What does II Peter really say about private interpretation?

I recently read a status update on a Facebook page called "Last days Christians" which had the following post to which I felt compelled to reply because it represents a common Protestant view of scriptural interpretation and, more importantly, a contorted interpretation of II Peter 1:19-21 which essentially nullifies its actual meaning.

Here is the post:

"'PROMISES, PROMISES!' (2) :

'...no...Scripture is...of one's own interpretation.' 2 Peter 1:20 NAS
Here are two more principles for discerning which promises in Scripture are for you:

(1) Try to understand the context. No Scripture stands in isolation, but should be read in conjunction with every other Scripture on the same topic. If you isolate 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me' (Philippians 4:13 NKJV), believing 'all things' includes leaping from a twelfth-storey window, don't blame God's Word for your unexpected demise! You should also have read the context which says, '...I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all [these] things through Christ who strengthens me.' (Philippians 4:12-13 NKJV) This Scripture doesn't mean you can do anything you want, but that God will enable you to get through anything you encounter while doing His will.

(2) Test Scripture by Scripture, not by your own desires. 'No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.' Some Bible promises are universal in application, and some are personal. The personal ones apply to the intended hearer; the universal ones apply to all believers. Know which is which. If you think the Scripture, '...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household' (Acts 16:31 NKJV), guarantees your entire family's salvation, you might be disappointed and think that God failed. No, that was a personal promise made and fulfilled to the Philippian jailer. A universal word for you and your family is, '...In fact, God...wants everyone to turn from sin and no one to be lost.' (2 Peter 3:9 CEV) He wants your entire family to be saved!"

Following is my reply to this post and similar arguments.

II Peter 1:19-21 "Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."

II Peter 3:15-16 "And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."

Peter says that "we" possess the prophetic message which is reliable. Who is the "we" he is talking about? That is the question which must be answered to properly understand this passage about who has this authority of interpretation. Back up to the beginning of the letter and read II Peter 1:1-2 "Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ: may grace and peace be yours in abundance through knowledge* of God and of Jesus our Lord." Who is this letter addressed to? It is addressed to those who "have received a faith of equal value to ours..." Peter is addressing his letter to people who are already Christians. So that rules out unbelievers from the possible candidates. So who is the "we" that Peter is referring to? Peter is an Apostle. Peter is referring to himself and the other Apostles here as the "we" as differentiated from all the other Christians who are not Apostles. This helps us to understand the passage. He says that "you" - again talking to Christians - "will do well to be attentive to it...that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation". This statement is addressed to CHRISTIANS - not unbelievers. So it is to Christians that he goes on to say "for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." What is to be inferred? That because the scriptures originated from God through men influenced by the Holy Spirit to do so, only those who are influenced by the Holy Spirit to do so may interpret scripture. In other words, Peter is reminding his Christian readers that "we" - the Apostles - retain the sole authority to properly interpret scripture and not all Christians.

Now some may object that "Indeed only people moved by the Holy Spirit may interpret the scriptures, but all Christians have the Holy Spirit. Therefore all Christians may interpret the scripture." To that objection I submit I Corinthians 12:27-31 which says "Now you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the Church to be, first apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts." It is true that all Christians have the Holy Spirit bestowed to them in baptism, but not all Christians have the same gifts. Only those to whom God has specifically given this gift have the authority to authentically interpret the scriptures.

Later in chapter 3 Peter reiterates this by saying that "the ignorant and unstable distort [them] to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." Christians were the recipients of Paul's letters to whom Peter referred, but they were still being misinterpreted by the "ignorant and unstable."

So we can see from scripture that simply being a Christian is not enough, by itself, to authentically interpret scripture. One specifically has to have the authority specifically given by God - as Peter and the other Apostles were - to accurately interpret scripture. I John 4:6 reiterates this as well by saying "We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." We know truth by listening to "us" - the Apostles - and not by our own interpretation.

Scripture citations were taken from
http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/12
http://www.usccb.org/bible/2peter/1
http://www.usccb.org/bible/2peter/3
http://www.usccb.org/bible/1john/4

I Corinthians chapter 10's teaching on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the mass as a sacrifice

Most Catholic apologists focus on the 6th chapter of John's gospel when discussing scriptural evidence for the Catholic doctrines of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. However, I'd like to bring attention to what I think is perhaps the most underused text in defence of this teaching. Paul explains this teaching as well as the sacrificial nature of the mass in the 10th chapter of his first letter to the Corinthian church. I hope that Catholics and non-Catholics alike will read and meditate upon this passage so as to truly appreciate the profound teaching contained in this text. So without further ado is my commentary on the text.

I Corinthians 10:1-4 "I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ."

I Corinthians 10:15-17 "I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf."

I skipped verses 5-14 where Paul speaks about idolatry in order to put these two sections of text closer together for comparison. Understand what Paul is saying. Paul says that the Israelites were BAPTIZED into Moses in the CLOUD and the SEA. This is an allusion to Christian baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit (cloud) in baptism. And just as the Israelites were baptized into Moses, we are baptized into Christ. Continuing on, he says that they all ate the same SPIRITUAL FOOD (the mana) and all drank the same SPIRITUAL DRINK (the water which flowed from the rock which followed them in the wilderness) and that the ROCK WAS CHRIST. It is with this is mind that Paul then writes that the cup of blessing is a participation in the blood of Christ and the bread is a participation in the body of Christ. So, just as the rock was Christ, so also is the wine and the bread Christ. And just as the Israelites all ate and drank this spiritual food, we also eat and drink the spiritual food that is Christ.

I Corinthians 10:18-22 "Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, [they sacrifice] to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he?"

This passage helps explain why Paul spoke about idolatry in verses 5-14 and why he follows after this about not eating food sacrificed to idols. Pay attention to his argument. Those who offer sacrifices EAT the sacrifices. He goes on to say that what the pagans offer up as a sacrifice is sacrificed to demons - not to God. So he is comparing the Eucharist to the sacrifices of pagans, but the Eucharist is offered to God - not demons. We cannot serve two masters, so we should not offer sacrifices both to God and demons; we must choose one or the other. So when Paul refers to the "table of the Lord" he is confirming that this "table" is an altar of sacrifice. So in summary, Paul is confirming that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and when we eat it we are eating a sacrificial offering to God.

Scripture citations were taken from http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/10/

Meandering thoughts on grace

Several years ago, I was introduced to an online program called The Virtual Bible Study ( http://www.collegevue.com/livebroadcast.htm ). It is produced by a Church of Christ congregation in Columbia, TN. I have particpipated in many of the shows over the past few years. I hope that my participation in the show has at least  fostered respectful dialogue between people with sometimes very different points of view. Tonight's topic was on grace. I have tried to be a well-informed Catholic through frequent study of Scripture, the Catechism, papal encyclicals, and various other works from respected sources. Tonight's show reminded me that even a well-informed Catholic can be faced with questions and topics about which he knows less than he should. For this I am grateful, as it has been to me a grace of God to prompt me to study more. It is one thing to give a textbook definition and another to understand a subject intimately. I do know that I have been the recipient of God's grace throughout my life, even when I wasn't actively seeking it. It is fortunate that God does not judge us on what we know. We are judged according to our obedience to what we do know. That itself is a grace, and it is a humbling truth to the man who places his trust in his intellect and knowledge.

Does Deuteronomy 22:13-21 say that a marriage is only considered valid if the woman is a virgin, and if she is not she should be executed?

Facebook is great if but for one thing: providing material about which to blog. There's a photo which has been circulating recently on Facebook which apparently dates to some time in 2009. It shows a man holding a sign which says "WE CAN QUOTE THE BIBLE TOO:  A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)"

So of course I pulled up the passage from Deuteronomy to read what is actually says.

From the Douay-Rheims:

"If a man marry a wife, and afterwards hate her, And seek occasions to put her away, laying to her charge a very ill name, and say: I took this woman to wife, and going in to her, I found her not a virgin: Her father and mother shall take her, and shall bring with them the tokens of her virginity to the ancients of the city that are in the gate: And the father shall say: I gave my daughter unto this man to wife: and because he hateth her, He layeth to her charge a very ill name, so as to say: I found not thy daughter a virgin: and behold these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city: And the ancients of that city shall take that man, and beat him, Condemning him besides in a hundred sides of silver, which he shall give to the damsel's father, because he hath defamed by a very ill name a virgin of Israel: and he shall have her to wife, and may not put her away all the days of his life. But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel:  They shall cast her out of the doors of her father's house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee."

The marriage in the scenario presented in this passage is not considered invalid simply because the woman is not a virgin, nor is she executed simply for that reason. In fact, the passage doesn't address the validity of the marriage because the validity of the marriage is assumed (as we'll discuss later). So why is she to be executed? Good question. The answer is "because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house."

The situation described here is that of a woman who is already betrothed but commits adultery before the marriage is consummated with her husband. How do we know she is betrothed? The Hebrew language has two words for virgin: almah - an espoused virgin - and bethuwlah - a virgin who is not espoused. "Almah" is the word used here. Therefore it must be noted that once a couple was betrothed, there was considered to be a valid marriage even before the marriage was consummated.

Fornication alone was not punishable by death, as we read in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment : He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life." So it is obvious that the reason for execution is not simply her lack of virginity. However, adultery was grounds for the death penalty, as it states in Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man lie with another man's wife, they shall both die, that is to say, the adulterer and the adulteress: and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel." Since this statement immediately follows the earlier passage, it seems to logically flow out of and elaborate upon the earlier statement. The primary difference seems to be that in the former passage, the identity of the adulterer is assumed to be unknown.

So to respond to the statements upon the sign in the photograph, the marriage is not considered invalid. Her actions are considered adultery rather than fornication because she already is validly married. Her execution, therefore, is for adultery - not for her lack of virginity.

Is widespread failure among heterosexual marriages a valid argument in favor of legalized same-sex "marriage"?

One argument I often hear from those who promote same-sex "marriage" is that heterosexuals in general apparently have quite a disregard for the sanctity of marriage as evidenced by a high divorce rate. It is true that the divorce rate is high. It is often cited as 50% of marriages as a whole in the United States. Other issues are often cited such as domestic abuse or heterosexual rape. I won't delve into specifics here, but I don't think anyone is arguing that the state of marriage in America is a particularly healthy one. So there is some merit to the accusations. The argument then continues that heterosexuals have no right to ban homosexuals from marrying as a result of widespread disregard among heterosexuals regarding their own marriages. For the moment, I'm not even going to bother addressing whether homosexuality is sinful. For the purpose of this article, I'm assuming it is. I can address that particular issue later. Right now, I simply want to address the argument.

However, before I continue addressing the argument, I simply want to point out a basic principle of morality. One evil does not justify another evil. Or put another way, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone steals, does that justify a lie in order to conceal the theft? If someone commits adultery, does that justify murdering the other adulterous party's spouse for fear of retaliation? If someone commits rape, does that justify slandering the rape victim in order to discredit her accusations against the rapist? Obviously not.

So my question here is this: In light of this observation, why would the argument that the widespread disregard of the sanctity of marriage among heterosexuals justifies homosexual "marriage" have any validity? The answer, quite simply, is that it doesn't. The reason is that the basic assumption underlying the argument is "one evil does justify another evil."

So the next time someone presents this argument to you, ask them "Do two wrongs make a right?" In all likelihood they will answer "no." If they answer "yes," you've got another issue to deal with before you come back to this one, but if they do answer "no," then follow up by asking, "Then why are you telling me that the evils committed by heterosexuals justify approving of the the evils of homosexuals?"

The answer to moral decay is not the promotion of further decadence. The answer to moral decay is repentance.

A defense of the doctrine of original sin and a response to the Ezekiel 18 objection

Some who deny the doctrine of original sin cite Ezekiel 18 as a refutation of the doctrine. I will make the case for it here - first by discussing what original sin is, then discussing Scripture passages which teach the doctrine of original sin, and finally by showing why Ezekiel 18 does not refute the doctrine of original sin.

An article from the Catholic encyclopedia on original sin can be read ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm ) which I think will be helpful. Also, while I recommend reading the entire article from the Catechism ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm ), I'll simply cite two paragraphs.

"404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

In short, Adam and Eve were created in a state of perfection and had in their souls the life of God. Through their first sin, they lost that state of perfection, and thus all their descendants inherit an imperfect state of existence. By way of imperfect analogy, consider a man who was a billionaire. Through foolish decisions he squandered all of his money and became poor. He then had children with his wife. The children are born into poverty. Why should they be born into poverty? They did not make foolish decisions and squander money. Shouldn't they also be billionaires as their father was before he made foolish decisions? But because their father lost what he had, he was unable to pass on an inheritance of what he formerly had. It is similar with original sin. Original sin is an inherited lack of that original state of perfection - a lack of the life of God in their souls.

Romans 5:12-21 "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned— for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come.

But the gift is not like the transgression. For if by that one person’s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many. And the gift is not like the result of the one person’s sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal. For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. The law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

So now a few comments on this passage. Now the first two sentences are very clear: sin entered the world through Adam's first sin, and this sin resulted in death for all mankind. You might try to argue that Paul is saying that it is a result of each man's own sin because he says "inasmuch as all sinned." So in order to clarify his position, he says that this is not the result of each man's own sins when he says that this applies "even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam." Paul also argues that it could not have been due to each man's sin because "sin is not accounted when there is no law" but yet yet the results of Adam's sin continued even for those not under the law. So what Paul means by "inasmuch as all sinned" is that all humanity, at least in a sense, participated in the first sin of Adam. This idea is not contradictory to Scripture but is corroborated by Hebrews 7:9-10 "One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, was tithed through Abraham, for he was still in his father’s loins when Melchizedek met him."

Now in the second paragraph Paul is really driving home a point. He's drawing a direct comparison between Adam and Jesus. He says "For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous." So if one wishes to argue that Adam's sin did not cause any actual effect on his descendants and that the first sin of Adam simply caused his descendants to sin by following his example (he just "got the ball rolling," so to speak), then by this passage one must, in order to be consistent, also conclude that Jesus' death and resurrection really has no effect either; Jesus simply gave a good example for us to follow, and we gain our own salvation by following Jesus' example. So logically a denial of the doctrine of original sin necessitates a denial of Jesus' atonement for sin.

So what about Ezekiel 18? Now because this post is already long, I won't quote it here, but I suggest you read Ezekiel 18 in its entirety ( http://www.usccb.org/bible/ezekiel/ezekiel18.htm ). In fact, this is one of those cases where the context of the whole book of Ezekiel is necessary for a proper understanding. And while I won't really get into it here, you may also want to read Jeremiah 31:27-34.

Ezekiel 18:1-4 "The word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, what is the meaning of this proverb you recite in the land of Israel: “Parents eat sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge”? As I live—oracle of the Lord GOD: I swear that none of you will ever repeat this proverb in Israel. For all life is mine: the life of the parent is like the life of the child, both are mine. Only the one who sins shall die!"

The whole of Ezekiel 18 is addressing what is stated in these first 4 verses. Ezekiel prophesied during the time of the Babylonian captivity. The descendants of those who were actually deported to Babylon lived at this time. Though they lived in the same sinful manner as their parents, they believed themselves to be righteous and thought they were unjustly being punished by God for the sins of their ancestors. In other words, when they spoke the above proverb, they were complaining against God and accusing him of being an unjust judge. The remainder of Ezekiel 18 is God explaining to the Israelites that he was indeed being just; He was punishing them for their own sins and not for the sins of their fathers. Understood in this light, it can be seen that the whole discussion of Ezekiel 18 is specifically geared towards answering the Israelites' complaints against God and is not relevant to the doctrine of original sin.

For another writer's take on Ezekiel 18, I suggest reading http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/04/misuse-of-ezekiel-18-especially-ezekiel.html and also the commentaries on http://bible.cc/jeremiah/31-29.htm and http://bible.cc/ezekiel/18-2.htm as well as the relevant cross-references.

Bible Study

For the past few weeks, a local parish has been conducting a Bible study. We have been reading through various books of the Bible along with viewing the videos from Our Father's Plan. This is an amazing study which I recommend to anyone whether you are Bible illiterate or have been studying the Bible for many years. The series can also be downloaded for personal use only from EWTN at http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-306548622 . The companion book we are using for this study is Walking with God: A Journey Through the Bible ( http://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-Journey-through-Bible/dp/1934217891 ). Neither the book nor the audio / video series relies on the other. Either can be used alone.

Participating in group Bible study as a Catholic truly deepens understanding and appreciation for the faith. The knowledge gained will be valuable in every way from apologetics to spiritual growth. I also recommend these studies such as Our Father's Plan to non-Catholics or to recent converts. My own experience is that non-Catholic led Bible studies tend to be very shallow and simplistic. Participants in these studies are often led to believe that they now have a full understanding of a given passage or book, but participants tend to have a feeling that is intellectually and spiritually unsatisfactory. I think that a truly good Bible lesson or teacher will at least have this effect: to make a participant realize that the Bible is a treasure mine that no one will exhaust in a lifetime.