An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:20-21

Bibliology Research Paper

Submitted by Dave Lowe

Context

The book of 2^nd Peter contains Peter’s final words. Peter is seeking to remind his readers of the truthfulness of Christianity compared to the false teachers of the day. A quick glance of 2 Peter 2:1 reveals that Peter is contrasting the truthfulness of His message to the false teachings of the day. Specifically, in chapter one, Peter reminds his readers of the many "precious and magnificent promises" (v. 4) that the Lord has given us as believers. Peter then admonishes his readers to live by these promises so that they may not stumble (v. 10, 11).

Peter then follows by giving two witnesses for the credibility of his message. The first witness to the truthfulness of his message is his attendance with Christ on the mount of Transfiguration (v 16-18). The second witness that Peter mentions is the "prophetic word", which is a reference to the Old Testament Scriptures.

Content

It is at this point that we come to our passage, 2 Peter 1:20-21:

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

            The main question surrounding this passage of Scripture is whether Peter is talking about the interpretation of Scripture or the origin of Scripture. Walvoord sums up the different interpretation options:

The statement, No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation, has been interpreted several ways: (1) Scripture should be interpreted only in context, that is, a prophecy cannot stand alone without other prophecies to aid in its understanding. (2) Scripture should not be interpreted according to one’s own individual liking. (3) Scripture cannot be correctly interpreted without the Holy Spirit. (4) The prophecies did not originate with the prophets themselves. (Walvoord and Zuck 1985, Logos Bible CD)

            This first view (i.e. Scripture interprets Scripture) is the view of J. Vernon McGee, who states, "What Peter is saying here is that no portion of the Scripture is to be interpreted apart from other references to the same subject." (McGee 1983, 728)

            The second view is demonstrated by The Preachers Outline and Study Bible when it says, "Scripture is not of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21). What does this mean? 2 Peter 1:21 tells us. Men cannot interpret Scripture as they want." (Leadership Ministries Worldwide 1995, 173)

            An example of the 3^rd position can be found in the exegesis portion of The Interpreter’s Bible, which says about 2 Peter 1:20, "Since prophecy never came by the impulse of man, it cannot be a matter of one’s own interpretation." (Buttrick et al 1957, 185) The exposition portion of The Interpreter’s Bible gives some further clarification to the position:

No interpretation of prophecy is valid unless it is given in the power of the Spirit. Prophecy is a unique work among men. Peter provides us with no indication as to how the Spirit inspires or interprets prophecy, but he does insist that the prophets were moved by the Spirit; and because that is so, those who interpret what they prophesied cannot understand what they prophesied without the Spirit’s aid. (Buttrick et al 1957, 185)

            Wayne Grudem, however, believes that the fourth view is the most likely interpretation:

The verse says, "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation," and someone may claim that this means that ordinary believers are unable to interpret Scripture rightly for themselves. It is unlikely, however, that this implication should be drawn from 2 Peter 1:20, for the verse is probably discussing the origin and not the interpretation of Scripture. (Grudem 1994, 107)

            Some of the confusion comes from the word that is translated as "interpretation" in verse 20. This word (epilusis) is a noun that is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. However, it is used as a verb (epiluo) in Mark 4:34. In this verse, the meaning of the word is "to solve, explain, expound" and is thus translated "expounded ". (Vine 1981, 403)

            Richard De Haan believes that this particular verse (1 Peter 1:20) should not be translated using the word "interpretation". His reasoning is that the word "epilusis" is used in Acts 19:39 and is translated "be determined". It carries the meaning of a decision to be made in a court of law. Therefore, he believes that a better rendering of the verse is, "no prophecy of Scripture is of its own unfolding". (De Haan 1967, 55)

            De Haan then continues by giving several reasons to support his view against the use of the word "interpretation". First, he says that the grammar and context of the passage do not support the use of the word interpretation. "In the preceding paragraph, Peter was not discussing Bible interpretation, but the origin and trustworthiness of the message he and the other apostles had proclaimed." (De Haan 1967, 56)

Secondly, he argues that according to the rules of Greek grammar, the phrase "no Scripture is of its own unfolding" belongs with what precedes it, not what comes after it. (De Haan 1967, 56)

            The editors of The New Bible Commentary agree that the view that this passage is talking about the interpretation of Scripture is unwarranted. "This strains the verb here into an unnatural meaning, and it seems better to understand the reference to the origin rather than the understanding of Scripture." (Guthrie et al 1970, 1254)

            That this passage is talking about the divine origin of Scripture fits the context of the passage as well. In verse 21, Peter writes, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

            The word translated "moved" in verse 21 comes from the Greek word "pheromenoi", which means to bring, bear, bring forth, come, reach, endure, carry. (Vine 1981, 771) This same word is used in Acts 2:2 to describe the rushing wind of the Spirit which filled the house. The word is sometimes used to describe the wind that fills the sails of a ship and thus moves it. McGee describes it this way:

The Greek actually portrays the idea of a sailing vessel. The wind gets into those great sails, bellies them out, and moves the ship along. That is the way the Holy Spirit moved these men. (McGee 1983, 729)

            Erickson pulls the data together and sums it up nicely:

Here Peter is affirming that the prophecies of the Old Testament were not of human origin. They were not produced by human will or decision. Rather they were moved or borne along (pheromenoi) by the Spirit of God. The impetus that led to the writing was from the Holy Spirit. (Erickson 1998, 227)

Not only does the origin position fit with the meaning of the word "moved" in verse 21, but it also fits the context of the next chapter. Remember that Peter is contrasting the truthfulness of His message with the heresies of the false prophets which he mentions in 2 Peter 2:1. This point is made well in Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

No scripture prophecy is of private interpretation (or a man’s own proper opinion, an explication of his own mind), but the revelation of the mind of God. This was the difference between the prophets of the Lord and the false prophets who have been in the world. (Henry 1991, CD ROM)

Additionally, Peter has just mentioned in verse 16 that "we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". Peter seems to be implying that the false prophets make up "cleverly devised tales" that originate in their own minds. However, their (the prophets) message is from the Lord because they have been "moved by the Holy Spirit", speaking the words of God.

Conclusion

            De Haan makes a convincing argument with the aforementioned information, when he says:

In the context of this statement, Peter did not mention interpretation. Instead, he referred to the prophecies of the Old Testament, which he declared had come into being by the work of the Holy Spirit, who directed and controlled men of God as they wrote. John Calvin said in his commentary on 2 Peter, "They [the prophets] did not blab their inventions of their own accord or according to their own judgments." They waited on the Lord for information and His enabling power to put His thoughts into verbal form. This is in contrast to the false prophets of their day, who made up what they would say. (De Haan 1967, 57)

The context and the grammar of the passage seem to support the view that Peter is writing about the origin of Scripture. False prophets speak "cleverly devised tales" which originate in their own minds. Scripture, on the other hand, is spoken by God as he moves through holy men. Hence, Scripture doesn’t originate in the minds of an individual (unlike the prophecies of false prophets), but it originates in the mouth of God who moves via the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of men.

REFERENCE LIST

1977. The New American Standard Bible. La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation.

1995. The Preachers Outline & Study Bible. Leadership Ministries Worldwide.

Buttrick, George Arthur, Walter Russell Bowie, Paul Scherer, John Knox, Samuel Terrien, and Nolan B. Harmon. 1957. The Interpreter’s Bible. New York: Abingdon Press

De Haan, Richard W. 1967. Studies in Second Peter. Wheaton: Victor Books.

Erickson, Millard J. 1998. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Guthrie, D., J.A. Motyer, A.M. Stibbs, and D.J. Wisemen. 1970. The New Bible Commentary: Revised. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Henry, Matthew. 1991. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.

McGee, J. Vernon. 1983. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee: Volume V. Pasadena: Thru the Bible Radio.

Strong, James. 1990. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers

Vine, W.E. 1981. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.

Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck. 1985. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.