• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"Interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20-21

Status
Not open for further replies.

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Perhaps we were speaking past each other. (I stepped out because I though this was the case).
Maybe so. I was surprised at what I thought you said.

Here's my blow by blow...

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.​
This is pretty much what I think.

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.
Keep talking.

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...
I will clarify, and make the points that:

(1) God invented language, and even uses language to communicate within the trinity (following the excellent book by Poythress on language.
(2) Language is meant to be understood communication, not hidden meanings. Therefore, any form of interpretation that suggests an idiosyncratic interpretation is dead wrong. God means everyone to language the same way.
(3) Therefore the common method of allegorizing Scripture ala Origen is mistaken. Therefore, I am a premillennialist.
A number of varying interpretations are common with this passage.
Whatever the actual interpretation (I don't say my interpretation must be correct), the application can still be that we don't have the right to interpret Scripture (I do not say apply) in an idiosyncratic way.
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)
Granted.

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
Granted some of these quotes are relevant, but I don's see epilusis in there anywhere.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
Last edited:

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
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.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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. :)
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.​
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.​
As is often the case, the NIV here does not just translate with the ambiguity intact, but since it is a dynamic equivalence translation it removes the ambiguity. Thus, the NIV often robs the reader of the privilege of interpreting the passage himself or herself. The original does not say "the prophet's own interpretation of things," but merely "one's own interpretation."

Instead of adding to the discussion with this post, you have merely quoted a translation that is on your side.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As is often the case, the NIV here does not just translate with the ambiguity intact, but since it is a dynamic equivalence translation it removes the ambiguity. Thus, the NIV often robs the reader of the privilege of interpreting the passage himself or herself. The original does not say "the prophet's own interpretation of things," but merely "one's own interpretation."

Instead of adding to the discussion with this post, you have merely quoted a translation that is on your side.

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. :)
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
Yeah, but the NIV is not saying what the Scripture is actually declaring, so you are allowing the NIV to interpret an ambiguous passage for you, unlike the NASB and ESV:

ESV 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.

NAS 2 Peter 1:20 But aknow this first of all, that bno prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

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

You have not addressed my grammar points, so I see no need for further interaction on this point.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeah, but the NIV is not saying what the Scripture is actually declaring, so you are allowing the NIV to interpret an ambiguous passage for you, unlike the NASB and ESV:

ESV 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.

NAS 2 Peter 1:20 But aknow this first of all, that bno prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

And again, I disagree.

You have not addressed my grammar points, so I see no need for further interaction on this point.
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."


 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually, I did very much address your grammar points, but not in a way that you seem satisfied.
Nope. Just looked at the whole thread, and you have ignored the grammar, one point in particular, though I have pointed it out to you specifically. I think you are confusing semantics (meaning) with grammar.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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."


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!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nope. Just looked at the whole thread, and you have ignored the grammar, one point in particular, though I have pointed it out to you specifically. I think you are confusing semantics (meaning) with grammar.
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?
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
Agreed.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
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.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nope. Just looked at the whole thread, and you have ignored the grammar, one point in particular, though I have pointed it out to you specifically. I think you are confusing semantics (meaning) with grammar.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top