"Interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20-21

[Covenanter]

Every time the OT prophet spoke pr wroye down scripture, was it not all inspired from God if in the Bible account?

Obviously - have I ever written anything to suggest otherwise?

 

[John of Japan]

I would suggest regarding Balaam that while he was not allowed to curse Israel publicly, but only blessed, that he did do a private interpretation/application by teaching the Moabites & Midianites to share with the Israelites rather than attacking them. The result was that the shared sacrifices, & fornication, caused God's displeasure against Israel.

Numbers 31:15 ‘Have you allowed all the women to live?’ he asked them. 16 ‘They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.​

As the saying goes - "If you can't beat them, join them."

I don't see any evidence here or in Scripture that Balaam was actually trying to interpret anything. Instead, he was allowing his lust for riches and position to draw him away from God's plan for him as a prophet. From that time on, Balaam did not prophesy that we know of. His road was not a private interpretation, but a private path.

Looking for possible examples of private interpretation - the temple was the subject of a covenant prophecy - Exo. 25:8 ‘Then let them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. The presence of the tabernacle/temple gave them assurance that God was with them, but they did a "private interpretation" to the effect that they were safe, because they were assured of God's presence.

They'd made a similar private interpretation earlier when they took the tabernacle into battle - & it was captured.

But those who took the ark of the covenant (not the tabernacle) into battle were not prophets. 2 Peter 1:20 has only two possible interpretations: that the "private interpretation" was that of the prophets writing inspired Scripture, or that of the readers of the Scripture.

And it seems Baruch privately interpreted the general word of the LORD to protect & bless his faithful people that he would receive great things for himself.

But Baruch was not a prophet, but only the servant of a prophet. Again, the interpretation of the OP passage has to do with either a prophet of Scripture or the reader or Scripture.

I suggest the problem is that we think along different lines - not on each other's wavelength.

It kind of looks that way. But the OP is specifically about how to interpret 2 Peter 1:20.

 

[Covenanter]

I don't see any evidence here or in Scripture that Balaam was actually trying to interpret anything. Instead, he was allowing his lust for riches and position to draw him away from God's plan for him as a prophet. From that time on, Balaam did not prophesy that we know of. His road was not a private interpretation, but a private path.

Balaam was a professional prophet & he knew that God was blessing Israel, while Israel lived in obedience to God. He used that knowledge to instruct the Midianites to seduce the Israelites & so bring God's wrath against them. When a professional prophet speaks, he is speaking as a false prophet & in this case a private interpretation.

We should take the warning even it it does not comply with the OP.

 

[John D. Wright]

Can you give an example of private & valid interpretation?

One of my sons met a girl, daughter of an elder of a charismatic church, at a Christian gathering. Someone had prophesied she would marry before she was 20, also that she would marry her next boyfriend. At the wedding, within a month of their meeting, her father thanked God for the miracle of the marriage.

The marriage didn't last a year before she went off with one of his friends. Private, "idiotic" prophecy is a serious violation of sound teaching & practice. And no, though we & our Pastor advised against such a quick marriage, we gave full support.

Scripture is complete, we are not prophets, not Apostles, not inspired. Our interpretation of Old Covenant Scripture must be guided by the New Covenant Scriptures. We should not read the OC Scripture looking for "unfulfilled prophecy" regarding a yet future fulfilment for the nation of Israel.​

I believe most of us can agree that the inspired word of God was complete with Revelation. I would not believe someone can prophesy today. And predicting is not prophesying. I can predict things on occasion but that is from experience and reason and not from revelation from God.

​

The prophecies relating to Jesus & his redeemed people were & are being fulfilled in his true church. We have personal experience, not as eye-witnesses like Peter, but as faith-witnesses.

Prophecies relating to Israel, a future temple, the millennium, etc, are lacking any New Covenant Scripture grounds for substantiation. They rely on reading the OC with a focus on national Israel rather than Christ & his church, and on a biased reading of Revelation. ​

On this we can't agree. God swore and oath on his own Holiness that he would fulfill Abraham's promises. When God alone passed through the fires on both sides he was essentially in OT times way signing an unconditional contract. I'm unwilling to spiritualize away God's promises when the plain text of the NT says otherwise. You may quote a verse that can be interpreted several ways based on your beliefs but you don't have a clear cut verse. Whereas I have lots of verses talking about a future kingdom. Revelation is the most clear and obvious. We wil reign for a thousand years with Christ on this earth. That is the plain sense of the text.

 

[John D. Wright]

I do see it as the faith that was once and full all delivered to the daints, but also do see it as being what the Church at large agreed upon as being true doctrines of the faith, such as expressed in the Creeds /Confessions.

Well at this moment I don't have an issue with the creeds/confessions (at least I don't think so) but if it ever came down to the bible or those creeds/confessions, I'd choose the bible. To me a creed/confession is just a way of stating succinctly what you think the bible says.

 

[John of Japan]

Balaam was a professional prophet & he knew that God was blessing Israel, while Israel lived in obedience to God. He used that knowledge to instruct the Midianites to seduce the Israelites & so bring God's wrath against them. When a professional prophet speaks, he is speaking as a false prophet & in this case a private interpretation.

We should take the warning even it it does not comply with the OP.

I'm missing where anything Balaam said or did after apostasizing was an actual interpretation--unless you are using a meaning for "interpretation" that is new to me. What do you mean by "interpretation" in the case of Balaam?

Furthermore, when Balaam apostasized, he was no longer a "holy man" as portrayed in 2 Peter 1:21. Someone who is holy is "set apart for a sacred purpose," of course. Balaam abandoned that sacred purpose, was no longer holy, and could no longer prophesy in the name of Yahweh.

 

[Covenanter]

I'm missing where anything Balaam said or did after apostasizing was an actual interpretation--unless you are using a meaning for "interpretation" that is new to me. What do you mean by "interpretation" in the case of Balaam?

Furthermore, when Balaam apostasized, he was no longer a "holy man" as portrayed in 2 Peter 1:21. Someone who is holy is "set apart for a sacred purpose," of course. Balaam abandoned that sacred purpose, was no longer holy, and could no longer prophesy in the name of Yahweh.

I'll give one last comment & move on.

Balaam was NEVER a holy man but like his ass spoke the words God put in his mouth. He knew from his encounter with the LORD & the words God gave him that Israel was a called out, separate people protected & blessed by the LORD. He used that knowledge to teach the Midianites to join with Israel & seduce them, & so Israel would incur the wrath of God.
As God says in Revelation -

2:14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: there are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.​

False teachers such as Peter condemns in 2 Peter 2. Whether "private interpretation" of Scripture or posing as Scripture teachers, I think the point is clear.

BACK TO THE BIBLE!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well at this moment I don't have an issue with the creeds/confessions (at least I don't think so) but if it ever came down to the bible or those creeds/confessions, I'd choose the bible. To me a creed/confession is just a way of stating succinctly what you think the bible says.

I hold with the 1689 Baptist Confession, as a nice summery from the scriptures of main Christian doctrines, but would only see the Bible inspired, and if the Bible and Confession disagree, always side with Scriptures!

 

[Covenanter]

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.

Agreed.

After unpacking the passage here on this thread, my view is still that the "interpretation" is that done by the reader of Scripture. However, I can now see more than before the possibility that the "interpretation" can be interpreted as that of the prophet himself, giving his own ideas or his own prophecy rather than that which the Lord wanted him to give.

That seems unlikely, unless Peter is referring to Apostolic age prophets. e.g. Agabus - Acts 21:10-14. The prophecy was clear, but the private interpretation was "Don't go to Jerusalem." Paul went with the prophecy, not the private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20 has only two possible interpretations: that the "private interpretation" was that of the prophets writing inspired Scripture, or that of the readers of the Scripture.

I consider it must be for the hearers/readers of the Scripture, not the prophets themselves, except, like Agabus they are in a situation to interpret their own God-inspired prophecy .

We need to consider the context - (NKJV)

16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
​

Peter begins this section by referring to their transfiguration experience - they saw the glorious Lord Jesus & heard the voice of his Father, owning him as his beloved Son.

They weren't telling "Bible stories" about Jesus,or giving a simple biography, but were eye-witnesses of the Lamb of God in his glory, and ear-witnesses of the word of the Father. Jesus was the living fulfilment of prophecy -

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[We also have the more sure prophetic word] ....​

What/Who the OC prophets prophesied is fulfilled - the prophets prophesied, not themselves understanding their prophecies (1 Peter 1:10-13) & the Apostles reported & proclaimed the fulfilment. So pay attention -

19 ..... which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,​

Take heed to the Apostolic message - Peter is confirming by the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ what/who the prophets have been writing about.

21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.​

I consider the passage is not giving guidance for the reader to interpret Scripture (private interpretation) but forbidding any interpretation at variance with Apostolic interpretation. I think this is where there is serious disagreement between us, as you used the verses as proof texts for "literal interpretation."

When we go back to the OC prophets, keep in mind that whatever the circumstances of the prophecy, Jesus is the focus of prophecy & the perfect fulfilment.

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed.



That seems unlikely, unless Peter is referring to Apostolic age prophets. e.g. Agabus - Acts 21:10-14. The prophecy was clear, but the private interpretation was "Don't go to Jerusalem." Paul went with the prophecy, not the private interpretation.



I consider it must be for the hearers/readers of the Scripture, not the prophets themselves, except, like Agabus they are in a situation to interpret their own God-inspired prophecy .

We need to consider the context - (NKJV)

16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
​

Peter begins this section by referring to their transfiguration experience - they saw the glorious Lord Jesus & heard the voice of his Father, owning him as his beloved Son.

They weren't telling "Bible stories" about Jesus,or giving a simple biography, but were eye-witnesses of the Lamb of God in his glory, and ear-witnesses of the word of the Father. Jesus was the living fulfilment of prophecy -

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[We also have the more sure prophetic word] ....​

What/Who the OC prophets prophesied is fulfilled - the prophets prophesied, not themselves understanding their prophecies (1 Peter 1:10-13) & the Apostles reported & proclaimed the fulfilment. So pay attention -

19 ..... which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,​

Take heed to the Apostolic message - Peter is confirming by the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ what/who the prophets have been writing about.

21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.​

I consider the passage is not giving guidance for the reader to interpret Scripture (private interpretation) but forbidding any interpretation at variance with Apostolic interpretation. I think this is where there is serious disagreement between us, as you used the verses as proof texts for "literal interpretation."

When we go back to the OC prophets, keep in mind that whatever the circumstances of the prophecy, Jesus is the focus of prophecy & the perfect fulfilment.

The full realization of the propehcy of Joel still yet to happen!

 

[Covenanter]

The full realization of the propehcy of Joel still yet to happen!

Please explain - what is YOUR private interpretation of Joel? Presumably you disagree with Peter's inspired Pentecost sermon.

 

[Covenanter]

There are clearly true prophets of the Lord and false prophets in the Biblical record. I see no records in prophetic history of a genuine prophet of the Lord either giving a false prophecy or falsely interpreting his inspired prophecy.

Jonah is an interesting example -
He received a prophecy concerning Nineveh;
He interpreted it as God expecting the Ninevites to repent & not be destroyed & fled in the opposite direction;
He considered his death in disobedience would be preferable to forgiveness for the Ninevites;

Jesus gives his interpretation/application to himself as a "Jonah" by his death & resurrection;
He applies the repentance of the Ninevites, & so their forgiveness, to the Jews of this generation who refused to repent, & so perished within 40 years.

None of that challenges or doubts the literal record & fulfilment of Jonah's prophecy. It does show how OC prophecy can (should?) be interpreted in terms of the Lord Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of prophecy.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jonah is an interesting example -
He received a prophecy concerning Nineveh;
He interpreted it as God expecting the Ninevites to repent & not be destroyed & fled in the opposite direction;
He considered his death in disobedience would be preferable to forgiveness for the Ninevites;

Jesus gives his interpretation/application to himself as a "Jonah" by his death & resurrection;
He applies the repentance of the Ninevites, & so their forgiveness, to the Jews of this generation who refused to repent, & so perished within 40 years.

None of that challenges or doubts the literal record & fulfilment of Jonah's prophecy. It does show how OC prophecy can (should?) be interpreted in terms of the Lord Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of prophecy.

Ezekiel still yet to happen!

 

[Covenanter]

The full realization of the propehcy of Joel still yet to happen!

Please explain - what is YOUR private interpretation of Joel? Presumably you disagree with Peter's inspired Pentecost sermon.

Ezekiel still yet to happen!

So "Ezekiel still yet to happen!" is your private interpretation of Joel. Do you EVER read your own posts? Do you EVER read the posts you purport to be replying to ?

If you did, you could learn a lot, & contribute constructively to the forum.

 

[Covenanter]

An example of private interpretation is seen in the prophecy of Caiaphas -

John 11:47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
‘What are we accomplishing?’ they asked. ‘Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.’
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, ‘You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’
51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.​

Does their evil plotting against Jesus amounts to a private interpretation of Caiaphas' prophecy? Or were they interpreting Caiaphas' ex-officio prophecy correctly?

 

[Yeshua1]

So "Ezekiel still yet to happen!" is your private interpretation of Joel. Do you EVER read your own posts? Do you EVER read the posts you purport to be replying to ?

If you did, you could learn a lot, & contribute constructively to the forum.

Peter did NOT quote all of Joel as happening at that time, and Ezeckiel 37-38 is still yet to happen...

 

[Covenanter]

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!

John, I would love you to respond to my recent posts.

If I understand the raison d'etre of your argument, it is to oppose those of us who see the interpretation of prophecy as relating to our LORD Jesus Christ & his church - as taught by Jesus himself & the Apostles;
whereas
you consider OC prophecy to be yet unfulfilled as it relates to the nation of Israel & needs a future dispensation in which it will be literally fulfilled.

I consider private interpretation to be interpretation contrary to the Apostles' teaching in the NC Scriptures.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I would love you to respond to my recent posts.

If I understand the raison d'etre of your argument, it is to oppose those of us who see the interpretation of prophecy as relating to our LORD Jesus Christ & his church - as taught by Jesus himself & the Apostles;

This is convoluted. I'm not sure what you are saying about my hermeneutics. To clarify from my side, all OT prophecies about the first coming of Christ were interpreted literally. Therefore, all prophecies (OT or NT) about the 2nd coming of Christ must be fulfilled literally. This is the basis of my opposition to preterism, because a "spiritual coming" to fulfill the Olivet Discourse (and many other passages) is not literal and does not fulfill the prophecies about the 2nd coming.

whereas
you consider OC prophecy to be yet unfulfilled as it relates to the nation of Israel & needs a future dispensation in which it will be literally fulfilled.

This is a very broad statement, unanswerable as it stands, and not really what I believe. All I can say in answer is that much OT prophecy about the nation of Israel has been fulfilled (i.e., many of Daniel's points of prophecy, etc.), but much is left to be fulfilled.

I consider private interpretation to be interpretation contrary to the Apostles' teaching in the NC Scriptures.

Again, this is kind of vague. The apostles' teaching about what? They taught about many things.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is convoluted. I'm not sure what you are saying about my hermeneutics. To clarify from my side, all OT prophecies about the first coming of Christ were interpreted literally. Therefore, all prophecies (OT or NT) about the 2nd coming of Christ must be fulfilled literally. This is the basis of my opposition to preterism, because a "spiritual coming" to fulfill the Olivet Discourse (and many other passages) is not literal and does not fulfill the prophecies about the 2nd coming.

This is a very broad statement, unanswerable as it stands, and not really what I believe. All I can say in answer is that much OT prophecy about the nation of Israel has been fulfilled (i.e., many of Daniel's points of prophecy, etc.), but much is left to be fulfilled.
Again, this is kind of vague. The apostles' teaching about what? They taught about many things.

What is interstoing on this issue would be that BOTH those holding to CT and Dispy way to view prophecy have condemned full preterism as being heresy!

 

[Covenanter]

Lets be specific -

... you consider OC prophecy to be yet unfulfilled as it relates to the nation of Israel & needs a future dispensation in which it will be literally fulfilled.

This is a very broad statement, unanswerable as it stands, and not really what I believe. All I can say in answer is that much OT prophecy about the nation of Israel has been fulfilled (i.e., many of Daniel's points of prophecy, etc.), but much is left to be fulfilled.

I consider private interpretation to be interpretation contrary to the Apostles' teaching in the NC Scriptures.

Again, this is kind of vague. The apostles' teaching about what? They taught about many things.

What did Jesus & his Apostles teach about the fulfilment of OC prophecy with regard to the unbelieving Jews as distinct from the many thousands of Jews who welcomed the Gospel & formed the church, comprising all God's redeemed people, both Jew & Gentile?

What OC prophecy is yet to be fulfilled regarding the nation of Israel?