• 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.

Is 4:1 revisited

steve

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
This is a reply that I wrote addressing the supposition that Is 4:1 is describing feminists who want men to protect them, but otherwise want to be fully independent:

I can see where you could read feminism into the two verses, and it does fit nicely.

But when you put all of chapters 3 & 4 together, you see arrogant feminism in chapter 3 that gets laid low toward the end of the chapter and 4:1 is actually the repentant turn-around. They realize the reproach that they are under and they proposition a man to be their covering.
That's when the sun breaks forth and everything thing gets naturally beautiful.

Why did they offer to support themselves?
Because they knew that just any man wouldn't do. They needed a man that had proven himself, a man that had been tested and had a reputation for leading his clan. A man that already had multiple wives living in unity.
But that man couldn't support 7 more financially.
They were already supporting themselves, all they had to do was trade their independence for YHWH's plan of male leadership/covering and yes, protection.
 
This is an interesting take. If I see the progression your talking about.
Makes me happy because feminism as one of the greatest destroyers of family today.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
I like that thought....it is better than the "this would only happen if the world was in total melt down" well that still might be involved but I will definitely go back and read the chapters with a new thought process. :-)
 
Steve, I agree you, but I think you might find this interesting in terms of the reason why the women offer to support themselves as his wives. Things are a lot worse than most believe.

Fred Reed wrote an article recently in which he asked a critical question: who is going to buy all the junk that's being produced by robotic factories? I don't know how many are aware, but a trip through Wal Mart will reveal a surprising percentage of stuff that was first touched by a human hand when it got taken out of the box and put on the shelf. And this is a fast-moving trend. I highly recommend reading the article.

If you read the article you might notice that in his list of various robotic stuff available, one of them is a sex robot. Not to go into too much detail, but the fact is, current surveys show about 70% of men between 24 and 35 are not married. There are a lot of reasons, but one of them is porn and devices like the fleshlight, of which millions have been sold. That is what is known as a "masturbation aid" and from what I hear, they are not only lifelike in terms of how they feel but cheap. Now we have robots that are essentially simulacrums of women that serve a single purpose- replacing real human females. And women should be worried.

The next major step is combining something like the sex robot with virtual reality and once that's successfully done (and you would not believe the insane amounts of money currently being spent to make this a reality) it's game over for modern feminist women. At that point, the only advantage real women bring to the table is the ability to bear children and that's already on shaky ground because there are several companies right now who offer soup-to-nuts birth mothers in India. Purchase the eggs (just like a sperm bank, they provide all the essential biographical and historical details on the women who sold them), fertilize them with his sperm and the birth mother is impregnated IVF. She carries to term, the baby is born and the father is the only one who has the legal rights to parenthood for that child. This would not be happening were it not for the current system that allows a wife to divorce her husband and effectively terminate his fatherhood.

I wrote a series of books a couple of years ago with a Louis L'Amour style multi-generational story line that started off with 3 low-income single moms deciding to team up and share a husband. One of the themes in the beginning was the increased security and household income they could get with such an arrangement. I saw it then and still see it today as a solution for the devastation modern immorality and divorce have wrought on the church. The idea is there, it's waiting on the appropriate environmental factors. I believe they're right around the corner.

While everyone has always seen the modern application of the 4:1 prophesy in terms of war that significantly reduced the number of men, at this point I'm starting to see other possibilities. Remember the old joke: "Women- if it wasn't for sex we'd issue hunting licenses for them" and think about that in an era of sex robots and virtual reality combined with a job market that provides very little income. An environment in which women are a liability due to their feminist attitude if nothing else. There is currently a lot of pent-up anger against women, as a group. And it's righteous anger.

This is certainly something I see coming and it's already being felt around the edges right now. I know men who refuse to get married and when vasalgel hits the market next year I think we'll see the tipping point. For those who don't feel like clicking through, valalgel is essentially a 10-year "sperm sieve" injected into the vas deferens that functions as a vasectomy until the man desires to have children. At that point, the man gets another injection which dissolves the "sieve" and he's fertile again. Think about what happens when that is readily available.

Men will have control of their fertility and won't have to depend on women. Boys get injected at puberty, no more teenage pregnancies, no more birth control needed for the girls. I can seriously see laws being passed regarding that, the kid doesn't have the right to fatherhood until he's an adult.

The problem is it's easier to get out of a marriage today than a cell phone contract. And when that happens, women are given preferential treatment while the men are penalized. While every woman can come up with a story about a woman who got screwed in a divorce, the figures indicate that it's running at a ratio of 1000 to 1 when looking at the horror stories comparing men to women. Folks who don't have contact with it usually don't have any idea how bad it is, but thanks to the internet men are dropping out in droves because they're learning the truth.

The problems with the unequal treatment of men and women is going to cause a huge backlash against women. I'm already seeing signs the pendulum has swung about as far as it can go (I could be wrong), but I expect to see women lose the right to vote sometime in the next few years. When that happens (it will) the laws will change as the pendulum swings back and it won't stop at "fair" because that's not how things work. Married women will have honor because they proved themselves valuable enough for a man to commit to a marriage to them. Not being married will be a "reproach" to women, a sign they are of little value. And the society, if not the law itself, will reflect that outlook.

So, I can easily see women being 2nd class citizens who are only honored if they're married, but at that point there won't be a lot of incentive for a man to marry because of all the other options he has. That would create the perfect environment for women to strongly desire marriage to the few men who are willing to take on the liability, but once one gets past 3 or 4 wives, what is the point of adding more wives? Really. The result is the women do everything they can to remove the liability from the equation, just give us your name and take away our reproach.

And you might think that's the basis for a fantasy novel, but if starting today 1000 trained men applied 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) to the electorate with the goal of removing women, I guarantee you not one in a thousand women would vote in November because they would have voluntarily removed themselves from the rolls as registered voters. And there is literally nothing the government could do about it. In the long term, the only thing that could be done to stop such actions would be a micro-chip in everyone with a cashless society and total control, such that no-one can buy or sell without a chip.

And the speed with which this stuff could happen is phenomenal.
 
The future is going to be interesting.
I doubt that the sex toys will have a huge effect, but that's just me.
 
I agree that sex toys and virtual reality will make any relationship with modern women almost unheard of. We already see how video games and online personas can take over and replace physical interactions. Young people already have internet "addiction". Video games and controllable environments are very seductive to the male mind and they will continue to persuade more and more men to retreat to the one place they can control.

Especially as women force their way into the last few male spaces left, video games, men will start looking for ways to live in their own minds and worlds.

It will be an ugly, lonely and scary world for many women who come from small families and are unable to find a permanent pair bonding.
 
Ok. Porn went from so called art to magazines and pinups. Now it's free access to pc and even more personal the phone. An increasing. ...... less smart schooling with each class and generation. And social media has turned antisocial into zombies in there own world. But zac..... unheard-of relationships? The relational dynamic might change into something unrecognizable. But could it really be none existent? Even without any marriage, sexual relationships are there? It is quite a deep statement. Whom will my children Marry in this world ?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
I know it sounds crazy JR but we've seen it already in Japan where there are large swaths of young people who eschew all forms of coupling. They have a name for them but I forgot what it was. The New York Slimes just had an article about how pervasive transactional sex is becoming and linked it to young people not wanting to settle down.

This is coming. I worry about your children and mine. That's why I wish some of you would have some more. My 12 are going to be pretty isolated.
 
ZecAustin said:
I know it sounds crazy JR but we've seen it already in Japan where there are large swaths of young people who eschew all forms of coupling. They have a name for them but I forgot what it was.

Herbivores, or literally, "grass eaters."

And it's really driven by the men, not the women, because by the time the women hit their 30's and get babies rabies the guys have built their own little world and aren't interested any longer. It's not like the girls eschew coupling, it's that they are only attracted to about the top 20% of the guys and the bottom 80% are left to invent VR porn and sexbots. Feminism is a world-wide thing.
 
Just some thoughts that arise to me in this discussion.

I think what is more likely, is we will resolve STD's, resolve unwanted pregnancies, and most people will live very poly-amorously from a young age (high-school or earlier?). Its already accepted, it will now/then be expected and desired. People will sexually explore without regard to the act of sex as sacred. Jealously will still be there, so I think these parts of culture will be mostly serial-monogamist, with a minority being promiscuous (basically a more evolved version of what we have now).
 
Last edited:
This is a reply that I wrote addressing the supposition that Is 4:1 is describing feminists who want men to protect them, but otherwise want to be fully independent:

I can see where you could read feminism into the two verses, and it does fit nicely.

But when you put all of chapters 3 & 4 together, you see arrogant feminism in chapter 3 that gets laid low toward the end of the chapter and 4:1 is actually the repentant turn-around. They realize the reproach that they are under and they proposition a man to be their covering.
That's when the sun breaks forth and everything thing gets naturally beautiful.

Why did they offer to support themselves?
Because they knew that just any man wouldn't do. They needed a man that had proven himself, a man that had been tested and had a reputation for leading his clan. A man that already had multiple wives living in unity.
But that man couldn't support 7 more financially.
They were already supporting themselves, all they had to do was trade their independence for YHWH's plan of male leadership/covering and yes, protection.
 
Isaiah 4:1 is a thorny scripture for force monogamists. It is often explained away by preceding verses in chapter 3, stating that all the men had been killed leaving a throng of widows. However, there is no direct connection between chapter 3 and chapter 4; in fact chapter 4 begins a completely new topic, at a different period of time.

The term "in that day" is often used to refer to the "last days" just before the Lord's return. Plurality is being restored by the Spirit of God BECAUSE we are living in the last days - it's part and parcel to the "Restoration of all things" referred to by Peter in Acts 3:21.

That polygamy is restored in the last days is further confirmed in Jeremiah 31:22: Woman (or women according to Strongs #5347, Numbers 31:15) shall encompass, seek and protect a man. A man's wives should be in concert with one another, thus strengthening their husband to do the work of the Lord.
 
Back
Top