Replies

You have asked me to begin my analysis by looking at the meaning of the word επιλυσεως "epiluseos," but to do so effectively we need to set the table.

In the case of 2 Peter 1:20, to resolve the disputed language, we have to look at the logical flow of Peter's argument. What was being contested? And why did Peter choose to resolve that conflict by telling his readers that Scripture comes from the Holy Spirit?

Look back to verses 2-4:

2Pe 1:2-4 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, (3) According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: (4) Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

These are astounding promises indeed. By His divine power we have everything we need, we are called to virtue, glory, participation in the divine nature. But then there is trouble to resolve. Peter knows these are amazing, supernatural claims, and some would call them fables. They are too good to be true. Most likely he is reacting to some who have troubled his readers with claims he is just making these things up. So, knowing he is soon going to die, he wants his readers to understand and remember that these amazing promises are all true, and not mere fables:

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

And so he begins with the fact that he was a personal eyewitness to the glory of Christ, revealed in fullness of His divine majesty on the mount of transfiguration.

But even better than Peter's testimony is the testimony of God directly recorded in Scripture:

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

A day will come when we sit with Jesus in the Kingdom, and all uncertainty as to His promises will be forever erased from our minds and hearts. But until that day comes, we have something even better than Peter's eyewitness testimony: We have God's own word on it. All the promises of God are "Yes!" Affirmed. Indisputable. 100% reliable. And it is the establishing of that certainty in his readers' minds which brings him to verse 20:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

And in the Greek:

2Pe 1:20 τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται.

"knowing this first" is a marker that the following idea is supremely important toward his goal. And what is his goal? To establish certainty in his readers that God will fulfill all those amazing promises. So in answer to our earlier question, this is the "why," the reason he goes to this argument. It is not to establish some intermediate human authority as the sole proper interpreter of Scripture. The goal is to give his readers assurance they can trust God to come through on His promises, and the doctrine he is about to mention is supremely important to that goal.

So how does he establish this certainty? By showing that Scripture comes from God, not man. He says, in effect, that "every prophetic writing does not come into being of his own disclosure."

ἐπιλύσεως ("epiluseos") is the word commonly translated as "interpretation" here, and it can mean that:

ἐπίλυσις, εως, ἡ (Aeschyl.+ w. var. mngs.; inscr., pap.) explanation, interpretation (so Sext. Emp., Pyrrh. 2, 246; Vett. Val. 221, 9; 330, 10; Heliod. 1, 18, 2 ὀνειράτων ἐπίλυσις; Gen 40:8 Aq.; Philo, Vi. Cont. 75, l. 8 v.l.; Clem. of Alex., Paed. 2, 1, 14) πᾶσα προφητεία ὒδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται 2 Pt 1:20 (γίνομαι II 2a and ἴδιος 1 aβ.—Ps.-Callisth. 2, 1, 5 Stasagoras complains about the unfavorable interpretation of an omen by the prophetess in these words: σὺ σεαυτῇ ἐπέλυσας τὸ σημεῖον=you gave the omen your own interpretation.—S. also WArndt, CTM 7, ’36, 685-91). Of the interpretation of a parable Hs 5, 5, 1; 5, 6, 8; 5, 7, 1; 8, 11, 1; 9, 13, 9; 9, 16, 7. M-M.*

See Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature

But according to Greek Scholar AT Robertson its more generic meaning is to untie or release something, which in the case of information, would mean disclosure. Look back at the lexical reference just above and note how it was applied in the context of pagan prophecy. The omen came from the purported deity, and it was up to the alleged prophetess to interpret it. Similarly, we know that this same term is used in the Septuagint of Joseph, as he is interpreting Pharaoh's dreams about the coming famine. As with the classical reference above, it was the job of the prophet to interpret the divinely sent message.

Even Philo demonstrates this model, using language amazingly like that of Peter, to express the relationship between the prophet (not the reader) and his message:

"for a prophet says nothing of his own, but everything which he says is strange and prompted by some one else"

Available at http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book17.html

So this raises the question of where ἰδίας ("idias") is pointing back to. ἰδίας is the word typically translated "private," but the word more nearly means something like "his own," yet the immediate antecedent is "prophetic writing," not "prophet." So is it "every prophetic writing does not come into being of [the prophecy's] own disclosure," or is it "every prophetic writing does not come into being of [the prophet's] own disclosure?" I believe the latter is the correct rendering, based on verse 21, which provides an immediate and unambiguous explanation:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost..

So you see he is talking about the coming of prophecy, it's divine origin and nature, the passive role the prophet plays. But not one word about rules for reading it. This locks it down that the referent of ἰδίας in verse 20 is the prophet. And this is exactly the model we see in the actual delivery of the prophetic message:

Jer 1:4-8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, (5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (6) Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. (7) But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. (8) Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.

So you see it was the prophet who was obligated NOT to interfere with the divine message by interjecting his own ideas. He was simply to relate to God's people what God had to say to them. Note the word "For" in 2 Peter 1:21. It is γάρ ("gar"), which is a marker of explanation, the reason this prophecy can be trusted as NOT being the concoction of the prophet's own imagination, is that it came from, or had it's origin with, God acting through the Holy Spirit, and not man.

So finally we can look to the word γίνεται ("ginetai") for confirmation of this meaning. If Peter had wanted to use the simple verb of being, he would use the verb "estin," which corresponds very nicely to our simple "is." But that's not the word chosen by the Holy Spirit here. Instead, the word is γίνεται, which speaks of something coming into being, an origin story. So in verse 20, Peter is saying, the origin of true prophecy is NOT the prophet. Then he goes to the positive contrast and tells us the origin is God. This locks down his case against those accusing him of fables, because these very things he was eyewitness to were foretold in Scripture by God Himself. End of story. Case closed. The opponent can raise no argument to defeat that. Scripture ends the argument. Which serves Peter's goal, which is to provide his readers with the certainty that comes with the glorious promises of God, that He has spoken, and will be faithful to His word.

Well, it's past two in the morning here, so I must go to bed. There really is a lot more to say. I didn't even get to the gender matching in the phrase in question. Hope this helps.

Peace,

SR