Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13


the May (printed in February and circulated in July) and August, 1919 TRUTHS, which contained the pertinent articles, through which Jesus gave the messages antitypical of what Boaz said in Ruth 4: 1, 2. The nearer kinsman's coming to the gate (v. 1) types the Society leaders, its directors and editors, whose chiefs had but recently been delivered from prison, coming by their activities again into prominence among the Truth people. Boaz' asking him to turn aside and sit down at the gate types our Lord's, through the pertinent articles in the May (printed in February and circulated in July) and August, 1919 TRUTHS, attracting their attention and asking them to step before the whole Church in attention to the subject matter of those articles. The nearer relative's complying types the Society directors' and editors' complying with the antitypical requests. The wide circulation of these articles (over 30,000 of the first set and over 20,000 of the second set among Society adherents) could not but have these two effects. The ten men of the city's elders (v. 2) type responsive leaders of the eight Levite groups, which were all formed before the antitype of the gate scene was finished, Little Flock leaders among these Levite groups and Little Flock leaders in the Epiphany movement—ten sets of leaders in all. Boaz' taking (v. 2) the ten elders and asking them to judge as witnesses in the matter of Naomi's parcel of ground left by Elimelech types our Lord's attracting, by the above-mentioned articles, the attention of the ten sympathetic leader classes in the ten groups just mentioned and enlisting them as judges—witnesses—of the matter of bringing the pertinent Great Company's affairs forward for proper adjustment. The elders' seating themselves (v. 2) represents their antitypes' setting themselves to act as requested. Boaz' telling the kinsman of Naomi's selling a parcel of ground belonging to Elimelech (v. 3) types our Lord's declaring through the article in the Sept. 1919 TRUTH ON, The Society As Channel, that the privilege of acknowledging the Great



Company as brethren, then to be gained, but formerly not discernible, and the privilege of managing their work, were obtainable (redeemable) by pertinent sacrificial work (P. '19, 161, 1; '25, 97, 1; '31, 30, 5).


(18) Boaz' declaring to the next kinsman (v. 4) that he had decided to offer to him the chance of acquiring the land publicly types our Lord's similar declaration through the part of the above-mentioned article just cited that urged the Society directors and editors to make acknowledgment of the Great Company as now available for God's dealings, since the Little Flock was complete, and to make faithful use of the privilege of managing the Society's affairs in the interest of the Great Company, and diligently to do it publicly before all the Lord's people, particularly before the ten groups of leaders. Boaz' telling (v. 4) the nearer kinsman, who had the first right thereto, to decide whether he would exercise this right or not, represents our Lord's, through the same citations of that article, calling upon the Society directors and editors (who had the first right to obtain the above-mentioned privileges, since theirs was rightly the controlling position in the Society as to policy and teaching, though they were not controlling, such function having been usurped by one of its members), to decide whether or not they would by faithful performance of their duties control the Society's affairs for the benefit of the Great Company (same citation as above). Boaz' assuring (v. 4) the nearer kinsman that if the latter would not use his prior rights, he would assume them, types our Lord's through those two articles showing the Society directors and editors that if they would not use their position to function properly toward the Great Company as a class and toward their work, he would see to its being done by Himself. The nearer kinsman's telling Boaz that he would perform his part in this matter types the directors' and editors' assertion that they would do the antitypical part as shown above; they accepted it as their task to win little Benjamins



as Clayton Woodworth then put it. Boaz' telling (v. 5) the nearer relative that with Naomi's right he would have to redeem Ruth's right in that field types what our Lord declared in the above citations and in P. '19, 175, 1-4; '24, 82, 4-83, 1; '30, 74, 3-6 on Elisha's request for the firstborn's portion, as showing that Elisha typed the two classes (the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies as mouthpiece to the public) who had the right to the Society's field of service toward the public, including, of course, services to their own classes. Boaz' saying that the nearer relative must thus marry Ruth (there was no question here of marrying Naomi, whose husband had had children by her, and therefore levirate marriage did not apply to Naomi, as J.F.R. claimed) to raise up the name of the dead Mahlon, types that in case of Youthful Worthies the Society directors and editors would have to acknowledge such a class and to unite with it to produce faithful tentatively justified ones of the only kind then producible, the Youthful Worthies, to take the place of dead antitypical Mahlon—dead because his tentative justification had lapsed. The above citations prove it.


(19) The kinsman's knowing well (v. 6) that the field would revert not as his, but to Ruth's offspring, as Mahlon's descendant, and that he would thus only be out of pocket for another's benefit, and his refusing to enter into such a transaction, types the Society directors' and editors' through their president and chief editor giving a refusal to the antitypical proposal of antitypical Boaz, through the article on the Worthies in the Jan. 15, 1920, Tower, wherein he denied the existence of Youthful Worthies, and any other kind of tentatively justified persons, and thus the Society, of course, would not sacrifice, for such a class and for the production of the only kind of faithful tentatively justified ones then winnable (Youthful Worthies), their not wanting to divide their powers with such a class being the selfish reason back of it—marring their



inheritance. The pertinent article, whose contents were previously discussed for several months at Bethel, was written prior to the shareholders' meeting at Pittsburgh, Jan. 3, 1920. The nearer relative's offering and letting Boaz have the opportunity to redeem it types the Society directors' and editors' giving up, through that article and connected acts, their pertinent privilege, which made it revert to the Lord. It was always an evil in Israel not to redeem a redeemable property, or let part of the fatherly patrimony (v. 7) fall to another. This was shown by the resultant limping when such an one had to give his shoe in token of this evil, typing the wrong conduct in an antitypical Israelite who refused to perform the antitype; and it was also an evil in Israel for the fit brother not to enter a levirate marriage with his childless brother's widow (Deut. 25: 7-10), typing any proper candidate who would refuse to raise up antitypical seed to the fallen leaders of any class in Spiritual Israel, capable ones in line for it refusing to take the vacated place of leadership in the Great Company to win and develop the rest of that class, capable ones in line for it refusing to take the vacated place of leadership in the Youthful Worthies to win and develop the rest of that class, capable ones in line for it refusing to take such place among the justified to win and develop the rest of them, or capable ones in any higher class refusing to do this as to the vacated place in a lower class, like the tentatively justified. To enter an antitypical levirate marriage is impossible for the Little Flock, since her Leader, Jesus, never dies, hence the Little Flock never loses her Leader. Not only did they do wrong thereby, but for that act they were surrendered by the Lord to other wrongs, manifesting their spiritual limping. Hence the nearer kindred's taking off his shoe, giving it to Boaz and limping as a result (v. 8) types not only the pertinent wrong of the Society directors and editors in the above-mentioned article, but also the evils that they committed at the voting shareholders' meeting



at Pittsburgh, Jan. 3, in setting aside the annual election of the Society officers, making it triennial, and in setting aside the election for life of the Society directors, making it triennial, which was a gross act of hypocrisy in view of the claims that these made in 1917 and 1918 on an annual election of directors, as well as officers, as being absolutely required by law. This was not only hypocrisy but power-grasping and covetousness. The antitypical limping was also manifested in later wrong of practice and teaching. Thereby the matter of exercising the proper pertinent conduct was left to antitypical Boaz (leaving the shoe with Boaz).


(20) In the case of Ruth there is no record of her loosing the shoe and spitting in the face of the kinsman who refused to marry her to raise up seed to Mahlon, as the type shows (Deut. 25: 9) such should be done. And this was because the circumstances were quite different, the entire transaction being conducted by Boaz instead of Ruth, and that in her absence, whereas in the type the widow was to act with the elders in the transaction. But in the case of Ruth's nearest kinsman, type and antitype, the shoe was taken off, and the antitypical spitting did set in. The secretions of the mouth of God's people are a good thing, and are used to represent the Truth, since their mouth represents mouthpieceship for God (Rev. 3: 16; John 9: 6, see comment). To spit in, one's face represents to use language to the disparagement and disgrace of him into whose face one spits. If it is God's people who do the symbolic spitting, it represents to use the Truth to the disparagement and disgrace of the pertinent person. And not only antitypical Boaz has, as the facts prove, done this, but as the Youthful Worthies have come to see the Truth on the subject they have done it to the Society directors and editors, especially to their chief, as others of God's people, as not expressly required by this particular type, but as implied by the elders', etc., part, have done and will continue to do—using



the Truth on the pertinent subject to the disparagement and disgrace of the antitypical nearest kinsman. Boaz' calling (v. 9) upon the elders and people to bear witness to his becoming the purchaser of the involved property types that through the entire articles of the March, 1920, TRUTH on, "Worthies, Ancient and Modern," Reviewed; The Youthful Worthies (which are republished as Chapter V of this volume) and, Some Hindrances to Fruitful Service, our Lord called the ten group leader classes and all the brethren to witness that He had taken over all the involved rights of the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies away from the directors and editors and exposed their iniquity, their subsequent errors as successively coming out in the Tower evidencing their reprobate state, as well as their subsequent wrong practices; and Boaz' calling (v. 10) upon the ten to witness that he had redeemed Ruth to raise up seed to Mahlon, and thus to preserve his family inheritance in Israel types how our Lord in the whole of the first, second and third of the last-mentioned articles, especially the first, acknowledged His relationship to the Youthful Worthies and that He had acquired this class as His Own, to raise up faithful tentatively justified ones of the only kind then possible—Youthful Worthies, all others of that class forfeiting their tentative justification. The elders and all the others present in the gate saying (v. 11), "We are witnesses," types their antitypes—the Lord's people in general and the good leaders—acknowledging the truths that our Lord set forth in those three articles and His consequent acknowledgment of the Youthful Worthies and accepting of them into union with Him for developing more Youthful Worthies. The good wishes of the elders and people  (v. 11) for Ruth and Boaz type the good wishes of the Lord's people in general and the good leaders of the ten groups, that the Youthful Worthies might be fruitful in winning many of their own kind and that our Lord acquire riches and glory thereby in His fruitful sphere of Divine



Truth as due. The wish (v. 12) that Boaz' house developed by Ruth be as the house of Pharez types the antitypes' wish that the Youthful Worthies be a princely class, as the typical one was.


(21) Boaz' taking Ruth (v. 13) to wife and by her becoming the father of Obed (servile) types our Lord's uniting the Youthful Worthies to Himself and by them developing a great multitude of new Youthful Worthies. We are not to conclude that our Lord's uniting Himself with antitypical Ruth proves her to be the Church, because, as the Solomon of Canticles which covers Gospel-Age times, He had 60 queens and 80 concubines, as symbolic wives (Cant. 6: 8, 9), yet His only real wife is the true Church (v. 9). The women congratulating Naomi and praising the Lord for the child's birth and for providing a worthy kinsman, type all the worthy groups of the Lord's people wishing the involved crown-losers good and praising God for His involved benefits, and our Lord as being a worthy antitypical kinsman who would therefore receive honor in spiritual Israel for His part in the transaction. Their proclaiming the child (v. 15) to become Naomi's help and stay, even to old age, for Ruth's relation to her, as better for her than any children that Naomi could have developed, types the Lord's people proclaiming the later found Youthful Worthies as the helper and stay of the good crown-losers, even unto the end, because of the Youthful Worthies' relation to these crown-losers—the Ruth class being better to these crown-losers than all the classes that they could develop. Naomi's laying the child in her bosom and nursing it (v. 16) types the love and ministry of these crown-losers to these new Youthful Worthies. The women announcing the child as a descendant of the good crown-losers and calling it Obed (servile) type all the groups of the Lord's people setting forth the thought that the new Youthful Worthies are descendants of the good crown-losers and that that class would be a servant one— antitypical Levites, not priests. The



facts of this paragraph were all fulfilled in 1920 and 1921. The genealogy following (vs. 17-22) is no part of this history, though related to it, hence we pass it by without further comment. Our very brief exposition above is a truthful, harmonious and reasonable and natural application of the history in the book of Ruth to undoubted pertinent facts, and thus, as the Truth on the subject, is in marked contrast with the unfactual, inharmonious, unreasonable, and forced application of this history to his movement made by J.F.R. in 1932. We might here remark that the exposition given above was not understood by us until years after the antitype was entirely fulfilled; and at that time of our writing the articles through which antitypical Boaz spoke the antitypes of Boaz' speeches in Chapters 3 and 4 we did not realize the uses the Lord was making of us and of The Present Truth, even as our Pastor was unconscious of the antitypical acts he was used to perform.


(22) We have been in receipt of several letters asking us to harmonize our understanding of Ruth as a type of the Youthful Worthies with the comment in the Berean Manual on Ruth 4: 1. In answer we would say that said comment is one of C. J. Woodworth's own additions, against which we have cautioned the brethren in The Present Truth. Turning to E 153 we find no reference there to our Lord as "the Son-in-law of Naomi, type (?) of Eve, that He might redeem Ruth, type of the Church, and her field, type of the world," as the comment puts it. We have been unable to find anywhere in our Pastor's writings that thought expressed, which strikes the thoughtful mind as very unlike one of our Pastor's sober views. Our Lord could not have been a symbolic son-in-law to Naomi suggested by the comment, even if Ruth had represented the Church, for the reason that Ruth was not the daughter but the daughter-in-law of Naomi; nor was Naomi a type of Eve as Christ's alleged typical



mother-in-law; because Eve was not a typical mother-in-law of Jesus; she was actually Jesus' mother, in the sense corresponding to Adam's being His father, indicated in the expression, The Son of the Man, whence as respects Eve Jesus might have called Himself the Son of the Woman (Gen. 3: 15). Accordingly, Naomi was not a type of Eve. The comment in question, a product of C. J. W. and not of our Pastor, in so far as we have criticized it, is a fair example of the vagariousness of C. J. W. unguided by our Pastor's thought. Ruth 4: 1-10 in E 153 is used to prove Jesus' Millennial restitution work, which use is not contradictory of our understanding that Ruth types the Youthful Worthies, since they will be a part of the purchased possession delivered in the Millennium, though we doubt that our Pastor had the Youthful Worthies in mind when he cited the passage; for he seems here to cite the passage to prove Jesus' deliverance of the world by a symbolic marriage to the Restitution class, i.e., making Himself one with the faithful Restitutionists (Is. 62: 4, 5). Is. 62: 4, 5 proves that the Church also is part of the husband of this symbolic marriage.


(23) There is very good reason for denying that Ruth types the Church. Ruth does not fit as a type of the Church for the following seven cogent reasons: In the first place, the Church is not a stranger in symbolic Canaan. The Church is typed by one born in the land—begotten of the Spirit. Moreover, the Church did not glean, which is exclusively a Great Company (the poor) and a Youthful Worthy (the stranger) work. The Church was purchased in completion before the last (1914-1916) stage of the gleaning commenced. The Church was a virgin never before married. The Church cannot be married to Jesus levirately, for her Espoused, Jesus, cannot die. No one ever had a right to marry the Church prior to that of Jesus.


(1) What appears in The Towers of Sept. 15-Dec. 1, 1932? Of what are its thoughts an example? What has



the editor of The Present Truth promised? How will it be performed here? As what will it serve? What is the time setting of the antitype of the events given in the book of Ruth? What is typed by the famine of Ruth 1: 1, 2? What does Bethlehem mean and type? What does Elimelech mean and type? What does Moab mean and type here? Naomi? Mahlon? Chilion? What is typed by their being in Ephratah? Judah? Why, in each case? What is involved in their leaving Canaan and going to Moab, type and antitype? What is typed by Elimelech's death? By Naomi's and her sons' being left? By Mahlon's and Chilion's taking Moabitish wives? What does Orpah mean and type? Ruth? Their abiding in Moab ten years?

(2) What is typed by Mahlon's and Chilion's death? By Naomi's being left by her husband and sons? By God's again giving Israel bread? What was its first part? What is typed by Naomi's hearing of this? By her, Orpah's and Ruth's rising to return? What is typed by their going forth to return to Canaan? What is typed by Naomi's first appeal to her daughters to return to their homes? What other antitype illustrates this? What were the things in antitypical Naomi that acted repellingly on antitypical Orpah and Ruth? What contrast strengthened this repellant effect? What is typed by Orpah's and Ruth's weeping? By Naomi's kissing them?

(3) What is typed by their insistence to follow Naomi? By Naomi's second attempt to send them away? Why did the antitypes have such an effect? What is typed by Naomi's stating that she was beyond motherhood? And by her saying that if she could become a mother for husbands of them, the time of waiting would be too long for them? What is typed by Naomi's grief for them? What added to it in type and antitype? What is typed by Orpah's and Ruth's second outburst of grief? By Orpah's succumbing and kissing Naomi? By Ruth's surmounting these difficulties?

(4) What is typed by Naomi's third appeal to Ruth to return? By Ruth's overcoming it? By her telling Naomi to cease dissuading her from following? What does the language of vs. 16, 17, type in its various details? What did Ruth's decision make her? What does this type? What does Canaan type? Being born in it? Dwelling as a stranger in it? What is typed by Naomi's ceasing from



dissuading Ruth to follow her? By their going on unto Bethlehem? What was the effect, type and antitype, on the Bethlehemites? Why? How were Naomi and Ruth, type and antitype, received at Bethlehem?

(5) What does Naomi's plaint show, type and antitype? What are the contrasted thoughts, type and antitype, implied in the names, Naomi and Mara? What lesson should we learn from this? What is typed by Naomi's bewailing her impoverished condition? What is typed by the repetition of the thought of vs. 19-21?

(6) What is noteworthy in the time of Naomi's and Ruth's coming to Bethlehem? How are the barley and wheat harvests and products related, type and antitype? What parable makes this antitypical distinction? How? What is typed by Naomi's and Ruth's coming to Bethlehem at the start of the barley harvest? At the time of what call did their antitypes come into the Truth? What teaching corroborates this thought? Why? How did this effect antitypical Ruth? Before and after which date? What does the antitype prove as to the chronology of the antitypes of the first chapter of Ruth?

(7) What period is covered by the antitype of Ruth 2? What is typed by Boaz' relation through Elimelech to Naomi and Ruth? By Boaz' power and wealth? What is typed by Ruth's seeking opportunities to glean? Her pleading with Naomi to let her glean? What is typed by the field in which Ruth gleaned? Her gleaning after the reapers among the sheaves? By Boaz' coming to Bethlehem to bless, and by his blessing the reapers? By their fervent wishes? By Boaz' question put to the superintendent of the reapers? What shows this? By the superintendent's answer? Wherein given? By his allusion to Ruth's relation to Naomi? By his praise of Ruth's zeal and industry?

(8) What is typed by Boaz' addressing Ruth? By the expression, "Hearest thou not, my daughter?" By his suggesting that she work in his fields? Beside his maidens? By her not going to other fields? By Boaz' encouraging her to fix her eyes on the field where his maidens worked? By his assurances of his measures for her safety against injury? By his inviting her to quench her thirst with the waters drawn by the young men? Wherein were these thoughts of Boaz antityped? By Ruth's acknowledgements and wonder at Boaz' course toward her, a stranger?



(9) What is antitypically implied in Boaz' multiformed answer, type and antitype? Wherein were these antitypes expressed? By his wishing her Divine rewards for her good works? Wherein were these antitypes expressed? By Ruth's answer? By her telling the reasons that emboldened her to request his favor? By Boaz' inviting her to partake of the repast? By its two kinds of food? By Ruth's accepting the invitation? By her sitting at the meal beside the reapers? By Boaz' handing her parched corn? By her eating to satiety? By her leaving for the work?

(10) What is typed by Boaz' fourfold charge to the young men? By Ruth's gleaning all day? Beating out the barley? Gleaning an ephah full? Taking the gleanings to the city? Bringing them to Naomi? Naomi's seeing the gleanings? Naomi's bringing forth food from her surplus? Naomi's questions, indicating wonder over Ruth's success? Naomi's conclusions, based on Ruth's large success? Ruth's revealing Boaz as the one giving success?

(11) What is typed by Naomi's wishing Boaz well for his kindness to the living and the dead? Her declaring Boaz to have the right to redeem? Ruth the Moabitess telling Naomi that Boaz invited her to glean in close association with his maidens until the harvest's end? Naomi's telling Ruth that it would be well to do this and not to be found gleaning elsewhere? Ruth's following this suggestion? Throughout the barley harvest? Wheat harvest,? What does our study show of the antitypical chronology of Ruth 2? What is typed by Ruth's remaining with Naomi?

(12) What is the antitypical chronological setting of Ruth 3? What will prove this? What was the view of Vol. VII and the Societyites in 1917 and 1918 on the close of the door? When did it and the gleaning actually close? What did their view make them conclude? Where were these thoughts expressed? What is the antitype of Naomi's telling her ambitions for Ruth? Of her reminding Ruth that Boaz was a near kinsman (redeemer)? What is typed by her telling Ruth that Boaz was winnowing barley on the threshing floor? What were some of the winnowing experiences of that time? What is typed by her telling Ruth to wash, anoint and adorn herself? What truths were at that time gladdening the Church? Our Lord? How was this latter thought typed?



(13) What is typed by Naomi's telling Ruth not to present herself to Boaz for the pertinent purpose until after he had dined? What is typed by the time after Boaz had retired being the proper time for Ruth to present herself? By the instruction to uncover Boaz' feet and lie down there? By Naomi's telling Ruth that then Boaz would tell her what to do? Ruth's promise to do as Naomi had directed? How were the antitypes of Naomi's wishes and instructions for Ruth enacted? How do we know this to be a fact? What is typed by Ruth's doing as Naomi instructed? What is the character of the above applications?

(14) When did the first and second issues of this magazine appear? What are the subjects of their articles? What did these articles give the Little Flock? Who shared in this? By what is this typed? What is typed by Boaz' lying down at the end of the heap of barley? By Ruth's coming softly to Boaz, uncovering his feet and lying down? By Boaz' trembling? His turning and seeing Ruth? Through what was this antitypically done? What is typed by Boaz' question? By Ruth's answer? Her request that Boaz spread his skirt over her? By her statement of his being a near relative?

(15) What is typed by Boaz' commendatory answer? By his encouraging Ruth? His promising Ruth's requests? His acknowledging his near kinship? His mentioning of another, yet nearer? His counseling Ruth to await the outcome of the affair? His pledge to Ruth? Where is it found? What is typed by his telling Ruth to lie down until morning?

(16) How is Ruth's compliance shown in the type and antitype? What is typed by the secrecy and the counseling of secrecy in the involved acts and in Ruth's leaving while the darkness prevented recognition? By Boaz' telling Ruth to put her apron into a position to receive barley? Wherein was this counsel antitypically given? What is typed by her compliance? His giving her six measures of barley? Ruth's coming to Naomi? Naomi's question? Ruth's telling of Boaz' instructions? Whereby was this antitype performed? What is typed by Ruth's showing Naomi the six measures of barley? By Naomi's advice?

(17) How long was the period of antityping the events of Ruth 4? What is typed by Boaz' going to the gate and sitting down there? What is typed by the nearer relative's



coming to the gate? By Boaz' calling and having him sit down at the gate? By his complying? By the ten elders? By Boaz' asking them to judge as witnesses? The elders' complying? Boaz' telling the nearer relative of Naomi's selling a parcel of Elimelech's land?

(18) What is typed by Boaz' telling him that he had decided to give him the first chance to redeem it publicly? By Boaz' telling him to decide whether or not he would buy it? By Boaz' assurance that he would acquire it, if the other would not? Wherein were the pertinent offers made? What is typed by the nearer kinsman's promising to redeem it? By Boaz' telling him he must with the field redeem Ruth, to raise up seed for the dead? Whose marriage was not herein involved? Why not?

(19) Why did the kinsman balk at this? What is the antitype? Why this in the antitype? Wherein, through whom and how did the directors and editors decline the antitypical offer? Before what date was that article prepared? What was done for several months with its contents at Bethel? What is typed by the nearer relative's offering and letting Boaz have the opportunity? Explain what is typed by the custom of taking off and giving the shoe in redeeming and changing property, and in refusing to marry a childless brother's widow. Why were such transactions evil? What do they type for the three classes in Spiritual Israel? Why does an antitypical levirate marriage not apply to the Little Flock? To what other evils were they given over? What is typed by the nearer kinsman's taking off his shoe and giving it to Boaz? What antitypical wrong acts followed?

(20) What did not Ruth do as required by Deut. 25: 9? Why not? What in this case was done with the antitypical kinsman? What is typed by spittal? What is implied in real and symbolic spitting in the face? How was this done in this antitype? What is typed by Boaz' calling upon the elders and people to be witnesses of the transaction? Through what was this done in the antitype? What is typed by Boaz' calling upon all to witness that he had taken the other's shoe and that he had redeemed Ruth because of the other's failing to do so? To raise up seed to Mahlon? Whereby did our Lord do this? What is typed by the elders' and others' agreeing so to witness? By their three good wishes?



(21) What is typed by Boaz' taking Ruth to wife and producing Obed by her? What are we not to conclude in the antitype from Boaz' and Ruth's marriage? Why not? What is typed by the women congratulating Naomi, praising Jehovah for the birth of Obed and lauding such a worthy one as Boaz? By their statement on Obed's being a help and stay for Naomi, even to old age? On Ruth, who loved her as being to her better than seven sons? By Naomi's putting Obed on her bosom and nursing him? By the women announcing the child a descendant of Naomi? Calling him Obed? Why is the genealogy not further discussed here? What may properly be said of the foregoing exposition of the book of Ruth in antitype? How does it stand in contrast with J.F. Rutherford's application of it? Until when was the foregoing understanding of the book of Ruth not made clear? Of what was the writer of the articles containing our Lord's statements antitypical of those of Boaz in chapters 3 and 4 unaware at the time of their writing?

(22) What might cause some to wonder? Who is the originator of that thought expressed in the Berean Manual on Ruth 4: 1? What does E 153 not give as to the comment? Where else has such a thought not been found? What typical relation did Naomi not have to our Lord, suggested in the comment? What typical relation did she not have to Eve as suggested in the comment? Why did Eve's real relation to Jesus forbid such a thought? Of what is the comment a fair example? How is Ruth 4: 1-10 used in E 153? As such what does it not contradict? Why not? Who did not likely think of the Youthful Worthies while citing Ruth 4: 1-10 in E 153? Why not? What thought thereby did he seem to have in mind? What does Is. 62: 4, 5 also prove?

(23) How many cogent reasons can be given for denying that Ruth is a type of the Church? How is this shown by the fact of Ruth's being a stranger in the land? By the Church as born in antitypical Canaan? By the gleaning of Ruth? By the Church's being completely purchased before the last stage of the gleaning commenced? By her being an unmarried virgin before marrying Jesus? By her not being capable of a levirate marriage with Jesus? By none having a right to her prior to Jesus'?






"Entreat me not. Let Orpah go,

If Moab still has charms for her:

No more my native land I know,

Nor love the paths which cause to err.

A hand she does not—cannot see,

Still waves me on to follow thee.


"Entreat me not. Whate'er the road

Thou choosest, there I too shall tread;

And wheresoe'er thou mak'st abode,

There also shall I rest my head.

For thee I henceforth all resign—

Thy people and thy God are mine.


"Entreat me not. When life shall fail,

And thou, my mother, com'st to die,

With thee I'll face the shadow'd vale,

And, where thou'rt buried, I shall lie.

My leading stars—thy God and thou—

Not even death shall part us now!"


Daughter of Moab, nobly done!

On, onward to the promis'd land!

There shines on righteousness the sun;

There dwells for God the chosen band;

On milk and honey shalt thou fare

And Israel's God accept thee there.


No more the widow's moan shall rend

Thy bosom, wailing for the dead;

New joys shall on thy steps attend,

New virgins deck thy bridal—bed;

A num'rous offspring round thee bloom,

And monarchs issue from thy womb.


More favour'd still, the promis'd seed

Thy life—blood in His veins shall feel;

He, who for sinful man shall bleed,

And Satan crush beneath His heel.

Such honour on thy name shall rest,

And unborn millions call thee blest!