Isaiah 4:1 Wives or Concubines? Covering, Conjugal Rights, and Reproach

[Hisdaughter]

Esther was, for whatever reason, under the covering of her uncle. What is interesting is that she continued to obey him even after being married to the king, which he required (if memory serves correctly).
Wives have trouble obeying their husbands nowadays, the possibility that a woman would obey someone that she isn’t married to isn’t very good, but it could happen if. A person who is more of a counselor/advisor would just be a pretense of a covering.
Time would tell whether it was real or not, but there isn’t much support for it Biblically. Esther being the exception that proves the rule.

Esther was a good “exception” and tbh there are t a lot of good men in this world. Same as on the whole women aren’t much better if at all. Non of us are above reproach.

Psalm 14:3says, “They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one” (NKJV). We have all sinned (Romans 3:23). As Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Luke 18:19).

 

[steve]

Esther was a good “exception” and tbh there are t a lot of good men in this world. Same as on the whole women aren’t much better if at all. Non of us are above reproach.

Psalm 14:3says, “They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one” (NKJV). We have all sinned (Romans 3:23). As Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Luke 18:19).

Yes, we all need to strive to be the people that Yah dreams that we can be.

 

[JudahYAHites]

I said nothing about woman being created for man. That wasn't even my question.

You said if a woman was single, she was outside of Yahweh's plan. I said I generally agree with that in principle, but I asked for scriptural support. You didn't provide any. I then stated there were women that don't have fathers alive and can't find husbands. Are they outside of Yahweh's plan.

1 Corinthians 11:9 RSV — Neither was man created for woman, but woman FOR man.

The PURPOSE, FUNCTION and DESIGN of woman has not changed.

In the very same way the PURPOSE, FUNCTION and DESIGN of men has not changed.

If you believe that the purpose function and Design of man or woman has changed please share the scripture.

The situations and circumstances that women (or men) find themselves in changes absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zerooooo

When referring to the plan of YAH do you mean...

Genesis 1:28 — And God blessed them. (MAN AND THE WOMAN CREATED FOR HIM TO HELP HIM) And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Then YES is the answer.

The quicker women AND men realize this the better

 

[JudahYAHites]

Apologies for near duplicate posts I was writing the screen glitched and I continued writing to find I had apparently already posted without pressing post reply... maybe it's because I'm still using a blackberry lol

 

[MemeFan]

Apologies for near duplicate posts I was writing the screen glitched and I continued writing to find I had apparently already posted without pressing post reply... maybe it's because I'm still using a blackberry lol

Can't you delete one of posts?

 

[JudahYAHites]

Can't you delete one of posts?

Thanks done

 

[JudahYAHites]

Not sounding charge, just putting out the counter narrative for the newbies, but this doesn’t have scriptural support and is largely based on assumptions about “covering” (all coming from a good place) that we have never established as concrete.

Interesting @The Revolting Man is there a thread on here where this has been discussed that I can read through?
or
Are you able to share what the "assumptions" about "covering" are?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Interesting @The Revolting Man is there a thread on here where this has been discussed that I can read through?
or
Are you able to share what the "assumptions" about "covering" are?

I think there is a thread or two and it’s been debated a number of times.

The assumptions are almost anything concrete about “covering”. We’re not told much about it. There’s no direct scriptural support that a woman must always have a covering or that a woman who loses a covering automatically reverts to her father’s covering. It’s a nebulous concept at best.

 

[JudahYAHites]

I think there is a thread or two and it’s been debated a number of times.

The assumptions are almost anything concrete about “covering”. We’re not told much about it. There’s no direct scriptural support that a woman must always have a covering or that a woman who loses a covering automatically reverts to her father’s covering. It’s a nebulous concept at best.

Cool, that is interesting, thanks for that, I will search the threads. Bless

 

[steve]

that a woman who loses a covering automatically reverts to her father’s covering.

I have never believed that it is automatic, just that choosing to live uncovered is wrong.

 

[steve]

This one was written over 6 months ago in a related thread. I think that it is very apropos for this thread. Thanks @JudahYAHites for bringing it to my attention.

“Let’s start with the beginning.
Why did Yah create just Adam without also creating Eve from the get go? The way it was written is almost as if He didn’t consider that Adam would need a mate until after the fact.
In truth, I believe that He was making a statement.
Why did He create Adam? For fellowship with Himself.
Why did He create Eve? For Adam. Period.
There was never any equality intended, He chose to show that Eve was junior to Adam in how he created her and presented her to Adam. This was before the fall, it was never “corrected” by the death of our Savior. Only the products of the fall were affected by his death.

The concept of covering isn’t specifically stated, but it is an underlying foundation for the relationship between male and female.
My understanding of it is “protection plus”. It is much deeper and more complicated than simply protection. Cover is used a couple times in Scripture in Yah’s relation to man.

Deuteronomy 33:12 (KJV) [And] of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; [and the LORD] shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.
The Hebrew word used here is defined, in addition to cover, as to enclose, shelter, shield or surround.
As Yah would treat us, so should we treat our women.

Isaiah 22:17 (KJV) Behold, the LORD will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.
A different Hebrew word is used here, but the meaning is similar, to cover, enwrap, wrap oneself, envelop oneself. The physical manifestation of this is to simply take your wife in your arms, but the emotion should go much deeper than a simple hug, she should feel protected and cared for.

When Ruth approached Boaz in private to offer him herself, she asked him to spread his skirt over her. She was asking him to cover her, not just have sex with her. Even though the specific word isn’t used.

Adam failed to cover Eve when it came to eating of the forbidden fruit.
Many scholars agree that the way that the story goes down in the Hebrew language was that Eve didn’t take the fruit to Adam, she just gave it to him because he was standing right there and had observed the whole thing.
He failed to speak up and protect her from making a bad decision. He allowed it and then joined her. It was later called Adam’s transgression even though Eve ate first.

In Numbers 30 we have the teaching that a daughter that makes a vow, no matter how strongly she makes it, is subject to her father’s acceptance of the vow. The same with a wife. The only exceptions are a widowed or divorced woman. There is no exception for the women who have left their fathers authority and are on their own. Those women weren’t to exist. In fact you see widows being sent back to their fathers, who would presumably pick the covering back up. Ex. Tamar.

In Isaiah 4:1, why are the seven women asking for his name? In order to take away their reproach (scorn, disgrace, shame)
Having his name would cover them.
What was their shame? It’s not spelled out, but they do state that being under his name removes it. Could it be anything besides singlehood? I reject that it is children that they are referring to, because they just specifically ask for his name.
(There used to be shame in spinsterhood, then shame in being a single mom, now there is no shame in anything. Isaiah 4:1 is when women become reacquainted with shame and decide to live a righteous life)

Yah speaks of being father to the fatherless, but I cannot find where He claims to be husband to all the single women. Yet that is what they have been taught to claim.

As great as the failings of men have been, show me the society that has succeeded where the women aren’t covered by men. As women become less covered, society disintegrates.”

 

[RemnantResilience]

So, that being said reproach is to a woman *what Ronin is to a samurai.

 

[steve]

So, that being said reproach is to a woman but Ronin is to a samurai.

Evidently there are parallels.

 

[FollowingHim]

I believe @steve is making an error in assuming that the status of women in Isaiah 4:1, particularly being under "reproach", is universally applicable to all women at all times. This is a prophecy about a future event. It tells us that at that time, in that setting, unmarried women were under "reproach". Is there a clear scriptural reason to extend that to all women always?

Not understanding the full circumstances that will exist at that time, this entire debate may be simply missing an important point. I think of examples of young women marrying at short notice when ISIS invaded their village, in the hope that being married would mean they would not have the "reproach" of being a single virgin woman and hopefully keep them off the radar of the terrorists. That is a unique situation, and Isaiah 4:1 may describe another unique situation.

Furthermore, the idea that every single woman is outside God's plan ignores Paul's promotion of celibacy as a good thing, at least in some circumstances for some people. This truly is God's plan for a select few.

Yes, God has a general order established wherein woman is created for man and both are intended to be married, as a general principle. But that does not mean exceptions to this principle are always reproachful. Isaiah 4:1 only tells us that women were under reproach in one set of specific circumstances.

 

[JudahYAHites]

reproach

in the majority of cultures across the earth to be unmarried with or without children is a cause for reproach after reaching a specific age.
In the east e.g. Korea, Japan etc there are specific names for these women just as @steve pointed out, women used to be called spinsters in the West,

(There used to be shame in spinsterhood, then shame in being a single mom, now there is no shame in anything. Isaiah 4:1 is when women become reacquainted with shame and decide to live a righteous life)

Even the sound of the name spinster isn't nice (unless you are a modern club DJ)

Is there a clear scriptural reason to extend that to all women always?

1 Corinthians 7:2 KJV — Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let EVERY man have his own wife, and let EVERY woman have her own husband.

How much fornication would be avoided in the church if this was recognized as standard ?


Titus 2:3-5 KJV — 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

On my reading of the new testament the one flesh covenant union between a man and as woman is the standard.
The introduction of the words 'wife' and 'husband' take the position of this one flesh covenant union between a man and a woman that we identify and call marriage out from being an order of living ordained by YAH from the beginning, to a choice or an alternate lifestyle.

Whereas, in the beginning scripture clearly states

Genesis 1:28 KJV — And God blessed THEM...

NOT 'him' or 'her'

Reminds me of women of virtue conferences gatherings etc. where the majority of women are single and their focus is building their businesses not recognising that three times in that whole passage it states "her husband"​

Paul's promotion of celibacy as a good thing

There is a caveat in the context of Apostle Pauls promotion of celibacy

Read all 1 Corinthians 7

"the present distress" v26

Are we still in that present distress ?

even before that he states

1 Corinthians 7:7 KJV — For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

Apostle Paul would love it if every one was like him, however, he understood that not everyone is, which we can see is in line with "Jesus"

Matthew 19:11-12 KJV — But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


Now going to Isaiah 4:1 that prophecy starts from chapter 2 and the state of the women mentioned in 4:1 leading to this is detailed in chapter 3, and when you study through in detail what happens to them and why you will find that all of these things are already happening now with the daughters of Zion, hence, why the topic of polygyny is being raised, promoted, taught, discussed and increasingly accepted and practised.

 

[FollowingHim]

@JudahYAHites, I feel you are too quick to dismiss Paul's thinking here, on the simplistic basis that "not everyone is" called to celibacy. Yet flipping it around 1 Corinthians 7:7 equally means not everyone is called to marriage.

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

Strictly speaking, and it might shock some that I say this but just hear me out, Paul is saying that celibacy is the most "holy" - the most "set-apart" - way to live. By strict definition of the word "holy". Someone who chooses to devote their life to God without marrying is "set apart" for His service in a way that a married person is not. This is the fundamental reason why the church through all ages has valued celibacy.

That does not mean that celibacy is "better" than marriage. It is just that marriage is normal, and celibacy is uniquely different.

Now obviously when you take this too far you end up in dangerous territory also. When celibacy is promoted so much that people who are not truly called to celibacy decide to try and live it, you get evils that have well been exhibited by the Catholic church in recent years.

The extremes, of either denigrating marriage or denigrating celibacy, are wrong. But there is a middle ground that recognises both as valid callings, and that is what Paul is describing. The majority of the population will marry (obviously, or mankind would die out), and some will be celibate as the best way to fulfil specific callings on their lives by God.

If it is right for some to be celibate, you cannot firmly state that all must marry and anyone who does not marry is under reproach. There are clearly cases that contradict the rule that you are proposing. Now, we are in agreement that marriage is the best status for 99% of the population. I'm just saying it's possible to be over-dogmatic about it.

 

[Keith Martin]

Read all 1 Corinthians 7

"the present distress" v26

Are we still in that present distress ?

We are not. Paul didn't even view things as equivalent to that 'present distress' by the time he was in prison. He received progressive revelations from Christ. Originally, his impression was that he was experiencing the imminence of the eschaton, but he changed his mind. I Corinthians 7 is thus necessarily read in two contexts:

1. Paul's temporary and ultimately abandoned belief that the world was about to end, making saving souls paramount; and
2. The fact that he was writing about specific problems to a community of new believers who had been pagans and hypnotized to believe that monogamy-only was the only option.