I would boil it down to this. I do not think that God speaks a different message from the message He gave the "prophet" (or writer of Scripture). He does not have a hidden meaning for you or me (the reader) that was not originally conveyed in the language and intention of the writer.
As Peter wrote in his second letter, "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:19-21
The writer did not get to say whatever he wanted. He was required to write the things impressed upon him by the Holy Spirit. He did not have one message, while God had a different message. We will not find a hidden "God's message" that His Scripture writers did not intend. Scripture readers, centuries later, cannot come up with God's meaning apart from the inspired writer's intention.
Later in that same epistle, Peter refers to Paul's writings and says, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." - 2 Peter 3:16
Even in this, the warning to the reader (or hearer) is to receive the Word of God the way Paul meant it. The things Paul was communicating were difficult to understand, but Paul was the one moved by God to write them. His letters were the Word of God. If a reader comes up with something Paul did not mean (the writer did not intend) then He must be straying from God's Word. Else, there is nothing to be sure of.
I would certainly consider some people, certain sacrifices, and particular events as TYPES of Jesus Christ (as in regard to his relationship to mankind or to His Heavenly Father and His Church and kingdom). However, I would only trust myself to recognize such a TYPE based upon it being expressed in the work of the biblical writers.
I might see many similarities between older covenant saints and the Lord Jesus, but I would not call them a TYPE. Similarities are helpful for application but not as an hermeneutical rule to be applied when interpreting Scripture.
I would be sympathetic to using the word "type" in lower case as if to say, "Noah was a type (a lot like) Jesus." But I don't think that is what you are suggesting. Is it?
Perhaps, Boaz is a TYPE of Christ. If so, I believe that in order to draw such a conclusion, one would be obligated to show that the writer of Ruth was trying to make the connection. Otherwise, some other Scriptural writer would have had to connect the dots for us. We as readers are not allowed to come up with any "Thus sayeth the Word of God," absent of human biblical authorial intention.
I can appreciate your thought on this, and I don't want to belabor the argument. I appreciate guardrails too. But there are two writers of Ruth. A human author (Samuel perhaps?) and the the Writer, the Holy Spirit, who wonderfully connects the whole Bible in living color. We are explicitly told in Luke 24 that the Old Testament is all about Jesus. Boaz is about Jesus. Typology is what the Pharisees are condemned for not understanding. They did not understand that Jesus is the Greater Solomon, the Greater Jonah, and Jesus judged them for it. Sure, we don't see how everything fits with Jesus, yet. Like the red heifer, what's the deal with that? I dunno!
Question, would you be willing to say that Boaz, the kinsman redeemer, is a type of Christ, who married a converted barren Moabitess, and brought forth fruit from her womb restoring her in obedience to the Law of God? Boaz, in my mind, is clearly a type of Jesus, but no one author of the Bible ever says, "Boaz is a type of Christ."
I would boil it down to this. I do not think that God speaks a different message from the message He gave the "prophet" (or writer of Scripture). He does not have a hidden meaning for you or me (the reader) that was not originally conveyed in the language and intention of the writer.
As Peter wrote in his second letter, "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:19-21
The writer did not get to say whatever he wanted. He was required to write the things impressed upon him by the Holy Spirit. He did not have one message, while God had a different message. We will not find a hidden "God's message" that His Scripture writers did not intend. Scripture readers, centuries later, cannot come up with God's meaning apart from the inspired writer's intention.
Later in that same epistle, Peter refers to Paul's writings and says, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." - 2 Peter 3:16
Even in this, the warning to the reader (or hearer) is to receive the Word of God the way Paul meant it. The things Paul was communicating were difficult to understand, but Paul was the one moved by God to write them. His letters were the Word of God. If a reader comes up with something Paul did not mean (the writer did not intend) then He must be straying from God's Word. Else, there is nothing to be sure of.
I would certainly consider some people, certain sacrifices, and particular events as TYPES of Jesus Christ (as in regard to his relationship to mankind or to His Heavenly Father and His Church and kingdom). However, I would only trust myself to recognize such a TYPE based upon it being expressed in the work of the biblical writers.
I might see many similarities between older covenant saints and the Lord Jesus, but I would not call them a TYPE. Similarities are helpful for application but not as an hermeneutical rule to be applied when interpreting Scripture.
I would be sympathetic to using the word "type" in lower case as if to say, "Noah was a type (a lot like) Jesus." But I don't think that is what you are suggesting. Is it?
Perhaps, Boaz is a TYPE of Christ. If so, I believe that in order to draw such a conclusion, one would be obligated to show that the writer of Ruth was trying to make the connection. Otherwise, some other Scriptural writer would have had to connect the dots for us. We as readers are not allowed to come up with any "Thus sayeth the Word of God," absent of human biblical authorial intention.
I can appreciate your thought on this, and I don't want to belabor the argument. I appreciate guardrails too. But there are two writers of Ruth. A human author (Samuel perhaps?) and the the Writer, the Holy Spirit, who wonderfully connects the whole Bible in living color. We are explicitly told in Luke 24 that the Old Testament is all about Jesus. Boaz is about Jesus. Typology is what the Pharisees are condemned for not understanding. They did not understand that Jesus is the Greater Solomon, the Greater Jonah, and Jesus judged them for it. Sure, we don't see how everything fits with Jesus, yet. Like the red heifer, what's the deal with that? I dunno!
Question, would you be willing to say that Boaz, the kinsman redeemer, is a type of Christ, who married a converted barren Moabitess, and brought forth fruit from her womb restoring her in obedience to the Law of God? Boaz, in my mind, is clearly a type of Jesus, but no one author of the Bible ever says, "Boaz is a type of Christ."