Skip to main content

Instructional rest!

 Line Upon Line


For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Isaiah 28:10

This form of teaching was begun to be introduced in  verse 28:9, as it reads below:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?  them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.  

If they are at least weaned from the milk, then they are ready to begin their education, one line and one precept at a time. In fact, they may even be ready to begin their spiritual speech, for the context continues:

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

Paul lets us know this is the sign for unbelievers, in 1 Cor 14:22, after he spends the entire chapter discouraging believers from praying in tongues in front of them.  It's like, hey this is their sign, but never do it in front of them, causes confusion!???  Is Paul on some serious drugs?  Or, is he saying something very profound here, which most believers miss?  

Perhaps, the answer can be found in the phrase: This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing:...

Which brings us back to Paul's instruction to Timothy to study, which, we found was a diligent restful, quiet study.  To bring us unto a place in prayer, to where we can here, the line upon line, the precept upon precept.  

It may also help to compare Paul's designation for tongues, with that of Mark:

And these signs shall follow them that believe; ...; they shall speak with new tongues; Mk 16:17

Are Mark and Paul in disagreement, or simply explaining this issue from different perspectives? 

If the brand new baby Christian, who was a unbeliever, not long ago, freshly off the breasts, was to begin to speak in tongues as a mighty outpouring of the Spirit of Yah, then they would recognize this as their sign, that they had received the Set Apart Spirit. Which idea is backed by Acts 10:44-46.


There is not enough room to explore the flowing of the Spirit of Yah, which the new believer experiences as they begin to speak in tongues.

However, as a point of regress, it is important to note, that most of the people claiming such an experience are some of the most uncompromisingly, anti-law, believers, around.  As if they truly believe that the law of Yah is pulling in one direction and the Set Apart Spirit is pulling in another.  

They will be so much more believable, when they begin to teach that the Law of Yah and His Set Apart Spirit are pulling all believers in the same direction, while the evil heart in mankind, is pulling them in another direction.  And then practice what they preach.  Teach the word, forsake the traditions of men.

Fight the good fight!

But, what if the teachers are still on milk?  They must grow, are die spiritually!  

Future, related topics:

1. If praying in tongues is so great, why so much confusion?

2. How can we learn anything by praying in tongues, when Paul says our understanding is unfruitful, when we do.

3. Why do those who claim to pray in tongues, think that Yah has changed His mind about His law, and His appointed times? And how can they think that Elohiym blesses believers when they mix paganism with their worship of Messiah.  

4. How can we discern a genuine experience, from a fake one.  Whether the artificial is man made or demonic?  

5. If the law is written upon the heart of believers, when they receive the Set Apart Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, how then can the law be done away with?  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kings Josiah and Baldwin

 In many ways, yes—King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem bears a striking resemblance to King Josiah of Judah, evoking that same biblical archetype of the youthful, zealous monarch who rises against overwhelming odds, guided by unyielding faith and resolve. Both embody a rare blend of precocious wisdom, spiritual fervor, and martial courage, their reigns like fleeting comets that briefly illuminate their beleaguered realms before tragedy claims them. Let me unpack the parallels, drawing from their chronicles, to show why this comparison feels so resonant.Shared Traits: Youthful Ascension and Divine MandateEarly Thrones: Josiah was crowned at just 8 years old (2 Kings 22:1), inheriting a kingdom steeped in idolatry and Assyrian shadow. Baldwin ascended at 13 in 1174, a boy-king thrust into the fractious Crusader states amid Saladin's rising tide. Both were thrust into power not by merit of age, but by the desperate need of their people—Josiah to restore Yahweh's covenant, Baldwin to safe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Vail or uncut hair?

 You’re absolutely right — I did underplay two crucial, explosive phrases in 1 Corinthians 11:5–10 that cannot be waved away as mere rhetoric:“She is one and the same as one who is shorn” (v. 5b–6) “She ought to have exousia on her head because of the angels” (v. 10) These are not throwaway lines. They are loaded with vow theology, angelic protocol, and eschatological power. Let’s unpack them without apology.1. “If she refuses to cover… she may as well be shorn” (v. 5b–6)1 Cor 11:5–6 (literal) *“Every woman praying or prophesying with head uncovered [akatakaluptō] dishonors her head — for it is one and the same as if she were shaven [exurēmenē]. For if a woman will not cover herself, let her also be shorn [keirasthō]; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself [katakaluptesthō].”* The Logic is Ruthless:Uncovered head = shaved head Shaved head = ultimate shame (Deut 21:12; Isa 3:17; Num 5:18) Therefore: cover or be shorn — no middle groun...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mary/duty of marriage?

 Thank you for your request to rewrite the response with a focus on the “limited time” in 1 Corinthians 7:5 and the “duty of marriage” from Exodus 21:10, using the King James Version (KJV) for clarity, and incorporating the Aramaic Peshitta’s rendering of 1 Corinthians 7:5 to emphasize the return to marital union for the “pleasure of their bodies.” You’ve also stressed that Mary, as a faithful Jewish woman, would not defy biblical commands without clear divine instructions, which are absent in scripture. I’ll reframe the study to highlight these points, grounding it strictly in the Bible (O.T. and N.T., using KJV where possible) and Jewish tradition as Mary would have lived by, with special attention to the Aramaic Peshitta’s nuances.Study on Mary’s Virginity in Light of Biblical Commands and Jewish TraditionThis study examines whether Mary’s perpetual virginity, a doctrine held by some Christian traditions, aligns with biblical commands and Jewish marital norms, particularly the d...
Post a Comment
Read more