Interpreting Scripture


jcob
 Share

Recommended Posts

Somebody said to me the other day that I cant interpret Scipture and that only the Prophet can interpret Gods word. They used 2 Peter 1:20 to support their arguement. But in context all this is saying is that Scripture does not come from any private origin (from the apostles own minds) but is inpired of the Lord through the Holy Spirit.

In response I said that it is through Gods word that we gain knowledge and understanding (Proverbs 2:6). If we dont have the capacity to understand the scriptures ourselves then we can pray for the wisdom to understand the scriptures (James 1:5).

In Acts 17:11 some people were commended for searching the answers in the scriptures becouse they did not believe the apostles.

And finally, the Scriptures teach us how to discern a false prophet. So if I need the prophet to interpret for me then I could never know if he is a false prophet.

Any more thoughts, im not sure I have him convinced yet. Is there some support I am missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 Peter 1:20 should be read in light of 2 Peter 1:19, where Peter notes that we have the "more sure word of prophecy".

Follow footnote c in verse 19 to find out what that means. In short, though, it's talking about a doctrine that, when realized, can allow a person to receive revelation directly in a very profound way directly from the Son.

Now, a word of caution: The prophet holds final interpretation for the public scriptural interpretations that are taught and embraced by the Church-at-large. If you get a revelation about a scripture that contradicts the Church's official position, you may or may not be in apostasy per se--but either way, you'd better keep that revelation to yourself. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have a more sure word of prophecy. Not cunningly devised fables, but eyewitness accounts of of our Lord Jesus Christ (see vs 16).

If only the prophet can determine the interpretation of Scripture that teaches us how to discern a false prophet, then how could I ever know that he is a true or false prophet?

If you get a revelation about a scripture that contradicts the Church's official position, you may or may not be in apostasy per se--but either way, you'd better keep that revelation to yourself. :)

Of course any revelation which is contrary to Gods word is not from the Holy Spirit. Paul said that we can trust the gospel over an angel from heaven (Galatians 1:8). The scriptures hold authority over any heavenly being.

If the spirit asked you to murder a little girl walking down the road. Would you do it? I wouldnt becouse I know that it is wrong according to Gods word. Hence the scriptures hold higher authority then a spirit or heavenly being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." - 1 John 4:1

What do you suppose we use as a foundation to try and compare the spirits against? I suggest the words of the eyewitnesses in the scriptures.

What specifically were you refering to in Ephesians 4?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard more than one LDS person criticize the Catholic Church for not translating the Bible into vernacular languages earlier. They accuse the Catholic clergy of centuries past of controlling what the people believe, and teaching them unscriptural doctrines, by keeping the people from reading the scriptures themselves, and offering only their "official" ecclesiastical interpretation of the scriptures. They talk about how important it is for people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language. To me, that implies allowing people to interpret the scriptures for themselves, and removing a barrier or layer of mediation between the ordinary person and God. It seems to me that the reason for translating the scriptures into the vernacular is so everybody can read them and see for themselves what they say, and have a more personal relationship with the scriptures and with God, rather than relying entirely on the mediation of a priestly caste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course any revelation which is contrary to Gods word is not from the Holy Spirit. Paul said that we can trust the gospel over an angel from heaven (Galatians 1:8). The scriptures hold authority over any heavenly being.

Then why did Paul assure his hearers in Galatians 1:11-12, that

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Interesting how Paul doesn't cite the existing corpus of scripture for his knowledge of the gospel. He cites his own revelatory experience.

How was Ananias supposed to know that Paul's claims about what happened on the road to Damascus weren't a load of hooey dreamed up by some grasping, ambitious Christian-hater? Read Acts 8--he had a vision. By the way, as you read Acts 2, you'll see that Peter wasn't particularly bothered by the idea of visions, either.

If the spirit asked you to murder a little girl walking down the road. Would you do it? I wouldnt becouse I know that it is wrong according to Gods word.

If by "Gods word" you mean the Bible, that's an interesting conclusion; because plenty of people over the past few millennia have used the Bible to justify all kinds of abominations--including murder.

Whether you admit it or not, I daresay your aversion to murder is based on a little more than the plain text of the Bible. The same book that tells us clearly not to kill (or "murder", depending on your interpretation of the Hebrew) has as two of its major heroes, Israelite leaders who ordered mass genocide and justified the practice as a commandment from God.

Hence the scriptures hold higher authority then a spirit or heavenly being.

I am scratching my head over this notion that the law is greater than the Lawgiver. One would think that the murder of Jesus of Nazareth by people who claimed complete fealty to God's word as it then existed, would be a pretty potent warning against that kind of thinking.

Remember, even Israel understood that Israel was to measure those who claimed to speak for God according "to the law and to the testimony" (Isaiah 8:20). Jesus' teachings contravened Israel's understanding of both. He disregarded rabbinical instructions about acceptable Sabbath-day behavior. He disregarded the religious dietary code. Saul of Tarsus threw out the entire Mosaic code, for heaven's sake!

If Paul can re-interpret--or even modify--or even (heaven forbid!) add to the corpus of existing scripture, then why can't Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson do the same (provided, of course, that they have the same authority as Paul did)? Unless you're a Catholic, then your own theology arose because at some point somebody took it upon themselves to interpret the scriptures in a way that was new to themselves and to the society in which they lived. On what scriptural basis do you attack Joseph Smith for doing what Paul, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and even Jesus Himself all did?

"believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." - 1 John 4:1

What do you suppose we use as a foundation to try and compare the spirits against? I suggest the words of the eyewitnesses in the scriptures.

It's really not as hard as you seem to want it to be:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

What specifically were you refering to in Ephesians 4?

I suspect JD was referring to the existence of Church officers including prophets and apostles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you admit it or not, I daresay your aversion to murder is based on a little more than the plain text of the Bible. The same book that tells us clearly not to kill (or "murder", depending on your interpretation of the Hebrew) has as two of its major heroes, Israelite leaders who ordered mass genocide and justified the practice as a commandment from God.

I'm just glad cobbettj has such an aversion to murder. You'd be surprised how many LDS people I've heard say they would kill an innocent person if God commanded them to! :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just glad cobbettj has such an aversion to murder. You'd be surprised how many LDS people I've heard say they would kill an innocent person if God commanded them to! :o

That's a whole other discussion, isn't it?! ;) Suffice it to say, I don't know that it would be quite fair to say that such LDS people have no aversion to murder. It's just that they baldly assert that their devotion to God trumps that aversion--which is a jarring and frankly troubling thing to hear in a secular society like ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the spirit asked you to murder a little girl walking down the road. Would you do it? I wouldnt becouse I know that it is wrong according to Gods word. Hence the scriptures hold higher authority then a spirit or heavenly being.

1 Samuel 15:3. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a whole other discussion, isn't it?! ;) Suffice it to say, I don't know that it would be quite fair to say that such LDS people have no aversion to murder. It's just that they baldly assert that their devotion to God trumps that aversion--which is a jarring and frankly troubling thing to hear in a secular society like ours.

Well, it's not jarring and troubling only to secular-minded people, but also to people like me who believe in a God who is good, and recognize that sometimes people think God is telling them to do horrible things, but in reality He's not. It's possible that the 9/11 terrorists sincerely believed they were doing God's will, but that doesn't excuse their wicked actions any more than alleged genocidal actions by the ancient Israelites were excusable.

It's important that we not abdicate personal reponsibility by saying we're "just following orders," and also that we come to know the true character of God so we don't go doing all kinds of crazy things in his name.

Edited by HEthePrimate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard more than one LDS person criticize the Catholic Church for not translating the Bible into vernacular languages earlier. They accuse the Catholic clergy of centuries past of controlling what the people believe, and teaching them unscriptural doctrines, by keeping the people from reading the scriptures themselves, and offering only their "official" ecclesiastical interpretation of the scriptures. They talk about how important it is for people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language. To me, that implies allowing people to interpret the scriptures for themselves, and removing a barrier or layer of mediation between the ordinary person and God. It seems to me that the reason for translating the scriptures into the vernacular is so everybody can read them and see for themselves what they say, and have a more personal relationship with the scriptures and with God, rather than relying entirely on the mediation of a priestly caste.

1. That the Catholic Church did not allow, translations of the Bible into vernacular languages earlier, is a myth. One of those many popular myths of many non-Catholics that has no basis in fact....but will never die. :lol: The Church has never had a single official translation, but has endorsed and used many in numerous languages. In the West however, Latin is the language of the Church and so most translations were. In the East, Greek is more the standard and still the oldest translation of the whole bible that is still in use, the Septuagint. It has always allowed for translations into the vernacular but you need to keep in mind, until the invention of the printing press, books were extremely rare and of course, until the advent of universal education, the overwhelming majority of people in the West, could not read.

The Bible was printed in translations used by the Catholic Church, in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Armenian, Slav, Arabic, etc., etc., all long before the reformation. Even in the West, there were numerous translations in the vernacular. Remember the famed Gutenberg printing press that finally allowed books for all? The Gutenberg Bible in German? It was Catholic. Printed almost three decades before Martin Luther was even born. Where the truth lay that the "urban legend" gets wrong, is that the Church certainly did ban unauthorised versions of the Bible in Catholic jurisdictions.

2. Your main point though is one of authority. What is true is the heart of the difference between Catholics and Protestants. The central core issue which the "Reformation" was based on was sola scriptura, i.e., that each individual is their own authority in what the Bible says, and therefore, what is truth. The Catholic Church says that the magisterium (teaching authority) authority of the Church is the only legitimate authority for Christians in matters of faith & morals.

3. What I am curious about is what seems to be your assertion that the LDS church is more on the Protestant side of that divide. Are Mormons free to interpret scripture as they wish and remain members of the church in good standing?

Edited by Desertknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's not jarring and troubling only to secular-minded people, but also to people like me who believe in a God who is good, and recognize that sometimes people think God is telling them to do horrible things, but in reality He's not.

I agree with you insofar as people often ascribe their actions to divine injunction even when no such injunction has in fact been given.

It's important that we not abdicate personal reponsibility by saying we're "just following orders," and also that we come to know the true character of God so we don't go doing all kinds of crazy things in his name.

I agree. On the other hand, we shouldn't dupe ourselves into believing that God will always think like we do, or that His moral code substantially aligns itself with the prevailing morality of twenty-first century Western culture.

God is bigger than that, and the parts of scripture that rub us the wrong way deserve more than a scoff and a glib "Godwouldneverreallyactthatway".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is bigger than that, and the parts of scripture that rub us the wrong way deserve more than a scoff and a glib "Godwouldneverreallyactthatway".

The problem is that those who accuse "the Old Testament God" of "murder" and other such absurdities will never concede this most obvious point. Like the rest of us, they believe that God is perfectly just; unlike the rest of us, they wilfully cling to the stupidity that teaches that perfect justice is exactly what 21st-century Western society says it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only the prophet can determine the interpretation of Scripture that teaches us how to discern a false prophet, then how could I ever know that he is a true or false prophet?

Does not "the discerning of spirits" come in to play when a prophet is sustained? I'm no expert on LDS theology and governance, but I understand that when new leadership is approved part of the process is for members to sustain them. If the prophet is sustained, does that not mean that he is supposed to be a true prophet?

Of course any revelation which is contrary to Gods word is not from the Holy Spirit. Paul said that we can trust the gospel over an angel from heaven (Galatians 1:8). The scriptures hold authority over any heavenly being.

If the spirit asked you to murder a little girl walking down the road. Would you do it? I wouldnt becouse I know that it is wrong according to Gods word. Hence the scriptures hold higher authority then a spirit or heavenly being.

I have been told here in the past that current revelation explains previous revelation, and that God's living prophets offer God's latest words and latest explanations of previous revelation. If so, I would think the only definitive way to say that a modern prophet has uttered false prophesy would be through a widespread "discerning of spirits" that the sustained prophet is no longer sustained, and has been seduced by false spirits. I'm guessing this has never happened. On the other hand, what has happened is that modern prophets have discerned that previous revelations have lived out their purpose and were no longer binding on members.

Any LDS posters please correct or better explain what I said above, since it's all based on what I've heard here. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does not "the discerning of spirits" come in to play when a prophet is sustained? I'm no expert on LDS theology and governance, but I understand that when new leadership is approved part of the process is for members to sustain them. If the prophet is sustained, does that not mean that he is supposed to be a true prophet?

Yes. When a Mormon raises his/her hand to sustain the prophet as such, hopefully they've gotten an individual spiritual confirmation that the prophet really is what he presents himself to be.

And yes, by implication, Mormonism teaches that the prophet enjoys all of the spiritual gifts spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 (specifically, I think the teaching is that a bishop is entitled by his office to use all of these gifts; so it seems logical that someone higher up in the hierarchy would as well).

I have been told here in the past that current revelation explains previous revelation, and that God's living prophets offer God's latest words and latest explanations of previous revelation. If so, I would think the only definitive way to say that a modern prophet has uttered false prophesy would be through a widespread "discerning of spirits" that the sustained prophet is no longer sustained, and has been seduced by false spirits. I'm guessing this has never happened. On the other hand, what has happened is that modern prophets have discerned that previous revelations have lived out their purpose and were no longer binding on members.

I think that's fair to say. From an organizational standpoint, theoretically the Quorum of the 12 has equal authority to the First Presidency. So to overrule a current prophet, theoretically you'd have to have at least seven of the 12 in disagreement with the prophet and even that wouldn't be definitive.

The Quorum has never openly moved against the First Presidency in the Church's history; at least not that I'm aware of. The ongoing dynamic between the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 over the Church's history is an interesting one, and one that generally has played out behind closed doors. I think D. Michael Quinn's Extensions of Power clearly has an axe to grind, but it's nevertheless fascinating reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to summarize my arguement, see below. Please let me know your thoughts on each point.

Somebody said to me that I can’t interpret Scripture and that only the Prophet can interpret Gods word. They used 2 Peter 1:20 to support their argument.

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Personally I believe that if Peter was telling us that we could not privately interpret scripture he might have said:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is [for] any private interpretation.”

Context supports the idea that he was speaking of the origin of prophecy (not the apostles own minds and ideas, but inspired of the Lord through the Holy Spirit).

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” – 2 Peter 1:16

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” – 2 Peter 1:21

-

In Acts 17:11 a group of people were commended for searching out the answers in the scriptures.

-

The Bible teaches us how to discern who a false prophet is by the way of various tests (Deuteronomy 18, Isaiah 8:20, Jeremiah 23:14, Jeremiah 28:9, Mathew 7:15 etc)

What use are these tests if only a prophet can interpret the meaning of them?

-

Peter affirmed that Pauls writings were scripture (2 Peter 3:16). What gave the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. the right to interpret Pauls letters, since none of them were Prophets? Perhaps you dont need authority to understand Gods word?

-

I would like to hear how you might interpret James 1:5 and Proverbs 2:6? Personally I see this as: God gives us his wisdom (ie. the capacity to comprehend) but we gain knowledge and understanding through God's word.

-

Most Christian denominations agree on interpretations of the majority of Biblical scripture to do with the essentials (Salvation). The Churches which usually disagree on doctrines are:

- Churches that claim to have a man or Prophet who is the exclusive interpreter of scripture

- Churches that claim the Bible is full of errors / mistranslations

- Churches that claim that the writers were not all inspired by God

Edited by cobbettj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were commended for interpreting the scriptures in light of the revelation given them. In other words, commended for reading things into the scriptures.

Agreed, but they were still interpreting the Old Testament without a Prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, but they were still interpreting the Old Testament without a Prophet.

These were Jews of Berea. In other words: nonbelievers.

Are you really trying to goad us Mormons into adopting the position that unbelievers, or people who are not in the direct presence of legitimate Church authority, should just quit reading the scriptures entirely?

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really trying to goad us Mormons into adopting the position that unbelievers, or people who are not in the direct presence of legitimate Church authority, should just quit reading the scriptures entirely?

Really?

No, just the opposite actually. I think we should all be reading the scriptures. Its just someone told me that only a prophet can interpret Gods word. But the evidence shows that Gods word is open for everyone to understand. Of course you need to have Gods wisdom at the same time, which he promises to those who ask (James 1:5).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just someone told me that only a prophet can interpret Gods word. But the evidence shows that Gods word is open for everyone to understand.

Both statements are correct. They are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share