"Interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20-21

I understand that there is the general thinking that “ones own” refers to other than the originator and prophet.

But, it doesn’t.

The topic throughout these verses is the prophet and how the message of God was brought to the prophet.

“Ones own” is not suddenly shifting the presentation to the people who are the recipient of the message delivered through the prophet. The modern day searching and investigation into prophecy and attempting to discern proper application is not a part of the subject of this verse. Rather, that the prophecy itself is secured in that relationship God established when communicating to the prophet.

“Ones own” is disconnected from the classic view of Peter and the present day folks that the prophet had any human ability to at will prophecy. The prophet could not at will look into a crystal ball and tell the future. It is confirming that all Scripture prophecy came from God through the Holy Spirit verbally to the Prophet. God spoke directly and He wasn’t accessed on demand by the viewer or the prophet.

Rather, they were told by God when and how to present the prophecy.

Contrary to some who use this passage as pointing that nobody should develope a meaningful explanation of a prophecy that is based on “literal” rather then “allegorical” or vice-versus or have some private musings about a prophecy this verse is not in that discussion.

Neither should the passage be used to dissuade folks seeking the proper application of a prophecy that may not be popular or convenient to commonly heard thinking.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit to open and illuminate.

Should the person produce and teach what is contrary to the consistent prophetic view found in the Scripture, that person can then be shown as a false teacher.

 

In the above post, it should read, "In the classic view in the day of Peter." This was NOT Peter's view, but that of the common everyday person of more especially the gentile but also some of the Jews. Remember, Saul going to the witch seeking advice on demand?

 

I thougfh that peter was stating that when the OT prophets penned down from God the revelations given to them, the Holy Spirit Himself put that down, as it was not them just doing it off the cuff, and that all prophecy has to be intreperated by the Holy Spirt by scripture interpreting scripture to get the right meaning.

 

Yeshua1,

Perhaps if you review post 15, 22, 23 to give you a different perspective on the passage and the reasoning why JofJ's OP is not completely consistent with the flow of the writer's wording.

The vast majority of folks are taught as JofJ presents, and give little thought if the teaching has been correct, however, when rendering the passage, that thinking has a fault that needs correction, imo.

 

Are you saying that we are not involved in interpreting of the scriptures then?

 

No, I am posting that this passage is not about us other then assuarane given that the prophets had direct and specific instructions in verbal language given to them by the Holy Spirit.

Here is the NIV rendering to demonstrate the principle of what I posted:

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21For 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.​

 

Oh John, it is not whether a translation agrees with me that is important at this point (for more than one does), but the matter of actually comprehending what the Scripture is declaring.

"Private interpretation" does not mean the reader attempting to discern the prophecy, but the writer of the prophecy.

The prophet was never given permission and had no business writing their opinions, their thinking, their conjurings, and their efforts and then proclaiming such as from the God of heaven and earth.

The "private interpretation" of the worldly seers was excluded from the prophets of Scripture Prophecy.

Why do you think that Peter continues on and on about the false prophets?

He did not sandwich in a statement of the reader having some private or public ability (or not) over prophetic "interpretation" in the midst of showing the security of the Scripture prophecy to the people who were preoccupied seeking false prophets.

Such is a foreign topic to the whole of what Peter is getting at in the open chapters of 2 Peter's letter.

There is no cause, nor is there any support for ascribing "private interpretation" as limiting the reader or even applied to the reader, when the whole context of the passage and the following chapter concerns the contrast of the true Scripture prophecy and that generated by false prophets, and the false prophets, themselves.

"private interpretation" is the writer, not the reader.

This is the same principle as John states in closing the book of Revelation. No one is to add or subtract. The words came from God, not his own conjuring from being hungry or having diarrhea from poor food.

 

Actually, I did very much address your grammar points, but not in a way that you seem satisfied.

You are removing two words out of context of the whole to hold to your presentation.

Making a prophecy uniquely, distinctly, personal property, is not prevented from the READER. The reader has the freedom to do with the Scriptures as they choose.

What is prevented is the WRITER making the prophecy uniquely, distinctly, personal property of their own. That is they have no title, warranty deed, or claim that they exercised any control over the Scriptural prophecy.

Peter is emphasizing that "we have the prophetic word made more sure" not that the reader cannot make decisions concerning how a prophecy is applied or even if the prophecy is applied.

Peter is contending through out this passage and following chapter, that which is Scripture prophecy in comparison to that which is false and unstable prophecy.

Peter has shown that the Scripture prophecy comes directly and verbally from God.

As far as the word translated "Interpretation" as I already discussed with you, this is not a word used in the NT, but unique to 2 Peter. It because it is coupled with unique means that the prophecy is God's solution, God's determination to accomplish. The prophecy comes from God, not from the false conjuring of the world(ly).

John, I would include this from the "Expositor's Bible Commentary." It is a bit lengthy, but perhaps better than I am writing.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation." The Greek words need to be taken account of before we can gather the true meaning of this clause. That which is translated "is" is much more frequently rendered "comes to pass," and bears the sense of "arises," "has its origin." "Interpretation" is the translation of a word which occurs here only in the-New Testament, and implies the "loosing" of what is complicated, the "clearing" of what is obscure. The lesson which the Apostle would give relates to the right appreciation of the Old Testament Scriptures, which contain the prophecy which he has called above "the lamp in a dark place." He intends to say something which may incline men to follow its guidance. The prophetic writings furnish us with illustrations how the problems which arose in the lives of the men of old time, both about events around them and also about the dispensations of Divine providence, found their solution. Thus they furnish rules and principles for time to come; and that men may be induced to confide in their guidance is the object of St. Peter’s words. He bids the converts know that these unravellings and clearings of the ways of God are not men’s private interpretation of what they beheld. This was not the manner in which they came to be known. They are not evolved out of human consciousness, pondering on the facts of life and the ways of God, nor are they the individual exposition of those whom God employed as His prophets. They are messages and lessons which came from one and the same impelling power, from one and the same illuminating influence, even from God Himself, and so are uniform in spirit and teaching from first to last; and He from whom and through whom they are given can say by the mouth of the last of the prophetic body, "I am Jehovah; I change not." {Malachi 3:6}

Although the Apostle uses in this Epistle the word "Scriptures" {2 Peter 3:16} for the writings of New Testament teachers, it is not likely that he in mind included them among the prophetic Scriptures of which he here speaks. We, knowing the flood of light which the Gospels and Epistles pour upon the Old Testament, can now apply his words to them, fully perceiving that they are a true continuation of the Divine enlightenment, another spring from the same heavenly fountain.

Those who would explain "interpretation" as the judgment which men now exercise in the study and application of the words of Scripture forget the force of the verb (γινεται) "comes to pass," and that the Apostle is exalting the source and origin of the words of prophecy, that he may the more enforce his lesson, "Ye do well to take heed to them."


​

 

This is a good example to us why we should be using formal translations when doing serious biblcal studying!

 

I think that the truth would be that all prophecy came directly by inspiration from God, and that we need to examine all of them thru the scriptures and by the illumination of the scriptures, and not just make up our own theogy for end times ourselves!

 

isn't it true that all prophecy was inspired by god to us, and that also we nned to understanding them based upon the whole scriptures, Grammar, original languages, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit Himself, no making up our own pet theology?

 

RESOURCE NOTE
There's a good evaluation of the text examining these issues in the Pillar Commentary on 2 Peter and Jude [LINK]

 

Yes this is correct.

However, if one takes JofJ's work at face value, such "Illumination of the Holy Spirit" cannot happen for there is no private interpretation allowed. He takes the phrase "private interpretation" as meaning the reader rather than the writer.

Where I take it to be that the writer had no self conjuring skills such as the worldly seers might display, and what Peter spends both chapter 1 and 2 showing is a false prophet utterances.

 

A. T. Robinson wrote this:

Knowing this first (τουτο πρωτον γινωσκοντες — touto prōton ginōskontes). Agreeing with ποιειτε— poieite like προσεχοντες — prosechontes in 2 Peter 1:19.

No prophecy of Scripture (πασα προπητεια ου — pāsa prophēteia ou). Like the Hebrew γινεται — lȯkōl but also in the papyri as in 1 John 2:21 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 753).


Is (εστιν — ginetai). Rather “comes,” “springs” (Alford), not “is” (ιδιας επιλυσεως — estin).


Of private interpretation (γνωμης — idias epiluseōs). Ablative case of origin or source in the predicate as with του τεου — gnōmēs in Acts 20:3 and with εχ ημων — tou theou and επιλυσις — ex hēmōn in 2 Corinthians 4:7. “No prophecy of Scripture comes out of private disclosure,” not “of private interpretation.” The usual meaning of επιλυω — epilusis is explanation, but the word does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. It occurs in the papyri in the sense of solution and even of discharge of a debt. Spitta urges “dissolved” as the idea here. The verb epiluō to unloose, to untie, to release, occurs twice in the N.T., once (Mark 4:34) where it can mean “disclose” about parables, the other (Acts 19:39) where it means to decide. It is the prophet‘s grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.
(https://www.studylight.org/commentary/2-peter/1-20.html) taken from (Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on 2 Peter 1:20". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/2-peter-1.html. Broadman Press 1932,33. Renewal 1960.)​

I NEVER intended this matter become such a contention.

But, because it did, then I found it necessary to present in hope to persuade the reader that the Scripture prophets are totally reliable.

 

John,

As a linguist you know that the two are more often confused because they are necessary for understanding, and I really don't desire to get into the nuances of the difference, other then when working in the languages one must use both. If they are bound to one over the other it can (as in this case, imo) it can lead to a bit of misapplication.

The sentence, "Run Bill!" is a good example.

One may look at the definition (symantics) of each word, but unless the context of Bill needing to run is given, then we have no idea if it is from the need to escape danger or capture home plate. The meaning of individual words and the grammar (structure) of the sentence are not particularly helpful in any language without context.

I posted (#39) A. T. Robertson's work on this verse. Thought you might be interested.