This post focuses whether 2 Peter 1:20 refers to the origination of prophecy or to its interpretation. This was a short two–page paper addressing this issue. Much more could be said on this topic, but this is just an introduction to the issue. Both sides have very valid arguments but this is my viewpoint on the matter
Second Peter 1:20, along with 2 Timothy 3:14-17, are two important passages affirming the divine inspiration of the Bible. However, the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20 is highly debated. The argument centers on the meaning of “interpretation” and whether Peter focused on the origin of prophecy or its interpretation. Both sides will be examined, and the context, grammar, and language will show that the origin viewpoint is the best option for 2 Peter 1:20.
Proponents of the interpretation viewpoint argue that Peter is telling his readers to pay attention to the prophetic word as it is interpreted by the apostles, because the Old Testament prophecies are not a matter of personal interpretation but have been authoritatively interpreted by the apostles.[1] This view sees Peter arguing that his opponents or these “false teachers” (2 Pet 2:1) interpreted prophecy to support their own views. In doing so they resisted proper interpretation of Scripture given by the apostles (2 Pet 3:4-7, 16). The word epilysis means “interpretation” (cf. Mark 4:34), providing support that this term does not focus on the origination of prophecy but its proper interpretation after the prophecy was given.[2] Roman Catholics use this verse to teach that individuals are not permitted to interpret the Bible for themselves, and must depend on the official teaching of the Church.
The origination viewpoint argues that what Peter means by “interpretation” is the origination of prophecy. While it is important to understand how prophecy is interpreted, Peter seems to be discussing how prophecy came into being. Three primary factors support this view. First, the verb is ginetai which carries the idea of coming into being.3 Second, verse 21 is not talking about how prophecy is interpreted but about how it came into being.4 In the context of verse 21, Peter is clearly speaking of Scripture’s “origin” from God Himself and not the credentials of the one who interprets it.[3] Third, Peter is speaking of the reliability of Scripture, not of interpretation.[4] God spoke through the prophets and He alone is responsible for what is written in Scripture.[5] As the writers wrote their prophecies, they were impelled or borne along by God’s Spirit.[6]
Some argue that the Scriptures are being read apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but this reading ignores the contextual flow of the material preceding and following.[7] This verse authenticates the prophetic voice, since Peter’s response shows prophetic speech originates with God, even when spoken by human agents.[8] Some groups have used this verse to teach that only a leader or the church may interpret Scripture. But Peter was writing primarily that Scripture came by the Spirit through holy men of God, not about the interpretation of Scripture.[9]
Peter was not writing about how Scripture should be interpreted or read; but he was writing about how God is the authoritative origin and source of these prophecies. The writers did not write their own thoughts or interpretations, but the truths that came directly from God carried along by the Spirit (2 Pet 1:21). Peter reminded his readers to pay attention to the gospel by affirming that his words were God’s words, just like the Old Testament prophecies were from God. The Scriptures did not stem merely from the prophets, nor are they inventions of man, but they are “God-breathed.” Therefore, verse 20 speaks not of interpretation, but of the source and origin of the Scriptures while the verb ginetai, verse 21, and the context provide evidence that verse 20 is about the origination of prophecy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charles, J. Daryl. “2 Peter.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation, edited by T. Longman III and D. E. Garland, vol. 13, 357-411. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
Gangel, Kenneth O. “2 Peter.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2, 859-879. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985.
Radmacher, Earl D., Ronald B. Allen, and H. Wayne House, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary. Nashville: Nelson, 1999.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “2 Peter.” In The New American Commentary: 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, 253-402. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2010.
Toussaint, Stanley. “2 Peter.” Unpublished class notes for BE107. Dallas Theological Seminary. Fall Semester, 2016.
Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol 2. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, “2 Peter,” in The New American Commentary: 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37 (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 323.
[2] Ibid. 3 Stanley Toussaint, “2 Peter,” unpublished class notes for BE107 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2016), 3. 4 Ibid.
[3] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, H. Wayne House, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1999), 1695.
[4] Toussaint, “2 Peter,” 3.
[5] Radmacher, Allen, House, Commentary, 1695.
[6] Kenneth O. Gangel, “2 Peter,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures,
eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 869.
[7] J. Daryl Charles, “2 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation, eds. T. Longman III and D. E. Garland, vol. 13 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 394.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996), 445.