Isaiah 28:10

[Jamie123]

...precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.

The "mature in faith" often use this line to justify their refusal to discuss "deep ideas" with newbies and outsiders. I never looked into the origin of the phrase until today, when I discovered this article:

Acts 17:11 Sacred Cow - Precept Upon Precept, Line Upon Line? Commentary on Isaiah 28:10,13

So could it be a mistranslation? Having said that, I believe Joseph Smith used the phrase in his prophetic writings, so (presumably) a Mormon believer would have to accept the traditional interpretation of the words. But in that case, what did Isaiah mean by "...that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken"? Was he perhaps referring to the enemies of the person who learned "precept by precept"?

P.S. I just looked up the BoM version of the scripture - it's in 2 Nephi 28:30

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

(my emphasis) which is rather different in tone from Isaiah's version

For precept must be upon precept...(etc)...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. But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept...(blah, blah)...; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Jamie123

[Just_A_Guy]

I understand it has become fashionable to blame the KJV with all manner of mistranslations - and not always without cause. But I think the conventional interpretation here still has merit, even excluding the teachings of the LDS Church:

1) This interpretation is not limited to the KJV, or even to English translations. For example, the Joao Ferreira de Almeida translation (Portuguese) translates the verse literally as "commandment on commandment, rule on rule".

2) In 1 Corinthians 3 Paul speaks of milk before meat, possibly an oblique reference to the traditional interpretation of Isaiah 28:9.

3) The idea that the Word causes some to stumble is supported in Isaiah 8:14 and Isaiah 6:10, so Isaiah 28:13 isn't particularly troubling to me.

[Vort]

The original meaning was pretty clearly "vain talk", as in "oohs, ahs, and ums" or "stammering speech". But honestly, that's not very relevant. The phrase is now used in a completely different sense, to illustrate a completely different truth: That revelation often comes to us bit by bit like the day dawning, not all at once.

Please note that this tradition of misinterpretation (or perhaps reinterpretation) is very old. Matthew does it a lot, not just reinterpreting scripture but actually misquoting it to add emphasis. Scripture is the Lord's, and his servants use it to illustrate points in a manner that can be grasped by the listeners. I admit it bothers my OCD sensibilities to find out that such-and-such scripture is being completely misused, but so it is.

I have long been bothered by Saints using Isaiah's words "for all this his anger is not turned away, but his arm is stretched out still" as an attempt to say, "God might be displeased, but he is always reaching out for us!" Well, this may be true, but it certainly is not what the Isaiah passage means; the arm of God's wrath is stretched out against his own people, and will continue to be outstretched until the hypocrites under his covenant are utterly destroyed. But really, does it matter? If an important truth is being taught, is it really important that the illustration is based on a misconception?

It would matter if we were "sola scriptura" believers. But we are not. We believe in living prophets. This stands above any and all scriptural teaching. So the scriptures are available to be interpreted as needed, even occasionally reinterpreted until they stand on their head, in service of the ultimate goal: Bringing people to Christ.

[Jamie123]

I have long been bothered by Saints using Isaiah's words "for all this his anger is not turned away, but his arm is stretched out still" as an attempt to say, "God might be displeased, but he is always reaching out for us!" Well, this may be true, but it certainly is not what the Isaiah passage means; the arm of God's wrath is stretched out against his own people, and will continue to be outstretched until the hypocrites under his covenant are utterly destroyed. But really, does it matter? If an important truth is being taught, is it really important that the illustration is based on a misconception?

That's very interesting - thanks :) Unfortunately though, clothing alleged "truths" in the reinterpretation of existing phrases also makes them rather vulnerable to critics. An example is Isaiah 14:12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" which is traditionally connected with the story of archangel Lucifer falling to become Satan. However the name "Lucifer" is not actually Hebrew at all, but Latin, and appeared first in the Vulgate as a translation of "Light Bringer". Some commentators therefore dismiss the whole Lucifer/Satan idea on the grounds that "Light Bringer, Son of the Morning" was the flattering style of a certain Babylonian king (similar to Louis XIV being called "The Sun King") and that it has no deeper meaning. Maybe they are right, but they nevertheless reckon without the possibility of reinterpretation as "continuous revelation".

A more homely - but nevertheless rather beautiful example of reinterpretation was that of a small girl who, when asked "What is a saint?" replied "Someone who the light shines through". She was referring to the pictures of saints she'd seen in the stained glass windows of churches, but what a lovely double entendre! It moves me almost to tears.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Jamie123

[Traveler]

I broke down this scripture according to the Chiasm structure apparent in Isaiah. It is important to note that this verse is connected by Chiasm to the verse of Isaiah 29:13. It is interesting to me that this second verse is also a popular verse quoted in LDS circles but I have never seen these two scriptures used together. In the KJV of Isaiah 29:13 we get a very poetic verbiage of the king James era. However, a variant reading of this particular verse renders marvelous work and a wonder upon marvelous work and a wonder much like we LDS like to render the progression we understand from Isaiah 28:10

As this plays out I see and interesting poetic notion – one being a memorized intellectualized understanding that was expressed over and over until it was repeated verbatim. The other seems to be an uplifting experience or enlightened “knowledge” learned by behavioral execution and involvement.

If I am to understand this – it appears to me that in these last days G-d will take his chosen covenant people through a series of learning opportunities or miraculous experience (marvelous work and wonder) after miraculous experiences in contrast to others that are memorizing their doctrines.

The Traveler

[Gramajane]

In study with Jewish friends, I understand that the scriptures often have layers upon layers of meanings and that things can be turned with added emphasis etc. (as another has said).

I like to look at things with the whole flow of the scriptures, as then we are less likely to get sidelined.

So the basics, Love God... Love thy neighbor...- which would then bring one to repentance and seeking what God would have us do in each moment.

That is a whole life time of work!

- but then it is by reading the scriptures (LDS too) about what Jesus did - that helps us know how to act (of course along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit).