Did Isaiah speak in tongues in Isaiah 28:10

[Amanuensis]

Well be careful of that. You are certainly free to believe as you wish, but the text is not talking about Isaiah speaking in tongues.

Sometimes, the so called popular understanding is the right one and context should not be tossed aside if the understanding is actually to benefit.





You would be hard pressed to provide context for tongues here. The translators have come to the conclusion that Isaiah is mocking those who mock his prophecies. This is not really a case that demands a different understanding or a case of just believe your own opinion.

Of course you are certainly free to think you have a different understanding just as others are free to point to context in this situation and the fact tongues came as cloven fire on the day of Pentecost and not as some hidden gem in an otherwise very pertinent and abrasive prophecy from a major prophet.

Paul quoted the verse from Isaiah 28 while talking about speaking in tongues. He knew about the immediate application in Isaiah's day to Assyria but suggests sensus plenior when he applies it to speaking in tongues as a sign to the unbeliever.

As to whether Isaiah was writing in tongues, no, I don't think so.

But if he was mocking their language by mimicking sounds, that can't be translated into words like "line upon line" then we should reevaluate the whole statement in that light.

If he is saying "their language will sound like nonsense to you" or if he is saying "You say that my words are like nonsense to you" either way he is saying "someone is making a reference to someone sounding like nonsense speaking meaningless words that we cannot understand."

Now some will insist that is not the case and these words actually mean "line upon line... etc." because they see them translated that way in most English translations and they will simply go with that and decide to teach something about how we do bible study.

I will not argue with them about it. I might say,. "I don't think that is what what means." but if they are not interested in re evaluting their position I would let it go.

After all it is true that we should study scripture and let scripture interpret scripture and all that they are trying to say using this verse misapplied so I am not going to press it.

Too many other things to focus on than trying to correct people every time they use this "line upon line" verse to teach bible study methods.

My only thoughts about it at this moment is that IF he is talking about how someone will think someone is speaking nonsense words, and since we KNOW that Paul did reference this text in context of speaking in tongues, then is it possible that contained within this prophesy (originally about Assyria or / how people misunderstood Isaiah (two possible interpretations mentioned by scholars) ) That there is a sensus plenior reference that unbelievers will accuse those who speak in tongues as saying senseless nonsense? And so it is today both unregenerate people and fellow believers who are skeptical accuse those who speak in tongues as speaking gibberish.

Like Isaiah by inspiration of the Holy Spirit not even knowing it went beyond the Assyrian invasion in prophesying a time when God would give the Church the gift of tongues and people would mock them and say "these men are full of new wine."

 

[Amanuensis]

Actually, most do not understand it to be tongues as you seem to propose. That, does not mean anyone is lazy or don't study. I don't know why you would say that. The meaning is not too deep. Isaiah is mocking those who under judgement from God.

It simply is not tongues as per the gift of tongues. You cannot create doctrine out of one verse, but you have to take it out of context to misapply the meaning here. The context is Isaiah prophesying the judgement of God upon Judah. He is not praying...he is condemning their sin.

You seem to hint at being someone who gets special revelation because of your desire to search for meaning in the scripture. Is that true?

You probably have not read my posts carefully. The Title of the thread is throwing you off. I made that title to get attention. I don't think Isaiah was writing in tongues. Because I know that speaking in tongues is not a linguistic language that you can write out. It does not work that way. However, it is possible that Isaiah was saying "you will hear sounds that to you sound like this"

 

[Amanuensis]

Why the 'most people' here? Tongues are a sign for unbelievers but not in the context of just a language...rather it is the UNDERSTANDING that Paul is talking about. He is saying if no one understands when you all speak in tongues, then of what benefit is all that noise about?

I think you misunderstood what I said as I said nothing about tongues causing them to believe.

Paul is correcting the way tongues are being used.

What is the sign of prophecy here? I am not sure what you are referring to when you say that. Tongues can be a sign but it is a spiritual gift that has more than one purpose.

Where is prophecy described as a sign?

. 22Speaking in tongues, then, is intended as a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.
Tongues and Prophesy are "signs" in the context of "signs and wonders" Holy Spirit gifts. He contrasts the effect of these "signs" in this verse and how they "serve" God's purpose.

Often, MOST of the time in my own personal circles of friends and acquaintances that have an opinion on this verse, and MOST of the people I have heard preach or teach it from the pulpit seem to suggest that they think Paul is saying that speaking in tongues was a sign to get unbelievers attention so that they will hear the Gospel and believe and they use Acts 2 as an example.

But since Paul is quoting Isaiah 28 here and not Acts 2 I think Paul had something else in mind when he said a sign for unbelievers.
I have already touched on what I think he was saying in the previous post. But I am still trying to wrap my head around it.

Frankly, I did not expect this thread to go far. Because after thousands of years the best they could do translating ṣaw lāṣāw ṣaw lāṣāw qaw lāqāw qaw lāqāw zeʿêr šām zeʿêr šām was "line upon line. precept upon precept, here a little, there a little" and so "who can know" was what I expected to be the main response.

I am pleasantly surprised that I did not get an immediate onslaught of "it is translated correctly by the KJV"
I only got one of those. I expected more.
At least people are recognizing that there is serious doubt as to that translation.

 

[DavidTree]

Sorry, I have to completely disagree - it's not gibberish so much as just a nonsense sentence. The words, though people don't seem to be able to make sense of them, are Hebrew words; i.e., unlike tongues-speech, they are real rational language. I tend to think it's the Isaiah's imitation of his audience mocking him.

I don't see the rabbinical commentaries as the commentators not making sense of the words. Trying to ascertain what exactly they mean, perhaps, but it is certainly not an allusion to the Pentecostal /Charismatic concept of 'tongues'.

Isaiah is 100% a prophetic word that was fulfilled on the outpouring of the 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit on Penetcost = Acts chs 1 & 2.

 

[Polar]

You probably have not read my posts carefully. The Title of the thread is throwing you off. I made that title to get attention. I don't think Isaiah was writing in tongues. Because I know that speaking in tongues is not a linguistic language that you can write out. It does not work that way. However, it is possible that Isaiah was saying "you will hear sounds that to you sound like this"

Well sorry if I have misread you, but the title is a question which I answered. Good that you do not think Isaiah was writing in tongues.

I did already state I did not read all the posts. But I have read the exchange between yourself and myself

 

[Polar]

just throwing this in here for a possibility.

Matthew 24!

that's a Prophecy that is in fact about several Events and events that do not connect one another and do connect to one another. in the Major Prophets we do see this quite often.

Chapter 28 in Isaiah is speaking to specific events though. The verse are connected.

 

[Polar]

Paul quoted the verse from Isaiah 28 while talking about speaking in tongues. He knew about the immediate application in Isaiah's day to Assyria but suggests sensus plenior when he applies it to speaking in tongues as a sign to the unbeliever.

As to whether Isaiah was writing in tongues, no, I don't think so.

But if he was mocking their language by mimicking sounds, that can't be translated into words like "line upon line" then we should reevaluate the whole statement in that light.

If he is saying "their language will sound like nonsense to you" or if he is saying "You say that my words are like nonsense to you" either way he is saying "someone is making a reference to someone sounding like nonsense speaking meaningless words that we cannot understand."

Paul is most likely (with his education and the fact he would have studied the OT) creating a wider application rather than comparing the two passages. When you hear a language you are not familiar with, it will sound like gibberish to you too. That, I believe was reference to the Assyrians and that is the conclusion of most scholars.

My only thoughts about it at this moment is that IF he is talking about how someone will think someone is speaking nonsense words, and since we KNOW that Paul did reference this text in context of speaking in tongues, then is it possible that contained within this prophesy (originally about Assyria or / how people misunderstood Isaiah (two possible interpretations mentioned by scholars) ) That there is a sensus plenior reference that unbelievers will accuse those who speak in tongues as saying senseless nonsense? And so it is today both unregenerate people and fellow believers who are skeptical accuse those who speak in tongues as speaking gibberish.

No I do not think that there is any reference to future context of speaking in tongues on the part of Isaiah since that is contextually incorrect. People can make scripture say whatever they want when they do not pay attention to context. (I'm not saying you are doing that...I am pointing out an error in how some people think scripture is evaluated and that has been multiplied many times if cults and church splits are any indication.)

Oh we hear the claim of gibberish all the time in these forums and we can just as easily read or hear the opposite. As someone has said, if you do not believe it, then to you it is not true. People cannot deny speaking in tongues completely, though I think some would be quite happy to do so, so they say it was only for the time of the Apostles or it is only known languages.

and blah blah blah blady blah blah...it is funny though how those people believe the gift of teaching is still in effect and they believe they have that gift. Like John MacArthur. His position is that we are all devilish and he is a gifted teacher so he knows this.

 

[Polar]

. 22Speaking in tongues, then, is intended as a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.
Tongues and Prophesy are "signs" in the context of "signs and wonders" Holy Spirit gifts. He contrasts the effect of these "signs" in this verse and how they "serve" God's purpose.

Often, MOST of the time in my own personal circles of friends and acquaintances that have an opinion on this verse, and MOST of the people I have heard preach or teach it from the pulpit seem to suggest that they think Paul is saying that speaking in tongues was a sign to get unbelievers attention so that they will hear the Gospel and believe and they use Acts 2 as an example.

But since Paul is quoting Isaiah 28 here and not Acts 2 I think Paul had something else in mind when he said a sign for unbelievers.
I have already touched on what I think he was saying in the previous post. But I am still trying to wrap my head around it.

Frankly, I did not expect this thread to go far. Because after thousands of years the best they could do translating ṣaw lāṣāw ṣaw lāṣāw qaw lāqāw qaw lāqāw zeʿêr šām zeʿêr šām was "line upon line. precept upon precept, here a little, there a little" and so "who can know" was what I expected to be the main response.

I am pleasantly surprised that I did not get an immediate onslaught of "it is translated correctly by the KJV"
I only got one of those. I expected more.
At least people are recognizing that there is serious doubt as to that translation.

Sign gifts are to confirm that the message is from God. Jesus if you do not believe in me, at least believe for the sake of what you see me do. (yet the religious factions still said He healed by the power of the devil) But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.” John 10:38

Paul said a whole lot more about tongues than that they were a sign for unbelievers. Actually, what he said was:

6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church. I Corinthians 14

Paul is clearly pointing out that everyone speaking in tongues audibly, will be of no benefit to anyone and refers to the spiritual gifts as being for the building up of the church...or actually body of Christ. As far as the KJ goes, it is not the perfect and holy anointed translation some think it to be.

But since Paul is quoting Isaiah 28 here and not Acts 2 I think Paul had something else in mind when he said a sign for unbelievers.
I have already touched on what I think he was saying in the previous post. But I am still trying to wrap my head around it.

And so it is today both unregenerate people and fellow believers who are skeptical accuse those who speak in tongues as speaking gibberish

It is one thing to say you do not think tongues are for today, but I personally think you are doing harm to yourself that becomes deeper as you continue to mock if you go along the lines of you are speaking by the power of a demon. However, and again, I do not see some deep truth in Paul's words as yet undiscovered but you or anyone are certainly free to mine it for all you think it is worth.
People do that all the time with scripture.

 

[Amanuensis]

Sign gifts are to confirm that the message is from God. Jesus if you do not believe in me, at least believe for the sake of what you see me do. (yet the religious factions still said He healed by the power of the devil) But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.” John 10:38

Paul said a whole lot more about tongues than that they were a sign for unbelievers. Actually, what he said was:

6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church. I Corinthians 14

Paul is clearly pointing out that everyone speaking in tongues audibly, will be of no benefit to anyone and refers to the spiritual gifts as being for the building up of the church...or actually body of Christ. As far as the KJ goes, it is not the perfect and holy anointed translation some think it to be.





It is one thing to say you do not think tongues are for today, but I personally think you are doing harm to yourself that becomes deeper as you continue to mock if you go along the lines of you are speaking by the power of a demon. However, and again, I do not see some deep truth in Paul's words as yet undiscovered but you or anyone are certainly free to mine it for all you think it is worth.
People do that all the time with scripture.

I speak in tongues. I fellowship with those who operate in these gifts in decency and in order. Others like MacArthur and those that think his anti Charismatic hermeneutic makes sense accuse all those who speak in tongues as faking gibberish.

Could Isaiah's statements be applied? They say we are just saying ṣaw lāṣāw ṣaw lāṣāw qaw lāqāw qaw lāqāw zeʿêr šām zeʿêr šām . OK. I am not offended. Isaiah said you would say that. This actually supports modern tongues being authentic. While they are forming an argument to prove it is not authentic by accusing us of gibberish, they are repeating the accusations of the unbelievers that Isaiah spoke to. and following in their steps.

Maybe.

 

[Polar]

I speak in tongues. I fellowship with those who operate in these gifts in decency and in order. Others like MacArthur and those that think his anti Charismatic hermeneutic makes sense accuse all those who speak in tongues as faking gibberish.

Could Isaiah's statements be applied? They say we are just saying ṣaw lāṣāw ṣaw lāṣāw qaw lāqāw qaw lāqāw zeʿêr šām zeʿêr šām . OK. I am not offended. Isaiah said you would say that. This actually supports modern tongues being authentic. While they are forming an argument to prove it is not authentic by accusing us of gibberish, they are repeating the accusations of the unbelievers that Isaiah spoke to. and following in their steps.

Maybe.

Well I don't quite see eye to eye with you here (as I have said) but I also speak/pray/sing in tongues and I practice that as per Paul's instructions but I have seen abuse of course and it does exist. But the reverse is true of those who accuse of gibberish etc...that is abuse of clear instructions in scripture.

I would say they are unbelievers up to a point. Many are really uncertain. My own background growing up, was anti-tongues but there were no accusations of being demonic. I think the elders in that church did just not want to commit to it. God knows the heart and who is guilty of the offense of besmirching what is written and who just does not yet understand or may even be fearful.

And to be fair, some of what is 'out there' does make tongues seem unbiblical. These people need correction.

God is always fair that way.