2 Peter 1:21

What we have in Scripture did not originate in the minds of men but in the mind of God.

"False teaching flows from the minds of men and women; truth flows from the heart and mind of the living God." [Note: Cedar, p. 218.]

The prophets did not simply give their views of how things were or would be (2 Peter 1:20). They spoke as God’s mouthpieces articulating His thoughts in words that accurately represented those thoughts. The Holy Spirit "moved" the prophets to do so as the wind moves a sailboat (cf. John 3:8). The same Greek verb (phero) occurs in Acts 27:15; Acts 27:17 to describe that action.

"The Spirit, not human volition, is the originating power in prophecy." [Note: Hiebert, "The Prophetic . . .," p. 166.]

This passage does not explain specifically how the Holy Spirit did this. However in view of what we find elsewhere in Scripture, we know He did it without overriding the vocabulary and style of the prophet. In some cases the writers of Scripture used other resource materials (e.g., Joshua 10:13; 1 Kings 14:19; Luke 1:3; et al.). Even though 2 Peter 1:20-21 do not describe the method of inspiration in detail, they clearly affirm the basic method and the fact of inspiration. God is the Author of Scripture (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16). He guided the writers of Scripture to record His words by His Holy Spirit.

"Peter’s statement recognizes both the divine and the human element in the production of Scripture. Any balanced doctrine of the origin of Scripture must recognize both." [Note: Ibid.]

"A prevailing view is that the reference is to the reader’s own efforts to understand written prophecy, that ’one’s own interpretation’ must not be imposed on a specific prophetic passage. Under this view the problem is the method of interpreting prophecy. Yet Peter does not tell how believers are to interpret prophecy.

"Varied views as to the meaning of ’one’s own interpretation’ are offered. (1) The believer as a private individual does not have the ability to interpret prophecy but needs ecclesiastical direction. But many scriptural prophecies have been rightly understood by the common reader apart from any ecclesiastical guidance; nor have the views of ’authorized interpreters’ always been uniform. (2) A prophecy must not be interpreted in isolation but needs the light of the unfolding fulfillment thereof. While it is true that Christians’ understanding of prophecy now is often vague and uncertain, to hold that it cannot be understood till it is fulfilled makes valueless the present lamp of prophecy. (3) Prophetic predictions should not be interpreted in isolation from other Scriptures. It is obvious that each prophecy must be so interpreted as to be consistent with other prophecies; but this does not prove that any individual prophecy in itself is obscure. Peter has just declared that Old Testament prophecy was a shining lamp. And its light is clearer now that Christ has come in His First Advent. (4) It is not the individual but the Holy Spirit who must interpret, as well as inspire, prophecy. This is true, but it does not invalidate or eliminate the human effort to understand. These views do not arise out of the main thought of the context.

"More probable is the view that the statement concerns the origin of prophecy and relates to the prophet himself. This is the view of the New International Version: ’No prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet’s own interpretation.’ The meaning, then, is that no prophecy arose out of the prophet’s own solution to the scenes he confronted or his own interpretation of the visions presented to his mind. Calvin remarked that the prophets ’did not blab their inventions of their own accord or according to their own judgments.’ [John Calvin, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter," in Calvin’s Commentaries, p. 343.] The false prophets of Jeremiah’s day were charged with doing precisely this (Jeremiah 23:16-17; Jeremiah 23:21-22; Jeremiah 23:25-26; Ezekiel 13:3).

"The view that prophecy did not arise ’from one’s own interpretation’ (ablative case) is supported by the natural meaning of the verb (ginetai ["was made," "had its origin," or "came"]); it is in harmony with the scriptural picture of prophecy; and it is in accord with the following verse. It is supported by Peter’s picture of the prophets in 1 Peter 1:10-12. The prophetic lamp ’was neither fashioned nor lighted by the prophet himself,’ and its divine origin offers ’a distinct and powerful motive for taking heed to the prophetic word, and one well fitted to produce a patient and reverent and docile spirit of investigation.’" [Note: John Lillie, Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter, p. 428. Cf. Bigg, p. 270.]

"Peter is not here warning against personal interpretation of prophecy as the Roman Catholics say, but against the folly of upstart prophets with no impulse from God." [Note: Robertson, 6:159. See also Hiebert, Second Peter . . ., pp. 81-82; and Buist M. Fanning, "A Theology of Peter and Jude," in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 462-65.]

In this section (2 Peter 1:12-21) Peter reminded his readers that they had adequate resources for their own spiritual growth in the apostles’ teachings and in the Old Testament.