Albert Barnes Commentary 2 Peter 1:20

"knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." — 2 Peter 1:20 (ASV)

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

That no prophecy of the scripture. This means 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 he makes about prophecy is general, though it is designed to bear on a particular class of prophecies.

Is of any private interpretation. The expression used here (idiav epilusewv) has given rise to as great a diversity of interpretation, and to as much discussion, as perhaps any phrase in the New Testament; and until now, there is no general agreement among expositors as to its meaning.

It would be foreign to the design of these Notes, and of little use, to list all the different interpretations given for the passage or to examine them in detail. It will be sufficient to remark, before attempting to determine the true sense of the passage, that various views have been held: some believe it teaches that no prophecy can be interpreted by itself but can be understood only by comparing it with the event; others, that the prophets did not themselves understand what they wrote, but were mere passive instruments under the dictation of the Holy Spirit, communicating to future times what they could not themselves explain; others, that it teaches that "no prophecy is of self-interpretation" (Horsley); others, that the prophecies, besides having a literal meaning, also possess a hidden and mystical sense that cannot be learned from the prophecies themselves but is to be perceived by a unique power of insight imparted by the Holy Ghost, enabling people to understand their profound mysteries.

It would be easy to show that some of these opinions are absurd and that none of them are supported by a fair interpretation of the language used or by the main point of the passage. The more correct interpretation, it seems to me, is that the apostle teaches that the truths the prophets communicated did not originate with themselves. They were not of their own suggestion or invention, nor were they their own opinions, but were of a higher origin and were imparted by God. 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 concerning the prophets, that what they communicated was not of their own disclosure; that is, it 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 his readers to study them diligently. This could be best secured by assuring them that the writings he wished them to study did not contain truths originated by the human mind but were of a 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 it, or in connection with which that verse will have any force. In that verse (2 Peter 1:21), a reason is given for what is said here: For (gar) the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, etc. 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, and that the prophets spoke 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 profoundly studied.

3. This interpretation accords as well, to say the least, with the fair meaning of the language used, as any of the other opinions proposed. The word translated interpretation (epilusiv) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means solution (Robinson's Lexicon), disclosure (Professor Stuart on the Old Testament, p. 328), or making free (Passow), with the idea that what is thus released or loosed was previously bound, entangled, or obscure.

   The verb from which this word is derived (epiluw) means to let loose upon, as dogs upon a hare (Xenophon, Memorabilia 7.8; ibid. 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 used twice in the New Testament. In Mark 4:34: He expounded all things to his disciples. And in Acts 19:39: It shall be determined in a lawful assembly. The word, according to this, in the passage before us, would mean the disclosure of what was previously bound, retained, or unknown—either what had never been communicated at all, or what had been communicated obscurely. The idea is that "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 is the true interpretation, then it follows that the prophecies are to be regarded as of higher than any human origin. It also 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 God's hand to make known his will.

Whatever may be the truth on those points, this passage proves nothing concerning them, any more than the fact that a minister of religion today declares truth that 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 also follows that this passage cannot be used by Roman Catholics 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 from 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 that was not of private solution, but it does not state that it is the church's duty to prevent any private explanation or opinion, even of the prophecies.

3. It says nothing about the church being 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 entrusted with any such power whatsoever. There was never a greater perversion of a passage of Scripture than to suppose that this teaches that any class of people should not 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 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 people.

The fact that it discloses truths that the human mind could not have originated by itself is a good reason for studying it diligently and with prayer—not for supposing that it is unlawful for us to attempt to understand it; it is a good reason for reverence and veneration for it—not for sanctified neglect.

Such "private interpretation" would mean that it "is from a man's own invention."