2 Peter 1:20 does not command submission to Catholic interpretation

In 2 Peter 1:20, Peter tells the reader that "...no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation". This verse is commonly abused by Roman Catholic apologists, who insist that it means we are not supposed to interpret the Bible without the aid of an authoritative interpreter. This, of course, is their own Church.

The first problem with this interpretation is that it is inconsistent with its own premise. See, there is no official Roman Catholic interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20. That is, although this particular interpretation aligns with the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, there is no official Roman Catholic teaching that it is so. There are no council declarations, Papal bulls, or catechetical documents presenting this interpretation. In fact, when the Roman Catholic Church has presented itself as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, it has appealed to other Scriptures (like Matthew 16:18), as well as the "unanimous consent of the Fathers", but it has never officially appealed to 2 Peter 1:20. This means this interpretation is A. the apologist's own private interpretation, and B. a private interpretation they hope you will also come to agree with. But it makes no sense to privately interpret the Bible to mean you can't privately interpret the Bible! Therefore, this argument is self refuting, because it requires private interpretation to invalidate private interpretation.

Of course, it is entirely possible that there is an official Catholic interpretation of this verse that I just don't know about. Alternatively, because of the ever-evolving nature of Roman Catholicism, they could also come out tomorrow and declare that this is the official interpretation. It would actually be quite helpful to their cause to do so, and in either case, the above argument would fail. However, it causes two extra problems.

First, this interpretation would instead become circular reasoning. Roman Catholics use this verse to argue for their authority, but they would be using their authority to give the verse that interpretation. The logic would ultimately be "we have the authority to interpret the Bible for you because when we interpret the Bible for you, that is the interpretation we give."

Second, if this was the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding this verse, then everything I am about to say would not only refute this interpretation, but also the entire Roman Catholic Church. This is because they officially teach a demonstrable error, and a rather large one at that. Any religion that officially teaches a demonstrable error as infallible is demonstrably fallible, and thus does not come from God, as God can neither err nor lie.

So, with that out of the way, let's get into a correct exegesis. Starting with verse 16, and ending at verse 21, we read:

"For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (NKJV).

From this, we see that Peter does not have private Bible study in mind. He is not saying Scripture cannot be read by private interpretation, but that Scripture, specifically prophecy, was not written by private interpretation.

We can see this sort of thing in our modern world. With the internet, you can have quick and easy access to scores of people's private interpretations of their current situation. "I privately interpret this event to mean this politician will win this election". "I privately interpret this weather phenomena to mean we have to take this action to avoid this apocalyptic scenario". "I privately interpret this data to mean this war will begin in this time frame." Private interpretation of current data happens all the time.

Sometimes, this is an educated guess that can be anywhere from 100% correct to completely missing the mark. Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, for example, caused a lot of discussion. Some predicted Hillary Clinton would win, and even that Donald Trump would die, while others actually claimed to have prophetic word from God that he was going to win, and that this would lead to great prosperity for America. But just because Trump did win, and America did prosper under his presidency, does not mean those who claimed to have prophecy from God were right. This was a foreseeable event based on data that was available during Trump's campaign.

On the other hand, there are some religions that try to give prophecy and, of course, fail miserably (which is why most religions don't try to prophesy much). Mormonism, for example, has several failed prophecies. Joseph Smith claimed that he would personally dedicate a new Jerusalem in Missouri. Brigham Young claimed the civil war would fail to end slavery. Obviously, Joseph Smith died, and slavery is now outlawed, so both of these prophecies failed.

But what about the prophecy of Scripture spoken about by Peter? These prophecies did not come about by the will of man. They were not, as Peter says, of any private interpretation. Rather, the prophets wrote what the Holy Spirit moved them to write. This is why, unlike the private interpretations of prophets throughout the ages, and in the modern age, Biblical prophecy neither fails, nor is it so predictable as to be wholly unimpressive.

Because prophecy was not written by private interpretation, those who read it by private interpretation can be sure that what it says is true. Peter and the Apostles were not, in his words, following cleverly devised fables. They witnessed Jesus doing everything the Old Testament said He would do (at least as far as His first coming is concerned), and Peter and the others were able to affirm this. Because of this, the Bible actually tells us we can interpret it privately.

In Acts 17:10-12, we see an example. It says "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men." (NKJV).

I always like to point out that Paul, while he is not considered the Pope, is nevertheless considered an authority figure in Catholicism. Of course, Christians agree. He was personally chosen by Christ, he was recognised by the other Apostles, he was given divine wisdom, and he wrote a lot of divinely inspired Scripture. So, it's safe to say he can at least be considered a "good teacher", and certainly an authoritative one.

But notice what happened when Paul and Silas preached to the Jews in Berea. Paul did not try to lord it over the Jews, telling them that only his Church had the authority to interpret Scripture. The Jews themselves "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." They didn't just let Paul take their Scriptures and burn them (something the Catholic Church used to do before the Reformation), they studied the Scriptures and used them to judge Paul. For this, Luke, the divinely inspired author of Acts, calls them "fair-minded". And of course, because Paul was telling the truth, many of the Jews ended up believing Paul's message. As, indeed, did "not a few Greeks". The Greeks were not only not bound by the authority of the Church, but even by the Jews. Yet, they came to believe in Christ too! They didn't just blindly accept authority, they studied the Scriptures as their authority.

And so I always like to point out that when the Catholic Church discourages us from doing the same thing as the Bereans, i.e. searching the Scriptures daily to find out if they're preaching the truth, they are either claiming their Church is greater than an actual Apostle of God, or they are admitting that those who search the Scriptures will find they are less truthful than Paul. There is no third option.

And so we see that this argument ends up backfiring on the Catholic Church. On the one hand, it is inconsistent, because the Roman Catholic apologist is forced to resort to private interpretation in order to invalidate private interpretation. On the other hand, even if the Roman Catholic Church did officially interpret 2 Peter 1:20 in this way, the argument still fails, because it is circular, and because when we read it in context, it is demonstrably erroneous. The verse doesn't tell us how Scripture should be read, but how it was actually written! Thus, this extremely common Roman Catholic argument is a catastrophic failure.

AI usage

AI was used to create the header image.