Private Interpretation

One of the big issues in the Reformation was over the question of who was allowed to read Scripture. The Roman Catholic church argued that it took special training and the vast tradition of the Church to be able to understand Scripture. The Reformers argued for what is called the Perspicuity of Scripture. Oddly enough, perspicuity means something that is plain to the understanding. (You'd think they would have used a more perspicuous word.) The debates have continued to this day with neither side giving way. But the most popular "biblical proof" of the Roman Catholic position is found in Peter's second epistle:

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

I mean, what more do you need? It's clear there that private interpretation is not allowed. Do you need some roadmap to see that?

What did Peter mean? Was he arguing as the first pope that average Joe Christian couldn't read and interpret the Bible? Or did he have something else in mind?

To answer the question, we should look at the context.

¹⁶ For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," ¹⁸ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. ¹⁹ And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, ²⁰ knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. ²¹ For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:16-21).

First, then, the topic. Peter is telling his readers that they could have great confidence of the truth they believed. It wasn't something magical they made up. Theirs were eyewitness accounts. Peter actually witnessed the Transfiguration (Matt 17), actually saw Christ in His glory, actually heard God speak. This wasn't made-up stuff. It was real. Beyond their experience, Peter told them that they had genuine prophecy. Now, true prophecy is defined as the divinely inspired utterance of a prophet. A prophet is a person someone who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of God is expressed. That is, it is not just foretelling things, but forthtelling what God says. Or, to be more clear, all of Scripture is prophecy, the divinely inspired expression of God. And Peter is arguing that, better than eyewitness accounts, we have the God-breathed Scripture.

Why is God-breathed Scripture better than eyewitnesses? Well, the answer to that is in the passage we are trying to unravel. To do so, look at the verse that follows. "No prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). God-breathed Scripture is better than eyewitness accounts because of the origins of the two. Eyewitnesses are human accounts. As good as they might be, they are subject to human error. God-breathed Scripture, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from that possibility. You see (and here we are at our verse), Scripture doesn't come from human interpretation, but from God.

That is Peter's argument. We have confidence in what we believe because eyewitnesses reported it, sure, but we have utmost confidence because we have infallible Scripture. If we minimize verse 20 to warn against individuals interpreting Scripture, we essentially wipe out Peter's argument. First, it is not a call to confidence in Scripture, but a warning. Second, even if Scripture is fully reliable, you could never know it because only a select few are allowed to read and understand it. No, no. Peter isn't warning against private interpretation. He's saying that Scripture is not produced by private writers, but by God. Seems like an appropriate claim today considering the attack that the infallible Word of God is under today.