But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Pet 1:20-21, 1995 NASB)
Commenting on the teachings about inspiration and scripture in this passage, Jerome Neyrey wrote:
The issue in 1:20-21, however, is not the source of prophecy but its interpretation. The claim is made that the author’s interpretation is correct (i.e., “inspired”), but no rationale is given. Yet the understanding of tradition for a group-oriented culture can illuminate how a correct interpretation can be known. The author appeals to traditions about both God’s judgment and Jesus’ parousia. He appeals to this tradition in regard to the prophecies being disputed when he “reminds you of the predictions by the holy prophets and the command of the Lord through your apostles” (3:2). Even Paul supports these (3:15—16). Thus his interpretation of the prophecies can be measured according to group norms; his vision is truly in accord with that has been proclaimed semper, ab omnibus, ubique, always, by all, and everywhere. It accords, moreover, with Scripture as alluded to in 2:4-9 and 3:5-7 and with dominical traditions (3:10-12). Although some oracle-mongers tailored their materials to leave out threatening prophecies (Thucydides 2.8.2; 2.21.3; 8.1.1), Paul criticizes those who say “Peace and security” (1 Thess 5:2). Hence, if distortion took place in the selection and presentation of oracles, it tended to be in the omission of disturbing material, which is not the case with 2 Peter. Thus the claim is made to know the collective, wisdom of the group and to adhere to it. The author’s interpretation is not self-serving or idiosyncratic. (Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 182)
