2 Peter 1:20-21

[Jess]

Hi Steve (or anyone who smarter or has a better memory than I do),

Regarding: "20. But know this first of all, that no prophesy 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."

I recall listening to one of your tapes and hearing comments on these verses (I don't remember exactly where I heard it, however). You described how they had at one time been used by the Catholic church to support the idea that scriptures needed to be interpreted by the clergy but then described what you felt was the best interpretation. I don't remember exactly what your take was on this passage. Could you re-enlighten me?

Thanks very much.

In Him,

Jess

[steve]

Peter is not discussing the rightness or wrongness of you or me interpreting scripture for ourselves. He is not speaking about the use of scripture, but of its origin. Usually, your NASB is a good translation. However, in this case, it followed the RSV, and ended up missing the point. The passage is saying that the prophecies did not originate with the prophet's own ideas. In the interlinear, it reads:

"this first knowing,that every prophecy of Scripture of one's own interpretation not occurs' (i.e., "does not occur of one's own interpretation").

Peter describes how the scriptures did not occur—not how they should not be studied.

Almost every translation gets it better than the NASB:

"knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of [a word speaking of origin] any private interpretation" (NKJV)

"knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation." (ESV)

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation." (NIV)

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves" (NLT)

"knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation" (ASV)

"this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition" (Young's literal)




Of course, The Message gets it wrong:

"The main thing to keep in mind here is that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private opinion"

[Jess]

Thanks Steve, Very helpful.

Jess

[kaufmannphillips]

The interlinear seems funky here. The Greek rendered "one's own" in the interlinear is feminine. The feminine, then, appears to refer to the prophecy, which is also feminine here.

So we have something like: "Each prophecy of a scripture {is not / does not come to be} of [=from?] its own {release / explanation}."

In context, one might imagine multiple implications (particularly if one looks beyond the chapter break). Prophecy derives from the spirit; and it is not a human invention or a spontaneous generation. But accordingly, its significance is derivative, and not sheerly of itself. That humans can interpret a scripture in a certain way, according to its own form, does not make such an interpretation authoritative per se. To have authority, the explanation of a scripture must match the spirit which it has derived from.

[Jess]

Thanks for the insight. I have to get myself an interlinear translation.

Jess

[kaufmannphillips]

Oops - made a boo-boo.

The term translated "one's own" (idias) is feminine here because it modifies epiluseos (release/explanation). It appears that idias does not in itself grammatically telegraph who or what is being referred to, so hypothetically it could be either "one's own" or "its own."

Interlinears have their uses, but they often do not convey the complete range of potential afforded by the original language. They are not a substitute for studying the original languages.