Whenever the topic of plural marriage is brought up, it isn’t unusual to hear Isaiah 4:1 cited as a support for the idea.
“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 4:1 (compare 2 Nephi 14:1)
The question I have is this: Does this verse necessarily point to the practice of plural marriage?
CHAPTERING ISAIAH
Isaiah chapter 4 is not a standalone piece. The content of the Bible was broken down into chapters and verses to make it easier to reference for religious arguments. In many cases—such as we find here—a larger document is broken into multiple chapters. Chapter 4 is a continuation of the content in chapter 3. Therefore chapter 3 needs to be considered in the context of the opening verse of chapter 4.
Chapter 3 finishes with the Lord speaking directly to the daughters of Zion, in rather sharp words of reproach. The chapter change occurs when He finishes His remarks to them. However, does that mean the conversation is over? Isaiah 4:1 could very easily be understood as the initial response of the daughters of Zion to the Lord, rather than a new conversation with a new guy. Some would say this is obviously the case. Which, if that is so, should perhaps paint our understanding of a few points in this verse.
“And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying…”
If the Lord was speaking to the daughters of Zion, and if this chapter is a continuation of the end of chapter 3, with the daughters of Zion here responding to the Lord’s chastisements, then to whom are they speaking? When they are “saying” what is said in this verse, to whom is it said? Are they speaking to this man, of whom they have taken hold? Or are they speaking to the Lord? Responding to His having spoken to them immediately prior?
“…take away our reproach.”
To what reproach are the daughters of Zion referring? If this verse is a continuation of chapter 3, then do we not find the reproach in Isaiah 3:16-26? If this is indeed the reproach to which they are referring, then will marriage to some man remove that reproach? By taking the name of her husband through marriage, does a woman escape application of this reproach? Does becoming a wife inherently and necessarily end all “haughtiness,” and “stretched-forth necks” and “wanton eyes”? The sins specifically named in verse 16, for which this reproach was given? In other words, is getting hitched to some dude the proper “repentance” to absolve the reproach found in those verses?
“…let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.”
When these women ask to be called by “thy name,” to whom are they speaking? Are they speaking to the same person when they began “saying” something? Or someone different? Can adopting the name of any man in this world absolve us of a reproach from God? Is there any man in this world whose name has sufficient power to remove Divine reproach for sins? Or must it be another name? What name has power in this universe to remove the reproach of sin?
Whose reproach do they want remitted when they say "our reproach"? Only the reproach of those seven women? Or could they be speaking representatively for a greater body as well? Which might also include men? Men certainly don't escape God's wrath in the reproach (Isaiah 3:25).
MARRIAGE AS A SYMBOL
Among other things, marriage serves as a symbol for our relationship with the Lord. This illustration is used frequently throughout scripture. The Lord is always the husband in these analogies, and His people are represented as His (generally unfaithful) bride. It is therefore not unreasonable for confusion to arise concerning the taking of a name. Is this instance referring to the literal taking of a husband’s name? Or is the marital practice of taking a husband’s name being symbolically reflected in a reference to adopting the Lord’s name?
When there is this sort of confusion we need to dig in and read the context around what is said, to either clear the matter up or at least give us a better foundational understanding to approach the Lord with and seek an explanation.
As an important aside, some might argue that if Christ is represented as the husband, and the people are represented as the wife, then this paints a picture of plural marriage, as the people are plural and we are taught to model ourselves after Christ, who is singular. However, there are several problems with this deduction.
For one, while we are to emulate Christ, does that mean we are to understand ourselves in the roles He reserves for Himself in any of His analogies or parables? Are we also to understand ourselves as the thief coming in the night (Matthew 24:42-44)? Or the Lord of the vineyard (Jacob 5)? Or are we to understand Him as filling those positions, while we fill the other roles in His analogies? Should we ever understand ourselves as the husband when He refers to Himself as such? Or are we all represented as His wife in His uses of that illustration?
Further, whenever the Lord makes this marital comparison, His people (Zion, Israel, whatever title He gives) are always referred to in the singular; “she,” is His wife, not His wives, who has gone away from Him. When He speaks of His people outside of a marriage analogy, it is "they," but when speaking within a marriage analogy, the people are represented as a single body, using singular female pronouns. If He wanted to illustrate plural marriage for us as a principle we are expected to live, then would He not represent that by calling His people His “wives”? Why are His people "one," rather than seven?
And what of the women seeking to follow Christ? If men can use the concept of following Christ’s example to justify slipping into Christ’s role within His analogies, and derive therefrom a justification for taking on literal plural wives, why not the women who are similarly following Christ? Especially as we are all alike unto God, “male and female,” in seeking to come unto Him (2 Nephi 26:33). So if a woman uses a man’s justifications to similarly understand herself in Christ’s husband role in His marriage analogies, is she then to be understood as a literal husband and also take on plural wives? What kind of plural wives would she then have? Does the analogy allow for gender role reversal, wherein a Christ-wife has plural husbands?
Even if we place ourselves in the husband role, can our name save our wives? Does any man think their name has sufficient sway over Heaven as to remove God’s reproach, should it be levied against the woman they marry? If our name does not have that power, how arrogant are we to place ourselves in that position in Isaiah 4:1?
When Christ uses marriage as an analogy, it is perhaps simply more useful to understand ourselves as Christ’s wife, in the singular—rather than part of a plurality—because of the personal and individual nature of our relationship with Him. Our salvation and relationship with Christ is not collective, we are not required to join with—or go through—anyone else in petitioning God to remove the reproach of our sins. I don’t find grounds for placing myself in Christ’s role of husband in His analogies. I don’t see that as an illustration of my role. He is the great Husband, whose name I must take upon myself in order to remove my reproach. And I do so individually, as His symbolic “wife,” not one of several, collective “wives.”
Returning to the topic, if the women in Isaiah 4:1 are not speaking to the man therein, but instead responding and appealing to the Lord, asking to be called by His name to remove their reproach, how would that occur? And why have they grabbed this man? What is his involvement?
TAKING UPON US THE NAME OF CHRIST
“Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.” — 2 Nephi 31:13
The first witness by which we show that we are willing to take upon us the name of Christ is baptism. It is not the only witness, there are others (Mosiah 6:1-2; Moroni 4:3). But it is the first. It is one of the first things Christ instructed be done when He began His resurrected ministry to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11). It is an essential beginning. And one that requires, interestingly enough, a man. Specifically, baptism requires a man who has been authorized by the Lord to baptize in His name (3 Nephi 11:21-22).
Is it possible then, that these seven women might be taking hold of a man, presenting him to the Lord, and asking for their reproach to be removed, by the Lord authorizing that man to perform baptisms in His name? That those who the man baptizes may then show forth the first necessary witness to heaven and earth that they are taking upon themselves the name of Christ, which name is the only name by which we can be called to have the Divine reproach of sin removed?
Might this be happening right now? Might we be seeing the fulfillment of this verse in things that are happening? Would we recognize it? What might it look like? This may be worth considering.
