2 Peter 1:19-21

¹⁹ So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 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.

1. My friend was speaking to a former Protestant and now apostate Orthodox person by the name Nio Pomilia. Nio argues by his private interpretation that the Peter here is teaching private interpretation is invalid. That is a Catholic argument that the Orthodox person is borrowing. It is obviously a self-defeating private interpretation to argue that the Bible is against private interpretation.

2. Nio contends that the entire Church has taught that Peter is against private interpretation and as usual has provided no proof of that assertion. How could he even prove a claim as such? Does he have a 2000 year poll on all Christians? How did he gather the information? At best you could show it was the interpretation of a small select group of Christians. Protestants have noted this dishonesty with this kind of argument before:

You haven’t provided a single piece of evidence to support that sweeping contention. What do you even mean by the “whole Church”? You mean every Christian layman prior to 1517 shared your interpretation of 2 Pet 1:20? How do you propose to do opinion polling on Christian laymen between the NT era and 1517? They’re dead. How many of them wrote down their interpretation of 2 Pet 1:20? How many of them even thought about the meaning of 2 Pet 1:20? Or when you say the “whole Church,” is that code language for some popes or church fathers or bishops or doctors of the church? If so, that would hardly constitute the “whole Church”. At best, that would be an infinitesimal fraction of the whole Church.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/11/private-interpretation.html

3. The “prophetic word” is referring to the Old Testament. This prophetic word is made surer by the Apostles experience of Christ at the transfiguration(vs. 16-17). The Apostles are confirmed by that experience in what they believe the Old Testament is saying and the oncoming return of Christ is vindicated by the showing of his glory on the mountain. A commentator of the name Peter David gives the helpful analogy of love letters. We pay attention to the Old Testament(and in extension the witness of the New Testament) like a lover waiting for her husband waiting to return from the rages of war. We look and scan the letters anticipation for the return of the individual that wrote them. Christians have a similar relationship to that of Christ. We look and scan the words we believe we have received till his physical return. The issue with vs 20 is that has two competing interpretations that are plausible. The text can be interpreted as teaching about the issue of the interpretation of prophecy or the origin of prophecy. Thomas Schreiner takes the former and Richard Bauckham’s take the latter. Thomas Schreiner notes that even given his interpretation doesn’t provide evidence for Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/ Coptic Orthodox claims:

Wolfe rightly argues that the passage should not be read as a defense of early Catholicism, as if the point of the passage is the rejection of any attempt to interpret Scripture. Rather, Peter insisted that all interpretation must measure up to the apostolic standard (see ibid., 104–6). The interpretation proposed here should not be confused with the historic Roman Catholic view that individuals cannot interpret the Bible without the magisterium. Rather, Peter insists that valid interpretations must square with the apostolic meaning.

Thomas Schreiner The New American Commentary: 1, 2 Peter, Jude (New American Commentary, 37)(Page 279).

Notice how this wouldn’t prove the Catholic/Orthodox thoughts about this passage. It isn’t distinguishing private vs public church teachings. Rather it is teaching of the Apostles interpretations vs False Prophets interpretations. It doesn’t go on to teach that right interpretation is that which falls in line with one’s eccelestical body. These are just read into the passage without warrant. Now, returning to the passage, the arguments for Schreiner’s interpretation are these:

Peter mentions false teachers and false prophets wrongly interpreting the scriptures in this epistle(2:1, 3:16). It makes sense for Peter to be responding to them. The word for interpretation is ἐπιλύσεως and it commonly refers to interpretation. The term does not focus on the origination of prophecy but its proper interpretation after the prophecy was given. The phrase only appears here in the Bible but it occurs in other literature of the time:

The term for “interpretation” appears only here in all of biblical literature. However the word does appear in nonbiblical Greek literature and means “the solution or explanation for a dream, riddle, parable, omen, vision or the like.” The term appears in Gen 40:8; 41:8, 12 in Aquila’s Greek translation of the OT, and refers to the interpretation of a dream. It also shows up repeatedly in Hermas (ca. A.D. 100; Sim. 5:3:1–2; 5:4:2–3; 5:5:1; 5:6:8; 5:7:1; 8:11:1; 9:10:5; 9:11:9; 9:13:9; 10:16:7), where the angelic “shepherd” is giving Hermas interpretations of his similitudes (parables), which are usually visions that Hermas does not understand. This type of language should not surprise us in relation to either the prophet or the interpreter of prophecy. In the OT “the prophet is given a sign (e.g., Amos 7:1; Jer 1:11, 13), a dream (e.g., Zech 1:8; Dan 7:2) or a vision (e.g., Dan 8:1), and then its interpretation.” When it comes to non-Jewish prophecy, the technical diviner (who could be called either a prophētēs or a mantis) also frequently interpreted dreams or signs, although this was not true of the inspired diviner, who nonetheless occasionally had a prophētēs between him or her and the inquirer, the latter interpreting or polishing the oracle. In other words, from neither a Judeo-Christian nor a pagan viewpoint would it be surprising to discover that a prophet needed to interpret the revelation that he or she received. Indeed, even today prophetically gifted Christians speak of the need to distinguish “revelation,” “interpretation,” and “application,” and argue that a major source of problems in Christian prophecy is the failure to do just this (as well as a failure of “timing”). Naturally, one reading a scriptural prophecy clearly needs to interpret that prophecy. Examples of such interpretation in the NT period are abundant in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QpHab; 4QpNah; etc.).

Davids, P. H. (2006). The letters of 2 Peter and Jude (pp. 211–212). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

I don’t think the issue of false teachers is the direct issue. They are more an indirect issue where they are arguing against OT prophesy. The false teachers probably are stating that the OT prophesies are only figments of the prophet’s imagination. Peter argues against this charge. This explains why these texts are more defensive than offensive in focus. They become offensive in 2:1 and onward. The Apostle has laid out the evidence for the Parousia of Christ(the Transfiguration and the OT scriptures). Peter defends the validity of the OT scriptures by stating they are of Divine origins and not originating with the prophets. These are presented for evidence of the reliability of Peters claims. The offensive portion begins with 2:1 while 1:20 is dealing with the prior verses.

It is true that in 2 Pet 3:16 there is a reference to the teachers whom 2 Peter opposes having distorted Paul “as they do the other Scriptures,” but that is two chapters later than our passage and even there we find no discussion of the Scriptures they are said to distort. Furthermore, not until the time of Justin Martyr, much later than 2 Peter, would Paul be said to be among the “prophetic Scriptures.” So our focus here is on the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Davids, P. H. (2006). The letters of 2 Peter and Jude (p. 212). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

Another knock against the interpretation that it is about interpretation is that it doesn’t fit as well grammatically and contextually. That the other reading fits the flow of the passage better.

However there are difficulties about this view. Grammatically, this clause goes with what precedes, not what follows. The same is true of the sense. In the preceding paragraph, Peter is not talking about interpretation but authentication. His theme is the origin and reliability of the Christian teaching about grace, holiness and heaven. The same God whom the apostles heard speak in the transfiguration spoke also through the prophets. The argument in verses 20–21 is a consistent and indeed necessary conclusion to the preceding paragraph. Thus, we can rely on the apostolic account of the transfiguration because God spoke. And we can rely on Scripture because behind its human authors God spoke. The prophets did not make up what they wrote. They did not arbitrarily unravel it. ‘They did not blab their inventions of their own accord or according to their own judgments’ (Calvin). In the Old Testament, this was the characteristic of the false prophets, who ‘speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord’ (Jer. 23:16, cf. Ezek. 13:3). But true prophecy came from God and, men as they were, the prophets were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Peter, then, is talking about the divine origin of Scripture, not about its proper interpretation. If interpretation were his subject in this verse, then verse 21 would be utterly irrelevant to his argument.

Green, M. (1987). 2 Peter and Jude: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 18, pp. 112–113). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Richard Bauckham also deals with the issue of ἐπιλύσεως meaning the interpretation over against the origin. He discusses the extant literature used as evidence to prove the contrary understanding of ἐπιλύσεως is correct. He argues that the extra-biblical usages are compatible with his understanding.

This evidence of usage is often thought to support interpretation (1). In fact, although it permits that interpretation, it gives it no strong support, since there seems to be no instance of ἐπίλυσις or ἐπιλύειν used of the interpretation of Scripture (though cf. Clem. Alex. Paed. 2.1.14). Interpretation (2) receives stronger support from the usage of the word. In Aquila’s version ἐπίλυσις and ἐπιλύειν are used of Joseph’s interpretations of the baker’s and the butler’s dreams (Gen 40:8; 41:8, 12), which are explicitly said to be Godgiven interpretations (Gen 40:8). Probably the Greek version of 4 Ezra 10:43 (Latin absolutio) used ἐπίλυσις of the interpretation of the seer’s vision, given him by the angel. Hermas (who probably belongs to the same milieu as 2 Peter) constantly uses ἐπίλυσις and ἐπιλύειν to refer to the interpretation, given him by the “shepherd,” of his “parables,” which are in most cages symbolic visions (Sim. 5:3:1–2; 5:4:2–3; 5:5:1; 5:6:8; 5:7:1; 8:11:1; 9:10:5; 9:11:9; 9:13:9; 19:16:7). Hermas’ prophecies are thus the God-given interpretations (ἐπιλύσεις) of his visions. This conforms to a widely accepted view of the nature of prophecy, according to which the prophet is given a sign (e.g. Amos 7:1; Jer 1:11, 13), a dream (e.g. Zech 1:8; Dan 7:2) or a vision (e.g. Dan 8:1), and then its interpretation. In true prophecy this interpretation is not the prophet’s own explanation of his vision, but an inspired, God-given interpretation. Thus it is possible that 2 Pet 1:20 counters a view which held that the prophets may have received visions, but that their prophecies, found in the OT, are only their own interpretation of the visions, mere human guesswork. This was one way of denying the divine origin of scriptural prophecy. This explanation of v 20 receives support from a striking pagan parallel, in which a prophetess’s unfavorable interpretation of an omen is rejected with the complaint, “You gave the sign your own interpretation” (σύ σεαυτῇ ἐπέλυσας τὸ σημεῖον: Pseudo-Callisthenes, Historia Alex. Magni 2.1.5, quoted in BAG s.v. ἐπίλυσις). This parallel is especially noteworthy in view of the probability that the main motivation of the false teaching which 2 Peter op-poses was rationalistic skepticism derived from the pagan Hellenistic environment.

Bauckham, Dr. Richard. Jude-2 Peter, Volume 50 (Word Biblical Commentary) . Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

The last reason to prefer the second interpretation is that it has a better explanation of the relationship between verses 20 and 21. Verse 21 begins with gar(γὰρ).

A major divide exists among scholars on the precise understanding of idias epiluseos [“from an individual’s own interpretation,” or “by the will of man”]. Some, such as Kelly, assert that this verse forbids the private interpretation of Scripture by the reader (or hearer) outside of an authority such as the church. Thus, idias, “from an individual’s own,” would refer to any reader of Scripture, rather than to the prophet who authored Scripture. Along with epiluseos, “interpretation,” these two words would pertain to any person’s unauthorized, illegitimate interpretation of written Scripture.

However, that understanding of idias epiluseos does not make sense in the present context. In 2 Pet 1:16-18, Peter addressed the divine origin of the apostolic message. 2 Pet 2:21 addresses the same issue of origin regarding Scripture in general. Moreover, 2 Pet 1:21 includes the explanatory gar, “for,” which draws close connection between 2 Pet 1:21 and 2 Pet 1:20, implying that Peter’s further declarations about the inspiration of Scripture in 2 Pet 1:21 are intended to elaborate upon his statements in 2 Pet 1:20. Thus, 2 Pet 1:20 too must be about the origin and inspiration of Scripture, not about its later interpretation by readers. Since the context of 2 Pet 1:20 addresses Scripture’s divine origin, and since idias epilueos [“by the will of man”] in 2 Pet 1:20 supports this topic if taken to refer to a prophetic author (rather than a later reader), the best conclusion is that 2 Pet 1:20 speaks of the divine origin of Scripture as well. C. Giese, 2 Peter and Jude (Concordia 2012), 93-94.

4. I will do something Catholic/Orthodox apologist don’t do and that looks at some of the mentions of this text is Church History. Even though that would merely be a private interpretation of a Church Fathers.

Oecumenius: This means that the prophets received their prophecies from God and transmitted what he wanted to say, not what they wanted. They were fully aware that the message had been given to them, and they made no attempt to put their own interpretation on it. If they could not bring themselves to accept what the Spirit had said to them, then they kept their mouths shut, as Jonah did, for example, when he refused to preach to Nineveh, and Balaam also did when he was commanded to say what had been communicated to him.39 COMMENTARY ON 2 PETER

Bede: The prophets heard God speaking to them in the secret recesses of their own hearts. They simply conveyed that message by their preaching and writing to God’s people. They were not like pagan oracles, which distorted the divine message in their own interest, for they did not write their own words but the words of God. For this reason the reader cannot interpret them by himself, because he is liable to depart from the true meaning, but rather he must wait to hear how the One who wrote the words wants them to be understood. ON 2 PETER

Hilary of Arles(403-449): You must take care when interpreting the Scriptures not to be too greatly fixated upon the places, times and people who wrote them down, as if they were merely human compositions. Rather you ought to rely on the clarity and sufficiency of the Spirit. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTARY ON 2 PETER

Bray, G. (Ed.). (2000). James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (p. 141). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Notice how none of these interpretations mention the need of the Church to interpret the text or the lack of condemnation of private interpretation. Notice it is the Catholics believing in modern novelties. They fit better with my interpretation than a Catholic/Orthodox interpretation.