The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Peter 1:19-21

Scripture Passage:

2 Peter 1:19-21 (NASB)

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.

---

Main Thesis:

In this passage, Peter emphasizes the divine origin of Scripture and its prophetic authority, refuting the notion that Scripture can be subjected to private interpretation detached from its divine source.

---

Key Points:

Richard Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 219.

The Misinterpretation Argument:

A former Protestant, now an apostate Orthodox named Nio Pomilia, argues that Peter’s teaching invalidates private interpretation of Scripture. This claim, borrowed from Catholic arguments, is fundamentally self-defeating. If one uses private interpretation to assert that Scripture opposes private interpretation, it negates its own premise.

Unsubstantiated Claims:

• Nio contends that the entire Church has historically taught against private interpretation. However, he fails to provide substantial evidence to support this sweeping claim. It’s impractical to assert that every Christian layperson from the New Testament era to 1517 shared a uniform interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20 without comprehensive data. Historically, such assertions are based on the interpretations of select theologians or Church authorities rather than a universal consensus.
• As noted in a blog post from Triablogue:

“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.”*

Contextual Understanding:

The “prophetic word” in this passage refers to the Old Testament, validated by the Apostles’ experience of Christ’s transfiguration. This experience confirms their belief in the Old Testament prophecies and Christ’s return. The analogy of love letters, as explained by commentator Peter Davids, illustrates how Christians eagerly anticipate Christ’s return, paying close attention to Scripture as a guiding light.

The reference to the prophetic word as a “lamp shining in a dark place” echoes Old Testament imagery, such as Psalm 119:105, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” This metaphor underscores the guidance and illumination that Scripture provides in a world filled with spiritual darkness.

The phrase “until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” alludes to the eschatological hope in Christ’s return. Malachi 4:2 speaks of the “sun of righteousness” rising with healing, and Revelation 22:16 identifies Christ as the “bright morning star.” This imagery emphasizes the transformative and hope-filled expectation of Christ’s second coming, which is grounded in the prophetic word.

Competing Interpretations:

• There are two plausible interpretations of verse 20. One focuses on the interpretation of prophecy, and the other on the origin of prophecy. Thomas Schreiner supports the former, emphasizing that valid interpretations must align with apostolic teaching, while Richard Bauckham supports the latter, focusing on the divine origin of prophecy. Schreiner argues that Peter’s insistence on apostolic standards does not support the Roman Catholic or Orthodox view that individual interpretation must be sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority:

“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), p. 279.

Historical Commentary:

• Examining historical interpretations, we see that early Church Fathers like Oecumenius, Bede, and Hilary of Arles emphasized the divine origin of prophecy rather than institutional control over its interpretation. Their focus was on the Spirit’s role in conveying divine messages, not on restricting interpretation to Church authorities. This aligns more closely with the interpretation that Peter was underscoring the divine inspiration and reliability of prophecy, not establishing a precedent for Church-controlled exegesis:

“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.”*

• Oecumenius, Commentary on 2 Peter.

“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.”*

• Bede, On 2 Peter.

“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.”*

Hilary of Arles (403-449), Introductory Commentary on 2 Peter.

The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Peter 1:19-21

Scripture Passage:

2 Peter 1:19-21 (NASB)

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.

---

Main Thesis:

In this passage, Peter emphasizes the divine origin of Scripture and its prophetic authority, refuting the notion that Scripture can be subjected to private interpretation detached from its divine source.

---

Key Points:

Richard Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 219.

The Misinterpretation Argument:

A former Protestant, now an apostate Orthodox named Nio Pomilia, argues that Peter’s teaching invalidates private interpretation of Scripture. This claim, borrowed from Catholic arguments, is fundamentally self-defeating. If one uses private interpretation to assert that Scripture opposes private interpretation, it negates its own premise. If Peter’s words truly invalidated all private interpretation, we would not be able to privately interpret this very passage to assert such a claim.

Unsubstantiated Claims:

• Nio contends that the entire Church has historically taught against private interpretation. However, he fails to provide substantial evidence to support this sweeping claim. It’s impractical to assert that every Christian layperson from the New Testament era to 1517 shared a uniform interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20 without comprehensive data. Historically, such assertions are based on the interpretations of select theologians or Church authorities rather than a universal consensus.
• As noted in a blog post from Triablogue:

“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.”*

Contextual Understanding:

The “prophetic word” in this passage refers to the Old Testament, validated by the Apostles’ experience of Christ’s transfiguration. This experience confirms their belief in the Old Testament prophecies and Christ’s return. The analogy of love letters, as explained by commentator Peter Davids, illustrates how Christians eagerly anticipate Christ’s return, paying close attention to Scripture as a guiding light.

The reference to the prophetic word as a “lamp shining in a dark place” echoes Old Testament imagery, such as Psalm 119:105, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” This metaphor underscores the guidance and illumination that Scripture provides in a world filled with spiritual darkness.

The phrase “until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” alludes to the eschatological hope in Christ’s return. Malachi 4:2 speaks of the “sun of righteousness” rising with healing, and Revelation 22:16 identifies Christ as the “bright morning star.” This imagery emphasizes the transformative and hope-filled expectation of Christ’s second coming, which is grounded in the prophetic word.

Competing Interpretations:

• There are two plausible interpretations of verse 20. One focuses on the interpretation of prophecy, and the other on the origin of prophecy. Thomas Schreiner supports the former, emphasizing that valid interpretations must align with apostolic teaching, while Richard Bauckham supports the latter, focusing on the divine origin of prophecy. Schreiner argues that Peter’s insistence on apostolic standards does not support the Roman Catholic or Orthodox view that individual interpretation must be sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority:

“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), p. 279.

Historical Commentary:

• Examining historical interpretations, we see that early Church Fathers like Oecumenius, Bede, and Hilary of Arles emphasized the divine origin of prophecy rather than institutional control over its interpretation. Their focus was on the Spirit’s role in conveying divine messages, not on restricting interpretation to Church authorities. This aligns more closely with the interpretation that Peter was underscoring the divine inspiration and reliability of prophecy, not establishing a precedent for Church-controlled exegesis:

“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.”*

• Oecumenius, Commentary on 2 Peter.

“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.”*

• Bede, On 2 Peter.

“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.”*

Hilary of Arles (403-449), Introductory Commentary on 2 Peter.

Greek Terminology and Prophetic Nature:

• The Greek term for “interpretation” (ἐπιλύσεως) appears only here in all of biblical literature but is used in other ancient Greek texts to mean the explanation of dreams, riddles, parables, omens, or visions. This suggests that the term refers to the proper interpretation of divine messages rather than their human origin.
• Richard Bauckham provides insight into this understanding:

“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 cases symbolic visions. 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.”*