Ruth 4:16-17
Ruth 4:16 Then My Pleasant One (Naomi) received the child and laid him on her chest,
and she became his nurse.
17 And the neighbor women gave him a name,
saying, “A son has been born to My Pleasant One (Naomi)!”
So they named him Caretaker (Obed).
He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
Introduction
Our text this morning concludes our study of the book of Ruth.
Notice what has happening in the account: Ruth has just given birth to a son. However, to our surprise, the women assisting with the birth bring the child to Naomi as matriarch of the family and not to Boaz the father.
In fact, for the entire final section of the book, we do not see Boaz or Ruth again. Instead, our focus is on Naomi. Why? There is something incredible about the very heart of God’s love and salvation that we all need to see.
Notice then, as the women bring the child to Naomi, they bless Naomi. They say that God has provided a redeemer for Naomi’s house/line, who will carry their name into the future of God’s people. Not only that, God has not forgotten Naomi herself. Therefore, the women go on to say that this child/redeemer will provide for and sustain Naomi in her old age.
In our text this morning, the women’s blessing has concluded and we watch has they hand Naomi the just born child for the very first time.
Verse 16
Notice at once, verse 16 tells us that Naomi received the child and laid him on her chest. Importance: at first glance verse 16 presents us with an incredibly tender scene. Naomi, with all the joy of a new grandmother and with all the emotion of one just delivered from a trial, takes her new grandbaby and tenderly holds him in her arms. However, while all of that is absolutely true, there is so much more going on here. Not only that, all this more that is going on only adds to the weight and depth of the joy that permeates every detail of this passage. Notice then in a book that is all about legal transactions, every joyful detail of verse 16 is undergirded by the formal/legal nature of what is happening. First, remember, the child that Naomi has just received is counted as Elimelech’s son and the heir of his house. Therefore when Naomi takes the child and embraces him, she is officially/formally/legally receiving him as a son of her house/line FN#1. That is, Naomi’s reception is the formal/legal acceptance of the child and her pledge to care for the child’s well-being. Simply put, what is happening here is a very public and binding act and everyone in the room knows it and is a party to it (notice, the women know exactly who is to receive the child first). However, please note: there is nothing matter-of-fact or dispassionate about Naomi’s response. Instead, verse 16 tells us that she took the child and held him to her chest. That is, Naomi embraces the child with all the joy and tenderness a person can muster. On top of that, as she takes the child, Naomi is receiving the very love, favor, and deliverance that God has provided. Simply put, as the women present the child to Naomi as his legal mother, Naomi receives the child by immolating a new mother. Her response is a public embrace that is both legal and tender FN#2.
Next, notice verse 16 tells us that Naomi became the child’s nurse (or more accurately, his dry-nurse) FN#3. That is, Naomi was not only the legal guardian of the child, she was also hands on in the day-in and day-out care of the child. In other words, verse 16 confirms our understanding of the nature of Naomi’s embrace. Naomi not only legally accepts the child, she also tenderly fulfills her duty as the child’s mother-of-redemption. As such, she actively helps to raise and care for him. Importance: notice at once that even in the book of Ruth, we find that the grace that saves, delivers, and redeems you is a grace that changes you. How? Notice, verse 16 makes it clear that Naomi has an active role and responsibility in her own redemption. In other words, she is expected to care for this little bundle of deliverance that God alone of His great mercy has given her. Notice then the profound result: Naomi, whose faith and faithfulness nurtured this account from its very beginning, is now entrusted to nurture its unfolding future. In other words, far from being cut off from God’s people, Naomi is not only included in their future, she holds that future in her arms and is blessed with its care FN#4.
Verse 17
Next, notice the surprise: verse 17 opens by telling us that the neighborhood women, who were there for the birth, were the ones who actually named the baby. Now at first glance this seems so out of place (to the point that some scholars believe the text has been corrupted). Normally, one would expect that Boaz, as the father, would have named the child. However, because the child is legally regarded as Elimelech’s heir one might have expected Naomi, as the acting matriarch of the family, to name the child. But that is not what happens. Instead, the women, who just brought the new born baby out to Naomi, then proceed to name him. However, upon reflection, it seems that Scripture indicates that this neighbor naming was a well-established custom throughout the biblical times. Notice then we see the same sort of thing in the New Testament, at the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:57-63). It is the neighbors and relatives who decide to name Elizabeth’s child Zachariah after his father. In fact, when Elizabeth steps in and says that his name is to be John, the townsfolk are incensed because Elizabeth has broken protocol and tried to name the child herself. In the same way, here in verse 17, it is the local women who name the child. Importance: in a land/time where names meant something, at the heart of this custom, is a community’s discernment/recognition of God’s hand at work. As such, the name they gave often pointed to the plan, purpose, or provision they sensed God bringing about in connection with the child. Verse 17 is no exception: the joy that the women’s blessing has already expressed has declared (if not outright prophesied about) the very work of deliverance that God is bringing about through this child. Simply put, as the author builds his case for the Davidic kingship, the women’s joy, praise, and carefully selected name all indicate that the entire community has recognized that God’s direct blessings are behind these events FN#5. As such, the author intends their joy and understanding to be shared/ accepted by his readers as well.
Next, notice how the women preface their naming ceremony: they say a son has been born to My Pleasant One. Importance: the women’s declaration that a child has been born to Naomi is not just an official pronouncement of legal custody. Instead, it also is a joyful declaration of the deliverance that God has provided to Naomi and her entire house/line through these events. Notice then in a book that is all about names, it is the very women, who Naomi told to call her Bitter (1:20), that now declare that she holds in her arms the concrete and squirming proof that she is indeed Pleasant to YHWH. In other words, they not only name the child, they also officially confirm Naomi’s name/identity FN#6. In the end, it is the community’s recognition of God’s provision in all that this child represents that serves as the basis/reason of the names they have selected/spoken.
Next, notice what the women name the child. They name him Caretaker (Obed). Why? In the Hebrew, the name is taken from a verb which at its root is an agricultural term that means to work, till, cultivate. By extension the word comes to mean serve, minister, care for FN#7. Simply put, in a book that is all about names, the name selected by the women summarizes the entire message of the book. How? This child that God has provided will care for His father’s land, Naomi’s wellbeing, and will carry their line into the future of God’s people. Not only that, it is through this child and the events of this book that God will take care of His people, their kingdom, and eventually the whole world.
Finally, notice how the narrative part of the book ends: immediately after the name Caretaker grounds the events of the entire book in God’s amazing provision and also turns our eyes towards the future to come, the author concludes by showing us the exact pathway that God has established through these events for the care of His people. In other words, we are not left to guess about the connection between what God has done here and the future that He has in store for His people. Notice then the author tells us that Caretaker is the father of Jesse, who is the father of David. Importance: in building the case for the Davidic kingship, the author drives home the point that David did not just show up out of nowhere. Instead, his reign has been brought about by God’s great care for even the most unassuming of His people FN#8.
Bottom line: Ruth is a book that invites us to delight in our God and the loving care with which He regards each one of us. It reminds us, that as His redeemed children, we are never Bitter Ones nor are we ever overlooked or forgotten. Instead, we are always those who are Pleasant and precious to God FN#9. Thus, as we leave the book of Ruth, it is this very heart of God that will bring us back to Bethlehem many years later to celebrate the birth of our Messiah.
Footnotes
1] Note: the Hebrew word here translated as received, took (לקח) is the same word in used in 4:13 when Scripture tells us that Boaz took (לקח) Ruth as his wife. Importance: in both cases the word denotes a fulfilment of and an acting on one’s legal responsibility. Boaz has been given Ruth and has agreed to marry her. Thus, in verse 16 we see Boaz fulfilling this obligation by taking Ruth under his charge and care. In the same way, Naomi is doing more than just holding the child, she is fulfilling her obligation to the child by taking him under her charge and care.
2] In fact, notice the way that Naomi’s embrace is a beautiful picture that captures the very essence of the kesed that we have seen throughout the book. It is a love strong enough to commit and commitment born out of genuine love).
3] Note: the Hebrew word here translated nurse (לְאֹמֶֽנֶת) is taken from the verb (אמן) which means to support, nourish, establish. As such, it points to a guardian, caregiver, or nanny/dry-nurse who assists in raising a child. It is often translated as nurse, however, it is clearly distinguished from a wet-nurse, who breast feeds the child. The word used to designate a wet-nurse is (מינֶ֫קֶת), which is taken from the verb (יָנַקְ) to suck (e.g. Gen 24:59). Thus, while Ruth, not Naomi, nursed the child, Naomi took on the responsibility of helping to raise and look after the child. In other words, Naomi was legally the child’s guardian and as hands on in her care as a nanny. In turn, she was hands on like a nanny but with the legal authority of a guardian. In the end verse 16 tells us that Naomi not only received the child, she fulfilled her duty as a mother of redemption to help raise the child. Notice the result: notice the picture verse 16 provides: Naomi receives the child and lays it on her breast as a mother would. However, she will not nurse the child. Instead, Ruth will. In turn, Naomi will assist the parents in caring for and raising the child, yet not just as a nanny but as one with both legal claim and responsibility to do so. In other words, the depiction of Naomi in maternal terms and gestures, yet with quiet distinctions provides a great picture of her role in the child’s life as his mother of redemption.
4] Faith and Trust are always the bedrock of God’s plan, His people, and their walk. In turn, faithfulness and trust (however insignificant that may seem to us at the time) are never trivial in God’s eyes. Instead, they are always the means by which His plan unfolds. In turn, they are always the way through and out of the dilemmas we face. In other words, to follow Jesus is already to be on the pathway of deliverance.
5] Do the women or anyone involved in the account realize the extent of what God is doing. No. Their blessing prophesizes and the name they select anticipates beyond their wildest expectation. However, the author has deliberately included both the name and the blessing because in both God is already turning His people’s attention towards the future and towards the great things that He will do through the events His hand has begun to unfold.
6] Remember the whole presentation/naming ceremony is an official and binding legal transaction. And that includes both the one given (the child) as well as the one who officially receives the child (Naomi). The names of both parties are on the legal and binding contract.
7] Note: the name Obed (עוֹבֵד) is taken from the Hebrew verb obad (עבַד) which at its root is an agricultural term that means to work, till, cultivate. It is the very word used in Gen 2:15 to describe man’s duties in the garden.
Genesis 2:15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate (עבַד- Obad) it and keep it (compare the same word used in Gen 2:5).
By extension the word comes to mean to work, serve. In fact, the very same couplet (to work and keep- עבַד and שׁמר) that is used to describe man’s duties in the garden is used to describe the priests’ duties concerning the Tabernacle/Temple (God’s garden presence on earth):
Numbers 18:7 “But you and your sons with you shall keep/attend (שׁמר) to your priesthood for everything concerning the altar and inside the veil, and you are to perform service (עבַד- Obad). I am giving you the priesthood as a bestowed service (עֲבֹדָה-Obad ah), but the outsider who comes near shall be put to death.”
Notice then, when the women name the child there are three lines of meaning that converge in this one name. First, remember when Boaz went to sell the field that belonged Elimelech (4:1)? When the closer relative refused to redeem Ruth, that field went to Boaz. Boaz is now keeping it in trust for this child who will inherit it as Elimelech’s heir.
Ruth 4:5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the deceased, in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance.”
Thus when the women name the child, there are three lines of meaning converging in his name: first in an agrarian society and in a book that is all about the Future, the women name the child farmer/yeoman because he will be the one who will tend his father’s land, continue his father’s name on his father’s estate, and carry the family line into the future of God’s people. Second, by raising up his father’s name and serving/working his land, the child will provide for the wellbeing and social standing of Naomi (his legal mother) and their house. Thus, the meaning of servant that is heard in the name Obed is also intended by the women.
Ruth 4:15 “May he (Obed) also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age;
Finally, the fact that this child is the direct gift of God, who has redeemed Naomi and her family and confirmed their place in the ongoing future of God’s people also comes shining through in the name the women choose. Thus, they intend us to hear the notion of divine service commonly associated with this term (Ex 7:16). They know that this child is a part of God’s divine plan/redemption, which he will serve/fulfill.
Ruth 4:14 Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed is YHWH who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name (Obed) become famous in Israel.
Therefore, to translate this name one must do their best to capture all three of the meanings that would have resonated with the folks in Ruth’s day. Often, you see it translated as Servant. However, while certainly a big part of the name, servant leaves too much of the nature of that service unaccounted for. Thus, the central notions of land, future, and divine redemption are all but left out. The folks in Ruth’s day would have heard so much more when they said Obed. In the same way, to render the name as Farmer or Yeoman brings forward the agricultural meaning at the very heart of the name. However, it leaves out the notions of redemption, divine deliverance, and service so central to the book. Therefore, I have rendered the name as Caretaker. Thus, while not perfect, it carries with it the agricultural notions of inheriting and caring for his father’s land. In turn, it brings forward the notion that this child has been sent to care for Naomi’s well-being. Finally, it also reminds us that the God of Salvation who sent this child is the one who takes care of and provides for His people. And it is in this capacity (as instrument/servant of God’s plan) that the child’s name/family/line will become great in Israel (4:14).
8] I cannot think of a better way to enter the Advent season than with the Book of Ruth fresh on our hearts and minds. As we watch the events begun here unfold across biblical history, we find that they bring us back full circle. Thus, an event that began (not with grandiose miracles, or epic battles, or larger-than-life heroes but with) God’s care for the most unassuming of His children, will, years later, bring us right back to this same place (to Bethlehem) and to the birth of the Messiah (from this very house/line), who is sent to care for even the most unassuming of God’s children. In other words, from beginning to end, the account of the Messiah is the account of God’s love for each of His people (however great or small).
9] Afterwords and loose ends:
A] Throughout Scripture, geologies are often selective and abbreviated, meaning they include some of the names in the order of succession while leaving others out. This does not mean they are inaccurate. They are not. Rather, it means their purpose is to provide a historic account of a lineage that is theologically informed. In other words, the reason for the particular selective inclusions in a genealogy is often based on the theological emphasis of the author. This is a point we will see again in a subsequent endnote regarding Matthew’s genealogy (see B below). Regardless, the closing genealogy in the book of Ruth (4:18-22) appears to be an ancient but later addition to the narrative. In turn, the selectivity and stylized manner of the genealogy is seen in its inclusion of exactly 10 names, where a more thorough, lineage only, genealogy would include many more names that are left out here. The added genealogy at the end of the book traces the line of David back to Perez (not just to Obed as does the closing verse of the narrative section of the book- 4:17). The added genealogy is probably motivated by the direct mention of Perez in the townspeople’s blessing of Boaz and Ruth’s union (4:12). Thus, it sought to fill in (or provide) the tie of David’s line to the house of Perez as well as the tie of David’s line to the blessing God bestowed on Perez’s kinsman redeemer union with Tamar.
B] Note: in Matthew’s genealogy of the line of Christ, it appears as if Rahab is Boaz’s mother. However, Rahab lived some 240 years before Boaz (and 366 years before David). At the same time, Matthew’s genealogy (like that at the end of Ruth) is highly selective and theologically arranged. Notice then in Matthew’s genealogy, we have 42 generations neatly divided into 3 sets of 14 generations each.
Matthew 1:17 Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the time of Christ fourteen generations.
Again, this does not mean that Matthew’s genealogy is inaccurate or fraudulent. Instead, it means that Matthew sought to provide a historic account of the lineage that is theologically informed. Thus, we find his genealogy, echoing and bringing forward many Old Testament themes, which will be central to his Gospel. All of which brings us back to Rahab, the pagan harlot, being Boaz’s mother. Now while it is true that people lived a long time early on in Scripture, by the time we reach the book of Joshua, people were not living as long as they once did. Case in point: Moses died at 120 years of age. So, while it is possible that Rahab miraculously lived some 250 plus years, it is more likely that Matthew’s theological selectivity is at work here. Thus, verse 5 of Matthew’s genealogy may better be translated to read:
Matthew 1:5 and to Salmon was born Boaz by way of Rahab; and to Boaz was born Obed by way of Ruth; and to Obed, Jesse;
In other words, Matthew’s point is not that Rahab was Boaz’s mother (a fact that everyone at the time would have known). Rather, it is that Boaz’s line proceeded from Rahab. In fact, in Matthew 1:5, 6, and 16 the Greek word (ek) that I have translated here as “by way of” denotes a sense of distance in each case. Thus, Boaz came by way of Rahab (she is not directly his mother. Rather he came through her line). In turn, Obed was legally and genealogically counted as Elimelech’s son. However, he came not directly to Elimelech but by way of Ruth through Boaz. Finally, in verse 16, Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father. Instead, Jesus comes to Joseph by way of Mary and the virgin birth. Thus, in each case ek is used to indicate an indirectness or distance. At the same time, Matthew’s interest here is not only to show that Boaz is a descent of Rahab, but also to show that Rahab set the theological tone of her family. Thus, Boaz was of/like Rahab. In other words, Rahab was the mother/matriarch of the sort of faith and faithfulness we see in Boaz. She ingrained it into her line. Notice then in Rahab (like Ruth) we see a gentile conversion as well as a female in the line of the Messiah (all of which are central promises of the Messiah’s mission). In turn, Rahab’s faith and inclusion in God’s people set the stage for Ruth’s inclusion and the subsequent line of David. Notice then God’s wisdom, mercy, and preparation. God sends Ruth to one of the only homes in all the land where her husband (Boaz) knows firsthand the legitimacy and grace of such a pagan conversion. The story of Rahab is famous in Israel and central to his own family’s line. And it is to that family that God sends Ruth.
C] As we end, it is good for us to take into account the command given in Deuteronomy 23:3-7 because it shows us something of the wisdom and mercy of God as well as the way the Old Testament folks thought through their civil structures. Notice then the passage reads:
Deuteronomy 23:3 “No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD,
4 because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.
5 “Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you.
6 “You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days.
As we read this passage, it certainly casts light on the closer relative’s prejudice and in all likelihood offered him a sense of justification for his view. At the same time, the universal acceptance of Boaz and Ruth’s union by the elders and townsfolk suggests there is more to understanding this passage than first meets the eye. Regardless, we need to ask how Ruth was accepted by YHWH and His people given God’s command in Deuteronomy 23. Not only that, we need realize what is at stake with this question. In a book that is building a case for David’s kingship, the exclusion of a Moabite or any of their descendants to 10 generations (i.e. forever) would seem to be a fatal blow to David’s case. And yet, Ruth’s Moabite origin is not something the book covers up. Instead, it is something the book profusely publicizes as a central factor in God’s amazing work through the events of the book. In turn, any flimsy answer or shell game type of spin would not be enough to silence the critics. The answer/resolve must be solid, evident, and universally acknowledged by leaders and people alike. So how is Ruth the Moabite and her descendant David accepted and embraced by God and His people given the commands of Deuteronomy 23?
It seems the resolve is fairly straight forward and points to the way that God’s people understood lines, households, and inclusion. Notice then, the command in Deuteronomy 23 seem to focus on males and their households. Thus, all the nouns, verbs, and pronouns dealing with the Amorites and Moabites are specifically male. There is no mention or extension of the injunction to females. Instead, the focus seems to be on Moabite or Amorite male heads and the households under them. In turn, the basis for this exclusion is founded on an official leadership decision by the Moabite male authorities to not aid Israel but rather to hire Balaam to curse them. This male focus becomes more explicit once we realize that it extends through the greater context of this entire exclusion passage. Case in point, notice how God begins these exclusion commands in 23:1-2:
Deuteronomy 23:1 “No one who is emasculated, or has his male organ cut off, shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 2 “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
Emasculation is exclusively male in this case. In turn, it is the bastard son and his descendants who are excluded. That said, it needs to be stressed here that exclusion from the assembly is not the same thing as exclusion from the people of God or their salvation, any more than exclusion due to ceremonial uncleanness was an excommunication on an eternal/ultimate level. Instead, in both cases these outward exclusions guarded the official, public, and authoritative gathering of God’s people from presentations that undermined the pedagogical purity that these gatherings were to demonstrate. In the same way today, a genuinely repentant person who was guilty of embezzlement is certainly accepted into the body of Christ. However, the public nature of their scandal may well exclude them from leadership in the church or ever being put in charge of the church finances. In turn, this focus on authoritative male headship continues in the positive section of this passage:
Deuteronomy 23:7 “You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. 8 “The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.
Bottom line: the resolve to our question regarding Ruth’s acceptance and Deuteronomy 23 is simply that there was never anything to resolve. Ruth’s acceptance was not an acceptance of a Moabite household and authoritative structure (which had officially sought to curse God’s people). Instead, Ruth, a female, leaves the house and structure of her Moabite father and through conversion and marriage is under the house/authority of Boaz and of the line of Judah. In fact, it is very likely that this is why the author of the book of Ruth constantly refers to her as a Moabitess (a rare/unusual term that appears throughout Ruth but only one other time in the whole of Scripture- 2 Chron 24:26). The author is underscoring that as a female Ruth’s conversion and marriage have removed her from the confines of a male lead Moabite household and thus from under its exclusions. As such, the problem for Ruth’s descendants, the David dynasty, as well as the messianic line all dissipate. In fact, the final verses of the book verify this point as they demonstrate for us that, in biblical times, the line of descendants was traced through the father’s house (and converted Ruth is of the house of Boaz, not Moab)
Notice the results: first, this explanation (or something very like it) lies behind the universal understanding and acceptance of Ruth by the author, the elders and people, as well as the original readers of the book to whom the case for David is being made. Second, the other relative’s prejudice is seen as an unjust over extension of God’s commands in Deuteronomy. He has taken the ceremonial and pedagogical purpose of the passage and has reduced it to a blanket disdain of the person qua person.
One final point: this same focus on the male led household is behind Naomi’s despair in the beginning of the book. She fully believes that she has been cut off because her husband’s line is struck down. However, the very same grace extended to her is what we see extended to Ruth. It is a salvation that reaches into and delivers from an unbelieving power structure. Thus, even in the Old Testament, we see that women are not bound to the exclusion of the structures over them. Instead, grace and mercy extend to them on their own terms. This point seems to be a little explored theme of Old Testament soteriology set forth by the book of Ruth and repeated over and again therein. It is also a point that is reinforced by the inclusion of these women in the New Testament genealogy of the Messiah.