© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Thank you for the detailed literature review and coherent compilation.
I am a little perplexed by the attitude of the seven daughters. It seems their attitude is of the utmost importance. As you point out this is the turning point from destruction to redemption. It seems the daughters of Zion finally have the right attitude and therefore they can be redeemed. It seems our goal is to have the attitude these women had. They requested the Man’s name but not material salvation. But there is so little description of these women that it makes it hard for us to know what to emulate.
First, you state that the women are relinquishing their rights. I certainly agree but, they cannot reasonably believe He will not give them food and clothes unless they don’t know Him. Supposing there is no guile in the women they do not know the Man at this point. He is very abundant with gifts. Similarly with the Prodigal Son. Clearly, He does not know his Father.
Second, the women cannot in good faith offer to provide for themselves. Surely they must know this based on the prior destruction. Therefore, the only way their words make sense is if they are willing to let their physical body perish.
Third, you mention that ‘name’ includes essence. Therefore it also represents power. They want God’s power. Framing this positively, with the little energy they have left (before they die from lack of food) perhaps they want their last actions to have lasting good effects (i.e. to help others).
Along with number three, I don’t see another way to frame their position in a positive light. Their statement is eerily similar to Lucifer’s as he requested nothing but honor. To be positive what the women want does not directly or indirectly destroy other’s agency.
Presumably the women are still filthy (they are not washed till Isaiah 4:4) but they are complete in some preparative state for washing (i.e. there are seven of them). So I think it is reasonable to think 1) they do not know God’s goodness. 2) They admit they have no rights AND are fine with their physical body dying. 3) They want to do good (as God defines good) though they don’t completely understand Him.
Happy for your insight.
I greatly enjoyed what you have written, including establishing the concept of the one man being Jesus Christ. Some 35 years ago I discovered the chiasm in Isaiah 3:16-4:6 and came to the same conclusion. I also realized that the daughters of Zion is Israel. The chiasm reveals some things that are invisible on the traditional printed page. Here is an outline of a spiral reading of this chiasm.
The daughters of Zion are haughty, etc. (3:16-23) // When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion… (4:4) (Aa)
Five “instead” statements. (3:24) // And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night… (4:5-6) (Ab)
Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. (3:25) // And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: (4:3) (B)
And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground. (3:26) // In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. (4:2) (C)
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. (4:1) (D)
I agree that the daughters of Zion is Israel. Daughters of Zion, plural, appears only here, in Song of Solomon 3:11 (where it clearly is women) and in Doctrine and Covenants 124:11. The latter speaks of the “house of the daughters of Zion” in a call to build the Nauvoo temple.
I made an interesting discovery in the Tanakh version of 3:24.
“And then–Instead of perfume, there shall be rot; And instead of an apron*, a rope**; Instead of a diadem of beaten-work, a shorn head; Instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth, A burn instead of beauty. (The complete Isaiah scroll from Qumran reads ‘For shame shall take the place of beauty.’)” (* From the same Hebrew word as used in Gen 3:7) (** As in a rope as found in some Christian ceremonial garb.)
I think there may be symbolic significance in the fact that there are five “instead” statements. In the description of Solomon’s temple in 2 Chronicles 3-4 every dimension of the temple is five or a multiple of five cubits, using an archaic value of the cubit. Even the circumference of the molten sea is given as 30 cubits, when we know it would have been 31.4. I think five is the number of the temple.
Those who have been endowed in the temple will recognize some of these terms. I interpret the chiasm to mean that when Israel is apostate there is no temple. And on the other side of the chiasm, when Israel is cleansed, the temple will be universal, “every dwelling place.”
My original thinking was that the seven women represented traditional Christian churches during the Millennium who want to keep their own ordinances (bread) and authority (clothing) and still be known as Christian. I like your explanation much better. It places humble and penitent Israel’s call upon the Lord at the center of the chiasm, the traditional point of emphasis.
Thank you Brother Johnson for your added insight and thoughtful response to the article. I am grateful that you enjoyed the article. I also mapped out the possible Chiasm in these two chapters and included it in an earlier draft but removed it from the paper since some of the alignments are out of order. The misalignments don’t necessarily mean the Chiasm isn’t there. It just gave me pause. Neal Rappleye’s chiastic criteria ultimately influenced me to remove the discussion. I am convinced that the parallelisms are compelling, even if they are not in a strict chiastic structure. Again, thank you for the comment.