7 Women and 1 Man

[Luciano Vinci]

(Isa 4:1) 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 thy name, to take away our reproach.

Literal: If we read this in the context we see that this refers to the "daughters of Jerusalem" or women of the previous chapter 3. However, I would like to look at it from the perspective of the New Jerusalem or Church.

Pessimistic View: The "seven women" are the complete religious system who are only concerned with being "called by thy name" (the "one man" being Jesus, and being named Christians). "Bread" refers to the word of God. The religious system is only concerned with eating their own bread and refuse to teach/preach the full gospel. They "wear our own apparel" refers to self righteousness, rather than putting on Christ. And reproach has to do with barrenness, or inability to reproduce; it also can refer to being husbandless (not married to Christ).

Optimistic View: Everything is the same as above, however, the seven women are the bride of Christ (ala the 7 churches of Revelation married to Jesus). The glorious Bride with some spots and wrinkles. His blood washes away spots and His fire/heat gets the wrinkles out like a hot iron.

I am an optimist, but from what I see in the church world, I have to lean more towards the thought that these seven women represent a corrupt religious system, Jezebel, Harlot, etc.

[andrew_no_one]

3:24-4:1
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.
Your men will fall by the sword,
your warriors in battle.
The gates of Zion will lament and mourn;
destitute, she will sit on the ground.
In that day seven women
will take hold of one man
and say, “We will eat our own food
and provide our own clothes;
only let us be called by your name.
Take away our disgrace!”

In context, why are seven women taking hold of one man and offering to pay their own expenses? Because so many suitable men had been slain in battle. Their disgrace would be to be childless, as was Rachel and Sarai's disgrace.

[Luciano Vinci]

the literal translation is obvious as mentioned, however, the next verse (v.2) also says "in that day" yet we all take "that day" to be future event/millenium, etc. I think that day should mean the same day in both verses if we want to keep it in context. So if that day is future, then the 7 women and 1 man, can also refer to a future event, i.e. harlot/bride/7 churches and Christ the 1 husband.

If "that day" in verse 1 refers to the Babylonian captivity, which it obviously does, I don't see why Isaiah would jump so far ahead in the very next verse "that day" (2500 plus years). Other than maybe the "day of the Lord" or "that day" is every day, as in "today is the day of salvation." Can everyday be "that day"?

[andrew_no_one]

Doesn’t that seem a bit of a stretch to you?

[Luciano Vinci]

we know there are no chapter divisions in the original writings, or verses for that matter, so its easy to see that the last half of chapter 3 continues into 4:1. What I am asking you to consider is, that the very short (6 verses) chapter 4 is all in context. That verse one and verse two are connected. Or at least as connected as chapter 3 is to 4:1. I don't think that is a stretch at all. I am not contending that chapters or verses are necessarily inspired or on the same level of authority as the written Word, however, I do believe that those responsible for placing chapters are much wiser than I am and saw something that connected all the verses of chapter 4.

[andrew_no_one]

Okay, so what will be gained from the alternative views?

[Luciano Vinci]

The gain is that Isaiah, as well as all OT Books are not just used as references or history books for believers. Jesus said that all the Law and Prophets are about Him. Therefore, when I read OT prophecy (even that which has obviously come to pass, i.e. predictions of a Babylonian captivity), I not only look at their historic application; but their present implications. The dates and actual events change but the principles are eternal.

For instance, you can pretty much boil down every person/place/thing to either good or evil/old or new:
Old Testament----------------------New Testament
The Lord..........................................Jesu s
Pharoah........................................... .Satan
Egypt............................................. ..Darkness; Bondage
Babylon........................................... .Bondage; Religious Systems
Jerusalem......................................... New Jerusalem
Israel............................................ ...The Church
The Wife..........................................The Bride
Good Men (Abraham,Moses, Joshua)....Christ
Bad Men (Saul, Ishmael, Esau)............antiChrist
good women, cities............................Church
bad women, cities..............................Harlot

We have to understand the OT the way Jesus and Paul taught it. The stories and events and prophecies meant something more to them than what the religious minds of their day believed. So to, we like Paul, should be able to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ using only the Old Testament as a reference. The early church didn't have the luxury of a New Testament, they had to find Jesus in the OT.

[andrew_no_one]

Certainly, as the law and the prophets all point to Christ. How would you equate Abraham, Joshua and Moses to Christ? If they could be, why wouldn’t you mention Melchizedek?

[Luciano Vinci]

Only listed them as examples. Melchisedec of course is a type of Christ (Heb. 7-9). Adam first earth man/Jesus first heavenly man (1 Cor. 15). Moses delivered Israel from bondage by the blood of the passover, through the sea, through the cloud (Paul made the reference in 1 Cor. 10). Abraham obvious type of Christ as the father of all nations. The promise was only made to Abraham and to Jesus according to Gal. 3:16, 29. Isaac, the son of Promise, is another easy comparison to Christ who was offered by the Father (we too are compared to Isaac in Gal. 4). Joshua is "captain" of the Lord's Hosts, the writer of Hebrews makes this reference to Christ as "captain" of our salvation (Heb. 2). David easily fits the profile as King of Kings. Solomon also as the Prince of Peace. Not to mention so many others like Joseph (shepherd and savior); Joshua (governor of Jerusalem); Aaron (High Priest), etc, etc.

Woman of the Bible are comparable to the Church (or Christ the body). Eve as the mother of us all, like heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26). Sarah, mother to the son of promise, which we are according to Paul (Gal. 4:28). Rebekah, the bride that was sought after by the Father (Abraham), for His Son (Isaac) like the picture painted by Paul in Eph. 5. Rachel, the woman sought after and sacrificed for by Jacob, because he loved her so much, like Christ who laid down His life for the Church. Many other women can be seen as the church such as Hannah; Abigail; the Shulamite in Song of Solomon; Deborah; Jael who crushes the head of Sisera ala Rom. 16:20; Mary the mother of Jesus who had the Holy Ghost fill her and she conceived (Christ the Head), like those at Pentecost who were filled with that same Holy Ghost and birthed the Church (Christ the Body). Many women/cities of the Bible foreshadow the Church.

The point is both Jesus and Paul took liberties with the written Word to show forth the message behind the message. Many of us would feel uncomfortable comparing Jesus to the snake that Moses lifted up on a pole, yet the analogy is clear. Jesus was lifted up and became a curse for us that He might redeem us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). Not many would be brave enough to make that comparison to our Lord, yet Jesus said it of Himself (Jn. 3:14). Thus we should read the OT the same way Jesus and Paul read it. Its all about Jesus.