2 Peter 1:20

2Pe_1:20-21

No prophecy … is of any private interpretation.

On the indiscreet application of Scriptural prophecy

As the term prophecy is here used without any limitation, it seems clearly designed to comprehend all those prophetical enunciations which have been vouchsafed by the Holy Spirit of God. All such prophecy is a light vouchsafed to man from the great Source of all light and all knowledge. But it is a light purposely shaded at first with some obscurity; it shines only as in a dark place until the day of its fulfilment shall dawn. The epithet here applied to prophecy is rendered in our translation more sure, but it would be more correctly rendered more firm, more constant, more enduring. Prophecy affords a more firm and enduring evidence than miracles, inasmuch as it has a slow and gradual development, unfolding its proofs more clearly and completely as ages roll on; its light shines forth to the eyes of men with a fuller and brighter lustre in proportion as the veil is withdrawn from futurity. When miracles are no longer vouchsafed for the confirmation of the truth, prophecy becomes, by the lapse of time, a more powerful and convincing head of evidence as it is proved, by the course of events, to be really prophecy. And thus may it be said that in the more clear and full development of one species of evidence we have a growing compensation for whatever may be conceived to be lost by the lapse of time to the strength, or clearness, or fulness of the other. To this word of prophecy, he says, ye do well that ye take heed, that ye pay the serious attention which it deserves; but he cautions them first, before they do so, to know, to recollect, to bear in mind that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. The apostle intends to caution his disciples against the hasty, fanciful, and inconsiderate interpretation of all Scriptural prophecy. Our attention then becomes directed by these words to a subject of great importance--the indiscreet application of the prophetical parts of Scripture. Now undoubtedly we may trace one fruitful source of this practice to the propensity which prevails with all of us to magnify and exaggerate everything that passes within the narrow sphere of our immediate observation. As in the objects presented to our bodily senses, that which stands immediately before us absorbs the greatest portion of our attention and precludes the sight of others that are more distant. Misled by these false and prejudiced views, individuals have been easily carried away with the notion that the occurrences of their own little day and contracted sphere of observation are of sufficient distinction to be made the specific subject of Scriptural prophecy. But operating in unison with this undue appreciation of the importance of events which are present have been an over-forward disposition to display superior penetration and ingenuity amongst those who interpret prophecy, and credulous superstition and prying curiosity amongst those who believe their interpretations. Now in the case of the prophecies contained in Scripture a peculiarly tempting field is opened for those persons who are given to these adventurous speculations. But it is of far less importance to inquire into the causes which have led to the indiscreet application of Scriptural prophecies, or to detail what has taken place in times past, than to endeavour to repress the practice by pointing out the injury which it must ever cause to the general interests of religion and to the authority of the Christian records. Now the principal evil which must with too great certainty be derived from this practice is that of exciting a general prejudice against the truth of all Scriptural prophecies. When different persons are found, many of sufficient credit for learning and acuteness, eagerly and confidently applying the prophecies to events widely different, what impression must be made on the public at large, on those who form their judgment of these matters at a distance and without paying close and accurate attention to them? The inference will too obviously be that the prophecies of Scripture may be turned to any sense at the will of the interpreter. Nor, if such an imputation be cast on the prophetical parts of Scripture, will the cause of revelation in general wholly escape. Or, if the credit of Scripture be saved, it will be saved only at the expense of the veracity and good faith of those who attempt these interpretations. While so much positive evil results from the licence, which has been too often assumed, of hazarding, on light grounds and hasty views, novel interpretations of Scriptural prophecy, the most powerful of all arguments is afforded by this consideration to induce all persons who feel the reverence due to the inspired Word of God to abstain most carefully from this indiscreet practice. Prophecy was not given to gratify the prying curiosity of men ever anxious to dive into the recesses of futurity, nor to exercise their forward ingenuity in searching out new interpretations which might arrest the attention of the public. It was designed for a more availing, a greater, and a nobler purpose--for the purpose of affording to the truth of Christianity its growing testimony, which might be unfolded by degrees and open fresh conviction on the mind as the revolutions of time should produce its gradual accomplishment. Consistently with this purpose, a certain degree of obscurity was unavoidable. Under these views of the real character and true intent of Scriptural prophecy, let it be hoped that the interpretation of it will never be attempted carelessly and lightly from any private motive of exhibiting penetration and ingenuity, but only from the deliberate consideration of what may conduce to the right understanding and elucidation of it. (G. DOyly, D. D.)

Holy men of God spake as they were moved.

The inspiration, conscription, and exposition of Scripture

The apostle had formerly commended reading of the prophets by the benefit of them; now in reading them he gives warning from the difficulty of understanding them. There often lies a deep and hidden sense under a familiar and easy sentence. Let not men rush into their exposition, like hasty soldiers into a thicket, without seeking direction from the captain. When we come to read them we must subject ourselves to the government of the Spirit.

I. The inspiration from God. It was not a vision of their own heads, but they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1. Consider the infallible completion of things long before prophesied in their due seasons (1Ki_13:2).

2. Consider that their being hath continued from Moses unto this day. This is miraculous--that in so great hurly-burlies and alterations they should not be lost!

3. That the scope of it should be to build up no worldly thing, but only the kingdom of heaven, and to direct us to Jesus Christ.

4. That it should pass with credit through the whole world, and find approbation of all languages, nations, and places, and where it meets with oppositions should make way through them as thunder through the clouds.

5. That the Hebrew tongue, wherein the Old Testament was written, doth so excel all tongues, in antiquity, sanctity, majesty.

6. The majesty of the style, which yet is not only powerful in words, but effectual in working (Heb_4:12).

7. From the very baseness of falsehood, we learn to admire the lustre of truth. To disgrace and weaken the credit of the Scriptures Satan had his poets and fabulists, whose mythologies were obtruded for true reports.

8. This is an argument of the finger of God and supernatural power in Holy Writ, that the penners of it renounced all affectation and delivered the true message even against then own reputations.

II. The conscription. Although not by the will of man, yet was it done by the hand of man.

1. Men. Why did not God choose some other nature of greater authority and credit?

(1) That no glory might be ascribed to the means (2Co_4:7).

(2) In commiseration of mans weakness (Exo_20:19).

(3) For the security of our souls. If our preacher were an angel, Satan could transform himself into that shape.

(4) In fit respondence to the work of our redemption (Act_3:22).

2. Men of God. This is an ancient attribute (1Ki_17:18; 1Ti_6:11; 2Ti_3:17). But especially they are called men of God because their dispensation comes from God (1Co_2:13).

3. Holy men. The Lord who sent them qualified them.

III. The exposition, which is by no private spirit, but by the Holy Spirits illumination of mans mind and directing the Church. He that expounds the Scripture upon the warrant of his own spirit only doth lay the brands of the fire together without the tongs, and is sure at least to burn his own fingers. (Thos. Adams.)

The Bible

That is the Scriptural way of stating the great doctrine that the Bible is inspired, that the Bible is the Word of God. And you remark the grand simplicity and directness of the statement. The Holy Spirit speaks to us in Holy Scripture: we can understand that; let us hold by that. How He does so is not revealed, and so we cannot tell. We are all well assured that the supernatural influences of that Divine Spirit do still, in every Christian man and woman, weave in with the natural workings of soul and mind, of heart and head. When the Blessed Spirit helps us to pray He avails Himself of our natural faculties--of our memory, of our perception of things which may befall us, of our capacity of feeling, trusting, and loving. The prayer is the prayer of the Holy Spirit; but it is also the individual and characteristic prayer of this man, of that woman, of that little child. It is exactly so with that rarer gift which we call inspiration, as with the sanctifying, comforting, prayer-prompting communications for which ordinary Christians ask and look day by day. You know how the inspired writers of the Bible retain their individuality. St. Paul does not write like St. John; St. Luke writes quite differently from either, and St. Peter from all three. And yet do you not feel that there is a something which belongs to all of the many men that wrote the Bible 9 One Breath has breathed upon them, one Hand has touched them all! In a certain loose way we may speak of the inspiration of the poet, the orator, the painter; and it would be mere pedantry to quarrel with s phrase so well understood in the main. But never forget that differing not in degree but in kind--differing essentially, vitally, altogether--is the true, holy, Divine inspiration of the men who wrote the Bible. And we are to distinguish likewise between the supreme inspiration thus described and the ordinary and still-continuing gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is a wide difference between that guidance which you and I may get for the asking and the true inspiration of those few among our race concerning whom St. Peter tells us that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And now, having said so much as to the nature of the inspiration of the Bible, let me suggest some thoughts upon Gods Word generally. The Bible, remember, is the Word of God. It not merely contains the Word of God, as in some sense all things do, for the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork; it is the Word of God. It is the flower and crown of all Gods revelation to man: everything that we can read, or fancy we read, on the pages of Nature or Providence we find far more plainly stated in the Bible. And we find a vast deal more. We find there things most needful to salvation, about which earth and sea and stars are dumb. Even the lesser characteristics of the Bible are noteworthy. The very language of this blessed book is such as wonderfully suits its claim to be Gods message to all races and tongues. The Bible bears translation into other languages as no other book does. It is at home, and at its ease, in all languages. You hear it said that there is no more remarkable miracle of skill than the language of our English Bible, which is indeed the standard of perfection in our tongue. But there is something more in this than the industry, tact, scholarship of the translators. Surely it is that when the Holy Ghost used holy men of old to write Gods message to all human beings, He moved them so to write it in such tongues and in such words as would bear, as human words never did, to be rendered into the mother tongue of every being who has speech and reason. And then how this wonderful volume suits all men in matters more vital than its language! There are extraordinary national differences in ways of thinking and feeling, and extraordinary differences in such things between the people of different times and ages. And yet this wonderful book, dealing as it does throughout just with religious faith and feeling, suits man wherever you find him, comes home alike to Eastern and Western nations, never gets out of date, never is outgrown by the increasing intelligence of educated men, and expresses no feeling in which all Christian people cannot sympathise. How it suits all our moods, all our circumstances! In every state of thought and feeling we find what we want in the Bible. And just remember, too, what is the secret of the Bibles so coming home to all. It is not a question, here, of those intuitions of moral truth which, when we read or hear them, make us say, Now that is true, or even say, We have often thought that ourselves, though we never heard it expressed before. The Bible comes home to all, because it treats of great facts which we never could have found out, yet which, when told, commend themselves, not to sensibility, not to taste, not even to intellect merely, but to our conscience and heart, to our deepest and most solemn convictions of what is Divine and right and true! Therefore it is that the little volume is the first prized possession of childhood, and old people have it in their hands to the last; therefore it goes into the soldiers knapsack; therefore the aged statesman and judge would read it like a little child; therefore you find it under the pillow of the dying, wet with tears. (A. K. H. Boyd, D. D.)

The plenary inspiration of the Scriptures

That the book which we emphatically call the Bible was written by the inspiration of suggestion.

I. Let us inquire what is to be understood by the inspiration of suggestion. Some suppose there are three kinds of inspiration, which they distinguish from each other by calling the first the inspiration of superintendency, the second the inspiration of elevation, and the third the inspiration of suggestion.

1. It was necessary that the sacred penman should be conscious of Divine inspiration all the while they were writing. It was not sufficient for them barely to know that they began to write under the influence of the Spirit. For nothing short of a constant realising sense of His motion and direction, could give them full assurance that what they wrote was the infallible Word of God, which they might honestly present to the world under the sanction of Divine authority.

2. The Supreme Being was as able to afford them the highest as the lowest kind of inspiration.

3. That the sacred penmen were utterly incapable of writing such a book as the Bible without the constant guidance of the Holy Ghost.

4. To suppose that they sometimes wrote without the inspiration of suggestion, is the same as to suppose that they sometimes wrote without any inspiration at all. The distinguishing of inspiration into three kinds is a mere human invention, which has no foundation in Scripture or reason. And those who make this distinction appear to amuse themselves and others with words without ideas.

5. That the sacred penmen profess to have written the Scriptures under the immediate and constant guidance of the Holy Ghost.

II. It may be proper to take particular notice of the most weighty objections which may be made against the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.

1. It may be said there appears a great diversity in the manner and style of the sacred penmen, which cannot be easily reconciled with the supposition of their being equally and constantly guided by the inspiration of suggestion. It is true, indeed, we plainly discover some variety in the manner and style of the sacred writers. But this is easy to account for, by only supposing that God dictated to each sacred penman a manner and style corresponding to his own peculiar genius, education, and manner of living. But on the other hand, we find a much greater similarity in their manner and style than could be reasonably expected on supposition of their writing agreeably to their own genius and taste, without the suggesting influences of the Spirit.

2. It may be said that the mistakes and contradictions to be found in the Scriptures plainly refute the notion of their being written under the inspiration of suggestion. To this it may be replied in general, that most of the supposed mistakes and contradictions to be found in the Scriptures may be only apparent, and so might be fully removed, if we were better acquainted with the original languages in which the sacred books were written, and with the customs and manners of the different ages and places in which the sacred penmen lived. But the direct and decisive answer to this objection is that it operates with equal force against every kind of inspiration.

3. It may be said, since God originally intended that the Bible should be transcribed by different hands and translated into different languages, there was no occasion for His suggesting every thought and word to the sacred penmen; because, after all, their writings must be subject to human defects and imperfections. It is sufficient to observe here that every transcription and translation is commonly more or less perfect, in proportion to the greater or less perfection of the original. And since the Scriptures were designed to be often transcribed and translated, this made it more necessary, instead of less, that they should be written, at first, with peculiar accuracy and precision.

4. It may be said that the Apostle Paul seems to acknowledge, in 1Co_7:1-40., that he wrote some things in that chapter according to his own private opinion, without the aid or authority of a plenary inspiration. In one verse he says, I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. And in another verse he says, To the rest speak I, not the Lord. If we understand these expressions literally, then we must suppose that the apostle and all the other sacred penmen always wrote under a plenary inspiration, only when they gave intimations to the contrary. But we find no such notice given, except in the chapter under consideration; and therefore we may justly conclude that all the other parts of Scripture were written by the immediate inspiration of God. But if, in the second place, we understand the apostle as speaking ironically in the verses before us, then his expressions will carry no idea of his writing without Divine aid and authority. And there is some ground to understand his words in this sense. There is, how ever, a third answer to this objection, which appears to be the most satisfactory; and that is this: the apostle is here speaking upon the subject of marriage; and he intimates that he has more to say upon this subject than either the prophets or Christ had said upon it. Accordingly he says, I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. To the rest speak I, not the Lord. By these expressions he means to distinguish what he said from what other inspired teachers had said upon the same subject. On the whole there appears no solid objection against the plenary inspiration of any part of the Sacred Scriptures; but, on the other hand, every argument which proves them to be partly, equally proves them to be altogether, given by the immediate inspiration of God. Improvement:

1. If the Bible contains the very ideas and sentiments which were immediately suggested to the sacred pen men by the Divine Spirit, then great caution and circumspection ought to be used in explaining Scripture. The words of Scripture may not be lightly altered, nor expunged, nor supplied, nor wrested from their plain and obvious meaning according to the connection in which they stand.

2. If the Divine Spirit suggested every word and thought to the holy pemnen, then it is not strange that they did not understand their own writings. These the apostle tells us, in our context, they did not under stand. They might, by the aid of the Spirit, write precepts, predictions, promises, and theatenings, of whose import they were ignorant, that would be very intelligible and very useful in future ages. They wrote not for themselves, but for others; not for present, but future times. And this affords an additional evidence of the plenary inspiration of all the sacred writings.

3. If the Bible was written under the inspiration of suggestion, then it is an infallible rule of faith, and the only standard by which to try our religious sentiments.

4. If holy men of old wrote as they were moved by God, then it is reasonable to expect that the Bible should bear clear and strong marks of its Divine author. Accordingly, when we look into the Bible, we find the image and superscription of the Deity on every page. It displays all the perfections of God.

5. If the Bible be the immediate revelation of Gods mind and will to men, then it is a most precious book.

6. If the Bible contains the mind and will of God, then all who enjoy it may know in this world what will be their state in the next. It clearly describes both heaven and hell, and the terms upon which we may obtain the one and escape the other.

7. If the Bible be indeed the Word of God, then it is not strange that it has had such a great influence over the minds of men. (N. Emmons, D. D.)

An inspired definition of inspiration

Men spake--from God (R.V.). It is a definition of inspiration. A definition simple, precise, exhaustive. Men spoke--spoke, without ceasing to be men; spoke with all those characteristics of phrase and style, of thought and mind, of position and history which mark and make the man; yet spoke from God, with a message and mission, under an influence and an impulse, a control and a suggestion, which gave to the word spoken a force and a fire, a touch and a contact, a sight and an insight, unlike other utterances because of a breath of God in it, the God of the spirits of all flesh. Men spake. Human beings, St. Peter says--the men is emphatic. Shall we blame those who, first of all, would ask, Who? would busy themselves in the endeavour, by examination and comparison, to learn what can be learnt of the authorship of particular books; and would then go on to ask, What? in other words, to bring every appliance, of manuscript and version and ancient quotation, to bear upon the text of Scripture. Inquiries like these are only for the learned. But let us, who can but look on or listen, at least refrain from denunciations of a process for which we ought to have the deepest respect. Men spake. And does not St. Peter as good as say, And remained men in the speaking? Where is the authority for supposing that the inspiring Spirit levelled the intellects, obliterated the characteristics, overwhelmed the peculiarities, of the several writers? Men spake. And one of them has told us how. By a careful investigation of various writings going before, and an earnest endeavour to arrange in their true order the facts of the history which he was to chronicle. Men spake--and men wrote--and they were men still. Matters which toil and pains could ascertain--matters which lay in the province of intellect, whether in the way of research or in the way of discovery--matters for which God had provided the instrument of knowledge in the human being as by Him created, even though ages and generations might come and go before the actual knowledge was made his own--on these things inspiration was silent. Men spake, and in speaking were men still. Even their message, even the thing they were sent to tell, must be expressed in terms of human speech, through a medium therefore of adaptation and accommodation, Men spake--from God. Moved by the Holy Ghost. The two halves of the text are dependent upon each other. Not angels--or they had no sympathetic, no audible voice for man. Not machines--or speech (which is, by definition, intelligence in communication) had been a contradiction in terms. These human beings spake from God; for He had something to say, and to say to man. There is something which God only can say. There is something which reason cannot say, nor experience, nor discovery, nor the deepest insight, nor the happiest guessing, nor the most sagacious foresight. There is a world of heaven, which flesh and blood cannot penetrate. There is a world of spirit, impervious even to mind. There is a world beyond death, between which and the living there is an impassable gulf fixed. More than this--there is a world of cause and consequence, which no moralist can connect or piece together. There is a world of providence, which gives no account of itself to the observer. More yet than this. There is a fact of sin, inherited and handed on, working everywhere in hearts and lives, spoiling Gods work and ruining mans welfare. Who can tell, concerning this, whether indeed there is any recovery from this deep, this terrible, this fatal fall? And yet man needs to hear of these things. And confess now, you who have gone with us thus far, how utterly beside the mark of such a work as this would have been an inspiration of science, or an inspiration of geography, or an inspiration of history, or an inspiration of geology, astronomy, botany, or chemistry. Men spake, and they spake from God. He had that to tell which men by searching could not find out. He set this human being to tell it to his fellows. But oh, trust God to do the right thing! Do not mistrust Him, and summon Him to the bar of your poor intellect every time that you cannot quite see what He was about. How can you account for a slaughter of twenty thousand men in one tiny battlefield in Beth-horon or on Mount Ephraim? how can you explain the dumb ass speaking with mans voice, and Samuel coming up again at the bidding of the witch of Endor, etc. Say, if you are wise, with the three Israelites to King Nebuchadnezzar, I am not careful to answer thee in this matter. Men spake--and, while they spake, they were men still. But they spake from God--and what they said from Him was truth and nothing but truth, and in it, thus spoken, is the very light of my life. Never will I part with that light till I reach a world which no longer wants it, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the light thereof. (Dean Vaughan.)

.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Pe 1:20-21. Knowing this first — That you may not rashly or ignorantly put a sense upon any part of the prophetic writings, not intended by the Divine Spirit which dictated them; that no prophecy of the Scripture — No prediction contained therein; is of any private interpretation — Greek, ιδιας επιλυσεως, an expression of which various interpretations have been given, but only two of them shall be here noticed; namely, Doddridge’s, who renders it, of private impulse, or original; and Macknight’s, who reads, of private invention. But certainly no such sense can, with propriety, be forced upon the words: and why should it? Why should not the literal signification of them be acquiesced in? namely, that given in our translation. For surely no prophecy of Scripture, and hardly any doctrine, precept, or promise thereof, will or can be properly or fully understood by any man, let his natural abilities be what they may, without supernatural light from God, without the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, Eph 1:17. For, as the apostle argues, 1Co 2:11; 1Co 2:14, (where see the notes,) as a man could not understand the things that belong to human nature, if he had not a human spirit in him, so the things of God, divine things, knoweth no man, clearly and fully, but by the illumination of the Spirit of God, which must be sought by sincere, fervent, importunate, persevering prayer. In other words, No man’s private natural reason will enable him to understand the Scriptures, and the truths which they contain, properly and fully, and especially to relish, love, and delight in them, without the guidance of that Spirit which dictated them. And if this be true respecting the Scriptures in general, it is particularly so with regard to the prophetic writings; for prophecy especially came not of old by the will of man — Of any man’s own will or pleasure. No true prophet either prophesied when he pleased or what he pleased. But holy men of God — The penmen of the sacred Scriptures; spake — Uttered their predictions or recorded them; as they were moved by the Holy Ghost — By an extraordinary impulse of the Divine Spirit, whose organs only they were in declaring what he was pleased to suggest to them; and what he moved, and enabled them to communicate, he must enable us to understand and profit by.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:20-21 came from the prophet’s own understanding (or is a matter of one’s own interpretation): The point is probably that the prophets were not left on their own to interpret the visions that God gave them. God made the meaning clear to the prophets, so that they could prophesy clearly and reliably.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2Pe 1:20. Τοῦτο, this) The reason of the phrase, ye do well, inasmuch as ye know this.—πρῶτον) before I speak: German, vorhin, before. Thus ch. 2Pe 3:3. In these Epistles, Peter does not teach, but reminds.—προφητεία γραφῆς) prophecy, which is contained in the body of Scripture.—ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται, does not become of private interpretation) ἐπίλυσις from ἐπιλύω, to explain; Mar 4:34; Act 19:39. פתר some Greek versions render ἐπέλυσε, Gen 41:12. As the sight of the apostles is opposed to cunningly devised fables, so φορὰ, the motion or inspiration of the prophets, is opposed to private interpretation. Therefore that is called ἐπίλυσις, or interpretation, by which the prophets themselves opened to mortals things which were before altogether shut up. Prophecy is not at first of man, nor does it ever so far depart from itself as to begin to be the word of private, that is, of human interpretation (ἐπιλύσεως), but it is altogether of Divine unfolding or revelation, and is known to be so in its results and issue; and it even becomes more firm. So for, 2Pe 1:21, agrees with this.—οὐ γίνεται, does not become) That which has once been truly spoken by the prophets, remains truth even to the present day. A lamp is not the day; but still it prevails over the darkness.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Pe_1:20. τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες] τοῦτο refers not to anything said before, but to the clause following: ὅτι κ.τ.λ.; cf. chap. 2Pe_3:3.

πρῶτον, i. q. πρῶτον πάντων, 1Ti_2:1; erroneously Bengel: prius quam ego dico, anglicé: before that.

γινώσκοντες: whilst ye recognise, bring yourselves to the conscious knowledge that (de Wette); cf. Jam_1:3; Heb_10:34. Without any warrant Pott supplies δέ, and takes the participle as equivalent to δεῖ γινώσκειν ὑμᾶς; the participle, as such, is rather to be joined closely to καλ. ποιεῖτε προσέχ. By τοῦτο πρ. γιν. the author directs the attention of his readers to the point to which they in their προσέχειν (2Pe_1:19) should pay special attention; what that is the words following say: ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία … γίνεται; πᾶσα … οὐ is a Hebraism for οὐδεμία, cf. Rom_3:20; 1Co_1:29, etc. προφητεία γραφῆς is undoubtedly to be understood of the prediction of the Old Testament, either the prophecy contained in Scripture, or that to which the Scripture gives expression. For the construction of γίνεται c. gen., cf. Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 244]; Buttm. p. 142; according to Buttmann, the genitive definition of the thing with εἶναι or γίνεσθαι frequently denotes a permanent attribute; thus here: prophecy is of such a kind that it, etc.; the more precise definition depends on the meaning of the words: ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως. Instead of ἐπιλύσεως, Grotius would read: ἐπηλύσεως, and Heinsius: ἐπελεύσεως, so that the sense would be: the προφητεία non est res proprii impetus s. instinctus; but these changes have been justly rejected by Wolf already as arbitrary. Not less unwarranted is it to understand, with Hammond, ἐπίλυσις originally de emissione cursorum e carceribus, deducing therefrom the thought: that the prophets non a se, sed a Deo missi currerent; or, with Clericus: de solutione oris; or, with Lakemacher, to derive ἐπίλυσις from ἐπιλεύθω (ἐπέρχομαι), instead of from ἐπιλύειν, thus obtaining the idea: that prophecy is not accessus proprie aut talis, quae virtute quadam mentis humanae propria et naturali proveniat et ad hominem quasi accedat (cf. Wolf in loc.). The notion that ἐπίλυσις is equal to dissolutio (Hardt: omnis promissio non est dissolutionis sed indissolubilis, immutabilis, etc.; similarly Storr, Opp. II. 391 ff.) has been refuted already by Wolf.

ἐπίλυσις means: solution, explanation, interpretation; thus Mar_4:34 : ἐπιλύειν; Gen_40:8, Aquila: ἐπιλυόμενος (כֹּתֵר), ἐπίλυσις (פִּתְתוֹן); Gen_41:12, LXX., according to some codd.: τὰ ἐνύπνια ἡμῶν, ἀνδρὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐνύπνιον αὐτοῦ ἐπέλυσεν, Phil. de vita contempl. p. 901 A.

Almost all expositors understand ἐπίλυσις as the interpretation of the προφητεία made aforetime; but ἰδίας, however, has been variously applied(1) It has been taken to refer to the προφητεία itself; Werenfels (cf. Wolf): προφητεία οὐκ ἔχει τὴν ἑαυτῆς ἐπίλυσιν, that is, οὐκ ἐπιλύει ἑαυτήν; thus also Wahl, Dietlein, Brückner. The positive idea here to be supplied is: but the interpretation is to be looked for only from God (Brückner; Dietlein arbitrarily finds the further idea contained here, that prophecy must not be treated as allegory). (2) To the prophets themselves; Oecumenius: ᾔδεσαν (οἱ προφῆται) μὲν καὶ συνίεσαν τὸν καταπεμπόμενον αὐτοῖς προφητικὸν λόγον, οὐ μέντοι καὶ τὴν ἐπίλυσιν αὐτοῦ ἐποιοῦντο (similarly Knapp, de Wette); and the thought to be supplied here is: the interpretation is then not an easy, but a difficult matter (de Wette: the author makes this remark in order to excuse the difficulty of the interpretation, and to take away the pretext for unbelief or scoffing). (3) To the readers or to man generally. This is the view most generally adopted; it is that of Beda, Erasmus, Luther, Aretius, Gerhard, Pott, Steiger, Schmid, Besser, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, etc.; and the positive thought to be supplied is: only the Holy Spirit can expound the prediction (Luther: act accordingly, and do not think that you can interpret Scripture according to your own reason or cunning; Peter has forbidden it, you are not to interpret, the Holy Spirit must interpret, or it must remain uninterpreted). But opposed to all these interpretations is(1) The necessity of supplying the positive thought which really contains the point of the remark, but to which the apostle does not give expression; (2) The connection of thought, according to which 2Pe_1:20 is subjoined as a confirmation of the ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες. If the thought here expressed were intended to give a caution with respect to the προσέχειν, or to form, as Wiesinger says, a condition preliminary and necessary to it, this must in some way have been referred to. Besides, it must be noted that εἶναι or γίνεσθαι, c. gen., implies a relation of dependence, and in such a way that the genitive denotes that on which something else depends.[55] Now it may, indeed, be said that the understanding of prophecy, but not that prophecy itself, depends on the interpretation of it. The rendering: prophecy is not a matter of private interpretation (or even: it does not permit of private interpretation, Hofmann), takes too little account of the force of the genitive.[56] For these reasons ἘΠΊΛΥΣΙς must necessarily be understood rather of an interpretation on which the ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΊΑ is based, on which it depends. But this is the explanation of the problematic future itself, or of the figure under which it presented itself to the prophets (thus, too, Gerlach and Fronmüller).[57] The passage above cited makes the matter clear. Gen_40:8 : the words, in which Joseph predicted to the prisoners what lay before them, form the προφητεία; this presupposes an ἐπίλυσις, interpretation, of the dream by Joseph, and of this Joseph says that it belongs to God. Thus, too, he speaks to Pharaoh: the interpretation is not in me, Gen_41:15-16; cf. Dan. chap. 2

The thought accordingly is this: no prophecy of Scripture arises out of, or depends on, private (of him who utters the prophecy) interpretation of the future. Taken thus, the verse stands in close and correct connection both with what precedes, for it states why the λόγ. προφ. is βέβαιος whereunto it is right to take heed, as unto a light in a dark place (namely, because it is based on no human interpretation); and at the same time with what follows, which serves to explain and confirm the thought (inasmuch as it more precisely defines the idea, and by the positive statement confirms the negation).[58] Brückner incorrectly, therefore, objects to this interpretation, that although it may be in harmony with 2Pe_1:21, it cannot with propriety be connected with 2Pe_1:19; and if Brückner and Wiesinger further urge against it that it arbitrarily supplies the object of ἐπίλυσις, it must be replied, that object is rather supplied of itself out of the connection with προφητεία. The present γίνεται alone seems to be inappropriate, but this may be explained by supposing that the thought is conceived in the form of a general statement; this Brückner has recognised, whilst Wiesinger leaves it unnoticed.[59]

[55] Certainly, also, the above construction can merely express the relation of belonging to, as in Heb_12:11; but in that passage the ideas παιδεία and χαρᾶς (λύπης) stand in an altogether different relation to each other, from that in which προφητεία here stands to ἐπίλυσις.

[56] Hofmanns remark is indeed very apodictic, that the first of these counter reasons is null, and that accordingly the second is so too, because τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες means a perception, which must be combined with the attending to the word of prophecy … but a perception, the substance of which could only be expressed negatively, because meant only to guard the prophecy against an interpretation brought about by the conclusions of the individual intellect; but the objection to this is the same as that to the second counter reason above. If the author wished the τοῦτο … γινώσκοντες to be understood in the sense of guarding against, he would at least have added a δέ.It is not easy to understand why the author, if he had wished to express the thought which his words are supposed to contain, did not write: ὅτι ἐπίλυσις προφητείας οὐ γίνεται ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, or something similar.

[57] Bengels interpretation is similar: ἐπίλυσις dicitur interpretation, qua ipsi prophetae res antea plane clausas aperuere mortalibus, only that here no definite distinction is drawn between προφ. and ἐπίλυσις.

[58] On the other hand, in the usual way of understanding this passage, ver. 21 is most inappropriately connected with ver. 20, since no explanation is given of the idea that the interpretation of the prophecy, because it is not the work of man, can only be expected from the Holy Spirit.

[59] Steinfass thinks that the author refers to Daniel, chap. 12., and that ἐπίλυσις means the answer given in ver. 12 to Daniels question in ver. 8, by which the indefinite statement of time is definitely fixed. This singular opinion is, however, contradicted by the single expression πᾶσα.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Pe 1:20 . τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες . “Recognising this truth above all else” (in your reading of Scripture). The False Teachers appealed to the O.T. scriptures in support of their doctrine. ὅτι πᾶσα … οὐ γίνεται . πᾶσα … οὐ need not be regarded as a Hebraism. It is as normal as in 1Jn 2:21 , Joh 3:16 . ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως . This passage is a noted crux. (1) Hardt, followed by Lange, Spitta and others interpret ἐπιλυς . = dissolutio . “No prophecy of S. is of such a kind that it can be annulled”. But no satisfactory instance of ἐπιλυς . in this sense can be adduced. (2) Accepting the sense of ἰδ . ἐπιλ . = “private,” or “human interpretation,” Von Soden sees a reference to the methods of the false teachers in their attitude to Scripture ( cf. 2Pe 1:16 , 2Pe 2:1 ). ἰδίας “is opposed to the φωνὴ ἐνεχθεῖσα of 2Pe 1:17 ”. (3) It seems most satisfactory to understand ἰδ . ἐπιλ . as the meaning of the prophet himself, or what was in the prophet’s mind when he wrote; the fulfilment in any particular generation or epoch. “The special work of the prophet is to interpret the working of God to his own generation. But in doing this, he is laying down the principles of God’s action generally. Hence there may be many fulfilments of one prophecy, or to speak more exactly, many historical illustrations of some one principle of Providential Government” (Mayor, p. 196). The genitive ἐπιλύσεως is gen. of definition and not of origin. “No prophecy is of such a nature as to be capable of a particular interpretation.”

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Prophets are to be read, but so that we ask of God the gift of interpretation: for he that is the author of the writings of the Prophets, is also the interpreter of them.

He joineth the Scripture and prophecy together to distinguish true prophecies from false.

For all interpretation cometh from God.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

"Forasmuch as ye know this" (Pe1 1:18).

first--the foremost consideration in studying the word of prophecy. Laying it down as a first principle never to be lost sight of.

is--Greek, not the simple verb, to be, but to begin to be, "proves to be," "becometh." No prophecy is found to be the result of "private (the mere individual writer's uninspired) interpretation" (solution), and so origination. The Greek noun epilusis, does not mean in itself origination; but that which the sacred writer could not always fully interpret, though being the speaker or writer (as Pe1 1:10-12 implies), was plainly not of his own, but of God's disclosure, origination, and inspiration, as Peter proceeds to add, "But holy men . . . spake (and afterwards wrote) . . . moved by the Holy Ghost": a reason why ye should "give" all "heed" to it. The parallelism to Pe2 1:16 shows that "private interpretation," contrasted with "moved by the Holy Ghost," here answers to "fables devised by (human) wisdom," contrasted with "we were eye-witnesses of His majesty," as attested by the "voice from God." The words of the prophetical (and so of all) Scripture writers were not mere words of the individuals, and therefore to be interpreted by them, but of "the Holy Ghost" by whom they were "moved." "Private" is explained, Pe2 1:21, "by the will of man" (namely, the individual writer). In a secondary sense the text teaches also, as the word is the Holy Spirit's, it cannot be interpreted by its readers (any more than by its writers) by their mere private human powers, but by the teaching of the Holy Ghost (Joh 16:14). "He who is the author of Scripture is its supreme interpreter" [GERHARD]. ALFORD translates, "springs not out of human interpretation," that is, is not a prognostication made by a man knowing what he means when he utters it, but," &c. (Joh 11:49-52). Rightly: except that the verb is rather, doth become, or prove to be. It not being of private interpretation, you must "give heed" to it, looking for the Spirit's illumination "in your hearts" (compare Note, see on Pe2 1:19).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 20. Knowing this first] Considering this as a first principle, that no prophecy of the Scripture, whether that referred to above, or any other, is of any private interpretation-proceeds from the prophet's own knowledge or invention, or was the offspring of calculation or conjecture. The word επιλυσις signifies also impetus, impulse; and probably this is the best sense here; not by the mere private impulse of his own mind.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. Knowing this first. Here Peter begins to shew how our minds are to be prepared, if we really wish to make progress in scriptural knowledge. There may at the same time be two interpretations given, if you read ἐπηλύσεως as some do, which means occurrence, impulse; or, as I have rendered it, interpretation, ἐπιλύσεως. But almost all give this meaning, that we ought not to rush on headlong and rashly when we read Scripture, confiding in our own understanding. They think that a confirmation of this follows, because the Spirit, who spoke by the prophets, is the only true interpreter of himself.

This explanation contains a true, godly, and useful doctrine, that then only are the prophecies read profitably, when we renounce the mind and feelings of the flesh, and submit to the teaching of the Spirit, but that it is an impious profanation of it; when we arrogantly rely on our own acumen, deeming that sufficient to enable us to understand it, though the mysteries contain things hidden to our flesh, and sublime treasures of life far surpassing our capacities. And this is what we have said, that the light which shines in it, comes to the humble alone.

But the Papists are doubly foolish, when they conclude from this passage, that no interpretation of a private man ought to be deemed authoritative. For they pervert what Peter says, that they may claim for their own councils the chief right of interpreting Scripture; but in this they act indeed childishly; for Peter calls interpretation private, not that of every individual, in order to prohibit each one to interpret; but he shews that whatever men bring of their own is profane. Were, then, the whole world unanimous, and were the minds of all men united together, still what would proceed from them, would be private or their own; for the word is here set in opposition to divine revelation; so that the faithful, inwardly illuminated by the Holy Spirit, acknowledge nothing but what God says in his word.

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

To the same purpose is what immediately follows, —

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(20) Knowing this first.—The participle belongs to “take heed” in 2Pe_1:19. “First” means “first of all” (1Ti_2:1), not “before I tell you.” In studying prophecy this is the first thing to be borne in mind.

Is of any private interpretation.—Better, comes to be, or becomes of private interpretation. The word rendered “interpretation” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but the cognate verb occurs in Mar_4:34, where it is translated “expound.” (See Note there.) There can be little doubt that “interpretation,” or “solution,” is the right rendering here, although others have been suggested. The main question however, is the meaning of the word rendered “private,” which may also mean “its own.” Hence three explanations are possible. The term may refer (1) to the recipients of the prophecies—that we may not expound prophecy according to our own fancy; or (2) to the utterers of the prophecies—that the prophets had not the power of expounding their own prophecies; or (3) to the prophecies themselves—that no prophecy comes to be of its own interpretation, i.e., no prophecy explains itself. The guide to the right explanation is 2Pe_1:21, which gives the reason why “no prophecy of the scripture,” &c. This consideration excludes (3); for 2Pe_1:21 yields no sense as showing why prophecy does not interpret itself. Either of the other two explanations may be right. (1) If prophecy came “by the will of man,” then it might be interpreted according to man’s fancy. But it did not so come; consequently the interpretation must be sought elsewhere—viz., at the same source from which the prophecy itself proceeded. (2) If the prophets spoke just as they pleased, they would be the best exponents of what they meant. But they spoke under divine influence, and therefore need not know the import of their own words. Prophecy must be explained by prophecy and by history, not by the individual prophet. The whole body of prophecy, “the prophetic word” (2Pe_1:19), is our lamp in the wilderness, not the private dicta of any one seer. In modern phraseology, interpretation must be comparative and scientific. This view is strengthened by comparing 1Pe_1:10-12, where it is stated that the prophets did not know how or when their own predictions would be fulfilled. Possibly this passage is meant to refer to 1Pe_1:10-12, and if so, we have a mark of genuineness; a forger would have made the reference more clear. If the coincidence is accidental, this also points in the same direction; in any case, the coincidence is worth noting.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation] The true meaning of the passage turns partly on the actual significance of the last word, partly on the sequence of thought as connected with the foregoing. The noun itself does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament nor in the LXX., but in Aquila’s version of Gen_40:8 it is given as the equivalent of “interpretation.” The corresponding verb meets us, however, in Mar_4:34 (“he explained all things to his disciples”) and in Act_19:39 (“it shall be determined”), and this leaves no doubt that “interpretation” or “solution” is the right rendering. Nor again is there much room for doubt as to the meaning of “prophecy of scripture.” The words can only point to a “prophetic word” embodied in a writing and recognised as Scripture. We have seen, however (see note on 1Pe_1:10-12), that the gift of prophecy was thought of as belonging to the present as fully as to the past, and chap. 2Pe_3:16, 1Ti_5:18, and possibly Rom_16:26 and 1Co_15:3-4, shew that the word Scripture had come to have a wider range of meaning than that which limited its use to the Old Testament writings, and may therefore be taken here in its most comprehensive sense. Stress must also be laid on the Greek verb rendered “is,” which might better be translated cometh, or cometh into being. With these data the true explanation of the passage is not far to seek. The Apostle calls on men to give heed to the prophetic word on the ground that no prophecy, authenticated as such by being recognised as part of Scripture, whether that Scripture belongs to the Old, or the New Covenant, comes by the prophet’s own interpretation of the facts with which he has to deal, whether those facts concern the outer history of the world, or the unfolding of the eternal truths of God’s Kingdom. It is borne to him, as he proceeds to shew in the next verse, from a higher source, from that which is, in the truest sense of the word, an inspiration. The views held by some commentators, (1) that St Peter is protesting against the application of private judgment to the interpretation of prophecy, and (2) that he is contending that no single prophecy can be interpreted apart from the whole body of prophetic teaching contained in Scripture, are, it is believed, less satisfactory explanations of the Apostle’s meaning.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Knowing this first,.... Especially, and in the first place, this is to be known, observed, and considered;

that no prophecy of the Scripture, that is contained in Scripture, be it what it will,

is of any private interpretation: not that this is levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer had not a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things; otherwise, why are such commended as doing well, by taking heed to prophecy, in the preceding verse, and this given as a reason to encourage them to it? the words may be rendered, "of one's own interpretation"; that is, such as a natural man forms of himself, by the mere force of natural parts and wisdom, without the assistance of the Spirit of God; and which is done without comparing spiritual things with spiritual; and which is not agreeably to the Scripture, to the analogy of faith, and mind of Christ; though rather this phrase should be rendered, "no prophecy of the Scripture is of a man's own impulse", invention, or composition; is not human, but purely divine: and this sense carries in it a reason why the sure word of prophecy, concerning the second coming of Christ, should be taken heed to, and made use of as a light, till he does come; because as no Scripture prophecy, so not that, is a contrivance of man's, his own project and device, and what his own spirit prompts and impels him to, but what is made by the dictates and impulse of the Spirit of God; for whatever may be said of human predictions, or the false prophecies of lying men, who deliver them out how and when they please, nothing of this kind can be said of any Scripture prophecy, nor of this concerning the second coming of Christ; and this sense the following words require.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Ver. 20. Of any private interpretation] That is, of human interpretation: private is not here opposed to public, but to divine, or to the Holy Ghost. The old prophet may bring a man into the lion’s mouth, by telling him of an angel that spake to him. How many have we in these days that dream their Midianitish dreams, and then tell it for gospel to their neighhours!

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Knowing this first - Bearing this steadily in mind as a primary and most important truth.

That no prophecy of the Scripture - No prophecy contained in the inspired records. The word “scripture” here shows that the apostle referred particularly to the prophecies recorded in the Old Testament. The remark which he makes about prophecy is general, though it is designed to bear on a particular class of the prophecies.

Is of any private interpretation - 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. It would be foreign to the design of these notes, and would be of little utility, to enumerate the different interpretations which have been given of the passage, or to examine them in detail. It will be sufficient to remark, preparatory to endeavoring to ascertain the true sense of the passage, that some have held that it teaches that no prophecy can be interpreted of itself, but can be understood only by comparing it with the event; others, that it teaches that the prophets did not themselves understand what they wrote, but were mere passive organs under the dictation of the Holy Spirit to communicate to future times what they could not themselves explain; others, that it teaches that “no prophecy is of self-interpretation,” (Horsley;) others, that it teaches that the prophecies, besides having a literal signification, have also a hidden and mystical sense which cannot be learned from the prophecies themselves, but is to be perceived by a special power of insight imparted by the Holy Spirit, enabling men to understand their recondite mysteries.

It would be easy to show that some of these opinions are absurd, and that none of them are sustained by the fair interpretation of the language used, and by the drift of the passage. 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.” That this is the correct interpretation will be apparent from the following considerations:

(1) It accords with the design of the apostle, which is to produce an impressive sense of the importance and value of the prophecies, and to lead those to whom he wrote to study them with diligence. This could be secured in no way so well as by assuring them that the writings which he wished them to study did not contain truths originated by the human mind, but that they were of higher origin.

(2) This interpretation accords with what is said in the following verse, and is the only one of all those proposed that is consistent with that, or in connection with which that verse will have any force. In that verse 2Pe 1:21, a reason is given for what is said here: “For (γὰρ gar) the prophecy came not in old time “by the will of man,”” etc. But this can be a good reason for what is said here only on the supposition that the apostle meant to say that what they communicated was not originated by themselves; that it was of a higher than human origin; that the prophets spake “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” This fact was a good reason why they should show profound respect for the prophecies, and study them with attention. But how could the fact that “they were moved by the Holy Ghost” be a reason for studying them, if the meaning here is that the prophets could not understand their own language, or that the prophecy could be understood only by the event, or that the prophecy had a double meaning, etc.? If the prophecies were of Divine origin, then “that” was a good reason why they should be approached with reverence, and should be profoundly studied.

(3) This interpretation accords as well, to say the least, with the fair meaning of the language employed, as either of the other opinions proposed. The word rendered “interpretation” (ἐπίλυσις epilusis) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means “solution” (Robinson’s Lexicon), “disclosure,” (Prof. Stuart on the Old Testament, p. 328,) “making free (Passow,)” with the notion that what is thus released or loosed was before bound, entangled obscure. The verb from which this word is derived (ἐπιλύω epiluō) means, “to let loose upon,” as dogs upon a hare, (Xen. Mem. 7, 8; ib 9, 10;) to loose or open letters; to loosen a band; to loose or disclose a riddle or a dark saying, and then to enlighten, illustrate, etc. - Passow. It is twice used in the New Testament. Mar 4:34, “he expounded all things to his disciples”; Act 19:39, “It shall be determined in a lawful assembly.”

The verb would be applicable to loosing anything which is bound or confined, and thence to the explanation of a mysterious doctrine or a parable, or to a disclosure of what was before unknown. The word, according to this, in the place before us, would mean the disclosure of what was before bound, or retained, or unknown; either what had never been communicated at all, or what had been communicated obscurely; and the idea is, “no prophecy recorded in the Scripture is of, or comes from, any exposition or disclosure of the will and purposes of God by the prophets themselves.” It is not a thing of their own, or a private matter originating with themselves, but it is to be traced to a higher source. If this be the true interpretation, then it follows that the prophecies are to be regarded as of higher than any human origin; and then, also, it follows that this passage should not be used to prove that the prophets did not understand the nature of their own communications, or that they were mere unconscious and passive instruments in the hand of God to make known his will. Whatever may be the truth on those points, this passage proves nothing in regard to them, any mare than the fact that a minister of religion now declares truth which he did not originate, but which is to be traced to God as its author, proves that he does not understand what he himself says. It follows, also, that this passage cannot be adduced by the Papists to prove that the people at large should not have free access to the word of God, and should not be allowed to interpret it for themselves. It makes no affirmation on that point, and does not even contain any “principle” of which such a use can be made; for:

(1) Whatever it means, it is confined to “prophecy;” it does not embrace the whole Bible.

(2) Whatever it means, it merely states a fact; it does not enjoin a duty. It states, as a fact, that there was something about the prophecies which was not of private solution, but it does not state that it is the duty of the church to prevent any private explanation or opinion even of the prophecies.

(3) It says nothing about “the church” as empowered to give a public or authorized interpretation of the prophecies. There is not a hint, or an intimation of any kind, that the church is intrusted with any such power whatever. There never was any greater perversion of a passage of Scripture than to suppose that this teaches that any class of people is not to have free access to the Bible. The effect of the passage, properly interpreted, should be to lead us to study the Bible with profound reverence, as having a higher than any human origin, not to turn away from it as if it were unintelligible, nor to lead us to suppose that it can be interpreted only by one class of men. The fact that it discloses truths which the human mind could not of itself have originated, is a good reason for studying it with diligence and with prayer - not for supposing that it is unlawful for us to attempt to understand it; a good reason for reverence and veneration for it - not for sanctified neglect.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) --- The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Knowing this first; either, principally and above other things, as being most worthy to be known; or, knowing this as the first principle of faith, or the first thing to be believed.

That no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation: the Greek word here used may be rendered, either:

1. As our translators do, interpretation, or explication; and then the meaning is, not that private men are not to interpret the Scripture, only refer all to the church; but that no man nor company of men, no church nor public officers, are to interpret the Scripture of their own heads, according to their own minds, so as to make their private sense be the sense of the Scripture, but to seek the understanding of it from God, who shows them the meaning of the word in the word itself, (the more obscure places being expounded by the more clear), and by his Spirit leads believers, in their searching the Scripture, into the understanding of his mind in it: God himself being the author of the word, as 2Pe 1:21, is the best interpreter of it. Or:

2. Mission or dismission; a metaphor taken from races, where they that ran were let loose from the stage where the race began, that they might run their course. The prophets in the Old Testament are said to run, as being God’s messengers, Jer 23:21, and God is said to send them, Eze 13:6,7. And then this doth not immediately concern the interpretation of the Scripture, but the first revelation of it, spoken of in the next verse; and the question is not: Who hath authority to interpret the Scripture now written? But: What authority the penmen had to write it? And consequently, what respect is due to it? And why believers are so carefully to take heed to it? And then the meaning is, that it is the first principle of our faith, that the Scripture is not of human invention, but Divine inspiration; that the prophets wrote not their own private sense in it, but the mind of God; and at his command, not their own pleasure.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. Knowing this first—The apostle knew well the need of this caution for all prophetic investigators.

No prophecy—Not limited now, as in 2Pe_1:19, but general.

Of any private interpretation—”The cross of interpreters,” says Wolf. Whitby, Macknight, Clarke, and others, understand private invention or suggestion, which, however, is about what is said in the next verse. Επιλυσις occurs only here, but its verb is used in Mar_4:34, of Jesus’s expounding his parables to his disciples; and its usual meaning is explanation or interpretation. The various expositions of private may be reduced to three:—(1) The prophets themselves often did not know the import of their own predictions. This is true; but it is no reason for the caution; nor does the divine inspiration of the prophecies explain the inability of the prophets to understand them. (2) Some refer it to the readers; but to bid them give attention to the prophecies, and then add that they cannot understand them, would be a singular procedure. Nevertheless, as matter of fact, prophetic interpretations before fulfilment are seldom verified by events, as, for instance, in the Jewish preconceptions of the Messiah. (3) As meaning that prophecy is not self-interpreting. St. Peter uses the word ιδιος in eight other places, and in the sense of its own in every instance. This fits the caution, assuring them that the full meaning does not lie on the surface, and that they will need to search for it, as did the prophets themselves, (1Pe_1:10;) and also intimating that the explanation must be found in the event. The Gnostics interpreted many of the prophecies after their own fancies, often violently torturing them to adapt them to their own systems. On the other hand, though the prophecies are not self-interpreting, they are true, for they proceed from the Holy Ghost.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. By "knowing this first" (ginwskontev) is meant that we must recognize this truth as of primary importance, or, before we commence the study of prophecy; the phrase occurs again in chapter 3:3. The literal translation of the following clause is, "that all prophecy of Scripture there is no article is not; all not" (pasa ouj) being a common Hebraism for none, ouJdemia; but the verb is not esti, "is," but ginetai, "becomes, arises, comes into being." The word for "private" is ijdiav, "special," or commonly, "one"s own". (see 1Pe_3:1, 1Pe_3:5; chapter 2:16, 22; 3:3, 16, 17) The word rendered "interpretation" is ejpilusewv, which is found nowhere else in the New Testament; the corresponding verb occurs in Mar_4:34, "He expounded all things;" Act_19:39, "It shall be determined or settled." These considerations, strengthened by the context, seem to guide us to the following explanation: No prophecy of Scripture arises from the prophet"s own interpretation of the vision presented to his mind; for it was from God that the prophecy was brought, and men spoke as they were borne on by the Holy Spirit. This view of the passage is also supported by the remarkable parallel in the First Epistle. (1Pe_1:10-12) The prophets searched diligently into the meaning of the revelation vouchsafed to them; they did not always comprehend it in all its details; they could not interpret it to themselves; the written prophecy arose out of the interpretation of the revelation supplied by the same Spirit from whom the revelation itself proceeded. Therefore the prophetic books of Holy Scripture are sacred and precious, and we do well in giving heed to them; though the day-star of the Lord"s own presence, shining in the illuminated heart, is holier still. Other views of this difficult passage are: Prophecy is not its own interpreter; the guidance of the Spirit is necessary. Or, prophecy is not a matter for the private interpretation of the readers; only the Holy Spirit can explain it. But the explanation adopted seems most accordant with the Greek words and with the general sense of the context (compare St. Paul"s teaching in. (1Co_12:10) The gifts of the Spirit are divided as he will; to one man are given "divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues." Not every one, it seems, who had the first gift, had also the latter. Tongues and the interpretation of tongues were two distinct gifts. It may be so with prophecy and the interpretation of prophecy.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye do well, as knowing this, that no scripture prophecy is of private interpretation - It is not any man's own word. It is God, not the prophet himself, who thereby interprets things till then unknown.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

any private

its own interpretation; i.e. not isolated from all that the Word has given elsewhere.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These words are understood variously.

1. Some interpret them thus; That no part of the holy Scripture was written by any private impulse, incitation, or motion, by no suggestion of men’s own private spirits, but they gave out to us what the Holy Ghost gave in to them; nor did they prophesy according to the will of man, that is, when they would, or what they would, but they spake by the instinct and impulse of the Holy Ghost. The words shew what authority the penmen of the Holy Scriptures had to write what they did, and why we should be so careful to take heed to what they wrote.

Learn hence, That it is a very great principle, yea, one of the first principles of our faith, that the Scriptures are the very word and will of God, written not by any private spirit, but dictated by the Spirit of God, and consequently are no part of them of human invention, but all of divine inspiration, for which reason great respect is due to them, and we shall do well to take heed to them.

2. Others understand the words thus: That no prophecy of scripture is to be expounded as speaking only of those persons whom the speaker first intended and meant, according to the speaker’s proper prviate thought, for the holy men of God were moved by God’s Spirit to speak those words which signified more than they designed, or always meant and understood themselves; as for instance, David often speaks in the Psalms words true of himself and Solomon, but the Holy Ghost pointeth at Christ, who was typified by those persons; and whether David meant more than himself and Solomon, it is certain the Holy Ghost meant more; so if Josiah be meant in Isa 53:1 as some would have it, it is evident that he was but typical, and that the Holy Ghost meant Christ and his sufferings ultimately; so that it is plain that the Scripture prophecy receives its full sense from the Spirit, and not from the speaker; and must not be appropriated narrowly to those private men, by whom, or of whom they were proximately meant by the speaker.

3. Others understand the words after this manner, namely, that no private person must take upon him the interpretation of Holy Scriptures, but refer all to the church: Hence Estius infers, "That the reformed and their pastors must not interpret the Scriptures, but the Catholic church only." To which we reply, that as no private persons, so likewise no church, may presume to interpret Scripture according to their own mind, nor make their private sense to be the sense of Scripture, but to seek understanding from God, who shews the meaning of the word by the word, (comparing Scripture with Scripture), and by his Spirit leads good men into the knowledge and understanding of it; knowing this, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation; for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy man of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. Knowing this first. This is a reason for giving heed to the word of prophecy. That no prophecy … is of any private interpretation. Is not an interpretation of the knowledge and feelings of the prophet, but of the will of God. The next verse shows that this is the meaning.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

20. τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες. The same words recur in 2Pe 3:3.

πᾶσα—οὐ. Hebraistic for οὐδεμία.

προφητεία γραφῆς prophecy of Scripture—included, contained in Scripture.

ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται. Words productive of much dispute. The principal meanings assigned to them have been:

(a) Prophecy is not to be interpreted by private individuals apart from the Church.

(b) It is not to be interpreted by man apart from the Holy Spirit.

(c) Does not come from human ingenuity: is not a successful attempt to solve a difficulty, originated by the prophet himself.

(d) It could not be interpreted by the prophet himself. He did not always know the meaning of the vision he saw. Daniel and Zechariah, for example, ask what it is that is shown to them.

(e) Prophecy is not confined, not subject to, a single interpretation; it is capable of many fulfilments besides the immediate and local one.

Something similar is said in 2Pe 3:16. Unlearned persons wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. There seems to be in both passages a warning against unauthorized interpretation of prophecy.

The writer goes on here to assign a reason why prophecy is not ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως. “For it was not at any time conveyed by the will of man.” The prophets themselves could not prophesy when and as they pleased. If that was the case, how little can you expect to interpret their prophecies without God’s help! Note that the aid of Christ Himself was required to “open” the Scriptures to the first disciples (Luk 24:25 etc., 44 etc.). Thus the warning against private and unauthorized exposition of prophecy seems to be most prominent; but there may be also contained in the passage the greater truth that prophecy is capable of several and ever-widening fulfilments.

θελήματι ἀνθρώπου is opposed to ἀπὸ θεοῦ.

Theophilus of Antioch, in a passage quoted on p. xviii, seems to paraphrase this verse, as well as to allude to 2Pe 1:19.

ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι, cf. θεοφόρητος, θεοφορεῖσθαι, the latter verb being often used of prophets by Philo, Justin, etc., quoted by Mayor. It may be right to emphasize the absence of the article from πνεῦμα, “borne by a holy spirit” of wisdom. Cf. Wis 7:22.

2. So far we have had but an introduction to the writer’s chief topic. Throughout he has had in view the warning of his readers against a particular danger: so he has begun by insisting on their keeping firm in the right way. Now he begins to enlarge on his special subject, leading up to it by the mention of prophecy. The value of prophecy, he says, cannot be exaggerated, though its use must be guarded. But there was false prophecy in Israel, and false teaching is now coming in upon the new Israel.

It is here also that the writer begins most clearly and continuously to use another source, the Epistle of Jude. There have been, in his first chapter, resemblances to its language (see Introd.), but from the point we have reached the parallels are much closer.

ψευδοπροφῆται. The primary force of ψευδο- in ψευδοπροφῆται and ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι is not that the prophets and teachers utter what is false, but that they are sham prophets and sham teachers—they do not deserve the name. But of course the reason why they are so called is because they teach what is false.

ἐν τῷ λαῷ, Israel, λαόν Jud 1:5.

παρεισάξουσιν in an evil sense: παρεισφέρω was used in a good sense in 2Pe 1:5. Cf. παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους in Gal 2:4.

αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας. αἵρεσις is used in a neutral sense in Acts, of the Sadducees, of the Pharisees, and by an adversary, Tertullus, of the Christians: in Act 24:14 Paul speaks of τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν λέγουσιν αἵρεσιν, again not necessarily in an abusive sense. In his Epistles the thing is deprecated. 1Co 11:18-19 couples αἱρέσεις with σχίσματα: Gal 5:20 with διχοστασίαι, so that it seems equivalent to “schism.” In Tit 3:10 αἱρετικὸν ἄνδρα … παραιτοῦ the context shows that what is meant is an opinionated and disputatious person. By the time of Ignatius (110) it is clearly used in our sense of heresy. He warns the Trallians “to abstain from the noxious herbs of heresy,” and says to the Ephesians “Among you no heresy dwells.” Here the general meaning is put out of doubt by the addition of the word ἀπωλείας, so that it is possible to hold that the writer could conceive of αἱρέσεις that were not “destructive.”

ἀπώλεια is a favourite word with our writer, occurring again in this verse and in 2Pe 2:3, 2Pe 3:7; 2Pe 3:16.

καὶ, emphatic. Even denying.

τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι, Jud 1:4. The parallel with Jude forbids us to think that the incident of Peter’s denial of his Master is referred to.

ἀγοράσαντα. 1Co 6:20 ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς. Rev 5:9 addressed to the Lamb ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου.

In Act 20:28 this purchasing is ascribed to the Father, to whom the title δεσπότης is applied wherever else it is used in N.T. (e.g. Luk 2:29, Act 4:24, Rev 6:10). Accordingly, some understand δεσπότης of the Father here, and some of the Son. The phrase in Jude is τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ., which at first sight seems plainly to mean One Person, and that the Son: but there again it is pointed out that κύριος is one of the words which in such a sentence can stand without an article, so that two Persons might be meant. I incline to interpret both passages as referring to the Son.

Note that δεσπότης and ἀγοράζειν give point to the word δοῦλος so often used by the Apostles of themselves.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20.] Caution as to the interpretation of O. T. prophecy: to be borne in mind, while taking heed to it. This first knowing (τοῦτο, viz. what follows, introduced by ὅτι. πρῶτον, not as Bengel, “prius quam ego dico,” but first and as most important in applying yourselves to prophetic interpretation γινώσκοντες, as in reff., being aware of, and bearing in mind: = εἰδότες, 1Pe 1:18), that no prophecy of Scripture (γραφή most probably here imports the O. T. only, from the ποτε, and indeed the aorists in the next verse.

πᾶσα … οὐ, in the Hebr. manner for οὐδεμία: see Rom 3:20; 1Co 1:29 al.) comes of private interpretation (how are these words to be understood? Two references seem to be possible: 1. to us, who try to understand written prophecies: 2. to the prophets themselves, as they spoke them. And of these the former, maintained by Bede, Erasm., Aret., Gerhard, Pott, Steiger, al., seems precluded by the context, the next verse assigning as a reason for the position in this, that the prophets spoke not of themselves, but as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And though this might have been alleged as a reason why private interpretation cannot solve those prophecies, yet in that case we should expect not οὐ γάρ, which simply assigns the direct reason, but οὐδὲ γάρ, which assigns an analogical or remote reason. So that we seem driven to the conclusion that the saying regards, not our interpretation of prophecy, but its resolution, or interpretation, by the prophets themselves. And so Œc.: τουτέστιν ὅτι λαμβάνουσι μὲν ἀπὸ θεοῦ οἱ προφῆται τὴν προφητείαν, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς ἐκεῖνοι βούλονται, ἀλλʼ ὡς τὸ κινοῦν αὐτοὺς ἐνεργεῖ πνεῦμα. καὶ ᾔδεσαν μὲν καὶ συνίεσαν τὸν καταπεμπόμενον αὐτοῖς προφητικὸν λόγον, οὐ μέντοι καὶ τὴν ἐπίλυσιν αὐτοῦ ἐποιοῦντο: and below, … καίπερ εἰδότες οὐ χρείαν εἶχον ἑρμηνεύειν τὰ ὑπʼ αὐτῶν, ἀλλʼ ἑτέροις διηκόνουν ταῦτα, ἡμῖν γάρ. Similarly Thl.: and De Wette, adding, that this is said to excuse the difficulty of the interpretation of prophecy, and to remove occasion of unbelief and scoffing (ch. 3:3). But as Huther well remarks, this last purpose is not only not indicated in the context, but is quite out of the question; the Apostle referring to prophecy not as difficult of interpretation, but as a candle shining in a dark place, nay, as being even more firm and secure than external proofs of the same truths. I believe Huther’s view to be the true one: which arises from this consideration, that ἐπίλυσις is not the subsequent interpretation of a prophecy already given, but the intelligent apprehension of the meaning of the prophecy, out of which (but not ἰδίας on the part of those by whom it is sent) the prophecy itself springs. And this is much confirmed by γίνεται, which with a gen. as here, is not = ἐστιν, but rather seems to denote origin. So that the sense will be, that prophecy springs not out of human interpretation, i. e. is not a prognostication made by a man knowing what he means when he utters it: but &c. Thus, and thus alone, the whole context coheres. And this appears to be Bengel’s view, though he does not express himself very clearly: “ut callide concinnatis fabulis opponitur spectatio apostolica: sic propriæ interpretationi opponitur φορά, vectura prophetica. Itaque ἐπίλυσις dicitur interpretatio qua ipsi prophetæ res antea plane clausas aperuere mortalibus. Prophetia nec primo humana est, nec a se ipsa unquam ita desciscit ut incipiat esse verbum propriæ, i. e. humanæ ἐπιλύσεως, sed plane divinæ patefactionis est, et in rebus exituque talis cognoscitur, imo etiam firmior fit”).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Is [γινεται] . More literally, arises or originates.

Private [ιδιας] . See on ver. 3. His own. Rev., special, in margin. Interpretation [επιλυσεως] . Only here in New Testament. Compare the cognate verb expounded (Mr 4:34) and determined (Act 19:39). The usual word is eJrmhneia (1Co 12:10; 1Co 14:26). Literally, it means loosening, untying, as of hard knots of scripture.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.