trading heaven’s riches for earth’s poverty, so that we can do likewise exchanging what little we have amidst earth’s poverty to one day gain heaven’s riches (2 Cor. 8:9).

Paul’s thorn in the flesh hurt, and God did not remove it because it was part of Paul’s assignment, and helped him continue to lean upon God’s grace (2 Cor. 12:7-10)

Listen to the Hebrews’ description of the tough assignment given to the cloud of witnesses: They were (Hebrews 11:35–38, NIV): “tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were put to death by stoning;  they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground...”

God’s Sovereinty means that He gives the marching orders without excuse or apology. It means that we walk headlong into the valley of death’s shadow when necessay, trusting that even if we never emerge in this life, there is yet a table prepared for us somewhere, and that no matter what we face here we will abide in His house forever.

When Naomi demands a name change (1:20), the story is begging its readers to notice how much things have degraded for Naomi. Furthermore it never tries to hide the ultimate source of this novel situation. Naomi says:

v. 20 - Shaddai embittered my life greatly

v. 21a - When I left for Moab my life was full, but Yahweh brought me back empty.

v. 21b - “Why call me Naomi [pleasant] when Yahweh answered me and Shaddai has harmed me?”

--- > Please note: In saying such things Naomi is not necessarily accusing God, and what she says is not necessarily sinful. She seems to be acknowledging the sad facts of her difficult sitation. It is never sinful to acknoweldge God’s sovereignty in difficulty so long as we do so from a contrite heart bent on worship.

The Final Word of God’s Sovereignty is always good.

Notice the hint of hope that raidates from Ruth 1:22 (NIV, emphasis added): “So Naomi returned from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning.”

The famine in the land is over, and the seeds of God’s blessings are already springing up as Ruth 1 comes to a close. The text is strongly hinting that the famine in Naomi’s life is also over, and the seeds of God’s blessing for her are also manifesting. In fact they are walking along beside her in the form of her Moabite daughter-in-law, Ruth.

--- > God’s sovereignty is always at work for our good (cf. Rom. 8:28), but we are impatient, wanting tomorrow’s rewards today. This is where faith must be expressed as trust in God, that he knows exactly what He is doing and that what He is doing will ultimately be sweet, and not bitter.

In the end, Naomi knew:

That Yahweh had not forsaken her (cf. Ruth 4:14-15), and that “ weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning.” (Ps. 30:5, NIV)

That the Moabite woman, Ruth, who must have brought so much stress to her early on was the key to God’s provision for her (cf. Ruth 4:15b)

Naomi probably never knew:

That her season of trial and recovery would be written about and publicized so widely that billions(!) across thousands of years reaching to the ends of the earth would be comforted by it,

That she would end up raising the grandfather of who turned out to be ancient Israel’s most reknowned king (Ruth 4:16-17)

That her story would figure prominently into the tale of the salvation of the entire world through Jesus Christ (see Mt. 1:5-6)