Please turn with me in your Bibles to the book of Ruth. Ruby, go on. I'll help you find it, baby. Come here. Well, it is my intention this evening to do something a bit out of the ordinary course. I do want to get back to Chronicles and talk about some issues pertaining to Chronicles, but not just the passage we have been looking at in the genealogy. But if you will suffer it, I want to begin in a relatively unusual place, an unexpected place if we're studying Chronicles. I wanted to start in Ruth. And we'll begin with some exercise in reading. I thought we would read through this entire book and then glean some lessons of a sort about the book of Chronicles. So look with me at Ruth and we will pick up our reading in chapter 1, verse 1. The voice of our God speaking to us in the scriptures. Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem, Judah, went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife, Naomi, and the name of his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem, Judah. And they came into the country of Moab and continued there. And Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died. And she was left and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab. The name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth. And they dwelled there about 10 years. And Mahlon and Chilion died also, both of them. and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband. Then she arose with her daughters-in-law that she might return from the country of Moab. For she had heard in the country of Moab how that the Lord had visited his people in giving them bread. Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was and her two daughters-in-law with her. and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah. And Naomi said unto her two daughters-in-law, Gu, return each to her mother's house. The Lord deal kindly with you as she have dealt with the dead and with me. The Lord grant you that she may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voice and wept. And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people. And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters. Why will ye go with me? Are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? Turn again, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say I have hope, if I should have an husband also tonight, and should also bear sons, would ye tarry for them till they were grown? Would ye stay for them from having husbands? Nay, my daughters, for it grieveth me much for your sakes. but the hand of the Lord has gone out against me.' And they lifted up their voice and wept again. And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clave unto her. And she said, Behold, thy sister-in-law is gone back unto her people and unto her gods. Return thou after thy sister-in-law. And Ruth said, and treat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee. For whither thou goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest, I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried. The Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." When she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her. So they too went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, Is this Naomi? And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara, for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty. When they call ye me Naomi, seeing the Lord hath testified against me, why then call ye thee Call ye me, Naomi, saying that the Lord hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me.' So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem in the beginning, a barley harvest. And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty man of wealth of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz. And Ruth the Moabite said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field and glean ears of corn after him, in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter. And she went and came, and gleaned in the field after the reapers. And her half was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the kindred of Elimelech. And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you. And they answered him, The Lord bless thee. Then said Boaz unto his servant that was set over the reapers, Whose damsel is this? And the servant that was set over the reapers answered and said, it is the Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab. And she said, I pray you, let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves. So she came and hath continued even from the morning until now, but she tarried a little in the house. Then said Boaz unto Ruth, Erest thou not, my daughter? Go not to glean in another field, neither go from hence, but abide here fast by my maidens. Let thine eyes be on the field that they do reap, and go thou after them. Have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch thee? And when thou art athirst, go unto the vessels and drink of all which the young men have Then she fell on her face and bowed herself to the ground and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger? And Boaz answered and said unto her, It hath fully been shewed me all that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law since the death of thine husband, and how thou hast left thy father and thy mother and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore. The Lord recompensed thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust. Then she said, Let me find favor in thy sight, my Lord, for that thou hast comforted me, and for that thou hast spoken friendly unto thine handmaid, though I be not likened to one of thine handmaidens. And Boaz said unto her, at mealtime come thou hither and eat of the bread and dip thy morsel in the vinegar. And she sat beside the reapers, and he reached her parched corn, and she did eat and was sufficed and left. And when she was risen up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men, saying, Let her glean even among the sheaves, and reproach her not. And let fall also some of the handfuls of purpose for her, and leave them, that she may glean then, and rebuke her not. So she gleaned in the field until even, and beat out that she had gleaned. And it was about an ephah of barley, She took it up and went into the city, and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She brought forth and gave to her that she had reserved after she was sufficed. And her mother-in-law said unto her, Where hast thou gleaned to-day, and where wroughtest thou? Blessed be he that did take knowledge of thee. And she showed her mother-in-law with whom she had wrought and said, the man's name with whom I wrought today is Boaz. And Naomi said unto her, daughter-in-law, blessed be he of the Lord, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, the man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen. And Ruth the Moabite said, he said unto me also, thou shalt keep fast by my young men until they have ended all my harvest. And Naomi said unto Ruth her daughter-in-law, it is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens, that they meet thee not in any other field. So she kept fast by the maidens of Boaz to glean unto the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest, and dwelt with her mother-in-law. Then Naomi, her mother-in-law, said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee? And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he winnoweth barley to-night in the threshing-floor. Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor. But make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking. And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in and uncover his feet and lay thee down, and he will tell thee what thou shalt do." And she said unto her, all that thou sayest unto me I will do. And she went down unto the floor and did according to all that her mother-in-law bade her. And when Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn, And she came softly and uncovered his feet and laid her down. And it came to pass at midnight that the man was afraid and turned himself. And behold, a woman lay at his feet. And he said, who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth, thine handmaid. Spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid, for thou art a near kinsman. And he said, Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter, for thou hast showed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, and as much as thou followest not young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, fear not. I will do to thee all that thou requirest. For all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman. And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman, albeit there is a kinsman nearer than I. Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well, let him do the kinsman's part. But if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the Lord liveth. Lie down until the morning, And she lay at his feet until the morning. And she rose up before one could know another. And he said, let it not be known that a woman came into the floor. Also, he said, bring the veil that thou hast upon thee and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley and laid it on her. She went into the city. And when she came to her mother-in-law, she said, Who art thou, my daughter? And she told her all that the man had done to her. And she said, These six measures of barley gave he me, for he said unto me, Go not empty unto thy mother-in-law. Then said she, Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall, for the man will not be in rest until he have finished the thing this day." Then went Boaz up to the gate and sat him down there. And behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by, and to whom he said, Oh, such a one! Turn aside! Sit down here! And he turned aside and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down. And he said unto the kinsmen, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's. And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it. But if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me that I may know, for there is none to redeem it beside thee, and I am after thee." And he said, I will redeem it. Then said Boaz, what day thou buy'st the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead. to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar my own inheritance. Redeem thou my right to thyself, or I cannot redeem it. Now this was the manner in the former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing. For to confirm all things, a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor. And this was a testimony in Israel. Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe. And Boaz said unto the elders and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilean's, and all that was Mahlan's, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlan, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place. Ye are witnesses this day And all the people that were in the gate and the elders said, we are witnesses. The Lord make the woman that has come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which too did build the house of Israel. And do thou worthily in Ephrata and be famous in Bethlehem. And let thy house be like the house of Phares, whom Tamar bear unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman. So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife. And when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son. And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the Lord which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age. For thy daughter-in-law which loveth thee which is better to thee than seven sons have born him. And Naomi took the child and laid it in her bosom and became nurse unto it. And the women, her neighbors, gave it a name saying, this is a son born to Naomi. And they called his name Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David. These are the generations of Phares. Phares begat Hezron, and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nashan, and Nashan begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David. This is the word of the Lord. There is a saying that familiarity breeds contempt. When we are along with something, it becomes common to us every day, if you will. These are the normal things of life. We cannot study the scripture too much. It cannot be on our minds and on our hearts too much, but it must never become something small or commonplace to us. It is the tremendous and terrible voice of the living God. It is the whisperings of our beloved. It is all of these things, and it is infinitely precious. And I can say that after the Bible has been my principal preoccupation now for almost my entire adult life, it it never ceases to surprise me. I don't know if I've mentioned this to you, but I rarely read a book more than one time. There have been a special select few that have been worthy of a reread. But usually if I want to read On the same subject again, there are just so many good books on any one particular subject. I will tend to read something else, right, to continue to broaden my perspective and so on. Truth be told, when I have tried to reread books, sometimes I have found them a little dull. been here, I've read this, I get it, I'm ready to move on. The Bible is the only book that I know that becomes more interesting for the number of times that it is read and studied. And so if I can do one thing tonight and only one thing, although I hope to do some other things, maybe it might be to re-instill some of that sense of childlike wonder. We have the scriptures. We have the Bible. Not all people in the history of the world had it, but it has been given to us, and it's been given to us in its entirety. And the wonder of, I can study it my whole life, and it just seems like the further I go, the deeper and the richer and the more mysterious the book becomes. So, I wanna give you a couple of snapshots of things. I have learned, to value the way that the Lord has taken me in life. When I look back on my life and I think about myself and my own decisions, mostly it is a colossal embarrassment at best. But then when I think about it and the way that the Lord has brought me, I marvel at the way he has brought pieces of things together that initially seemed unconnected. And these three snapshots that I'm going to give you might at first seem unconnected. So let me take you back 25 years ago to when I was in seminary. I'd already been a pretty vigorous student of the Word by this time. I was pretty interested in the minor prophets because I just found I knew less about the minor prophets than the major prophets. So my mind was gravitating in curiosity and even in hunger toward those little books that I had too much neglected. And when I had read, frankly, I had very little understood. Well, one of the things that was said about them in seminary, and here in your Bible, if you want to flip and find your table of contents, have you ever done this before in a sermon? Have you ever gone to the table of contents in your Bible? Well, find your table of contents and find the minor prophets. And something was pointed out to me all those years ago that I found very interesting, that I found very captivating, and I'd never really thought of before. And in spite of the 25 years that have elapsed, I really have not stopped thinking about these kinds of issues. What was pointed out to me was that the Book of the Twelve, it is sometimes called, was not put together haphazardly But it does appear that there was great intentionality. So nobody is debating, do we have 12 books with 12 different authors? That's taken for granted. So in some ways, the book of the 12 is really not one book. It's 12 books, right? But it has, in a way, been stitched together as a single book. And there is evidence of real intentionality in putting the books together. So if you start with Hosea, first of all, I want to show you that there appears to be a chronological interest. And that's not just true in the minor prophets. When you look at the major prophets, for example, Isaiah is a prophet of the Assyrian crisis of the eighth century BC. Jeremiah and Ezekiel are prophets of the Babylonian crisis, and then Daniel is Babylon and then post-Babylon into the Persian period. So you have pretty clear chronological interest. You see a similar thing patterned in the Book of the Twelve. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, and Nahum all appear to be prophets of the Assyrian crisis. And maybe Nahum, not just the Assyrian crisis has passed, but Assyria is passing and making its way to the next great crisis, which will be Babylon. Habakkuk and Zephaniah are prophets of the Babylonian crisis. And then Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are prophets of the restoration. So it does appear as if there's been intentionality in arranging the books chronologically. But there's also other evidence. During the Assyrian crisis, if you remember, Israel's divided into northern and southern kingdoms. Hosea is a prophet of the northern kingdom. Joel is a prophet in the south. Amos is a prophet of the northern kingdom. Obadiah is a prophet in the south. Jonah is a prophet of the northern kingdom. Micah is a prophet in the south. Nahum, northern kingdom, a Syrian crisis. And then after that, there is no more northern, southern kingdom thing, so that drops away. I found that to be very interesting, right? It's showing intentionality. And then there does appear to be some like thematic harmonizing, right? So you might just think, for example, of the book of Joel, the emphasis upon the day of the Lord and a judgment upon the nations. Very early in the book of Amos, you get that picked back up. Amos, toward the end of the book of Amos, you're gonna have some discussion of Edom. Obadiah is almost completely taken up with the crisis in Edom. Obadiah judgment falls upon the Edomites because of their rejoicing in the chastisement that has come to Israel. Interestingly enough, in Jonah, you find a similar heart, but now in the Israelite prophet, rejoicing in what he hopes will be a judgment upon the Ninevites and so on. This is very interesting. Lots of evidence of intentionality. A couple of words about this that make this significant. So by way of limitation, if you were to ask me, do I think that the ordering of the books is inspired I would say I'm not prepared to go that far, especially when you consider the fact that there's more than one ordering that comes to us through church history. And we'll talk about some of that in just a moment. But on the other hand, two things, one, We do believe in God's providential preservation of the scripture and that he has guarded it down through time as the apple of his eye. So I wouldn't be prepared to say that the ordering is irrelevant either, okay? So providential preservation is playing in. And then also, These were put together by somebody at some point very early on. And it might be somewhat indicative of some of the very earliest interpretive efforts. And as you know, I'm very interested in the history of the interpretation of the scripture. And these might be some of our very earliest notices of how the people of God were understanding the books and how they were relating the books one to another. So some glimmers of, of how the books were being handled interpretively before we even have any extra-biblical comments on these passages. That would still have to wait for many centuries. All right, so that's snapshot number one, Dilde sitting in a classroom in seminary and having the Minor Prophets presented in that way, and I was just blown away I was fascinated. And also, I was thinking, what might be the implications for interpretation? If texts are to be interpreted in context, what happens when you put a text, even a whole book, within a particular context of other books? Now, again, I wouldn't say in looking at any one of these books that putting it in a particular context will change the way that it's interpreted or change its meaning. But what it could do is draw into the foreground certain emphases while it allows other emphases to recede into the background. So they're all there, like all the points are there, but some will come into the foreground, others into the background. And so looking at a particular book in its multiple possible contexts can draw different things into the foreground for contemplation. So again, I was exposed to that all those years ago. I was very happy for the exposure. Okay, now to bring us a little closer to Chronicles, let me take a second snapshot. Having almost my whole Christian life been interested in the history of interpretation, sometimes books that share a lot of material in common have led in the history of interpretation to certain books getting a lot of attention while their parallels get comparatively neglected, just comparatively. And so if I could express some frustration, it has not been unusual, say, for an author who is commenting on the Gospels to write a really large commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which does everything. And then next to nothing on Mark, because so much of Mark's material can be found either in Matthew or Luke. And then more attention on Luke and its distinctive features, like the birth narrative, some of the post-resurrection stuff, and some of the parable stuff that you won't find in the others. But I always found this frustrating, because what about little Mark? and I was already alert and alive to the fact that you can tell a particular historical narrative, but the things that you put around it, the narratives that you attach to it, before it and behind it, can bring out different emphases. So, you know, I always wanted Mark to have its own treatment. So, for example, if you have John Mayer's commentary, which is comparatively rare, but old John Mayer does very little with Mark as much as I like his commentary. He frustrates me there. I'm more with Matthew Henry, where Matthew Henry says, well, if the Lord is pleased to say it again, then we will go through it again, right? I like that approach much better. And what's interesting is that his comments on the three synoptic Gospels are not all the same, even when they're covering the same historical narratives, basically. So Snapshot One is the Twelve and the intentional ordering of the books and what it does to interpretation. The second is my frustration at what sometimes happens to parallel texts. And when you look at the history of interpretation of the synoptics, for example, Matthew gets the lion sheriff. work, Luke is second, and then poor Mark trails behind and sometimes doesn't even get its own distinctive treatment. Well, so that leaves you with the question, well, what does all of this have to do with Chronicles? Well, maybe you're starting to put it together. One of the difficulties that Chronicles has suffered down through the ages is that it is a parallel text. Its history is already covered in Samuel and Kings. But Chronicles has fared far more poorly than Mark. I might even say that Chronicles has suffered a de facto decanonization. People have spent a lot, I mean, there's been quite a bit of exegetical effort that has gone into Samuel Kings. But then, if you take the title of Chronicles in the Greek tradition, which means like things that were left out, other things, maybe even like appendices might be the title, just like other stuff. Chronicles has suffered almost complete neglect. But why does this matter? So let me put you in one of my classrooms now. So I took you to a classroom in which I was a student 25 years ago. Now let me bring you into almost the present. I was teaching an Old Testament class, and Christian worship music came up in the context of the class, and I asked, I asked a question to which I thought I knew the answer, and as it turns out, I did, but I asked them, I said, how many of you students, and I ended up doing it in more than one class, so this summary is pretty fair for a much larger sample, but I said, how many of you, and again, probably 95% of the class had some sort of evangelical background, and I said, how many of you have had some sort of first-hand contact with some sort of significant church disruption over music. And it was pretty close to 100%. And so having met in that class, I did it in others, and it continued to be about 100% for hundreds of people. So they all raised their hands. But then I asked the second question. I said, so how many of you have heard people make presentations on why they thought music in their church ought to be one way rather than another. And very commonly, these young people would now say, you know, I've heard arguments for traditional music, by that they mean like hymns with an organ or a piano, or I have heard arguments for contemporary music that is like praise and worship choruses with a rock band or something like that. And interestingly enough, all of the arguments either boil down to something like taste, we like this, they like that. Or a perceived sense of reverence, this seems respectful, this doesn't seem respectful, but how can you tell which is actually respectful is the big problem. And then, or is any of it respectful? And so, and then sometimes pragmatic, like, well, we're trying to design it so we can attract the maximum number of people, right? So having listened to all of these arguments, I then followed it up with a question. How many of you have ever heard a biblical argument that music at church ought to be in a particular way? Because the Bible says so. And again, out of hundreds of kids, nobody had ever heard such of an argument. And the reason nobody had ever heard a biblical argument is because the one book that really speaks to the issue, which would be Chronicles, is almost completely neglected. If I might just say so, although the Psalter will give you the content of the songs that were sung, It's Chronicles that gives the historical context of their writing and how they were actually used and performed in the temple, how musical instruments were added and in their attachment to the temple and so on. In other words, most of the practical questions concerning church music cannot be answered apart from the Chronicles and even the famous New Testament texts. remain largely closed without the Old Testament precedent concerning these things. So here, we find that there's a lot of upset, a lot of controversy, and as it turns out, at the end of the day, all of this upset, all of this controversy, all of this heat for we know not what reason, right? Everybody is just doing what is right ultimately in their own eyes. So it was at that point that I was really convinced. I had been somewhat convinced before, but I was becoming convinced. What has happened to the book of Chronicles? That de facto decanonization has been a really harmful thing to the people of God, right? I've seen it happen to one degree with the Gospel of Mark, but the Gospel of Mark hasn't been altogether lost. People still read it. Chronicles has been almost completely neglected, right? So those three things. And part of what I want to look at tonight is what happens to the book of Chronicles when you place it, when you put it in its different locations in the history of the development of the canon. And to illustrate what I mean by that, I wanted to use Ruth because you're probably, You're going to probably feel a little bit more at home with this. It's a smaller book. Its contents are easier to master than what's in Chronicles. Chronicles is much larger, much, much, much larger. Many, many more themes running through it. It's harder to assess for that reason. But first of all, let's look at Ruth, and let's put it in three different historical canonical positions. Now, in our Bibles, it appears between Judges and Samuel. That is the fruit of the Septuagint Vulgate tradition. That is the Greek and the Latin tradition. In this, there is an obvious historical and chronological interest, because as the book begins, it happens in the days of the judges. And so sometimes it is treated almost like an appendix to the book of the judges. And let me just say about that Septuagint tradition that was taken up, at least in its principal features by the Vulgate and the Latin tradition, that Greek Septuagint tradition was not something that arose among Grecians. but it was the Jews themselves rendering their Hebrew text into Greek for the use of their own people. Interestingly enough, it's not the way that they ended up ordering their Hebrew Bible. Nobody really knows why the Septuagint Bible is ordered differently. We can try to reason backwards and try to figure out things, but nobody really knows for sure. The Septuagint translators didn't leave us any notes, and it probably wasn't a team of people working together, so the answers to these kinds of questions might be quite complex. So when you put Ruth between Judges and Samuel, chronology is really a concern. It is obviously a concern in the Septuagint arrangement of the Old Testament to try to move through the books in kind of a chronological sequence. It does appear to be a very strong paradigm. It doesn't explain everything, but it explains a lot. But once you set Ruth into that context, what are the things that come to the foreground in the book that might not otherwise be quite so prominent? Well, first of all, if you remember, Judges ends with that horrible narrative about Saul's hometown, Gibeah of Benjamin, the sins of Sodom, were committed in Gibeah of Benjamin, which led to the almost extinction of the Benjamites. who were, their tribe was only recovered, think about the relevance for Ruth, through this kind of underhanded, remember they made a vow not to allow any of their daughters to intermarry with the Benjamites, but they needed to find 600 women so that the tribe of Benjamin would not fail, would not be extinguished in their midst. So they come up with a plan to steal some of the dancing girls from Shiloh. They were stolen by the Benjamites, so nobody had to give their consent. Jabesh Gilead, who refused to come up to the war, they go and wipe them out and take the virgin daughters and marry them to the others. So you've got that episode, which is ugly in all of its facets. And now you've got David's hometown and the way that it's portrayed. Think about Boaz. One of the reasons I wanted to read it and make it fresh in memory, just think about Boaz and even his interaction with his reapers as they exchange words of blessing. Think about the piety of his words and his actions in handling Ruth, like the whole atmosphere seems to be sweet to the point of near-heavenliness. What a contrast. And the way that the Davidic line runs through Boaz and Ruth And you do have self-conscious by the time you get to the end of the book, in spite of the fact that David is multiple generations away, this purposeful construction running to David. So the things that come into contrast, just as you put them together and you read them and you think about them, You got Saul, his hometown, his family, its atmosphere. You've got David's hometown, his ancestors, its atmosphere. They just couldn't be more different. And with those things in view, then you run into the Samuel narrative where these things are going to be developed, right? So there are other things in the book of Ruth, but those are the things that come to the foreground. Now, interestingly enough, apart from the Septuagint tradition of the Jews, in their Hebrew text, they put Ruth in a couple of different places. But it's not here. It's in what is known as the writings. So the Hebrew Bible, you have the Pentateuch, the books of Moses. Then you have what are called the four former prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Then you have the four latter prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Oh, what have I done here? Oh yeah, Ezekiel and the 12, right? So you've got four former and four latter. You'll notice Ruth doesn't fit in there. Ruth is actually in that final division of their Bible known as the writings. Now, something that is just incredibly fascinating, the Talmud, So the Talmudic tradition places Ruth at the beginning of the writings, so it's the first book in the writings, right before the Psalms. Almost as if it is a preface to the Psalter. So you get the establishment, as it were, of the line of David, and then you get David's principal literary productions, the Psalter, right? All of those Psalms that are composed by him. And it's really interesting when you put them together, you will frequently hear David in all of his troubles talk about seeking shelter beneath the Lord's wings and contemplating similar promises concerning his descendants and offspring. You might think of 72, 78, and 89, for example. But what you find is that the Lord had already been at work in his family in that way, that Ruth the Moabitess, and Boaz ends up using almost the same language, has taken shelter beneath the wings of Jehovah. that the family didn't begin to be protected by David. The Lord was always looking after it, nourishing, protecting, and sheltering. David, in the history of Veils, wasn't the first to experience life-threatening calamity. That was already true with Elimelech, Naomi, and Ruth marries into that family and into its hardships, trials, and travails. And in as much as among the writings it deals with the earliest part in history, its primacy in the writings might make sense, right? So you get a presentation of David's ancestors immediately leading into a book that is preeminently David's. And now when you come to the Masoretic, tradition, which is the way that, I don't know, most Hebrew Bibles are now printed. Ruth is no longer there. It's been moved further back into the writings, but placed in an incredibly curious place. It follows right upon the heels of Proverbs. How does Proverbs end? It ends with Proverbs 31, the presentation of the virtuous woman. This brings out, again, not new material so much, but a different interest, the contemplation of Ruth as the virtuous woman. Interestingly enough, Boaz calls her that, says everybody knows that she's that. So there's that thematic thing, Ruth as an exemplar. of a wise woman, as well as a generally religious and pious woman, one that is peculiarly wise. Interestingly enough, for what we have been working on, think about God's blessing upon her as she allows her mother-in-law, her mother to help her in contracting a good marriage. Think about what we just did in Proverbs chapter six, all very interesting. And then moves from there to the Song of Solomon, where you might think about the wise woman in the abstract as the church. in its relationship to Jesus Christ, right? And the voice of the woman in the Song of Solomon is probably not as, I mean, the voice of the beloved, voice of the king, is the most important voice. But hers is a strong, sustained voice throughout it as well. So very interesting in the way that these are put in place together and the different emphases that they draw to the surface. So again, what does all of this have to do with Chronicles? The Chronicles have not been in just one place in canonical history. It's actually been in probably more different places than the Book of Ruth, but there are three main places. And I do think that the first has done quite a bit of harm to it as a book. In the Septuagint tradition, Chronicles follows Kings. and has been called The Other Stuff, which is a terrible name for a book, right? It makes it sound like Samuel King's is the main story, and this is an appendix of some stuff that I forgot to mention or whatever. And it's this ordering in particular. Now you can see the chronological interest, right? And again, that's a big issue in the Septuagint tradition, is trying to get these books together chronologically. So Chronicles, which in the Hebrew tradition is always in the writings, has now been pulled forward and attached to Kings because, of course, that's where the contemporaneous action is for the most part, right? And then it's used as a prologue. If you've read the end of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra, you will know that they the one ends and the other begins with almost identical words. So it's kind of placed into its historical position. But the net effect interpretively in history has been the neglect of the Chronicles with the bad fruit that is brought. You say, well, how bad? I mean, at least as bad as nobody knows anything about the service of song, but this is one of the big elements that continues to divide, shatter, and scatter the visible church, the globe, over. Chronicles has the answer, and the only possible answer, and yet it's not studied. It's hardly read. Although there are some signs that that's being remedied in the current era. But it's hard to get normal people to pay attention to it. So what's emphasized there? Obviously, the history, the contemporaneous action with with the Samuel King's narrative. Part of what it does, though, is it treats Samuel King's like the main narrative, and the chronicler is comparatively inappropriate, and then maybe as a prologue to the narrative of the restoration that we find in Ezra and Nehemiah. One Jewish tradition with respect to the writings, interestingly enough, places it at the very beginning of the writings. So this would be immediately upon the heels of the former and latter prophets, and introducing the section of the writings. And in some ways, that makes a lot of sense. It's almost like, before we take up The books that are of like abstract daily importance for the Persian period. Let's put Chronicles at the front, which reviews the whole history going back to Adam and Eve. In its genealogical material, it reviews and touches a little bit upon the main thread of things until you get to the era of the kings, which then gives you in a fuller and richer ways the immediate context that have led into the Persian period with a lot of the practical lessons that are necessary for kingship. What is a good king? What is a bad king? Who are the legitimate successors of David, even in the genealogies? And the functioning of the priests and the Levites, which is given in a detail that you don't get in Samuel and Kings, their detailed behaviors with respect to the temple and its worship. It's given in a detail there that you won't find in any other place. And that would be of great practical relevance for them because now it is, we are back, now it is time for us to do these very things. So it ends up being a prologue. And even books that are obviously older, like of course the Psalter would long antedate the Persian period, maybe with the exception of one or two Psalms. But of course, now that the temple's been rebuilt, they're going to be using those in their immediate context. And Solomon long antedates the Persian period, but his wisdom, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, maybe even the Song of Solomon, are always pertinent as far as wisdom literature, Job. They do have attachments to places in history, but the principles of wisdom that are being espoused are general and applicable to every age. And then even like some sketches of wisdom historicized in say Ruth and Esther, preceding passages of Daniel. Daniel getting very close to the end as prophecy is going to be projected out with a particularity reaching beyond the Persian period, even with some really amazing clarity about certain ages and so on. And maybe finishing with Ezra and Nehemiah. But probably the strongest, I don't know, probably it's fair to call it the majority position interestingly enough, put Chronicles at the end. Now, before doing that, just really briefly, let me just point out, doesn't already just the move from the back of Kings to the beginning of the writings, doesn't that already do something to the interest and the liveliness in the way that it's going to be conceptualized? This is not just another telling of the same stuff. This is stuff that is of immediate and commanding importance for us, both politically and ecclesiastically, like we're living in the midst of this situation. In some ways, you get all of that and even more when it moves all the way back to the back of the Old Testament canon. There might be a little indication that, and I want to be careful here because it's a difficult text. You remember when Jesus talks about the blood of the martyrs running from Abel to Zechariah? The identity of that Zechariah is difficult, but there is a Zechariah who is martyred. I think he's the last martyr that's actually mentioned in Chronicles, which would make Him not the last martyr in history, maybe not even the last martyr in the Old Testament Scripture, but the last martyr in the canon. because he's the last one mentioned at the end in the last canonical book. So you get Genesis, the first, and Chronicles at the end. Again, I don't want to do too much with that because that text can be difficult. It's a captivating text, but it has its difficulties and its mysteries. So at any rate, what happens when you put it at the end? Well, very much like, so now rather than just being the other stuff we forgot to mention, most any book that you read where you have a sustained narrative, what happens at the end has a profound implication for the interpretation of everything that has gone before. It's like if you read a really good mystery novel or something, and at the end, when you get the answer, it casts light upon everything that went before. If the author's been really clever, maybe he even casts a different light. You thought it was going one way, and it went in a different way. So that position at the end is a very strong and commanding position, not just other stuff. this might very well shed some profound light on the whole. And if I might cite Father Jerome, as he was translating the Vulgate, when he was summarizing the Old Testament, he said, everything is in the Chronicles. And by that he meant you have, it begins at the beginning, he uses the genealogies very efficiently to evoke the principle threads. So as these things are read, people that know the Bible, these names will evoke these narratives, these stories, their theological and ethical importance, and so on. So it's reviewing all of that. It gets into the the meat of those things that are immediately relevant for them in that period, as I mentioned, things pertaining to kingship, things pertaining to the temple and its worship and the structure of the church of the living God in that particular era. And it even has, when you put it at the end, even a an eschatological significance. So when you read Ezra and Nehemiah, which in this order actually come immediately before, so Ezra and Nehemiah come before the Chronicles, and you know from Ezra and Nehemiah, you know from having read the former prophets, or the Restoration prophets at the end of the Book of the Twelve, you know things in the Restoration have not gone very well. Chronicles gives lessons on how those things can go better. So he's looking at that history for instruction from God on the things that they ought to be doing. And it does shed some light on their current failings and the things he should be doing instead. But then it reaches out eschatologically, it seems like, toward better things, that the restoration has happened. that the people are free to return to the land. And so there's this very hopeful turn, this very hopeful vibe, if you will. It's wonderful. It's optimistic. It's looking forward to the fulfillment of all of the things that had been promised to the restoration community. So a couple of things, just by way of recap, I suppose. One, I do hope that this that this can kind of restore and revive the wonder and the hunger that it can bring. The Bible really is a wonderful book. And I don't know how it's true. I just know that it's true and have experienced the truth of it, that there's just no end of the study of it. It's not like any other book in the whole world. I remember years ago hearing Ronald Reagan saying if he was deserted on an island and he could take one book, he'd take the Bible. And I can see why, because it has wonders and it never stops amazing. And just when you think that you've learned something, like maybe you did an in-depth study of Ruth, then you start looking at some of these other elements where it has historically been placed in the canon. And what that suggests about how early interpreters understood it, emphases that are being brought into the foreground based upon its placement. It's a really wonderful thing. And again, a similar sort of thing with Chronicles. And then the other thing is just, the power and the importance of contextual interpretation. Just to start at the microscopic level and working your way out, if you were just to drop in on the Hebrew Bible and select a word, Most any word, if you look in a really good lexicon, might have 20 definitions. But you don't want 20 definitions. You want the one particular one that the author intends right there. Well, how do you know what that one is? Well, you start expanding context. got 20 possible definitions. But let's say in the context of that sentence, 10 of those don't make any sense. And so 10 of those fall away. And context has narrowed the possibility of meaning. And so then you put it in the context of a paragraph. And let's say in the context of the whole paragraph, five of those don't make sense. And then you put it in the context of the whole book, and maybe two more of those don't make sense, but you're still left with three. Well, happily, in the Bible, that's not the end. You can continue to expand the context. And here, you're really trying to narrow in, and the broader the context, the better. It helps, the broader the context, the more material we have for narrowing in on meaning with specificity, what is God saying? But this has added another wrinkle, an element of literary sensitivity, emphasis being drawn into the foreground, material that's in the book, it's always been in the book. would be there in some ways irrespective of its order, and yet you put it in between particular books and certain features come into the foreground. And I should just say the people of God have always had various systems that are reflected in canon of how they have read through. That's why I say it's suggestive of how the people of God have understood the books and understood their particular relations. And perhaps if we could recover some of this wonder and amazement, perhaps some of these books that have been neglected would be reappropriated by believing people studied again. And who knows that perhaps some of the questions that have vexed us because of their neglect Well, who knows but that the mind of the Lord concerning these things might become plain to more and more people for the advancement of the unity and happiness of God's people and God's glory in our midst. Let us pray together.