2 Pet 1:19-21: Divine Origin - Sola Scriptura, Pt 10

There are a number of reasons why I started this blog series on Sola Scriptura. One was that I found many of the Protestant resources repetitive, simplistic and incomplete. Only a few attempt to show the amazingly richness of Scripture and how it provides all that believers need for life and godliness (2 Pet 1:2-3). With a little research, it seemed to me that Catholic apologists were presenting a nicely worded superficial case that way too many Protestants were believing at face value. And the reason for that is quite simple, Christians do not know their history or their Bible. Flipping to a couple of verses on Sunday morning just does not count. So, in my quest to present a more complete understanding of Sola Scriptura, the next verses we need to discuss are 2 Pet 1:19-21,

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Pet 1:19-21)

As with 2 Tim 3:16-17, these verses emphasize the divine origin of Scripture and its importance in  defending and protecting believers and the Church, from the destructive teachings of false teachers. But the Roman Catholic Church does not see it this way, as they emphasize verse 20, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,” because they believe it supports their position that Christians are not allowed to interpret Scripture on their own. They say that believers do not have the authority since that authority was given solely to the Church. So, let’s see if that’s true or not.

Contextual Overview

To properly understand these verses, we need to know the context of 2nd Peter. If you read the entire book you will get the sense of what Peter is saying. Here is a quick summary:

Second Peter was written for the purpose of exposing, thwarting, and defeating the invasion of false teachers into the church. Peter intended to instruct Christians in how to defend themselves against these false teachers and their deceptive lies. This book is the most graphic and penetrating expose of false teachers in Scripture, comparable only to Jude. [1]

As we see in 1 Pet 1:1 and 2 Pet 3:1, these two epistles were written to the believers “scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” But where exactly are these areas? You know those maps at the back of your Bible that you never look at? Take a moment and look at the routes for Paul’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys and tell me what you see? Now flip to 2 Pet 3:15 where Peter references Paul’s epistles. Are you seeing the linkage yet? 1st and 2nd Peter were written to the same believers that Galatians, Colossians and Ephesians were written. And most likely these believers already had all or most all of Paul’s epistles, which should help you understand why Peter referenced Paul’s epistles. This will become important a little later in this blog.

John MacArthur provides a very nice summary outline of 2 Peter [2],

1. Salutation (1:1, 2)
2. Know Your Salvation (1:3–11)
1. Sustained by God’s Power (1:3, 4)
2. Confirmed by Christian Graces (1:5–7)
3. Honored by Abundant Reward (1:8–11)
3. Know Your Scriptures (1:12–21)
1. Certified by Apostolic Witness (1:12–18)
2. Inspired by the Holy Spirit (1:19–21)
4. False Teachers – Know Your Adversaries (2:1–22)
1. Deceptive in Their Infiltration (2:1–3)
2. Doomed by Their Iniquity (2:4–10a)
3. Disdainful in Their Impurity (2:10b-17)
4. Devastating in Their Impact (2:18–22)
5. Know Your Prophecy (3:1–18)
1. The Sureness of the Day of the Lord (3:1–10)
2. The Sanctification of God's People (3:11–18)

Understanding to whom this epistle was written provides some additional clarity into why Peter wrote as he did. Most of Asia minor, as well as the churches, were plagued by Gnosticism, as is detailed in Paul’s letter to the Colossians (Col 2:8-23), and it seems to be the types of false teachings that Peter references in chapter 2. With all of the warnings given in 2nd Peter, and knowing that Paul’s epistles dealt with the same false teachings, it made perfect sense for Peter to reference Paul’s letters (2 Pet 3:15) because those believers would have been familiar with them.

You want another interesting parallel? Timothy met Paul in the city of Lystra, which is in the province of Galatia, on Paul’s 1st missionary journey, and he would have been well aware of the Gnostic teachings plaguing Asia minor where he grew up. At the time 1st Timothy was written, he was pastoring the church in Ephesus, and all of chapter 4 is about false teachers and very similar to 2nd Peter 2, and Paul ends chapter 6 with an appeal to Timothy,

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”— which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. (1 Tim 6:20-21)

So it seems obvious that 2nd Peter is the same type of warning about false teachings as Paul’s warnings to the Colossians and to Timothy. Both were warnings about the Gnostic teachings which were and would continue to lead people astray. Now you have the proper backdrop for 2 Pet 1:19-21.

Divine Origin

So, let’s dive into what Peter is saying in these verses.

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Pet 1:19-21)

Concerning verse 20, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,” apparently there are some modern scholars that believe this means that it is the ‘church’ that tells its members how to interpret Scripture. And I am sure that Rome would agree with that interpretation, but then, only after giving themselves the exclusive right to do so, if in fact they ever actually pronounce an interpretation of Scripture, which they almost never do. Yet there is nothing in the passage that refers solely to the church. This epistle was written to all of the believers in the Asia minor region, and not specifically to the leaders of the church, and besides, the focus is upon God as we see in verse 21. It speaks of the divine origin of the Old Testament Scriptures, but also the place of the Apostles and the New Testament Scriptures that they wrote, as will be seen in 2 Pet 3:16.

Expounding a bit further, the word ‘interpretation’ in Vines’ is defined as: “to loose, solve, explain, denotes a solution, explanation.” [3] Noted theologian Albert Barnes (1798-1870) wrote this about the word ‘interpretation’ in the context of this verse,

The word, … in the place before us, would mean the disclosure of what was before bound, or retained, or unknown; either what had never been communicated at all, or what had been communicated obscurely; and the idea is, “no prophecy recorded in the Scripture is of, or comes from, any exposition or disclosure of the will and purposes of God by the prophets themselves.” It is not a thing of their own, or a private matter originating with themselves, but it is to be traced to a higher source… this passage proves nothing in regard to them, any [more] than the fact that a minister of religion now declares truth which he did not originate, but which is to be traced to God as its author, proves that he does not understand what he himself says. [4] [emphasis added]

The note in John MacArthur’s Study Bible on verse 20 supports what Barnes wrote,

The Greek word, ‘interpretation’ has the idea of “loosing”, as if to say no Scripture is the result of any human being privately, “untying” and “loosing” the truth. Peter’s point is not so much about how to interpret Scripture, but rather how Scripture originated, and what its source was. The false prophets untied and loosed their own ideas. But no part of God’s revelation was unveiled or revealed from a human source or out of the prophets unaided understanding. [5]

Scripture’s ‘source’, as Peter states in verse 21, is the Holy Spirit, which indicates inspiration. In other words, “Peter is talking about the divine origin of Scripture, not about its proper interpretation.” [6] And this is supported by the first part of verse 21, “for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will.” The ‘prophecy of Scripture’ can never be brought forth by the will of man since it does not have human origin. The word ‘moved’ in the last part of verse 21 has the meaning “to bear, carry”, and in this verse, “they were borne along, impelled … not acting according to their own wills, or simply expressing their own thoughts, but expressing the mind of God in words provided and ministered by Him [the Holy Spirit].” [7] Acts 27:15 uses the same Greek word (‘moved’) in reference to a ship being driven or carried along by the wind. “The metaphor here is of Prophets raising their sails, the Holy Spirit filling them and carrying their craft along in the direction He wished.” [8]”

Prophecy of Scripture

What is this phrase referring to? Let’s start by defining the word ‘prophecy.’ It is the Greek word, ‘propheteia’, and means “signifies the speaking forth of the mind and council of God.” [9] It is used 19 times in the New Testament and is used in the following ways in those verses: [10]

1. Telling the future: Mat 13:14; 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; 2 Pet 1:20-21;
2. A spiritual gift: Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 13:2; 13:8; 14:6; 14:22; 1 Th 5:20;
3. Book of Revelation: Rev 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19
4. Possible future forth-telling as well as proclaiming, Rev 11:6; 2 Pet 1:20-21
5. The spirit of prophecy, Rev 19:10
6. Possibly Scripture as a whole, 2 Pet 1:20-21

It seems clear from verse 19 that the “prophetic word made more sure” is a reference to the prophetic revelation found in the Old Testament. So when we get to 2 Pet 1:20 and “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,” verse 20 is referencing verse 19 which points directly to the Old Testament Scriptures. So, the Catholic concept that only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture simply makes no sense for the meaning of verse 20.

As Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry points out,

The context is dealing with the “power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (v. 16) which was then known to them. To who? Either to the Old Testament saints or those to whom Peter is writing. I believe that it is referring to prophecy (forth-telling) is confirmed by Peter’s earlier epistle. [11]

And what do we see in 1st Peter? 1 Pet 1:10-11 says,

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (1 Pet 1:10-11)

And this would make perfect sense when we follow verse 20 with verse 21,

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:21)

It really isn’t that difficult to understand or ‘interpret’ what Scripture is saying to us. John 3:16 and Rom 3:23, for example, are easily understood as is virtually all of the non-prophetic (the non-futuristic) parts of the New Testament. And that is the case here as well. Prophecy here is the ‘foretelling’ of future events, as we see from the Old Testament prophets, and cannot be done by the act of someone’s will. As we see in verse 21, it was the Holy Spirit that caused men to speak forth the Word of God to mankind.

And all of this exposition put together clearly supports the normal reading of this passage, which is:

No Old Testament prophecy, which is a foretelling of future events, was a matter of someone’s personal or private interpretation, because no prophecy was ever or could ever be made by a person’s own unaided abilities. Prophecy can only come from God when He moves men to speak forth His Word via the Holy Spirit.

Now, concerning interpreting non-prophetic Scripture, here are some verses that support the ability and even ‘the need’ for believers to read and understand (interpret) Scripture. [12]

• As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (1 John 2:27)
• Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Act 17:11)
• One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (Rom 14:5)
• and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 3:15)

In 1 John 2:27 – If the Church is to interpret Scripture, why was the Holy Spirit given to believers? Why were the New Testament Scriptures written at all? Is it not the Holy Spirit’s job to teach us since He resides in us? In Acts 17:11, the Bereans even compared what Paul, an Apostle, taught them with what they read in the Scriptures! Should we do less? Is the Church so perfect that we should take everything it says simply because it says it? Or does the Church fear it will not measure up? Concerning Rom 14:5, regarding worship days, Paul says that each person should be convinced in their own minds. Where does that convincing come from if not from Scripture? And even more, does it not show that Paul even allows some minor differences to exist? He doesn’t seek to dictate one way or the other. And finally, we see that Timothy was well versed in Scripture since early childhood. Does that not mean he understood what Scripture said and meant? I could also have done the same for Eph 3:4; Col 4:16; 1 Th 5:27.

We also need to keep in mind that prophecy is a subset of Scripture, as are the books of Old Testament prophets, as is the book of Revelations in the New Testament. And it is only prophecy that is singled out regarding interpretation in verse 20.

Historical Support

It is always ‘assumed’ that the early church fathers supported the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, but as I’ve been demonstrating in my blogs, that is not necessarily the case. The Reformers agreed with the view that verse 20 is talking about the divine origin of Scripture and not about its proper interpretation, as we see from John Calvin’s understanding 2 Pet 1:20,

However, another sense seems to me more simple, that Peter says that Scripture came not from man, or through the suggestions of man. For thou wilt never come well prepared to read it, except thou bringest reverence, obedience, and docility; but a just reverence then only exists when we are convinced that God speaks to us, and not mortal men. Then Peter especially bids us to believe the prophecies as the indubitable oracles of God, because they have not emanated from men's own private suggestions. [13] [emphasis added]

And John Calvin was not the sole voice that saw it this way as there were church fathers who did as well. One example is Occumenius, who lived in the 6th century wrote concerning 2 Pet 1:20,

This means that the prophets received their prophecies from God and transmitted what He wanted to say, not what they wanted to say. They were fully aware that the message had been given to them, and they made no attempt to put their own interpretation on it. If they could not bring themselves to accept what the Spirit had said to them, then they kept their mouths shut … [14] [emphasis added]

Another example is Andreas in the 7th century,

Peter does not say that the prophets interpreted their own sayings. They were not speaking to themselves but serving the Holy Spirit. What is the interpretation of their words if not the works which Christ revealed when He came? So if anyone wants to understand the words of the prophets properly, let him obtain faith in Jesus Christ, through which he will recognize the divine message… Likewise he showed that the power to prophesy is of the Holy Spirit… So the one who prophesies is undoubtedly speaking with a tongue inspired by the Holy Spirit. [15] [emphasis added]

These examples support the understanding that these verses are talking about the divine origin of Scripture.

Scripture is Self-Attesting

As we saw in 2 Tim 3:16, Scripture is God-breathed, and is therefore inspired, which then means that Scripture self-attests to its own divine origin. And although the Reformers put forward this understanding of the nature of Scripture, they were not the first to do so. You can find this understanding in the writings of these early church fathers: Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202), Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), Origen (AD 185-253), Lactanius (AD 250-325), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 310-367), Nemesius of Emesa (c. AD 390), Epiphanius (AD 310-403), and Augustine (AD 354-430), Salvian the Presbyter (AD 400-429). [See the link in 16]

The Reformer, John Calvin wrote,

For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. [17]

This echoes the writings of the church fathers linked in the footnote below. All Christians should understand that Scripture stands on its own. David King concisely summarizes what should be the understanding of every Christians concerning the nature of Scripture,

If Scripture is trustworthy in and of itself, it needs no external authority, be it church or tradition, as witness to approve, endorse, validate, substantiate or sanction its divine origin. It stands on its own intrinsic authority (authentia intrinseca) because it is God-breathed (theopneustos). It does not cease to be God’s word because men reject it. [18]

Christianity has been supernaturally revealed by the God of the universe and its self attesting nature can easily be seen in verses like these: 2 Tim 3:16-17, Ex 17:14; 24:12; Gen 22:16; Deut 32:4; Rom 3:4; John 3:33; Heb 6:13; 1 Pet 1:10-12; 1 Th 2:13; Mat 10:20; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom 16:26-27; 1 John 5:9. There are more, but I think these sufficiently make the point. Again, this was not a novel concept from the Reformers - both Scripture and the church fathers have demonstrated the self-attesting nature of God and His revelation to mankind.

But this is rejected by Rome and its apologists. Here are a few examples. Catholic apologist Mark Shea said boldly, “the Catholic Church has never labored under the illusion of a self-attesting Scripture.” [19] And maybe that has been their problem all along. His intent would seem to be to undermine the sufficiency of Scripture, and to raise up a human organization (the Catholic Church) that has shown itself through history to be quite fallible and even corrupt at times. And Shea is not alone. Catholic scholar John O’Brien said, “The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church.” [20] I guess that means that the Catholic Church has pronounced its blessing and seal of approval on Scripture as inspired. But would it be any less inspired if they had not? And not to be outdone, Cardinal Hosius (Stanishaw Hozjusz, 1504-1579) asserted, “the Scriptures have only as much force as the fables of Aesop, if destitute of the authority of the Church.” [21] This was just a repeat of what John Eck (1486-1543) had urged in his dispute with Martin Luther, “Scripture is not authentic without the Church’s authority.” [22] Again, if the Church had not granted this, are we to assume that none of the Apostolic writers of the New Testament were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture? Does that mean that the supposed first pope, Peter, lied in 2 Pet 3:15-16 when he called Paul’s writings ‘Scripture’?

But is the Church of Rome not self-attesting to itself when it thinks itself higher than the very Words of God Himself? That only its authority can grant authenticity to Scripture? As I asked in my previous blog, who gave Augustine and now the Roman Catholic Church this power, a power that places itself above Scripture? A place and a position that usurps the Word of God of its role in the believers life? I find Cardinal Hosius’ statement particularly reprehensible. Was it not the Holy Spirit that inspired the Scriptures through the Apostles? And he had the gaul to compare Scripture to Aesop’s fables?

Conclusion

As I have shown repeatedly in my Sola Scriptura series so far, the early church fathers would not have agreed with Shea, O’Brien, Cardinal Hosius or John Eck; they would have been shocked by their callus view of Scripture. Their view was not an early church belief. As we see in 1 John 5:9, God is the best witness for Himself. And again in Heb 6:13, God can swear by no one greater than Himself, and He certainly does not need either man or the Church for that.

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has minimized the need for the believer to read and study the Scriptures, and in some cases actually forbade it. This has changed some since Vatican II, but the overwhelming majority of Catholics never pick up their Bibles because they do not feel a responsibility to know what it says or what it means. They are content to let the Church tell them what it says and what it means. And I can easily find the same fault with Protestants, with one exception. Protestants are continually encouraged and challenged to read the Word of God even though far too many never do. In fact, God Himself thinks that reading His word is essential for us, so much so that He has even pronounced judgment on those who would otherwise excuse themselves from their responsibility to read it,

And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot read.” And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.” (Isa 29:11-14 ESV)

 

Therefore consider at once, brethren, and carefully notice that the man who frequently reads or listens to sacred Scripture speaks with God. See, then, whether the Devil can overtake him when he perceives him in constant conversation with God. However, if a man neglects to do this, with what boldness or with what feelings does he believe God will grant him an eternal reward, when he refuses to speak with Him in this world through the divine test?

Caesarius of Arles (AD 470-543)

Footnotes

[1] John MacArthur, Bible Introduction to 2 Peter.
[2] John MacArthur, Bible Introduction to 2 Peter.
[3] B, Noun, ‘interpretation’, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 608.
[4] Albert Banes, Notes on the Entire Bible, Bible Portal, https://bibleportal.com.
[5] Note on 2 Pet 2:20, The John MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson, Inc, © 2006.
[6] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 94.
[7] A, Verb, ‘moved’, PHERO, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 771.
[8] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 95.
[9] A, Noun, ‘prophecy’, PROPHETEIA, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 993.
[10] Matt Slick, Does 2 Peter 1:20 mean we can’t interpret scripture on our own?, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), 2018.
[11] Ibid.
[12] This does not mean that we should never attempt to understand ‘Revelations’ for instance, but it does mean that we will never understand it perfectly without God providing the interpretation for His own prophecies. He is timeless and knows the beginning and end, we are not.
[13] John Calvin's Commentary on the Bible, 2 Pet 1:20, Bible Portal, https://bibleportal.com.
[14] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 96.
[15] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 96.
[16] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 97. The quotations were actually found in the footnotes of King's book on their individual book citations. Doing the same here would be impractical, but I have linked these quotes as a separate blog post here, Self-Attesting Scripture: The Church Fathers Speak. I dare say, I’m one of the few people that actually take the time to read these church fathers. I have always been told that their writings are hard to understand - which they are, due to some of their old translations - and their confusing and contradicting statements at times - which is also true. I’ve also been repeatedly told in books and articles that these fathers line up with what the Catholic Church scholars have always maintained, that these fathers taught what the Council of Trent enshrined. That has turned out to be mostly false, at least for the small amount of their writings that I’ve been exposed to so far.
[17] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 7, Section 1, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org.
[18] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 97.
[19] Mark Shea, By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc, 1996), p. 119, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 98.
[20] John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1974), p.127, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 99.
[21] Opera Omnia, De Auctoriate Sacra Scriptura, Liber III (Cologne: Apud Maternum Cholinum, 1584( ,1:530, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 99.
[22] John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplace: Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 13, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 99.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.