There I believe you are conflating two different things being explained by St.Paul: prophecy and the interpretation of prophecy.
Paul affirms two truths: that
This Paul makes really clear in his discourse on the Body of Christ with its many parts and functions:
1 Corinthians 12:7,10
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:30
Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?
Obviously there are different people appointed by God in the Church with different gifts. Not all can teach, not all can govern, not all can interpret.
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,"...
Exactly. These things are manifestations of the Spirit, distributed by the Spirit to particular people He appoints in the Church for the common good. We're not just a bunch of in-DUH-viduals interpreting things on our own.
Interpreting tounges and interpreting scripture are two totally different subjects so the verses you cite are not relevant to the issue. The verse about “private interpretation” is from Peter not Paul and I believe when read in context it is clearly saying that scripture comes from God not the private interpretation of the prophet who wrote the scripture. The point is that we can rely on scriptue because it comes from God not men. The word “for” (rather than “and”) which connects 1 Peter 1:20 and 1:21 makes it clear that verse 21 is continuing the same point being made in verse 20.
Hello again. Rz and cc are correct. The passage in 2 Peter 1:20 is not addressing a problem of readers interpreting prophetic text. Rather, in context, Peter is building an argument for confidence in the promises of God contained in prophecy. Look back to verses 12 and 13. Peter is anticipating his soon departure from this life, and he wants his fellow believers to remember and believe the truths of the Gospel after he is gone. So he reminds them he was eyewitness to the glorified Jesus, even hearing the voice of God from heaven confirming Jesus as God’s Son. But then he says we have the more certain word of God in divine prophecy. He is building a case for certainty.
And what is the basis for us to be certain we can rely on the promises of God? Because those promises did not come to us through the private information dumps of the prophet’s own mind, but that prophet wrote as he was guided by God the Holy Spirit. Again, the point is, you can rely on these words at least as much as if you were eyewitnesses to the events themselves, because they are both of God.
As for your passages on teaching gifts versus interpretation of tongues, those are radically different domains. Tongues were actual utterances in languages unknown, for which an interpretation was essential, and not everybody in the assembly could do it. Teaching on the other hand necessitates some degree of ordinary interpretation by every single learner. You are using private interpretation right now, just to know what I am saying to you. You are also using it directly on Scripture every time you disagree with me or anybody what a given passage means. You have to. It’s how God designed the human mind to work. It’s not wrong, and it certainly does not conflict with this passage in Peter, or any other Scripture.
Peace,
SR
There I believe you are conflating two different things being explained by St.Paul: prophecy and the interpretation of prophecy.
Paul affirms two truths: that
I will have to disagree. Paul interpreted his own visions, as did Peter.
The foremost thing that Paul is saying is that those who prophesy are accessing 'THE' Prophecy - That is, accessing one single monolithic thing. That is why it is left to the prophets to interpret prophets. Thus, even while Paul interprets his own vision (as given, of course), what he says, while it may be revelatory, cannot step upon the prophets and prophecy which have come before (lest YHWH is made to be a liar).
Think of an incredibly ancient brick wall, covered in dust and grime from the aeons it has been standing - Some have scraped off the years and revealed the writing on the bricks... Some large portions have been cleaned off contiguously because some prophets were equipped with a pressure washer... And others revealed but a brick or two, this one and that one, because they had nothing but a putty knife and a wire brush... But the wall, and every brick in it, has been there since the very foundation of the world.
It can be no other, as the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah (Rev 19:10). One thing, which cannot contravene or contradict. It describes a will, an intention, which has been actively carried out since the very beginning with exquisite accuracy.
So on the whole, I will have to agree with circlecity.