[Springfield Reformer]

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

[af_vet_1981]

... 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: ...

Thank you for the lesson and this response is to acknowledge it and not to make short shrift of it as I need to meditate on what you have written. I do have two points that I already anticipated before you responded and which your response confirms.

1. I anticipated a rejection of the KJV translation as inadequate. I have found only one error in the KJV and generally go with it when dealing with Protestants or other non-Catholic Christians. I find the constant modern retranslation of the Scriptures into English over and over again to be a symptom of the same problem as the constant reformation of new denominations, sects, and cults, every man his own pope and every man his own translator. Are there passages I am tempted to retranslate ? Yes. Am I going to do it ? I think not. I'm stuck with what we inherited, whether I particularly like it or not. I generally do not engage in debate with nonCatholics in any translation except the KJV.
2. If Peter were writing to the Gentiles in his epistle, and he may have been, perhaps even in Rome, then your point that he must first establish that prophecy comes from God and does not originate from the prophet. I read 1 Peter Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. and compare it with 2 Peter Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, and admit that could be the case. I just don't know. If he were writing to Jews in the diaspora, which is my assumption, then his point makes more sense in the KJV rendering. A prophet does not interpret his own prophecy privately; a true interpretation comes only from God; I can explore this when I have more time.
3. As always, it is a pleasure to read your patient and well thought out responses. I will give this more thought.

[af_vet_1981]

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?

answers, albeit constrained due to finger typing smart phone
1. False teaching within the flock, the cause of some sheep, for whom he is responsible from a direct commission by the LORD Jesus, to fall away
2. after his apostolic eyewitness testimony he appealed to the other Jewish scriptures as an even greater testimony, but only when properly interpreted; wrongly interpreting the Prophets leads to heresy, and then Peter tells us where that leads.

[af_vet_1981]

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?

I think Peter gets to the heart of the matter immediately when he lays out the great gift and promises to us from God, and explains how to make sure we are not led astray by those who personally interpret the scriptures incorrectly. 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: 4Whereby 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. 5And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

He then explains that he knows his life here is almost over and he is greatly concerned for what will happen to the sheep with whom he was entrusted after he is gone; so he reminds them of all this in a form which not only reaches them once, but can be retained for reference after his martyrdom.

He then explains his evidence, both as an eye witness Apostle who actually heard the voice of God, and from the word of God that came by the Holy Spirit through the prophets. He does not seem to indicate that his immediate audience were Gentiles unfamiliar with the Jewish prophets. I still assume they were primarily Jews of the Diaspora, as in his first epistle, although the addressee portion is ambiguous so it is much more generally addressed to all believers at that time. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies refers to "the people", ie., Israel, and uses the word "heresies" which Strong's defines a bit differently than the conventional English definition after centuries of usage. In the NT usage there are nine occurrences
hairesis: choice, opinion Original Word: αἵρεσις, εως, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: hairesis Phonetic Spelling: (hah'-ee-res-is) Short Definition: a self-chosen opinion, a sect Definition: a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention.

It is translated as sect or heresies in the KJV, and I cannot help but look at how it was a "self-chosen opinion" that separated the chooser(s) from the orthodox truth.

He repeats the purpose of the epistle. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

He reminds and warns them not to be deceived by those who also interpret the New Testament scriptures from Paul incorrectly, along with the other Scriptures, and not to fall from their own stedfastness.

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

So I think the epistle is much more about the interpretation of Scripture, rather than the origin, and the most important lesson to take away is: And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: