Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are twisting my position. To take my position as meaning that "the illumination of the Holy Spirit cannot happen" is to completely misrepresent what I've written. I believe deeply in the doctrine of illumination, but that is not what this thread is about. The whole point here is simply to exegete the one passage.
Yes, asterisktom also posted A. T.'s comments. I value Robertson, but he was a grammarian, not a translator. I'm a translator.
I never intended contention either--and I started the thread, by the way. But you have made it contentious by twisting my exegesis and ignoring my points (on the grammar particularly).
Please leave off pontificating, and stop telling me what I have to believe about the passage.
I think that we have seen the real danger of misguided "private interpretation", as in the JW and the Sda.
Well, no, that was on the other thread. My whole point in this thread was to establish that "no private interpretation" means that we must interpret literally and not allegorically. I was not clear on that in this thread, somehow assuming that you had read that other thread. I should not have assumed.
Definitely.
That is absolute balderdash. I did not even mention illumination until you brought it up, and discussing illumination was not at all (and is not at all) the purpose of this thread. Please stop trying to derail the thread with this.
They would be object examples of NOT applying the correctBiblical methods of studying the Bible, and to NOT having the true Illumination of the Holy Spirit.
In the "Basics of Bible Interpretation" thread, which was otherwise very profitable, three different people suggested that this passage was not about interpreting the Bible. I am blown away by how someone could come to that conclusion. The very word "interpretation" is in the English Bible (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc., etc.), so how could someone say that the passage is not about interpretation? So I decided to unpack the passage in this thread.
First of all, let's look at that word "interpretation." It is the noun epilusis, not one of the two Greek words used for interpreting a language: diermeneuo (occurring 6 times in the NT) or hermeneuo (4 times). Rather, it is a hapax legomenon, occurring only here in the NT. Here is the definition from my favorite lexicon (Friberg, Friberg & Mille): "explanation, interpretation." There is a verb cognate, epiluo, occurring only in Mark 4:34 (Jesus "expounded") and Acts 19:39 ("determined"). It doesn't take a linguistic brain to note that the word in 2 Peter 1:20 means pretty much what we mean by "interpretation" in hermeneutics in the English language.
Now, the objection was made that the passage is NOT about interpretation because it's about prophecy. It is definitely about prophecy, and in the context speaks of false prophets. But to say that it is strictly about prophecy and not about interpretation is to beg the question: cannot a passage be about two subjects?
To continue. The enclitic conjunction gar, meaning "for" or "because," is the second word in v. 21. Most translations simply have "for," though we don't use the word that way in colloquial English nowadays. It is best to think of it as meaning "because." Friberg has: "conjunction used to express cause, inference, or continuation or to explain." So in other words, v. 21 is an explanation for v. 20. Why is not Scripture of "private interpretation"? Because God gave the Scriptures. Since God gave the Bible, we should never, ever, interpret Scripture with our own personal interpretation.
So, is the passage about the interpretation of Scripture? You bet your boutonniere it is!
The second coming event has not happened yet!
Thank you for the very kind post, agedman. I also respect you, and am glad for our interactions on the BB. For some reason I thought that you had read all of the other thread on "Basics of Interpretation," so I wasn't as patient as I should have been.2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Above all (prōton), you must understand (ginōskō ) that (hoti) no (ou) prophecy (prophēteia) of scripture (graphē) arises (ginomai) from the prophet’s own (idios) interpretation (epilysis),
21 for (gar) prophecy (prophēteia) never (ou) had its origin (pherō) in the will (thelēma) of man (anthrōpos), but (alla) men (anthrōpos) borne along (pherō) by (hypo) the Holy (hagios) Spirit (pneuma) spoke (laleō) from (apo) God (theos)
(Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament)
JofJ made mention of the "for" in verse 21 in that I did not deal with that word as he had.
To remove that hinderance:
Generally speaking, "for" is most often used as a synonym of "because."
Typically, "for" could also be written "because" and a sentence remain stable and easily discernible A teacher may ask, "Why?" and the child respond, "Because." and it mean essentially the same as "For this reason."
Occasionally, "Gar" (for) can also be used as an introductory word to further detail or clarification. This is typically called a coordinating conjunction. It takes two separate subjects and predicates and unites them in a single sentence. As it is used in this passage by explaining exactly where the prophecy originated. An English example may be, "I about died of sweat, for Texas is hot this time of year."
One can easily tell the difference because of that little coma. When "for" is used as "because," there is no coma.
The "for" of verse 21 is not to be separated from the whole of verse 20. Together they are a compound sentence with the coordinating conjunction "for." Sometimes, folks will use "and" but personally, I never thought "and" carried the importance "for" did when used as a coordinating conjunction. It just seems that more emphasis is added. But that is purely my own stuffy personality.
Btw, the KJV punctuates with a period, which is not the best way, it should be a coma between verse 20 and 21 so that the "for" is not used as "because" but as the coordinating conjunction as it should be used.
In other words the reason that no prophecy of Scripture arose from the prophet's own interpretation (one conjuring up a prophecy by some trickery, or rational thinking done by worldly folks - some will remember the show "The Mentalist") was because Scripture prophecy never originated in the will of humankind, but born by the Holy Spirit as God spoke to the prophets.
The word "epilysis" means interpret (as one interprets for another - think of Daniel telling the meaning of the handwriting on the wall), to unbind the meaning, to explain. Any of those definitions may be used for "Interpretation." So the prophet never conjured up his own interpretation, explanation, revealing... for what was to take place. What is the last book John wrote called? Revelation. How did John get what was to be written?
Young's Literal Translation works through these two verses in this manner
20 this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,
21 for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.
That is, the writer of the prophecy, the one the prophecy was given and recorded, was solely responsible for interpreting (explaining, unbinding the meaning, reveal, disclose...) and did not get the prophecy from any human exertion, but from God's mouth to the prophet's ear.
How the reader (or in the prophet's day the lister) responded was not the responsibility of the prophet. People had freedom to respond however they felt appropriate at the time.
Remember the parables were often confusing to the worldly minded, but the Lord Jesus would do the work of explaining? That was the work of the prophet. They by sign and words would disclose the prophecy so the common folk understood. Did not the Christ state that ALL He said and did was directly from the Father?
The reader of the prophecy has whatever freedom either in the flesh, or that allowed by the Holy Spirit to attend to the prophecy however they desire.
One other point.
It was mentioned that cults can form when one decides to read a prophecy the way they want, which may not be consistent with the good understanding of the Scriptures.
Frankly, I am rather unconcerned about that, merely because it should not impress me to change the work on 2 Peter 1:20,21. That may seem harsh, but I am not overwatch and responsible for the actions nor beliefs of cults. I will post correction to their errant doctrines, and as God leads will attempt to persuade when I encounter them, but ultimately the deceitfulness of which they embrace is their own responsibility.
I think I have pretty much responded to all the objections that JofJ raised, but if I missed something, then I am certain that he will let me know.
I sense that I need to add this personal reflection on the interaction I have had with JofJ. He has always been the greatest of gentlemen when we banter.
I have the highest regard for John. He is scholarly and experienced. He needs to be heeded for he speaks with authority and wisdom.
He deserves double honor if not more, and I had no desire to make this much contention with him, but merely encouraged him to attend more carefully to a single phrase. I would never have done other then applaud his work had there not become more of an issue.
He, no doubt, gets very tired, dismayed, and grieved with some responses I have given on this thread. Yet, I do so want him to know the high esteem he has.
Now, unless there is a cause, I will bow out of the discussion.
I have written far more than I ever intended, and my apologies that it may be too rambling to make decent reading.
Interesting that he fulfilled all OT prophecies in actual history, and literally, but Preterist now see God doing a switch and fulfill it all spiritual sense!Now, let's say you disagree with my position about "one's own." That's fine. I can actually help you there. The word for "is" in v. 20 is the Greek word ginomai, which often just means "is" but often means "become" or "originate." Some commentaries mention that.
But let's think application rather than exegesis. Even if I admit that the verse is talking about prophecy not coming from a "private interpretation," my point is still valid when deduced from application. In other words, if the prophecy did not come from a private interpretation, then it is wrong to privately interpret the Scriptures at any time. This to me means that the grammatical-historical (and even add -theological) method of interpretation is correct.
As further proof, note that all of the OT prophecies about the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled. (I have said this over on the BB.) Therefore, the prophecies of the 2nd Coming of Christ must also be interpreted and fulfilled literally. End of story!
Now, let's say you disagree with my position about "one's own." That's fine. I can actually help you there. The word for "is" in v. 20 is the Greek word ginomai, which often just means "is" but often means "become" or "originate." Some commentaries mention that.
But let's think application rather than exegesis. Even if I admit that the verse is talking about prophecy not coming from a "private interpretation," my point is still valid when deduced from application. In other words, if the prophecy did not come from a private interpretation, then it is wrong to privately interpret the Scriptures at any time. This to me means that the grammatical-historical (and even add -theological) method of interpretation is correct.
As further proof, note that all of the OT prophecies about the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled. (I have said this over on the BB.) Therefore, the prophecies of the 2nd Coming of Christ must also be interpreted and fulfilled literally. End of story!
There are MANY prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled, to be at time of second coming itself and forward!