WHY DID NAOMI AND HER HUSBAND MOVE TO MOAB? (RUTH 1:1)

The Book of Ruth begins with a Judean couple, Elimelech and Naomi, moving with their sons to Moab because of a famine in their country. Since the Moabites and Israelites were bitter enemies, the question arises as to the reason why. To answer this question, we must cope with five factors that are at play here: historical, geographical, geological, moral, and theological.

Historical Considerations

As to the historicity of this story, Oxley notes that “the author knew that at that time friendly relations existed between Israel and Moab (cf. I Sam. 22:3-4)...”

Additionally, Hubbard says, “While certainty eludes us, the Ruth story most likely falls between [the judges] Ehud and Jephthah since, except for Eglon, Israel dominated Moab during that time.”

And Gray adds, “There was probably an age-long relationship between the two regions, with rights of intermarriage, which made it natural for people of Bethlehem to find refuge there. David, himself of Bethlehem, sent his parents for safety to Moab (I Sam. 22:3).”

Thus, there is no historical improbability to an Israelite couple settling in Moab when the need arose.

Geographical Considerations

The phrase “'in the land' implies a widespread, not merely local famine,” according to Leith. In this, Grisanti agrees by explaining that when 'sadeh (“fields, open country”) is followed by the designation of a nation, it “carries with it territorial connotations (region/domain).”

This still leaves us in the dark why this Israelite couple would chose Moab as the place to settle, especially since it appears from the phrase “in the land” that nearby Moab would not have escaped this widespread famine either.

In the same vein, “Gerleman claims that this migration is merely a narrative motif designed to recall the famine-induced migrations of the patriarchs (Gen 12:10; 26:1). He reasons that the family could not have actually gone to Moab since the famine would have affected that area as well. In fact, however, Moab differs climatologically from Bethlehem despite their proximity (about 50 mi. apart). “According to Scott, in the dry year 1931-32 there was more rain in the southern highlands of Moab than at Bethlehem. Further, it is not uncommon today for rainclouds from the Mediterranean to cross Israel without dropping any moisture until they are east of the Jordan.” (Hubbard)

Morris points out that “Palestine has a rather uncertain rainfall, hence times of drought and, consequently, of famine are not uncommon...But droughts are strange affairs and sometimes conditions vary widely over comparatively small areas.”

Campbell feels that the 'plains of Moab' mentioned in passages such as Numbers 22:1 and 33:48 were probably where they settled. It was “a part of the rift valley across the Jordan from Jericho. Stretching south from this rather well-watered and rich plot is flattish tableland, its western flank rising abruptly from the Dead Sea to a point 3700 feet above...This tableland is fertile and comparatively well-watered. The abrupt rise from the Dead Sea forms a rain barrage, so that the western half of this region gets a fair rainfall (about sixteen inches per year on the average...). The wind, however, is relatively unimpeded, so that it is grass crops and pasturage which flourish...It is clear that conditions here can differ from those in the Judean hills around Bethlehem.”

Baldwin notes that the fertile plateau south of the river Arnon would even have been visible from the hills just south of Bethlehem. Similarly, Hubbard states, “The fertile Moabite plateaus may have been an important breadbasket for Palestine and thereby regularly attracted famine refugees....or or simply, Moab may have been the closest place to Bethlehem where food was available.”

Geological Considerations

A comment from archeologist Craig Tyson writing in the recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Today has perhaps hit upon an additional aspect of the situation: “In the first verses of the Book of Ruth, Elimelech and Naomi migrate to Moab because there is a famine in Judah...The Book of Ruth, of course, does not explain how it is that Moab escaped a famine that was being experienced just across the Dead Sea in Judah, leaving us to ask, 'Why would Moab be a better place to find food?' Our investigations at Balu'a may have revealed the answer. The land around the site is quite fertile, perhaps in part because of the volcanic soils of the area (thanks to nearby Jebel Shihan). Soils derived from basalt can be rich in minerals that make it quite fertile and productive or dry farming. Preliminary archaeobotanical analysis confirms the presence of barley, wheat, lentils, and peas in the site's Iron Age occupation levels. So, although the biblical author does not specifically identify the area around Balu'a, his general knowledge of Moab's relatively stable agricultural food supply seems to underlie the setting of the story.”

Moral Considerations

Some scholars choose to zero in on the factor of God's judgment to explain the events in the early part of the book. Thus, an article in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “Although some biblical periods of famine carry no moral or spiritual implications, it was regarded as one of a number of divinely ordained scourges that God uses to punish both his people and others for their sins...”

Ulrich says, “The book of Ruth does not explicitly interpret the famine as a Deuteronomic curse for covenantal infidelity (cf. Deut 28:15-48).” Nevertheless, that may well be one of the reasons for it.

Regarding the migrating couple's actions, he adds two examples of ironic behavior: “Elimelech and Naomi left Bethlehem, which means 'house of bread' in Hebrew, and moved to Moab, which had refused to offer bread to the Israelites during the wilderness years (Deut 23:4). What Elimelech's move to Moab signaled about his relationship with Yahweh is uncertain. The meaning of Elimelech's name ('My God is king') stands out in the period of the judges, when there was no king and just about everyone (perhaps even Elimelech) ignored the commands of the divine king (Judg 21:25).”

Sasson makes an interesting observation: “Moab, where the god Chemosh reigns, may not be experiencing famine when a Judean family seeks shelter there; but its fields will eventually kill a father and his sons and render their wives sterile.” Also, Block adds, “Perhaps because of a failure to recognize Yahweh's kingship, when famine strikes, Elimelech and his wife move out to the land where Chemosh reigns.”

Theological Considerations

These are by far the most important factors to concentrate on, as most commentators realize:

“Biblical famines have many natural causes...They were often believed to be God's judgment...though in this case the author was silent about its cause. The mention of famine, however, served a twofold thematic purpose. First, it recalled the biblical pattern that famines, despite tragic appearances, often advance God's plan for his people...Second, it hinted at some thematic link between this story and the patriarchs – a linkage all the more probable since the same phrase ['now there was a famine in the land'] occurs elsewhere only in Gen. 12:10 and 26:1 (cf. similar terms in Gen. 41:54,56; 42:5).” (Hubbard) He cites a number of additional Bible passages relating to moves due to famine, including Genesis 26:3; 47:4; and I Kings 17:20.

Leith says, “Although famine is often God's mode of punishment (Lev 26:19-20; Deut 28:21-24; 1 Kings 17:1; Jer 24:10; Ezek 6:12), here, reminiscent of Abraham (Gen 12:10, Isaac (Gen 26:1) and Jacob (Gen 45:6-28), it explains why an Israelite family would abandon its homeland.”

Her comment makes it clear that the famine in this case was not a form of punishment, but was instead the means God used in order to bring about His ultimate will, founding the ancestry of the future Savior of the world. This is something we would be wise to remember when we are hit with adverse conditions. It is not necessarily a sign of God's disapproval of us, but may actually be intended to lead us to some better fate He has in mind for us.

Morris feels that “the implication throughout is that God is watching over His people, and that He brings to pass what is good. The book is a book about God. He rules over all and brings blessing to those who trust Him.”

One of the reasons behind this story being included in the Bible, according to Oxley, was that we can see “that the LORD in His sovereignty was working out His cosmic purposes while intimately involved with persons who otherwise would have been ordinary.”

And Schnittjer reminds us, “The prophets occasionally speak of future hope for Moab (Isa 16:4; Jer 48:47). The Ruth story looks back and finds help for Israel from a socially challenged Moabitess.”