For many, there’s a lot that goes into picking a newborn’s name. Lists to read, lineages to remember, legacies on which to ruminate. While not every mother-to-be, nor every father-to-be, may put the same level of effort into coming up with their child’s name, I’m guessing that for most it’s rarely left up to the neighbors to decide. And that’s what caught my attention this morning — they named him.
So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son. Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse. And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed.”
(Ruth 4:13-17a ESV)
The women of the neighborhood gave him a name . . . They named him . . .
Wait a minute! Where’s the mother in the middle of all this? She’s the young widow who had determined not to abandon her embittered mother-in-law and instead chose to leave her land and leave her people for a foreign land and for a foreign people. She’s the one who had worked the fields. She’s the one who had found favor. She’s the one who consented to marrying the man. She’s the one who had born the baby. And yet, other than being “his wife” and “your daughter-in-law”, after the birth of her baby Ruth shares relatively little of the limelight. Instead, it’s her mother-in-law, Naomi, who’s the focus. “A son has been born to Naomi,” they said.
What’s more, it’s not Ruth who gets to read the lists, remember her lineage, or consider her legacy. Instead, when it comes to giving her newborn son a name, the women of the neighborhood gave him a name.
Chew on it for a bit and, it seems to me, something’s out of whack. Sure, it might just be ancient cultural practices clashing with my modern expectations. But, I’m thinking that even in bible times, parents typically were the ones who named their children. But this child was part of a much larger story, as was his mother.
So, I’m noodling on Ruth and her role in this redemption story. Someone “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” and a stranger “to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). Someone who found favor in the eyes of a redeemer (Ruth 2:10-13). Someone bought by the redeemer to be his wife (Ruth 4:10). Someone who, in her “before life”, did not bear children but now is blessed of God and fruitful. Someone who, in the end, is left out of the spotlight, though the impact and remembrance of her legacy will be remembered forever (Matt. 1:5).
Hmm . . . kind of like the bride of the One Boaz points to as the greater Redeemer, Jesus the Christ — kind of like the church. Foreigners who have found favor. Bought with a price (1Cor. 6:20, 7:23). Redeemed to be a Bride (Eph. 5:25-27, Rev. 19:7-8). Once barren, now able to “bear much fruit” (John 15:5). Not only for her own good, but for the good of others. Not just for her glory, but for her Redeemer’s. Not so she would own the spotlight, but ready to decrease that her Bridegroom might increase (John 3:29-30).
She didn’t even get to name her baby, the women of the neighborhood gave him a name . . . They named him.
But she would always know the joy of being her Redeemer’s bride.
By His grace. For His glory.
My Morning Meal 