________

 

1.  Isaiah 3:1 (KJV) – For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water, 

 

 

Victor L. Ludlow in Unlocking Isaiah (2003) intimates about the bread and water:  “Isaiah’s image thus suggests that the unrighteous will be unworthy to participate in the sacramental covenants and will be shut off from the saving ordinances of the Atonement” (94).

Do you see LDS ordinances in this verse? Is he serious?  Does he believe that those Jews in Isaiah 3 were cut off in pre-exilic Israel from LDS church sacraments utilizing bread and water?

2.  Isaiah 3:6 (KJV) – When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand: 

In comparison to 2 Nephi 13:6 . . .

When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, [and shall say]:  Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let [not] this ruin [come] under thy hand: (quoted from Understanding Isaiah)

The authors, Don Parry, Jay Parry, and Tina Peterson in Understanding Isaiah (Deseret, 1998) footnote that these “changes are from JST Isa. 3:6 and 2 Nephi 13:6”.  I hardly get fussy over the changing of italicized words that are not even in the text; but why make the last phrase negative in verse 6.  Clear back in his day, as a seer Isaiah proclaimed Jerusalem as ruined.  Verse 6 is an excruciating petition for someone to take care of the mess.  But of course, no one is able to fix anything.  God had stripped away all the men among Judah that the people were looking to as gods rather than Him alone.  The big theme of Isaiah 2-4 is God alone ought to be exalted.  Man will be abased.  In application, because of America’s self-dependence, should not God in judgment remove the eleven categories of men (Isa. 3) to where people would go frantically from house to house crying and begging, “And let this ruin be under your hand” (and ruin this under your hand).

3.  Isaiah 3:12 (KJV) – As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.  O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.  

Ludlow in Unlocking Isaiah writes, “In verse 12, Isaiah prophesies of the Israelites’ utter shame by explaining that the patriarchal system of male rule will be replaced with an oppressive leadership led by youth and women.  This complete reversal of societal order parallels the shift of the Israelites’ spiritual state as they turn from the Lord and revel in wickedness” (97).

Ludlow would use this verse in support of LDS Church patriarchal rule, but what about Jewish political leadership.  What would Ludlow think of a female American president, like Hillary Clinton?  What about Nancy P., the Speaker of the House?

I do know that having a queen mother like Athaliah in II Kings 11 would send chills down everyone’s spines.

4.  Isaiah 3:14 (KJV) – For ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. 

In comparison to 2 Nephi 3:14 . . .

For ye have eaten up the vineyard [and] the spoil of the poor in your houses.

Further on down in the text of Isaiah 3, the daughters of Zion don’t look like they have eaten up the spoil of the poor.  Their husbands have taken from the poor, and now the aristocratic wives are wearing the spoil with in-your-face haughtiness.

[And by the way, what is LDS scholarship’s conclusions in 2007 on “secret parts” (3:17), “cauls” and “round tires” (3:18), “chains” and “mufflers” (3:19), “tablets” (3:20), and “wimples” and “crisping pins” (3:22), “glasses” (3:23), “rent” and “burning” (3:24)? Do any of the modern LDS apostles or the president give clear direction on the meaning of these words from their own canonized writings?  And if not, why?  I know John Calvin was a believer in the translation of “crisping pins”. 🙂 Are you?  I believe the Hebrew word means “purses”.]

5.  Isaiah 4:1 (KJV) – 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. 

Victor Ludlow in Isaiah:  Prophet, Seer, and Poet(Deseret, 1982) discusses, “The ratio of seven women for every man probably indicates a markedly high death rate among men, perhaps a result of the war described in Isaiah 2:35-26.  Or, a higher ratio of men might exist during that period, but because of increased sterility among the men (perhaps through radiation) only an average of one man for seven women should be capable of removing the women’s ‘reproach’ ” (109).  And then Ludlow recalls the vision by Wilford Woodruff clear back on December 16, 1877 on Isaiah 4:1.

Also, Ludlow in Unlocking Isaiah(2003) further explains, “Isaiah builds upon the imagery of the barren women in the following short chapter (2 Nephi 14/Isaiah 4).  He describes women desperately searching for husbands (taking on a man’s name) and families (removing the reproach of childlessness).  At least these women approach men desiring something valuable and lasting, unlike the earlier daughters of
Zion who enticed the men to receive their wealth and favor.  Isaiah’s image of the seven women taking hold of one man represents a chaotic state of social affairs.  The availability of few men relative to the many suggests that horrendous wars and other disastrous events will have killed many men (2 Nephi 13:25).  And of the surviving males, relatively few are both willing and able to provide the physical, emotional, and spiritual support that the women desire.  The women desiring marriage and family thus can find only a handful of men to become their husbands and the fathers of their children” (98-99).

Immediately sending the reader to Isaiah 13:12 with a footnote, Ludlow continues his writing along the same vein.  “Though this obliteration of the wicked may seem callous and unmerciful, the Lord does have a reason for His actions.  Isaiah explains that this destruction serves as a purging of the earth, removing “the sinners thereof out of it” (2 Nephi 23:9).  The righteous will be mercifully preserved in the final day, yet the men honoring their priesthood and willing and able to nurture their families will be so few that they are considered “more precious than . . . the golden wedge of Ophir” (v. 12)—a treasure of great value.  This righteous minority comprises the purified, covenant followers of Christ who will assist Him in building His kingdom on earth during the millennial age (Isaiah 6:13; 43:1-7, 14-21).  The signs in heaven and on earth will let them know that His coming is near” (189).

From what I am reading and understanding here, Victor claims that righteous, extremely-valuable-beyond-gold, polygamous men will lend a hand in initially helping build the kingdom of Christ on this earth.  Is this the official position of the Church?  Do the LDS Quorum of the Twelve know if there will be polygamy in the millennium?  Surely, there is a consensus upon such a vital topic.  This impacts the whole eschatological, marital, and celestial LDS paradigm.

Interestingly, before I get all worked up over what Ludlow skews as merciful blessing in Isaiah 4:1, let me note that the JST Isa. includes this verse as part of chapter 3.  Yet the book, Understanding Isaiah (1998) doesn’t deter much from Ludlow about the seven women by saying, “The headnote to the chapter in the LDS edition of the Bible places this prophecy in the Millennium.  Because war has claimed the lives of many of the men of Jerusalem (identified in 3:25), the ratio of men to women is unequal.  Thus seven women will take hold of one man.  The number seven may be literal or symbolic” (44-45).

Based on this quote, does Dr. Don Parry believe there will be polygamy in the millennium?  I would love to ask him this question on Isaiah when he guest lectures on the topic, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Great Isaiah Scroll” at the Trinity United Methodist Church in Idaho Falls in a couple of weeks.  If I am going to pay $5 for admission, I need to get my money’s worth. 🙂

Apparently John Bytheway doesn’t think so.  In Isaiah For Airheads (Deseret, 2006), he writes, “In that day”  Which day?  Perhaps the most enlightening thing that could be said about this verse is that it just might belong to the previous chapter.  In fact, this is the last verse of Isaiah 3 in the Hebrew Bible, the German Bible, and in the JST.  This explains the sudden mood change from verse one to verse two.  Verse one is about “the day” of Judah’s destruction, and verse two is about the millennial day.  In my scriptures, I have bracketed this verse and drawn an arrow placing it at the end of 2 Nephi 13, where it makes a lot more sense” (85).

But here are questions for Bytheway as he writes, “The footnotes in the LDS edition of the King James Bible clarify that seven women will seek one man ‘because of the scarcity of the men due to wars’ (Isaiah 4:1, footnotes).”  Does Bytheway believe that the prophet Isaiah is placing righteous acceptability on polygamy during times of war?  Are the women of Isaiah 4:1 godly in these actions? 

And while I am on the topic of polygamy, see Dave’s recent post on the matter. 

Last of all, I am humbly proud that I have friends seeking to minister to victims of insidious polygamy.

– Translation Sidenotes

[For interpretation of difficult Hebrew words in Isaiah 3, Understanding Isaiahborrows from the NIV translation, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Librosby Koehler and Baumgartner, IQIsaa, and Isaiah 1-12by Wildberger.

Also, back in 1982, Victor accessed and printed the NAS translation for his Isaiah study.]