Does 2 Peter 1:20-21 mean you can’t personally interpret Scripture?

By Unscripted · 10 min

If you have ever discussed the Scripture with a Roman Catholic, at some point you may hear this objection: that is just your personal interpretation, and the Bible forbids private interpretation. Then comes the proof text, 2 Peter 1:20-21, often joined with 2 Peter 3:14-17. But look at what Peter actually says. Verse 21 begins with a "for," and it gives the reason for verse 20: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Peter is telling us where prophecy came from, not who is permitted to understand it. The subject is the prophet, not the reader. And only one verse earlier he commends these same ordinary believers for taking heed to that prophetic word. Second Peter 3 does not help the case either. Peter says some things in Paul are hard to be understood, not all things. He blames the wresting on the unlearned and unstable, and his remedy is not submission to a teaching office but "beware" and "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." He places the burden of discernment on the readers themselves, which makes no sense if they cannot exercise it. Then there is the problem underneath the whole appeal. Has the Magisterium ever definitively defined the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20? If not, then the one quoting it is offering his own reading of a disputed text as binding, which is the very thing he says cannot be done. Private judgment is never eliminated. It is only relocated, since every conciliar decree and encyclical must itself be read and understood by someone. In this video we walk through both passages in context, take up the strongest form of the Roman Catholic claim rather than the popular caricature of it, and ask the questions that put the burden back where it belongs.