Question abot Scripture II Peter:16

[Reformed_Rob]

II Peter 3:15,16:
… our beloved brother Paul wrote to you…in all his letters…There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their destruction as they do the other scriptures."

Ok, what’s up with this? What does St. Peter mean..?

**1) ** Is he meaning to call the writings of Paul “scripture” like we use the term today?

**2) **Does that word get translated “scripture” but maybe would have meant something else to the folks back then?

3) Does he mean they mistranslate Paul’s writings like they mistranslate the OT, and the OT is scripture, but he’s not necessarily meaning to imply that Paul’s letters are scripture?

4) Or something else?

 

[Eileen_T]

I always understood it to mean that the ‘ignorant and unstable’ twist scriptures and ‘interpret them’ to fit them to what they want them to mean, rather than accept the lawful interpretation by those God has appointed to teach and clarify.

Rather like the JWs and blood transfusions, or the many Protestant denominations who do not have the Teaching Body of the Church to instruct them as to the correct meaning, as in the OT they had the prophets and rabbis.

According to the ECFs ‘scripture,’ referred to in the NT, meant the OT, including the Deuterocanonical books.

Pauls letters, were teachings sent to the early Church, as were those of Peter and the other apostles. I don’t think they would have been referred to as ‘scripture’ until after the Canon had been set.

 

[Todd_Easton]

From A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard, pub. by Thomas Nelson & Sons: 1953, p. 1184, on 2 Peter 3:16, in part:‘The other scriptures’ — here St Peter classes St Paul’s Epistles with the other inspired writings of the OT [Old Testament], showing how greatly he esteemed St. Paul’s writings.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Ok, that’s helping some, both of your posts Todd and Eileen.

So it sounds like, and this may be sort of limiting, but it appears that according to my original post, perhaps it’s either 1 or 3.

Along those same lines, exactly who is Peter writing to in this epistle? It would appear to be a same group of people that Paul had written to. But at the beginning of II Peter it doesn’t come across as telling just who it’s written to. I Peter does say, it’s to those of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, etc. But II Peter doesn’t tell.

I’m not trying to be nit-picky, I’m just wondering more how this statement of Peter’s reflects the early understanding of the Scripture and the NT Canon.

For instance…does St. Peter mean all of Paul’s letters, or just the ones he’s talking about, or just the ones that are included in the NT?? Because, we know Paul wrote more than what is included in the NT.

 

[Mystophilus]

**1) ** Is he meaning to call the writings of Paul “scripture” like we use the term today?

Not exactly…

**2) **Does that word get translated “scripture” but maybe would have meant something else to the folks back then?

The word is γραφη (graphe): it referred to diagrams, drawings, writing, and generally any other representation which you could create by hand with a pen-like tool on a surface. In the New Testament, it is used for the OT.

3) Does he mean they mistranslate Paul’s writings like they mistranslate the OT, and the OT is scripture, but he’s not necessarily meaning to imply that Paul’s letters are scripture?

He is not saying that they mistranslate, but that they ‘twist’ or ‘torment’, i.e., that they alter to suit their own designs, the other writings, which would seem to be the OT, when one considers the usage of the same term for the OT in 2 Pe 1:20.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

He is not saying that they mistranslate, but that they ‘twist’ or ‘torment’, i.e., that they alter to suit their own designs, the other writings, which would seem to be the OT, when one considers the usage of the same term for the OT in 2 Pe 1:20.

Thanks for your response Mystophilus :tiphat:

Sorry, I meant to say misinterpret, not “mistranslate.” My bad. I suppose it goes deeper than misinterpret though, it seems, to Peter, to be more of an accusation of willfully using the scriptures to make it seem to say what they want it to say.

Perhaps referring to gnostics, and certain Jewish groups that denied the Jesus being the Messiah?

Ok, all your posts help! It gives me good guidance in regard to my questions!

All your Bibles are belong to us!!

Thanks

 

[Thal59]

There is a vitally important point that is being missed.

First, Peter is pointing out that a good deal of learning and “stability” are required to interpret scriptures properly. By stable he means a stable holy life; not one given to perpetual cycles of sin and grace. This is why the translating and interpreting of scriptures was always in the hands of the priests. They were people who dedicated themselves to God - stable holy life - and they were among the highest educated people among the religion’s adherents, whether it be the Jewish priests of the OT or the Catholic priests of Christianity.

(Pres. George W. Bush is the national leader and he has two degrees; History, and Business Admin. Fr. Corapi is “just a priest” but he has 5 degrees.)

But the vital point that is often overlooked is the warning in Peter’s statement…

“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their destruction as they do the other scriptures.”

St.Peter warns that those who are not qualified to interpret scriptures are in danger of destroying themselves! They are in danger of so fouling-up the gospel message that they end up following a theology that leads to their damnation!

This is a clear refutation against sola scriptura and private interpretation.

Thal59