Sermon Tone Analysis

When I was going through my Greek class in seminary, my professor gave us an illustration about what to expect as we began studying the grammar.

He told us that would could expect to be living in a constant state of heavy fog around the concepts were would be studying at a given time.

We would study, the concepts wouldn’t be clear, or we would have trouble grasping just what we were supposed to get.

He encouragement to use was to just keep moving forward.

As we move forward, the fog moves with us.

Which really didn’t sound encouraging.

But what he did say was that though the fog would move with us, as we looked back over the things we had been studying the week or two before, the fog wouldn’t be around those things any more.

We would be able to see those things clearly.

The process of simply moving forward moved the fog with us and concepts that were unclear became clear as we took the steps.

So it would feel like we would be in a perpetual fog, and yet when we looked backward we would see that Hey, I have made progress here, hey that other thing that I struggled with it makes sense now, hey the answers are so clear now.

Sometimes it can feel that way in our lives as well.

There are seasons of life we walk though and it just feels like we are drifting in a dense fog and don’t know up from down.

But so often when we look back, we can see other things that we struggled with at the time and can see more clearly how those things shaped us into the people we are today.

This phenomenon is why we have the saying “hindsight is 20-20” there are things we learn in the process of living that makes us understand things better as we look back, but we didn’t the benefit of understanding it in the moment.

In many ways, that’s what we have for us in the book of Ruth.

We have a story of Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth.

In many ways it seems as though these are just individuals living their lives.

But as we look back on it we can clearly see the hand of God’s divine providence overshadowing the whole thing.

Ruth is unique book on the Old Testament Canon.

One of only two books named after a gentile, and one of only two books named after a woman, Ruth is in rare company.

As best as we can tell from history, the book of Judges and the book of Ruth were originally one book.

We notice from the opening paragraph that this story takes place within the period of the judges, and that’s all the specificity that we get on the timing of the events.

We don’t know when exactly it was, and there aren’t any clues in the narrative that would indicate it was during this judge or that, other than trying to estimate the life spans of the people in the Genealogy found in the end of the book, and trying to estimate the chronology of the judges themselves, but this is an impossible task, and it doesn’t really matter in the end.

According to tradition, Samuel is the one who wrote both Judges and Ruth.

Judges stresses the need for a godly king.

It seems that the book served a political purpose as there was push for King David, the man after God’s own heart, to be established as king over Israel.

In similar vein, the book of Ruth would serve to be the story of how God providentially preserved the line from which David would come, and demonstrate the piousness of his family in a time when there was no piety, further establishing David as rightful king.

What we find therefore, is a book about God’s divine providence.

The people in the story in many ways are just living their lives.

They are trying to survive and make it in a time when there was trouble, but it is clear that God is guiding and directing, even through the hardships.

The characters all express profound faith in the Lord along the way, and there is much to be learned from their experience.

Interpretive Method

As we did with Judges, it is helpful to review our interpretive method.

Whenever we encounter an old testament book, especially narrative, there is a tendency to attempt to make everything a type of Christ.

We saw this with the book of judges, and we talked about a few examples as we walked through that text.

When we examined things, we saw the insanity of trying to make any of those characters actual types of Christ.

But I will give one more example someone sent me just this week.

do you remember the story of Noah right after he got off the ark, built a vineyard, and got drunk?

This is from a commentary on Genesis:

“Noah bears and image or type of Christ, let us now see how it can be illustrated from his drunkeness.

An inebriated Noah fell asleep, and Christ died, just as death is so often called “sleep” in the sacred writings…Moreover it is easy to understand by what potion Christ would have been inebriated, for it was undoubtedly of that cup that he spoke in the very moment of his passion “let this cup pass from me.”

Was Noah, in his drunkenness a type of Christ?

No.

That ridiculous.

But why is it ridiculous?

What makes it so out of the question?

The reality that we face is that there are other types that don’t sound all that far fetched.

Think of Joseph.

Both Jesus and Joseph went to Egypt, both were sold for silver, both of them through their abuse provided salvation for the world.

Is Joseph a type?

Others see Boaz, the man in this book we will study as a type.

He is the kinsman redeemer, after all.

Redemption!

He cares for outsiders like the gentile Ruth, just as Christ will atone not only for Jewish sins, but gentile as well.

So is he a type?

This isn’t intended to be a sermon on typology.

In short, the word type comes from the word typos, which refers to something that is a representation of the other thing.

The type pre-figures the anti-type, the thing that the type is attempting to pre-figure.

The type is intended to a prophetic picture of what the anti-type will be.

Scripture refers to a number of people, feasts, or things as types in Scripture.

If we had time we would walk through those and it would be an interesting study.

But now,

The question is this: are there more types in the Bible than what the Bible itself identifies?

If part of what makes something a type is the prophetic element, then there would have to be something in the intent of the thing itself that would point forward.

I think there are many things and people in Scripture that contain parallels to, can be an example of, or can even illustrate to us something about Jesus Christ.

But I don’t believe that necessarily makes them a type, because that would have to be the prophetic intent of the thing, and so there would need to be clues to that end.

So then the question becomes, where do we draw the line?

How do we know if something is prophetic?

Should we read the OT looking for types and be willing to stretch to make stories like Noah into types?

I’d like to suggest for us that the only safeguard against labeling anything and everything a type of Christ is to let Scripture itself identify what is a type of Christ and leave it at that.

Are there ways we can draw parallels between other characters and Christ?

Certainly.

We may even call them illustrations or examples....but I’m going to stop short of calling them types unless Scripture identifies the as such.

And this is because I am seeking to employ a consistent grammatical-historical-contextual hermeneutic, sometimes called the normal or literal hermeneutic.

Grammatical Historical Contextual

Now, I’ve spent too much time on this.

But I felt the need to do so because of how so many talk about Boaz.

It is very common that Boaz is called a type of Christ on the basis that he is a redeemer.

However, Scripture never refers to Boaz as a type and makes no effort to connect the two either formally or thematically.

In fact, the only other reference to any characters from the book of Ruth are mentioned are in the Genealogies of Christ in Matt and Luke.

So I’m uncomfortable slapping Boaz with the type of Christ label, because we have no biblical justification to do so.

Does this strip Ruth of its significance and meaning?

If we can’t see Christ here, do we have a useless book that isn’t of any use to us as New Testament believers in Christ?

Emphatically, No!

All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.

The original author had a purpose in writing Ruth, and as we seek to understand that through the consistent hermeneutic, we will learn from this book that we not only get to glean the principles at play here, but also get to see that while I don’t believe that Boaz is necessarily a type of Christ, the book of Ruth anticipates Christ, and points us to Christ by showing us God’s providential care over his people and over the line through which the Christ would come.

So with that.

Let’s Read Ruth chapter 1.

Providence In Pain

Our story opens during the time of the Judges.

No famine is mentioned in the book of Judges, so we can’t place this story exactly, only that we can note that it was surely during a time between judges when there was judgment in land.

God’s usual method of judgment in Judges is that of the sword through military oppression, but It seems in this text that God was faithful to his promise in the Mosaic law that he would bring various forms of judgment upon his people when they walked in rebellion against him.

Because of the famine, a man named Elimelech with his wife Naomi seek better fortunes in Moab.

They load up their caravan and make their way to the land of their cousins.

At this point of the story, any Israelite listener would already be on edge.

Famine can only mean one thing: God’s judgement upon the land.

Fleeing to Moab can only mean one thing: things were desperate.

Moab was one of the children of lot by his daughter, so these two nations are related to one another.

But like many families, they did not get along.

When Israel was leaving Egypt and wanted to pass through the land of Moab, they were not permitted.