Holding Firmly to Doctrinal Truth (9) - 2 Peter 1:11-21

Introduction:

Background:

Proposition: We must hold to doctrinal truth unwaveringly.

Interrogative: How do we hold to the truth unwaveringly?

I. We need to be reminded of doctrinal truth (1:11-15)

2 Peter 1:11–15 (NKJV) — 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 12 For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. 13 Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, 14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.

A. The Reason - 12

1. The supplied entrance

2. Supplied abundantly into the everlasting kingdom

3. Of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

B. The Objective - 13

1. Not negligent

2. To remind you always of these things

3. Though you know and are established

4. In the present truth

C. The Mindset - 14-15

Knowing that shortly I must put off this tent

Just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me

Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.

Perhaps Peter used a literary form of a farewell address or a testament (see introduction).1 Scholars have identified various elements in such farewell addresses. Neyrey sees five formal elements: (1) prediction of death, (2) prophecy of future crises, (3) exhortations to virtue, (4) a commission, and (5) the legacy of the author.2 In a general sense we could say that nearly every element is present in 2 Peter, except that a commission is not really in the text. The fundamental element of a farewell address is that the person giving the address is dying and wants to pass on his teaching to those who remain behind. Farewell addresses like this are common in the Scriptures: the final words of Jacob (Gen 49:1–33), of Moses (Deut 33:1–29), of Joshua (Josh 24:1–28), of Jesus (John 13:1–17:26), and of Paul at Miletus (Acts 20:17–35). The testament genre was common in second-temple Judaism as well, with books such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriachs, Testament of Job, Testament of Moses. The latter books were clearly pseudonymous, and some draw the same conclusion regarding 2 Peter. I would argue, however, that the canonical accounts all represent authentic testaments, and there is no reason to draw a different conclusion about 2 Peter. Peter wrote so that his readers would be able to remember and apply his teaching in the days when he had departed and was no longer with them. What we have here, therefore, is an apostolic reminder. Peter put himself in the same role as Moses, Joshua, and even Jesus. As an apostle of Jesus Christ, he reminded the church of the truth to which they should remain devoted. Peter, by appealing to his death and the words of Jesus, invoked his authority.

The “therefore” (dio, v. 12, NRSV) points back to all of vv. 3–11.3 Christ has given believers everything they need for life and godliness and has called them by his powerful grace (vv. 3–4). Such grace serves as an incentive for a godly life of virtue (vv. 5–7), and a life of godliness is necessary for entering the eternal kingdom (vv. 8–11). Such a godly life is not the earning of salvation but evidence that salvation truly belongs to the readers. But it also is the human means by which salvation is realized. Peter felt constrained, therefore, to remind the readers (vv. 12–15) of his teaching because eternal life was at stake. False teachers had crept into the community (2:1), and Peter admonished the church so that they would not forget the faithful teaching they heard when they first believed. The paragraph has one basic point: to remind believers to keep pursuing a virtuous life.

1:12 Peter began by saying he wanted to remind believers of “these things” (toutōn). Probably by “these things” he refers to all of vv. 3–11.4 But if that is the case, why did Peter use the future tense? Some scholars have deduced from this that Peter referred to future reminders and excluded 2 Peter. The construction is difficult, but perhaps we should conceive of Peter as he actually wrote or dictated the letter. What he had already written was in his mind, and what was still to come in the letter was also intended.5 Peter resolved to remind believers as long as life lasts, and the primary vehicle is the letter he now wrote, though future reminders were not necessarily excluded.

In one sense the believers do not need any reminder because they already “know” and “are firmly established in the truth.” The idea is quite similar to Jude 3, where the faith is described as transmitted once for all to the saints. The readers should not be swayed by the false teachers because they already know the truth, and they are strengthened by it even now. The reference to “strengthening” reminds the readers of the power of the gospel. The truth they know cannot be limited to mental comprehension, for the truth grasps and strengthens them; it grants them the power to live in a way that is pleasing to God. The truth “has come” (parousē) to them and belongs to them (cf. Col 1:5–6). The innovations suggested by the false teachers are superfluous and dangerous. The church has been taught and fortified by the gospel.

1:13 Peter now reflected on why he felt a responsibility to remind the church. He thought it was fitting and right for him, as an authoritative apostle, to prompt the church with the truth of the gospel as long as he lived. This responsibility was incumbent upon him as long as he lived “in the tent of this body” (the Greek actually does not have “of this body”).6 Similarly, Paul compared our present bodies to a tent (2 Cor 5:1, 4). Some think there is a connection to the transfiguration, where Peter suggested building three tents (Matt 17:4), but the link does not fit the present context and is quite implausible.7 What the word “tent” signifies here is actually quite different, for, as in 2 Cor 5:1–10, the weakness and inadequacy of the present body is featured. Reminding the readers is urgent because Peter’s body was subject to death, and he would soon die. We are not surprised, therefore, that the focus is on the function of reminders. Even though believers are already firmly established in the truth, they need to be “stirred up” or “aroused” (diegeirein) by reminders. The NIV’s “refresh” is too tame. Reminders arouse and provoke believers, prompting them to prize the gospel afresh. Peter hoped that his words would stab the believers awake so they would reject what the opponents taught. Believers know the gospel, and yet they must, in a sense, relearn it every day.

1:14 Peter’s urgency to remind the believers finds its rationale in the shortness of his life. He again refers to his body as a “tent” (“it,” NIV), stressing again its weakness and transience. Commentators debate whether the idea is that Peter would die “suddenly” or “soon” (tachinē). The rendering “soon” is contextually more likely.8 As Peter grew older, he knew that the days of his life on earth were numbered, that the time of his death was near. Unfortunately, we do not know the precise circumstances of Peter’s life when he wrote the letter, and so we cannot determine if some event in his life elicited this comment.

What Peter did say was that the Lord Jesus revealed to him that he would die. Scholars have investigated thoroughly what Peter had in mind.9 Some have detected a reference to John 13:36, but the prophecy here is rather vague. Others point to Apocalypse of Peter, where Jesus appears to Peter and commands him to die in Rome; still others, to the famous “Quo Vadis” story in Acts of Peter (ca. a.d. 180). In this account Peter met Jesus as the former was leaving Rome. Peter asked the Lord where he was going, and the Lord replied he was going to Rome to be crucified again. Peter responded by returning to Rome to be crucified. Others see a reference to the tradition in chap. 2 of Epistle of Clement to James. The last three sources are all dated after 2 Peter and hence cannot be the source of Peter’s story if the letter is authentic. The “Quo Vadis” story is likely legendary. Since Peter was writing, he could have been referring to an oral saying of Jesus that was not codified anywhere. It is most likely, however, that he referred to the tradition found in John 21:18–19, where Jesus informed Peter that his hands would be stretched out in a way he did not choose. Of course, an allusion to John 21:18–19 does not demand that 2 Peter was written after the Gospel of John, for if Peter was the author of the letter, he recalled the prophecy that was uttered by the Lord Jesus, and subsequently John wrote down the account.10 The prophecy itself does not say that Peter would die “soon,” but if Peter was now an older man, he knew that the prophecy would come to pass soon.11 Perhaps, if he was in Rome when the letter was written, he could have seen that events were now shaping up that would lead to his death. If the Neronic persecutions had begun, perhaps Peter thought that the end of his life was near with the advent of intense persecution.

1:15 This verse basically restates v. 12, though now Peter stressed that he would be diligent (“I will make every effort,” spoudasō) to remind believers before his departure. The future tense is again puzzling, but perhaps Bauckham is correct in saying that Peter thought of the future usefulness of what he wrote.12 Or it may be, as suggested in v. 12, that the remainder of the letter and the short time Peter had on earth were both in mind. We should note that in 2 Pet 2:1 the arrival of the false teachers was described in the future tense, but it is evident that they were already present. Another alternative is that the future tense was used to denote certainty. It seems most likely that Peter thought especially of his letter, which would continue to remind believers after Peter’s death. Others argue that we have a reference here to the Gospel of Mark, which, according to tradition, was written by Mark as Peter’s disciple.13 McNamara argues that we have evidence here that chaps. 1 and 3 were not originally part of the same letter but circulated independently and were later combined into the same letter.14 Neither of these latter theories is persuasive. It is not evident in 2 Peter that we have any reference to the Gospel, which was written after all by Mark and not Peter. Nor is there any compelling reason to maintain that chaps. 1 and 3 originally circulated independently. No clear evidence of different documents patched together exists.15 Scholars now rightly emphasize that the letters were written as wholes and what we have here is an anticipation of what Peter communicated in 2 Pet 3:1–2. The word “departure” (exodos) is used elsewhere to refer to death (Wis 3:2; T. Naph. 1:1). It is far-fetched to see any allusion to the transfiguration simply because Jesus mentioned his exodus in Luke 9:31. Such a reading superimposes the next paragraph in 2 Peter upon this one.

Transition:

II. We need to discern the sources of doctrinal truth (2:16-18)

2 Peter 1:16–18 (NKJV) — 16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

A. The Message - 16

1. Not cunningly devised fables

2. We made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

B. The Basis - 17

1. Were eyewitnesses of His majesty

2. But we received from God the Father honor, and glory

3. When such a voice came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain

C. The Occurrence: And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on a holy mountain

1:16 The main verb in v. 16 is “we made known” (egnōrisamen), which the NIV renders as a temporal clause (“when we told”). The “we” here stands for the apostles generally.18 Peter probably was not claiming that he personally established the churches addressed. His point was that the churches were founded on apostolic tradition and teaching. These early Christians were instructed about “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The terms dynamis (“power”) and parousia (“coming”) should be interpreted together.19 They do not designate two different things but speak of the “powerful coming” of Jesus Christ. When Jesus returns, he will return in power (cf. Matt 25:31; 2 Thess 1:7–10). The word parousia can simply mean “presence” (2 Cor 10:10; Phil 2:12), and a few scholars have seen a reference to Jesus’ incarnation here.20 But in the New Testament it becomes virtually a technical term for the arrival or future coming of Jesus Christ (Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8; Jas 5:7–8; 2 Pet 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28).21 In the Hellenistic world the word is also used for the arrival of a ruler or a god.22 In 2 Pet 3:4, 12 the term is used of the Lord’s coming, where Peter refuted the skepticism of the false teachers. Peter foreshadowed here his refutation of the opponents in chap. 3.

What the apostles preached, then, was the powerful future coming of the Lord. On that day it will be decided who will enter Christ’s eternal kingdom (1:11), and it is reserved only for those who have lived godly lives (1:5–10). Peter informed them with two contrasting participles about the nature of the apostolic knowledge that was conveyed to them. He told them what it was not and then what it was. First, the apostles “did not follow cleverly invented stories.” The word “stories” is from the Greek word mythos from which we derive the English word “myth.” We should note first of all that Peter did not describe the teaching of his opponents as “myths.” On the contrary, the false teachers insisted that the apostolic teaching was a myth, in particular the notion that Jesus Christ would return.23 They likely appealed to the stability of the world, arguing against sudden interventions and holding to the constancy of the natural order. The word “myth” was often used in Greek culture to convey stories about the Greek gods. The stories were not literally true, but they conveyed a message that was still instructive for the day.24 D. F. Strauss and R. Bultmann used the term in a similar way to communicate their understanding of gospels.25 The term “myth,” however, could also designate something that is a “fable.” In Greek literature the word is also used with that meaning. In the latter instance myths stand for teachings or stories that have no basis in reality and are fantasies. Such stories have no value whatsoever. Paul likely used the term with this meaning in describing the false teachers in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14). The false teachers in 2 Peter describe the apostolic teaching as mythical in this derogatory sense. The adjectival participle sesophismenois (“cleverly devised”) supports this interpretation. They see no kernel of truth in the preaching of the second coming of Christ but ridicule it as a fable. Some suggest the opponents were influenced by an Epicurean type of teaching that rejected any notion of God’s providence or of punishment after death.26 Others believe they may have held to some form of overrealized eschatology, like the opponents in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim 2:18), so that they concluded there was no future resurrection; the only resurrection is a spiritual one.27 As I argued in the introduction, the Epicurean hypothesis is too specific in identifying the opponents; it is also not clear that the false teachers argued for a realized eschatology.28 In any case, we do know that they ridiculed the notion that Jesus would come again.

Peter insisted, however, that the apostles did not trade in myths. On the contrary, they were “eyewitnesses of his majesty.” The apostolic teaching is anchored in history. Presumably, Peter could have replied that it is irrelevant whether Jesus would return physically. What matters is the spiritual truth that God controls the future. But Peter was concerned about historical facticity. The Christian faith teaches that the Lord’s coming will occur in the space-time order of this world and cannot be reduced to a “spiritual” truth sundered from history. The word “eyewitnesses” (epoptai) could possibly derive from Hellenistic religion, especially the mystery religions. If so, Peter again used a term familiar to his hearers, though it is likely the term did not carry such specific associations for his readers.29 The use of the verb in 1 Pet 2:12 and 3:2 indicates that a technical sense should not be given to the verb. The word “majesty” (megaleiotēs) in this context points to the deity of Jesus Christ (cf. 1:1; of God—Luke 9:43; Jer 40:9 LXX; 1 Esdr 4:40), though the term “majesty” does not necessarily signify deity (1 Esdr 4:40). We learn from the next verse that the majesty of Christ was observed at the transfiguration.

1:17 The syntax of this verse is quite difficult since we have an ungrammatical construction. The NIV clarifies the Greek for English readers. The emphasis of the verse is on God’s imprimatur of approval upon his Son. The Son received honor and glory from the Father.30 The Father signified his approval with a divine voice that came from heaven itself (cf. Dan 4:31; Rev 11:12; 16:1).31 The words spoken demonstrated that God was pleased with his Son, Jesus. Peter likely mentioned that God is “Father” because he pronounced that Jesus is his “Son.” He then described God as “the Majestic Glory” (tēs megaloprepous doxēs). Sirach speaks of “the glory of his voice” (Sir 17:3). In v. 17 the Greek word for “majestic” differs from the word used for Christ in v. 17, but the idea is the same. Peter implied that the majesty of the one and only God was shared by his Son. Furthermore, the glory that belongs to God also belongs to Jesus, for the Son received glory from the Father, the one who is majestic in glory.32

It is obvious that Peter referred to the transfiguration, which was a theophany that occurred on a mountain, as did the theophanies on Sinai or Horeb (Exodus 19–20; 34; 1 Kgs 19:8–18). Neyrey thinks the transfiguration is utilized differently from the Synoptics, where it “authorizes his way to Jerusalem, his cross and vindication.”33 A different use of the tradition can be acknowledged, though in both the Synoptics and 2 Peter the transfiguration authorizes Jesus as God’s Son. In any case, Peter focused on his “vindication” at the second coming, on his glory that will be revealed to all. Some scholars think the terms “honor and glory” denote one concept, like “power and coming” in v. 16.34 Such an interpretation is certainly possible, but the reference to the transfiguration points to two separate parts of the one event.35 Glory refers to the transformation of his face and clothing (cf. Luke 9:29, 32). Honor refers to the words of commendation that came from heaven. The actual words, of course, are also found in Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35.36 Peter’s words here do not correspond exactly with any of them. The NIV translates Matt 17:5 and 2 Pet 1:17 exactly the same, but there are some minor differences between the accounts in Greek. For example, “this is” (houtos estin) is placed first in the sentence in Matthew, Peter has eis hon instead of Matthew’s en hō, and only Peter has egō. Mark and Luke do not have the statement about God being well pleased, and so they differ even more dramatically from 2 Peter.37 Some scholars argue that Peter’s tradition is independent here.38 Such a view is not surprising if Peter was truly the author. He could remember the event without consulting any other sources. On the other hand, the differences between the Petrine and Matthean accounts are relatively insignificant, and Miller makes a good case for Petrine dependence upon Matthew.39 Still, it is also possible that Peter recalled the event from memory.40 The minor differences do not cast doubt on the historical authenticity of any of the accounts, for the authors select what part of the event is significant for their purposes. Hence, Peter omitted “listen to him,” which is in all the Synoptic accounts, since he was not emphasizing that Jesus is superior to the law and the prophets. What Peter emphasized is the honor and glory given to Jesus at the transfiguration because such honor and glory looks forward to and will be replicated at the second coming.

The words spoken at the transfiguration recall Jesus’ baptism, where he was anointed for ministry and commissioned as God’s Son (Matt 3:17 par.). The acclamation of sonship recalls Ps 2:7 (“You are my Son; today I have become your Father”), where the Davidic king is acclaimed and appointed as Yahweh’s anointed. Likewise, an allusion to Isa 42:1 is also present (“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight”). We should remember that Peter recorded the words God spoke and that these words were recalled because of their theological import. Jesus is the Servant-Son par excellence, who fulfills the promises to David and the prophecies about the Servant of the Lord. He is the Son in a way David was not, for he also shares in God’s majesty (1:16). To say that God is “well pleased” (eudokēsa) with Jesus denotes God’s electing pleasure (cf. Luke 12:32; 1 Cor 1:21; Gal 1:15; see also the noun eudokia in Matt 11:26; Luke 10:21; Eph 1:5, 9).41

The transfiguration seems at first glance to be a strange event to verify the truth of Christ’s future coming. We should note, however, that in all three of the Synoptic Gospels the transfiguration immediately follows the declaration that God’s kingdom will come with power, suggesting that the transfiguration represents and anticipates Christ’s powerful coming (Matt 16:28–17:13; Mark 9:1–13; Luke 9:27–36). The transfiguration, then, is a manifestation of the coming of the kingdom. Peter recalled the event because it anticipates Christ’s glory when he returns.42 Moreover, the eyewitness character of the event demonstrates that Peter was not dreaming or propounding some myth. He saw Jesus transformed, and he heard God’s very words.43

1:18 Peter confirmed again that he heard the divine voice while he was on the holy mountain. Bauckham’s view that the author wrote a transparent fiction in Peter’s name as a testament is difficult to square with these verses.44 The author emphasized that he was an eyewitness and actually heard what was said on the mountain. If Bauckham is correct, it was clear to the readers that Peter himself did not write this. Evidence that this is a transparent fiction is lacking in church history, since readers in the early centuries did not detect the literary device Bauckham thinks is apparent.45 A more natural reading takes the text at face value. Peter himself claimed to have seen and heard these things. The only other credible option is that the author wrote to deceive his readers, trying to pass himself off as Peter. As I argue in the introduction, Peter himself either wrote or dictated these words, and he spoke of his own experience.

Some scholars think a late date is indicated by the words “sacred mountain,” showing that the place on which the transfiguration occurred is now venerated. Interestingly, Sinai is never called the “holy mountain.” And if the purpose was to venerate the mount of transfiguration, it is curious that its location eludes us. Venerating specific places was the result of later church history. Bauckham probably is correct in seeing an allusion to Ps 2:6, where the king is appointed “on Zion, my holy hill.”46 This is strengthened by the allusion to Ps 2:7 in v. 17. The main purpose, however, is to locate the event in history. Peter did not refer to an ethereal or ineffable event. The mountain in which Jesus was glorified and where God spoke really exists, and it is holy because God revealed himself there.47

Some scholars have suggested that the transfiguration is actually an account of the resurrection that has been inserted into a different place in the gospel narratives. This theory has been soundly debunked by Stein.48 We also have noted above that the transfiguration in all three Synoptic Gospels is associated with the coming of the kingdom in power. Even in the Synoptic Gospels the purpose of the transfiguration cannot be restricted to a temporary glorification of Jesus that vanishes forever. While Jesus goes to the cross, God reveals the future glory that will belong to Jesus, a prophecy of what is to come. This glory will be manifested publicly at his future coming, and so Peter rightly appealed to it to defend the powerful coming of the Lord Jesus.

Transition:

III. The Need to Heed Doctrinal Truth (1:19-21)

2 Peter 1:19–21 (NKJV) — 19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

A. The Reason: We have the prophetic word confirmed - 19

B. The Prescribed Approach: -20

1. You do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place

2. Until the day dawn and the morning star rises in your hearts.

C. The Nature of Prophecy - 21

1. For prophecy never came by the will of man,

2. But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit

Peter reminded (cf. 1:12–15) the readers in vv. 16–18 that the powerful coming of Jesus Christ is not a myth but a certain reality, for it is rooted in his own eyewitness testimony. Peter saw the Lord’s glory when he was transfigured before him, and he heard God’s words that pronounced Jesus as the Son of his good pleasure. The transfiguration anticipates the second coming, for it unveils the glory that will belong to Jesus at his coming. In vv. 19–21 Peter employed a second argument supporting the future coming of the Lord. The apostolic interpretation of the prophetic word (i.e., the OT Scriptures) confirmed at the transfiguration verifies that the Lord will come in salvation and judgment. Verse 19b contains the main point of the argument and the central point of the entire letter thus far. Since the transfiguration indicates the proper interpretation and verification of the prophetic word, believers should pay careful attention to that word, for it is like a lamp illumining the darkness. Believers will need that word for direction until the day of the Lord comes. When Jesus returns, the prophetic word will be fulfilled, for he will illumine our hearts with his light, and the prophetic word will be eclipsed forever by the living Word. The logical relationship between vv. 19 and 20 is that we must pay attention to the prophetic word and use it as the criterion of our thinking because prophecy is not a matter of private interpretation. The reason for this is stated in v. 21. Prophecy is not rooted in the will of human beings, but men spoke from God as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

1:19 The “we” in the text continues to refer to the apostles, as is the case in vv. 16–18. This is confirmed by the contrast between “we” and “you” in the verse, for the apostles had the more sure prophetic word to which the church needs to pay attention.49 What did Peter mean by “the prophetic word” (ton prophētikon logon), translated by the NIV “the word of the prophets”? Neyrey argues that the prophetic word is the transfiguration.50 This is attractive in that it joins vv. 16–18 and 19–21 closely together. An insuperable difficulty arises, however, that makes this interpretation quite unlikely. The prophetic word almost certainly refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, not to an event in Jesus’ life nor to any other text that is now codified in the New Testament.51 Verses 20–21 support this view in that they refer to “prophecy of Scripture.” The word “Scripture” (graphē) reveals that writings are in view, not an event like the transfiguration. Some scholars conclude that the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole are in view here.52 Such a judgment, however, does not account well for the emphasis on prophecy in the text, and so it is preferable to see a reference to Old Testament prophecies related to the day of judgment and salvation, that is, the day of the Lord.53 Caulley’s work is especially instructive at this juncture, for he identifies the prophetic word with Isaiah 42 and Psalm 2, and there are allusions to both of these texts in the wording of the divine voice—“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Ps 2:7; Isa 42:1).54 He remarks that both of these chapters also contain the theme of judgment and hence would refute the eschatological skepticism of the opponents.55 It may be that Caulley unduly limits the prophetic word to these two texts and that the reference is to Old Testament prophetic texts as a whole.56 But Caulley’s interpretation puts us on the right track in interpreting the text. The prophetic word of Scripture is made more sure by the transfiguration, for the transfiguration confirms the proper interpretation of Old Testament Scripture, that is, that there is a future coming of Christ for judgment and salvation.

Another difficult question relates to the meaning of the term bebaioteron (“made more certain”). Some suggest that the written prophecies of the Old Testament are more certain than an event like the transfiguration because the transfiguration was subjectively experienced.57 It is difficult to believe that Peter would say this. According to this interpretation, Peter would be pitting the transfiguration against the Scriptures, arguing that the latter are more certain than the former. But this would subvert the argument in vv. 16–18, for Peter then would be suggesting that his appeal to the transfiguration is not quite convincing, so he needed something better, namely, the Old Testament Scriptures. But vv. 16–18 demonstrate that Peter believed that the transfiguration was decisive proof for his view, not questionable in the least. He was not suggesting its deficiency in contrast to the Old Testament Scriptures but was simply giving another argument for the validity of his view.

Another possibility is that the word bebaioteron should be translated as “most reliable”58 or “very certain.”59 On this view Peter was not actually engaging in a comparison at all. He was simply saying that believers have a word from God that is entirely reliable. Peter was not suggesting, then, that the prophetic word is more reliable than the transfiguration, but he was saying that we can say with certainty that the prophetic word of the Old Testament refers to the coming of Christ.

A decision is difficult, but it is preferable to conclude that the transfiguration renders more certain the interpretation of the prophetic word.60 The word bebaioteron should be taken in context as signifying a comparison, so that the transfiguration provides confirmation of the interpretation of the prophetic word. The transfiguration, then, is not conceived as more or less reliable than the prophetic word. It provides a confirmatory interpretation of that word, and this interpretation was granted to Peter and the other apostles. The transfiguration shows that the promise of the Lord’s coming should be taken literally and cannot be dismissed as a “spiritual” truth.61 The advantage of this interpretation is that it holds tightly together the prophetic word and the transfiguration without identifying the transfiguration as the prophetic word.

Verses 16–19a, then, function as the ground or reason for v. 19b. Since believers have in the Old Testament Scriptures a prophetic word that is more reliable because of the interpretive confirmation of the transfiguration, they should pay close attention to the word and heed what it says. Peter’s call to pay heed to the word is the main point of the text, for the entire letter up to this point has been pointing to this command. The readers are to pay attention to the prophetic word, as it has been apostolically interpreted. Caulley remarks, “By virtue of their witness to the transfiguration, and specifically to the divine voice, the apostles have confirmation of the prophetic word in its affirmation of Jesus as exalted Son of God who will return in judgment.”62 The prophetic word functions as a light. The image is a common one. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Ps 119:105; cf. Prov 6:23; Wis 18:4). In other words, the prophetic word illumines people with the truth about the end of history. The false teachers had deviated from the truth.

The last clauses in v. 19 inform the readers how long they will need to pay heed to prophetic Scriptures. The prophetic word points forward to the day of the Lord, and obviously it will not be needed when “the day dawns.” The day here is almost certainly the day of the Lord. In the Old Testament the day of the Lord is a day of judgment and salvation, when those who oppose God will be punished and those who love him will be delivered (Isa 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14; Mal 4:5). In the Old Testament there are days of the Lord in history, when he defeats his enemies and vindicates his own. Such days of the Lord foreshadow the final day of the Lord, when the Lord will bring to a consummation his purposes (cf. Acts 2:20; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2). In the New Testament the day of the Lord is also the day of Christ (2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16). It is clear in 2 Peter that this day is the eschatological day, when the present world order ceases (2 Pet 3:10, 12). The opponents denied that there would be any day of the Lord, but the prophetic word as confirmed by the transfiguration promises it will come.

The day of the Lord is also described as the time when “the morning star rises in your hearts.” The “morning star” (phōsphoros) was a name for Venus in the ancient world. The reference here is almost certainly to the coming of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Peter alluded to Num 24:17, “A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel.”63 The text goes on to say that God’s enemies will be crushed, which fits the eschatological cast of Peter’s writing and the judgment awaiting the opponents. Peter said that the morning star “rises” (anateilē), while Num 24:17 in the Septuagint says a “star will arise” (astron anatelei) from Jacob (cf. Rev 22:16; T. Levi 18:3; T. Jud. 24:1–5; 1QM 11:6–7; CD 7:18–20). Some have detected an inconsistency within v. 19 since Venus as the morning star appears before the dawn,64 but we should not press the language into such a firm mold. Peter clearly saw the day of the Lord and the coming of the Lord as one event. It also seems strange that he spoke of the morning star that “rises in your hearts.” How could Jesus Christ arise in one’s heart? The objective event and the subjective experience seem to be confused. Bigg says that it refers to the joy that will be ours when the Lord returns.65 The language of illumination in the verse suggests another interpretation. When Jesus comes, we will not need the prophetic word to shine in a dark place—this sinful world. Then our hearts will be enlightened by the Morning Star himself, and that to which prophecy points will have arrived.66 It is not incompatible to speak of an eschatological event and its interior impact.67 Caulley rightly emphasizes that the knowledge of God that shines upon us in conversion (2 Cor 4:6) will reach its consummation at the second coming.68

1:20 This verse can be interpreted in two plausible ways, and hence as interpreters we must discern which of the two is most probable.69 In either case v. 20 provides a reason for the admonition to pay heed to the word in v. 19. The issue is whether Peter focused on the origin of prophecy or its interpretation. Before introducing the two different views, a word should be said about “interpretation” (epilysis). Despite the suggestions by some exegetes, the term almost certainly refers to “interpretation” (cf. Mark 4:34). In a version of the Septuagint translated by Aquila, both the noun and the verb are used of Joseph interpreting dreams (Gen 40:8; 41:8, 12; cf. also Josephus, Ant. 8.167; Herm. Sim. 5:3:1–2). We are now prepared to examine the two main approaches to the verse.

The first view is represented by the NIV (cf. also NET, NLT), “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation,” and its most sophisticated defense today is found in Bauckham.70 In this instance Peter responded to the opponents, who claimed that the prophets misinterpreted their revelations from God. Peter insisted that the revelation and the interpretation are of one piece. Both the revelation and the interpretation of what is revealed do not originate from the prophet. The vision and the explanation of the vision both come from God.71 A genuine prophetic word does not simply consist of the content of the dream but an accurate interpretation of what the dream says. The same could be said about visions (cf. Jer 1:11–14; Dan 7:2; 8:1; Amos 7:1; Zech 1:8–11). Peter defended, then, both the revelation given and the interpretation of the revelation provided by the prophets. Here he followed an Old Testament precedent. Bauckham argues that Peter did not criticize the opponents here but defended himself against some of their charges.72 Criticism of the opponents commences in chap. 2.

Despite the strengths of the first view, it seems likely that the second is preferable. This view is represented by the ESV (cf. HCSB, NKJV, NRSV), “No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” Peter likely was attacking the opponents, arguing that they interpreted prophecy to support their own views.73 In doing so they resisted the proper interpretation given by the apostles. Presumably the opponents interpreted the Scriptures in such a way that the return of Christ is denied and proceeded to argue that history will go on as it always has (cf. 2 Pet 3:4–7).74 We have already seen in previous verses that the transfiguration verifies the apostolic interpretation of Old Testament prophecy (vv. 16–19).75 Verses 16–21 fit together well as an argument if in v. 20 the opponents questioned the apostolic interpretation of prophecy, so that they rejected the parousia of Christ.76 This may explain why the opponents are designated as “false teachers” (2:1) and not as “false prophets” (2:1), in that their error manifested itself in their interpretation of prophecy, not their claim to be the recipients thereof.77 The initial comments made about the word “interpretation” (epilysis) above also support this interpretation, for this term does not focus on the origination of prophecy but its proper interpretation after the prophecy was given.78 This interpretation also finds support in 2 Pet 3:16, where we see that the opponents misuse and distort the Scriptures.79 Peter’s argument, then, is that the readers must pay attention to the prophetic word as it is interpreted by the apostles, for the Old Testament prophecies are not a matter of personal interpretation but have been authoritatively interpreted by the apostles.80

1:21 Verse 21 provides the ground for the statement in v. 20.81 The meaning of v. 20, then, is that the interpretation by the apostles does not come from them but ultimately has a divine source, for prophecy comes from God. In this verse, then, Peter brings together two themes: both the origin of prophecy and its subsequent interpretation stem from God himself.82 Peter stated the main point in v. 21 both negatively and positively. Negatively, prophecy does not originate in the will of human beings. By definition prophecy is a divine work and cannot be attributed to the ingenuity or native gifts of human beings. Positively, prophecy hails from God himself. Peter stated it baldly, “Men spoke from God.” Human beings spoke, and they spoke with their own personalities and literary styles; hence inspiration does not require a dictation theory of inspiration. The words the prophets spoke, however, ultimately came from God. They were inspired, or “carried along,” by the Holy Spirit. Hence, Peter defended the accuracy of the prophecies in the Scriptures. Note that v. 20 speaks of “prophecy of Scripture,” so Peter’s words cannot be limited to oral prophecies.

We have strong biblical support here for what B. B. Warfield called concursus. Both human beings and God were fully involved in the process of inspiration.83 The personality and gifts of the human authors were not squelched or suppressed. We can detect their different literary styles even today. And yet the words they spoke do not cancel out the truth that they spoke the word of God. Concursus means that both God and human beings contributed to the prophetic word. Ultimately, however, and most significantly, these human words are God’s words. The prophets were “carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The verb for “carry” is used twice in this verse (the aorist passive ēnechthē, “had its origin,” and the present passive participle pheromenoi, “were carried along”). The verb is also used twice in participial form in vv. 17–18 (translated “came” in the NIV) to designate the divine voice that came from God during the transfiguration. In Acts 27:15, 17 the term is used to refer to a ship that is carried by the wind (cf. Acts 2:2; John 3:8). Perhaps we cannot press the analogy of the prophets being carried as a ship’s sails are caught up by the wind. But the word certainly conveys the idea that the prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Peter, of course, referred only to the prophets here, but by extension we are justified in concluding that what Peter said about the prophets is also true of the New Testament canon. These writers also spoke from God and were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Evangelical theology rightly infers from this that the Scriptures are authoritative, infallible, and inerrant, for God’s words must be true.

Concluding Applications: