"Interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20-21

[John of Japan]

In the "Basics of Bible Interpretation" thread, which was otherwise very profitable, three different people suggested that this passage was not about interpreting the Bible. I am blown away by how someone could come to that conclusion. The very word "interpretation" is in the English Bible (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc., etc.), so how could someone say that the passage is not about interpretation? So I decided to unpack the passage in this thread.

First of all, let's look at that word "interpretation." It is the noun epilusis, not one of the two Greek words used for interpreting a language: diermeneuo (occurring 6 times in the NT) or hermeneuo (4 times). Rather, it is a hapax legomenon, occurring only here in the NT. Here is the definition from my favorite lexicon (Friberg, Friberg & Mille): "explanation, interpretation." There is a verb cognate, epiluo, occurring only in Mark 4:34 (Jesus "expounded") and Acts 19:39 ("determined"). It doesn't take a linguistic brain to note that the word in 2 Peter 1:20 means pretty much what we mean by "interpretation" in hermeneutics in the English language.

Now, the objection was made that the passage is NOT about interpretation because it's about prophecy. It is definitely about prophecy, and in the context speaks of false prophets. But to say that it is strictly about prophecy and not about interpretation is to beg the question: cannot a passage be about two subjects?

To continue. The enclitic conjunction gar, meaning "for" or "because," is the second word in v. 21. Most translations simply have "for," though we don't use the word that way in colloquial English nowadays. It is best to think of it as meaning "because." Friberg has: "conjunction used to express cause, inference, or continuation or to explain." So in other words, v. 21 is an explanation for v. 20. Why is not Scripture of "private interpretation"? Because God gave the Scriptures. Since God gave the Bible, we should never, ever, interpret Scripture with our own personal interpretation.

So, is the passage about the interpretation of Scripture? You bet your boutonniere it is!

 

[agedman]

John, while I agree with all that you wrote, there is a bit of emphasis or perhaps even a slight disagreement that I would place upon your last part, "Because God gave the Scriptures. Since God gave the Bible, we should never, ever, interpret Scripture with our own personal interpretation."

I agree with Barnes' statement where he is selecting "Is of any private interpretation" and gives us this:

The expression here used (ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως idias epiluseōs) has given rise to as great a diversity of interpretation, and to as much discussion, as perhaps any phrase in the New Testament; and to the present time there is no general agreement among expositors as to its meaning. ...

The more correct interpretation, as it seems to me, is that which supposes that the apostle teaches that the truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention; were not their own opinions, but were of higher origin, and were imparted by God; and according to this the passage may be explained, "knowing this as a point of first importance when you approach the prophecies, or always bearing this in mind, that it is a great principle in regard to the prophets, that what they communicated "was not of their own disclosure;" that is, was not revealed or originated by them."
​

What your statement states is typically considered as a personal understanding aspect of prophecy. Where the emphasis in my view is not that of the reader but the writer. The writer did not write prophecy of their own interpretation of what was given them, but wrote as and specifically as God gave them to the prophet.

The passage therefore is not addressing the readers, nor the translators, but the original writers.

It does not concern those who would discern prophecy for answers needing to only and more demands placed upon them to agree with all the responses given by previous humans attempting to discern the same prophecy (Ie, the last days). Rather, to do their own research, their own work in the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit reveal to them the truth.

In the context of false prophets, the passage is aligned with the false statements of those who get their message not from the God of Heaven, but from some other source. That the prophecies of God were from God and not from some private conjuring up of gut feelings more related to diarrhea and bribery.

 

[John of Japan]

John, while I agree with all that you wrote, there is a bit of emphasis or perhaps even a slight disagreement that I would place upon your last part, "Because God gave the Scriptures. Since God gave the Bible, we should never, ever, interpret Scripture with our own personal interpretation."

I agree with Barnes' statement where he is selecting "Is of any private interpretation" and gives us this:

The expression here used (ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως idias epiluseōs) has given rise to as great a diversity of interpretation, and to as much discussion, as perhaps any phrase in the New Testament; and to the present time there is no general agreement among expositors as to its meaning. ...

The more correct interpretation, as it seems to me, is that which supposes that the apostle teaches that the truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention; were not their own opinions, but were of higher origin, and were imparted by God; and according to this the passage may be explained, "knowing this as a point of first importance when you approach the prophecies, or always bearing this in mind, that it is a great principle in regard to the prophets, that what they communicated "was not of their own disclosure;" that is, was not revealed or originated by them."
​

What your statement states is typically considered as a personal understanding aspect of prophecy. Where the emphasis in my view is not that of the reader but the writer. The writer did not write prophecy of their own interpretation of what was given them, but wrote as and specifically as God gave them to the prophet.

The passage therefore is not addressing the readers, nor the translators, but the original writers.

It does not concern those who would discern prophecy for answers needing to only and more demands placed upon them to agree with all the responses given by previous humans attempting to discern the same prophecy (Ie, the last days). Rather, to do their own research, their own work in the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit reveal to them the truth.

In the context of false prophets, the passage is aligned with the false statements of those who get their message not from the God of Heaven, but from some other source. That the prophecies of God were from God and not from some private conjuring up of gut feelings more related to diarrhea and bribery.

Well, first of all, on this thread I have not even addressed the term "private" so far, so you are getting ahead of me. (But I'll answer you anyway.) Secondly, I don't see that Barnes disagrees with me. Thirdly, did you miss my entire statement about gar, meaning "because"? That one is not to interpret "privately" or personally (idios, "one's own") is based on the fact that the Scriptures were given by inspiration from God, not vice versa.

Furthermore, that the term "private interpretation" is aimed at the prophets and not the reader of Peter is to ignore the context of v. 19, which speaks to the reader of Peter, not to the prophets: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed," We don't even get prophets until v. 21. So v. 20 is aimed at the reader.

 

[Deacon]

In the "Basics of Bible Interpretation" thread, which was otherwise very profitable, three different people suggested that this passage was not about interpreting the Bible. I am blown away by how someone could come to that conclusion. The very word "interpretation" is in the English Bible (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc., etc.), so how could someone say that the passage is not about interpretation? So I decided to unpack the passage in this thread.

The problem iterated in that thread was not that the verse didn't deal with interpretation but that it didn't specifically relate to a "literal interpretation".

"literal interpretation" excludes non-literal forms of interpretation methods such as types, illusions, parables, allegory, hyperbole, etc.

• Paul uses non-literal forms of interpretation.
• The early church fathers employed non-literal forms of interpretation.
• Everyday language (then and today) uses non-literal forms of communication.

1 Peter 1:20's meaning is focused upon the authority of Scripture and not the method or form of interpretation.

Rob

 

[agedman]

Well, first of all, on this thread I have not even addressed the term "private" so far, so you are getting ahead of me. (But I'll answer you anyway.) Secondly, I don't see that Barnes disagrees with me. Thirdly, did you miss my entire statement about gar, meaning "because"? That one is not to interpret "privately" or personally (idios, "one's own") is based on the fact that the Scriptures were given by inspiration from God, not vice versa.

Furthermore, that the term "private interpretation" is aimed at the prophets and not the reader of Peter is to ignore the context of v. 19, which speaks to the reader of Peter, not to the prophets: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed," We don't even get prophets until v. 21. So v. 20 is aimed at the reader.

Perhaps for the reader of this thread the whole passage needs to be reviewed:

16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19So 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.20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
​

Does not the sequence of the delivery to the apostles, being the same as the delivery of all true prophecy as the "utterance" of God and not some "cleverly devised tale," carry the thinking of the writer and not the reader?

My problem is that often some would take the statement as it concerns the reader of the prophecy, when Peter was writing from the viewpoint of the prophet, himself. That is as an eyewitness, he wrote and spoke, and such was not some conjuring of the imagination.

Are you not in dispute with Barns in this area?

Perhaps I am just misreading, but it seems that you are taking that the passage is referring to any and all readers of the prophecy and not that it is the writer and speaker of the prophecies of Scriptures.

BTW, I didn't look in on the "other thread" which meant that I probably missed on some good presentations. As I have time, I will try to look back at it.

 

[John of Japan]

The problem iterated in that thread was not that the verse didn't deal with interpretation but that it didn't specifically relate to a "literal interpretation".

That's not my impression of what you said.

"literal interpretation" excludes non-literal forms of interpretation methods such as types, illusions, parables, allegory, hyperbole, etc.

• Paul uses non-literal forms of interpretation.
• The early church fathers employed non-literal forms of interpretation.
• Everyday language (then and today) uses non-literal forms of communication.

This is not correct. The Interpretation of Prophecy, by literalist Paul Lee Tan, deals extensively with figurative language in Ch. VI., and the most complete book ever written on figurative language was by dispensational literalist E. W. Bullinger in his book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. As for myself, I'm the only one (as far as I know) to post a thread here on the BB about figures of speech. And when I've interacted here on the BB with allegorical interpreters they did not even seem to know what a metaphor was (until the above mentioned thread).

1 Peter 1:20's meaning is focused upon the authority of Scripture and not the method or form of interpretation.

Rob

Saying this does not make it so. Please prove that "one's own" refers to the prophets and not the reader of 2 Peter.

 

[John of Japan]

Perhaps for the reader of this thread the whole passage needs to be reviewed:

16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19So 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.20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
​

Does not the sequence of the delivery to the apostles, being the same as the delivery of all true prophecy as the "utterance" of God and not some "cleverly devised tale," carry the thinking of the writer and not the reader?

Sorry, I don't know what you are saying here.

My problem is that often some would take the statement as it concerns the reader of the prophecy, when Peter was writing from the viewpoint of the prophet, himself. That is as an eyewitness, he wrote and spoke, and such was not some conjuring of the imagination.

Are you not in dispute with Barns in this area?

Not as I read it (and I just reread it).

Perhaps I am just misreading, but it seems that you are taking that the passage is referring to any and all readers of the prophecy and not that it is the writer and speaker of the prophecies of Scriptures.

I'm not sure what you mean here. My position is that "one's own interpretation" refers in the context to the reader of 2 Peter and not to the prophets, who simply prophesied and did not usually interpret. (Cf. Daniel, who was mystified by his own prophecies, as was John in Revelation.)

 

[agedman]

Sorry, I don't know what you are saying here.

I will repost what I wrote with clarification. What I posted is in green with explanations in regular font.

Perhaps for the reader of this thread the whole passage needs to be reviewed:

16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterancemade from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19So 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.20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.​

Does not the sequence of the delivery to the apostles, being the same as the delivery of all true prophecy as the "utterance" of God and not some "cleverly devised tale," carry the thinking of the writer and not the reader?​

The sequence of the presentation by Peter is that the delivery to the apostles was the same as the delivery to all true prophets. That it was the very utterance of God and not some "cleverly devised tale." Therefore, it is that which is in the view of Peter and NOT some future reader of the letter of Peter.

My problem is that often some would take the statement as it concerns the reader of the prophecy, when Peter was writing from the viewpoint of the prophet, himself. That is as an eyewitness, he wrote and spoke, and such was not some conjuring of the imagination.
Are you not in dispute with Barns in this area?

​

Not as I read it (and I just reread it).
I'm not sure what you mean here. My position is that "one's own interpretation" refers in the context to the reader of 2 Peter and not to the prophets, who simply prophesied and did not usually interpret. (Cf. Daniel, who was mystified by his own prophecies, as was John in Revelation.)

It is that very element of how you view the passage in which we must certainly contend.

Peter is not writing from the view of the reader but from the view that message delivery system was God as opposed to human contrivance(s).

Again, Peter's position, as shown from the above passage in context, is that the prophetic Scriptures are not some conjuring or based upon conjecture, but from the very utterances of God.

So, btw, Barns does agree with me in presenting the passage in his analysis and not with you.

In contrast to what Barns and I have shown, you seem to be placing the emphasis upon the reader of the prophecy not having a private interpretation.

I don't see Barns nor I in agreement with that thinking.

Rather, as I highlighted in the passage quoted above from Peter, the emphasis is upon the writer of God's utterances as such writing not being conjured up or from a self generated agenda.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm sorry, agedman, your last post was really hard to figure out. Please consider posting it again so that your comments are clear and not in the "quote" part of the post.

 

[agedman]

I'm sorry, agedman, your last post was really hard to figure out. Please consider posting it again so that your comments are clear and not in the "quote" part of the post.

Instead I will put the last part of the post here for your response. I will underline for emphasis.

Peter is not writing from the view of the reader but from the view that message delivery system was God as opposed to human contrivance(s).

(16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.)​

Peter's position, as shown from the above passage in context, is that the prophetic Scriptures are not some conjuring or based upon conjecture, but from the very utterances of God.

(19So 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.20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.)​

Barns does agree with me in presenting the passage in his analysis and not with you.

In contrast to what Barns and I have shown, you seem to be placing the emphasis upon the reader of the prophecy not having a private interpretation.

I don't see Barns nor I in agreement with that thinking.

Rather, as highlighted in the passage quoted above from Peter, the emphasis is upon the writer of God's utterances as such writing not being conjured up or from a self generated agenda.

​

 

[John of Japan]

Instead I will put the last part of the post here for your response. I will underline for emphasis.

Peter is not writing from the view of the reader but from the view that message delivery system was God as opposed to human contrivance(s).

(16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.)​

Well, of course. I agree. But you still have to deal with my points: the meaning of idios ("one's own"), and the conjunction gar ("because") in v. 21.

Peter's position, as shown from the above passage in context, is that the prophetic Scriptures are not some conjuring or based upon conjecture, but from the very utterances of God.

(19So 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.20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.)​

You write as if I disagree with this. I don't. What I am saying is that this inspiration from God means that "private interpretation" is wrong. If this is mistaken, explain the "For" at the beginning of v. 21.

Barns does agree with me in presenting the passage in his analysis and not with you.

Reading the whole statement by Barnes (not Barns) in his commentary, you may be right. But that's immaterial to me. I don't think of Barnes as much of an authority. He was a Presbyterian who wrote in the 1830's.

In contrast to what Barns and I have shown, you seem to be placing the emphasis upon the reader of the prophecy not having a private interpretation.

I don't see Barns nor I in agreement with that thinking.

Rather, as highlighted in the passage quoted above from Peter, the emphasis is upon the writer of God's utterances as such writing not being conjured up or from a self generated agenda.

In a debate, it is not enough simply to disagree, you must prove your point and disprove your opponent's. So please disprove my points about the syntax and semantics of the passage.

 

[John of Japan]

Let me reiterate something. The prophets often were not able to interpret what they wrote. Think of Daniel: he was mystified by much of what he prophesied. In fact, it is the very nature of predictive prophecy that one cannot know exactly how that prophecy will occur. So how could the word "interpretation" in this passage apply to the prophet himself?

 

[agedman]

Let me reiterate something. The prophets often were not able to interpret what they wrote. Think of Daniel: he was mystified by much of what he prophesied. In fact, it is the very nature of predictive prophecy that one cannot know exactly how that prophecy will occur. So how could the word "interpretation" in this passage apply to the prophet himself?

Leave it up to the computer to recast the Barnes into Barns without me noticing!

Your work in the Greek is certainly accurate, it was the extrapolation you made into "ones own" being the reader and not the writer that caught my initial attention.

I just don't see Peter supporting that the reader is in any manner presented with prophecy in which they haven't the right to interpret anyway they choose - even wrongly.

However, the passage does support that there was not a single prophecy written outside of that given by God in the Scriptures. The "ones own" would refer then to the writer not the reader.

I've been reading through the thread you brought up in the OP. It indeed is an interesting read.

Do you think that the prophets couldn't interpret or was the interpretation sealed up because (as both in Daniel and Revelations) God instructed it to be kept from understanding.

Daniels was written down, but John's wasn't even recorded. Could it be that Daniel wasn't revealed because the Holy Spirit was not given to guide into all truth as it is in the believers of this day, and John's wasn't even recorded because the Holy Spirit is given and would reveal the truth. Hmmmm. Pure conjecturing on my part, but at my age, conjecturing is an achievement!

 

[John of Japan]

Leave it up to the computer to recast the Barnes into Barns without me noticing!

Your work in the Greek is certainly accurate, it was the extrapolation you made into "ones own" being the reader and not the writer that caught my initial attention.

I didn't extrapolate. I simply read the meaning of the text.

I just don't see Peter supporting that the reader is in any manner presented with prophecy in which they haven't the right to interpret anyway they choose - even wrongly.

Then why is v. 21 explaining the reason for v. 20 according to the "because" in the text?

However, the passage does support that there was not a single prophecy written outside of that given by God in the Scriptures. The "ones own" would refer then to the writer not the reader.

Again, why say "the writer must not have his own interpretation"? The writer in every OT case is prophesying, and in not a single case did the writer of Scripture even attempt to interpret his own prophecy unless the interpretation itself was further revelation.

I've been reading through the thread you brought up in the OP. It indeed is an interesting read.

Good!

Do you think that the prophets couldn't interpret or was the interpretation sealed up because (as both in Daniel and Revelations) God instructed it to be kept from understanding.

Daniels was written down, but John's wasn't even recorded. Could it be that Daniel wasn't revealed because the Holy Spirit was not given to guide into all truth as it is in the believers of this day, and John's wasn't even recorded because the Holy Spirit is given and would reveal the truth. Hmmmm. Pure conjecturing on my part, but at my age, conjecturing is an achievement!

Depends on the prophecy. For example, contrary to popular opinion, Revelation is easy to translate because it is narrative. The meanings are clear, but because it is apocalyptic literature people stumble at the meanings. On the other hand, Daniel wrote things that he had no way of interpreting, such as that there would be four great empires. The first he knew and possibly the second, but he could not in his wildest dreams figured out that Macedonia and then Rome would be great empires.

So, in the case of Daniel and many other OT prophecies and prophets, there was no way the prophet could interpret. And the word in 2 Peter is "interpret."

 

[agedman]

I didn't extrapolate. I simply read the meaning of the text.


Then why is v. 21 explaining the reason for v. 20 according to the "because" in the text?

Look again at the passage:

16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
​

Who is the "we?" Is it not the apostles and other messengers who carried the news of the Lord Jesus Christ who were eyewitnesses? Not just everyone was an eyewitness.

17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
​

The "eyewitnesses" heard the utterance from heaven. Not everyone is an eyewitness.

The next portion expresses who then carried this eyewitness testimony.

19So 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.
​

Who is the "we?" Again, it is the eyewitnesses, and not all were eyewitnesses.

20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.​

Therefore, the writer (here being Peter) has established the he and a couple others are eyewitnesses. And as eyewitnesses their "Interpretation" (explanation given to them at the transfiguration by God) was not conjured up out of human ambitions.

He does also align such with all prophecies of God, as delivered by God by the Holy Spirit.

The word "Interpretation" therefore is not the reader interpreting or rendering or drawing their own conclusions on the prophecy, rather, the word "Interpretations (explanation) is to the writer who records and speaks the prophecy, because they are "eyewitnesses" to the origination of the events.


Now about the "for" in verse 21.
Unlike the previous uses of "for" in verse 16 and 17, the word "for" in the 21st verse is "because." As you know it is a word that is directive as drawing the bottom line reason and ruling out any other causes. Verse 16 and 17 do not carry such meaning of the word.

Therefore, the word "for" as directive - giving the "because" - presents that reliance is placed upon the statements of prophecy in the Scriptures. "Because" such came not from human achievement, will, emotions,... but solely from the work of the Holy Sprit of God.

 

[John of Japan]

Look again at the passage:

16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
​

Who is the "we?" Is it not the apostles and other messengers who carried the news of the Lord Jesus Christ who were eyewitnesses? Not just everyone was an eyewitness.

17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
​

The "eyewitnesses" heard the utterance from heaven. Not everyone is an eyewitness.

The next portion expresses who then carried this eyewitness testimony.

19So 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.
​

Who is the "we?" Again, it is the eyewitnesses, and not all were eyewitnesses.

20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.​

Therefore, the writer (here being Peter) has established the he and a couple others are eyewitnesses. And as eyewitnesses their "Interpretation" (explanation given to them at the transfiguration by God) was not conjured up out of human ambitions.

This is okay as far as it goes. What you miss is:
1. Peter is calling himself an apostle, not a prophet. So v. 20 is not about him.
2. In v. 20 he does not say "our own," which he would say if he were pointing to prophecies he himself had made.
3. "Scripture" in the NT always refers to the OT (except when Peter mentions it in connection with Paul's writings). So Peter is talking about the OT, not his own utterances.

He does also align such with all prophecies of God, as delivered by God by the Holy Spirit.

No, not all prophecies, only inscripturated ones.

The word "Interpretation" therefore is not the reader interpreting or rendering or drawing their own conclusions on the prophecy, rather, the word "Interpretations (explanation) is to the writer who records and speaks the prophecy, because they are "eyewitnesses" to the origination of the events.

This still does not explain the fact that the OT prophets are not recorded as ever giving their own interpretation unless it was further revelation, a point I've already made. So why would Peter address an issue that did not exist, prophets interpreting their own prophecies?

Now about the "for" in verse 21.
Unlike the previous uses of "for" in verse 16 and 17, the word "for" in the 21st verse is "because." As you know it is a word that is directive as drawing the bottom line reason and ruling out any other causes. Verse 16 and 17 do not carry such meaning of the word.

Well, yes, I've said over and over that the gar ("for") in v. 21 was "because."

Therefore, the word "for" as directive - giving the "because" - presents that reliance is placed upon the statements of prophecy in the Scriptures. "Because" such came not from human achievement, will, emotions,... but solely from the work of the Holy Sprit of God.

No, the "because" in v. 21 is giving a reason for the forbidding of "one's own interpretation" in v. 20. We are not to interpret prophecy with our own opinion, "because" it is given by God.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a commentary that agrees with me, making an excellent point about the false prophets in the context:

"The sense of the verse is probably ...that no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted by any individual in an arbitrary way. This fits the problem of the false teachers distorting Paul's writings and other Scripture mentioned at 3:16, and the next verse clarifies that the prophecy originated with the Holy Spirit."
Edwin A. Blum, "2 Peter," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 275.

 

[agedman]

This is okay as far as it goes. What you miss is:
1. Peter is calling himself an apostle, not a prophet. So v. 20 is not about him.
2. In v. 20 he does not say "our own," which he would say if he were pointing to prophecies he himself had made.
3. "Scripture" in the NT always refers to the OT (except when Peter mentions it in connection with Paul's writings). So Peter is talking about the OT, not his own utterances.
No, not all prophecies, only inscripturated ones.


This still does not explain the fact that the OT prophets are not recorded as ever giving their own interpretation unless it was further revelation, a point I've already made. So why would Peter address an issue that did not exist, prophets interpreting their own prophecies?

Well, yes, I've said over and over that the gar ("for") in v. 21 was "because."

No, the "because" in v. 21 is giving a reason for the forbidding of "one's own interpretation" in v. 20. We are not to interpret prophecy with our own opinion, "because" it is given by God.

And I would agree IF the previous verses of the topic had not been extremely specific as to the "eyewitnesses" and to the utterance, and more who and how the utterance came to the eyewitnesses.

The words, " we have the prophetic word more sure..." places the author of the utterance they heard as that same author as what was heard by the prophets of the OT. It is able to be translated "I posses" or "I maintain" the prophetic word more sure...

Verse 20 is not changing the view of the writer of prophecy as the emphasis, rather it is transitioning into application of why the trustworthiness of the prophecies are assured. 1) the eyewitnesses experienced the same voice of God as the prophets, 2) no prophecy in Scriptures comes other than from God, and 3) no prophecy is self generated, but totally the direct act of God's voice upon the prophet.


About the word "Interpreted:"

You seem to place the word "interpreted" as if it were other than "explained" which the prophets most certainly did. I don't recall a prophet not explaining and expressing "thus saith the Lord" to the people. Prophecy was for proclaiming, not something hidden away for only the prophet. Prophets would take the prophetic utterance from God and lay it out for the listeners, they would explain, interpret, give the meaning, ... of the utterance they got from God. The hand writing on the wall was foreign to the people, yet the prophet could read it as you read this post.

Perhaps as a linguist you are taking the word, "Interpreted," as having to do more with something spoken in a language (Greek) and interpreted and then explained such as one explaining the meaning of a passage about the last days. The original language supports that thinking. "Epilusis" is more of someone as a detective ferreting out meaning, the cause and effect, the resolution or unscrambling for the truth. Again, it is as Daniel proclaiming what was indecipherable to others. Such can only come from God. However, it does not support that anyone has that right, rather only the one given the prophecy could do the explaining, the interpreting. Again, Daniel was given the interpretation, he didn't leave it to others to deliver.

I may be wrong, but I think the word is used only by Peter in this passage and never anywhere else in the Scriptures.

So when reading the passage and one comes to this word, "interpretation," Peter uses a word that is exclusive that all matters concerning Scripture prophecy is not contrived nor by one ferreting out the truth by skill or human devise as was again shown by Daniel in dealing with Nebuchadnezzar and also the writing on the wall. Rather, all interpretation (explanation) is delivered by the prophet spoken directly to by God. For as is seen at Sinai, humankind cannot stand before God with any length of tolerance.

I am typing on a MacBook and just realized that when I use the "quote" and the word starts with an "I" it automatically capitalizes the "I". So when I typed "Interpreted" the "I" is automatically capitalized. Oh well!!!

 

[Deacon]

That's not my impression of what you said.

Perhaps we were speaking past each other. (I stepped out because I though this was the case).
Here's my blow by blow...

Literal interpretation: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)
Grammatical interpretation: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Neh. 8:8).

This reply would make sense if "private interpretation" was the opposite to "literal interpretation", but it isn't. A private interpretation can be excessively literal or excessively metaphorical ... or anything else.
In fact, there is no passage to back up the misguided assumption that we should so overemphasize literal interpretation to the extant that Christians do today.

The problem lies in the vague nature of the word, literal.
It is often used and very often misused.

That's why we use the term "grammatical-historical."
For the record, though, here is a linguistic definition of "literal meaning."--"Variously of the meaning of a sentence or other expression as determined solely by the separate words etc. of which it is composed, or of what is said, as opposed to what is implied or implicated, in a given context" (Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, by P. H. Matthews, p. 229).
This should clarify things. Interpreting literally simply means looking at what the words and grammar actually say. However, metaphorical interpretation looks for what is implied.

Let me attempt to state your position as I understood it.

ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως, translated “private interpretation” or “(someone's) own interpretation”
= not a literal interpretation (or an idiosyncratic interpretation)
Therefore meaning is found only in a literal interpretation of Scripture.​

COMMENT:
In the constitution of the church I attend we have a sentence in our statement of beliefs that relates to this verse in the way you’ve stated: “The Bible is to be interpreted in a normal literal way and is understandable because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.”

I’m mildly troubled by this statement in a similar way as I am with the way you interpret 2 Peter 1:20. I don’t think a particular hermeneutical method is sanctified here (or anywhere).

Don’t get me wrong, I've no problem with the grammatical-historical method of interpretation,
- however even it can be misapplied.

My problem lies in the impression that there is a God-ordained method of interpretation.
The bible just uses too many varying methods of interpretation for me to be comfortable saying “this way and no other.” ...do it this way and you won't interpret it wrong...

********************

This is not correct. The Interpretation of Prophecy, by literalist Paul Lee Tan, deals extensively with figurative language in Ch. VI., and the most complete book ever written on figurative language was by dispensational literalist E. W. Bullinger in his book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. As for myself, I'm the only one (as far as I know) to post a thread here on the BB about figures of speech. And when I've interacted here on the BB with allegorical interpreters they did not even seem to know what a metaphor was (until the above mentioned thread).
Saying this does not make it so.

Please prove that "one's own" refers to the prophets and not the reader of 2 Peter.

A number of varying interpretations are common with this passage.
At least two of them represented by comparing versions.

2 Peter 1:20–21
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)

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 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.

(ESV) ​

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.

(NASB95)​

Above all, you know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (CSB)

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (NIV)

The prominence of the prophets view is intensified by a review of extra-biblical literature pertaining to the biblical hapax legomenon, interpretation.

Philo, Quis. Her. 259: “For a prophet utters (ἀποφθέγγεται) nothing that is his own (ἵδιον οὐδέν), but everything he utters belongs to another (ἀλλότρια), since another is prompting him (ὑπηχοῦντος ἑτέρου).” (Abbott, Exp 2/3 [1882] 54–55, thinks 2 Peter is actually dependent on this passage.)

Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.49: “A prophet declares nothing at all that is his own (οὐδὲν ἵδιον ἀποφαίνεται τὸ παράπαν), but is a spokesman (ἐρμηνεύς) of another who suggests (ὑποβάλλοντος ἑτέρου) everything he utters.”

Philo, Qu. Gen. 3.10 “The prophet seems to say something, but he does not give his own oracle but is the interpreter [i.e. ἐρμηνεύς, “spokesman”] of another, who puts things into his mind” (Loeb tr. from the Armenian).

Hippolytus, Antichr. 2: “For they [the prophets] did not speak from their own power (ἐξ ἴδιας δυνάμεως ἐφθεγγοντο) … nor did they proclaim what they wished, but first they were endowed with true wisdom through the Word, and then they were correctly taught about the future through visions.”

Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio 8: The prophets “taught us nothing from their own imagination (μηδὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτῶν φαντασίας) … [but] they received from God the knowledge which they also taught us.… For neither by nature nor by human thought (ἐννοίᾳ) is it possible for men to know such great and divine things.”

Jer 23:16 LXX: The false prophets “speak from their own heart (ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν) and not from the mouth of the Lord.”

Ezek 13:3 LXX: The false prophets “prophesy from their own heart (ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν).”

Josephus, Ant. 4.121: Balaam says, “For once he [God] has entered, nothing within us is any longer our own (ἡμετερον)”

Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.65: The prophet “will say nothing that is his own (οἰκεῖον οὐδέν).”

Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 229–230.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

And I would agree IF the previous verses of the topic had not been extremely specific as to the "eyewitnesses" and to the utterance, and more who and how the utterance came to the eyewitnesses.

The words, " we have the prophetic word more sure..." places the author of the utterance they heard as that same author as what was heard by the prophets of the OT. It is able to be translated "I posses" or "I maintain" the prophetic word more sure...

Verse 20 is not changing the view of the writer of prophecy as the emphasis, rather it is transitioning into application of why the trustworthiness of the prophecies are assured. 1) the eyewitnesses experienced the same voice of God as the prophets, 2) no prophecy in Scriptures comes other than from God, and 3) no prophecy is self generated, but totally the direct act of God's voice upon the prophet.

This is all true as far as it goes, but I'm sorry, I don't see where you answered my point differentiating the "we" (plural) and the "one's own" (singular). So I'm not sure what point you are making here in regards to my points.

About the word "Interpreted:"

You seem to place the word "interpreted" as if it were other than "explained" which the prophets most certainly did. I don't recall a prophet not explaining and expressing "thus saith the Lord" to the people. Prophecy was for proclaiming, not something hidden away for only the prophet. Prophets would take the prophetic utterance from God and lay it out for the listeners, they would explain, interpret, give the meaning, ... of the utterance they got from God. The hand writing on the wall was foreign to the people, yet the prophet could read it as you read this post.

Can you give examples of what you mean here? The prophets would say what God told them to say, no more and no less. In the case of the writing on the wall, that was a direct word from God, not a prophecy from Daniel. Yes, Daniel interpreted (translated) it, but it wasn't his own prophecy.

Perhaps as a linguist you are taking the word, "Interpreted," as having to do more with something spoken in a language (Greek) and interpreted and then explained such as one explaining the meaning of a passage about the last days. The original language supports that thinking. "Epilusis" is more of someone as a detective ferreting out meaning, the cause and effect, the resolution or unscrambling for the truth. Again, it is as Daniel proclaiming what was indecipherable to others. Such can only come from God. However, it does not support that anyone has that right, rather only the one given the prophecy could do the explaining, the interpreting. Again, Daniel was given the interpretation, he didn't leave it to others to deliver.

But my point was that Daniel could not explain/interpret the vast majority of his prophecies. He did explain/interpret the prophecies to individual people (the emperor), but not the general ones about the future of the world. I should have made that more clear.

I may be wrong, but I think the word is used only by Peter in this passage and never anywhere else in the Scriptures.

I say this in the OP. That's what a hapax legomena is.

So when reading the passage and one comes to this word, "interpretation," Peter uses a word that is exclusive that all matters concerning Scripture prophecy is not contrived nor by one ferreting out the truth by skill or human devise as was again shown by Daniel in dealing with Nebuchadnezzar and also the writing on the wall. Rather, all interpretation (explanation) is delivered by the prophet spoken directly to by God. For as is seen at Sinai, humankind cannot stand before God with any length of tolerance.

I'm simply using epilusis as "interpretation" in a hermeneutics way.

I am typing on a MacBook and just realized that when I use the "quote" and the word starts with an "I" it automatically capitalizes the "I". So when I typed "Interpreted" the "I" is automatically capitalized. Oh well!!!

Not a problem.