I know many people think Isaiah four is a reference to polygamy, but it sounds more like women offering themselves into concubinage to me, based on the proposed terms.
Thoughts, anyone?
Thoughts, anyone?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Pilegesh, anyone?
- Thread starter Shadowjak's Dancer
- Start date
I’m not sure why everyone gets so excited about that verse
They say, that in the Muslim belief, they will receive 70 or 72 (depending on who you listen to) wives in heaven. That Meme, if an example of the 70 or 72 virgins, would, in all likelihood, keep them virgins.
Maybe that’s why they are “perpetual virgins”?
Concubineage isn’t polygyny?
That’s what you are saying.
I don’t know about getting excited, but many of us see it as the clearest verse in the whole Bible that states that polygyny will happen in the end times.
I had always accepted that poly wasn’t for today, but when I saw that it was ok in the end times I realized that YHWH going from agreeing with poly in the O.T., against it now, and then agreeing with it later was just too much changing His mind. That’s when I started waking up.
Whoa now! Don't be slaughtering any sacred cows around here.
Totally agree!
I'm sure they sound desperate enough to agree to whatever rids them of their reproach.
I couldn't speak to whether concubinage would do that or not, but I'll hazard a guess. My conviction is that the return of Jesus will so radically change the culture that women will for whatever reason seek the covering of an honorable man. If concubinage will do so, then I'm sure that would be fine. I lack a modern analog for concubine that isn't 'mistress' or 'girlfriend' , which colors my estimation of just how much social cover the position can provide.
The proposed terms
And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by your name, to take away our reproach.
The wearing their own clothes and eating their own food does sound like a mistress.
The being called by the husband's (I presume) last name sounds like marriage.
The two taken together sounds very much like a modern marriage. Girls these days come into marriages expecting that their bills are their own and they'll have to get a job.
I have a grip of questions that I offer to annoy the reader:
1) What is the reproach the women are suffering from? From where, or from who does it come? And why?
2) Why would being the girlfriend but not wife be helpful to remove that suffering?
3) Taken with the next 4 verses, when do you expect 'that day' will be?
4) Will anyone see this event outside of actual Israel territory?
My personal belief is that I will see these days, but I will see them as an immortal, never to marry again.
Whether they are wives or concubines seems to be of little matter...it is polygamy either way.
There are other verses that prove the acceptability of polygamy better than this verse. But Isaiah 4 looms large in my mind for a different reason. The first time I read through Isaiah I was struck over and over by the parallels to our current day. This sense became stronger when the problem of feminism became clear to me. Then when I learned about polygamy I realized that in Isaiah it is the first and only thing mentioned of the people's repentance.
Not to mention the emphasis on covering. In contrast to our culture, instead of being about the monetary wealth or power women can gain through marrying wealthy men, Isaiah speaks of the covering being the key part the women recognize as saving them. A total deconstruction (and return to God's core design) from today's marriage ideas.
I like where you're going with that. But I don't see the passage mentioning covering. Where do you find this emphasis?
Going off language, that's what I understand "let us be called by your name" to mean. The 'save us' + 'called by your name'. It's 'let us be covered by your authority/headship'. Headship cleans, right? "Let a woman's head remain covered", etc.
In addition, apparently the only thing that takes away their reproach, shame, is to be married. Under a man’s covering.
Been watching this with interest. Hoping someone will tackle defining and explaining from Scripture this 'reproach.' The phrase in my head is 'it is shameful for a woman to be uncovered.' I am not sure how or why that is what keeps playing, but it is the core problem that is solved by 'covering' or taking his name...
Anyone got answers or a place to start?
Modern feminism seems to regard submission as shameful, so this is the reversal, but how to really buttress with Scripture?
Anyone got answers or a place to start?
Modern feminism seems to regard submission as shameful, so this is the reversal, but how to really buttress with Scripture?
[QUOTE="PeteR, post: 182276, member: this 'reproach.' The phrase in my head is 'it is shameful for a woman to be uncovered.' I am not sure how or why that is what keeps playing, but it is the core problem that is solved by 'covering' or taking his name...
Anyone got answers or a place to start?
Modern feminism seems to regard submission as shameful, so this is the reversal, but how to really buttress with Scripture?[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is what my mind keeps hearing as well.
Remember Eve was the first to sin, even if it was ultimately Adam's responsibility. Women are more easily tempted and 'weaker' spiritually somehow.
This is going to go out on a far limb that a lot of people may disagree with so, take with much salt, but my understanding of 'magic', or spiritual power in our universe has to do entirely with Authority. All authority is God-ordained, right? The power, or ability of influence we (including angels and demons) have over each other is directly related to our authority. Jesus' "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven", for instance.
So, at the dawn of time God gave males authority over females, both specifically (man and wife) and generally (men are to lead). If our 'bindings and loosings' are spiritual reflections of things we do or say here, due to the authority/influence God has given us, then it makes perfect sense to me to say that a woman without such a covering, hence a spiritual 'authority' who can stand up and fight and defend her against, say, a challenging authority (demons?), would be vitally important to protecting her spiritual well-being. I've found this to be true in my own marriages. The more my wives pray with me and look to me for spiritual leadership and teaching, the more they hear from God directly and clearly and the more encouraged and empowered they are day-to-day, even during their period or other overly-emotionally-difficult times. Contrarily, the less connected we are spiritually, the more they come under attack and struggle to 'stand'. It's like a lightswitch being flipped.
So yeah, I think women seeking that covering, ESPECIALLY in the end times when spiritual warfare becomes more outwardly visible and obvious, would be the primary reason.
Anyone got answers or a place to start?
Modern feminism seems to regard submission as shameful, so this is the reversal, but how to really buttress with Scripture?[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is what my mind keeps hearing as well.
Remember Eve was the first to sin, even if it was ultimately Adam's responsibility. Women are more easily tempted and 'weaker' spiritually somehow.
This is going to go out on a far limb that a lot of people may disagree with so, take with much salt, but my understanding of 'magic', or spiritual power in our universe has to do entirely with Authority. All authority is God-ordained, right? The power, or ability of influence we (including angels and demons) have over each other is directly related to our authority. Jesus' "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven", for instance.
So, at the dawn of time God gave males authority over females, both specifically (man and wife) and generally (men are to lead). If our 'bindings and loosings' are spiritual reflections of things we do or say here, due to the authority/influence God has given us, then it makes perfect sense to me to say that a woman without such a covering, hence a spiritual 'authority' who can stand up and fight and defend her against, say, a challenging authority (demons?), would be vitally important to protecting her spiritual well-being. I've found this to be true in my own marriages. The more my wives pray with me and look to me for spiritual leadership and teaching, the more they hear from God directly and clearly and the more encouraged and empowered they are day-to-day, even during their period or other overly-emotionally-difficult times. Contrarily, the less connected we are spiritually, the more they come under attack and struggle to 'stand'. It's like a lightswitch being flipped.
So yeah, I think women seeking that covering, ESPECIALLY in the end times when spiritual warfare becomes more outwardly visible and obvious, would be the primary reason.
If we take The Metaphor out to 30,000 feet these women would be analogous to atheists. There's your starting point.
I mean, women were literally designed out of a piece of men. That's the image no matter how metaphorically we take it. We as men were designed to have helpers (women). Women were designed to complete/help their men. One could argue neither of us is fully whole without the other. Does an incomplete puzzle get hung on the wall for display?