Pilegesh, anyone?

[rockfox]

Do the scriptures ever directly refer to marriage as a covering for women?

I get the metaphor. Covering is a sign of authority (1 Cor 11)...if she's married and under his authority then she is in a sense 'under a man's covering' as a way of saying she's 'under his authority'. And I can see how it could be true that she gets spiritual protection be being under her husbands covering, though I don't know I could defend that from scripture.

Been watching this with interest. Hoping someone will tackle defining and explaining from Scripture this 'reproach.'

Me too. The best I've been able to understand is that they, for whatever reason, recaptured the traditional understanding that it's shameful for a woman not to get married.

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.

In a way yes, but they don't do it from a motive to take away their shame or be called by his name. They don't do it from any kind of godly motive at all. And they hate hate hate pre-nups and the like. They want that golden parachute when they see fit to jump ship.

I see their offer as one of several things:

• they are forgoing the financial benefits of marriage to assure the man they are not after his wallet (like so many modern women today)
• they are sweetening the pot by absolving him of his scriptural responsibilities
• they are making it easier for him to take on multiple women by lightening the burden

In all of these possible explanations (and in the text itself) is a sense that they have changed their motives/behavior, they are desperate, and they need to overcome hesitance on the man's part.

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.

1) It comes from a general repentance of that society. For whatever reason, I'm not sure yet, being single is now seen as a shame.

2) 'Girlfriend' is not a scriptural term, but a 20th century one. The women in Isaiah 4:1 are 'his'. They are under his authority and name. That is closest to our modern concept of 'wife' but our modern understanding of girlfriend isn't very much different than concubinage. However I don't see modern girlfriendage as quite accomplishing taking away reproach.

3/4) The text speaks of Jerusalem, Zion, and Israel. However I wouldn't limit this to that day, time, or place. In the first place it could be speaking of future spiritual Israel. Secondly, several of the OT prophecies including in Isaiah had local and future fulfillments. And then I'm not aware that Isaiah 4 was ever fulfilled before Christ. Lastly, given the extreme number of parallels between us and Isaiah, it could be these can be taken as general prophecies towards a people/society. When a people turns their back on God Isaiah 2/3 is what happens and Isaiah 4 is how you repent. Generally speaking. IOW, general principles for societies. We are after-all, not the first people to turn to immorality and see women become rulers, to our own downfall.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I'm not sure yet, being single is now seen as a shame.

Simply the state of singleness? What makes you think so?

I think maybe a cause for their reproach might be because they are bald, diseased looking, and they stink.

...

To credit @Asforme&myhouse , his meme clicked it for me that actually, we WERE told what the women would look like, right in the previous chapter.

The Lord says,
“The women of Zion are haughty,
walking along with outstretched necks,
flirting with their eyes,
strutting along with swaying hips,
with ornaments jingling on their ankles.
17 Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion;
the Lord will make their scalps bald.

18 In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the earrings and bracelets 20 the headdresses and anklets and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, 21 the signet rings and nose rings, 22 the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses 23 and mirrors, and the linen garments and shawls.

24 Instead of fragrance there will be a stench;
instead of a sash,a rope;
instead of well-dressed hair, baldness;
instead of fine clothing, sackcloth
instead of beauty, branding.

I'm thinking now that maybe even concubinage is preferable for formerly glamorous girls who are now hideous.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

So... more like this?

Simply the state of singleness? What makes you think so?

I think maybe a cause for their reproach might be because they are bald, diseased looking, and they stink.

...

To credit @Asforme&myhouse , his meme clicked it for me that actually, we WERE told what the women would look like, right in the previous chapter.

The Lord says,
“The women of Zion are haughty,
walking along with outstretched necks,
flirting with their eyes,
strutting along with swaying hips,
with ornaments jingling on their ankles.
17 Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion;
the Lord will make their scalps bald.

18 In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the earrings and bracelets 20 the headdresses and anklets and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, 21 the signet rings and nose rings, 22 the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses 23 and mirrors, and the linen garments and shawls.

24 Instead of fragrance there will be a stench;
instead of a sash,a rope;
instead of well-dressed hair, baldness;
instead of fine clothing, sackcloth
instead of beauty, branding.

I'm thinking now that maybe even concubinage is preferable for formerly glamorous girls who are now hideous.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Getting to this late. As to covering, the scriptural picture I see is of a Tent/household/covering. The positions of everyone in this tent are all related to the Judge who is at the door. The tent is extrapolated from in the Jewish culture to be the picture of sanctuary or a city of refuge.

The man at the entrance to the Tent meets the Judge and gives account for everything done under his covering. In this role he is uncovered personally and everyone under him is covered.

The women and children are covered by the tent and thus rely on the father to cover them, and grant immunity from the cost of their sin because he is held accountable and liable for everything under his covering. Think Adam and Eve.

This plays out in real life with a wife who is put away. She’s still under the covering, still being provided for but there’s a private separation in fellowship between her and her husband. The goal is to restore the fellowship that the relationship should have.

This also plays out in real life with a wife who was put away and is stubbornly refusing to reconcile fellowship. IF he decides that he’s not willing to be accountable for her, the next step is to give her a writing of divorcement which cuts her off and puts her outside the Tent making the private separation, public. He is now no longer accountable for her actions. This puts her at a grave disadvantage because she cant speak for herself in the assembly or in capital accusations. The only way for her to be protected again is to find another covering or be restored to her original covering.

It also plays out in the case of children. A son who is rebellious is taken before the assembly meaning that the father is removing his covering and protection.

A daughter is brought to her fathers door. Why? In this case, I believe that he is her judge as keeper of the door of her sanctuary.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Does the phrase, "she will be saved through childbirth" have any relevance?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I’d be interested to know what’s the meaning behind that one. Thats one I cant quite reconcile yet.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Me either.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I’m certain its important though

 

[Edward]

In respect to "take away our reproach" in Isaiah 4:1 I believe it is in regards to women being barren or the closing of the womb and here's why.
And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach:
(Genesis 30:23)
Rachel was barren, she had no children. But as soon as she had a child she said the above quote.
Here is another example in the New Testament from Elisabeth:
Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.
(Luke 1:25)

It seems to me that the women always looked at being barren as a disgrace, which fits the definition of reproach.
What do you all think??

 

[PeteR]

In respect to "take away our reproach" in Isaiah 4:1 I believe it is in regards to women being barren or the closing of the womb and here's why.
And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach:
(Genesis 30:23)
Rachel was barren, she had no children. But as soon as she had a child she said the above quote.
Here is another example in the New Testament from Elisabeth:
Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.
(Luke 1:25)

It seems to me that the women always looked at being barren as a disgrace, which fits the definition of reproach.
What do you all think??

I like this, though need to a) compare Hebrew in Isaiah to Genesis and b) this assumes somehow babymama falls out of fashion and they come to the truthful position that children out of wedlock is shameful...

 

[PeteR]

Okay.. same word. Now to understand fullness and why by reading/studying all 72 occurances. First mention is Genesis 30:23, but that is only limited use.

The basic initial understanding is 'shame,' a very important concept in an eastern honor society. If that bears out, we must come to grips with how truly shameful it is for a woman to be uncovered... most likely equivalent to harlot, something that is not even regarded as shameful in current society.

 

[Edward]

I like this, though need to a) compare Hebrew in Isaiah to Genesis and b) this assumes somehow babymama falls out of fashion and they come to the truthful position that children out of wedlock is shameful...

PeteR, both uses of reproach come from the same Hebrew word 2781. The verses are not talking about women having children out of wedlock but they are referring to be childless and now having their wombs open. Of course in Is 4:1 we can't say that the women are barren, just unmarried and wanting a head and children.

 

[rockfox]

I think maybe a cause for their reproach might be because they are bald, diseased looking, and they stink.

That may be some of it but not all of it. New women are born every day. These sorts of social situations tend to end in a surplus of old maids, who would fit your description. They don't get married, but they do provide a negative example for the up and comers.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

So... more like this?

I think you nailed it.

 

[rockfox]

Does the phrase, "she will be saved through childbirth" have any relevance?

I’d be interested to know what’s the meaning behind that one. Thats one I cant quite reconcile yet.

I also have long wondered about the meaning of that and think it is relevant to this. We can't reconcile it because it doesn't fit into our received theologies. But I've only come to fleeting understandings and am not entirely uncertain myself.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

I'm actually uncertain about the context/grammar here. Is this talking about God getting her safely through childbirth, or about her ultimate salvation? Is 'they' referring to women or to her children?

I'm not certain, but neither answer to those questions is comfortable for modern evangelicals.

That list brings to mind another list of essential things women were to do...

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Pretty close to a 1:1 correspondence there between those two verses; with the later being more explicit.

What is the role of her husband? Eph5: To lead her to sanctification. So what happens if she has not a husband? Esp. if she's your usual woman ruling strong independent one. We see the fruit of that all around us today, and it isn't holiness. You can even see it statistically in voting patterns broken down by sex and marital status.

Let us also keep in mind woman's created purpose: to be a helper to a man and bear him many children. Even Paul's instructions to younger widows taught this...

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.

What was the result if they didn't marry and bear children? Turning aside after Satan.

So we see in Genesis God's created purpose is for womankind is to marry, help their husbands and bear children. What happens if they rebel against that purpose? What happens to any person who rebels against God? And is it not a shame/reproach if they fail to do it? Do we not see in society today that women who rule also often reject marriage and childbirth? Hence repentance from feminism entails a return to that heavenly purpose as we see in Isaiah 4.

I also can't help but notice the modern single woman's propensity for being give to wine; another thing tying together these three verses.

Thank you @Edward for illuminating what their reproach was, barrenness, that ties in neatly with all of this.

Contrast these Biblical emphases to the modern church, which calls evil good and good evil, pressures women to delay marriage and to limit the number of children they have while counseling them to rebel against their husband's authority. No, of course they have no answer for 1 Tim 2:15; if they even know it is in their Bibles.

Ok, that was all me talking it through and trying to remember what I had figured out so far, I still think I'm missing an aspect.

I have also noticed that women who go without sex or are barren for inability to get a man tend to get a little crazy.

The Titus 2 instructions are also a pretty good description of modern woman: unholy, false accessors, drunken, teaching bad things, unloving towards husbands and children if they even have them, not chaste, not discreet, not at home, not obedient to husbands. And that goes for most women in the church too.

And how does the world view the word of God today? I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Sure gives a new answer to those who bemoan the state of society today.

Repentance starts at home.

 

[rockfox]

I think you nailed it.

I wouldn't marry 7 of those. Quantity isn't it's own quality in that circumstance. If that is the interpretation, I'd have to say that Isaiah 4:1 isn't a prophecy of a return to polygamy, but of a time when women are desperate enough to offer that (but won't get it anyway).

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I wouldn't marry 7 of those.

The text says that 7 women will take hold of one man. It doesn't say he accepted.

I agree that the text isn't a prophecy about the return of polygamy.

 

[rockfox]

The text says that 7 women will take hold of one man. It doesn't say he accepted.

I agree that the text isn't a prophecy about the return of polygamy.

So on this prophecy of a time when the people in repentance turn back to God and are beautiful and glorious; they still embrace monogamy?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The sores on the head and the baldness reminds me of the passage that talks about a woman divorced being shorn. A woman who had her head covered (by hair or scarf) who is then shorn to embarrass her as a symbol of being cast out or her covering removed would no doubt have at least sunburn or something if it wasn’t some form of razor burn or having her head shorn with a dull knife. OUCH.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

So on this prophecy of a time when the people in repentance turn back to God and are beautiful and glorious; they still embrace monogamy?

I don't think we're communicating here.

I don't think this prophecy, (and by prophecy I mean this passage in it's totality, not this one verse) is a prophecy about the return of polygamy.

The main point of this passage is the brutal cleansing of Zion by none other than the Lord, which the desperate acts of the humiliated women serves to underscore.

To say that this prophecy heralds the return of polygamy means that
a) It went somewhere
b) It did not come back prior to this event

Neither are things that I really believe are true or can be proven.

The beautiful and glorious branch of the Lord I take to be Jesus. I don't think the people who are repenting and being judged by fire will be seen as very much of either.