1. An Israelite family in Moab (1:1–5)
Commentary
1. An Israelite family in Moab (1:1–5)
The introduction is a brief account of the scene and the dramatis personae. Without going into detail, it tells of an Israelite family which went to neighbouring Moab in a time of famine, and there fell on evil days.
1. The opening words1 date the action of the book, namely, during the time of the judges. The form of expression shows that the days of the judges were past and that this book was written at a later period. Joüon points out that the expression rendered days (yĕmê from yāmîm) usually expresses duration of time (as against ‘ēth which gives us the point of time). In other words, no attempt is made to date the story closely. It is loosely assigned to the time of the judges. Ruled (AV, RSV) is literally judged (RV) and, while we need not quarrel with the AV and RSV, we should not overlook the fact that verb and noun are cognate. ‘Judging’ in ancient Israel was a complex affair.2 It included an element of discrimination between right and wrong, and the taking of action as a result. This often yields the meaning ‘rule’, for the sovereign was the supreme judge in the land. But we should not overlook the connection with justice. The judges, of course, are the leaders mentioned in the book of Judges. They are not to be understood primarily as legal functionaries, but as men raised up by God to be the nation’s deliverers in time of trouble. We need not doubt that they did exercise legal functions, but their primary importance was in their delivering of the people. Moffatt translates heroes, and while this is not exact it brings out the fact that they were not legal men.
At this time, then, there was a famine in the land. The land is not further defined, but for a Hebrew only one country was the land. This was the land God had given to his people, the land of Canaan. Palestine has a rather uncertain rainfall, hence times of drought and, consequently, of famine are not uncommon. The Old Testament refers to such famines quite a number of times (e.g. Gen. 12:10; 26:1; 41:56; 2 Sam. 21:1; 1 Kgs 18:2; 2 Kgs 6:25). But droughts are strange affairs and sometimes conditions vary widely over comparatively small areas (Gerleman overlooks this when he finds it ‘scarcely conceivable’ that there should be a fleeing to Moab on account of a famine in Judah; on the contrary, it is quite conceivable given the right conditions). So on this occasion there was famine in the land of Israel, but not in nearby Moab. (On another occasion of famine in Israel a certain woman obtained relief by going in another direction, namely, to the country of the Philistines, 2 Kgs 8:1f.) Knight thinks that the famine was caused in part at least by the devastation brought about during the chaotic time of the judges when ‘every man did that which was right in his own eyes’ (Judg. 21:25, AV, RV; the kind of thing that happened is seen in Judg. 6:3f.). There was evidently no intention of a permanent migration. The use of the verb gûr, ‘to sojourn’, shows that the man planned to return in due course (Berkeley renders, to live for a while). It is the regular word for a resident alien. Such had certain rights in Israel, but we do not know whether this was so in Moab or not. The country of Moab employs an expression which appears to mean literally ‘the fields of Moab’. This may be no more than a very natural way of describing a predominantly rural country. With the use of the singular instead of the plural, the expression is not at all unusual. We read, for example, of ‘the field of the Philistines’ (1 Sam. 6:1) and of ‘the field of Ephraim and the field of Samaria’ (Obad. 19, RV). It is the plural form used here that is unusual. It occurs only in this book and always in the expression ‘the fields of Moab’ (1:1f., 6, 22; 2:6). In each of the passages where it is found there is some textual support for the more usual singular, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in such versions as the LXX, Syriac, and Vulg. Most scholars, however, agree that the plural form is correct. Its significance is not so clear. To begin with, it is not certain that it is a genuine plural. Myers accepts the reading of MT, but takes the form to be the construct singular of an archaic poetic form śāday.3 If this can be accepted, the meaning will be ‘the territory of Moab’. Those who take it as a genuine plural are divided on the meaning. FF translates ‘plain’ or ‘plains’ of Moab according as the singular or plural is found. This can scarcely be justified, since the word does not mean ‘plain’. It means ‘field’, as its use in 2:2f. plainly shows. FF might possibly, however, be on the right lines in regarding the expression as pointing to a part only of the country. In view of the established idiom, the singular undoubtedly simply means ‘the territory of Moab’. But where the form under discussion occurs, if it is really plural, it may well designate a particular area. Joüon thinks it refers to the high, cultivated plateaux. Plausibility is lent to this by the fact that much of Moab is mountainous and rugged and would be impossible for cultivation. Macdonald is a little more specific, with his suggestion that it probably means ‘the rolling plateau south of the Arnon, still a rich pastureland’. Some such area seems to me to be the likely meaning if the term is plural, though it is impossible to be certain at this distance in time exactly which. But the suggestion that it is an archaic singular seems full of merit and may well be right. In that case, as we have noted, the meaning will be ‘the territory of Moab’. Perhaps we should also notice Slotki’s view that the expression signifies ‘that Elimelech did not settle in one city permanently, but moved from place to place’. This is difficult to derive from the text, and is inherently unlikely. It is better to see a reference to the land of Moab.
It is possible that instead of a certain man of Bethlehem-judah we should take the passage to mean ‘a certain man went from Bethlehem-judah …’ (taking mibbeth leḥem with the verb). The man’s movements would in that case be given here, and his place of origin in the next verse. The addition Judah is to distinguish this Bethlehem from other places of the same name. There was one, for example, in the north, in the territory allotted to Zebulun (Josh. 19:15). Bethlehem in Judah was by far the most famous and it is mentioned often. The name Bethlehem probably signifies ‘house of bread’, i.e. ‘granary’. Such a word might well, of course, be used of various places. Incidentally, it draws attention to the fertility of the region. Some scholars see in the name a reference to the name of a god rather than to a granary. This is supported by citing a place-name mentioned in the Amarna letters.4 But there is little evidence for such a god, and the reference to a granary seems much more likely. An earlier name of the city was Ephrath (Gen. 35:19; 48:7).
2. Now come the names5 of the various members of the migrating family. The head of the household was called Elimelech, a name which means ‘God is King’, or perhaps ‘My God is King’. Names in ancient times often reflected profound religious convictions, and this is one such. To name the name of God upon a child was to associate him in some way with God, and thus many Old Testament personal names include the name of the deity. Elimelech’s consort was called Naomi (which would be more accurately transliterated as Nă‘omi), a name which signifies ‘pleasant’, ‘lovely’, ‘delightful’. Some have suggested that the name is not good Hebrew, but Aramaic. The point is not important, but Hebrew seems more probable. In the first place, it is somewhat unlikely that one member only of this family group should have an Aramaic name while all the rest have Hebrew names. And in the second place, the words of Naomi to the women of Bethlehem (who would probably not know Aramaic) about the meaning of her name (verse 20) show it was understood as Hebrew. The names of the two sons follow. maḥlon is possibly from a root ḥlh, ‘to be weak’ or ‘sick’, in which case he had evidently been a sickly child. Chilion is likewise a name with an unpleasant ring, for it signifies something like ‘failing’, ‘pining’, or even ‘annihilation’. It is worth noticing that all these names are found at Ugarit, so that they are good old Canaanite names.
These people are then called Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah (AV, RV). Ephrath was an earlier name for Bethlehem, as we have already noted (Gen. 35:19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Mic. 5:2, Hebrew verse 1), and sometimes Ephrath is mentioned without Bethlehem (Gen. 35:16). It is not certain whether the name was Ephrath or Ephrathah (in some passages which contain the longer form the final -ah could simply express motion, ‘to Ephrath’, but Ruth 4:11 seems decisive for the longer form). The use of the older name in such a connection may point us to the old established families, the local aristocracy (the Midrash records an interpretation of the word as meaning ‘aristocrats’, ii. 5). At any rate, the indications we have are in favour of this family as being somewhat distinguished. At the end of the chapter, when Naomi returned, ‘all the city’ was interested, which argues for the return of someone well known and not a mere nobody. This may also be behind the question ‘Is this Naomi?’ (verse 19). Naomi could say, ‘I went out full’ (verse 21), which seems to indicate prosperity. The term Ephrathite sometimes means ‘Ephraimite’ (Judg. 12:5; 1 Sam. 1:1; 1 Kgs 11:26). But it also refers to inhabitants of Bethlehem (1 Sam. 17:12) and this is clearly the meaning here. These people, then, went to ‘the fields of Moab’ and remained there.
3. We do not know how long they were there. Nothing is recounted of their doings until the death of the head of the household. Interestingly he is called Naomi’s husband (AV, RV), though it is rare for a man to be characterized with reference to a woman. But in this story he plays no part, whereas Naomi is a central figure. Naomi was left, i.e. ‘left in life’, ‘remained alive’.
4. Now the sons contracted marriages. Nothing is said of any activity of Naomi’s in this connection, and perhaps the young men took the initiative. Due to the circumstances it was probably inevitable that their wives should be Moabitesses, but this fact is stated in so many terms. It may be that the author does not want the point to be missed. He is no rigorist, and he draws attention to the intermingling with Moab. There was a prohibition against admitting Moabites into the congregation and the offspring of marriage with a Moabite were not to be admitted to the congregation to the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3). But, as KD point out, there was no prohibition of marriage with a Moabite. Deuteronomy 7:3 is sometimes cited in this connection, but this refers only to Canaanites and other dwellers in the land. The law did not prohibit marriage with a Moabite, whatever restrictions it laid on the issue. Slotki cites the Midrash to show that this verse is a silent protest against intermarriage and he says this is the unanimous view of Jewish commentators. At the same time, he affirms that marriage with a Moabite woman was not forbidden, and that the prohibition is concerned exclusively with males (Deut. 23:3). The names of the wives are given, but it is not certain how far we should attach meaning to them. We have little knowledge of the Moabite language, but the name Orpah is apparently from the same root as the Hebrew word for ‘neck’ (‘ōrep). If the Moabite was similar it may signify something like ‘firmness’ (cf. ‘stiff-necked’). Or, with ideas of feminine beauty rather different from ours, it may signify something like that which is said in the Song of Solomon, ‘Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men’ (Song 4:4, AV, RV, though in this passage the word for ‘neck’ is different). It is also possible that the name is a Hebrew designation given after her return to Moab. Then ‘stiff-necked’ will have derogatory associations (cf. Exod. 32:9; Prov. 29:1, etc.). Ruth may signify ‘friendship’ (a name singularly apt in view of the events narrated in this book), if we can connect it with the root we see in rĕ‘ût (‘[woman] friend’). But this is not certain since, in the first place, we do not know whether the Moabite language had this root or not, and in the second, it is unlikely that the middle consonant would be lost. On the fact that Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon are all good Hebrew names, whereas Orpah and Ruth, the names of foreigners, are not, Knight comments, ‘Our author is careful to be accurate with his historical facts.’
After marriage, the young men settled down with their wives. The statement that they dwelled there about ten years probably covers the whole of their time there, and not simply the time of their married life. We have no way of knowing how old the sons were when they went to Moab, nor at what time they contracted their marriages. But probably these took place toward the end rather than the beginning of the ten years. Otherwise it is difficult to see why there should be no mention of children or of childlessness. But if the marriages were of fairly short duration the point would not arise.
5. At the end of the ten years both Mahlon and Chilion died. It is perhaps unusual that the three males of the household should perish. The Talmud regards it as a punishment for leaving Judah (Baba Bathra, 91a). No cause of death is given, but for the purposes of the story this is not important. It is the reactions of the women that matter. Naomi had now been bereaved of husband and all children. She was completely alone. For left see comment on verse 3. Literally translated, the Hebrew says ‘left from’. The meaning will be she was left in separation from, far from, her two sons and her ‘husband’ (so Joüon, who says this use of min is not noticed by BDB, but cf. 2:18). Sons (AV, RSV) renders a word which may be used of small children (cf. 4:16) or of adults, but this is apparently the only place where it is used of married men.