Zion is just one of those words, isn’t it? It’s like the box we’re all describing, yet we don’t really know what’s inside. It’s like the difference between the meaning of the words “God” and “god” - yet the capital G indicates we’re talking about the specific Person to whom we are ultimately accountable vs. the general term for a divine being. We kind of have to understand what’s in the box in order to see what Isaiah saw and subsequently taught us about the “daughters of Zion.”
Mount Zion is simply the city where God lives. According to Hebrews 12:22 it’s “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem”. It’s also known as “the throne” of God (Revelations 14:1&3), high and lifted up, not necessarily on any kind of mountain recognizable to us today — but more of a City of Enoch type habitation, apart from but somehow connected with the earth. Zion is essentially the homeland, the Old World, the original after which all others are patterned - in the likeness of which temples are made to represent.
So, who are the “daughters of Zion?” Well...they’re not people, they’re places. One of them, instead of the “heavenly Jerusalem,” is the earthly Jerusalem. Another is the New Jerusalem of the American continent. These are the daughters of Zion that I know about. These places are to be patterned after the heavenly city, but haven’t yet reached their potential. In fact, we are taught by Isaiah and others that they will have to undergo some major cleansing before anything everlastingly good can be built there.
Read Isaiah chapters 3 & 4 again. To me, it used to sound like chapter 3 was describing how those haughty women of the Church were sure going to get it for their worldliness then, in chapter 4, one of their just desserts was going to be having to share a husband between 7 women. Yeah, we church ladies have been known to wear things like bracelets, earrings, headbands and changeable suits of apparel to Sunday services, and I swear I’ve seen some pretty minced walking in the halls. But wanton eyes? (ie. whorish?) That never felt like a good fit - it was all a bit of a stretch to be honest.
I tend to believe the general authorities when they tell us, constantly, how good the women of the Church are. What makes infinitely more sense, to me, is that the Lord is revealing to Isaiah what will happen to the lands of promise, in both the east and west in the day of their cleansing.
- He will “smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion.” Is that a reference to the punishment of the ungodly leaders in both lands? I hope so.
-He will “discover their secret parts.” Does that mean that all that was hidden - what was done in darkness - will be shouted from the rooftops? Bring that on, too.
- “Burning instead of beauty”? Doesn’t that make more sense with reference to a place rather than people?
Why does this matter so much? Well for one, it means that what comes next, in chapter 4, isn’t a detailing of a punishment, but an explanation of the redemption of righteous women. There will not be a sharing of one man per seven women because that’s what degraded women, who have been compelled to be humble, deserve. It is a mercy extended toward those who are worthy of it. It is the beginning of the “branch of the Lord” becoming “beautiful and glorious” (Isaiah 4:2).
As far as we women align ourselves with the foolishness of the world, we deserve punishment along with them. And I will be first to admit there are women on the records of the Church who will be found wanting in these last days. But is Isaiah singling out the women of the Church in chapter 3 in that way?
What say ye?