How do you almost receive a gift?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Isaiah 28:16, "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed."

Romans 9:33, "As it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Peter 2:6, "For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

If you read the context of these verses, it's not misapplied.

The context and meaning of Isa 28:16 is Jesus is the cornerstone and only sure foundation for those who believe. Paul and Peter both applied it correctly.

This is not at all similar to Isa 28:11. That scripture is speaking about foreign invaders bringing judgement against Israel.

My response from page 10 remains the same. Care to comment? Because I believe the interpretation is more than a "surface" view of the text.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Except that Paul references Isaiah 28:11 in I Cor 14:21-22, saying in verse 22 - "Wherefore" or "so too" tongues are for a sign. As is Paul's style, we find him using scripture allusively but also reflecting on the illumination brought to scripture for the new covenant people by the Holy Ghost.

I have to continue to agree with TGBTG on this one.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by n david

Isaiah 28:16, "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed."

Romans 9:33, "As it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Peter 2:6, "For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

If you read the context of these verses, it's not misapplied.

The context and meaning of Isa 28:16 is Jesus is the cornerstone and only sure foundation for those who believe. Paul and Peter both applied it correctly.

This is not at all similar to Isa 28:11. That scripture is speaking about foreign invaders bringing judgement against Israel.

How is the context in verse 11 any different from verse 16? Isn't verse 16 a direct continuation of the discourse in verse 11? At what verse between verse 11 and verse 16 does the context change?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

My response from page 10 remains the same. Care to comment? Because I believe the interpretation is more than a "surface" view of the text.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Except that Paul references Isaiah 28:11 in I Cor 14:21-22, saying in verse 22 - "Wherefore" or "so too" tongues are for a sign. As is Paul's style, we find him using scripture allusively but also reflecting on the illumination brought to scripture for the new covenant people by the Holy Ghost.

I like how the Pulpit Commentary puts it:

The application of this Old Testament quotation furnishes one of the many singular instances of quotation which prove that the Jews often referred to the words without any direct reference to their context or original meaning.

The issue of Isaiah was the priests and prophets were refusing to listen to the voice of the Lord. Because of that, God sent the Assyrians against them in judgement -- this is where the "stammering lips and another tongue," (or ESV says, "people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue.)

The issue in which Paul writes to the church in Corinth is that they are all trying to speak in tongues and there is confusion. That's why Paul takes care to instruct the church in the difference between tongues and prophecy, and the reason for each.

Look at the preceding verse, where Paul admonishes them to not be like children in their thinking, but to be mature. He then uses a paraphrase of Isaiah's writing to tell the church, it's not good to do this - to cause this mass confusion of everyone speaking in tongues. In verse 23 he warns of people coming into the church will think you're out of your minds.

Paul isn't using Isaiah's words to bolster speaking in tongues or the Holy Ghost; he uses it as a warning.

[n david]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

How is the context in verse 11 any different from verse 16? Isn't verse 16 a direct continuation of the discourse in verse 11? At what verse between verse 11 and verse 16 does the context change?

Using Isaiah 28:11 as proof of the Acts 2 experience is incorrect. It's not what Isa 28:11 was speaking about. Even Paul wasn't quoting that verse as a kind of proof of the Holy Ghost.

When Paul quoted Isa 28:16, it was in the correct context.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I like how the Pulpit Commentary puts it:

The issue of Isaiah was the priests and prophets were refusing to listen to the voice of the Lord. Because of that, God sent the Assyrians against them in judgement -- this is where the "stammering lips and another tongue," (or ESV says, "people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue.)

The issue in which Paul writes to the church in Corinth is that they are all trying to speak in tongues and there is confusion. That's why Paul takes care to instruct the church in the difference between tongues and prophecy, and the reason for each.

Look at the preceding verse, where Paul admonishes them to not be like children in their thinking, but to be mature. He then uses a paraphrase of Isaiah's writing to tell the church, it's not good to do this - to cause this mass confusion of everyone speaking in tongues. In verse 23 he warns of people coming into the church will think you're out of your minds.

Paul isn't using Isaiah's words to bolster speaking in tongues or the Holy Ghost; he uses it as a warning.

That may be true in some cases, referring to your quote from Pulpit Commentary, except, again, Paul furthers his point by beginning with "Wherefore/so too" tongues are for a sign."

I can only see these two passages able to claim the intertexual meaning effects as valid because it can credibly be demonstrated that they are in some sense properties of the text's own literary structure.

As TGBTG pointed out, when does the context change between verse 11 and 16? Being that Paul uses it to support tongues, it can't be viewed as changing context mid-stride, IMO.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by n david

Using Isaiah 28:11 as proof of the Acts 2 experience is incorrect. It's not what Isa 28:11 was speaking about. Even Paul wasn't quoting that verse as a kind of proof of the Holy Ghost.

When Paul quoted Isa 28:16, it was in the correct context.

You keep asserting that the Paul quoted Is 28:16 in the correct context, yet, you have not shown how the context changes between verse 11 and verse 16.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

I think there were also non-christians in the early church.
Just like there are non-christians in the church today.

Maybe but they were still written to believers

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

You keep asserting that the Paul quoted Is 28:16 in the correct context, yet, you have not shown how the context changes between verse 11 and verse 16.

I Cor 14:21-22 "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

The only thing that I could readily deduce from Paul's quoting of Isaiah 28:11 and a warning given, is that now He brings tongues/languages into the NT church, "...and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord." He furthers the comparison by saying, "Wherefore/here too, tongues are for a sign."

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

As TGBTG pointed out, when does the context change between verse 11 and 16? Being that Paul uses it to support tongues, it can't be viewed as changing context mid-stride, IMO.

Verse 11 wasn't used to support tongues by Paul.

Originally Posted by TGBTG

You keep asserting that the Paul quoted Is 28:16 in the correct context, yet, you have not shown how the context changes between verse 11 and verse 16.

How many times do I have to go over this? I've already shown the context of both in a previous post. Actually, I have to correct something.

Paul, in Romans 9:33, quotes Isa 8:14, not Isa 28:16.

Peter, in 1 Peter 2:6, refers to Ps 118:22 and quotes Isa 28:16.

These were in context.

Paul makes a statement of stumbling over the stumbling stone, then quotes Isa 8:14 -- in context.

Peter writes of building a spiritual house, and uses Ps 118:22 and Isa 28:16 to illustrate Jesus as the cornerstone.

Neither Romans 9:33 nor 1 Peter 2:6 are about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues.


Isaiah 28
Verse 11
Isaiah is speaking of judgement by the Assyrians. It is NOT about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues. I understand some have tried twisting it to say that it does, but when looking at the passage, it's not about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues. It's about the Assyrians bringing judgement.

1 Corinthians 14
Verse 21
Written as a warning against the confusion cause by the whole church speaking in tongues. Yes, it says "thus" or "wherefore" tongues are a sign, but it's not keeping the actual context of Isa 28:11. Paul is writing that tongues are a sign of God speaking to His people. That's it. That's the extent of the comparison.

This is why this it's important to consider this when reading that verse

The application of this Old Testament quotation furnishes one of the many singular instances of quotation which prove that the Jews often referred to the words without any direct reference to their context or original meaning.

Paul is referring to the words, not the exact context or meaning of Isa 28:11.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The only thing that I could readily deduce from Paul's quoting of Isaiah 28:11 and a warning given, is that now He brings tongues/languages into the NT church, "...and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord." He furthers the comparison by saying, "Wherefore/here too, tongues are for a sign."

Is this what you're saying:

Paul was teaching "just like tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews that Isaiah was prophesying to, even so, tongues in the new testament are a sign to unbelievers