« What Abigail said, Part 1 | Main | Right and Wrong - A Matter of Guessing ? »
What Abigail said, Part 2
By Joshuah | April 17, 2008
Here is Abigail’s second comment:
Abigail | hainanmom@yahoo.com
Whoa, that’s really taking Isaiah 4 out of context. Did you ever bother to read Isaiah 3 and discover WHY all those women were willing to be the husband of one man (even when the husband didn’t feed and clothe them) ??? This is a prophecy about a time of punishment and tribulation for Jerusalem and Judea.
Let’s see…basically, God is taking away bread and water from Jerusalem, the wise men, the strong men are no more, children are running the show, the men are all dying in battle…and yeah, because there isn’t many men left, women are grabbing up any man that’s still standing…this is a prophecy about a chaotic time with dreadful results.
That is hardly a legitimate argument for polygamy, anymore than it is a legitimate argument for children to rule the city (which also happens in the prophecy). You’re gonna have to do better than that.
Well, it would behoove us to also read a little further in Isa 4 then in order to find out what the whole polygamy thing leads to:
“And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, “We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach.” In that day the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and honor of the survivors of Israel. And he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem, when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.” (Isa 4:1-4)
So those polygamous families are the beautiful and glorious branch, and not the dreadful result of a chaotic time, as you put it… Like you said, this is prophecy, and what is prophesied is that those left over, those that stand until the end (Mat 24:13, but compare Matthew 24 and 25), will be who God will start over with, and those men will be rather desirable, it seems.
As for what the women say, please consider Exo 21:10:
“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.” (Exo 21:10)
“Only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach” quite obviously refers to marital rights, in other word, having offspring, children. That is what these women want from their husband. They say they will take care of the other two things a husband owes his wives, so to speak, but the third one is what they are after, quite well in accordance with the dominion mandate of Gen 1:28. You find Rachel saying the same thing when she finally gives birth to Joseph:
“Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son and said, “God has taken away my reproach.” And she called his name Joseph, saying, “May the LORD add to me another son!” “(Gen 30:22-24)
See, from a casual reading only you do not come to an understanding of Scripture as you will miss all the references, all the meat of the matter and come away, like many people do, dissatisfied, thinking that the surface layer is all there is, and probably run off to find something more “spiritual” in its stead. Scripture indeed says what it means and means what is says, and it does so in its entirety, which is why the entirety of Scripture has to “back up” your understanding of each and every verse.
One last thing: It does not do anyone any good to pull the ad hominem thing. Classifying our arguments as weak or saying we would have to do better than that does not make your arguments stronger, I suppose you know that, but makes you appear as being rather emotional about the whole issue.
Topics: apologetics |
April 18th, 2008 at 4:56 am
The reference from Exodus 21 is not about a regular wife, but about a woman sold by her family to be a slave — who ultimately becomes a concubine. This passage has to do with the proper consideration of a slave-concubine — that since her master has taken away her virginity — he can’t sell her off to someone else. The passage says if he takes “another” (acher — could mean another slave/concubine or a regular wife) he must continue to feed, clothe, and sleep with the concubine, and if he doesn’t, he should set her free. A concubine isn’t the same as a regular wife — she is essentially a sex slave. Note that her owner isn’t told to give her a bill of divorcement — simply to just set her free.
I rather feel that the “reproach” that Rachel felt had more to do with Leah being more fertile than she — than with fulfilling God’s mandate to populate the earth. That’s why God commanded that a man could not marry a woman AND her sister, because of the jealousy that it engenders.
Now, that prophecy in Isaiah is for the Jews living in Jerusalem and Judea — not for Gentiles living in America or anywhere else.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Abigail,
As for a proper understanding of the differences between wives, maidservants and concubines, you might consider reading Gary North’s “Tools of Dominion”. Concubines weren’t sex slaves, not in the Hebrew mindset, so you need to do some research there. “Tools of Dominion” is available for free in pdf format at freebooks.com.
I referenced Exo 21:10 to show you the things a husband owes his wife, no matter what status she has, and isn’t it peculiar that the very same things are mentioned in Isa 4:1 again, minus the bit about “marital rights”. By the way, how do you think the status of each of these 7 women who cling to the one man in Isa 4:1 is to be determined ? What makes them wives or concubines ?
What you say you “feel” about Rachel’s reproach boils down to the same thing: She was barren, which was her reproach. Leah wasn’t “more fertile” than Rachel, she simply was fertile, whereas Rachel was not. You find the same barrenness in Hannah, and God closed her womb for the same reason too, though her husband was not married to her sister too. Consistency in your interpretation of Scripture matters more than your feelings, unfortunately.
And yes indeed, Isaiah prophecies for Jews living in Jerusalem and Judea just like Jesus does in Matthew 24 and 25, so I guess in your mind, that doesn’t apply either to believers of today’s world.
I wonder if you are a believer, actually, or if reading the bible is just an intellectual exercise for you. Regardless though, consistency matters whether or not you actually fear God.
Grace and Peace,
Talitha
April 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
So where is any New Covenant support for the plural marraige? After all, this is a site discussing “Christian Polygamy…”
Wasn’t Christ the fulfillment of the Old Covenant????
April 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Chuck,
We discussed New Testament/ New Covenant references to polygamy in two articles on this site. Here are the links:
http://www.christian-polygamy.com/about-marriage/
http://www.christian-polygamy.com/marriage-references-in-scripture/
As for the Old and New Covenant, the terms of both contracts are the same, only the parties involved have changed. Whereas the Old Covenant was made with the people of Israel, the New Covenant has been made with everyone who is a spiritual son / daughter of Abraham. Fulfillment does not mean that the terms of the contract are suddenly abolished - God’s Law, God’s standard of what is right and what is wrong, is as valid in the New Covenant as it was in the Old, is as valid today as it was 2000 years ago.
Grace and Peace,
Talitha