• 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.

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

Referencing the underlined, including the previous 2 verses for context, but not ignoring the previous chapter in its entirety. Something that's been bouncing around in my head the last month or so is what exactly are "Conjugal Rights" and how does that tie into the status of the women in Isaiah 4:1?

"Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground. 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." - Isaiah 3:25-4:1

This declaration obviously being a reference to "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." -Exodus 21:10.

The established setting being that men have become scarce and these women have entered into a state of reproach. Some would be widows or divorcees, others never married (Virgins, Harlots, and Prostitutes), both potentially childless, but perhaps not all. However, any children now falling into the category of orphan or bastard. The women are still able to provide for their own basic needs, so what exactly is it they are missing that they are willing to declare to the remaining men the waiving of some of their marital rights? The only thing not waived being the conjugal rights, but what exactly are those? Sex, Children, Inheritance, Covering? Considering the desire of the women of Isaiah 4:1, what is the definition of conjugal rights? And when has one fulfilled them?

Sex? - Looking at the majority of relational desires for women it is children, I don't recall sex being an expressed desire except for to produce children. With the exception of harlotry and adultery, which still may just be the desire of children from other men (hypergamy). Considering the lack of men to justify the declaration, it would be safe to assume they are not providing for themselves through prostitution or harlotry at this point. Its possible the women would be burning with unfulfilled passion. However, sex doesn't quite fulfill the entirety of the definition of their request.

Heirs/Children? - We do see reproach referenced as bareness in other places in the bible, do we then assume that the women mentioned are all childless or barren? Or perhaps without male child? What about those with children? I think this also does not fulfill the request fully.

Covering/Stability? - The women are obviously providing for themselves but, still desire to be called by the mans name. Does this imply a desire of status, belonging, or guidance? This being something only the man can provide. The previous two terms can technically fall under this term.

So my next question is, in waiving these requirements, are these women willfully lowering themselves to a concubine status out of desperation? Exodus 21:10 simply refers to another, and does not cite either a Pilgesh or Ishah. Isaiah 4:1 does refer to the women as Ishah however, we know these women are not married because their expressed desire is to join themselves to a man, so here it can only represent a woman in general. Thoughts?
 
We shouldn't have again concubine vs wife discussion again. We have spend enough time already on this topic. And more importaintly, woman status doesn't matter as much as why?

Why would today woman find herself a man if she can provide for herself? Answer for this question is same answer for @RemnantResilience question. Sex, covering, protection, status, love etc...

I consider reproach being unmarried. Conjugal rights is sex, nothing more. Remember, Bible is written in "family friendly" way, so sex isn't directly mentioned.
 
I don't see the women in that passage even asking for relations, only "to be called by thy name" to take away this reproach.

I think they realize at some point that they were created for men, and the reproach is that no man has claimed them.

It seems to me the request is to be his, as in part of his household.

We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
 
I consider reproach being unmarried.
I think they realize at some point that they were created for men, and the reproach is that no man has claimed them.
Bingo!

Adam was created for Yah.
His wife was created for him.
Being single is out of created order.

As far as whether they were technically concubines, I don’t see that it matters, it’s only a word that still means some form of wife.
 
So every single person must or should be married? Can you support this view with scripture?

I'm not saying they shouldn't strive to be married, if single, but is that required in every case everywhere?
If you want to look at both, it’s about being under a covering.
Every male not under a covering, father or Yeshuah, is out of line with Yah’s plan.
Every woman not under a covering, father figure or husband, is out of line with Yah’s plan.
It’s just that simple, prove me wrong.
 
I don't see the women in that passage even asking for relations, only "to be called by thy name" to take away this reproach.

I think they realize at some point that they were created for men, and the reproach is that no man has claimed them.

It seems to me the request is to be his, as in part of his household.

We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
It’s like the a Matt Kearney Song. Goes something like this:

If you share my bed - you share my name.

The wife taking the man’s name implies marriage, and the marriage night typically calls for the husband and wife to come together “one flesh.” These are biblical terms, but sex is clearly implied. Actually - after marriage - the husband can have sex with his wife as much as he desires. Likewise the wife with her husband. To deny each other sex would be sin - and leading your partner temptation to sin.

A concubine is a wife. The husband has to provide for her for life - and the children. The only difference is the concubine doesn’t have rights to inheritance - but that doesn’t mean the husband is forbidden to leave her (and the children) an inheritance after he dies. I believe Abraham gave all his children an inheritance - and 2/3 of his wives were technically “concubines.”
 
Last edited:
For what reason should a woman remain single? Certainly women can in this modern age, but I cannot (immediately) think of any reason a woman should be single.
I don't know. I already said she should strive to be married. But what if she can't find a husband and is truly looking. Is she out of Yahweh's plan? Maybe no man in her circle wants her. Can she force someone to marry her?
 
If you want to look at both, it’s about being under a covering.
Every male not under a covering, father or Yeshuah, is out of line with Yah’s plan.
Every woman not under a covering, father figure or husband, is out of line with Yah’s plan.
It’s just that simple, prove me wrong.
If I make a statement of fact, it's on me to support it scripturally.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I asked if this view could be supported by scripture. I generally agree with you in principle.

However, some women can't find husbands and maybe their father isn't alive anymore.
 
I don't know. I already said she should strive to be married. But what if she can't find a husband and is truly looking. Is she out of Yahweh's plan? Maybe no man in her circle wants her. Can she force someone to marry her?
Ah, I see your viewpoint.

My question would be this: It is God's design that a child is raised by a father to guide them, does this mean an orphan is "out of" God's plan?

I think we would all agree that it is not God's design the child be an orphan, but it is not the child's fault.

A woman should be married, and a father should ensure his daughter will be married. The Assembly should ensure that young widows and orphaned girls find husbands. Polygyny helps to allow all women to marry. But men are not required to marry rebellious women and/or whores (other than Hosea), so there is some effort required from women to be marriable.
 
Ah, I see your viewpoint.

My question would be this: It is God's design that a child is raised by a father to guide them, does this mean an orphan is "out of" God's plan?

I think we would all agree that it is not God's design the child be an orphan, but it is not the child's fault.

A woman should be married, and a father should ensure his daughter will be married. The Assembly should ensure that young widows and orphaned girls find husbands. Polygyny helps to allow all women to marry. But men are not required to marry rebellious women and/or whores (other than Hosea), so there is some effort required from women to be marriable.
They're not doing this. Virtually all of Christendom is against polygyny. In my church circles, you don't even really bring up polygyny. Certain women in those circles can't find husbands. A lot of them without fathers as well. Are they out of Yahweh's will.

Maybe it's the fault of the churches, but there are a lot of women that simply can't find husbands.
 
If I make a statement of fact, it's on me to support it scripturally.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I asked if this view could be supported by scripture. I generally agree with you in principle.

However, some women can't find husbands and maybe their father isn't alive anymore.
Adam was created for Yah.
His wife was created for him.
Being single is out of created order.
Can you show that she wasn’t created for Adam, from Scripture?
 
They can't find them even though there are so many of them in their midst. God has not failed to provide. People refuse to accept His provision because of their traditions.
Do you deny that there are women that legitimately can't find husbands?
 
Can you show that she wasn’t created for Adam, from Scripture?
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.
 
Do you deny that there are women that legitimately can't find husbands?
Another thought that just came to mind; what are the Christian men doing about those women who are without a husband? Are the men making the time and opportunity available for teaching about biblical marriage or are they too afraid of the social backlash and keep quiet instead? Are the wives of godly men being active in admonishing the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed? (Titus 2:4-5)

I see the dilemma of many lonely Christain women but it's the evidence of a greater problem. The abandonment of the Word of God and holding on to religious traditions is a root cause that must be overcome.
 
Another thought that just came to mind; what are the Christian men doing about those women who are without a husband? Are the men making the time and opportunity available for teaching about biblical marriage or are they too afraid of the social backlash and keep quiet instead? Are the wives of godly men being active in admonishing the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed? (Titus 2:4-5)

I see the dilemma of many lonely Christain women but it's the evidence of a greater problem. The abandonment of the Word of God and holding on to religious traditions is a root cause that must be overcome.
Amen - both are guilty - men and women. For conforming with the ways of the world, instead of having their house built on the rock - King Jesus Christ.
 
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.
That is the Scriptural support.
Women were created to be under a covering.
 
Back
Top