2 Peter 1:20

Knowing this first. — The participle belongs to “take heed” in 2 Peter 1:19. “First” means “first of all” (1 Timothy 2:1), not “before I tell you.” In studying prophecy this is the first thing to be borne in mind.

Is of any private interpretation. — Better, comes to be, or becomes of private interpretation. The word rendered “interpretation” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but the cognate verb occurs in Mark 4:34, where it is translated “expound.” (See Note there.) There can be little doubt that “interpretation,” or “solution,” is the right rendering here, although others have been suggested. The main question however, is the meaning of the word rendered “private,” which may also mean “its own.” Hence three explanations are possible. The term may refer (1) to the recipients of the prophecies — that we may not expound prophecy according to our own fancy; or (2) to the utterers of the prophecies — that the prophets had not the power of expounding their own prophecies; or (3) to the prophecies themselves — that no prophecy comes to be of its own interpretation, i.e., no prophecy explains itself. The guide to the right explanation is 2 Peter 1:21, which gives the reason why “no prophecy of the scripture,” &c. This consideration excludes (3); for 2 Peter 1:21 yields no sense as showing why prophecy does not interpret itself. Either of the other two explanations may be right. (1) If prophecy came “by the will of man,” then it might be interpreted according to man’s fancy. But it did not so come; consequently the interpretation must be sought elsewhere — viz., at the same source from which the prophecy itself proceeded. (2) If the prophets spoke just as they pleased, they would be the best exponents of what they meant. But they spoke under divine influence, and therefore need not know the import of their own words. Prophecy must be explained by prophecy and by history, not by the individual prophet. The whole body of prophecy, “the prophetic word” (2 Peter 1:19), is our lamp in the wilderness, not the private dicta of any one seer. In modern phraseology, interpretation must be comparative and scientific. This view is strengthened by comparing 1 Peter 1:10, where it is stated that the prophets did not know how or when their own predictions would be fulfilled. Possibly this passage is meant to refer to 1 Peter 1:10, and if so, we have a mark of genuineness; a forger would have made the reference more clear. If the coincidence is accidental, this also points in the same direction; in any case, the coincidence is worth noting.