God had promised the Israelites that if they departed from Him He would discipline them by sending famine on the Promised Land ( Deuteronomy 28:17; Deuteronomy 28:23; Deuteronomy 28:38-40; Deuteronomy 28:42). [1] The famine on Israel at this time indicates God"s judgment for unfaithfulness. As Abram had migrated to Egypt as a result of a famine in his day ( Genesis 12:10), so Elimelech migrated to Moab to obtain food for his family. Compare also Lot"s migration in Genesis 13:1-13. There are many motifs that occur in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis and reappear in Ruth. [2] This repetition seems to indicate that one of the writer"s purposes was to present Ruth as another of Israel"s notable matriarchs who, despite many natural barriers, provided important leaders for the nation by God"s grace. [source][source][source]
"The story is never delightful when a member of the chosen seed leaves the Land of Promise and goes into the far country. It makes no difference whether he is Abraham going into Egypt to escape the famine or the prodigal son going to the far country and into the face of a famine there; the results are negative and the ending tragic. Elimelech should not have gone into the land of Moab, regardless of the conditions in the Land of Promise." [3][source]
Jacob received a special revelation from God directing him to migrate from the Promised Land to Egypt ( Genesis 46:1-4). Another view is that since the writer did not draw attention to the famine, the migrations of Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion to Moab, and their deaths, he did not intend the reader to read significance into these details. He only intended to present them as background for the story of Ruth. [4][source]
Famines, according to the biblical record, usually advanced God"s plans for His people, despite their tragic appearances (cf. Genesis 12:10; Genesis 26:1; Genesis 41-50; Exodus 1-20). [5] The chapter opens with famine but closes with harvest ( Ruth 1:22). Likewise the whole book opens with a bad situation but ends with a good one. God was at work blessing His people in the times and events that this book recounts. The restoration of seed (food, husband, redeemer, and heir) is one of the main motifs in Ruth. [6][source]
The fact that Elimelech (lit. my God is king, a theme of the book) was from Bethlehem (lit. house of bread, i.e, granary) is significant. "Elimelech" is a theophoric name, a name that combines a term for deity with another ascription. Elimelech"s parents probably gave him this name hoping that he would acknowledge God as his king, but he failed to do that when he moved from Israel to Moab. [source][source][source]
Two stories make up the appendix to the Book of Judges. The first of these is the story of the grandson of Moses who left Bethlehem to lead the Danites into idolatry ( Judges 17-18). The second is the story of the concubine from Bethlehem who became the focus of discord in Israel that resulted in civil war and almost the obliteration of the tribe of Benjamin ( Judges 19-21). The Book of Ruth also features Bethlehem. God may have given us all three of these stories because David was from Bethlehem in Judah. In the two stories in Judges just referred to we can see that the Israelites would have looked down on Bethlehem after those incidents. However, Ruth reveals how God brought great blessing to Israel out of Bethlehem in the person of David. This is in harmony with God"s choice to bring blessing out of those things that people do not value highly naturally. Bethlehem in Ruth"s day did not have a good reputation. It was not the environment in which David grew up that made him great but his relationship with God. That relationship, we learn from Ruth , was a heritage passed down to him from his ancestors, godly Boaz and Ruth. [7][source][source]
The unusual association of Ephratah and Bethlehem here ( Ruth 1:2) recalls the first use of both names describing the same town, called Ephrath in Genesis 35:16-19. There Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin. [source][source][source]
"Does this incident in which Benjamin is the occasion of the death of the patronymic"s favorite wife at Bethlehem anticipate in some way the Saul-David controversy in which the Benjaminite again proves antagonistic to one who has Bethlehem associations?" [7]9 [source]
". . . it is best to understand Ephrathite as the name of a clan. If this clan descended from Caleb [9], the author may have identified this family as Ephrathite to picture it as an aristocratic one-one of the "first families of Bethlehem." [2] He thereby underscored the humiliating tragedy involved: the Vanderbilts have suddenly become poor sharecroppers. Worse yet, he cleverly disallowed any hope of a temporary visit." [11][source]
Ephrathah was probably also the name of an older settlement that stood near Bethlehem or that became Bethlehem (cf. Genesis 48:7). Some scholars believe it was the name of the district in which Bethlehem stood, or the name may reflect that Ephraimites had settled there. [12] This seems less likely to me. The unusual way of describing Bethlehem hints at connections to David that become clear at the end of the book ( Ruth 4:22), since this is the way Bethlehem became known after David"s appearance (cf. 1 Samuel 17:12). [13][source]
It is also unusual in a patriarchal society that the writer described Elimelech as Naomi"s husband ( Ruth 1:3). This puts Naomi forward as the more important person of the two. Elimelech"s death may have been a punishment for leaving the land rather than trusting God (cf. Leviticus 26:38), though the text does not say so. It was not contrary to the Mosaic law for Israelite men to marry Moabite women ( Deuteronomy 7:3), but apparently they could not bring them into the congregation of Israel for public worship ( Deuteronomy 23:3-4). The unusual names of both Mahlon and Chilion seem to have been connected with circumstances of their births. Mahlon may have looked sickly when he was born, and Chilion probably looked as though he was failing. [source][source][source]