Should we teach others to rebel against Standards?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

No. I mean drugs in the sense of narcotics, that are taken and/or used illegally. I was merely adopting the context (hint-hint) in which Apostolic1ness made use of the term "drugs" in order to address his point.

Since he did not mean preaching against all and everything that might be labeled a "drug", but only those narcotics which are sinful for us to use, I honored what he wrote and applied his text correctly (see how this works???).

Now, had I taken what he wrote, and applied it to all "drugs" even down to an aspirin, then I would have taken what he wrote out of context in order to make my own application of his text however I saw fit, which is the very thing we are addressing, that I am saying is a no-no.

So its the legality or illegality of a substance that makes it a sin to use?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

All Biblical typology is self-contained to the Bible. There is no such thing as extra-Biblical, Biblical typologies. So, anything extra-Biblical automatically becomes "private interpretation".

Additionally, a poor understanding of Biblical typology ends up engendering "private" interpretations. An example is above, in your quote.

You wrote that Paul makes use of Isaiah 28:11-12 to give us a picture of Holy Spirit baptism. That's not true. Paul makes use of Isaiah 28:11-12 to bolster his teaching on the particular charismata "diverse kinds of tongues". When God uses someone to speak in a diverse tongue, it is just as Isaiah wrote, that God is speaking to people. Further, Paul goes on to explain that "tongues are a sign...for them that believe not..." that is, for unbelievers.

In Isaiah 28, God was sending the Assyrians upon Israel as a judgment for their sins. These warriors from far away spoke with other tongues, that is, with languages the people of Israel did not comprehend. The people of Israel were being judged by God as "unbelievers" in Him, and the sign to them that God was giving them was that men of other tongues were going to speak to them, but in reality, it was God doing the talking.

So, when an unbeliever hears someone speak with another (an-other) tongue, with God being the one really doing the speaking, it is the rest and the refreshing, but the people, the unbelievers will not hear. So what then does Isaiah say regarding the Word of the Lord? It is given to Israel in small increments (like a "stammering tongue" can only speak in small increments of sound), as a means whereby Israel might "go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" (Isaiah 28:13).

Similarly, when the unbeliever hears God speak to them through a diverse tongue charismata, it is a sign to them that people of a strange tongue (like the Assyrians and Israel) are going to sit in judgment against them for resisting the rest and refreshing that could have been theirs had they not remained in unbelief.

So, because you have not correctly grasped the typology, you erred in your understanding of how Paul applied the verse from Isaiah, incorrectly therefore assuming that Paul took the verse out of context to make it say something it did not, when it fact, it reads exactly as Paul indicated, and fulfilled the exact same purpose for when it was originally written, thus completely preserving the context of Isaiah while making use of it in 1 Corinthians 14.

Could it be Paul is saying that if everyone in the assembly is speaking in tongues and there is no interpretation, then the unbeliever or unlearned visitor will conclude everyone is insane and thus will remain in unbelief? And that therefore everyone speaking in tongues with no interpretation produces the same basic situation as described in Isaiah, namely unbelievers refuse to repent and believe? And that therefore, the assembly should seek to prophesy or at least have interpretation, in order to avoid repeating the typology of judgment found in Isaiah?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

So its the legality or illegality of a substance that makes it a sin to use?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Could it be Paul is saying that if everyone in the assembly is speaking in tongues and there is no interpretation, then the unbeliever or unlearned visitor will conclude everyone is insane and thus will remain in unbelief? And that therefore everyone speaking in tongues with no interpretation produces the same basic situation as described in Isaiah, namely unbelievers refuse to repent and believe? And that therefore, the assembly should seek to prophesy or at least have interpretation, in order to avoid repeating the typology of judgment found in Isaiah?

Paul certainly addresses the madness of everyone speaking in tongues all at once without an interpreter and how that will be perceived.

However, when he speaks of the sign to unbelievers and quotes from Isaiah as proof of his point, he merely writes "wherefore tongues are a sign".

He doesn't write "everyone speaking tongues all at once without an interpretation are a sign". He seems to suggest the charismata itself, when in operation, is for a sign to the unbeliever, not the abuse of the charismata, is the sign.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Paul certainly addresses the madness of everyone speaking in tongues all at once without an interpreter and how that will be perceived.

However, when he speaks of the sign to unbelievers and quotes from Isaiah as proof of his point, he merely writes "wherefore tongues are a sign".

He doesn't write "everyone speaking tongues all at once without an interpretation are a sign". He seems to suggest the charismata itself, when in operation, is for a sign to the unbeliever, not the abuse of the charismata, is the sign.

Although yes, abusive tongue speaking in front of unbelievers will probably hinder their ability to enjoy the presence of God and get anything of value from their time among God's people, because the experience will likely turn them off, or be unfruitful because of the lack of interpretation.

In this way, what you write is true.

However, going back to Isaiah, Isaiah writes the main issue in chapter 28 is the "word of the Lord" having to be here a little, there a little, instead of being fully declared because God's priests and prophets are too drunk to receive It and give It to God's people the way God expects, so God will bring foreigners who can only be understood in small snatches and bits and pieces of their language, limiting the understanding of what is being said, in just the same way the priest's and prophets are limiting the word of the Lord to the people.

Since God could only speak to His people in small amounts, He decided He would bring Assyria to Israel and speak to Israel that way, in small amounts of grasped at words and phrases being said by the invaders. Then, when He did that, Israel would be knocked back, stumble, and fall, just like the drunken priests and prophets who stumbled around and passed out in their vomit.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Although yes, abusive tongue speaking in front of unbelievers will probably hinder their ability to enjoy the presence of God and get anything of value from their time among God's people, because the experience will likely turn them off, or be unfruitful because of the lack of interpretation.

In this way, what you write is true.

However, going back to Isaiah, Isaiah writes the main issue in chapter 28 is the "word of the Lord" having to be here a little, there a little, instead of being fully declared because God's priests and prophets are too drunk to receive It and give It to God's people the way God expects, so God will bring foreigners who can only be understood in small snatches and bits and pieces of their language, limiting the understanding of what is being said, in just the same way the priest's and prophets are limiting the word of the Lord to the people.

Since God could only speak to His people in small amounts, He decided He would bring Assyria to Israel and speak to Israel that way, in small amounts of grasped at words and phrases being said by the invaders. Then, when He did that, Israel would be knocked back, stumble, and fall, just like the drunken priests and prophets who stumbled around and passed out in their vomit.

None of which has anything to do with speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance in Holy Spirit baptism.

That form of tongue-speaking is the return of a pure language to God's people (Zephaniah 3:9) as the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 (that is, so the people of God could once again call on the name of the LORD in a way that was pure and pleasing to God).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Although yes, abusive tongue speaking in front of unbelievers will probably hinder their ability to enjoy the presence of God and get anything of value from their time among God's people, because the experience will likely turn them off, or be unfruitful because of the lack of interpretation.

In this way, what you write is true.

However, going back to Isaiah, Isaiah writes the main issue in chapter 28 is the "word of the Lord" having to be here a little, there a little, instead of being fully declared because God's priests and prophets are too drunk to receive It and give It to God's people the way God expects, so God will bring foreigners who can only be understood in small snatches and bits and pieces of their language, limiting the understanding of what is being said, in just the same way the priest's and prophets are limiting the word of the Lord to the people.

Since God could only speak to His people in small amounts, He decided He would bring Assyria to Israel and speak to Israel that way, in small amounts of grasped at words and phrases being said by the invaders. Then, when He did that, Israel would be knocked back, stumble, and fall, just like the drunken priests and prophets who stumbled around and passed out in their vomit.

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(Isaiah 28:11-12)

The way I read chapter 28, it seems that the priests and prophets etc were complaining about the words of God, that they were "precept upon precept, here a little, there a little" (v 10, 13), that the instruction of God's word by His true prophets was (to them) condescending and suited for children. In other words, they (the priests and "prophets") were more advanced than simple instruction from God. They got too smart for their britches. I found an interesting comment in Barnes:

Line upon line - This word (קו qav), properly means “a cord, a line;” particularly a measuring cord or line (2Ki_21:13; Eze_47:13; see the note at Isa_18:2). Here it seems to be used in the sense of “a rule,” “law,” or “precept.” Grotius thinks that the idea is taken from schoolmasters who instruct their pupils by making lines or marks for them which they are to trace or imitate. There is a repetition of similar sounds in the Hebrew in this verse which cannot be conveyed in a translation, and which shows their contempt in a much more striking manner than any version could do - לקו קו לקו קו לצו צו לצו צו כי kı̂y tsav lâtsâv tsav lâtsâv qav lâqâv qēv lâqâv.

So the people and their leaders had refused to hear the true word of the Lord. In consequence, God would instruct them in another manner, by the Babylonians, in fulfillment of Deut. 28:

Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things; Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
(Deuteronomy 28:47-49)

So Isaiah is saying that since they would not listen to the Lord's prophets, they would "listen" to the Babylonians. God would "instruct" them through the chastisement of foreign conquest and captivity. He had told His people "here is the rest, whereby you may refresh the weary" - meaning, here are My Ways, walk in them and be blessed - but the people had not listened. So now they faced punishment through the mechanism of foreign oppression.

So then the "strange/unknown tongues" in Isaiah has reference to being a sign of unbelief. Because the people did not believe, they would be forced to hear the "stammering lips and foreign tongue" of a foreign conqueror. The "tongues" then were a sign of Judah's unbelief and disobedience to the Word of the Lord. Or to put it another way, the foreign tongues would be a sign in consequence of their unbelief.

Now, Paul takes up the subject:

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 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. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
(1 Corinthians 14:20-25)

Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. In Isaiah, which Paul references, the tongues were for a sign to unbelieving Judah. The presence of foreign tongues was a sign to the Judahites because of their unbelief. In the present case of an unbeliever or one who is unlearned coming into the meeting, and everybody speaking in tongues (with no interpretation), they will remain unbelieving and unlearned. They will say "You are all mad (crazy)" and will not glorify God.

From this, it seems to me that Paul is saying don't allow meetings to be dominated by uninterpreted tongue-speaking, because if you do you are setting things up for failure if an unbeliever or one who is unlearned comes to visit. They will reject the Gospel message because they think you guys are all crazy. They will remain in unbelief. The tongues then become a sign to those who do not believe. Not in the sense of a sign from God meant to convince the unbeliever of anything, but rather in the sense of a sign confirming that the unbeliever remains an unbeliever (as in the case in Isaiah).

On the contrary, Paul says wherefore prophesying serves not for the unbelieving, but for those who DO in fact believe. Why? Because if all prophesy, the unbelieving visitor is convicted, his heart is revealed to him, he falls down and worships God, and reports that God is truly among these people. So then prophesying goes along with believing, whereas foreign unintelligible tongues go along with unbelief and lack of repentance (as per the OT scriptural example Paul was working from).

When Paul speaks of tongues and prophesying as being "signs" he does not mean "a sign for the benefit of" one particular group or another. Rather, he means in the sense of a "sign that indicates" either continuing unbelief vs repentant believing. In the case of tongues, the result is likely to be continuing unbelief among the visitors, whereas in the case of prophesying the result is likely to be repentant belief among the visitors. In which case, each form of utterance (tongues, vs prophesying) becomes a sign of what's going on and the effect(s) upon the visitors.

And since it is better for people not to continue in unbelief, but to repent and give glory to God, it is therefore better to prophesy than to speak in tongues (with no interpretation).

That's how I've always understood the passages in question.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

None of which has anything to do with speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance in Holy Spirit baptism.

That form of tongue-speaking is the return of a pure language to God's people (Zephaniah 3:9) as the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 (that is, so the people of God could once again call on the name of the LORD in a way that was pure and pleasing to God).

Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city! She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law. The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant. I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings. Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
(Zephaniah 3:1-9)

Seems the "turning to the people a pure language" is timed AFTER a gathering of the nations to receive the fiery judgment of God. This is a common theme in prophecy, that God would gather the nations together and punish them for their iniquity and their persecution of His saints. The prophet tells the reader to "wait... until the day" of this gathering of the nations for judgment. And then God will "turn to the people a pure language". So it seems this event is to come AFTER the prophesied judgment upon all the nations, which as far as I can tell did not occur before the first Pentecost under the new covenant (Acts 2).

Perhaps you have a different take on the passage in Zephaniah? If so , please exegete.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city! She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law. The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant. I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings. Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
(Zephaniah 3:1-9)

Seems the "turning to the people a pure language" is timed AFTER a gathering of the nations to receive the fiery judgment of God. This is a common theme in prophecy, that God would gather the nations together and punish them for their iniquity and their persecution of His saints. The prophet tells the reader to "wait... until the day" of this gathering of the nations for judgment. And then God will "turn to the people a pure language". So it seems this event is to come AFTER the prophesied judgment upon all the nations, which as far as I can tell did not occur before the first Pentecost under the new covenant (Acts 2).

Perhaps you have a different take on the passage in Zephaniah? If so , please exegete.

Check this out:

The princes of Zoan are become fools, the princes of Noph are deceived; they have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of the tribes thereof. The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit. Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do. In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which he shaketh over it. And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it. In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction. In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them. And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it. And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them. In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.
(Isaiah 19:13-25)

Especially, note the reference to how the Egyptians shall "speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord". this seems an obvious parallel to the Zephaniah passage - God would bring punitive judgment upon Egypt, but the end result would be that Egypt would "speak the language of Canaan and swear unto the Lord" and be counted among His people. In other words, the themes are almost identical:

• Divine judgment upon the heathen
• Change of language
• Worship of God

To "speak the language of Canaan", in Isaiah's day, seems to refer to speaking Hebrew. (Nevermind the fact that the Canaanites and the Israelites pretty much spoke the same language anyway.) And this appears to be a euphemism for the heathen learning the ways of Israel and her God. IE a conversion. So in Zephaniah it seems to be that the "pure language" is a euphemism for Hebrew, itself being a euphemism for the proper and true worship of God. So that, a "pure language" refers not so much to any actual linguistics (whether tongues of men or of angels) but to the true and correct worship of God.

(Note, I am not saying that glossolalia is not involved here at all, but rather that the contexts seem to suggest something beyond mere Pentecostal manifestations, and in Zephaniah seems to refer to the final conversion of the nations after a Divine Judgment upon them, which as far as I know has not yet happened.)

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

So its the legality or illegality of a substance that makes it a sin to use?

Ok, now we are into the territory I find interesting.

Legal or Illegal are man made laws, sin may be against man, or God, bur is it sin simply because its not legal.

I would venture some in churches have "shared" prescription stuff with brothers or sisters in the church.
This is clearly illegal as these items are supposed to ve obtained by writ only from a script provided by a licenced person, and dispensed by another licensed person. Not shared or sold in tge street. Is this then sin or compasion on a less fortunate one....

All acts of illegality are not sin, nor are all legal things Godly.