And it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man went from Bethlehem-Judah, to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
The book opens with a date and a crisis. Judges ruled Israel, and the land was starving. In one sentence a man leaves the town whose name means "house of bread" and moves to Moab. The whole story grows out of that move.
The book just before Ruth ends by describing those same days.
The opening verse tells us that the Book of Ruth deals with events that happened "in the days when the judges ruled." The last verse of the book before it tells us two things that marked the days of the judges. First, "in those days there was no king in Israel." Second, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
That era covers a long stretch of Israel's history.
No one can work out the exact date of this famine. It happened during the long period when "the judges ruled." That period stretched from about the death of Joshua to the start of the monarchy. Then Israel rejected the Lord as their King, and the "voice of the people" chose Saul to reign over them.
Bethlehem means "house of bread."
It seems a strange contradiction to have a famine at Bethlehem. If there is no food at the "house of bread," where can it be found? ... The land depended on the seasonal rains. If these failed there was no river, as in Egypt, to take their place. So the land was in a marked way dependent on heaven.
That dependence gave the famine a meaning beyond weather.
The famine named in the book's opening sentence is itself a hint of the degenerate state of the chosen people. In their case, famine was not a mere physical accident, but a mark of divine displeasure. ... A threat of starvation in such a fertile land implied that God's chastisement had fallen on the tribes. They had neglected His worship and broken His laws. ... The physical fact is stated, but not its moral cause.
The famine pushed him out of the land, and the next verse gives his name: Elimelech.
The pressure is of such a kind — or at least its effect is — that this Israelite, his wife and his sons end up outside the land of the Lord. The name of the man too seems clearly significant, Elimelech — he to whom God is King. Yet he was an outcast for want!
He may well have felt he had good precedent for the move.
When the first famine on record came in the land of Canaan, we read, "Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there." Ruth 1:1 echoes those words. Isaac too sought refuge from famine in the land of the Philistines — a land not far off like Egypt, but next door like Moab. ... So Elimelech might have thought these examples from the forefathers matched his own case and justified his journey. Did he not have Scripture behind his plan? ... But a closer look at the history would have taught Elimelech that these incidents showed the slackness of the forefathers, not their integrity. Their conduct was to be avoided, not copied.
Of all the lands around Israel, he picked Moab, and the choice tells us something.
The countries that surround the promised land no doubt picture the world in different forms. Egypt stands for the world with its treasures of wealth and pleasures of sin ... Babylon stands for the world in its religious corruption. Moab shows another side of the world again. ... Moab stands for a life of ease. There a person seeks quiet retreat from every distraction. There is little movement, and life flows along without much change.
His plan and the outcome did not match.
He intended only to sojourn there, to spend a short time. But the end of verse 2 tells us they "remained there." What a picture of believers who leave the place God has given them! Their own reasoning tells them some other place might be better. ... Faith would stay with God despite the famine.
Yet this dark beginning is not the whole story.
The book of Ruth also tells us of the days of the judges, when there was no king in Israel. But it shows us the fair side of those days. We see it in the workings of the grace of God, who (blessed be His name!) never failed to work in the middle of the evil. We see it too in the steady progress of events towards the fulfilment of His promises in the Messiah, however far the general evil advanced at the same time.
- Dark days. The story happens when judges ruled — no king in Israel, and everyone doing what was right in his own eyes.
- Empty bread-house. Famine struck the "house of bread." That land lived on rain from heaven, so the hunger signalled God's displeasure, not bad luck.
- Denied name. Elimelech means "he to whom God is King," yet want drove him outside the Lord's land.
- Chosen ease. Moab pictures comfort rather than open sin — little movement, little change. A short stay there became a permanent one.
- Grace anyway. Even in this failure God keeps working, carrying His promises forward to the Messiah.
And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.
Verse 2 is just a list of names: a man, his wife, two sons, and their home town. Yet each name carries a meaning, and this family ends the verse living in Moab.
The father's name is a small sermon, and it lands right after the closing line of the book of Judges.
Elimelech means "God the King" or "God is King." This name appears in Scripture only here. With this meaning in mind, it is striking to read in the last verse of the preceding book (Judges), "In those days there was no king in Israel." Then in the very next verse (Ruth 1:1) we find a contrast by design. Elimelech was a man in Israel who carried in his name the constant witness that "God is King." Yet the nation as a whole disowned the authority of Him who dwelled between the cherubim in the tabernacle.
The same name that fitted him at home became an embarrassment abroad. He "stood out as an honourable witness that God was the Sovereign Ruler of His redeemed people… 'Elimelech' seemed to be a suitable name for this man in the land of Judah; in the land of Moab it certainly was a misnomer, for he who bore it had forsaken the people of God in order to be there."
Her name carries a meaning too, and Scripture uses the same word elsewhere.
Her name appears to mean "pleasantness" or "sweetness." It points to the gracious manner that goes with spiritual beauty. The word is used by the psalmist when he writes of beholding the "beauty (pleasantness, graciousness) of the LORD" (Ps. 27:4)… Naomi (pleasantness) is also connected with wisdom, for Solomon says, "Her ways are ways of pleasantness" (Prov. 3:17). By her name, then, the gracious, good, and wise Naomi must have been a fitting partner for Elimelech. United, they would be a fine and noble pair, strong and pleasant in their life together.
The two boys break the pattern. Where the parents' names speak of strength and sweetness, theirs do not.
Different translators render Mahlon as "great infirmity," "painful," or "mild." Chilion may mean "consuming," or "consumption," or "pining." The general sense of both names is clear. Weakness and wasting marked the two sons of Elimelech. There was a recognised decline in the standing of the family.
Another writer reads the sons' names back into the parents' own condition:
Mahlon, "sick," and Chilion, "pining," lived up to names that seem to have described their parents' hearts long before. Their faith had been a sickly, pining thing before any outward sign of decline showed.
The verse ends by naming what they walked away from. Even the place names carry meaning.
Ephratah means "fruitful." A Christian whose soul is well fed and full of joyful praise is sure to be fruitful in his life… So Elimelech ("my God is King") and Naomi ("pleasantness"), Ephrathites ("fruitful"), live in Bethlehem ("house of bread") in Judah ("praise"). Happy combination! "What's in a name?" men ask. Everything often, we reply, when it is in Scripture.
Verse 1 said he went to stay for a while. Verse 2 ends differently. (Where the ESV says they "remained there," older translations read "continued there.")
Having abandoned the land of the LORD, he wanders into a place of his own choosing. And worse still, having arrived in the land of Moab, he "continued there." It is easier to continue in a false position than to stay in a true one. The place he chooses is significant. The countries around the promised land picture the world in different forms. Egypt stands for the world with its treasures of wealth and its pleasures of sin, and with the bondage of Satan that chasing pleasure always brings. Babylon shows the world in its religious corruption. Moab presents another side of the world. Moab stands for a life of ease. There a person looks for quiet retirement away from every distraction. Little moves, and life flows on without much change.
One writer turns the move into a warning for believers now:
He meant only to stay there a while, a short time. But the end of verse 2 tells us they "remained there." What a picture this is of believers who leave the place God has given them, because their own reasoning thinks another place might be better! Faith would stay with God despite the famine. We need to judge ourselves rather than reason our way around it.
One writer notes what Naomi still holds on to after the move.
Under divine government they seek refuge among the Gentiles. In the middle of this desolation, Naomi is still united with her husband and her children, despite everything. Her name has not changed, and she still bears it despite the ruin.
- Named — Elimelech means "God is King," a living witness in an age when Israel had no king.
- Fitted — Naomi is "pleasantness," a word Scripture uses for the beauty of the LORD. She and Elimelech were a fitting pair.
- Faded — Mahlon and Chilion, "sick" and "pining," mark a decline at work in the family long before anyone could see it.
- Forfeited — Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah means fruitful people of the house of bread and of praise. That is what they left.
- Fixed — they came for a short stay and remained. It is easier to continue in a false position than to stay in a true one.
And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.
A family left Bethlehem to escape a famine. Within a few verses the father lies buried in foreign soil. This one line records the first cost of that move. What happens when we take a step God never told us to take?
Elimelech went to Moab to stay alive. One writer sets this beside other cases where fear of a danger walked people straight into it.
Unbelief carries its own judgment, and constantly leads into the very evil one is trying to avoid. As it has been said, "The sons of men would build a tower so that they should not be scattered abroad, and the Lord scattered them because they built it. Abram, fearing that Pharaoh would take his wife, says she is his sister — as if God would not preserve him — and so Pharaoh takes her into his house." So again, at a later day and in similar circumstances, Elimelech leaves the land of God to escape the fear of death by famine. But death awaits him in the land of Moab.
The move looked sensible. That is the trap Proverbs warns about.
Twice in the book of Proverbs it says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." Following his own judgment, Elimelech chose the way that led to Moab to find the food that perishes. But there he also found his grave. In Moab the house of this family from Bethlehem became a house of mourning. There Naomi grieved for the husband she loved and respected. There Mahlon and Chilion lost forever the wisdom and strength their father's care had given them up to then.
The same writer asks one question about the journey: did Elimelech ever seek God's will? He then sets him beside Jesus, hungry in the wilderness.
To live for a time in Moab must have seemed to Elimelech the right course to take; but had he first sought to know the will of God? Did he wait to hear God's voice saying to him, "This is the way, walk in it"? He was seeking bread. But he should have remembered the words Moses had just written: "Man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." He no doubt found bread in Moab... But Elimelech had no word from God to justify his being in Moab; and he died there. In his independent act he stood in contrast with our Lord in the wilderness of Judea. There He was a hungry, dependent Man, who found enough food in the word and will of the One who sent Him.
Moab promised comfort. One commentator finds Moab's character in Jeremiah, and warns that this ease works out differently for God's people.
Then Elimelech died (v. 3). What a tragedy for Naomi — left in a strange country with her two sons! Jeremiah 48:11 tells us the character of Moab: "Moab has been at ease from his youth and has settled on his dregs; he has not been emptied from vessel to vessel... so his taste remains in him, and his scent is not changed." So Moab pictures a lazy, easy-going religion without the exercise of troubles that might empty him from vessel to vessel. Elimelech and Naomi had been attracted by what promised to be an easier path. God may allow unbelievers to have such ease without much trouble. But if believers seek such a path, it will not work out for them the way it seems to for the ungodly.
The verse ends with a widow and two sons. A commentator traces the chain from the empty chair to the marriages of the next chapter.
Elimelech went out in self-will, disregarding God's claims on him; and it was not very long before he died. When he died his wife was left without headship and without direction in the home, and the two sons married daughters of Moab — a thing God had expressly forbidden in His word (Deut. 7:1-4; 23:3)... A wife loses her husband, two sons lose their father, and death and famine come in — a very bleak picture indeed, and it can all be traced to disobedience.
Elimelech's name carries meaning. One writer reads the book as a picture of Israel. The husband's death is then the loss of a relationship, not just of a man.
As to the typical teaching of the book, there is little doubt that Naomi pictures the Jewish nation. Her husband's name was Elimelech, which means "my God the King," or "the one to whom God is King."... There Elimelech died, and Naomi became a widow. She, representing the nation, had lost her relationship with God the King, and was now bereaved and desolate... If God's people forget Him, He remembers them, and in various ways deals with them to bring them back to Himself.
The chastening is real, but it is not abandonment.
The Lord has indeed stripped her and brought her to desolation, but He has not forsaken her. The hand that struck this suffering woman was moved by a heart that loved her. The chastening of the Lord prepares the way for her restoration.
- Step — Elimelech left without a word from God; he sought bread and found a grave.
- Seeming — The route looked right, and that is the warning: a way can seem right and still end in death.
- Stripping — Naomi grieved for the husband she loved, and his sons lost the wisdom and strength his care had given them.
- Symbol — "My God the King" dies, and Naomi becomes a widow — a picture of a nation that lost its relationship with God as King.
- Sequel — The hand that struck her was moved by a heart that loved her; the chastening opens the road home.