xt7k9882p098 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7k9882p098/data/mets.xml Henry, Josephine K., author Hughes, James E., printer 1905 32 pages, 19 cm. Call Number: HQ1395 .H46 1905 Tray RB-0006 books HQ1395 .H46 1905 Tray RB-0006 English James E. Hughes, Printer Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection Women in the Bible Bible and feminism Women's rights Women -- Legal status, laws, etc Kentucky author: Henry, Josephine K Kentucky printer: James E. Hughes Woman and the Bible, 1905 text Woman and the Bible, 1905 1905 1905 2024 true xt7k9882p098 section xt7k9882p098 WOMAN AND THE BEBLE "Hh', mmmn. \mkvi‘, khnid flw dawn Rising: Hum 1m? Yhflt hunk Hf rinmiq. Nu Inngwr' growl. criny‘v, or fwril‘: ’J‘u Superstitum, whioh mshmnds Thy iihm'i)‘. Awake? :m'nkvf‘. I hid thw i? ’ H1} mm dour sakv Cast off (how algal (61mins, Rig!) from thf‘ many Hummnd XML?“ 01' dvgrmial‘inn. \Vipo Ilmgn h-z’n‘s; ’l‘rmh’s gnhlvn (lawn rmnains.” wLmiy Fint'mm- Dixiv. 1mm JAMES E. HUGHES. PFINTE" lK!iNC.7C‘N '0' DEDICATION TO NATHAN F. GRISWOLD OF MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT «3‘ IN ADMIRA'I‘ION For his splendid service, loyalty and generosity to the cause of Free Thought against religious supersti- tion, ignorance, and intolerance. In recognition of which a garland of gratitude is placed upon his ven- erable brow by JOSEPHINE K. HENRY. Versailles, Kentucky. ,’-an- WOMAN AND THE BIBLE A LANCE BROKEN ON BEHALF OF WOMAN. “All the wisdom of Vedas, and all that has been writ- ten in books, is to be found concealed In the heart of a woman.”—Vedas. “When women are honored the d‘lvinities are content.” —Parsee Bible. The object of this pamphlet is to arouse the latent power of thought in the minds of women, that they may read the Bible for themselves, put their own in— terpretation upon it, have the courage to express their opinions about its teachings, regarding their sex, without any interference, influence, or interpre- tation from the clergy—Save a few texts that are worn thread bare the Bible is a sealed book to woman kind. , If the Bible says what it means, and means what it says, the woman of ordinary mentality will discover that in the part of the Holy Book which is devoted to her sex, she will find horrors, terrors and obsceni— ties that she had never dreamed of which her clerical teachers had never told her of, and that much of the teaching from the pulpit regarding: women is not true. Women are a very small factor in Holy \Vrit, as but one—eleventh of the Bible refers to them at all, and in the interest of justice and good morals it is a pity much of that was ever written. The Bible estimate of woman is summed up in the 4 words of the President of a Presbyterian Theologi- cal Senimary in his address to a, class of young preacher. He said: “My Bible commands the sub— jection of women forever;” that man had searched the scriptures and found out what they taught. The Bible says: “A tree is known by its fruit,” yet this tree is carefully pruned, watered, and tend— ed as the “tree of life” whose fruit in the word of Archdeacon Farrar “alone elevates woman, and shrouds as with a halo of sacred innocence the ten- der years of the child.” As the world is swarming with miserable women, who are robbed of their human rights, bearing children against their will, who are filling our reform schools, poor houses, and prisons, the “elevation” for women and the “sacred halo” for children not having arrived yet after being on the way for 2,000 years, has so far proved to be a mere pipe—dream of this eleric. The Bible records that God created woman by a method different from that employed in bringing into life, any other creature, then cursed her for seeking knowledge, yet the Scriptures say, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” be- cause thou hast rejected knowledge. I will also re- ject thee ‘Hosea 4-6.’ ‘Add to your faith virtue and to virtue knowledge,” “2nd Peter 1—5, yet we have the injustice and inconsistency of God cursing Eve,” and through her the race for seeking knowledge. Ever since Eve was cursed, the priest with the Bible in his hands has pronounced woman the most unnat- Eral, untrustworthy and dangerous creature of 0d. In the tenth commandment Exodus 20-17, she is classed with the ox and the ass; she is “given away” as a sheep at the marriage altar, and cursed in mat- ernity. Psalms 51-5 says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Surely there is nothing elevating about that to wo- A4 - kw —d» .. ..._- 5 man. This declaration puts the brand of infamy upon every woman that ever bore a child. The wife who places her destiny in the keeping of the father of her children, bestows upon him the wealth of her afi'ection, who goes “down into the valley and shadow of death” to give birth to chil— dren, who are to bear the blood and name of her husband to conquests, yet undreamed of, and to gen— erations unborn, is by divine decree made a. fountain of iniquity. Would not men and women rather pluck their tongues out by the roots than thus brand the mothers who gave them birth? The law of God given to Moses in the 12th chapter of Leviticus, clearly pronounces a woman who be- comes a mother to be unclean and impure. If she had borne a son she was not allowed to touch any hallow— ed thing, or enter the sanctuary for three and thirty days, but if she had borne a daughter she was doubly impure, and was unhallowed and barred out of the temple for sixty-six days. This estimate of woman permeates all Jewish and Christian canons. Today to bear a son is considered more honorable and desirable than to bear a. daughter, yet our civ- ilization swarms with sons who are worthless, or dis- sipated, 0r dishonest, or who wreck the fortunes and happiness of the family while daughters are as a rule, the comfort and mainstay of parents in their declining years. The Episcopal prayer-book commands the Church— ing of W'omen. which service consists of mothers prostrating themselves at the altar, and giving of— ferings to the Lord to atone for the crime of having borne children. What worse can be said of a book, or a religion. than that it treats as essentially unclean, the holy office of motherhood? This insult includes all women, for even the Virgin 6 Mary had to pass through “the days of her purifi— cation.” To say the least, this Christian tenet tends to throw suspicion on the “Immaculate Conception.” Place the Bible trinity, “Father, Son and Holy Ghost, beside the Homeric trinity “Father, Mother, and child” and prove that the Bible has elevated woman. The Homeric conception of woman towers like the Norway pine above the noxious growth of the Mosaic ideal. . Compare the women and men of the Bible with the stately figures culled from the temple of Pagan antiquity, Zipporah denouncing Moses as a “bloody husband,” Abraham sending Hagar and his child into the desert, and pocketing twice over the gains from his wife’s prostitution. Lot and his daughters, Judah and his daughter-in-law, Anan, Tamar, the Levite and his concubine, David and Bathsheba, Sol- omon in the sewer of sensuality, Jacob, Saul, Rahal), Aholibah, Mary of Bethlehem, Mary Makdala, and a host of other Bible figures. Place these beside the man and woman, Hector and Andromache of the “Iliad,” who called upon the immortal gods to bless their child of love. Isis and her son Horus, Devaki and her divine child, Chrishna, the Vedic Virgin Indrance, the mother of the Savior god Indra, Pan- dora, Protogenia, Plotina, Cornelia and Penelope and a host of the noble and virtuous of Pagan history. Prove by comparing these with the position of woman in Christendom, that woman owes all that she is to the Bible. There were grand and noble women and men in the Pagan world, ten centuries before the laws of Moses or Christ were promulgated. If women will lay aside their religious bigotry, they will discover that our boasted Christian civil- ization literally puts into practice, the crimes, the Bible records against their sex, and how well it is 7 being done, the press attests, as never in the history of the world were such atrocious crimes committed against maidens, wives, pregnant, insane, and aged women. As the Bible is said to be the guide for American civilization no wonder we have a carnival of blood curdling crimes of every description. The Bible tells of the incest of a father with his own daughter, Genesis 19-32, the 34th chapter of Genesis contains debauchery, female commodity, lying, de- ceit, murder, theft, hypocrisy and cowardice. If all this is taught in one chapter of the Christian’s guide book, is it any wonder that our civilization is over- flowing with crime? The murdering of women and the ravishing of little girls is taught in Number 31, 17-18 the treacherous rape of maidens Judges 19-23 and filthy stories about concubinage in Judges 19. Perhaps the example of the holy men and women in the Holy Bible accounts for the epidemic of brutality and moral leprosy in Christendom. There is no use having a guide book unless you are guided by it. Bible Christians have no warrant for respecting womanhood, either as maid or mother, and the claim that woman owes all she possesses of personal puri- ty, domestic happiness, and social consideration to the Bible is false and absurd. There is not a single Bible character, either woman or man, that is a per- fect model for the women and men of today to copy after. Some of them illustrate noble traits of hu- man character, but even these are so enveloped in - butality, deception and sensuality they are hard to discover. Let Christian women and men of today be up to such tricks as are recorded of Abraham, Sarah, Ja- cob, Rebecca, Leah, Noah, Lot and his daughters, David, Solomon and their lady friends, Samson, Delilah, Sisera, Jael, Abimelech, Naomi, Ruth, Esther, Martha, all the Marys and even St. Paul, the premier saint of the Christian calendar, and they 8 would not only be ostracized by society, but many of them would find themselves behind prison bars. When woman reasons more and believes less, then, and not till then, will her charter to liberty be sign- ed. The rib doctrine is the tap root of her inferiority and degradation. The hour is here now, when women are calling theologians to the bar of reason, and they will no longer believe the supernatural, miraculous fables of the Bible that put the brand of inferiority upon their sex. “Every Hour Brings Forth Some Grasping Truth.” —Holmes. Theology is nothing, if it is not dogmatic. So we- men have ever been taught that it is their “bounden duty” to be silent and obedient, and that the women of the Bible are shining'examples of these so-called virtues. The dogmatism of the pulpit has outwardly succeeded in the subjection theory and the poetry ( ” the pulpit has stimulated women to action and ser vice, and fed their vanity, always with the para— mount idea that “woman’s sphere” was bounded by her duty to do only such things as shall suit man ’s interest, pleasure or convenience. All this preaching only shows the utter ignorance. of the characters of the Bible women and that they were as great an enigma and as unmanageable as the women of today, the Bible itself will show. Woman is today quietly smiling at her masculine censors, the beings whose swaddling clothes she ad- justs, and saying to herself “let them babble about a subject of which they know nothing. It amuses them, and does not affect women. These men are neither saints nor heroes, so we refuse to canonizc them, and go on doing our own way just as the Bible women did.” The truth is, woman has never been obedient. Eve did not fear or obey either God, angels, or men. Eve is the greatest character in all history. Adam was the most obedient husband in the history of the race. He even forgot God to obey woman. He par— took of the free lunch furnished him by Eve and since that hour “free lunches have been demoraliz- ing men and always will.” When Adam and Eve were called to account for stealing the apple from the tree of knowledge the coward Adam skulked be— hind the woman and said: “The woman tempted me and I did eat.” Let those who consider woman in- ferior to man not forget that Eve first discovered the tree of knowledge and had the courage-to eat the forbidden fruit, while Adam had not enterprise nor courage, enough to swallow it, for it stuck in his throat. But Eve stood her ground and said: “The serpent did tempt me, ” and she watered the seeds of deception with her tears, and thus instituted the crying racket, and ever since that day, women have gotten themselves out of scrapes by their tears, not by silence and obedience. Eve was a born ruler and autocrat, and she has transmitted this trait of character to all her female progeny. If woman can not have her own way by one method, “there are others.” I make my profoundest salaam of gratitude and admiration to Mother Eve, the greatest benefactor of the human race, and a shining example of a. wo- man who was not silent nor obedient. It can be conclusively shown by holy writ that the men of the Bible were always obedient. They obeyed kings, mothers, wives, sweethearts, concubines and courtesans. The greatest event in history was Eve’s arrival in the Garden of Eden, and the next greatest event was Eve’s establishing the educational system of the world. No Eve, no race; no eating of the apple, no knowl- 10 edge. According to the Bible if the daughters of men were “fair to look upon” they were acceptable to the “sons of God.” There is not a hint that vir- tue, industry, intelligence or domesticity were shin- ing qualities of Bible women. The first compliment on record is that of Abraham when he said to Sarah: “Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon,” and thus has Abraham’s art of flattery descended to his posterity making falsifiers of men and coqucttcs of women. Sarah might have been “fair to look upon,” but she was not obedient, but on the contrary Abraham was always “obedient” and “hearkened unto the voice of his wife.” Abraham asked his wife Sarah to pass herself of? as his sister, and she did so, not to be “obedient to her lord and master,” but in order to have a good time attracting the attention of kings, courtiers and nabobs. Pharoah fell a victim to the fair Sarah’s blandish- -ments, “and the woman was taken into Pharoah’s house.” The Bible goes on to say that “Pharoah entreated Abraham well for Sarah’s sake.” Because of the king’s attention to Sarah, Pharoah’s senior, junior and sophomore wives didn’t like it. Matters grew so serious that the Lord himself had to interfere to head the “divine Sarah” off, and the “Lord plagued Pharoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife. The Abraham-Hager case appeared on the court docket about this time. The book says that Sarah told Abraham that he could have Hagar for his heart’s own, and to show how obedient Abraham was, the Bible says: “And Abraham hearkened unto the voice of his Wife.” (I never did believe this in regard to Sarah, and I don’t believe it now, for when Sarah discovered Abraham’s attentions to Hagar, she called him into «91$, Q. ,‘ 11 the tent and made him see Mars, Jupiter, Venus and a tornado before she got through with him). Sarah hustled Hagar and her child out into the wilderness. An angel met poor Hagar and told her to go back. I never had any respect for that angel. Now what Sarah should have done, was to see to it that Abraham, out of his great riches, provided for his legal wife and concubine, and then have given him his walking papers. Many modern Sarah’s are administering a dose of this medicine to the Abra- hams of today. Abraham once entertained three angels and he told Sarah to have some angel cake for the luncheon. Did Sarah obey? No; she did not feel like baking cake even for angel visitors, so she followed her own sweet will, instead of Abraham’s command. When the angel told Abraham that Sarah would bear a son, “Sarah laughed, being she was old,” and the angel was insulted because a woman had laugh- ed at he. she or it (The sex of angels is to mortals an unknown quantity). But when Isaac was born Sa— rah gave peremptory orders to Father Abraham and he obeyed them instanter, yet apostle Peter holds Sarah up as an example for all women to follow say- ing: “Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord.” Abraham after his experience with Sarah and Hagar set about to secure a wife for Isaac. He sent a servant to Nahor to become acquainted with the maidens that “were fair to look upon.” The society girls of Nahor had a fashion of congregating at the well to attract the beans just as United States girls go today to the matinee, park, boulevard or to church on a husband hunting expedition. Along came the fair and festive Rebecca. When told that a rich young man in a far country wanted a wife without inquiring as to the character of the young man Rebecca said: “I will go. ” From all ac- 12 counts, Rebecca was a leader of the “ton” in Israel. She met a strange young man at a, well and without any introduction to the strange man, he “adorns her with earrings and bracelets” and she invited him home with her. I never in my life heard a preacher condemn Re— becca for flirting with a strange man, but they call her one of the “mothers in Israel.” and Paul calls Rebecca one of the “holy women of old.” If a girl in this day should do as Rebecca did, she would be classed with the “fast set.” and it' the girl of today should flirt with a strange man, accept presents from him and go into a “far country” to marry another strange man, she would be barred out. of decent society. Rebecca, it is written, married Isaac and she has the distinction of being the first woman on record who presented her husband with a pair of twins. After this event Rebecca gets in some fine work as a disobedient wife, a, deceitful. hard hearted. intrigu- ing woman and one that always had her own way by hook or by crook. I shudder to think of the domes- tic pandemonium and cyclones in the home of Isaac and Rebecca on account of the twins Jacob and Esau. Rebecca cheated her own son Esau out of his birthright and gave it to Jacob. then deceived and deluded her dying husband. She was an all-round domestic diplomat that man— aged the men of the family with such skill that she did as she pleased and made them do as she pleased too. Rebecca has another distinction. but it is not silence and submission as the preachers would have women believe. \Vhen her son Esau married, Rebecca is the first woman on record who hated her daughter-in—law, but since that day there“ have been others.” Now, there’s Lot’s Wife. The sacred historian did not think her worthy of a name of her own. May be 13 Mrs. Lot rejoiced in having her individuality merg— ed in that of her husband, just as the women of our day, who parade 1n newspaper society notes as Mrs. Tom, Mrs. Dick and Mrs Harry, Mrs. Gov“ Mrs. Gen. and Mrs Dr. The women of the ages who have been disposed to he rebellious, have been warned with “Remember Lot’s Wife,” But it has not warned worth a cent. The woman with a will of her own and the woman with “views,” is here in all her glory. (Any married man will testify to that). And she is here to stay. When God determined to destroy Sodom and G0— morrah with fire and brimstone, the angel of the Lord warned Lot and his family with these words: “Escape for thy life; look not behind thee.” Mrs. Lot disobeyed the angel’s command, and woman like she looked back. If the angel had told her “to look back” she would have looked straight ahead. This is the nature of women. The seX systematically do what they are told not to do, and do not do what they are told to do. Now, Mrs. Lot for her disobedience was “turned into a pillar of salt,” Lot’s wife is the first woman on record that ever had a monument. and it is said it is standing “to this day.” And the women of all ages have had this monument pointed out to them to make them afraid. I reverence the memory of Mrs. Lot, because she looked back to see if her husband and daughters were safe though, according to holy writ they were not, worth saving. Mrs. Lot’ s womanly heart was a battle ground of love and duty, and I am glad that she secured for herself a monument that has defied the ravages of time. She would never have had one any other way. Well now, as to Rachel. The record says, “Rachel was beauteous and well favored.” According to the Bible all the “holy women of 14 old” were beauteous and “fair to look upon,” just as in our day according to newspaper notices, all brides are beautiful and all grooms wealthy. Well, Jacob met Rachel at the well, and after a short acquaintance the book says “Jacob kissed Rachel and lifted up his voice and wept.” What on earth did he weep about? Whoever heard of a young man setting up a weep because he had kissed a pretty girl? The young men of this day do not follow Jacob’s weeping example. It often happens in our day when a young man wants to be- stow his attentions and kisses on a pretty girl and she rejects them, the young man whips out his knife or pistol and plays the murderous role to perfection. Jacob asked Rachel’s papa, Laban, for his daugh— ter, and said he would serve seven years for her. Laban was a financier and he knew Jacob's service was the cheapest hired help he could get, so he prom— ised him Rachel. At the end of the seven years the wily Laban palmed off his daughter Leah on Jacob as a bride. After a family jar that shook the region round about Jacob said he would serve seven years more for Rachel. Jacob got himself into a. pretty pickle. We are told that the sisters Leah and Rachel fired by jealousy, hated each other, that “Jacob hated Leah, and Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel,” Rachel and Leah in deadly spite, “each gave her maid to Jacob to wife.” Jacob submis- sively accepted them and he tacitly became a crea- ture of barter and sale. Laban and Jacob had a hot encounter in which they employed some choice lan- guage, and Laban told Jacob to take the girls and everything else, but he was “bound to have his gods.” Now it turned out that Rachel had stolen her pa- pa’s gods and was sitting on them, and when he, came into her tent hunting for them, she denied knowing anything about them. Rachel was an all 15 round willful, deceptive, crafty, domineering and dishonest woman. She is noted for many traits, but obedience is not one of them. Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, was a combination of her father, mother and Aunt Rachel. She was a little crafty in her amours and in conse- quence a. terrible massacre ensued. With Jacob for a father, to say nothing of the other side of the house, we can imagine she was equal to anything but certainly obedience was not one of her traits of character. Tamar is one of the prominent ladies of the Bible. Her father-in-law. Judah attempted to defraud her of her rights. (This has been a propensity of the father—in-law ever since). Did she consent? Not at all. She brought Judah to terms and made him give her “-his signet and bracelets, and staff as a pledge of his good fait .” “Tamar was the original pawn broker of the world.” But trouble rose again between Tamar and her father-in-law, and Judah in his affection for her, or- dered her to be burnt. Did Tamar obey? No, she objected and she wasn’t burnt. Now, along comes Potiphar’s wife casting goo—goo eyes at Joseph. She managed her husband and made him cast Joseph (“who was pure as ice and chaste as snow”) into prison, and she had her revenge by letting him stay there for two years. Potiphar’s wife may be one of the “holy women of old,” but she was not obedient. The kings of Egypt issued an order to the Hebrew midwives to kill all the Jew boy babies, but to save the girl babies alive. (There is a lot of regret and disappointment over the birth of girl babies in this day. Boy babies are at a. premium, as they were in that day. Did the midwives obey the king? No indeed. they 16 threw dust in the king’s eyes, kept the boy babies alive and laughed among themselves at the trick they had played. But for this, Moses would never have lived to frame laws, or‘been reproved by Zip- porah, his wife, with the words,“‘Surely a bloody husband art thou to me,” or to have “murdered an Egyptian and hid his body in the sand,” or to have led the children of Israel, or been a model of meek- ness. Think of what the disobedience of women did for the world in this case. The daughter of Zelophehad. it seems to me, 'were born before their time. If they were living today they would doubtless be practicing law in the supreme court. They demanded their father’s possessions, became their own lawyers, argued their own case before Moses and won it; - The women of the Bible did not care a fig for Paul’s shall-not-speak-in-meeting command. They talked when and where they pleased, demanded what they wanted, and got it. Paul had evidently never read the Old Testament. After Thecla jilted him he remained an old bache- lor and knew about as much about women as he did about electricity. Women and electricity are mighty dangerous to fool with, if you don’t know how to manage them. ‘ A live woman and live wire each have ways of their own. , Deborah and Judith swayed the destinies of the ancient Hebrews. As such slight reference is made of their husbands, they don’t count. It is quite evi— dent these women not only ruled their own house- holds, but all the households of their nation. Of all the men in the Bible one would suppose Samson would have had his own way, but he didn’t. As he had strength enough to carry away the gates of Gaza one would think he would have had strength it»? 17 enough to have managed a few poor week women. But he didn’t. The little Philistine girl, the lady from Gaza (the less said about her the better), and Delilah. these three! His obedience to these women made of him a sorry spectacle before the ages. What about the witch of Endor? The Bible does not say whether she was “fair to look upon” or not, but whether “beauteous to behold” or not. she was mighty to command. for she commanded Samuel. a dead man, to come out of his grave, and Samuel came. No commander on record except the witch of En- dor ever issued orders to the living and the dead, but the inspired word says she did. and they obeyed. Samuel and Saul could both testify to this. To my mind “Michal. the daughter of Saul,” is the most remarkable woman in sacred or any other kind of history. She is most remarkable for two things. The Bi- ble says 1st, Samuel 18-20: “Michal, Saul’s daugh- ter, loved David.” This is the first authentic official record we have of a woman loving a man. The second is to my mind the greatest miracle in the Bible laying Jonah and the whale and all others in the shade. The sixth chapter 23rd verse of 2nd Samuel says? “Therefore Michal. the daughter of Saul. had no child unto the day of her death.” Then the 21st chapter and 8th verse of 2nd Samuel says: “But the king took the two sons of Rizpah, and the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul. and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites.” If “Michal the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.” then it is an axiom that the “five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul, who were delivered to the Gibeon- ites,” were born after Michals death. The Virgin Mary having an Immaculate conception and bearing one son while she was living, pales into insignificance 18 before Michal, who had five post mortem concep- tions, and bore five sons after she was dead. There is precious little consolation in this to the women who have borne large families in this life, that they will not escape the pangs of childbirth, even after they are dead, and started on their journey to their heav- enly home. Wonderful Michal! She has been overlooked in making up the list of canonized Bible saints. In my opinion her name should head the list. A woman who bore five sons after she was dead, discounts all the exploits of warriors, patriarchs. prophets, priests and kings recorded in the Holy Bible. Another Bible miracle that has been overlooked is recorded in the 4th chapter of 2nd Kings, where “Elisha made a dead boy sneeze seven times.” The old woman lad- en with Abrahamic faith said she would rather be- lieve the Bible, than the truth any day. and she has plenty of company of the female persuasion. One of Saul ’s wives, who was the mother of Johna- than. must have been a lady with a will of her own, for Saul said to his son Jonathan. “Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman.” The Bible says that “there was a woman whose name was Bathsheba—— and as King David was walking on the roof of his palace he saw Bathsheba taking a bath and fell in love with her. It always seemed a queer proceedingr to me for a man to take a walk on the roof of his house, and a woman to take a. bath in public. There were some queer proceedings in Bible days. David is the only man on record who ever fell in love with a woman while she was taking her bath, and Bath-she—ba was quite an appropriate name for her. Bathsheba must have been very attractive, for she had a husband, Uriah by name, when David fell in love with her, and Bath-she-ba reciprocated. David sent Uriah to the front of the battle and 19 had him killed, so he could marry his wife, and the submission and obedience of the wife was manifested by her helping David put Uriah out of the way. It was the fashion in those days for one man to kill an- other in order to get possession of his wife, and “David, the man after God’s own heart,” indulged in this pastime. The history of Abigail shows that she was a ruler in the domestic dominion, and the warm hearted and godly David seemed to have bestowed some of his attentions on her, for he said to Abigail, “See, 1 have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted thy person.” In ten days from that time, “The Lord smote Nabal that he died.” Nabal was Abigail’s husband. David was an expert at putting men with pretty wives out of the way and who knows but he might have had some help from the women as there were no detectives in those days. Naomi and Ruth loom up in scripture, and the preacher holds them 11p as models and the discourag- ing thing about it is that women accept such preaching without a protest ' The truth is, Naomi was an Old widow who was a designing, wire pulling matchmaker. and Ruth was a gay young widow that wanted a rich husband and as one did not present himself, she went after him. Naomi and Ruth had experience in the art of trap- ping husbands. Boaz was rich, and old enough to have reached the years of discretion. Naomi had one eye on him and Ruth had two. How could Boaz escape? Ruth went into his field to glean to make him believe that she was industrious. This may have been a suggestion of Naomi’s, but it captured the old man, and Ruth became Mrs. Boaz. I never believed that Ruth was as madly in love with her mother~in— law as we are taught to believe, for the reason that when she had nowhere else to go as a penniless 2O widow, Ruth said to Naomi, “Entreat me not to leave thee, or return from following: after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; where thou lodgcst, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” As soon as Ruth got a. rich husband she did not follow after Naomi any more, and she got a new lodging place and a new god. If Ruth was madly infatuated with her mother-in- law it is the only case in ancient or modern record, for ever since the wedding of Adam and Eve One prominent feature of the marriage system has been for the husband to hate the wife’s people, and the wife to return the compliment. The bad traits of children, the father says are in- herited from the mother, and the mother says they are inherited from the father. Bible men and women started this fashion, and it has been kept up to this very day. Of course, the match of Ruth and Boaz was made in heaven. The Bible says that Naomi grave Ruth some instructions that we cannot record here. Naomi was doubtless selected by heaven to help on the matchmaking business. From the number of misfits in holy wedlock, the heavenly matchmaker must have sublet the match- makingr contract to earthly incompetents. If these women with their questionable methods of obtaining a husband are held up to women as models, the sooner they are deposed, the