2 Peter 3:16 Protestant interpretaion?

[ni8_shadow]

What is a Protestant interpretaion of this verse?

 

[ABostonCatholic]

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” (DRB)

“He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (NIV)

Peter is referring to the difficulty of reading some of Paul’s letters. I think most protestants would say (as we Catholics do) that Scripture is hard to understand and that we need to pray seriously as we read it.

Catholics would rightly point out how it underscores the need for the Church as a teacher through the power of the Holy Spirit, but the verse itself does not say that.

 

[rbarcia]

What is a Protestant interpretaion of this verse?

That Peter considered Paul’s letters to be scriptures.

**

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

**

But I thought the early church had no new testament until the catholic church canonized it in the 300/400’s?

Thanks for posting this.

 

[jam070406]

That Peter considered Paul’s letters to be scriptures.

**

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures**, unto their own destruction.

But I thought the early church had no new testament until the catholic church canonized it in the 300/400’s?

Thanks for posting this.

not sure how you got that. Peter mentions the things the Paul talks of in his epistles. so Paul may be further explaining pieces of previous, specific scripture that were hard to understand. this, along with other scripture, had been what was being twisted to their own destruction. just like nowadays people twisting the New Testament to their destruction.

Peter never says he considers Paul’s writings to be scripture.

and yes, there was no NT canon till later. they were inidvidual letters by Paul to specific churches at that time.

 

[rbarcia]

not sure how you got that. Peter mentions the things the Paul talks of in his epistles. so Paul may be further explaining pieces of previous, specific scripture that were hard to understand. this, along with other scripture, had been what was being twisted to their own destruction. just like nowadays people twisting the New Testament to their destruction.

Peter never says he considers Paul’s writings to be scripture.

and yes, there was no NT canon till later. they were inidvidual letters by Paul to specific churches at that time.

But saying ‘other scripture’ seems to indicate he considered Paul’s letters to be scripture.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

But saying ‘other scripture’ seems to indicate he considered Paul’s letters to be scripture.

I agree with that. But you know full well what Catholics mean when they say that there was no NT until centuries later. They mean that there was no formally established canon that the whole church accepted. Many churches, especially early on, disagreed about what was inspired and what was not.

BTW-Peter’s assumption is that SOME letters of Paul are inspired, not that ALL of them are, and certainly we don’t know WHICH ones are. The Church would decide that much later on.

Keep in mind, too, that one of the tests for a book to be in the canon was theological orthodoxy, which necessarily implies that there be a standard outside of scripture itself.

 

[sandusky]

What is a Protestant interpretaion of this verse?

However many letters Paul had written, all of them are scripture.

Contextually, Paul’s eschatological writings are hard to understand

That even then, the untaught and unstable distort some of the things that are hard to understand and do so to their own destruction.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

However many letters Paul had written, all of them are scripture.

So if we discover some more of Pauls writings in a cave today, you’ll add them to your canon once they are verified as authentic?

As for me, I’ll trust that the Holy Spirit preserved that which was needed to be preserved.

 

[jam070406]

But saying ‘other scripture’ seems to indicate he considered Paul’s letters to be scripture.

but Paul may have been commenting on scripture (OT) in his epistle. if he was giving a better understanding of that piece of scripture (OT) to the people, then this was only one piece of scripture that they were twisting. along with the other scriptures.

he’s not referring to Paul’s epistle. he’s referring to what Paul is explaining in his epistle. the people had scripture and they were twisting it. Paul is saying, no no, this is the true understanding. it has more to do with context and less to do with Paul’s epistle.

remember the story of the man (prince?) on the horse. (i don’t have a bible in front of me) i forget who, Phillip (?) asked him what he was reading. he was reading scripture. but said, how can i understand unless you tell me what it means?
he recognized that he needed an interpretor. while the people Paul were talking to didn’t. they relied on their own understanding and the scriptures got twisted.

 

[joshua_b]

I don’t buy into the “Peter recognized Paul’s writings as scripture.” In the ancient language, “scripture” simply meant “writing”. ANY writing was referred to as a “scripture”. There was a dilineation between “scripture” and “Sacred Scripture”.

I think this should be taken at face value with the context of the original language in mind. Paul’s scriptures are hard to understand. I agree with the thoughts of another poster in that Paul, I am certain, wrote more letters than were included in the Bible we have today. Taken as meaning all of Paul’s writings are Sacred Scripture (which is how this verse would have to be taken, because there is no listing of specific Pauline epistles), all of us would have incomplete Bibles. I realize there is the possibility of the argument “We have no evidence Paul wrote any more than what is in the NT”, and that is true in an academic sense, but to argue that is just simply in defiance of common sense, given Paul’s role in the formation of the early Church. Aside from that, it is a baited argument because it is impossible to disprove a negative. I can’t prove that unicorns do not exist, but I can logically conclude with a reasonable certainty that they do not.

 

[jam070406]

I don’t buy into the “Peter recognized Paul’s writings as scripture.” In the ancient language, “scripture” simply meant “writing”. ANY writing was referred to as a “scripture”. There was a dilineation between “scripture” and “Sacred Scripture”.

I think this should be taken at face value with the context of the original language in mind. Paul’s scriptures are hard to understand. I agree with the thoughts of another poster in that Paul, I am certain, wrote more letters than were included in the Bible we have today. Taken as meaning all of Paul’s writings are Sacred Scripture (which is how this verse would have to be taken, because there is no listing of specific Pauline epistles), all of us would have incomplete Bibles. I realize there is the possibility of the argument “We have no evidence Paul wrote any more than what is in the NT”, and that is true in an academic sense, but to argue that is just simply in defiance of common sense, given Paul’s role in the formation of the early Church. Aside from that, it is a baited argument because it is impossible to disprove a negative. I can’t prove that unicorns do not exist, but I can logically conclude with a reasonable certainty that they do not.

i completely agree.

 

[sandusky]

jam070406:

but Paul may have been commenting on scripture (OT) in his epistle. if he was giving a better understanding of that piece of scripture (OT) to the people, then this was only one piece of scripture that they were twisting. along with the other scriptures.

You’re guessing as to what Paul may have been commenting on. In the immediate context Peter is reassuring them as to eschatological events Paul spoke of, but Peter continues, in which, ie., in all of Paul’s writings there are some things hard to understand; we know that many had misunderstandings concerning Paul’s soteriology and the exclusion of works, that may be what Peter is talking about, but we don’t know for sure.

What we do know for sure, is that Peter is referring to all of Paul’s letters, however many they may have been up to that point, as scripture.

he’s not referring to Paul’s epistle. he’s referring to what Paul is explaining in his epistle. the people had scripture and they were twisting it. Paul is saying, no no, this is the true understanding. it has more to do with context and less to do with Paul’s epistle.

That doesn’t make any sense; if Peter is referring to something in Paul’s epistle(s), how is that not referring to Paul’s epistle(s)?

jam070406:

remember the story of the man (prince?) on the horse. (i don’t have a bible in front of me) i forget who, Phillip (?) asked him what he was reading. he was reading scripture. but said, how can i understand unless you tell me what it means?
he recognized that he needed an interpretor. while the people Paul were talking to didn’t. they relied on their own understanding and the scriptures got twisted.

You are inferring that this passage is a prohibition against “private interpretation,” no?

It is not a prohibition against private interpretation as the following verse confirms; how can one respond to the admonition in v17, “be on your guard so that you are not carried away by error,” if one does not know what error is? The only way to know what error is, is to know what error is not, and the only way to know that is to study God’s word.

In 2 Tim 2:15 the command to Timothy by Paul, and so by general application a command to all believers, is to be diligent, and to be a workman who accurately handles the word of God; knowing God’s word is not an option, but a command (cf Josh 1:8).

 

[sandusky]

Joshua_b:

I don’t buy into the “Peter recognized Paul’s writings as scripture.”

Then, IMO, you illustrate Peter’s point.

Joshua_b:

I think this should be taken at face value with the context of the original language in mind. Paul’s scriptures are hard to understand. I agree with the thoughts of another poster in that Paul, I am certain, wrote more letters than were included in the Bible we have today. Taken as meaning all of Paul’s writings are Sacred Scripture (which is how this verse would have to be taken, because there is no listing of specific Pauline epistles), all of us would have incomplete Bibles. I realize there is the possibility of the argument “We have no evidence Paul wrote any more than what is in the NT”, and that is true in an academic sense, but to argue that is just simply in defiance of common sense, given Paul’s role in the formation of the early Church. Aside from that, it is a baited argument because it is impossible to disprove a negative. I can’t prove that unicorns do not exist, but I can logically conclude with a reasonable certainty that they do not.

Your point is moot; we have of Paul’s writings, what we have of Paul’s writing, and we must live in that reality.

 

[sandusky]

ABostonCatholic:

So if we discover some more of Pauls writings in a cave today, you’ll add them to your canon once they are verified as authentic?

What does your presently moot speculation have to do with the present reality that we presently have in our possession all of the only know copies of Paul’s epistles? For that matter, what does it have to do with anything?

ABostonCatholic:

As for me, I’ll trust that the Holy Spirit preserved that which was needed to be preserved.

As will I.

ABostonCatholic:

Keep in mind, too, that one of the tests for a book to be in the canon was theological orthodoxy, which necessarily implies that there be a standard outside of scripture itself.

Got news for you, what the writers of scripture wrote, is orthodoxy.

 

[jam070406]

You’re guessing as to what Paul may have been commenting on. In the immediate context Peter is reassuring them as to eschatological events Paul spoke of, but Peter continues, in which, ie., in all of Paul’s writings there are some things hard to understand; we know that many had misunderstandings concerning Paul’s soteriology and the exclusion of works, that may be what Peter is talking about, but we don’t know for sure.

What we do know for sure, is that Peter is referring to all of Paul’s letters, however many they may have been up to that point, as scripture.

That doesn’t make any sense; if Peter is referring to something in Paul’s epistle(s), how is that not referring to Paul’s epistle(s)?

You are inferring that this passage is a prohibition against “private interpretation,” no?

It is not a prohibition against private interpretation as the following verse confirms; how can one respond to the admonition in v17, “be on your guard so that you are not carried away by error,” if one does not know what error is? The only way to know what error is, is to know what error is not, and the only way to know that is to study God’s word.

In 2 Tim 2:15 the command to Timothy by Paul, and so by general application a command to all believers, is to be diligent, and to be a workman who accurately handles the word of God; knowing God’s word is not an option, but a command (cf Josh 1:8).

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

what are “these things”? that he speaks of IN the epistles?

the only way to know proper interpretation is to rely on the church Christ put in place to safeguard it with the help of the Holy Spirit and the Tradition handed down. what the Apostles and church Fathers had taught. to deviate is to preach a different gospel and risk being in serious error. the bible can be misinterpratated if left to private interpretation. hence, the 30,000 different Prot denoms. why is Joe baptist correct and Joe non-denom down the street wrong? did one interpret wrong? they were both led by the Spirit but came up with 2 different understandings. hmmmm…

Paul was talking to Timothy about the hierarchy of the church. which was being put into place.
Paul also said to hold fast to Tradition be it written or oral. he also said the CHURCH was the pillar of truth. in the same book you just quoted.

 

[jam070406]

That doesn’t make any sense; if Peter is referring to something in Paul’s epistle(s), how is that not referring to Paul’s epistle(s)?

so you think he meant the entire body of Paul’s epistle. every single sentence, they didn’t understand?
they were so dumb they didn’t get any of it?

 

[jam070406]

What does your presently moot speculation have to do with the present reality that we presently have in our possession all of the only know copies of Paul’s epistles? For that matter, what does it have to do with anything?

As will I.

Got news for you, what the writers of scripture wrote, is orthodoxy.

so you know for a fact that Paul NEVER, EVER wrote anything else EVER?

 

[VociMike]

That Peter considered Paul’s letters to be scriptures.

Heck, it doesn’t bother me to imagine that an apostle and the first pope would have the divine guidance to recognize a writing as scripture. That doesn’t change the fact that there was obviously some question in the Church as to what writings were scripture, resulting in multiple councils pronouncing on the canon hundreds of years later. Councils don’t bother to tell people what they already universally know.

 

[sandusky]

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

what are “these things”? that he speaks of IN the epistles?

If I knew them all, I’d tell you, but I don’t know them all; however, I know that Paul’s soteriology in the realm of works was somewhat confusing to the early church, and within the immediate context of the 2 Peter passage, some of Paul’s eschatology was confusing as well.

jam070406:

the only way to know proper interpretation is to rely on the church Christ put in place to safeguard it with the help of the Holy Spirit and the Tradition handed down. what the Apostles and church Fathers had taught. to deviate is to preach a different gospel and risk being in serious error. the bible can be misinterpratated if left to private interpretation. hence, the 30,000 different Prot denoms. why is Joe baptist correct and Joe non-denom down the street wrong? did one interpret wrong? they were both led by the Spirit but came up with 2 different understandings. hmmmm…

jam070406:

so you think he meant the entire body of Paul’s epistle. every single sentence, they didn’t understand? they were so dumb they didn’t get any of it?

Obviously not; Peter said concerning Paul’s writings: in all his letters…speaking of these things…are some things hard to understand…

jam070406:

so you know for a fact that Paul NEVER, EVER wrote anything else EVER?

Do you know for a fact that he did?

VociMike:

Heck, it doesn’t bother me to imagine that an apostle and the first pope would have the divine guidance to recognize a writing as scripture. That doesn’t change the fact that there was obviously some question in the Church as to what writings were scripture, resulting in multiple councils pronouncing on the canon hundreds of years later. Councils don’t bother to tell people what they already universally know.

Mike is right; nothing is lost in acknowledging that the NT writers knew that they were writing scripture.

 

[jam070406]

If I knew them all, I’d tell you, but I don’t know them all; however, I know that Paul’s soteriology in the realm of works was somewhat confusing to the early church, and within the immediate context of the 2 Peter passage, some of Paul’s eschatology was confusing as well.



Obviously not; Peter said concerning Paul’s writings: in all his letters…speaking of these things…are some things hard to understand…

Do you know for a fact that he did?

Mike is right; nothing is lost in acknowledging that the NT writers knew that they were writing scripture.

fine. it is a ridiculous argument at this point but, it still doesn’t change the fact that we are not to interpret scripture on our own to our own destruction.