Responses to Biblical Arguments

[Steve Noel]

On 4/8/2016 at 7:24 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't know that you can from chapter 1 alone; but when you go on and read into chapter 2 where Peter condemns all kinds of false teachers (after having built up his own and his fellow apostles' credibility in chapter 1), I think vv 19-21 is Peter saying "look, there's a right, and there's a wrong, and some of these clowns are just plain wrong". 

That doesn't mean we can't use a variety of textual or academic or logical approaches in interpreting scripture.  It doesn't mean that a particular scripture might have multiple layers of meaning.  It just reminds us that at some point, it is possible for "they that are unlearned and unstable [to] wrest . . . the . . .  scriptures, unto their own destruction " (2 Peter 3:16).  The rules of scriptural interpretation are very broad--but there are rules, and the consequences for violating them can be dire.  That, I think, is the point Peter was trying to make.

Incidentally, Peter's talking about a "more sure word of prophecy" is going to have resonance for Mormons, because there is a (relatively obscure) LDS teaching about receiving the "more sure word of prophecy"; the gist of which is that a Church member might hypothetically receive a visit from Jesus Christ Himself.  That kind of feeds back into the other discussion you initiated about why the LDS Church is so loath to abandon the KJV--"Prophetic message as something completely reliable" (per the NIV's wording) just doesn't carry the same cachet. 

I appreciate this reply. I will interact when I get a little more time. Thanks.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

We discover the intention of the author from the historical-grammatical context. Take a few minutes to read this blog post. It expresses the approach to Scripture that I have tried to demonstrate here.

Thank you. I first was introduced to this concept on my mission, and there is validity, but not in totality. When an individual relies solely on "historical grammar" they are still able to miss the point given by the author entirely. This reminds me of a conversation I had with an Atheist who asked a question and I responded. After my response, he then responded with an inaccurate interpretation of what I had explained, and I proceeded to clarify his error in interpretation. His response was then to tell me his degree was in English, grammatical writing, and then proceeded to show how his interpretation of my comment was correct through grammatical context. I, the author, was again seeking to explain to him that his interpretation of my writing, via grammatical context (and his educational degree and pursuits) was incorrect. When we departed, he still believed his interpretation of what I wrote was correct, and that I the author was wrong. 

This doesn't explain how you know what Peter did or did not intend to mean. This is an individual's best efforts to try to provide meaning to a person's statement made nearly 2 centuries ago, and just as modern grammatical context is able to interpret meaning incorrectly, anyone using "historical-grammatical context" isn't going to be correct either; although, the method can produce results, those that rely solely on this method are borderline pedantic, much like the Atheist I conversed with. His education, his understanding of grammatical meanings, superseded the author's (mine) real intent.  

So, thus the question is left unanswered, "how do you know what Peter meant?" What this really comes down to, is a best estimate as to what was meant through grammatical-historical context, which still could be interpreted incorrectly. As to my studies, it is interpreted incorrectly. This is in context though of a forum topic "Learn about the Mormon Church."

I believe there would be more validity to "hermeneutics" if all would write and interpret the same, but we do not. It is not to say it is without benefit, as I have listened and read many grammatically based arguments that I have enjoyed. 

 

[Steve Noel]

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Thank you. I first was introduced to this concept on my mission, and there is validity, but not in totality. When an individual relies solely on "historical grammar" they are still able to miss the point given by the author entirely. This reminds me of a conversation I had with an Atheist who asked a question and I responded. After my response, he then responded with an inaccurate interpretation of what I had explained, and I proceeded to clarify his error in interpretation. His response was then to tell me his degree was in English, grammatical writing, and then proceeded to show how his interpretation of my comment was correct through grammatical context. I, the author, was again seeking to explain to him that his interpretation of my writing, via grammatical context (and his educational degree and pursuits) was incorrect. When we departed, he still believed his interpretation of what I wrote was correct, and that I the author was wrong. 

This doesn't explain how you know what Peter did or did not intend to mean. This is an individual's best efforts to try to provide meaning to a person's statement made nearly 2 centuries ago, and just as modern grammatical context is able to interpret meaning incorrectly, anyone using "historical-grammatical context" isn't going to be correct either; although, the method can produce results, those that rely solely on this method are borderline pedantic, much like the Atheist I conversed with. His education, his understanding of grammatical meanings, superseded the author's (mine) real intent.  

So, thus the question is left unanswered, "how do you know what Peter meant?" What this really comes down to, is a best estimate as to what was meant through grammatical-historical context, which still could be interpreted incorrectly. As to my studies, it is interpreted incorrectly. This is in context though of a forum topic "Learn about the Mormon Church."

I believe there would be more validity to "hermeneutics" if all would write and interpret the same, but we do not. It is not to say it is without benefit, as I have listened and read many grammatically based arguments that I have enjoyed. 

 

I agree that we can still miss the author's intention, but that is the goal of this method of interpretation. I do not share your skepticism about the possibility of discovering the author's intent. Much more could be said, but I appreciate your interaction here.

[Steve Noel]

On 4/8/2016 at 7:24 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't know that you can from chapter 1 alone; but when you go on and read into chapter 2 where Peter condemns all kinds of false teachers (after having built up his own and his fellow apostles' credibility in chapter 1), I think vv 19-21 is Peter saying "look, there's a right, and there's a wrong, and some of these clowns are just plain wrong". 

That doesn't mean we can't use a variety of textual or academic or logical approaches in interpreting scripture.  It doesn't mean that a particular scripture might have multiple layers of meaning.  It just reminds us that at some point, it is possible for "they that are unlearned and unstable [to] wrest . . . the . . .  scriptures, unto their own destruction " (2 Peter 3:16).  The rules of scriptural interpretation are very broad--but there are rules, and the consequences for violating them can be dire.  That, I think, is the point Peter was trying to make.

Incidentally, Peter's talking about a "more sure word of prophecy" is going to have resonance for Mormons, because there is a (relatively obscure) LDS teaching about receiving the "more sure word of prophecy"; the gist of which is that a Church member might hypothetically receive a visit from Jesus Christ Himself.  That kind of feeds back into the other discussion you initiated about why the LDS Church is so loath to abandon the KJV--"Prophetic message as something completely reliable" (per the NIV's wording) just doesn't carry the same cachet. 

It is good that you brought in the larger context of the whole book. I also appreciate that you affirm that there are rules of interpretation. The verse you've shared from 2 Peter 3:16 is very appropriate here. We must take care in how we handle to Scriptures. I haven't used the NIV any many years. I prefer more literal translations like the NASB or ESV. I also have a Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament that I reference often. Thanks for contributing to the conversation here.

[Anddenex]

49 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I agree that we can still miss the author's intention, but that is the goal of this method of interpretation. I do not share your skepticism about the possibility of discovering the author's intent. Much more could be said, but I appreciate your interaction here.

For clarification, you mention my skepticism in context of discovering author's intent. I have no skepticism in the ability to discover author's intent. I know that God does and will continue to reveal his truths through prophetic words and the Holy Ghost (1 Nephi 10: 17, 19).  My skepticism, as directed, is encompassed in a thought that the only way to know author's intent is via the arm of flesh. The same skepticism is given when through the scientific method an Atheist tries to prove the Bible to be mythical (i.e. there was no flood). They rely solely on the arm of flesh for their knowledge. 

[Steve Noel]

38 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

For clarification, you mention my skepticism in context of discovering author's intent. I have no skepticism in the ability to discover author's intent. I know that God does and will continue to reveal his truths through prophetic words and the Holy Ghost (1 Nephi 10: 17, 19).  My skepticism, as directed, is encompassed in a thought that the only way to know author's intent is via the arm of flesh. The same skepticism is given when through the scientific method an Atheist tries to prove the Bible to be mythical (i.e. there was no flood). They rely solely on the arm of flesh for their knowledge. 

I understood what you meant. I don't disagree that we are not to rely only on our own understanding. We should seek to be led by the Spirit. I never open the Scriptures to read without first asking the Lord to open my understanding and give me light. 

[Steve Noel]

I wanted to thank you all for working through this text with me without becoming hostile because we have some disagreements. 

[Steve Noel]

On 4/8/2016 at 8:22 PM, LeSellers said:

Here's a different understanding of a passage often used by anti-Mormons. Their argument is that Christ promised that His church would not fail, that is, would not fall into apostasy (flying in the face of dozens of prophecies to the contrary).

Some 25 years ago, I was reading Matthew, chapter 16, where the Apostle gave the account on the Mount of Transfiguration:

(AV)13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Greek (with word-for-word translation): 13. ᾿Ελθὼν δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων· τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; (coming And Jesus into the parts of Caesarea of Philip he questioned the followers of him, saying, Whom me do say men to be, the Son of Man?) 14. οἱ δὲ εἶπον· οἱ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ ᾿Ιερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν. (they And said, Some {say}, John the Immerser. others {say} And Elijah. others {say} And Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.) 15. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; (He says to them, you But, whom me do you say to be?) 16. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπε· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. (answering And Simon Peter said, You are the Christ, the Son of God the living!) 17. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέ σοι, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.(And answering Jesus said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah because flesh and blood not did reveal {this} to you, but the Father of me in the heavens.) 18. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. (I also And to you say, - You are Peter, and upon this bedrock I will build of me the assembly and {the} gates of Hades not will be strong against her.) 19. καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth will be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth will be, having been loosed in the heavens.)

We must look at who said what and why he said it. Peter responded to Christ’s question “Whom say ye (the apostles) that I am? After he finishes, Christ tells Peter, “blessed art thou”, not because of the words, but because of their source: “My Father which is in heaven”. In other words, Peter had just received a revelation. He then continues by telling Peter that He will build His church on “this rock”. Here some confusion enters in: The problem is that Christ had changed Simon’s name to “Cephas” (in Aramaic) which means “rock”. The Greek form of this word is “Petra” (πέτρα, which is a feminine noun). To make it masculine, the NT writers changed it to “Petros” (Πέτρος) which doesn’t really mean “rock”, but could be a diminutive, maybe “pebble” or “small stone”.

Christ could have meant that He was building His Church upon Peter, the mortal man, Simon, which is not particularly valuable to your point, since Peter was mortal and would not live more than another sixty years or so. But if not “Peter”, what? Knowing the rock upon which Christ was to found His church is critical to our understanding of the passage. So, let’s look into the verses here and see what they can tell us:

Check out the very verse we’re speaking of, v 18: There is not much wiggle room here, it has to be something closely connected with Peter and that revelation he’d just had. Could it be that the “rock” is the rock of revelation? What could be more stable, more long-lived? Paul tells us that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];” Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the church, and they receive revelation from God. Something to consider.

Now look at verse 19. “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” Peter was the one Christ gave the keys of the kingdom unto. He didn’t give them to all of the Twelve, but to Peter alone (He said “thee” σοι, singular). So, Peter is the one in charge. (He later gave them to all the Apostles, but that’s a different part of the story. See Matt 18:18.)

“Cephas” (pronounced “Kayfas”, “Peter”, in Aramaic) still means “rock”, so what if Christ were saying that the “rock” He was going to build His church on was not “Peter”, the individual, but Peter receiving revelation because he’s the chief among the Apostles? In other words, “Peter” represented the leader of the Church, and any man who receives that calling, as long as he received revelation, would be the foundation of the church. This is, of course, in line with Ephesians 2:19~20: 19. “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”

This is purely Biblical. Don’t anyone come back and tell me that I used some “Mormon” scripture.

We still haven’t responded to the rest of the verse, though, so let’s get into that now.

That last phrase “... and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” is a really tricky one. There are three words we must define in order to understand it. The first is “Hell”. The word that whoever-translated-Matthew’s-work-into-Greek used was “hades” (ᾅδης). “Hades” is not the “hell” we usually think of when we hear the word. Hades is just a place where dead people go. If Christ had meant “hell”, Matthew’s translator would have written “gehenna” (γέεννα). So, the place Christ was speaking of is not the kingdom of Satan, but merely the tomb, the grave, i.e., death.

The 1897 Bible Dictionary gives us:

Hades – that which is out of sight, a Greek word used to denote the state or place of the dead. All the dead alike go into this place. To be buried, to go down to the grave, to descend into hades, are equivalent expressions. In the LXX, this word is the usual rendering of the Hebrew sheol*, the common receptacle of the departed (Gen. 42:38; Ps. 139:8; Hos. 13:14; Isa. 14:9). This term is of comparatively rare occurrence in the Greek New Testament. Our Lord speaks of Capernaum as being “brought down to hell” (hades), i.e., simply to the lowest debasement, (Matt. 11:23) In Acts 2:27-31 Peter quotes the LXX version of Ps. 16:8-11, plainly for the purpose of proving our Lord’s resurrection from the dead. David was left in the place of the dead, and his body saw corruption. Not so with Christ. According to ancient prophecy (Ps. 30:3) he was recalled to life.

* Sheol – (Heb., “the all-demanding world” = Gr. Hades, “the unknown region”), the invisible world of departed souls. [No indication of punishment]

The other two important words here are “gates” and “prevail” (in Greek κατισχύω “be strong against”). We really have to discuss them together because “prevail” can have so many meanings. The only one that interests us is the one that relates to “gates”.

I am a retired military officer, and I know something about the technologies of warfare. Anciently, cities (which were essentially synonymous with “kingdoms”) were surrounded by a wall for protection against marauding armies. Walls have a big disadvantage during peacetime, though: They’re designed to be impenetrable. When they discovered this, people invented the gate. It was a great answer because, when open, it allowed traffic into and out of the city. Closed, it disallowed that passage – that is if it “prevailed.”

Gates were an ancient “weapons system”, albeit a defensive one. Think about it. Have you ever seen or heard of “gates” attacking anything or anyone? Get out your copy of Beauty and the Beast. In the second to last scene, Gaston leads the villagers to the Beast’s castle, and they cut down a tree for use as a battering ram. This was a common example (although B&tB uses a crude one) of another ancient weapons system. These rams were used against gates and other doors. The Beast’s castle door did not “prevail” against the villagers’ battering ram, though. Because it did not prevail, the villagers got through.

So, Christ’s words: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” tell us something very important. The church will be attacking death, and it will be the church that will prevail, not the “gates of hell”.

This raises two very important, even if obvious, questions: Why and how will the church of Jesus Christ attack the gates of death?

Peter himself answers the “how?”:

(AV) 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Read verse 19 again: “He [Christ] went [in His spirit] and preached to the [disobedient] spirits in prison.” But this was Christ, not the Church. If we follow our Master, and we do, it will be the righteous members of Christ’s church who will continue this work after they have died.

But why? If everyone who has died without accepting Christ will be condemned to eternal death, why should He have bothered (and why will we do the same as He did)?

Peter, the chief Apostle, again answers our query. Speaking of the wicked in the world:

(AV) 1 Peter 4:4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with [them] to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of [you]: 5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Notice, it is not to condemn them, but so they could be judged and to let them “live according to God” that the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached unto them. If we go back to Peter’s earlier passage, it continues speaking of the Noachian flood that baptized the earth:

(AV) 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

He says that it is baptism that saves us. He explains that baptism is more than just bathing (“putting away the filth of the flesh”) but it cleanses us so we can answer a good conscious toward God.

If these disobedient spirits are to live, they must also be baptized. But that seems to require the impossible. Are there baptismal fonts in heaven? No, or so Paul intimates when he refers to the way these people can be baptized:

(AV) 1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Now, if the Church of Jesus Christ will prevail against the gates of hell, and it does so by preaching to the spirits in the prison, and baptizes its own members on behalf of the dead, and if your church does not do these things, whose church is following the Apostolic counsel found in the Bible, and whose church is not following the words of Christ when He said, “... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?

 

 

Catholic interpreters over the years have insisted that Peter was the one being referred to as "the rock" upon which Christ would build his church. Peter is then declared to be the first Pope. In reaction to this the Reformers and many modern Protestants teach that it is Peter's confession of Christ as the Son of God that is "the rock" upon which the Church is built. I think this is an overreaction. It seems to me that Jesus is referring to Peter here. I do not know the original languages (Aramaic & Greek) enough to make an argument from them here, but I have read competent scholars who have made the case for Peter being "the rock." We just don't accept the papacy as being legitimately supported from this reading. Let me give you something to think about regarding the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. You rightly point to the language of "hell" here being a reference to death. I agree. You reference the Bible Dictionary which points out that this word is used for Christ's resurrection from the dead. Now think about this. When will the gates of death/ the tomb / the grave not prevail against the church? At the resurrection! 

So I do not think this text can be used to teach that there would not be an apostasy. That is not the point of the text at all.

[LeSellers]

12 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Let me give you something to think about regarding the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. You rightly point to the language of "hell" here being a reference to death. I agree. You reference the Bible Dictionary which points out that this word is used for Christ's resurrection from the dead. Now think about this. When will the gates of death/ the tomb / the grave not prevail against the church? At the resurrection! 

So I do not think this text can be used to teach that there would not be an apostasy. That is not the point of the text at all.

No. The Church will not prevail against the gates of hell at the resurrection, Christ will (or the whole family of Adam). But at Ceasarea Phillipi, He said it would be the Church He founded that would prevail.

The whole thrust of His statement is two-fold. First, there will be an organization He called His Church. In both Greek and Hebrew, the words translated "Church" refer to the Assembly or Congregation of God. Peter (or something closely associated with Peter) will be it's head, the one holding the keys of the kingdom (whether of heaven or of the earthly kingdom of heaven is not perfectly clear, it could be both, given the dual nature of the binding and sealing clauses). Second, this Church of His will actively do something (unspecified here) that will overpower the gates of hell/death.

Of all the Christian churches on the earth, which one(s) is.are doing anything that could meet these criteria?

The Catholics might be said to do it with their prayers to the saints to help get their loved ones out of purgatory. I must reject that as there is absolutely no scriptural reference to such acts. We Saints, on the other hand, are actively doing exactly what could be expected to overcome those gates: we are providing the only known way out of Peter's spirit prison by doing baptisms for the dead, as Paul noted. It was Peter who said that baptism doth now also save us. It was Paul who noted the Saints (probalby the Saints in Corinth) were baptizing on behalf of the dead:
(Greek New Testament) 1Co 15:29  ᾿Επεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται; τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν;
(Young's Literal Translation)      29  Seeing what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? why also are they baptized for the dead?
(Literal Version)                         29 Otherwise, what will they do, those being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not at all raised, why indeed are they baptized on behalf of the dead?
(Lexan English Bible)                29 Otherwise, why do they do it, those who are being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why indeed are they being baptized on behalf of them?

All my commentaries written before c. 1842 when Joseph received the vision of the redemption of the dead and understood baptism for the dead saw 1 Cor 15:29 as a puzzling passage, one they could not understand, and made rare comment on it. When they did, one of the proposed meanings was that the Corinthians were baptizing each other on behalf of their dead kindred and friends. Only after Joseph announced this great truth did the divines of the age start claiming that baptism for the dead, as we Saints practice it, was heretical. I find that sudden "inspiration" telling.

Lehi

Edited April 11, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 9:22 PM, Steve Noel said:

I think the NIV is pretty good. I usually read the ESV or NASB.

Thanks for taking up my challenge. The first step of interpretation is to understand what the text meant when it was written. In verse 20 Peter tells us that he is talking about "prophecy in Scripture" that was produced by the "prophets." Thus, it is clear that this is a reference to the prophets whose prophecies are recorded in the Old Testament. That is the only "Scripture" Peter possessed. Peter tells us that these biblical prophecies were not produced (NIV "came about") by the "prophet's own interpretation of things" (KJV "private interpretation"). What does "private interpretation" mean in this context? The context is about how the prophecies of the Scriptures (Old Testament) "came about." Therefore, "private interpretation" here means something like "reasoned opinion." The prophecies of the Old Testament prophets were not the result of the prophets reasoned opinion, or, as in the NIV, "by the prophet's own interpretation of things."

To go back to my original point on this text, take note of the linking word "For" which begins verse 21. This word tells us that what follows is an explanation of why what was just said is true. The reason that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets reasoned opinion ("private interpretation" or "own interpretation of things") is because "prophecy never had its origin in the human will." Here "the human will" is parallel to "the prophet's own interpretation of things" in the previous verse. They are saying the same thing in different language. Both texts are talking about the "origin" of the prophecies recorded for us in the Old Testament Scriptures. They did not come from the prophet's own interpretation of things / private interpretaton / human will, rather, the source of the prophecies was the Holy Spirit. The prophets whose prophecies were recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures were mouthpieces for the Holy Spirit. They did not tell us their reasoned opinion / private interpretaton / own interpretation of things.

When this text is understood in context it becomes clear that Peter was not writing about interpreting what we read in the Bible. The subject of these verses is not the reader of Scripture, but rather the origin of the prophecies in Scripture.The phrase "private interpretation" is what throws people off. We must not pull a phrase out of context and then use it in a way that the author never intended.

Steve, that Peter in verse 20 only means Old Testament is your interpretation of things.  Peter himself is speaking as a prophet, therefore, he is also speaking about what he himself is saying.

But, even if we take your interpretation of things, it doesn't change what we are supposed to take from his letter and that is:  The prophets, when speaking with the authority and power of God, is not speaking their private interpretation, they're speaking the words of God.

You are then left with the Faith Question of:  Who are the prophets of God?  Is Peter not one?  Who are the prophets today?

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Steve, that Peter in verse 20 only means Old Testament is your interpretation of things.  Peter himself is speaking as a prophet, therefore, he is also speaking about what he himself is saying.

But, even if we take your interpretation of things, it doesn't change what we are supposed to take from his letter and that is:  The prophets, when speaking with the authority and power of God, is not speaking their private interpretation, they're speaking the words of God.

You are then left with the Faith Question of:  Who are the prophets of God?  Is Peter not one?  Who are the prophets today?

The reason that I say it is the Old Testament is because Peter specifically says he is talking about "prophecy of Scripture" in verse 20. The word translated "Scripture" (GK: γραφή) here means a writing. I believe it is always used in the New Testament to refer to what we call the Old Testament (see HERE). This is the "Scripture" Peter is referring to here.

Since I am convinced from the context that he is not talking about prophets in general but about the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament, I do not see this as addressing 1st century (Peter) or modern day prophets. Peter was encouraging believers that they can trust the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament because they are the product of the Holy Spirit through the prophets. 

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

The reason that I say it is the Old Testament is because Peter specifically says he is talking about "prophecy of Scripture" in verse 20. The word translated "Scripture" (GK: γραφή) here means a writing. I believe it is always used in the New Testament to refer to what we call the Old Testament (see HERE). This is the "Scripture" Peter is referring to here.

Since I am convinced from the context that he is not talking about prophets in general but about the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament, I do not see this as addressing 1st century (Peter) or modern day prophets. Peter was encouraging believers that they can trust the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament because they are the product of the Holy Spirit through the prophets. 

So, you're saying that Peter's letter ONLY applies to the Old Testament and has NO BEARING to any scripture put forth thereafter?

[Steve Noel]

33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, you're saying that Peter's letter ONLY applies to the Old Testament and has NO BEARING to any scripture put forth thereafter?

1. I have not commented on the letter as a whole. Just to the reference in 1 Peter 1:19-21.

2. Based on the reasons I've given I do not think Peter was writing about future Scripture in these verses.

3. That being said, I would not say that what he says here only applies to the Old Testament and has no bearing on future Scripture. 

The heremeutical approach that I am using here starts with interpretation of the text in context (what it meant when it was written). Once we determine what it meant, then we can apply it in similar circumstances (what it means to us today). This technique distinguishes between the interpretation of the text and the application of the text.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Steve Noel

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

1. I have not commented on the letter as a whole. Just to the reference in 1 Peter 1:19-21.

2. Based on the reasons I've given I do not think Peter was writing about future Scripture in these verses.

3. That being said, I would not say that what he says here only applies to the Old Testament and has no bearing on future Scripture. 

The heremeutical approach that I am using here starts with interpretation of the text in context (what it meant when it was written). Once we determine what it meant, then we can apply it in similar circumstances (what it means to us today). This technique distinguishes between the interpretation of the text and the application of the text.

Okay.  I understand what you're getting at.

In that case, I'm fish out of water in this discussion because I don't approach scripture in that manner.  But yes, I'll be following along with my popcorn.  I find this topic very interesting.

[Steve Noel]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay.  I understand what you're getting at.

In that case, I'm fish out of water in this discussion because I don't approach scripture in that manner.  But yes, I'll be following along with my popcorn.  I find this topic very interesting.

I am learning that this is one of the major differences between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. Hermeneutics is something that is foundational when an Evangelical seeks higher education in a biblical/theological/pastoral field. In working on my BA in Religion I have transferred 4 different times. Every school puts hermeneutics as one of the first courses of study. When I start working on my MA in Apologetics, the first course I will take is on hermeneutics. My pastor is working on a doctoral degree in Biblical Interpretation and Theology. One of his first courses was on hermeneutics. 

I have been thinking a lot about this dynamic in Evangelical / Latter-day Saint discussions / debates. Those who would engage Latter-day Saints in discussion / debate will almost certainly have some training in hermeneutics. I don't think I could overstate the importance educated Evangelicals place on this. This is why so many discussions / debates on biblical texts between many Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints can be so frustrating. A discussion on principles of interpretation would go a long way in understanding where the other person is coming form.

[Vort]

Of course, the obvious problem with hermeneutics (from an LDS perspective) is that the methods of interpretation must of necessity come from outside the Bible itself, which blatantly violates sola scriptura. If we did not claim revelation, I expect we would just have to dive in and join the mudfest, insisting on our interpretation as The Right One® because of _______________. But we do claim revelation, and to us, that is the only reasonable and trustworthy way to parse scriptural meaning. Even with that, some Latter-day Saints often find themselves in exegetical contests about this or that. On the other extreme, some Latter-day Saints will use revelation -- in some cases, personal revelation -- as a sledge to hammer home a point, putting an end (in their own minds, at least) to discussion.

But at its best, and in the way it is intended, the LDS ideal of finding truth through revelation makes perfect sense. If you accept it, then it quickly becomes the only reasonable way to understand scripture, or any other source of the word of God. We do not doubt the sincerity of many of the good people who dispute scriptural meaning, but we find unreasonable the idea that a group of men and women can divine the meaning of holy writ simply by sitting around talking about it.

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I have been thinking a lot about this dynamic in Evangelical / Latter-day Saint discussions / debates. Those who would engage Latter-day Saints in discussion / debate will almost certainly have some training in hermeneutics. I don't think I could overstate the importance educated Evangelicals place on this. This is why so many discussions / debates on biblical texts between many Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints can be so frustrating. A discussion on principles of interpretation would go a long way in understanding where the other person is coming form.

What makes this more convoluted is that LDS Pastors - from Bishop to Apostle - do not require any degree of any kind in Theology or any Religious Study... so it even gets more frustrating when an Evangelist Pastor engages an LDS Bishop in discussion and the LDS Bishop says... wait, wait... you mean the Bible is translated from Greek?  I thought it was Hebrew... (yes, it happens).