Text -- 2 Peter 1:18-21 (NET)

1:18 When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 1:19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 2Pe 1:18

This voice ( tautēn tēn phōnēn ).

The one referred to in 2Pe 1:17.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:18

We heard ( ēkousamen ).

First aorist active indicative of akouō , a definite experience of Peter.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:18

Brought ( enechtheisan ).

"Borne"as in 2Pe 1:17.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:18

When we were with him ( sun autōi ontes ).

Present active participle of eimi , "being with him."

Robertson: 2Pe 1:18

In the holy mount ( en tōi hagiōi orei ).

Made holy by the majestic glory. See Eze 28:14 for "holy mount of God,"there Sinai, this one probably one of the lower slopes of Hermon. Peter’ s account is independent of the Synoptic narrative, but agrees with it in all essentials.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

The word of prophecy ( ton prophētikon logon ).

"The prophetic word."Cf. 1Pe 1:10, a reference to all the Messianic prophecies.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

Made more sure ( bebaioteron ).

Predicate accusative of the comparative adjective bebaios (2Pe 1:10). The Transfiguration scene confirmed the Messianic prophecies and made clear the deity of Jesus Christ as God’ s Beloved Son. Some with less likelihood take Peter to mean that the word of prophecy is a surer confirmation of Christ’ s deity than the Transfiguration.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

Whereunto ( hōi ).

Dative of the relative referring to "the prophetic word made more sure."

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

That ye take heed ( prosechontes ).

Present active participle with noun (mind) understood, "holding your mind upon"with the dative (hōi ).

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

As unto a lamp ( hōs luchnōi ).

Dative also after prosechontes of luchnos , old word (Mat 5:15).

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

Shining ( phainonti ).

Dative also present active participle of phainō , to shine (Joh 1:5). So of the Baptist (Joh 5:35).

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

In a dark place ( en auchmērōi topōi ).

Old adjective, parched, squalid, dirty, dark, murky, here only in N.T., though in Aristotle and on tombstone for a boy.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

Until the day dawn ( heōs hou hēmera diaugasēi ).

First aorist active subjunctive of diaugazō with temporal conjunction heōs hou , usual construction for future time. Late compound verb diaugazō (Polybius, Plutarch, papyri) from dia and augē , to shine through, here only in N.T.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

The day-star ( phōsphoros ).

Old compound adjective (phōs , light, pherō , to bring), light-bringing, light-bearer (Lucifer) applied to Venus as the morning star. Our word phosphorus is this word. In the lxx heōsphoros occurs. Cf. Mal 4:2; Luk 1:76-79; Rev 22:16 for "dawn"applied to the Messiah.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:19

Arise ( anateilēi ).

First aorist active subjunctive of anatellō (Jam 1:11; Mat 5:45).

Robertson: 2Pe 1:20

Knowing this first ( touto prōton ginōskontes ).

Agreeing with poieite like prosechontes in 2Pe 1:19.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:20

No prophecy of Scripture ( pāsa prophēteia ou ).

Like the Hebrew lȯkōl , but also in the papyri as in 1Jo 2:21 (Robertson, Grammar , p. 753).

Robertson: 2Pe 1:20

Is ( ginetai ).

Rather "comes,""springs"(Alford), not "is"(estin ).

Robertson: 2Pe 1:20

Of private interpretation ( idias epiluseōs ).

Ablative case of origin or source in the predicate as with gnōmēs in Act 20:3 and with tou theou and ex hēmōn in 2Co 4:7. "No prophecy of Scripture comes out of private disclosure,"not "of private interpretation."The usual meaning of epilusis is explanation, but the word does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. It occurs in the papyri in the sense of solution and even of discharge of a debt. Spitta urges "dissolved"as the idea here. The verb epiluō , to unloose, to untie, to release, occurs twice in the N.T., once (Mar 4:34) where it can mean "disclose"about parables, the other (Act 19:39) where it means to decide. It is the prophet’ s grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:21

For ( gar ).

The reason for the previous statement that no prophet starts a prophecy himself. He is not a self-starter.

Robertson: 2Pe 1:21

Came ( ēnechthē ).

First aorist passive indicative of pherō (2Pe 1:17.).

Robertson: 2Pe 1:21

By the will of man ( thelēmati anthrōpou ).

Instrumental case of thelēma . Prophecy is of divine origin, not of one’ s private origination (idias epiluseōs ).

Robertson: 2Pe 1:21

Moved by the Holy Ghost ( hupo pneumatos hagiou pheromenoi ).

Present passive participle of pherō , moved from time to time. There they "spoke from God."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.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:18

Voice ( φωνὴν )

Note the same word in the account of Pentecost (Act 2:6), where the A. V. obscures the meaning by rendering, when this was noised abroad; whereas it should be when this voice was heard.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:18

Which came ( ἐνεχθεῖσαν )

Lit., having been borne. See on 2Pe 1:17. Rev., This voice we ourselves (ἡμεῖς , we, emphatic) heard come (better, borne ) out of heaven.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:18

Holy mount

It is scarcely necessary to notice Davidson's remark that this expression points to a time when superstitious reverence for places had sprung up in Palestine. " Of all places to which special sanctity would be ascribed by Christ's followers, surely that would be the first to be so marked where the most solemn testimony was given to the divinity of Jesus. To the Jewish Christian this would rank with Sinai, and no name would be more fitly applied to it than that which had so constantly been given to a place on which God first revealed himself in his glory. The 'holy mount of God' (Eze 28:14 :) would now receive another application, and he would see little of the true continuity of God's revelation who did not connect readily the old and the new covenants, and give to the place where the glory of Christ was most eminently shown forth the same name which was applied so oft to Sinai" (Lumby).

Vincent: 2Pe 1:19

We have also a more sure word of prophecy ( καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον )

The A. V is wrong, since more sure is used predicatively, and word has the definite article. We may explain either (a) as Rev., we have the word of prophecy made more sure, i.e., we are better certified than before as to the prophetic word by reason of this voice; or (b) we have the word of prophecy as a surer confirmation of God's truth than what we ourselves saw, i.e., Old-Testament testimony is more convincing than even the voice heard at the transfiguration. The latter seems to accord better with the words which follow. " To appreciate this we must put ourselves somewhat in the place of those for whom St. Peter wrote. The New Testament, as we have it, was to them non-existent. Therefore we can readily understand how the long line of prophetic scriptures, fulfilled in so many ways in the life of Jesus, would be a mightier form of evidence than the narrative of one single event in Peter's life" (Lumby). " Peter knew a sounder basis for faith than that of signs and wonders. He had seen our Lord Jesus Christ receive honor and glory from God the Father in the holy mount; he had been dazzled and carried out of himself by visions and voices from heaven; but, nevertheless, even when his memory and heart are throbbing with recollections of that sublime scene, he says, 'we have something surer still in the prophetic word.'...It was not the miracles of Christ by which he came to know Jesus, but the word of Christ as interpreted by the spirit of Christ" (Samuel Cox).

Vincent: 2Pe 1:19

Onto a light ( λύχνῳ )

More correctly, as Rev., a lamp.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:19

In a dark place ( ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ )

A peculiar expression. Lit., a dry place. Only here in New Testament. Rev. gives squalid, in margin. Aristotle opposes it to bright or glistering. It is a subtle association of the idea of darkness with squalor, dryness, and general neglect.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:19

Dawn ( διαυγάσῃ )

Only here in New Testament. Compare the different word in Mat 28:1, and Luk 23:54, ἐπιφώσκω . The verb is compounded of διά , through, and αὐγή , sunlight, thus carrying the picture of light breaking through the gloom.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:19

The day-star ( φωσφόρος )

Of which our word phosphorus is a transcript. Lit., light-bearer, like Lucifer, front lux, light, and fero, to bear. See Aeschylus, " Agamemnon, " 245.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:20

Is ( γίνεται )

More literally, arises or originates.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:20

Private ( ἰδίας )

See on 2Pe 1:3. His own. Rev., special, in margin.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:20

Interpretation ( ἐπιλύσεως )

Only here in New Testament. Compare the cognate verb expounded (Mar 4:34 :) and determined (Act 19:39). The usual word is ἑρμηνεία (1Co 12:10; 1Co 14:26). Literally, it means loosening, untying, as of hard knots of scripture.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:21

Came ( ἠνέχθη )

Lit., was borne or brought. See on 2Pe 1:17, 2Pe 1:18.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:21

Holy men of God ( ἅγιοι θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι )

The best texts omit holy, and read ἀπὸ θεοῦ , from God. Render, as Rev., men spake from God.

Vincent: 2Pe 1:21

Moved ( φερόμενοι )

The same verb as came. Lit., being borne along. It seems to be a favorite word with Peter, occurring six times in the two epistles.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:18

Peter, James, and John. St. John was still alive.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:18

Made so by that glorious manifestation, as mount Horeb was of old, Exo 3:4-5.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:19

St. Peter here speaks in the name of all Christians.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:19

The words of Moses, Isaiah, and all the prophets, are one and the same word, every way consistent with itself. St. Peter does not cite any particular passage, but speaks of their entire testimony.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:19

By that display of his glorious majesty. To which word ye do well that ye take heed, as to a lamp which shone in a dark place - Wherein there was neither light nor window. Such anciently was the whole world, except that little spot where this lamp shone.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:19

Till the full light of the gospel should break through the darkness. As is the difference between the light of a lamp and that of the day, such is that between the light of the Old Testament and of the New.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:19

Jesus Christ, Rev 22:16.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:19

Be revealed in you.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:20

It is not any man's own word. It is God, not the prophet himself, who thereby interprets things till then unknown.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:21

Of any mere man whatever.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:21

Devoted to him, and set apart by him for that purpose, spake and wrote.

Wesley: 2Pe 1:21

Literally, carried. They were purely passive therein.

JFB: 2Pe 1:18

Rather as Greek, "we heard borne from heaven."

JFB: 2Pe 1:18

As the Transfiguration mount came to be regarded, on account of the manifestation of Christ's divine glory there.

JFB: 2Pe 1:18

Emphatical: we, James and John, as well as myself.

JFB: 2Pe 1:19

All believers.

JFB: 2Pe 1:19

Rather as Greek, "we have the word of prophecy more sure (confirmed)." Previously we knew its sureness by faith, but, through that visible specimen of its hereafter entire fulfilment, assurance is made doubly sure. Prophecy assures us that Christ's sufferings, now past, are to be followed by Christ's glory, still future: the Transfiguration gives us a pledge to make our faith still stronger, that "the day" of His glory will "dawn" ere long. He does not mean to say that "the word of prophecy," or Scripture, is surer than the voice of God heard at the Transfiguration, as English Version; for this is plainly not the fact. The fulfilment of prophecy so far in Christ's history makes us the surer of what is yet to be fulfilled, His consummated glory. The word was the "lamp (Greek for 'light') heeded" by Old Testament believers, until a gleam of the "day dawn" was given at Christ's first coming, and especially in His Transfiguration. So the word is a lamp to us still, until "the day" burst forth fully at the second coming of "the Sun of righteousness." The day, when it dawns upon you, makes sure the fact that you saw correctly, though indistinctly, the objects revealed by the lamp.

JFB: 2Pe 1:19

To which word of prophecy, primarily the Old Testament in Peter's day; but now also in our day the New Testament, which, though brighter than the Old Testament (compare 1Jo 2:8, end), is but a lamp even still as compared with the brightness of the eternal day (compare 2Pe 3:2). Oral teachings and traditions of ministers are to be tested by the written word (Act 17:11).

JFB: 2Pe 1:19

The Greek implies squalid, having neither water nor light: such spiritually is the world without, and the smaller world (microcosm) within, the heart in its natural state. Compare the "dry places" Luk 11:24 (namely, unwatered by the Spirit), through which the unclean spirit goeth.

JFB: 2Pe 1:19

Bursting through the darkness.

JFB: 2Pe 1:19

Greek, the morning star," as Rev 22:16. The Lord Jesus.

JFB: 2Pe 1:19

Christ's arising in the heart by His Spirit giving full assurance, creates spiritually full day in the heart, the means to which is prayerfully giving heed to the word. This is associated with the coming of the day of the Lord, as being the earnest of it. Indeed, even our hearts shall not fully realize Christ in all His unspeakable glory and felt presence, until He shall come (Mal 4:2). Isa 66:14-15, "When you see this, your heart shall rejoice . . . For, behold, the Lord will come." However, TREGELLES' punctuation is best, "whereunto ye do well to take heed (as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day have dawned and the morning star arisen) in your hearts." For the day has already dawned in the heart of believers; what they wait for is its visible manifestation at Christ's coming.

JFB: 2Pe 1:20

"Forasmuch as ye know this" (1Pe 1:18).

JFB: 2Pe 1:20

The foremost consideration in studying the word of prophecy. Laying it down as a first principle never to be lost sight of.

JFB: 2Pe 1:20

Greek, not the simple verb, to be, but to begin to be, "proves to be," "becometh." No prophecy is found to be the result of "private (the mere individual writer's uninspired) interpretation" (solution), and so origination. The Greek noun epilusis, does not mean in itself origination; but that which the sacred writer could not always fully interpret, though being the speaker or writer (as 1Pe 1:10-12 implies), was plainly not of his own, but of God's disclosure, origination, and inspiration, as Peter proceeds to add, "But holy men . . . spake (and afterwards wrote) . . . moved by the Holy Ghost": a reason why ye should "give" all "heed" to it. The parallelism to 2Pe 1:16 shows that "private interpretation," contrasted with "moved by the Holy Ghost," here answers to "fables devised by (human) wisdom," contrasted with "we were eye-witnesses of His majesty," as attested by the "voice from God." The words of the prophetical (and so of all) Scripture writers were not mere words of the individuals, and therefore to be interpreted by them, but of "the Holy Ghost" by whom they were "moved." "Private" is explained, 2Pe 1:21, "by the will of man" (namely, the individual writer). In a secondary sense the text teaches also, as the word is the Holy Spirit's, it cannot be interpreted by its readers (any more than by its writers) by their mere private human powers, but by the teaching of the Holy Ghost (Joh 16:14). "He who is the author of Scripture is its supreme interpreter" [GERHARD]. ALFORD translates, "springs not out of human interpretation," that is, is not a prognostication made by a man knowing what he means when he utters it, but," &c. (Joh 11:49-52). Rightly: except that the verb is rather, doth become, or prove to be. It not being of private interpretation, you must "give heed" to it, looking for the Spirit's illumination "in your hearts" (compare Note, see on 2Pe 1:19).

JFB: 2Pe 1:21

Rather, "was never at any time borne" (to us).

JFB: 2Pe 1:21

Alone. Jer 23:26, "prophets of the deceit of their own heart." Compare 2Pe 3:5, "willingly."

JFB: 2Pe 1:21

One oldest manuscript has, "men FROM God": the emissaries from God. "Holy," if read, will mean because they had the Holy Spirit.

JFB: 2Pe 1:21

Greek, "borne" (along) as by a mighty wind: Act 2:2, "rushing (the same Greek) wind": rapt out of themselves: still not in fanatical excitement (1Co 14:32). The Hebrew "nabi," "prophet," meant an announcer or interpreter of God: he, as God's spokesman, interpreted not his own "private" will or thought, but God's "Man of the Spirit" (Hos 9:7, Margin). "Thou testifiedst by Thy Spirit in Thy prophets." "Seer," on the other hand, refers to the mode of receiving the communications from God, rather than to the utterance of them to others. "Spake" implies that, both in its original oral announcement, and now even when in writing, it has been always, and is, the living voice of God speaking to us through His inspired servants. Greek, "borne (along)" forms a beautiful antithesis to "was borne." They were passive, rather than active instruments. The Old Testament prophets primarily, but including also all the inspired penmen, whether of the New or Old Testament (2Pe 3:2).

Clarke: 2Pe 1:18

And this voice - we heard - That is, himself, James, and John heard it, and saw this glory; for these only were the εποπται, beholders, on the holy mount. It is worthy of remark that our blessed Lord, who came to give a new law to mankind, appeared on this holy mount with splendor and great glory, as God did when he came on the holy mount, Sinai, to give the old law to Moses. And when the voice came from the excellent glory, This is my Son, the beloved One, in whom I have delighted; hear him: the authority of the old law was taken away. Neither Moses nor Elijah, the law nor the prophets, must tabernacle among men, as teaching the whole way of salvation, and affording the means of eternal life; these things they had pointed out, but these things they did not contain; yet the fulfillment of their types and predictions rendered their declarations more firm and incontestable. See below.

Clarke: 2Pe 1:19

We have also a more sure word of prophecy - Εχομεν βεβαιοτερον τον προφητικον λογον· We have the prophetic doctrine more firm or more confirmed; for in this sense the word βεβαιοω is used in several places in the New Testament. See 1Co 1:6 : Even as the testimony of Christ εβεβαιωθη, was Confirmed, among you. 2Co 1:21 : Now he which stablisheth us, ὁ δε βεβαιων ἡμας, who Confirmeth Us. Col 2:7 : Rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, βεβαιουμενοι, Confirmed in the faith. Heb 2:3 : How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation ἡτις εβεβαιωτη, which was Confirmed to us. Heb 6:16 : And an oath, εις βεβαιωσιν, for Confirmation. This is the literal sense of the passage in question; and this sense removes that ambiguity from the text which has given rise to so many different interpretations. Taken according to the common translation, it seems to say that prophecy is a surer evidence of Divine revelation than miracles; and so it has been understood. The meaning of the apostle appears to be this: The law and the prophets have spoken concerning Jesus Christ, and Isaiah has particularly pointed him out in these words: Behold my servant whom I uphold, my Chosen in Whom My Soul Delighteth; I have put my Spirit upon him, and he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and Them That Sit in Darkness out of the prison house, Isa 42:1, Isa 42:7. Now both at his baptism, Mat 3:17, and at his transfiguration, Jesus Christ was declared to be this chosen person, God’ s only Son, the beloved One in Whom He Delighted. The voice, therefore, from heaven, and the miraculous transfiguration of his person, have confirmed the prophetic doctrine concerning him. And to this doctrine, thus confirmed, ye do well to take heed; for it is that light that shines in the dark place - in the Gentile world, as well as among the Jews; giving light to them that sit in darkness, and bringing the prisoners out of the prison house: and this ye must continue to do till the day of his second, last, and most glorious appearing to judge the world comes; and the day star, φωσφορος, this light-bringer, arise in your hearts - manifest himself to your eternal consolation. Or perhaps the latter clause of the verse might be thus understood: The prophecies concerning Jesus, which have been so signally confirmed to us on the holy mount, have always been as a light shining in a dark place, from the time of their delivery to the time in which the bright day of Gospel light and salvation dawned forth, and the Son of righteousness has arisen in our souls, with healing in his rays. And to this all who waited for Christ’ s appearing have taken heed. The word φωσφορος, phosphorus, generally signified the planet Venus, when she is the morning star; and thus she is called in most European nations.

Clarke: 2Pe 1:20

Knowing this first - Considering this as a first principle, that no prophecy of the Scripture, whether that referred to above, or any other, is of any private interpretation - proceeds from the prophet’ s own knowledge or invention, or was the offspring of calculation or conjecture. The word επιλυσις signifies also impetus, impulse; and probably this is the best sense here; not by the mere private impulse of his own mind.

Clarke: 2Pe 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time - That is, in any former time, by the will of man - by a man’ s own searching, conjecture, or calculation; but holy men of God - persons separated from the world, and devoted to God’ s service, spake, moved by the Holy Ghost. So far were they from inventing these prophetic declarations concerning Christ, or any future event, that they were φερομενοι, carried away, out of themselves and out of the whole region, as it were, of human knowledge and conjecture, by the Holy Ghost, who, without their knowing any thing of the matter, dictated to them what to speak, and what to write; and so far above their knowledge were the words of the prophecy, that they did not even know the intent of those words, but searched what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. See 1Pe 1:11, 1Pe 1:12, and the notes there

1.    As the writer of this epistle asserts that he was on the holy mount with Christ when he was transfigured, he must be either Peter, James, or John, for there was no other person present on that occasion except Moses and Elijah, in their glorious bodies. The epistle was never attributed to James nor John; but the uninterrupted current, where its Divine inspiration was granted, gave it to Peter alone. See the preface

2.    It is not unfrequent for the writers of the New Testament to draw a comparison between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations; and the comparison generally shows that, glorious as the former was, it had no glory in comparison of the glory that excelleth. St. Peter seems to touch here on the same point; the Mosaic dispensation, with all the light of prophecy by which it was illustrated, was only as a lamp shining in a dark place. There is a propriety and delicacy in this image that are not generally noticed: a lamp in the dark gives but a very small portion of light, and only to those who are very near to it; yet it always gives light enough to make itself visible, even at a great distance; though it enlightens not the space between it and the beholder, it is still literally the lamp shining in a dark place. Such was the Mosaic dispensation; it gave a little light to the Jews, but shone not to the Gentile world, any farther than to make itself visible. This is compared with the Gospel under the emblem of daybreak, and the rising of the sun. When the sun is even eighteen degrees below the horizon daybreak commences, as the rays of light begin then to diffuse themselves in our atmosphere, by which they are reflected upon the earth. By this means a whole hemisphere is enlightened, though but in a partial degree; yet this increasing every moment, as the sun approaches the horizon, prepares for the full manifestation of his resplendent orb: so the ministry of John Baptist, and the initiatory ministry of Christ himself, prepared the primitive believers for his full manifestation on the day of pentecost and afterwards. Here the sun rose in his strength, bringing light, heat, and life to all the inhabitants of the earth. So far, then, as a lantern carried in a dark night differs from and is inferior to the beneficial effects of daybreak, and the full light and heat of a meridian sun; so far was the Mosaic dispensation, in its beneficial effects, inferior to the Christian dispensation

3.    Perhaps there is scarcely any point of view in which we can consider prophecy which is so satisfactory and conclusive as that which is here stated; that is, far from inventing the subject of their own predictions, the ancient prophets did not even know the meaning of what themselves wrote. They were carried beyond themselves by the influence of the Divine Spirit, and after ages were alone to discover the object of the prophecy; and the fulfillment was to be the absolute proof that the prediction was of God, and that it was of no private invention - no discovery made by human sagacity and wisdom, but by the especial revelation of the all-wise God. This is sufficiently evident in all the prophecies which have been already fulfilled, and will be equally so in those yet to be fulfilled; the events will point out the prophecy, and the prophecy will be seen to be fulfilled in that event.

Calvin: 2Pe 1:18

18.In the holy mount He calls it the holy mount, for the same reason that the ground was called holy where God appeared to Moses. For wherever the Lord comes, as he is the fountain of all holiness, he makes holy all things by the odor of his presence. And by this mode of speaking we are taught, not only to receive God reverently wherever he shews himself, but also to prepare ourselves for holiness, as soon as he comes nigh us, as it was commanded the people when the law was proclaimed on Mount Sinai. And it is a general truth,

“Be ye holy, for I am holy, who dwell in the midst of you.”
(Lev 11:44.)

Calvin: 2Pe 1:19

19.We have also He now shews that the truth of the gospel is founded on the oracles of the prophets, lest they who embraced it should hesitate to devote themselves wholly to Christ: for they who waver cannot be otherwise than remiss in their minds. But when he says, “We have,” he refers to himself and other teachers, as well as to their disciples. The apostles had the prophets as the patrons of their doctrine; the faithful also sought from them a confirmation of the gospel. I am the more disposed to take this view, because he speaks of the whole Church, and makes himself one among others. At the same time, he refers more especially to the Jews, who were well acquainted with the doctrine of the prophets. And hence, as I think, he calls their word more sure or firmer

For they who take the comparative for a positive, that is, “more sure,” for “sure,” do not sufficiently consider the whole context. The sense also is a forced one, when it is said to be “more sure,” because God really completed what he had promised concerning his Son. For the truth of the gospel is here simply proved by a twofold testimony, — that Christ had been highly approved by the solemn declaration of God, and, then, that all the prophecies of the prophets confirmed the same thing. But it appears at first sight strange, that the word of the prophets should be said to be more sure or firmer than the voice which came from the holy mouth of God himself; for, first, the authority of God's word is the same from the beginning; and, secondly, it was more confirmed than previously by the coming of Christ. But the solution of this knot is not difficult: for here the Apostle had a regard to his own nation, who were acquainted with the prophets, and their doctrine was received without any dispute. As, then, it was not doubted by the Jews but that all the things which the prophets had taught, came from the Lord, it is no wonder that Peter said that their word was more sure. Antiquity also gains some reverence. There are, besides, some other circumstances which ought to be noticed; particularly, that no suspicion could be entertained as to those prophecies in which the kingdom of Christ had so long before been predicted.

The question, then, is not here, whether the prophets deserve more credit than the gospel; but Peter regarded only this, to shew how much deference the Jews paid to those who counted the prophets as God's faithful ministers, and had been brought up from childhood in their school. ¹⁵⁹

Whereunto ye do well This passage is, indeed, attended with some more difficulty; for it may be asked, what is the day which Peter mentions? To some it seems to be the clear knowledge of Christ, when men fully acquiesce in the gospel; and the darkness they explain as existing, when they, as yet, hesitate in suspense, and the doctrine of the gospel is not received as indubitable; as though Peter praised those Jews who were searching for Christ in the Law and the Prophets, and were advancing, as by this preceding light towards Christ, the Sun of righteousness, as they were praised by Luke, who, having heard Paul preaching, searched the Scripture to know whether what he said was true. (Act 17:11)

But in this view there is, first, an inconsistency, because it thus seems that the use of the prophecies is confined to a short time, as though they would be superfluous when the gospel-light is seen. Were one to object and say, that this does not necessarily follow, because until does not always denote the end. To this I say, that in commands it cannot be otherwise taken: “Walk until you finish your course;” “Fight until you conquer.” In such expressions we doubtless see that a certain time is specified. ¹⁶⁰ But were I to concede this point, that the reading of the prophets is not thus wholly cast aside; yet every one must see how frigid is this commendation, that the prophets are useful until Christ is revealed to us; for their teaching is necessary to us until the end of life. Secondly, we must bear in mind who they were whom Peter addressed; for he was not instructing the ignorant and novices, who were as yet in the first rudiments; but even those respecting whom he had before testified, that they had obtained the same precious faith, and were confirmed in the present truth. Surely the gross darkness of ignorance could not have been ascribed to such people. I know what some allege, that all had not made the same progress, and that here beginners who were as yet seeking Christ, are admonished.

But as it is evident from the context, that the words were addressed to the same persons, the passage must necessarily be applied to the faithful who had already known Christ, and had become partakers of the true light. I therefore extend this darkness, mentioned by Peter, to the whole course of life, and the day, I consider will then shine on us when we shall see face to face, what we now see through a glass darkly. Christ, the Sun of righteousness, indeed, shines forth in the gospel; but the darkness of death will always, in part, possess our minds, until we shall be brought out of the prison of the flesh, and be translated into heaven. This, then, will be the brightness of day, when no clouds or mists of ignorance shall intercept the bright shining of the Sun.

And doubtless we are so far from a perfect day, as our faith is from perfection. It is, therefore, no wonder that the state of the present life is called darkness, since we are far distant from that knowledge to which the gospel invites us. ¹⁶¹

In short, Peter reminds us that as long as we sojourn in this world, we have need of the doctrine of the prophets as a guiding light; which being extinguished, we can do nothing else but wander in darkness; for he does not disjoin the prophecies from the gospel, when he teaches us that they shine to shew us the way. His object only was to teach us that the whole course of our life ought to be guided by God's word; for otherwise we must be involved on every side in the darkness of ignorance; and the Lord does not shine on us, except when we take his word as our light.

But he does not use the comparison, light, or lamp, to intimate that the light is small and sparing, but to make these two things to correspond,--that we are without light, and can no more keep on the right way than those who go astray in a dark night; and that the Lord brings a remedy for this evil, when he lights a torch to guide us in the midst of darkness.

What he immediately adds respecting the day star does not however seem altogether suitable to this explanation; for the real knowledge, to which we are advancing through life, cannot be called the beginning of the day. To this I reply, that different parts of the day are compared together, but the whole day in all its parts is set in opposition to that darkness, which would wholly overspread all our faculties, were not the Lord to come to our help by the light of his word.

This is a remarkable passage: we learn from it how God guides us. The Papists have ever and anon in their mouth, that the Church cannot err. Though the word is neglected, they yet imagine that it is guided by the Spirit. But Peter, on the contrary, intimates that all are immersed in darkness who do not attend to the light of the word. Therefore, except thou art resolved wilfully to cast thyself into a labyrinth, especially beware of departing even in the least thing from the rule and direction of the word. Nay, the Church cannot follow God as its guide, except it observes what the word prescribes.

In this passage Peter also condemns all the wisdom of men, in order that we may learn humbly to seek, otherwise than by our own understanding, the true way of knowledge; for without the word nothing is left for men but darkness.

It further deserves to be noticed, that he pronounces on the clearness of Scripture; for what is said would be a false eulogy, were not the Scripture fit and suitable to shew to us with certainty the right way. Whosoever, then, will open his eyes through the obedience of faith, shall by experience know that the Scripture has not been in vain called a light. It is, indeed, obscure to the unbelieving; but they who are given up to destruction are wilfully blind. Execrable, therefore, is the blasphemy of the Papists, who pretend that the light of Scripture does nothing but dazzle the eyes, in order to keep the simple from reading it. But it is no wonder that proud men, inflated with the wind of false confidence, do not see that light with which the Lord favors only little children and the humble. With a similar eulogy David commends the law of God in Psa 19:1.

Calvin: 2Pe 1:20

20.Knowing this first Here Peter begins to shew how our minds are to be prepared, if we really wish to make progress in scriptural knowledge. There may at the same time be two interpretations given, if you read ἐπηλύσεως as some do, which means occurrence, impulse; or, as I have rendered it, interpretation, ἐπιλύσεως. But almost all give this meaning, that we ought not to rush on headlong and rashly when we read Scripture, confiding in our own understanding. They think that a confirmation of this follows, because the Spirit, who spoke by the prophets, is the only true interpreter of himself.

This explanation contains a true, godly, and useful doctrine, that then only are the prophecies read profitably, when we renounce the mind and feelings of the flesh, and submit to the teaching of the Spirit, but that it is an impious profanation of it; when we arrogantly rely on our own acumen, deeming that sufficient to enable us to understand it, though the mysteries contain things hidden to our flesh, and sublime treasures of life far surpassing our capacities. And this is what we have said, that the light which shines in it, comes to the humble alone.

But the Papists are doubly foolish, when they conclude from this passage, that no interpretation of a private man ought to be deemed authoritative. For they pervert what Peter says, that they may claim for their own councils the chief right of interpreting Scripture; but in this they act indeed childishly; for Peter calls interpretation private, not that of every individual, in order to prohibit each one to interpret; but he shews that whatever men bring of their own is profane. Were, then, the whole world unanimous, and were the minds of all men united together, still what would proceed from them, would be private or their own; for the word is here set in opposition to divine revelation; so that the faithful, inwardly illuminated by the Holy Spirit, acknowledge nothing but what God says in his word.

However, another sense seems to me more simple, that Peter says that Scripture came not from man, or through the suggestions of man. For thou wilt never come well prepared to read it, except thou bringest reverence, obedience, and docility; but a just reverence then only exists when we are convinced that God speaks to us, and not mortal men. Then Peter especially bids us to believe the prophecies as the indubitable oracles of God, because they have not emanated from men's own private suggestions. ¹⁶²

To the same purpose is what immediately follows, —

Calvin: 2Pe 1:21

But holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost They did not of themselves, or according to their own will, foolishly deliver their own inventions. The meaning is, that the beginning of right knowledge is to give that credit to the holy prophets which is due to God. He calls them the holy men of God, because they faithfully executed the office committed to them, having sustained the person of God in their ministrations. He says that they were — not that they were bereaved of mind, (as the Gentiles imagined their prophets to have been,) but because they dared not to announce anything of their own, and obediently followed the Spirit as their guide, who ruled in their mouth as in his own sanctuary. Understand by prophecy of Scripture that which is contained in the holy Scriptures.

Defender: 2Pe 1:19

As sure as Peter was of what he had seen and heard, this was only his own experience and could only be given as a personal testimony to others. Thus, he stressed that God's written Word, available to all in the holy Scriptures, was more sure than any personal experience he or others might have. It is not in Peter or Paul as men, no matter how sincere or holy they may be, that we must trust, but in Christ as revealed (not in our experience, either) in God's written Word.

Defender: 2Pe 1:19

At His return, Christ will be recognized as the true "bright and morning star" (Rev 2:28; Rev 22:16)."

Defender: 2Pe 1:20

This should read, "first of all" or "as of primary importance."

Defender: 2Pe 1:20

"Prophecy" refers not just to predictions of the future, but to any divinely inspired utterance - therefore to all the Holy Scriptures.

Defender: 2Pe 1:20

The meaning here is that no true prophecy springs forth from the private reasoning of the man speaking or writing. He may or may not understand the meaning and intent of his writing in terms of his own current situation, but its ultimate meaning involves far more than that. This would especially be true for Messianic predictions (1Pe 1:10-12) but also applies to "all Scripture ... given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16, 2Ti 3:17)."

Defender: 2Pe 1:21

Note also Heb 1:1.

Defender: 2Pe 1:21

"The Spirit of God moved" in the presence of the primeval waters of the newly created cosmos, and it became vibrant with pulsating energy and activity. In somewhat analogous fashion, the Spirit of God moved the hearts, minds, and pens of the holy (that is, called and set apart) men of God, and the Scriptures were formed, proceeding from the eternal mind of God to be revealed to His creatures (compare Gen 1:2)."

TSK: 2Pe 1:18

this : Mat 17:6

the holy : Gen 28:16, Gen 28:17; Exo 3:1, Exo 3:5; Jos 5:15; Isa 11:9, Isa 56:7; Zec 8:3; Mat 17:6

TSK: 2Pe 1:19

a more : Psa 19:7-9; Isa 8:20, Isa 41:21-23, Isa 41:26; Luk 16:29-31; Joh 5:39; Act 17:11

ye do : Act 15:29; Jam 2:8; 3Jo 1:6

a light : Psa 119:105; Pro 6:23; Isa 9:2, Isa 60:1, Isa 60:2; Mat 4:16; Luk 1:78, Luk 1:79; Joh 1:7-9, Joh 5:35, Joh 8:12; Eph 5:7, Eph 5:8

the day : 2Co 4:4-6; 1Jo 5:10; Rev 2:28, Rev 22:16

TSK: 2Pe 1:20

Knowing : 2Pe 3:3; Rom 6:6, Rom 13:11; 1Ti 1:9; Jam 1:3

that : Rom 12:6

TSK: 2Pe 1:21

the prophecy : Luk 1:70; 2Ti 3:16; 1Pe 1:11

in old time : or, at any time holy, Deu 33:1; Jos 14:6; 1Ki 13:1, 1Ki 17:18, 1Ki 17:24; 2Ki 4:7, 2Ki 4:9, 2Ki 4:22, 2Ki 6:10,2Ki 6:15; 1Ch 23:14; 2Ch 8:14

spake : Num 16:28; 2Sa 23:2; Mic 3:7; Luk 1:70; 2Ti 3:15-17; 1Pe 1:11; Rev 19:10

by the Holy : Mar 12:36; Act 1:16, Act 3:18, Act 28:25; Heb 3:7, Heb 9:8, Heb 10:15

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 2Pe 1:18

And this voice which came from heaven we heard - To wit, Peter, and James, and John.

When we were with him in the holy mount - Called "holy"on account of the extraordinary manifestation of the Redeemer’ s glory there. It is not certainly known what mountain this was, but it has commonly been supposed to be Mount Tabor. See the notes at Mat 17:1.

Barnes: 2Pe 1:19

We have also a more sure word of prophecy - That is, a prophecy pertaining to the coming of the Lord Jesus; for that is the point under discussion. There has been considerable diversity of opinion in regard to the meaning of this passage. Some have supposed that the apostle, when he says, "a more sure word,"did not intend to make any comparison between the miracle of the transfiguration and prophecy, but that he meant to say merely that the word of prophecy was very sure, and could certainly be relied on. Others have supposed that the meaning is, that the prophecies which foretold his coming into the world having been confirmed by the fact of his advent, are rendered more sure and undoubted than when they were uttered, and may now be confidently appealed to. So Rosenmuller, Benson, Macknight, Clarke, Wetstein, and Grotius. Luther renders it, "we have a firm prophetic word;"omitting the comparison.

A literal translation of the passage would be,"and we have the prophetic word more firm."If a comparison is intended, it may be either that the prophecy was more sure than the fables referred to in 2Pe 1:16; or than the miracle of the transfiguration; or than the word which was heard in the holy mount; or than the prophecies even in the time when they were first spoken. If such a comparison was designed, the most obvious of these interpretations would be, that the prophecy was more certain proof than was furnished in the mount of transfiguration. But it seems probable that no comparison was intended, and that the thing on which Peter intended to fix the eye was not that the prophecy was a better evidence respecting the advent of the Messiah than other evidences, but that it was a strong proof which demanded their particular attention, as being of a firm and decided character. There can be no doubt that the apostle refers here to what is contained in the Old Testament; for, in 2Pe 1:21, he speaks of the prophecy as that which was spoken "in old time, by men that were moved by the Holy Ghost."The point to which the prophecies related, and to which Peter referred, was the great doctrine respecting the coming of the Messiah, embracing perhaps all that pertained to his work, or all that he designed to do by his advent.

They had had one illustrious proof respecting his advent as a glorious Saviour by his transfiguration on the mount; and the apostle here says that the prophecies abounded with truths on these points, and that they ought to give earnest heed to the disclosures which they made, and to compare them diligently with facts as they occurred, that they might be confirmed more and more in the truth. If, however, as the more obvious sense of this passage seems to be, and as many suppose to be the correct interpretation (see Doddridge, in loc., and Professor Stuart, on the Canon of the Old Testament, p. 329), it means that the prophecy was more sure, more steadfast, more to be depended on than even what the three disciples had seen and heard in the mount of transfiguration, this may be regarded as true in the following respects:

(1) The prophecies are numerous, and by their number they furnish a stronger proof than could be afforded by a single manifestation. however clear and glorious.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hey were "recorded,"and might be the subject of careful comparison with the events as they occurred.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 hey were written long beforehand, and it could not be urged that the testimony which the prophets bore was owing to any illusion on their minds, or to any agreement among the different writers to impose on the world. Though Peter regarded the testimony which he and James and John bore to the glory of the Saviour, from what they saw on the holy mount, as strong and clear confirmation that he was the Son of God, yet he could not but be aware that it might be suggested by a caviller that they might have agreed to impose on others, or that they might have been dazzled and deceived by some natural phenomenon occurring there. Compare Kuinoel on Mat 17:1, following.

\caps1 (4) e\caps0 ven supposing that there was a miracle in the case, the evidence of the prophecies, embracing many points in the same general subject, and extending through a long series of years, would be more satisfactory than any single miracle whatever. See Doddridge, in loc. The general meaning is, that the fact that he had come as the Messiah was disclosed in the mount by such a manifestation of his glory, and of what he would be, that they who saw it could not doubt it; the same thing the apostle says was more fully shown also in the prophecies, and these prophecies demanded their close and prolonged attention.

Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed - They are worthy of your study, of your close and careful investigation. There is perhaps no study more worthy of the attention of Christians than that of the prophecies.

As unto a light that shineth in a dark place - That is, the prophecies resemble a candle, lamp, or torch, in a dark room, or in an obscure road at night. They make objects distinct which were before unseen; they enable us to behold many things which would be otherwise invisible. The object of the apostle in this representation seems to have been, to state that the prophecies do not give a perfect light, or that they do not remove all obscurity, but that they shed some light on objects which would otherwise be entirely dark, and that the light which they furnished was so valuable that we ought by all means to endeavor to avail ourselves of it. Until the day shall dawn, and we shall see objects by the clear light of the sun, they are to be our guide. A lamp is of great value in a dark night, though it may not disclose objects so clearly as the light of the sun. But it may be a safe and sure guide; and a man who has to travel in dark and dangerous places, does well to "take heed"to his lamp.

Until the day dawn - Until you have the clearer light which shall result from the dawning of the day. The reference here is to the morning light as compared with a lamp; and the meaning is, that we should attend to the light furnished by the prophecies until the truth shall be rendered more distinct by the events as they shall actually be disclosed - until the brighter light which shall be shed on all things by the glory of the second advent of the Saviour, and the clearing up of what is now obscure in the splendors of the heavenly world. The point of comparison is between the necessary obscurity of prophecy, and the clearness of events when they actually occur - a difference like that which is observable in the objects around us when seen by the shining of the lamp and by the light of the sun. The apostle directs the mind onward to a period when all shall be clear - to that glorious time when the Saviour shall return to receive his people to himself in that heaven where all shall be light. Compare Rev 21:23-25; Rev 22:5. Meantime we should avail ourselves of all the light which we have, and should apply ourselves diligently to the study of the prophecies of the Old Testament which are still unfulfilled, and of those in the New Testament which direct the mind onward to brighter and more glorious scenes than this world has yet witnessed. In our darkness they are a cheering lamp to guide our feet, till that illustrious day shall dawn. Compare the notes at 1Co 13:9-10.

And the day-star - The morning star - the bright star that at certain periods of the year leads on the day, and which is a pledge that the morning is about to dawn. Compare Rev 2:28; Rev 22:16.

Arise in your hearts - on your hearts; that is, sheds its beams on your hearts. Until you see the indications of that approaching day in which all is light. The period referred to here by the approaching day that is to diffuse this light, is when the Saviour shall return in the full revelation of his glory - the splendor of his kingdom. Then all will be clear. Until that time, we should search the prophetic records, and strengthen our faith, and comfort our hearts, by the predictions of the future glory of his reign. Whether this refers, as some suppose, to his reign on earth, either personally or by the principles of his religion universally prevailing, or, as others suppose, to the brighter revelations of heaven when he shall come to receive his people to himself, it is equally clear that a brighter time than any that has yet occurred is to dawn on our race, and equally true that we should regard the prophecies, as we do the morning star, as the cheering harbinger of day.

Barnes: 2Pe 1:20

Knowing this first - Bearing this steadily in mind as a primary and most important truth.

That no prophecy of the Scripture - No prophecy contained in the inspired records. The word "scripture"here shows that the apostle referred particularly to the prophecies recorded in the Old Testament. The remark which he makes about prophecy is general, though it is designed to bear on a particular class of the prophecies.

Is of any private interpretation - The expression here used ( ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως idias epiluseōs ) has given rise to as great a diversity of interpretation, and to as much discussion, as perhaps any phrase in the New Testament; and to the present time there is no general agreement among expositors as to its meaning. It would be foreign to the design of these notes, and would be of little utility, to enumerate the different interpretations which have been given of the passage, or to examine them in detail. It will be sufficient to remark, preparatory to endeavoring to ascertain the true sense of the passage, that some have held that it teaches that no prophecy can be interpreted of itself, but can be understood only by comparing it with the event; others, that it teaches that the prophets did not themselves understand what they wrote, but were mere passive organs under the dictation of the Holy Spirit to communicate to future times what they could not themselves explain; others, that it teaches that "no prophecy is of self-interpretation,"(Horsley;) others, that it teaches that the prophecies, besides having a literal signification, have also a hidden and mystical sense which cannot be learned from the prophecies themselves, but is to be perceived by a special power of insight imparted by the Holy Spirit, enabling men to understand their recondite mysteries.

It would be easy to show that some of these opinions are absurd, and that none of them are sustained by the fair interpretation of the language used, and by the drift of the passage. The more correct interpretation, as it seems to me, is that which supposes that the apostle teaches that the truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention; were not their own opinions, but were of higher origin, and were imparted by God; and according to this the passage may be explained, "knowing this as a point of first importance when you approach the prophecies, or always bearing this in mind, that it is a great principle in regard to the prophets, that what they communicated "was not of their own disclosure;"that is, was not revealed or originated by them."That this is the correct interpretation will be apparent from the following considerations:

(1) It accords with the design of the apostle, which is to produce an impressive sense of the importance and value of the prophecies, and to lead those to whom he wrote to study them with diligence. This could be secured in no way so well as by assuring them that the writings which he wished them to study did not contain truths originated by the human mind, but that they were of higher origin.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 his interpretation accords with what is said in the following verse, and is the only one of all those proposed that is consistent with that, or in connection with which that verse will have any force. In that verse 2Pe 1:21, a reason is given for what is said here: "For ( γὰρ gar ) the prophecy came not in old time "by the will of man,""etc. But this can be a good reason for what is said here only on the supposition that the apostle meant to say that what they communicated was not originated by themselves; that it was of a higher than human origin; that the prophets spake "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."This fact was a good reason why they should show profound respect for the prophecies, and study them with attention. But how could the fact that "they were moved by the Holy Ghost"be a reason for studying them, if the meaning here is that the prophets could not understand their own language, or that the prophecy could be understood only by the event, or that the prophecy had a double meaning, etc.? If the prophecies were of Divine origin, then "that"was a good reason why they should be approached with reverence, and should be profoundly studied.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 his interpretation accords as well, to say the least, with the fair meaning of the language employed, as either of the other opinions proposed. The word rendered "interpretation"( ἐπίλυσις epilusis ) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means "solution"(Robinson’ s Lexicon), "disclosure,"(Prof. Stuart on the Old Testament, p. 328,) "making free (Passow,)"with the notion that what is thus released or loosed was before bound, entangled obscure. The verb from which this word is derived ( ἐπιλύω epiluō ) means, "to let loose upon,"as dogs upon a hare, (Xen. Mem. 7, 8; ib 9, 10;) to loose or open letters; to loosen a band; to loose or disclose a riddle or a dark saying, and then to enlighten, illustrate, etc. - Passow. It is twice used in the New Testament. Mar 4:34, "he expounded all things to his disciples"; Act 19:39, "It shall be determined in a lawful assembly."

The verb would be applicable to loosing anything which is bound or confined, and thence to the explanation of a mysterious doctrine or a parable, or to a disclosure of what was before unknown. The word, according to this, in the place before us, would mean the disclosure of what was before bound, or retained, or unknown; either what had never been communicated at all, or what had been communicated obscurely; and the idea is, "no prophecy recorded in the Scripture is of, or comes from, any exposition or disclosure of the will and purposes of God by the prophets themselves."It is not a thing of their own, or a private matter originating with themselves, but it is to be traced to a higher source. If this be the true interpretation, then it follows that the prophecies are to be regarded as of higher than any human origin; and then, also, it follows that this passage should not be used to prove that the prophets did not understand the nature of their own communications, or that they were mere unconscious and passive instruments in the hand of God to make known his will. Whatever may be the truth on those points, this passage proves nothing in regard to them, any mare than the fact that a minister of religion now declares truth which he did not originate, but which is to be traced to God as its author, proves that he does not understand what he himself says. It follows, also, that this passage cannot be adduced by the Papists to prove that the people at large should not have free access to the word of God, and should not be allowed to interpret it for themselves. It makes no affirmation on that point, and does not even contain any "principle"of which such a use can be made; for:

(1) Whatever it means, it is confined to "prophecy;"it does not embrace the whole Bible.

\caps1 (2) w\caps0 hatever it means, it merely states a fact; it does not enjoin a duty. It states, as a fact, that there was something about the prophecies which was not of private solution, but it does not state that it is the duty of the church to prevent any private explanation or opinion even of the prophecies.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 t says nothing about "the church"as empowered to give a public or authorized interpretation of the prophecies. There is not a hint, or an intimation of any kind, that the church is intrusted with any such power whatever. There never was any greater perversion of a passage of Scripture than to suppose that this teaches that any class of people is not to have free access to the Bible. The effect of the passage, properly interpreted, should be to lead us to study the Bible with profound reverence, as having a higher than any human origin, not to turn away from it as if it were unintelligible, nor to lead us to suppose that it can be interpreted only by one class of men. The fact that it discloses truths which the human mind could not of itself have originated, is a good reason for studying it with diligence and with prayer - not for supposing that it is unlawful for us to attempt to understand it; a good reason for reverence and veneration for it - not for sanctified neglect.

Barnes: 2Pe 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time - Margin, or, "at any."The Greek word ( ποτὲ pote ) will bear either construction. It would be true in either sense, but the reference is particularly to the recorded prophecies in the Old Testament. What was true of them, however, is true of all prophecy, that it is not by the will of man. The word "prophecy"here is without the article, meaning prophecy in general - all that is prophetic in the Old Testament; or, in a more general sense still, all that the prophets taught, whether relating to future events or not.

By the will of man - It was not of human origin; not discovered by the human mind. The word "will,"here seems to be used in the sense of "prompting"or "suggestion;"men did not speak by their own suggestion, but as truth was brought to them by God.

But holy men of God - Pious men commissioned by God, or employed by him as his messengers to mankind.

Spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost - Compare 2Ti 3:16. The Greek phrase here ( ὑπὸ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου φερόμενος hupo Pneumatos Hagiou pheromenos ) means "borne along, moved, influenced"by the Holy Ghost. The idea is, that in what they spake they were "carried along"by an influence from above. They moved in the case only as they were moved; they spake only as the influence of the Holy Ghost was upon them. They were no more self-moved than a vessel at sea is that is impelled by the wind; and as the progress made by the vessel is to be measured by the impulse bearing upon it, so the statements made by the prophets are to be traced to the impulse which bore upon their minds. They were not, indeed, in all respects like such a vessel, but only in regard to the fact that all they said as prophets was to be traced to the foreign influence that bore upon their minds.

There could not be, therefore, a more decided declaration than this in proof that the prophets were inspired. If the authority of Peter is admitted, his positive and explicit assertion settles the question. if this be so, also, then the point with reference to which he makes this observation is abundantly confirmed, that the prophecies demand our earnest attention, and that we should give all the heed to them which we would to a light or lamp when traveling in a dangerous way, and in a dark night. In a still more general sense, the remark here made may also be applied to the whole of the Scriptures. We are in a dark world. We see few things clearly; and all around us, on a thousand questions, there is the obscurity of midnight. By nature there is nothing to cast light on those questions, and we are perplexed, bewildered, embarrassed. The Bible is given to us to shed light on our way.

It is the only light which we have respecting the future, and though it does not give all the information which we might desire in regard to what is to come, yet it gives us sufficient light to guide us to heaven. It teaches us what it is necessary to know about God, about our duty, and about the way of salvation, in order to conduct us safely; and no one who has committed himself to its direction, has been suffered to wander finally away from the paths of salvation. It is, therefore, a duty to attend to the instructions which the Bible imparts, and to commit ourselves to its holy guidance in our journey to a better world: for soon, if we are faithful to its teachings, the light of eternity will dawn upon us, and there, amidst its cloudless splendor, we shall see as we are seen, and know as we are known; then we shall "need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God shall give us light, and we shall reign forever and ever."Compare Rev 21:22-24; Rev 22:5.

Poole: 2Pe 1:18

We I, and James, and John.

Heard: the apostle avoucheth himself to have been an ear-witness, as well as eye-witness, of Christ’ s glory, hereby intimating that there was as much certainty of the gospel, even in a human way, as could possibly be obtained of any thing that is done in the world, seeing men can be humanly certain of nothing more than of what they perceive by their senses: compare 1Jo 1:1,3 .

The holy mount so called, not because of any inherent holiness in it, but because of the extraordinary manifestation of God’ s presence there; in the same sense as the ground is called holy where God appeared to Moses and to Joshua, Exo 3:5 Jos 5:15 .

Poole: 2Pe 1:19

Peter having proved the certainty of the evangelical doctrine, by their testimony that had seen Christ’ s glory in his transfiguration, and heard the Father’ s testimony of him, now proves the same by the testimony of the prophets under the Old Testament, and calls the

word of prophecy a more sure word comparing it either:

1. With the voice from heaven, than which he calls the word of prophecy more firm or sure, not in respect of truth, (which was equal in both), but in respect of the manner of its revelation; the voice from heaven being transient, and heard only by three apostles; whereas the word of prophecy was not only received by the prophets from God, but by his command committed to writing, confirmed by a succession of their fellow prophets in their several generations, and approved by Christ himself, and by him preferred before miracles themselves, Luk 16:29,31 . Or:

2. With the testimony of Peter and the other two apostles concerning that voice which came to Christ, than which testimony the word of prophecy is said to be more sure; not simply and in itself, but in respect of those to whom the apostle wrote; it was more firm in their minds who had received it; or, more sure as to them that were Jews, and had so fully entertained the writings of the prophets, and had them in so great veneration, being confirmed by the consent of so many ages; whereas the testimony of these apostles did not so fully appear to them to be Divine, as not being heretofore expressed in Scripture.

Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed i.e. that ye search and study it, subject your consciences to the power of it, and order your conversations according to it.

A light or, lamp, to which the word is often compared, Psa 119:105 Pro 6:23 ; because, as a lamp or candle lighted dispels the darkness, and gives light to those that are in the house or room where it is; so the word gives light to all that are in God’ s house, as the church is called, 1Ti 3:15 .

A dark place or, dirty, squalid, because places that have no light are usually filthy; the dirt which is not seen is not removed.

Until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts either,

1. The last day, called the day by way of excellency, because when it once begins it will never end, and will be all light without any darkness: and then what is said of the word of prophecy is to be understood of the whole Scripture; and the sense is, that whereas the whole time of this life is but a kind of night of error and ignorance, God hath set up his candle, given us the light of the Scripture to guide us and lead us, till we come to the glorious light of the future life, in which we shall have no need of the light of the Scripture to direct us, but shall see God as he is, and face to face, 1Co 13:12 . According to this exposition, the dawning of the day, and the day-star arising, do not signify different parts of the same day, but rather the whole day, as opposed to that darkness which would totally overspread us, were it not for the light the word affords us: our minds of themselves are dark, in them the light of the word shines, and dispels the darkness by degrees, according as the Spirit gives us more understanding of it; but yet the darkness will not be wholly removed, till the day of eternal life dawn upon us, and the day-star of the perfect knowledge of God in the beatifical vision arise in our hearts. Or:

2. By the day dawning, and the day-star arising, may be understood a more full, clear, and explicit knowledge of Christ, and the mysteries of the gospel; and then this relates particularly to the prophecies of The Old Testament; and, as Paul calls the times of the Old Testament a night, Rom 13:12 , as being a time of darkness and shadows, in comparison of the light and knowledge of Christ under the New Testament; so Peter here compares the writings of the prophets to a candle, which gives some, but less light, and the preaching of the gospel to the dawning day, and day-star arising; and commends these Christian Jews to whom he wrote, for making use of and attending to even this lesser light, till they attained to greater degrees of illumination, and the day-star of a more full and clear knowledge of Christ, as revealed in the gospel, did arise in their hearts. This exposition is favoured by Act 17:11 ; they there, and so the Jewish converts here, did search the Scriptures, to see if the things spoken by the apostles did agree with what was before written by the prophets; and as they there, so these here, are commended for their diligence in so doing, and intimation given them, that they must attend to the light of the Old Testament prophecies, till they were thereby led into a greater knowledge and understanding of the gospel revelation.

Poole: 2Pe 1:20

Knowing this first either, principally and above other things, as being most worthy to be known; or, knowing this as the first principle of faith, or the first thing to be believed.

That no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation: the Greek word here used may be rendered, either:

1. As our translators do, interpretation, or explication; and then the meaning is, not that private men are not to interpret the Scripture, only refer all to the church; but that no man nor company of men, no church nor public officers, are to interpret the Scripture of their own heads, according to their own minds, so as to make their private sense be the sense of the Scripture, but to seek the understanding of it from God, who shows them the meaning of the word in the word itself, (the more obscure places being expounded by the more clear), and by his Spirit leads believers, in their searching the Scripture, into the understanding of his mind in it: God himself being the author of the word, as 2Pe 1:21 , is the best interpreter of it. Or:

2. Mission or dismission; a metaphor taken from races, where they that ran were let loose from the stage where the race began, that they might run their course. The prophets in the Old Testament are said to run, as being God’ s messengers, Jer 23:21 , and God is said to send them, Eze 13:6,7 . And then this doth not immediately concern the interpretation of the Scripture, but the first revelation of it, spoken of in the next verse; and the question is not: Who hath authority to interpret the Scripture now written? But: What authority the penmen had to write it? And consequently, what respect is due to it? And why believers are so carefully to take heed to it? And then the meaning is, that it is the first principle of our faith, that the Scripture is not of human invention, but Divine inspiration; that the prophets wrote not their own private sense in it, but the mind of God; and at his command, not their own pleasure.

Poole: 2Pe 1:21

The prophecy the prophetical writings, or word of prophecy, 2Pe 1:19 .

Came not in old time by the will of man the prophets spake not of themselves what and when they pleased.

But holy men of God prophets, called men of God, 1Sa 2:27 9:6 1Ki 17:18 , and elsewhere. They are here called holy, not only because of their lives, wherein they were examples to others, but because they were the special instruments of the Holy Ghost, who sanctified them to the work of preaching, and penning what he dictated to them.

Spake as they were moved or, carried out, or acted, i.e. elevated above their own natural abilities. This may imply the illumination of their minds with the knowledge of Divine mysteries, the gift of infallibility, that they might not err, of prophecy, to foretell things to come, and a peculiar instinct of

the Holy Ghost whereby they were moved to preach or write.

PBC: 2Pe 1:19

See Philpot: THE RISING OF THE DAY STAR

2Pe 1:19-21 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

In these verses Peter takes us through three stages that affirm the reliability and exclusive authority of Scripture; 2Pe 1:19 -illumination, 2Pe 1:20 -revelation, and 2Pe 1:21 -inspiration. Both by context and by the reference to the prior verses, " also," he relates this lesson to his personal experience on the mount of transfiguration. Today’s experience-oriented, esoteric culture-" God revealed this to me" -implies tension, if not outright contradiction, between claimed private revelations from God and Scripture. Peter sees no tension or contradiction between Scripture and his revelation on the mountain. In fact he elevates Scripture to a higher level of certainty than the voice of God that he heard on the mountain, " ... more sure..." God spoke out of the cloud of glory. He and John saw Moses and Elijah, hearing them speak of Jesus’ death that " he should accomplish at Jerusalem." {Lu 9:31} Despite the powerful impact of that personal mountain experience, Peter views the writings of Old Testament Scripture, his likely reference in these verses, as even more reliable and convincing than any personal experience.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary offers notable thoughts regarding this lesson.

" In an exhortation Peter told how to derive meaning from God’s Word-pay attention to it. As a Light, God’s written Word has validity and authority. In today’s experience-oriented societies many people, including some Christians, seek to determine or assess truth by the particular way God has worked in their own lives. But for Peter the splendor of his experience (with Christ at His transfiguration) faded as he spoke of the surety of the written revelation of the prophets." [i]

I would only add an obvious question. The Holy Spirit included Peter’s personal experience in Scripture. How does a person who claims to have a private revelation from God validate-for him/herself, much less for others-that the supposed " revelation" actually came from God? The fact that many of these modern claims of a " revelation" contradict Scripture should raise serious questions regarding the claim. If the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture and also actually gave the " revelation," there can be no contradiction between Scripture and the content of the " revelation."

"Illumination"

Scripture enlightens our minds to God’s will and ways. Peter’s imagery is captivating. We live with a daily choice. Will we attempt to live life, and make important decisions, in a dark room void of light, or will we live and think in a bright room flooded with God’s light? Our respect for, and our constant use of, Scripture will determine our choice.

Peter also suggests that God’s progressive revelation will not continue, one rationalization of the modern claimants of private and personal " revelations." When will the day dawn and the day star arise in our hearts? If God has given us such abundant knowledge regarding Jesus’ first coming in Incarnation, we should listen when Scripture also enlightens our minds regarding His final and Second Coming. The writer of Hebrews also affirms that progressive revelation has ceased. Although God spoke, revealing His will, to Old Testament saints in various ways at different times, His final word now comes to us in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. {Heb 1:1-2} Expect no additional revelation till He comes again in His Person to the earth. The same Jesus who bodily ascended in glory shall likewise descend, bodily and in glory, the grand desire and joyful expectation of the believer. {Ac 1:11} As God, omnipresent, the Lord Jesus could not " come" or " leave" this earth, but as God Incarnate, He came, lived, died, raised from the dead, ascended into heaven in glory, and shall at the end descend bodily and in glory. If we seek a revelation from God today, a genuine revelation, Peter directs us to Scripture, not to esoteric experience or mystical visions.

"Revelation"

Although we cannot rely on private " revelation" or our own creativity as we approach Scripture to find its divinely intended meaning, it appears that Peter actually refers in this verse to the original recording of Scripture. The writers of Scripture didn’t write down their private, personal ideas. When Isaiah wrote of the virgin-born child, {Isa 9:6} or of the suffering Messiah, {Isa 53:1-12} he was not writing from private or personal mental processes.

When we consider the whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments, between forty and fifty men from different cultures, and with different personalities and backgrounds, wrote over a period of approximately fifteen hundred years. We do not have a collection of private thoughts from these men, but we have a divinely directed revelation from God through them. What they wrote was not their " private interpretation." We do not honor Scripture because the church singled out these particular writings and endorsed them as inspired (the Roman Catholic view of inspiration), but we honor them because they are self-attesting. They contain internal evidence of a supernatural origin and message. Two men, living at the same time and with similar training and background, cannot write extensively without contradicting each other. One of the evidences of a supernatural origin for these sixty-six books that we refer to as our Bible, our divinely inspired revelation from God to us, is that this number of writers from such varied times and backgrounds wrote without internal contradiction.

If the Holy Spirit did not allow the authors of Scripture to interpret life and spiritual matters from their private reflections, we should avoid any appearance of a private interpretation of their writings. Follow the plain and historically accepted interpretation, including the grammatical structure of the writings, allowing Scripture to inform you, rather than attempting to impose a personal, mystical interpretation onto it.

"Inspiration"

Like so many rich words in our language, we have diluted and corrupted this word, inspiration. Biblical writers give it a rather specific meaning. Peter doesn’t use the word, but he describes the process of inspiration in 2Pe 1:21. It was not the will of the men who wrote Scripture, but the will of God that directed its composition and content. These holy men spoke (They still "speak" to us through their writings.) as they were directed and moved by the Holy Spirit. The word translated "moved" comes from a Greek word which was often used to refer to a ship being moved across the water by the power of the wind blowing in its sails. As the wind carries a ship across the water by its power, the Holy Spirit carried these holy men along a supernatural path as they wrote the words of Scripture.

It is obvious that Peter compiled this letter to equip and to warn us regarding the nature and destructive force of false teachers and their ideas. It is not as obvious what specific errors he had in mind. Perhaps this lack of obvious specificity was intentional. If we believe in the true inspiration of Scripture, we must hold to this idea of intentional composition. In naming two characteristics of the false teachers’ ideas, Peter mentions that he refused to follow " cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." {2Pe 1:16} Gnosticism was the most common first century error that denied Jesus’ power, His deity, and His Incarnation (God condescending to live for a brief time as a man). Paul devoted much of Colossians to this error. John devoted his whole first epistle to its insidious evil. Other heresies have surfaced across the centuries that denied the deity and Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. If we consider the possibility that Peter had this error specifically in mind when he wrote this letter, we can follow his reasoning more clearly than if we view the letter as simply equipping us against some future and yet unspecified false teaching.

The Holy Spirit carried men along like wind in the sails of a ship to write Scripture. Regardless of the error we may confront or the truth we seek to pursue, Scripture must form the bedrock of our effective identifying and rejection of all error. How can we identify, much less resist, error by Scripture if we are not familiar with Scripture as more than a delightful, and indeed inspired, devotional reading? God commends the devotional reading of Scripture. He also commends the intense studious study of Scripture as the essential tools by which we discover error and resist it. He has given us the most delightful and effective tool imaginable-indeed, beyond our imagination-to identify and to reject error. Sadly, we have allowed rust and neglect to tarnish this precise and invaluable tool. We live in a highly educated culture. People spend small fortunes and invest great time to obtain a degree from a prestigious university. Often these same people refuse to invest any significant time or mental energy in a systematic and intense study of Scripture, the only supernatural textbook available to us. How well are you equipped today? How much effort will you invest to improve your skill in Scripture?

[i] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

PBC: 2Pe 1:21

He inspired men - He moved men by the Holy Spirit and caused them to write in such a way that every jot and tittle was exactly the way He wanted it to be.  Now, I don't understand that because it was not a mechanical dication.  It was not a situation where God came down and over-powered the fingers and the nerve endings in the writers hands and mechanically caused him to write the exact words.  How do we know that?  We know that because the personality and the background of the writers comes through, so somehow, God caused the scriptures to be written where we see the personality of Paul as opposed to Peter or John.  John wrote a certain way, he wrote in a certain style, used certain vocabulary.  Paul wrote another way and Peter a little bit different way, so there are different kinds of work in the bible, there are different styles of writing, so it wasn't a mechanical dictation but still God worked in such a way that every word was exactly the way He wanted it to be written.

38

Haydock: 2Pe 1:19

And we have the surer word of prophecy, or to make our testimonies and preaching of Christ more firm. The revelations of God made to the prophets, and contained in the holy Scriptures, give us of all others the greatest assurance. Though the mysteries in themselves remain obscure and incomprehensible, the motive of our belief is divine authority. (Witham) ---

If our testimony be suspicious, we have what you will certainly allow, the testimony of the prophets: attend then to the prophets as to a lamp that illuminates a dark place, till the bright day of a more lively faith begins to illumine you, and the day-star arises in your heart: till this faith, which is like the day-star, give you a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ. It is by the divine oracles you will acquire this knowledge, provided you peruse them with proper dispositions.

Haydock: 2Pe 1:20

No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) ---

The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.

Haydock: 2Pe 1:21

For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)

Gill: 2Pe 1:18

And this voice, which came from heaven, we heard,.... Peter, who wrote this epistle, and James and John, the favourite disciples of Christ; and who were a sufficient number to bear witness of what they then saw and heard:

when we were with him; and saw his glory, and the glory of Moses and Elias, and were so delighted with his company, and theirs, and with communion with him, that Peter, in the name of the rest, desired to stay there:

in the holy mount; the Ethiopic version reads, "in the mountain of his sanctuary"; and so Grotius understands it of Mount Moriah, on which the temple was built, called the holy hill, and the holy hill of Zion; and supposes that this voice was heard in the temple, and that it refers to Joh 12:28, but without any foundation; for the mount on which Christ was transfigured is here meant; and which was either, as is generally said, Tabor, a mountain in Galilee; or it may be Lebanon, which was near Caesarea Philippi, in the parts of which Christ then was: and it is called "holy", from his presence or transfiguration on it, who is the Holy One; just as the land on which Moses was, and the city and temple of Jerusalem, and Mount Sion, and Sinai, are called "holy", from the presence of the holy God there, Exo 3:5. Now such a declaration of the honour and glory of Christ, as the Son of God, being made by God the Father, in a voice from heaven, which the apostles heard with their ears, at the same time that they saw with their eyes his human body glorified in an amazing manner, was to them a confirming evidence that he would come again in power and glory; and upon this evidence they declared, and made known to the saints, the power and coming of Christ; though not on this evidence only, but also upon the more sure word of prophecy, which entirely agrees with it.

Gill: 2Pe 1:19

Though this word of prophecy is generally understood of the writings and prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Christ, yet different ways are taken to fix the comparison: some think the sense is, that they are more sure than the cunningly devised fables, 2Pe 1:16 but as these have no certainty nor authority in them, but are entirely to be rejected, the apostle would never put the sacred writings in comparison with them: and it is most clear, that the comparison lies between this word of prophecy, and the testimony of the apostles, who were eye and ear witnesses of the majesty and glory of Christ; but how prophecy should be a surer evidence of Christ, and the Gospel, than such a testimony, is difficult to understand; and is a sense which all agree to reject, by different methods: some think that a comparative is used for a positive, and that the meaning is, that besides the testimony of the apostles, prophecy is a very sure evidence; and this is countenanced by the Syriac version, which renders it, "and we have also a firm", or "true word of prophecy"; to which the Arabic agrees, "and we have a word of prophecy very true": others choose to retain the comparison, and which indeed ought not to be thrown out; but these are divided about it; some are of opinion that it is to be understood of the Jews to whom the apostle writes, and he himself was one, and the sense to be this; not that prophecy in itself was surer than an apostolical testimony, but that it was surer to the Jews, and more valid with them, who had been trained up in, and long used to the prophetic writings; and who had a greater esteem for the prophets of the Old Testament than for the apostles of the New; but it is scarcely credible that the apostle, who had been an eye and ear witness in the holy mount, would put himself in among them, and say, "we have", &c. for whatever prophecy was to them, it could not be surer to him than what he had seen with his eyes, and heard with his ears. Others suppose that the meaning is, that prophecy was "now" surer to the Christians than it was "before", it being confirmed and established by facts and events, and also by miracles, and even by the attestation of this voice heard on the mount, and by the majesty of Christ seen there; but if this had been the sense of the apostle, he would have used these words, "now" and "before"; and besides, this puts the comparison quite out of its place, which manifestly stands between former prophecy, and the present testimony of the apostles: but the truth of the matter is, that this word of prophecy is not to be understood of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament; for though these are the word of God, and do testify of Christ, and are to be taken heed, and attended to, as proofs and evidence of Gospel truths, and are a light to direct and guide in matters both of faith and practice, yet they are not the only light, and are far from being the clearest, and what are only to be attended to; for the Gospel that came by Christ, and is preached by his apostles, and is contained in the writings of the New Testament, is a much clearer light, and at least equally to be attended to: nor are the prophecies of the Old Testament, which particularly relate to Christ, designed; there are many of this kind, which, put together, may very well be called the word of prophecy, and which were to the Jews a light in a dark place, until Christ came in the flesh; and though they are to be attended to, and compared with facts, to show the truth of the divine revelation, yet they are not a surer evidence, nor so sure an evidence, as the evangelical testimony is, which is of facts, and these supported by miracles; for now the dayspring from on high hath visited us, and Christ, the bright and morning star, has appeared: but the word of prophecy, concerning Christ's second coming, is here intended, whether it lies in the words of the prophets of the Old Testament, as in Psa 96:13 or in the words of Christ, Mat 16:27, which latter is most likely. The Ethiopic version understands this of some particular prophecy, and as if the words were a citation of some prophet, rendering the words thus, "and we have a voice more ancient than this of a prophet, saying, ye do well who take heed", &c. Sir Isaac Newton is of opinion, that the apostle refers to the book of the Revelation of St. John, which would not be unlikely, could it be proved that it was then written. Now this prophecy or prediction, concerning Christ's coming again with power and great glory, was a surer evidence of it than what the apostles saw with their eyes, and heard with their ears upon the mount; nothing was surer to them, nor could anything make it surer to them, that he was honoured and glorified, than what they saw and heard: but then this did not so certainly prove that he would hereafter be glorified, or come again in glory. What they saw and heard was a presumptive proof that it "might" be so, and was a confirming pledge and evidence to them that so it "would" be, and was a glorious representation of it; but Christ's prophecy or prediction, that so it "should" be, more strongly ascertained it, since he said it, to whom all things were known from the beginning, and whose counsel shall stand, and not one word of his shall ever fail.

Whereunto ye do well, that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. The prophecy concerning Christ's second coming is as "as a light"; it is a revelation of that which was in the dark, lay hid as a secret and mystery in the heart of God; and which could not be known by men, had it not been foretold by God; and it is made as prophecy in all other cases is, by throwing light, as to this affair, into the mind of him, or them, to whom it is revealed; and is a light to them to whom it is delivered, and which they should attend unto, as to a lamp or torch to guide and direct them; though in some sense it is but a feeble one, and is as a light "that shineth in a dark place"; meaning not the world, which is a place of darkness, ignorance, and error; nor merely the state of the saints in general in this life, who, at most and best, see but through a glass darkly; but has a particular respect to the darkness which attends the saints, concerning the second coming of Christ, and which will especially attend them a little before that time. Prophecy holds out clearly that Christ will come again; that he will come in great glory, in his Father's, and in his own, and in the glory of his angels, and with great power, to raise the dead, and judge mankind; and though it gives hints, that, upon this, the saints shall be with Christ in the air, on earth, and in heaven; and that there will be new heavens, and a new earth; and that the saints shall reign here with Christ a thousand years, after which the Gog and Magog army will attack them without success; yet these are not so clear, as for saints to be agreed in the sense of them; and much more are they in the dark about the time of his coming. Now prophecy is the surest evidence and best light the saints have concerning this matter, "until the day dawn"; not the Gospel day, so much spoken of by the prophets, that had dawned already; rather a more clear knowledge of Christ, and Gospel truths, which will be in the spiritual kingdom and reign of Christ hereafter; or else the latter day glory, at the personal coming of Christ, when the light of the moon shall be as that of the sun, and that of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days; yea, when there will be no need of sun or moon, but Christ shall be come, and be the light of his people; see Isa 30:26 after which will follow the everlasting day of glory, when all darkness will be gone, and saints shall see face to face, and know as they are known:

and the day star arise in your hearts; or "the sun", as the Syriac version renders it; not Christ, the morning star, the dayspring from on high, and the sun of righteousness, who was already risen upon them; nor the grace of God implanted in their hearts, by which they were already called out of darkness, and made light in the Lord; but as the day star is the bringer of light, as the word used signifies, or the forerunner of the day, so it here intends the immediate signs and forerunners of the coming of Christ; which when observed in their hearts, and by their understandings, as being come to pass, they may lift up their heads with joy, because their redemption draws near, Luk 21:28 and so the Ethiopic here renders it, "and redemption, arise for you in your hearts". Now till this time the sure word of prophecy concerning Christ's second coming is to be "taken heed unto", as a lamp, light, and torch, to direct us to it, to encourage us to love it, long for it, and hasten to it: and in so doing we shall "do well"; it will be well for the glory of God and Christ, this being setting our seals to them as true; and well for ourselves to keep up our faith, hope, and expectation of it, unmoved.

Gill: 2Pe 1:20

Knowing this first,.... Especially, and in the first place, this is to be known, observed, and considered;

that no prophecy of the Scripture, that is contained in Scripture, be it what it will,

is of any private interpretation: not that this is levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer had not a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things; otherwise, why are such commended as doing well, by taking heed to prophecy, in the preceding verse, and this given as a reason to encourage them to it? the words may be rendered, "of one's own interpretation"; that is, such as a natural man forms of himself, by the mere force of natural parts and wisdom, without the assistance of the Spirit of God; and which is done without comparing spiritual things with spiritual; and which is not agreeably to the Scripture, to the analogy of faith, and mind of Christ; though rather this phrase should be rendered, "no prophecy of the Scripture is of a man's own impulse", invention, or composition; is not human, but purely divine: and this sense carries in it a reason why the sure word of prophecy, concerning the second coming of Christ, should be taken heed to, and made use of as a light, till he does come; because as no Scripture prophecy, so not that, is a contrivance of man's, his own project and device, and what his own spirit prompts and impels him to, but what is made by the dictates and impulse of the Spirit of God; for whatever may be said of human predictions, or the false prophecies of lying men, who deliver them out how and when they please, nothing of this kind can be said of any Scripture prophecy, nor of this concerning the second coming of Christ; and this sense the following words require.

Gill: 2Pe 1:21

For the prophecy,.... The whole Scripture, all the prophetic writings; so the Jews call the Scriptures הנבואה, "the prophecy" ^g, by way of eminence, and from the subject matter of the sacred word:

came not in old time by the will of man; was not brought into the world at first, or in any period of time, as and when man would, according to his pleasure, and as he thought fit: neither Moses, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Jeremiah, nor Ezekiel, nor Daniel, nor any other of the prophets, prophesied when they pleased, but when it was the will of God they should; they were stirred up to prophesy, not by any human impulse, but by a divine influence: with this agrees what R. Sangari says,

"that the speech of the prophets, when the Holy Spirit clothed them, in all their words was directed by a divine influence, and the prophet could not speak in the choice of his own words,''

or according to his will:

but holy men of God; such as he sanctified by his Spirit, and separated from the rest of men to such peculiar service; and whom he employed as public ministers of his word: for so this phrase "men", or "man of God", often signifies, 1Sa 2:27.

spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; who illuminated their minds, gave them a knowledge of divine things, and a foresight of future ones; dictated to them what they should say or write; and moved upon them strongly, and by a secret and powerful impulse stirred them up to deliver what they did, in the name and fear of God: which shows the authority of the Scriptures, that they are the word of God, and not of men; and as such should be attended to, and received with all affection and reverence; and that the Spirit is the best interpreter of them, who first dictated them; and that they are to be the rule of our faith and practice; nor are we to expect any other, until the second coming of Christ.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 2Pe 1:18

¹ tn The “we” in v. 18 is evidently exclusive, that is, it refers to Peter and the other apostles.

² tn 2 Pet 1:17-18 comprise one sentence in Greek, with the main verb “heard” in v. 18. All else is temporally subordinate to that statement. Hence, more literally these verses read as follows: “For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am delighted,’ we ourselves heard this voice when it was conveyed from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain.”

NET Notes: 2Pe 1:19

¹ tn Grk “and.” The use of καί (kai) is of course quite elastic. Only the context can determine if it is adversative, continuative, transitional, etc.

² sn We in v. 19 is apparently an inclusive “we” (the author and his audience). Such shifts in the first person plural are quite common in epistolary literature (cf., e.g., 2 Cor 10-13, passim).

³ tn The comparative adjective βεβαιότερον (bebaioteron) is the complement to the object τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον (ton profhtikon logon). As such, the construction almost surely has the force “The prophetic word is (more certain/altogether certain) – and this is something that we all have.” Many scholars prefer to read the construction as saying “we have the prophetic word made more sure,” but such a nuance is unparalleled in object-complement constructions (when the construction has this force, ποιέω [poiew] is present [as in 2 Pet 1:10]). The meaning, as construed in the translation, is that the Bible (in this case, the OT) that these believers had in their hands was a thoroughly reliable guide. Whether it was more certain than was even Peter’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration depends on whether the adjective should be taken as a true comparative (“more certain”) or as an elative (“very certain, altogether certain”). Some would categorically object to any experience functioning as a confirmation of the scriptures and hence would tend to give the adjective a comparative force. Yet the author labors to show that his gospel is trustworthy precisely because he was an eyewitness of this great event. Further, to say that the OT scriptures (the most likely meaning of “the prophetic word”) were more trustworthy an authority than an apostle’s own experience of Christ is both to misconstrue how prophecy took place in the OT (did not the prophets have visions or other experiences?) and to deny the final revelation of God in Christ (cf. Heb 1:2). In sum, since syntactically the meaning that “we have confirmed the prophetic word by our experience” is improbable, and since contextually the meaning that “we have something that is a more reliable authority than experience, namely, the Bible” is unlikely, we are left with the meaning “we have a very reliable authority, the Old Testament, as a witness to Christ’s return.” No comparison is thus explicitly made. This fits both the context and normal syntax quite well. The introductory καί (kai) suggests that the author is adding to his argument. He makes the statement that Christ will return, and backs it up with two points: (1) Peter himself (as well as the other apostles) was an eyewitness to the Transfiguration, which is a precursor to the Parousia; and (2) the Gentile believers, who were not on the Mount of Transfiguration, nevertheless have the Old Testament, a wholly reliable authority that also promises the return of Christ.

⁴ tn Grk “paying attention” (the adverbial participle is either conditional [“if you pay attention”] or instrumental [“by paying attention”]; though there is difference in translation, there is virtually no difference in application). On a lexical level, “pay attention to” (προσέχω [prosecw]) does not, in a context such as this, mean merely observe or notice, but follow, give heed to, obey.

⁵ tn “To this” is a relative pronoun in Greek. The second half of v. 19 is thus a relative clause. Literally it reads “to which you do well if you pay attention.”

⁶ tn Grk “as”; ὡς (Jws) clauses after imperatives or implied commands (as here) make a comparison of what should be true (imperative) to what is true (indicative). This is the case even when the verb of the ὡς clause is only implied. Cf. Matt 6:10 (“may your will be done on earth as [it is] in heaven”); 10:16 (“be wise as serpents [are], and be as gentle as doves [are]”); 22:39 (“love your neighbor as [you already do] love yourself”).

⁷ sn The reference to the morning star constitutes a double entendre. First, the term was normally used to refer to Venus. But the author of course has a metaphorical meaning in mind, as is obvious from the place where the morning star is to rise – “in your hearts.” Most commentators see an allusion to Num 24:17 (“a star shall rise out of Jacob”) in Peter’s words. Early Christian exegesis saw in that passage a prophecy about Christ’s coming. Hence, in this verse Peter tells his audience to heed the OT scriptures which predict the return of Christ, then alludes to one of the passages that does this very thing, all the while running the theme of light on a parallel track. In addition, it may be significant that Peter’s choice of terms here is not the same as is found in the LXX. He has used a Hellenistic word that was sometimes used of emperors and deities, perhaps as a further polemic against the paganism of his day.

⁸ sn The phrase in your hearts is sometimes considered an inappropriate image for the parousia, since the coming of Christ will be visible to all. But Peter’s point has to do with full comprehension of the revelation of Christ, something only believers will experience. Further, his use of light imagery is doing double-duty, suggesting two things at once (i.e., internal guidance to truth or illumination, and OT prophecy about Christ’s return) and hence can not be expected to be consistent with every point he wishes to make.

NET Notes: 2Pe 1:20

¹ tn Grk “knowing this [to be] foremost.” Τοῦτο πρῶτον (touto prwton) constitute the object and complement of γινώσκοντες (ginwskonte"). The participle is dependent on the main verb in v. 19 (“you do well [if you pay attention]”), probably in a conditional usage. An alternative is to take it imperativally: “Above all, know this.” In this rendering, πρῶτον is functioning adverbially. Only here and 2 Pet 3:3 is τοῦτο πρῶτον found in the NT, making a decision more difficult.

² tn The ὅτι (Joti) clause is appositional (“know this, that”). English usage can use the colon with the same force.

³ tn Verse 20 is variously interpreted. There are three key terms here that help decide both the interpretation and the translation. As well, the relation to v. 21 informs the meaning of this verse. (1) The term “comes about” (γίνεται [ginetai]) is often translated “is a matter” as in “is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” But the progressive force for this verb is far more common. (2) The adjective ἰδίας (idias) has been understood to mean (a) one’s own (i.e., the reader’s own), (b) its own (i.e., the particular prophecy’s own), or (c) the prophet’s own. Catholic scholarship has tended to see the reference to the reader (in the sense that no individual reader can understand scripture, but needs the interpretations handed down by the Church), while older Protestant scholarship has tended to see the reference to the individual passage being prophesied (and hence the Reformation doctrine of analogia fidei [analogy of faith], or scripture interpreting scripture). But neither of these views satisfactorily addresses the relationship of v. 20 to v. 21, nor do they do full justice to the meaning of γίνεται. (3) The meaning of ἐπίλυσις (epilusi") is difficult to determine, since it is a biblical hapax legomenon. Though it is sometimes used in the sense of interpretation in extra-biblical Greek, this is by no means a necessary sense. The basic idea of the word is unfolding, which can either indicate an explanation or a creation. It sometimes has the force of solution or even spell, both of which meanings could easily accommodate a prophetic utterance of some sort. Further, even the meaning explanation or interpretation easily fits a prophetic utterance, for prophets often, if not usually, explained visions and dreams. There is no instance of this word referring to the interpretation of scripture, however, suggesting that if interpretation is the meaning, it is the prophet’s interpretation of his own vision. (4) The γάρ (gar) at the beginning of v. 21 gives the basis for the truth of the proposition in v. 20. The connection that makes the most satisfactory sense is that prophets did not invent their own prophecies (v. 20), for their impulse for prophesying came from God (v. 21).

sn No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination. 2 Pet 1:20-21, then, form an inclusio with v. 16: The Christian’s faith and hope are not based on cleverly concocted fables but on the sure Word of God – one which the prophets, prompted by the Spirit of God, spoke. Peter’s point is the same as is found elsewhere in the NT, i.e., that human prophets did not originate the message, but they did convey it, using their own personalities in the process.

NET Notes: 2Pe 1:21

¹ tn If, as seems probable, the “prophecy” mentioned here is to be identified with the “prophecy of scripture” mentioned in the previous verse, then the Greek term ἄνθρωποι (anqrwpoi, “men”) would refer specifically to the human authors of scripture, who (as far as we know) were all men. Thus “men” has been used here in the translation. If, on the other hand, the “prophecy” mentioned in the present verse is not limited to scripture but refers to oral prophecy as well, then women would be included, since Joel 2:20 specifically mentions “sons and daughters” as having the ability to prophesy, and the NT clearly mentions prophetesses (Luke 2:36; Acts 21:9).

Geneva Bible: 2Pe 1:19

^{( 11 )} We have also a more sure word of prophecy; ^{( 12 )} whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day ^{( l )} dawn, and the ^{( m )} day star arise in your hearts:

^{( 11 )} The truth of the gospel is by this revealed, in that it agrees wholly with the foretellings of the prophets.

^{( 12 )} The doctrine of the apostles does not contradict the doctrine of the prophets, for they confirm each other by each others testimonies, but the prophets were like candles which gave light to the blind, until the brightness of the gospel began to shine.

^{( l )} A more full and open knowledge, than was under the shadows of the law.

^{( m )} That clearer doctrine of the gospel.

Geneva Bible: 2Pe 1:20

^{( 13 )} Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the ^{( n )} scripture is of any ^{( o )} private interpretation.

^{( 13 )} The prophets are to be read, but so that we ask of God the gift of interpretation, for he who is the author of the writings of the prophets, is also the interpreter of them.

^{( n )} He joins the Scripture and prophecy together, to distinguish true prophecies from false.

^{( o )} For all interpretation comes from God.

Geneva Bible: 2Pe 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but ^{( p )} holy men of God spake [as they were] ^{( q )} moved by the Holy Ghost.

^{( p )} The godly interpreters and messengers.

^{( q )} Inspired by God: their actions were in very good order, and not as the actions of the profane soothsayers, and foretellers of things to come.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 2Pe 1:1-21

1 Confirming them in hope of the increase of God's graces,

5 he exhorts them, by faith, and good works, to make their calling sure;

12 whereof he is careful to remind them, knowing that his death is at hand;

16 and warns them to be constant in the faith of Christ, who is the true Son of God, by the eyewitness of the apostles beholding his majesty, and by the testimony of the Father, and the prophets.

MHCC: 2Pe 1:16-21

The gospel is no weak thing, but comes in power, Rom 1:16. The law sets before us our wretched state by sin, but there it leaves us. It discovers our disease, but does not make known the cure. It is the sight of Jesus crucified, in the gospel, that heals the soul. Try to dissuade the covetous worldling from his greediness, one ounce of gold weighs down all reasons. Offer to stay a furious man from anger by arguments, he has not patience to hear them. Try to detain the licentious, one smile is stronger with him than all reason. But come with the gospel, and urge them with the precious blood of Jesus Christ, shed to save their souls from hell, and to satisfy for their sins, and this is that powerful pleading which makes good men confess that their hearts burn within them, and bad men, even an Agrippa, to say they are almost persuaded to be Christians, Act 26:28. God is well pleased with Christ, and with us in him. This is the Messiah who was promised, through whom all who believe in him shall be accepted and saved. The truth and reality of the gospel also are foretold by the prophets and penmen of the Old Testament, who spake and wrote under influence, and according to the direction of the Spirit of God. How firm and sure should our faith be, who have such a firm and sure word to rest upon! When the light of the Scripture is darted into the blind mind and dark understanding, by the Holy Spirit of God, it is like the day-break that advances, and diffuses itself through the whole soul, till it makes perfect day. As the Scripture is the revelation of the mind and will of God, every man ought to search it, to understand the sense and meaning. The Christian knows that book to be the word of God, in which he tastes a sweetness, and feels a power, and sees a glory, truly divine. And the prophecies already fulfilled in the person and salvation of Christ, and in the great concerns of the church and the world, form an unanswerable proof of the truth of Christianity. The Holy Ghost inspired holy men to speak and write. He so assisted and directed them in delivering what they had received from him, that they clearly expressed what they made known. So that the Scriptures are to be accounted the words of the Holy Ghost, and all the plainness and simplicity, all the power and all the propriety of the words and expressions, come from God. Mix faith with what you find in the Scriptures, and esteem and reverence the Bible as a book written by holy men, taught by the Holy Ghost.

Matthew Henry: 2Pe 1:16-18

Here we have the reason of giving the foregoing exhortation, and that with so much diligence and seriousness. These things are not idle tales, or a vain thing, but of undoubted truth and vast concern. The gospel is not a cunningly devised fable. These are not the words of one who hath a devil, nor the contrivance of any number of men who by cunning craftiness endeavour to deceive. The way of salvation by Jesus Christ is eminently the counsel of God, the most excellent contrivance of the infinitely wise Jehovah; it was he that invented this way of saving sinners by Jesus Christ, whose power and coming are set forth in the gospel, and the apostle's preaching was a making of these things known. 1. The preaching of the gospel is a making known the power of Christ, that he is able to save to the uttermost all who come to God by him. He is the mighty God, and therefore can save from both the guilt and the filth of sin. 2. The coming of Christ also is make known by the preaching of the gospel. He who was promised immediately after the fall of man, as in the fulness of time to be born of a woman, has now come in the flesh; and whosoever denies this is an antichrist (1Jo 4:3), he is actuated and influenced by the spirit of anti-christ; but those who are the true apostles and ministers of Christ, and are directed and guided by the Spirit of Christ, evidence that Christ has come according to the promise which all the Old Testament believers died in the faith of, Heb 11:39. Christ has come in the flesh. Inasmuch as those whom he undertakes to save are partakers of flesh and blood, he himself also took part of the same, that he might suffer in their nature and stead, and thereby make an atonement. This coming of Christ the gospel is very plain and circumstantial in setting forth; but there is a second coming, which it likewise mentions, which the ministers of the gospel ought also to make known, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with all his holy angels, for he is appointed to be Judge both of quick and dead. He will come to judge the world in righteousness by the everlasting gospel, and call us all to give account of all things done in the body, whether good or evil. 3. And though this gospel of Christ has been blasphemously called a fable by one of those wretches who call themselves the successors of St. Peter, yet our apostle proves that it is of the greatest certainty and reality, inasmuch as during our blessed Saviour's abode here on earth, when he took on him the form of a servant and was found in fashion as a man, he sometimes manifested himself to be God, and particularly to our apostle and the two sons of Zebedee, who were eye-witnesses of his divine majesty, when he was transfigured before them, and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light, exceedingly white, as snow, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them. This Peter, James, and John, were eye-witnesses of, and therefore might and ought to attest; and surely their testimony is true, when they witness what they have seen with their eyes, yea, and heard with their ears: for, besides the visible glory that Christ was invested with here on earth, there was an audible voice from heaven. Here observe, (1.) What a gracious declaration was made: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased - the best voice that ever came from heaven to earth; God is well pleased with Christ, and with us in him. This is the Messiah who was promised, through whom all who believe in him shall be accepted and saved. (2.) This declaration is made by God the Father, who thus publicly owns his Son (even in his state of humiliation, when he was in the form of a servant), yea, proclaims him to be his beloved Son, when he is in that low condition; yea, so far are Christ's mean and low circumstances from abating the love of the Father to him that his laying down his life is said to be one special reason of the Father's love, Joh 10:17. (3.) The design of this voice was to do our Saviour a singular humour while he was here below: He received honour and glory from God the Father. This is the person whom God delights to honour. As he requires us to give honour and glory to his Son by confessing him to be our Saviour, so does he give glory and honour to our Saviour by declaring him to be his Son. (4.) This voice is from heaven, called here the excellent glory, which still reflects a greater glory upon our blessed Saviour. This declaration is from God the fountain of honour, and from heaven the seat of glory, where God is most gloriously present. (5.) This voice was heard, and that so as to be understood, by Peter, James, and John. They not only heard a sound (as the people did, Joh 12:28, Joh 12:29), but they understood the sense. God opens the ears and understandings of his people to receive what they are concerned to know, when others are like Paul's companions, who only heard a sound of words (Act 9:7), but understood not the meaning thereof, and therefore are said not to hear the voice of him that spoke, Act 22:9. Blessed are those who not only hear, but understand, who believe the truth, and feel the power of the voice from heaven, as he did who testifieth these things: and we have all the reason in the world to receive his testimony; for who would refuse to give credit to what is so circumstantially laid down as this account of the voice from heaven, of which the apostle tells us, (6.) It was heard by them in the holy mount, when they were with Jesus? The place wherein God affords any peculiarly gracious manifestation of himself is thereby made holy, not with an inherent holiness, but as the ground was holy where God appeared to Moses (Exo 3:5), and the mountain holy on which the temple was built, Psa 87:1. Such places are relatively holy, and to be regarded as such during the time that men in themselves experience, or may, by warrant from the word, believingly expect, the special presence and gracious influence of the holy and glorious God.

Matthew Henry: 2Pe 1:19-21

In these words the apostle lays down another argument to prove the truth and reality of the gospel, and intimates that this second proof is more strong and convincing than the former, and more unanswerably makes out that the doctrine of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is not a mere fable or cunning contrivance of men, but the wise and wonderful counsel of the holy and gracious God. For this is foretold by the prophets and penmen of the Old Testament, who spoke and wrote under the influence and according to the direction of the Spirit of God. Here note,

I. The description that is given of the scriptures of the Old Testament: they are called a more sure word of prophecy. 1. It is a prophetical declaration of the power and coming, the Godhead and incarnation, of our Saviour, which we have in the Old Testament. It is there foretold that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. His power to destroy the devil and his works, and his being made of a woman, are there foretold; and the great and awful Old Testament name of God, Jehovah (as read by some), signifies only He will be; and that name of God (Exo 3:14) is rendered by many, I will be that I will be; and, thus understood, they point at God's being incarnate in order to the redemption and salvation of his people as what was to come. But the New Testament is a history of that whereof the Old Testament is a prophecy. All the prophets and the law prophesied until John, Mat 11:13. And the evangelists and the apostles have written the history of what was before delivered as prophecy. Now the accomplishment of the Old Testament by the New, and the agreeableness of the New Testament to the Old, are a full demonstration of the truth of both. Read the Old Testament as a prophecy of Christ, and with diligence and thankfulness use the New as the best exposition of the Old. 2. The Old Testament is a more sure word of prophecy. It is so to the Jews who received it as the oracles of God. Following prophets confirmed what had been delivered by those who went before, and these prophecies had been written by the express command, and preserved by the special care, and many of them fulfilled by the wonderful providence of God, and therefore were more certain to those who had all along received and read the scriptures than the apostle's account of this voice from heaven. Moses and the prophets more powerfully persuade than even miracles themselves, Luk 16:31. How firm and sure should our faith be, who have such a firm and sure word to rest upon! All the prophecies of the Old Testament are more sure and certain to us who have the history of the most exact and minute accomplishment of them.

II. The encouragement the apostle gives us to search the scriptures. He tells us, We do well if we take heed to them; that is, apply our minds to understand the sense, and our hearts to believe the truth, of this sure word, yea, bend ourselves to it, that we may be moulded and fashioned by it. The word is that form of doctrine into which we must be cast (Rom 6:17), that formulary of knowledge (Rom 2:20) by which we are to regulate our thoughts and sentiments, our words and confessions, our whole life and conversation. If we thus apply ourselves to the word of God, we certainly do well in all respects, what is pleasing to God and profitable to ourselves; and this indeed is but paying that regard which is due to the oracles of God. But, in order to this giving heed to the word, the apostle suggests some things that are of singular use to those who would attend to the scriptures to any good purpose. 1. They must account and use the scripture as a light which God hath sent into and set up in the world, to dispel that darkness which is upon the face of the whole earth. The word is a lamp to the feet of those who use it aright; this discovers the way wherein men ought to walk; this is the means whereby we come to know the way of life. 2. They must acknowledge their own darkness. This world is a place of error and ignorance, and every man in the world is naturally without that knowledge which is necessary in order to attain eternal life. 3. If ever men are made wise to salvation, it is by the shining of the word of God into their hearts. Natural notions of God are not sufficient for fallen man, who does at best actually know a great deal less, and yet does absolutely need to know a great deal more, of God than Adam did while he continued innocent. 4. When the light of the scripture is darted into the blind mind and dark understanding by the Holy Spirit of God, then the spiritual day dawns and the day-star arises in that soul. This enlightening of a dark benighted mind is like the day-break that improves and advances, spreads and diffuses itself through the whole soul, till it makes perfect day, Pro 4:18. It is a growing knowledge; those who are this way enlightened never think they know enough, till they come to know as they are known. To give heed to this light must needs be the interest and duty of all; and all who do truth come to this light, while evil-doers keep at a distance from it.

III. The apostle lays down one thing as previously necessary in order to our giving heed to, and getting good by, the scriptures, and that is the knowing that all prophecy is of divine origin. Now this important truth he not only asserts, but proves. 1. Observe, No scripture prophecy is of private interpretation (or a man's own proper opinion, an explication of his own mind), but the revelation of the mind of God. This was the difference between the prophets of the Lord and the false prophets who have been in the world. The prophets of the Lord did not speak nor do any thing of their own mind, as Moses, the chief of them, says expressly (Num 16:28), I have not done any of the works (nor delivered any of the statutes and ordinances) of my own mind. But false prophets speak a vision of their own heart, not out of the mouth of the Lord, Jer 23:16. The prophets and penmen of the scripture spoke and wrote what was the mind of God; and though, when under the influence and guidance of the Spirit, it may well be supposed that they were willing to reveal and record such thing, yet it is because God would have them spoken and written. But though the scripture be not the effusion of man's own private opinion or inclination, but the revelation of the mind and will of God, yet every private man ought to search it, and come to understand the sense and meaning thereof. 2. This important truth of the divine origin of the scriptures (that what is contained in them is the mind of God and not of man) is to be known and owned by all who will give heed to the sure word of prophecy. That the scriptures are the word of God is not only an article of the true Christian's faith, but also a matter of science or knowledge. As a man not barely believes, but knows assuredly that that very person is his particular friend in whom he sees all the proper, peculiar, distinguishing marks and characters of his friend, so the Christian knows that book to be the word of God in and upon which he sees all the proper marks and characters of a divinely inspired book. He tastes a sweetness, and feels a power, and sees a glory, in it truly divine. 3. The divinity of the scriptures must be known and acknowledged in the first place, before men can profitably use them, before they can give good heed to them. To call off our minds from all other writings, and apply them in a peculiar manner to these as the only certain and infallible rule, necessarily requires our being fully persuaded that these are divinely inspired, and contain what is truly the mind and will of God.

IV. Seeing it is so absolutely necessary that persons be fully persuaded of the scripture's divine origin, the apostle (2Pe 1:21) tells us how the Old Testament came to be compiled, and that, 1. Negatively: It came not by the will of man. Neither the things themselves that are recorded, and make up the several parts of the Old Testament, are the opinions of men, nor was the will of any of the prophets or penmen of the scriptures the rule or reason why any of those things were written which make up the canon of the scripture. 2. Affirmatively: Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Observe, (1.) They were holy men of God who were employed about that book which we receive as the word of God. If Balaam and Caiaphas, and others who were destitute of holiness, had any thing of the spirit of prophecy, upon occasion, yet such persons were not employed to write any part of the scriptures for the use of the church of God. All the penmen of the scriptures were holy men of God. (2.) These holy men were moved by the Holy Ghost in what they delivered as the mind and will of God. The Holy Ghost is the supreme agent, the holy men are but instruments. [1.] The Holy Ghost inspired and dictated to them what they were to deliver of the mind of God. [2.] He powerfully excited and effectually engaged them to speak (and write) what he had put into their mouths. [3.] He so wisely and carefully assisted and directed them in the delivery of what they had received from him that they were effectually secured from any the least mistake in expressing what they revealed; so that the very words of scripture are to be accounted the words of the Holy Ghost, and all the plainness and simplicity, all the power and virtue, all the elegance and propriety, of the very words and expressions are to be regarded by us as proceeding from God. Mix faith therefore with what you find in the scriptures; esteem and reverence your Bible as a book written by holy men, inspired, influenced, and assisted by the Holy Ghost.

Barclay: 2Pe 1:16-18

Peter comes to the message which it was his great aim to bring to his people, concerning "the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." As we shall see quite clearly as we go on, the great aim of this letter is to recall men to certainty in regard to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The heretics whom Peter is attacking no longer believed in it; it was so long delayed that people had begun to think it would never happen at all.

Such, then, was Peter's message. Having stated it, he goes on to speak of his right to state it; and does something which is, at least at first sight, surprising. His right to speak is that he was with, Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration and that there he saw the glory and the honour which were given to him and heard the voice of God speak to him. That is to say, Peter uses the transfiguration story, not as a foretaste of the Resurrection of Jesus, as it is commonly regarded, but as a foretaste of the triumphant glory of the Second Coming. The transfiguration story is told in Mat 17:1-8; Mar 9:2-8; Luk 9:28-36. Was Peter right in seeing in it a foretaste of the Second Coming rather than a prefiguring of the Resurrection?

There is one particularly significant thing about the transfiguration story. In all three gospels, it immediately follows the prophecy of Jesus which said that there were some standing there who would not pass from the world until they had seen the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Mat 16:29; Mar 9:1; Luk 9:27). That would certainly seem to indicate that the transfiguration and the Second Coming were in some way linked together.

Whatever we may say, this much is certain, that Peter's great aim in this letter is to recall his people to a living belief in tile Second Coming of Christ and he bases his right to do so on what he saw on the Mount of Transfiguration.

In 2Pe 1:16there is a very interesting word. Peter says, "We were made eye-witnesses of his majesty." The word he uses for eye-witness is epoptes (2030). In the Greek usage of Peter's day this was a technical word. We have already spoken about the Mystery Religions. They were all of the nature of passion plays, in which the story of a god who lived, suffered, died, and rose again was played out. It was only after a long course of instruction and preparation that the worshipper was finally allowed to be present at the passion play, and to be offered the experience of becoming one with the dying and rising God. When he reached this stage, he was an initiate and the technical word to describe him was epoptes (2030); he was a privileged eye-witness of the experiences of God. So Peter says that the Christian is an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ. With the eye of faith he sees the Cross; in the experience of faith he dies with Christ to sin and rises to righteousness. His faith has made him one with Jesus Christ in his death and in his risen life and power.

Barclay: 2Pe 1:19-21

This is a particularly difficult passage, because in both halves of it the Greek can mean quite different things. We look at these different possibilities and in each case we take the less probable first.

(i) The first sentence can well mean: "In prophecy we have an even surer guarantee, that is, of the Second Coming." If Peter did say this, he means that the words of the prophets are an even surer guarantee of the reality of the Second Coming than his own experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.

However unlikely it may seem, it is by no means impossible that he did say just that. When he was writing there was a tremendous interest in the words of prophecy whose fulfilment in Christianity was seen to prove its truth. We get case after case of people converted in the days of the early church by reading the Old Testament books and seeing their prophecies fulfilled in Jesus. It would be quite in line with that to declare that the strongest argument for the Second Coming is that the prophets foretold it.

(ii) But we think that the second possibility is to be preferred: "What we saw on the Mount of Transfiguration makes it even more certain that what is foretold in the prophets about the Second Coming must be true."

However we take it, the meaning is that the glory of Jesus on the mountain top and the visions of the prophets combine to make it certain that the Second Coming is a living reality which all men must expect and for which all men must prepare.

There is also a double possibility about the second part of this passage. "No prophecy of the Scripture," as the Revised Standard Version has it, "is a matter of one's own interpretation."

(i) Many of the early scholars took this to mean: "When any of the prophets interpreted any situation in history or told how history was going to unfold itself, they were not expressing a private opinion of their own; they were passing on a revelation which God had given them." This is a perfectly possible meaning. In the Old Testament the mark of a false prophet was that he was speaking of himself, as it were, privately, and not saying what God had told him to say. Jeremiah condemns the false prophets: "They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord" (Jer 23:16). Ezekiel says, "Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Eze 13:3). Hippolytus describes the way in which the words of the true prophets came: "They did not speak of their own power, nor did they proclaim what they themselves wished, but first they were given right wisdom by the word, and were then instructed by visions."

On this view the passage means that, when the prophets spoke, it was no private opinion they were giving; it was a revelation from God and, therefore, their words must be carefully heeded.

(ii) The second way to take this passage is as referring to our interpretation of the prophets. A situation was confronting Peter in which the heretics and the evil men were interpreting the prophets to suit themselves. On this view, which we support, Peter is saying: "No man can go to Scripture and interpret it as it suits himself."

This is of first-rate practical importance. Peter is saying that no man has the right to interpret Scripture, to use his own word, privately. How then must it be interpreted? To answer that question we must ask another. How did the prophets receive their message? They received it from the Spirit. It was sometimes even said that the Spirit of God used the prophets as a writer uses a pen or as a musician uses a musical instrument. In any event the Spirit gave the prophet his message. The obvious conclusion is that it is only through the help of that same Spirit that the prophetic message can be understood. As Paul had already said, spiritual things are spiritually discerned (1Co 2:14-15). As the Jews viewed the Holy Spirit, he has two functions--he brings God's truth to men and he enables men to understand that truth when it is brought. So, then, Scripture is not to be interpreted by private cleverness or private prejudice; it is to be interpreted by the help of the Holy Spirit by whom it was first given.

Practically that means two things.

(a) Throughout all the ages the Spirit has been working in devoted scholars who under the guidance of God have opened the Scriptures to men. If, then, we wish to interpret Scripture, we must never arrogantly insist that our own interpretation must be correct; we must humbly go to the works of the scholars to learn what they have to teach us because of what the Spirit taught them.

(b) There is more than that. The one place in which the Spirit specially resides and is specially operative is the Church; and, therefore, Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the teaching, the belief and the tradition of the Church. God is our Father in the faith, but the Church is our mother in the faith. If a man finds that his interpretation of Scripture is at variance with the teaching of the Church, he must humbly examine himself and ask whether his guide has not been his own private wishes rather than the Holy Spirit.

It is Peter's insistence that Scripture does not consist of any man's private opinions but is the revelation of God to men through his Spirit; and that, therefore, its interpretation must not depend on any man's private opinions but must ever be guided by that same Spirit who is still specially operative within the Church.

Constable: 2Pe 1:16-18

B. The Trustworthiness of the Apostles' Witness 1:16-18

Peter explained that his reminder came from one who was an eyewitness of Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. He did so to heighten respect for his words in his readers' minds. This section begins Peter's defense of the faith that the false teachers were attacking, which continues through much of the rest of the letter.

1:16 The apostles had not preached myths to their hearers, as the false teachers to whom Peter referred later in this epistle were doing. The apostles' testimony rested on historical events that they had observed personally. They had seen Jesus' power in action during His first coming as God's anointed Messiah. Jesus Christ's majesty appeared especially clearly on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8). "Power" and "coming" are a hendiadys that means "powerful coming" with emphasis on the fact that Jesus' coming was with power. This is the only explicit mention of the Transfiguration outside the Synoptic Gospels.

1:17-18 The apostles' message was essentially that Jesus was the Christ (i.e., God's promised Messiah; cf. 1 John 5:1). God had revealed this clearly at Jesus' transfiguration when He had announced that Jesus was His beloved Son (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). Peter referred to that event to establish the credibility of his witness and that of the other apostles. The terms "honor," "glory, "Majestic Glory," and "holy mountain" all enhance the special event that was the Transfiguration.

"The author is . . . pointing out to his readers that the Transfiguration, to which the apostles bore witness, is a basis for the expectation of the Parousia. . . .

"The emphasis of the account is that God himself has elected Jesus to be his vicegerent, appointed him to the office and invested him with glory for the task."⁵⁹

Constable: 2Pe 1:19-21

C. The Divine Origin of Scripture 1:19-21

Peter proceeded to emphasize that the witness of the apostles, as well as the witness of Scripture, came from God. He did this to help his readers see that their choice boiled down to accepting God's Word or the word of men who disagreed with God's Word (i.e., the false teachers).

"Peter points out the character of the prophetic Word (v. 19a), pictures the present function of biblical prophecy (v. 19b), and stresses the origin of prophecy (vv. 20-21)."⁶⁰

"The reliability of revelation is the idea that links verses 16-18 and verses 19-21."⁶¹

1:19 "And" introduces a conclusion that Peter drew. The meaning of the clause, "we have the prophetic word made more sure," (NASB) or, "we have the word of the prophets made more certain," (NIV) is not completely obvious. It may mean that the voice the three apostles heard at the Transfiguration (vv. 17-18) confirmed the words of the Old Testament prophets concerning the deity of Christ. On the other hand it may mean that the prophetic Old Testament Scriptures confirm the witness of the apostles (cf. Rom. 15:8). The latter view seems more probable to me because of the Greek grammar. However, many good scholars prefer the former view.⁶²

"More sure' (bebaioteron) renders a comparative adjective that is in the predicate position and placed emphatically forward. A literal rendering of this statement is, We have more sure the prophetic Word.'"⁶³

That witness was similar to a light shining in a darkened heart and world. It would remain shining until the second coming of Christ who, as the Morning Star, fully enlightens the believer's heart (cf. Rev. 22:16). The morning star is the star (really a planet, usually Venus) that appears late at night just before dawn and announces the arrival of a new day. Just so, Jesus Christ's return at the Rapture will signal the beginning of a new day, the day of the Lord.

"In this phrase ["in your hearts"] Peter seemed concerned about the inner attitude of those who await the glorious day of Christ's return. The truth that Christ is coming again must first arise in their hearts, like the morning star, giving inner assurance that that day is coming. Assured of His impending return, they will be alert to detect the gleams of dawn breaking through the darkness."⁶⁴

Peter's point was that until the Lord returns his readers should give attention to the Old Testament and to the apostles' teaching, especially since false teachers were perverting them.⁶⁵ That was the only real light available to enlighten them. The alleged light of the false teachers was no light at all.

1:20 Peter wanted to add a word of clarification about Old Testament predictions. "First of all" probably means that what Peter proceeded to say was of first importance. Bible students have recognized that what he said about Messianic prophecy in particular is true of prophecy generally. "Prophecy" is another word for the Word of God since it is what the Old Testament writers "spoke forth," the literal meaning of the Greek word propheteia, translated "prophecy." Verse 21 helps explain what Peter meant by the last clause in verse 20.

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."⁶⁶

The prophets did not simply give their interpretation of how things were or would be (v. 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 and 17 to describe that action.

"The Spirit, not human volition, is the originating power in prophecy."⁶⁷

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., Josh. 10:13; 1 Kings 14:19; Luke 1:3; et al.). Even though verses 20 and 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 Tim. 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."⁶⁸

"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.'⁶⁹ The false prophets of Jeremiah's day were charged with doing precisely this (Jer. 23:16-17, 21-22, 25-26; Ezek. 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.'"⁷⁰

In this section (vv. 12-21) Peter reminded his readers that they had adequate resources for their own nurture in the apostles' teachings and in the Old Testament.

College: 2Pe 1:1-21

2 PETER 1

I. INTRODUCTION (1:1-15)

A. SALUTATION AND GREETING (1:1-2)

¹ Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

² Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

This is a standard beginning for Greek letters in general and for early Christian letters in particular. Unlike modern English letters, authors of Greek letters would first state their names and then further identify themselves. They would then state the name(s) of the recipient(s), followed often by some sort of thanksgiving or blessing to or from the gods. On the question of authorship, see the introduction above. The letter claims to have been written by Peter, and we accept this claim in this commentary.

This document is a letter, written for a specific group of Christians (although Peter probably intended that it be copied and read by others). However, this letter also includes many characteristics of the type of literature known as a "testament." Testaments were usually written or narrated at the end of the lives of famous heroes of the faith. They included such elements as 1) the mention of the imminent death of the speaker/writer, 2) ethical instructions to the family or group, and 3) predictions of the future for that group.

The NIV translation "Simon Peter" obscures the fact that the Greek has the more primitive and Jewish "Simeon" (Sumewvn), which Peter would have been called by his Aramaic-speaking friends. Only in Acts 15:14 in the New Testament is this form used instead of Simon (Sivmwn), when James, the brother of Jesus, uses it. The name Peter is actually his nickname, given to him by Jesus (Mark 3:16; John 1:42). Since Peter means "rock," Jesus may have been looking ahead to Peter's later role as one of the pillars of the early church.

Peter's descriptions of himself show him to be one under authority and having authority. The term "servant" (dou'lo", doulos ) refers not simply to one who serves but to a slave, one whose will is completely subject to another. Peter therefore reminds his readers that his life has been completely given over to Christ. Perhaps his readers are to remember that his life has been one of persecution, hardship, and courage. He has earned the right to be heard. At the same time, he does not hesitate to remind them that as Christians, they have an obligation to accept his teaching. He is a chosen apostle of Jesus, and any readers who may be listening to the false teachers need to be reminded of this fact. The term "apostle" (ajpovstolo", apostolos ) in this context refers to the authoritative role first shared by the twelve and later expanded to include other men who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. In Ephesians 2:20 Paul mentions apostles first in his ordered list of leaders in the early church. They were the guarantors of the message of Jesus during the earliest days of the church, and their words in writing (in the New Testament) function in the same way today.

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Peter does not specify the church(es) to whom he is writing his letter. Chapter 3 relates that these believers had collected some of the letters of Paul. Therefore the best guess is that Peter is writing to Christians in Galatia, Asia Minor, Greece, or perhaps Italy. Here, however, Peter only identifies them as those who "have received a faith as precious as ours." The term "ours" probably refers to the apostles, since Peter has just identified himself as an apostle. These Christians, who were not eyewitnesses of Jesus (see 1:16), had faith that was in no sense inferior to that of the apostles themselves. (For a similar thought, see John 20:29.)

The way in which Peter describes how these readers became Christians puts all the emphasis on God's activity rather than on human activity. It was "the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" that led them to faith. While the term "righteousness" (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosynç) can mean justice, fairness, or justification, the term here most likely echoes its common New Testament meaning. It refers to the characteristic of God which caused him to offer and accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

The phrase "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" is unusual in that it seems to call Jesus "our God and Savior." The wording in Greek makes it all but certain that this is one of those rare passages in the New Testament where Jesus is explicitly called "God."

When Peter writes that his readers have "received" their faith, he may imply that faith is something Christians receive as a gift, just as grace is a gift. However, it is more likely that Peter is here simply reminding these Christians that they "received" faith when they accepted or believed the message about Jesus. In either case, the emphasis is on what God has done rather than what the believers have done. This is underscored by Peter's assertion that his readers' faith is "as precious as ours." As stated above, Peter means that the faith of these Gentile Christians is no less valid and valuable than that of the apostles themselves. These Christians received salvation the same way that all Christians do. They put their trust in the righteous act of God, the death of Jesus Christ.

1:2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

Peter's greeting, a prayer that his readers might continue to enjoy grace and peace, was very common among the early Christians. Peter wrote much the same thing in 1 Peter 1:2, and Paul uses these two terms in the greetings of all his letters. "Grace" (cavri", charis ) would include all of God's gifts which issue from his grace, including, among others, the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) and special gifts of ministry, prophecy, and the like (Rom 12:3-8). "Peace" (eijrhvnh, eirçnç) was the common Jewish greeting, expressing the desire that its recipient experience peace within and without, especially in relationships with God and with other people.

The reference to "knowledge" already anticipates the major reason for Peter's writing. The false teachers had a knowledge problem - they denied the truth concerning Jesus' Second Coming. This errant knowledge then had disastrous consequences for their lives. They were completely overcome by sin (see chapter 2), thus destroying their relationship with Christ. Here, as elsewhere in Scripture, knowledge is not simply an intellectual matter but also a relational one. The false teachers did not truly "know" God. Peter's prayer, then, is that his readers will have the abundant grace and peace that comes from knowing God and knowing the truth about God and about Jesus our Lord.

Our modern (better, postmodern) world needs to hear Peter's emphasis on knowledge every bit as much as did the original readers. A focus on the truth about God apart from a relationship with God will leave the Christian powerless to defeat sin. Similarly, an emphasis on the relationship without a deep concern for doctrinal truth will lead to sins which are the result of wrong thinking. As 2 Peter makes clear, Christians must get beyond just the basic facts if they expect to mature.

B. PREFACE: EXHORTATION TO GODLY LIVING

(1:3-11)

³ His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. ⁴ Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

⁵ For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; ⁶ and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; ⁷ and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. ⁸ For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹ But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

¹⁰ Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, ¹¹ and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him

This section is a preface to the main body of the letter, encouraging holy living among Peter's readers. He clearly believes that Christians must put forth effort in order to live acceptably, although he believes that everything needed for success in that effort has been provided by Christ. The result will be "life and godliness," which may be taken as a single idea or as two related ideas. "A godly life" may be the best translation. The Greek term translated "godliness" (eujsebeiva, eusebeia ) was well known in the Greek world, meaning "piety," doing what the gods desired for one to do. In the New Testament it takes on a more ethical sense of holy living.

It is difficult to know just what Peter has in mind when he relates that "divine power" has supplied his readers' needs through their "knowledge." It does seem that the referent of "his" and "him" is Christ, the closest antecedent (in verse 2). Peter may be teaching that Christ continually provides to Christians the power to defeat sin and live godly lives (through the Holy Spirit). However, he may mean that the knowledge Christians have of Jesus' death and resurrection on their behalf in itself gives them power to live as Christians. (Both possibilities express truths - we simply do not know which Peter intended.) In either case, Christians have this ability through knowledge. Christian knowledge of Christ implies both content (death, resurrection, Second Coming, etc.) and relationship (personally knowing Christ, reception of his Spirit), so that our knowledge of Jesus' life gives us courage to live as he did, and he continues to support us in various ways as our living Lord.

who called us by his own glory and goodness.

Peter often uses terms in pairs, such as grace and peace, life and godliness, and here "glory and goodness." Peter is probably looking back to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as he writes these words. Jesus' glory (dovxa, doxa ) is his reflection of God's presence, and his goodness (ajrethv, aretç) refers to his moral character.

Peter includes himself when he writes that Jesus "called us." The reader is tempted to look back to the incident recorded in Luke 5, where Peter clearly recognized Jesus' glory and goodness and then asked Jesus to leave because of his (Peter's) sinfulness. In that scene Peter was explicitly called to follow Jesus. But in what sense were the readers of this letter "called" by Jesus? Theologians throughout the centuries have debated this question, and it must suffice here to make two brief comments. First, the expression, being "called by God" (1 Pet 1:15; 2:9; Rom 1:7; 8:28; and others), is common in the New Testament and surely means more than simply that Christians have heard the gospel message. Those who are Christians are in some sense specially chosen by God. Second, just as common in the New Testament is the teaching that the gospel is for all (Acts 10:34-35), that God does not wish for any to perish (as taught in 3:9 of this letter!), and that human failure to respond to Christ is fully the responsibility of those who reject him (Acts 17:30; Matt 13:1-9,18-23). The call to repent and believe presupposes the ability of its hearers to do so.

1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises,

Peter is probably still thinking of Christ's "glory and goodness" when he tells his readers that it is "through these" that they have been given "his very great and precious promises." In light of the next clause in the sentence, the "promises" of Jesus must include his Second Coming and the resurrection of believers. They may also include his guidance and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

The statement that these promises allow believers to "participate in the divine nature" has caused much discussion among interpreters. The phrase, "participating in the divine nature," could mean many different things, including becoming like God in his very essence. But there is no support for this understanding anywhere in this letter (or in the Bible, for that matter!). Many therefore believe that Peter is looking to the future resurrection of believers, when they will be like God in that they will have "put on immortality," to use Paul's words (1 Cor 15:53; see also 1 John 3:2). However, the context here demands a more immediate meaning, suggesting that in some way Christians become like God even in this life so that they may resist evil desires. Peter may be thinking that Christians "participate" with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned here. The better opinion is that Christians are able to participate in the divine nature by being holy, as God is holy. That is, the Christian is in an important sense like God when he or she adds to faith goodness, knowledge, self-control, and the other attributes mentioned in verses 5-7. These signs of a godly life grow out of several factors, including God's help (through the Holy Spirit), the knowledge of the cleansing from past sins (verse 9), and personal effort (verse 5).

The "corruption in the world caused by its evil desires" is one of Peter's primary concerns in this letter. In chapter 2 he will severely criticize some who call themselves Christians, and there, as in these verses, he will underline the clear connection between wrong thinking (lack of knowledge) and wrong living. The false teachers' heresies have led them into greed and shameful ways. It is for this reason that Peter continuously reminds his readers that knowing the truth about Jesus, including his promises, is their best defense against being destroyed by sin.

1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness;

The phrase, "for this very reason," looks back to the whole of verses 3-4. The provisions and promises given freely by Christ demand that Christians do their part to ensure they do not lose those blessings. They must put forth the effort to supplement their faith with the virtues listed in verses 5-7. The list might first appear to demand a stair step approach to Christian virtues, so that one must take them in order and master one before moving to the next. Such an understanding, however, probably overextends the meaning of this common rhetorical device. While the first and last (faith and love) must begin and end the list, the others may not necessarily build on each other (as those in Romans 5:3-5 do). Peter is simply drawing attention to the importance of these interrelated characteristics of holy living.

The terms translated "make every effort" underscore just how hard Christians must work in order to be welcomed "into the eternal kingdom of our Lord" (v. 11). It must be noted that Peter nowhere makes salvation dependent on human effort - salvation is a gift, a "calling and election" (v. 10). However, those who truly understand and appreciate the gift will put forth the effort to let God work on them and through them. The idea is much like that of Paul who tells his readers to "run in such a way as to get the prize" (1 Cor 9:24), and to "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Phil 2:12-13). Through Jesus God saves and empowers, but Christians must allow him to do so by putting forth effort.

Lists of virtues similar to this one (as well as lists of vices) were common during the early Christian period. Well known are those in the New Testament: Romans 5:3-5; 2 Corinthians 6:4-7; 8:7; Galatians 5:22-23; Philippians 4:8; 2 Timothy 3:10-11; Titus 2:2; 1 Peter 3:8; and Revelation 2:19. Abundant examples may also be found in other early Christian literature, in Hellenistic Jewish writings, and among philosophical writings, especially those of Stoics. This list in 2 Peter is unusual among New Testament writings in that the virtues are arranged in a successive order, each being added to the one before. Only Romans 5:3-5 has a similar pattern. Some have also argued that the list here more closely resembles the philosophical lists, since it uses the terms "virtue," "self-control," and "godliness."

The virtues that Peter lists, with two exceptions (faith and love), are virtues which were often praised by Hellenistic philosophers. Of course, it is only reasonable that Peter would preach the gospel in terms with which his readers would have been familiar. However, "faith" and "love" are specifically Christian in their content, and they imply a Christian content for each item in the list.

The first term is the foundation of Christian life, "faith" (pivsti", pistis , often translated "belief"). Like the other virtues, this one is undefined by Peter, since he assumes that his readers know its meaning. It is the trusting relationship grounded in the believer's knowledge of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

"Goodness" translates the term aretç, a very important term in Peter's day. Among the philosophers, it meant "virtue," a characteristic of those who lived a life of integrity, based strictly on reason. The Christian understanding of the term, however, was linked to the character of God. Verse 3 has already mentioned the glory and "goodness" of Christ, pointing Peter's readers to the highest standard of moral excellence.

and to goodness, knowledge;

"Knowledge" (gnw'si", gnôsis) was already in the first century a loaded term among Christians, used by some to claim superiority over others. Paul writes that, "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (1 Cor 8:1). He also writes of "what is falsely called knowledge," referring to wild speculations about spiritual beings (1 Tim 6:20). However, the term is here used in a very positive sense, as it was more normally used in the New Testament. It refers not to the initial knowledge about Jesus' death and resurrection (a different word is used in verses 2-3). It is best understood as the deeper matters of the faith ("solid food" as opposed to "milk," as in 1 Corinthians 3:2) or even as the ability to discern God's will (see Rom 12:2; Phil 1:9-10).

1:6 and to knowledge, self-control;

"Self-control" (ejgkravteia, enkrateia ) is very common in ethical lists, both Christian and philosophical. It was one of the highest ideals of Stoicism, signifying the ability to control one's emotions, to be indifferent to matters outside one's control, and thus to be one's own master. Early Christians such as Peter used it in contexts such as this one, in which the doctrine of Christian freedom was being used to justify moral permissiveness. Paul's use of the term in Galatians 5:23 provides an interesting parallel.

and to self-control, perseverance;

"Perseverance" (uJpomonhv, hypomonç) is found in many of the New Testament lists of Christian characteristics. The term may also be translated "steadfastness" or "endurance" and refers to the ability to withstand temptation, hardship, or persecution. For the Christian the basis of perseverance was not personal strength but trust and hope in the Lord.

and to perseverance, godliness;

Peter has already used the term "godliness" ( eusebeia ) once (verse 3) where it functioned as a general term roughly equivalent to "holy living." It may be added here that the term refers not only to behavior but also to a person's attitude toward God. It was common among pagans to speak of the need for "piety," that is, doing the right things out of a proper respect for the gods. Christian godliness refers to holy living out of respect for a holy God.

1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness;

"Brotherly kindness" translates the term filadelfiva ( philadelphia ). Since the next virtue is "love," we must make a distinction between this "love of brother" and agapç. "Brotherly kindness" in non-Christian literature referred to the natural affection between family members. In Christian contexts, however, it speaks of the tender feelings and loving actions among believers. Jesus spoke of the ties among his followers that were even stronger than biological family relationships (Luke 18:29-30). It is this love for fellow Christians that Peter mentions here.

and to brotherly kindness, love.

"Love" (ajgavph, agapç) is the supreme Christian virtue (see 1 Cor 13) and is therefore mentioned last. It may be that Peter wants the reader to understand that all of the others are encompassed in (or must be understood in light of) this one, similar to Paul's statement in Colossians 3:14: "And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity." "Love" is a much broader term than the former, "brotherly kindness," implying self-sacrificial beneficence toward others, whoever they may be (see Luke 10:25-37). Above all, love is defined by the act of God in sending his Son to die (John 3:16).

1:8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Peter notes that these qualities are not absolutes, which a Christian either has or does not have. However, the believer will be growing in all these areas and will thereby be effective and productive. Peter makes the point from the negative standpoint, as he warns of "being ineffective and unproductive," probably because that is precisely what had happened to the false teachers about whom he writes in chapter 2. The terms "ineffective" and "unproductive" are near-synonyms in this passage. The first term often refers to workers who are idle, and the second is the common metaphor recalling plants that produce no fruit.

In what way did Peter want his readers to be effective and productive? Although Peter does not specify here, the whole of the letter deals with the holy living that is the fruit of right doctrine. Peter's plea is therefore that his readers will practice these virtues in order to defeat sin, withstand various trials, and serve others. Peter bases these benefits once again in "knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is fundamentally because believers know Jesus who lived, died, and was resurrected for them that they are able to live holy lives.

1:9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

The individual who has not pursued these qualities is unable, or perhaps unwilling, to see the need to put forth the effort to live productively in Christ. That person is "nearsighted and blind," another pair of terms which Peter uses as synonyms for rhetorical effect. This blindness will certainly lead to a life of sinfulness and separation from God. Furthermore, such a person is not only blind but also has amnesia, "having forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins." Peter's meaning is that Christians are cleansed from sin in order to escape the destruction of sin, not to return to it. Those who sin willfully have therefore failed to live in light of their salvation. So, they are blind to it, or they have forgotten it. The teaching is very much like that of Paul in Romans 6:2: "We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" The false teachers troubling Peter's readers were probably like Paul's antagonists, who believed that salvation by grace meant that Christians could deliberately sin without fear of judgment. The language Peter uses here, being "cleansed from past sins," probably refers to the cleansing which takes place at baptism (see Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11 and others).

1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.

Peter concludes and summarizes this section by repeating his exhortation of verse 5, where he encouraged them to "make every effort." The demand is that they live in light of the salvation that has been given to them. Yes, they are among the "called and elect" of God. However, they must not presume upon their salvation by failing to put forth the effort to live holy lives. They must validate that they are God's people (make their "calling and election sure") by living like God's people. A lack of effort to live a holy life is the clearest evidence that a person does not truly belong to God.

Peter's thought is much like that of James, who writes, "Faith itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" (Jas 2:17). Nor is Paul of a different mind, as he writes (even to the Galatians!) that, "I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this [sexual immorality, impurity, and many others] will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:21). John Calvin rightly noted that, "Salvation is by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone."

The terms, "calling" (klh'si", klçsis) and "election" (ejkloghv, eklogç) are another pair of synonyms, of which Peter is so fond. For more comments on the theology behind these words, see the discussion at verse 3 above, where a form of the term "calling" is also used. Peter believed that salvation is the result of God's initiative, pure grace. However, this in no way relieves humans of responsibility for responding to God's gift. Perhaps the best theological solution to the paradox is the belief that God predetermined to save the world by giving his Son, so that Jesus is ultimately the chosen or "elect" one. By God's grace, he counts among the elect all those who are "in Christ."

For if you do these things, you will never fall,

Peter knows that there is the possibility for Christians to "fall," that is, fail to be welcomed into the eternal kingdom (v. 11). That is what had presumably happened to the false teachers, who were unconcerned with holy living (chapter 2). However, he reassures his readers that their efforts to live in light of their salvation will keep them from falling.

1:11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Peter ends the section by focusing on the abundance of God's grace by writing of the "rich welcome" which Christians can expect. "The eternal kingdom" is, of course, the kingdom in its final manifestation, the "new heaven" and "new earth" of 3:13.

Once again, Peter's words are as timely today as the day he penned them. It is easy to fall into the trap of believing that our sins are of no great concern or that we will eventually grow out of our sins. In this passage Peter underlines the importance of working hard at spiritual growth. Although the power comes from God, we must make every effort to avail ourselves of it. Failure to do so may result in our failure to "receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom."

C. OCCASION: THE APPROACHING DEATH OF PETER (1:12-15)

¹² So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. ¹³ I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, ¹⁴ because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. ¹⁵ And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

Peter here begins the transition to the main body of his letter. Having begun with an exhortation focusing on his readers (vv. 3-11), he now explains his own circumstances and one of the reasons for writing the letter at this time. In short, he wants to make clear his teaching before he dies.

Many scholars have noted that this letter is very much like a "testament" in this section. The testament or "farewell speech" was a common type of literature among Jews, one in which a hero of the faith would state that he or she was near death. It would usually contain ethical teaching and prophecy about future events which would occur after the hero's death. Since testaments were often fictional, some have suggested that 2 Peter must also be fictional. However, this reasoning is not valid. Not all testaments were fictional, and there is no reason that Peter could not have written one. Furthermore, the fact that 2 Peter contains some elements of a testament does not mean that it ought to be regarded as belonging primarily to this type of literature. Above all, 2 Peter is a letter, like other letters in the New Testament. Writing a letter to loved ones at the end of one's life is hardly an unusual event.

1:12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have.

The grave importance of living godly lives is what has led Peter to "remind" his readers "of these things," even though they already "know them." These Christians were apparently not novices in the faith, since he describes them as "firmly established in the truth." Peter felt they needed to be reminded again for several reasons: 1) He, one of the great witnesses of the life and teaching of Jesus, is about to die. 2) False teachers have arisen and will continue to disturb the faith of traditional believers. 3) The nature of Christian faith demands the continual retelling of the stories in order for believers to grow.

The surprising thing about this verse is that Peter writes that he "will always remind" them of his teaching. The language here is unusual, and it is not certain that the NIV's "I will always remind you" is the best translation; yet it remains the most likely. So, how is it that a man about to die will continue to communicate to others? Two possibilities seem best: 1) He may think that he will yet live long enough to teach them more. 2) He may intend this letter as a reminder, not only when they receive it but as they read it again and again. Perhaps the second choice is slightly more probable.

1:13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body,

Peter repeats his desire to "refresh [their] memory" as he hints for the first time about his approaching death. Peter is simply saying that he is making use of his final days on earth to remind believers of their Christian obligations. To "live in the tent of this body" is a common early Christian way of talking about life in this age, as opposed to life in the coming age. Paul writes similarly in 2 Corinthians 5:1,4: "For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God . . . . For while we are in this tent, we groan . . . ." It is important to make clear that Peter is not suggesting that he is awaiting the day when he will become a bodiless spirit after death. It is simply that the physical body is frail, like a tent, and Christians, especially in their later years, look forward to being rid of this "perishable and corruptible" body and receiving a new body at the resurrection. Paul calls the resurrection body a "spiritual body" and teaches that it is imperishable and immortal (1 Cor 15:42-54). While there is much that cannot be known about Christian existence after death, it is important to remember that the Christian view of afterlife involves resurrection of the body, not immortality of the soul as understood in pagan Greek philosophy and religion.

1:14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.

Peter "knows" that his death is approaching, and that it will come "soon." However, we do not know how soon it was to be. It may have been only days, or it may have been years. Similarly, we do not know just when or how Jesus "made clear" Peter's death to him. He may have received a revelation just prior to his death, or he may be referring here to the event recorded in John 21:18-19: ". . . when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." It is quite possible that Peter's situation has convinced him that the time referred to by Jesus cannot be far away. Early Christian tradition states that Peter died under the emperor Nero in the mid-60s of the first century. This tradition is probably reliable, unlike the further tradition that states he was crucified upside-down.

The fact that Peter will "put aside" his body does not mean that he does not expect another, better (resurrection) body. While 2 Peter gives few hints regarding the state of the Christian between death and the return of Christ, it makes very clear that believers await "a new heaven and a new earth" (3:13), a situation in which a new body makes perfect sense.

1:15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

How will Peter ensure that even after his death his readers will be reminded of his teaching? Peter may be suggesting that he "will make every effort" to encourage others to continue to teach what he has taught them. Or he may mean simply that this letter is his effort to help them remember his teaching. In either case, it is clearly important to Peter that his teaching be remembered after his death, as this is his second mention of this concern in this paragraph (see verse 12).

II. BODY OF LETTER (1:16-3:13)

A. REASONS FOR BELIEVING IN CHRIST'S RETURN (1:16-21)

1. Peter's Eyewitness Testimony (1:16-18)

¹⁶ We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, ''This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." ^{a 18} We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

^a 17 Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35

Peter now begins the body of the letter, as he introduces the main topic that will occupy him throughout the remainder of the letter. His great concern is the Second Coming of Jesus. He will first offer reasons to believe, and then he will attack those who are denying Christ's return. Finally, he will remind his readers of the truth about the event, followed by concluding exhortations to faithfulness.

This small section (verses 16-18) and the next (19-21) offer Peter's readers evidence to support his teaching about the Second Coming. The first evidence is that Peter and those with him were eyewitnesses to a miracle which looked ahead to and therefore guaranteed the return of Jesus in glory.

1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Why did Peter feel the need to tell his readers that it was not on the basis of "cleverly invented stories" that his teaching about the return of Jesus rested? It is very probable that those who denied the Second Coming were claiming that Jesus had never promised a return. The very idea of Jesus coming back, they would say, was a creation of some very imaginative and clever people. While we know less than we might wish to know about these false teachers, we do know that even in the first century there were a number who claimed to be Christian who flatly denied the doctrine of resurrection (and, by implication, Jesus' future return).

It is somewhat difficult for those who are the beneficiaries of centuries of orthodox teaching on this matter to understand how anyone could take such a stand. However, there are several things modern Christians should keep in mind. First, the early Christians had no New Testament on which to rely. They had to rely on what they heard from church leaders. It was difficult for them to distinguish what was true from what was false. Second, many came out of a pagan Greek thought-world in which life after death was ridiculed. Most Greeks believed in a very impersonal immortality of the soul if they believed in afterlife at all. They may have reasoned that Jesus could not have been resurrected and therefore could certainly not come again. Paul had to deal with such thinking on many occasions, including that behind 2 Timothy 2:18, where two men had apparently "spiritualized" the resurrection: "They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some." Third, many of the earliest Christians expected Jesus to return during their lifetimes. When he failed to do so, they became disillusioned and therefore became more susceptible to the Greek thinking about the future. Fourth, then just as now, immoral living helps to create false teaching. Those who did not want to give up their sinful lifestyles had to discover ways of justifying or at least living with their sin. One way to do so was (and is) to deny those teachings of Christianity which would restrict their desired activities.

Peter has changed from using the singular ("I") to the plural ("we") in order to remind his readers that others (according to the Gospels, James and John) were also "eyewitnesses" to the Transfiguration. It is obvious that Peter is referring to the Transfiguration as he writes of the certainty of the "power and coming" of Jesus. This pair of terms should be understood as one idea, the "powerful coming" or "coming in power." It is also clear that Peter is writing about the Second Coming. However, it is not as clear why Peter thinks that the Transfiguration is evidence for the future Second Coming of Christ.

The answer lies in the proper understanding of the Transfiguration. It was not a miracle simply designed to impress the apostles and show that Jesus was indeed sent from God. The various elements of the Gospel account of the story must be examined in order to understand Peter's reasoning. The Transfiguration occurs in the Gospels (Matt 17; Mark 9; Luke 9) immediately after Peter's revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus follows Peter's confession with his own revelation that the Son of Man was to come in judgment "when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38, NRSV). It is in this context that Jesus is glorified above even Moses and Elijah, when God tells those who are present to "listen to him." As we will see below, the allusion made by the voice of God makes it plain that Jesus is the one who will subdue the nations and reign as God's appointed judge and ruler. The Transfiguration then was a preview for Peter and those with him of Jesus' final glory and power, which would be inaugurated with the Second Coming.

1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, ''This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Peter uses yet another pair of words, "honor and glory," to describe what Jesus received on the mountain. Whether the honor is associated with the voice and the glory with the shining face and clothes or whether both terms describe the whole event makes little difference. What matters is that Peter understands that the event was God's appointment (or at least acknowledgement) of Jesus as final judge and king.

Peter does not quite state that the voice on the mountain came directly from God, tracing its origin rather to the "Majestic Glory." The use of the term "Majestic Glory" is due to the common Jewish practice of avoiding the use of the name of God, in keeping with the third commandment. The words spoken by the voice are a further indicator of the significance of the event. The words are a partial quotation of Psalm 2:7 ("This is my Son") and Isaiah 42:1 ("with whom I am well pleased"). Psalm 2 envisions God laughing at those who oppose his appointed king and warning of the coming destruction of his enemies. That Peter understood this background is clear from his use in verse 18 of the phrase "the sacred mountain" from Psalm 2:6. The quotation of Isaiah 42:1 equates Jesus with the suffering servant of God.

1:18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Peter reiterates the fact that he and his companions were eyewitnesses (or ear-witnesses) as he ends this short section. His intent is that his readers be impressed that his teaching about the return of Christ came directly from God himself. They might also be impressed that the one writing the letter to them was one of those chosen to be with Jesus on that occasion. The term "sacred mountain," as noted above, indicates that Peter knew and relied upon the larger context of Psalm 2 for his understanding of the Transfiguration.

2. The Sure Prophetic Word (1:19-21)

¹⁹ And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. ²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. ²¹ For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Peter's second piece of evidence in support of his teaching about Christ's return is the teaching of Scripture. Peter's contention is that the prophets prophesied that Christ would return. The Second Coming is not predicated upon cleverly invented stories. This section also functions as a transition to the next section, since it deals with the words of the biblical prophets. Chapter 2 will discuss another group of prophets, the false prophets of Peter's day.

1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain,

Every teaching or prediction of the prophets is for Peter and for his readers a "certain" word already. After all, their Bible is the Old Testament, including the writings of prophets. The statement here, however, suggests that it is made even "more certain" by the Transfiguration event. Just in case there were any doubts about the teachings of the prophets concerning God's plans for world history, Peter's (and the other apostles') eyewitness testimony should rule them out. The assumption here is that the Old Testament prophets spoke of the future Second Coming of God's Messiah, an assumption shared by all New Testament writers.

and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Peter directs his readers' attention to the words of the prophets by comparing prophecy to "a light shining in a dark place." The metaphor is a common one in Jewish literature, the best known in Psalm 119:105: "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." However, Peter extends the metaphor, suggesting that the light of prophecy will be needed during the night that lasts "until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." In the context of 2 Peter that "day" can only be the return of Christ, especially in light of the reference to the "morning star." The allusion is to a messianic text, Numbers 24:17: "A star will come out of Jacob."

It is somewhat surprising that the metaphor includes the rising of the star in the "hearts" of Peter's readers. Yet the whole context refers to the return of Jesus, a time of great joy which was eagerly anticipated in the hearts of the early Christians. Paul's words may help the modern reader feel the excitement: "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever" (1 Thess 4:16-17). It appears that Peter, like Paul, envisions the possibility that the Lord will return during the lifetime of his readers, since he speaks not of their deaths but of the day dawning on them.

1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.

The NIV translation is quite interpretive here, since the original is somewhat ambiguous. The major part of the sentence may also be translated, "No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" (NRSV). This translation would imply that Peter is objecting to the private (and incorrect) interpretation of prophecy practiced by the false teachers. However, this understanding does not suit well the preceding (19) and especially the following verse (21). The NIV interpretation seems best.

The false teachers have rejected not only the teaching of Peter and the other apostles about the coming of Christ but also the teachings of the prophets about this event. Their judgment may have been that God never inspired such prophecies but that the prophets were wrongly interpreting their visions or whatever signs God may have given them. Therefore Peter asserts that all prophecy in Scripture originated with God, not with the prophet. That is to say that not only the visions or dreams came from God but so did the prophets' understanding of them. This seems to be the point of the next verse.

1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

If the false teachers contended that the prophets gave their own (wrong) interpretation of God's visions, then Peter has responded in verse 20 that the prophets did not voice their own understandings. He now needs only to state what the origin of prophecy was. It originated not "in the will of man" but was rather "from God," through the agency of "the Holy Spirit."

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: 2Pe 1:19

It is important to point out that it isn’t the Bible that converts people. The first Christians didn’t have the Bible as we know it. The New Testament hadn’t been compiled, and there was no such thing as the printing press. Besides, many couldn’t read. Rather, they were converted by the spoken message of the gospel. It is the gospel that is " the power of God to salvation" ( Rom 1:16 ). Until God gives light to His Word, it will remain a dry history book to its reader.

Evidence: 2Pe 1:21

" The idea conveyed is that just as the wind controls the sails of a boat, so also the breath of God controlled the writers of the Bible. The end result was exactly what God intended." Josh McDowell

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIONS

" Didn’t men write the Bible?"

Absolutely. When you write a letter, do you write the letter, or does the pen? Obviously you do; the pen is merely the instrument you use. God used men as instruments to write His " letter" to humanity. They ranged from kings to common fishermen, but the 66 books of the Bible were all given by inspiration of God. Proof that this Book is supernatural can been seen with a quick study of its prophecies. See Psa 119:105 footnote.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

ABOUT a.d. 66 OR 67

By Way of Introduction

Most Doubtful New Testament Book

Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of 2 Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour. One has to admit that the case concerning 2 Peter has problems of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that an adverse decision against the authenticity of 2 Peter stands by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books. It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without full knowledge of all the evidence.

Slow in General Acceptance

It was accepted in the canon by the council at Laodicea (372) and at Carthage (397). Jerome accepted it for the Vulgate, though it was absent from the Peshito Syriac Version. Eusebius placed it among the disputed books, while Origen was inclined to accept it. Clement of Alexandria accepted it and apparently wrote a commentary on it. It is probable that the so-called Apocalypse of Peter (early second century) used it and the Epistle of Jude either used it or 2 Peter used Jude. There are undoubted allusions also to phrases in 2 Peter in Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome. When one considers the brevity of the Epistle, the use of it is really as strong as one can expect. Athanasius and Augustine accepted it as genuine, as did Luther, while Calvin doubted and Erasmus rejected it. It may be said for it that it won its way under criticism and was not accepted blindly.

Claims Petrine Authorship

Not only so, but in fuller form than 1Pe_1:1, for the writer terms himself " Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in Act_15:14) is the real name (Joh_1:42) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that 2 Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

And Personal Experiences of Peter

The writer makes use of his own contact with Jesus, especially at the Transfiguration of Christ (Mar_9:2-8; Mat_17:1-8; Luk_9:28-36). This fact has been used against the genuineness of the Epistle on the plea that the writer is too anxious, anyhow, to show that he is Symeon Peter (2Pe_1:1). But Bigg rightly replies that, if he had only given his name with no personal contacts with Jesus, the name would be called " a forged addition." It is possible also that the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration may have been suggested by Peter’s use of exodos for his own death (2Pe_1:15), the very word used by Luke (Luk_9:31) as the topic of discussion between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. There is also in 2Pe_1:13 the use of " tent" ( skēnoma ) for the life in the body, like Peter’s use of " tents" ( skēnas ) to Jesus at that very time (Mar_9:5; Mat_17:4; Luk_9:33). In 2Pe_1:14 Peter also refers to the plain words of Jesus about his coming death (Joh_21:18.). In 2Pe_1:15 Peter speaks of his own plan for preserving the knowledge of Jesus when he is gone (possibly by Mark’s Gospel). All this is in perfect keeping with Peter’s own nature.

And yet the Epistle Differs in Style from First Peter

This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words ( epichorēgeō in 2Pe_1:10, 2Pe_1:19, bebaios in 2Pe_1:12, 2Pe_1:13, 2Pe_1:15, prophēteia in 2Pe_1:20; 2Pe_3:3, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in 1 Peter. " This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in 1 Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in 2 Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in 1 Peter than in 2 Peter, though some do occur in 2 Peter. Besides those already given, note 2Pe_1:8 (Luk_13:7.), 2Pe_2:1 (Mat_10:33), 2Pe_2:20 (Mat_12:45; Luk_11:26), 2Pe_3:4 (Mat_24:1.), and possibly 2Pe_1:3 to Christ’s calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in 2 Peter, 231 in 2 Peter not in 1 Peter. There are 686 hapax legomena in N.T., 54 in 2 Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for 1 Peter (1Pe_5:12). Mark was Peter’s usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for 2 Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from Act_4:13 that Peter and John were considered unlettered men ( agrammatoi kai idiōtai ). 2 Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. 2 Peter may have more of Peter’s real style than 1 Peter.

He Accepts Paul’s Epistles as Scripture

This fact (2Pe_3:15.) has been used as conclusive proof by Baur and his school that Peter could not have written the Epistle after the stern rebuke from Paul at Antioch (Gal_2:11.). But this argument ignores one element in Peter’s impulsive nature and that is his coming back as he did with Jesus. Paul after that event in Antioch spoke kindly of Peter (1Co_9:5). Neither Peter nor Paul cherished a personal grudge where the Master’s work was involved. It is also objected that Peter would not have put Paul’s Epistles on the level with the O.T. and call them by implication " Scripture." But Paul claimed the help of the Holy Spirit in his writings and Peter knew the marks of the Holy Spirit’s power. Besides, in calling Paul’s Epistles Scripture he may not have meant to place them exactly on a par with the Old Testament.

The Resemblance to the Epistle of Jude

This is undoubted, particularly between Jude and the second chapter of 2 Peter. Kuhl argues that 2 Peter 2:1-3:2 is an interpolation, though the same style runs through out the Epistle. " The theory of interpolation is always a last and desperate expedient" (Bigg). In 2 Peter 2 we have the fallen angels, the flood, the cities of the plain with Lot, Balaam. In Jude we have Israel in the wilderness, the fallen angels, the cities of the plain (with no mention of Lot, Cain, Balaam, Korah). Jude mentions the dispute between Michael and Satan, quotes Enoch by name. There is rather more freshness in Jude than in 2 Peter, though 2 Peter is more intelligible. Evidently one had the other before him, besides other material. Which is the earlier? There is no way to decide this point clearly. Every point is looked at differently and argued differently by different writers. My own feeling is that Jude was before (just before) 2 Peter, though it is only a feeling and not a conviction.

Anachronisms

It used to be said that it was impossible for 2 Peter to have been written in the first century, because it had the atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that argument. In 2Pe_3:8 occurs the quotation of Psa_90:4 about the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to have such a swing. Peter’s use of it suits the first century, not the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in 2 Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul’s troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. " Every feature in the description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in the apostolic age" (Bigg).

The Readers

The author says that this is his second Epistle to them (2Pe_3:1), and that means that he is writing to the saints in the five Roman provinces in Asia Minor to whom the first Epistle was sent (1Pe_1:1). Spitta and Zahn deny this on the ground that the two Epistles do not discuss the same subjects, surely a flimsy objection. Zahn even holds that 2 Peter precedes 1 Peter and that the Epistle referred to in 2Pe_3:1 has been lost. He holds that 2 Peter was addressed to the church in Corinth. He considers the readers to be Jews while 1 Peter was addressed to Gentiles. But " there is nothing in 2 Peter to differentiate its first readers from those of 1 Peter" (Bigg).

The Purpose

Certainly Peter is here concerned chiefly with the heresies of that general region in Asia Minor that so disturbed Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, Pastoral Epistles) and John (Gospel, Epistles, Apocalypse). Paul early foresaw at Miletus these wolves that would ravish the sheep (Act_20:29.). In 1 Peter he is concerned chiefly with the fiery persecutions that are upon them, but here with the heretics that threaten to lead them astray.

Balance of Probability

There are difficulties in any decision about the authorship and character of 2 Peter. But, when all things are considered, I agree with Bigg that the Epistle is what it professes to be by Simon Peter. Else it is pseudonymous. The Epistle more closely resembles the other New Testament books than it does the large pseudepigraphic literature of the second and third centuries.

The Date

If we accept the Petrine authorship, it must come before his death, which was probably a.d. 67 or 68. Hence the Epistle cannot be beyond this date. There are those who argue for a.d. 64 as the date of Peter’s death, but on insufficient grounds in my opinion.

JFB: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS.--If not a gross imposture, its own internal witness is unequivocal in its favor. It has Peter's name and apostleship in its heading: not only his surname, but his original name Simon, or Simeon, he thus, at the close of his life, reminding his readers who he originally was before his call. Again, in 2Pe 1:16-18, he mentions his presence at the Transfiguration, and Christ's prophecy of his death! and in 2Pe 3:15, his brotherhood with Paul. Again, in 2Pe 3:1, the author speaks of himself as author of the former Epistle: it is, moreover, addressed so as to include (but not to be restricted to) the same persons as the first, whom he presupposes to be acquainted with the writings of Paul, by that time recognized as "Scripture" (2Pe 3:15, "the long-suffering of God," compare Rom 2:4). This necessarily implies a late date, when Paul's Epistles (including Romans) already had become generally diffused and accepted as Scripture in the Church. The Church of the fourth century had, besides the testimony which we have of the doubts of the earlier Christians, other external evidence which we have not, and which, doubtless, under God's overruling providence, caused them to accept it. It is hard to understand how a book palpably false (as it would be if Peter be not the author) could have been accepted in the Canon as finally established in the Councils of Laodicea, A.D. 360 (if the fifty-ninth article be genuine), Hippo, and Carthage in the fourth century (393 and 397). The whole tone and spirit of the Epistle disprove its being an imposture. He writes as one not speaking of himself, but moved by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21). An attempt at such a fraud in the first ages would have brought only shame and suffering, alike from Christians and heathen, on the perpetrator: there was then no temptation to pious frauds as in later times. That it must have been written in the earliest age is plain from the wide gulf in style which separates it and the other New Testament Scriptures from even the earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. DAILLE well says, "God has allowed a fosse to be drawn by human weakness around the sacred canon to protect it from all invasion."

Traces of acquaintance with it appear in the earliest Fathers. HERMAS [Similitudes, 6.4] (compare 2Pe 2:13), Greek, "luxury in the day . . . luxuriating with their own deceivings"; and [Shepherd, Vision 3.7], "They have left their true way" (compare 2Pe 2:15); and [Shepherd, Vision 4.3], "Thou hast escaped this world" (compare 2Pe 2:20). CLEMENT OF ROME, [Epistle to the Corinthians, 7.9; 10], as to Noah's preaching and Lot's deliverance, "the Lord making it known that He does not abandon those that trust in Him, but appoints those otherwise inclined to judgment" (compare 2Pe 2:5-7, 2Pe 2:9). IRENÆUS, A.D. 178 ("the day of the Lord is as a thousand years"), and JUSTIN MARTYR seem to allude to 2Pe 3:8. HIPPOLYTUS [On Antichrist], seems to refer to 2Pe 1:21, "The prophets spake not of their own private (individual) ability and will, but what was (revealed) to them alone by God." The difficulty is, neither TERTULLIAN, CYPRIAN, CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, nor the oldest Syriac (Peschito) version (the later Syriac has it), nor the fragment known as Muratori's Canon, mentions it. The first writer who has expressly named it is ORIGEN, in the third century (Homily on Joshua; also Homily 4 on Leviticus, and Homily 13 on Numbers), who names it "Scripture," quoting 2Pe 1:4; 2Pe 2:16; however (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.25]), he mentions that the Second Epistle was doubted by some. FIRMILIAN, bishop of Cappadocia, in Epistle to Cyrpian speaks of Peter's Epistles as warning us to avoid heretics (a monition which occurs in the Second, not the First Epistle). Now Cappadocia is one of the countries mentioned (compare 1Pe 1:1 with 2Pe 3:1) as addressed; and it is striking, that from Cappadocia we get the earliest decisive testimony. "Internally it claims to be written by Peter, and this claim is confirmed by the Christians of that very region in whose custody it ought to have been found" [TREGELLES].

The books disputed (Antilegomena), as distinguished from those universally recognized (Homologoumena), are Epistles Second Peter, James, Second and Third John, Jude, the Apocalypse, Epistle to Hebrews (compare EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.3,25]). The Antilegomena stand in quite a different class from the Spurious; of these there was no dispute, they were universally rejected; for example, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (A.D. 348) enumerates seven Catholic Epistles, including Second Peter; so also GREGORY NAZIANZEN (A.D. 389), and EPIPHANIUS (A.D. 367). The oldest Greek manuscripts extant (of the fourth century) contain the Antilegomena. JEROME [On Illustrious Men], conjectured, from a supposed difference of style between the two Epistles, that Peter, being unable to write Greek, employed a different translator of his Hebrew dictation in the Second Epistle, and not the same as translated the First into Greek. Mark is said to have been his translator in the case of the Gospel according to Mark; but this is all gratuitous conjecture. Much of the same views pervade both Epistles. In both alike he looks for the Lord's coming suddenly, and the end of the world (compare 2Pe 3:8-10 with 1Pe 4:5); the inspiration of the prophets (compare 1Pe 1:10-12 with 2Pe 1:19-21; 2Pe 3:2); the new birth by the divine word a motive to abstinence from worldly lusts (1Pe 1:22; 1Pe 2:2; compare 2Pe 1:4); also compare 1Pe 2:9 with 2Pe 1:3, both containing in the Greek the rare word "virtue" (1Pe 4:17 with 2Pe 2:3).

It is not strange that distinctive peculiarities of STYLE should mark each Epistle, the design of both not being the same. Thus the sufferings of Christ are more prominent in the First Epistle, the object there being to encourage thereby Christian sufferers; the glory of the exalted Lord is more prominent in the Second, the object being to communicate fuller "knowledge" of Him as the antidote to the false teaching against which Peter warns his readers. Hence His title of redemption, "Christ," is the one employed in the First Epistle; but in the Second Epistle, "the Lord." Hope is characteristic of the First Epistle; full knowledge, of the Second Epistle. In the First Epistle he puts his apostolic authority less prominently forward than in the Second, wherein his design is to warn against false teachers. The same difference is observable in Paul's Epistles. Contrast 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; Phi 1:1, with Gal 1:1; 1Co 1:1. The reference to Paul's writings as already existing in numbers, and as then a recognized part of Scripture (2Pe 3:15-16), implies that this Epistle was written at a late date, just before Peter's death.

Striking verbal coincidences occur: compare 1Pe 1:19, end, with 2Pe 3:14, end; "His own," Greek, 2Pe 1:3, 2Pe 2:16; 2Pe 3:17 with 1Pe 3:1, 1Pe 3:5. The omission of the Greek article, 1Pe 2:13 with 2Pe 1:21; 2Pe 2:4-5, 2Pe 2:7. Moreover, two words occur, 2Pe 1:13, "tabernacle," that is, the body, and 2Pe 1:15, "decease," which at once remind us of the transfiguration narrative in the Gospel. Both Epistles refer to the deluge, and to Noah as the eighth that was saved. Though the First Epistle abounds in quotations of the Old Testament, whereas the Second contains none, yet references to the Old Testament occur often (2Pe 1:21; 2Pe 2:5-8, 2Pe 2:15; 2Pe 3:5-6, 2Pe 3:10, 2Pe 3:13). Compare Greek, "putting away," 1Pe 3:21, with 2Pe 1:14; Greek, "pass the time," 1Pe 1:17, with 2Pe 2:18; "walked in," 1Pe 4:3, with 2Pe 2:10; 2Pe 3:3; "called you," 1Pe 1:15; 1Pe 2:9; 1Pe 5:10, with 2Pe 1:3.

Moreover, more verbal coincidences with the speeches of Peter in Acts occur in this Second, than in the First Epistle. Compare Greek, "obtained," 2Pe 1:1 with Act 1:17; Greek, "godliness," 2Pe 1:6, with Act 3:12, the only passage where the term occurs, except in the Pastoral Epistles; and 2Pe 2:9 with Act 10:2, Act 10:7; "punished," 2Pe 2:9, with Act 4:21, the only places where the term occurs; the double genitive, 2Pe 3:2, with Act 5:32; "the day of the Lord," 2Pe 3:10, with Act 2:20, where only it occurs, except in 1Th 5:2.

The testimony of Jude, Jud 1:17-18, is strong for its genuineness and inspiration, by adopting its very words, and by referring to it as received by the churches to which he, Jude, wrote, "Remember the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." Jude, therefore, must have written after Second Peter, to which he plainly refers; not before, as ALFORD thinks. No less than eleven passages of Jude rest on similar statements of Second Peter. Jud 1:2, compare 2Pe 1:2; Jud 1:4, compare 2Pe 2:1; Jud 1:6, compare 2Pe 2:4; Jud 1:7, compare 2Pe 2:6; Jud 1:8, compare 2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:9, compare 2Pe 2:11; Jud 1:11, compare 2Pe 2:15; Jud 1:12, compare 2Pe 2:17; Jud 1:16, compare 2Pe 2:18; Jud 1:18, compare 2Pe 2:1; 2Pe 3:3. Just in the same way Micah, Mic 4:1-4, leans on the somewhat earlier prophecy of Isaiah, whose inspiration he thereby confirms. ALFORD reasons that because Jude, in many of the passages akin to Second Peter, is fuller than Second Peter, he must be prior. This by no means follows. It is at least as likely, if not more so, that the briefer is the earlier, rather than the fuller. The dignity and energy of the style is quite consonant to what we should expect from the prompt and ardent foreman of the apostles. The difference of style between First and Second Peter accords with the distinctness of the subjects and objects.

THE DATE, from what has been said, would be about A.D. 68 or 69, about a year after the first, and shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, the typical precursor of the world's end, to which 2Pe 3:10-13 so solemnly calls attention, after Paul's ministry had closed (compare Greek aorist tense, "wrote," past time, 2Pe 3:15), just before Peter's own death. It was written to include the same persons, and perhaps in, or about the same place, as the first. Being without salutations of individuals, and entrusted to the care of no one church, or particular churches as the first is, but directed generally "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us" (2Pe 1:1), it took a longer time in being recognized as canonical. Had Rome been the place of its composition or publication, it could hardly have failed to have had an early acceptance--an incidental argument against the tradition of Peter's martyrdom at Rome. The remote scene of its composition in Babylon, or else in some of the contiguous regions beyond the borders of the Roman empire, and of its circulation in Cappadocia, Pontus, &c., will additionally account for its tardy but at last universal acceptance in the catholic Church. The former Epistle, through its more definite address, was earlier in its general acceptance.

OBJECT.--In 2Pe 3:17-18 the twofold design of the Epistle is set forth; namely, to guard his readers against "the error" of false teachers, and to exhort them to grow in experimental "knowledge of our Lord and Saviour" (2Pe 3:18). The ground on which this knowledge rests is stated, 2Pe 1:12-21, namely, the inspired testimony of apostles and prophets. The danger now, as of old, was about to arise from false teachers, who soon were to come among them, as Paul also (to whom reference is made, 2Pe 3:15-16) testified in the same region. The grand antidote is "the full knowledge of our Lord and Saviour," through which we know God the Father, partake of His nature, escape from the pollutions of the world, and have entrance into Christ's kingdom. The aspect of Christ presented is not so much that of the past suffering, as of the future reigning, Saviour, His present power, and future new kingdom. This aspect is taken as best fitted to counteract the theories of the false teachers who should "deny" His Lordship and His coming again, the two very points which, as an apostle and eye-witness, Peter attests (His "power" and His "coming"); also, to counteract their evil example in practice, blaspheming the way of truth, despising governments, slaves to covetousness and filthy lusts of the flesh, while boasting of Christian freedom, and, worst of all, apostates from the truth. The knowledge of Christ, as being the knowledge of "the way of righteousness," "the right way," is the antidote of their bad practice. Hence "the preacher" of righteousness, Noah, and "righteous Lot," are instanced as escaping the destruction which overtook the "unjust" or "unrighteous"; and Balaam is instanced as exemplifying the awful result of "unrighteousness" such as characterized the false teachers. Thus the Epistle forms one connected whole, the parts being closely bound together by mutual relation, and the end corresponding with the beginning; compare 2Pe 3:14, 2Pe 3:18 with 2Pe 1:2, in both "grace" and "peace" being connected with "the knowledge" of our Saviour; compare also 2Pe 3:17 with 2Pe 1:4, 2Pe 1:10, 2Pe 1:12; and 2Pe 3:18, "grow in grace and knowledge," with the fuller 2Pe 1:5-8; and 2Pe 2:21; and 2Pe 3:13, "righteousness," with 2Pe 1:1; and 2Pe 3:1 with 2Pe 1:13; and 2Pe 3:2 with 2Pe 1:19.

The germs of Carpocratian and Gnostic heresies already existed, but the actual manifestation of these heresies is spoken of as future (2Pe 2:1-2, &c.): another proof that this Epistle was written, as it professes, in the apostolic age, before the development of the Gnostic heresies in the end of the first and the beginning of the second centuries. The description is too general to identify the heresies with any particular one of the subsequent forms of heresy, but applies generally to them all.

Though altogether distinct in aim from the First Epistle, yet a connection may be traced. The neglect of the warnings to circumspection in the walk led to the evils foretold in the Second Epistle. Compare the warning against the abuse of Christian freedom, 1Pe 2:16 with 2Pe 2:19, "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption"; also the caution against pride, 1Pe 5:5-6 with 2Pe 2:18, "they speak great swelling words of vanity."

JFB: 2 Peter (Outline)

• ADDRESS: EXHORTATION TO ALL GRACES, AS GOD HAS GIVEN US, IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST, ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO LIFE: CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF APOSTLES, AND ALSO PROPHETS, TO THE POWER AND COMING OF CHRIST. (2Pe. 1:1-21)
• FALSE TEACHERS TO ARISE: THEM BAD PRACTICES AND SURE DESTRUCTION, FROM WHICH THE GODLY SHALL BE DELIVERED, AS LOT WAS. (2Pe. 2:1-22)
• SURENESS OF CHRIST'S COMING, AND ITS ACCOMPANIMENTS, DECLARED IN OPPOSITION TO SCOFFERS ABOUT TO ARISE. GOD'S LONG SUFFERING A MOTIVE TO REPENTANCE, AS PAUL'S EPISTLES SET FORTH; CONCLUDING EXHORTATION TO GROWTH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST. (2Pe. 3:1-18)

TSK: 2 Peter 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

2Pe 1:1, Confirming them in hope of the increase of God’s graces, 2Pe 1:5, he exhorts them, by faith, and good works, to make their calling sure; 2Pe 1:12, whereof he is careful to remind them, knowing that his death is at hand; 2Pe 1:16, and warns them to be constant in the faith of Christ, who is the true Son of God, by the eyewitness of the apostles beholding his majesty, and by the testimony of the Father, and the prophets.

Poole: 2 Peter 1 (Chapter Introduction)

ARGUMENT

It cannot be denied, but that some question there hath been, both about the penman and the authority of this Epistle. The former hath been questioned, because of the difference of the style of this from that of the former Epistle. But, to say nothing of a great likeness of style in both, observed by some; why might not the same person see fit on different occasions, and according to the different things he wrote about, to change his way of writing? Or why may not the Holy Ghost use his instruments in what way he please, and not only dictate to them the matter they are to write, but the expression and phrase? Why must an infinite and sovereign Agent be bound up, and confined to the parts and qualifications of the men he inspired? And if we set aside the judgment of several councils and fathers, (which yet might go far), two great arguments may be drawn from the first chapter, to prove Peter to be the penman of this Epistle. One from the inscription of it, where we have both his names, Simon and Peter, prefixed to it. Another from 2Pe 1:16 , where he affirms himself to have been present with Christ at his transfiguration; from whence we may well argue, that none having ever ascribed it to John, and James being dead before, (though if he had been alive, it cannot be imagined that he should put Peter’ s name to any epistle of his own writing), and there being none but they two present with our Lord at that time besides Peter, Mat 17:1 , none but he could be the writer of it. And indeed, as some observe, if this Epistle be not Peter’ s, when his name is set to it, it is so far from being canonical, that it is not fit so much as to be reckoned among the apocryphal books, having so great a lie in the front of it. As for the authority of it, there can be no doubt of that if Peter were the writer, when nothing concurs in it repugnant to other parts of Scripture, or unbecoming the grace and style of an apostle. And though some of the ancients have questioned it, yet many more have acknowledged it; nor was it ever numbered among apocryphal writings. And its not being found in the first Syriac version, can but argue its being questioned by some, not its being rejected by all. It seems to be written to the Jews of the dispersion, as the former was, which appears by 2Pe 3:1,2 , where he mentions the former written to them; and this was written not long before his death, 2Pe 1:14 . The scope of it is, partly to call to their remembrance the truths he had preached among them, that so, when they should be destitute of the apostles’ preaching to them, yet they might remember the pure doctrine they had learned of them, 2Pe 1:12,15 , and might thereby be fortified against the errors of false teachers, 2Pe 2:1 ; and partly to persuade and stir them up to diligence in holiness and constancy in the faith. As in his First Epistle he had exhorted them to patience under the tyranny of persecutors, lest they should yield to them; so in this he exhorts them to perseverance in the truth of the gospel, against the deceptions of heretics, lest they should be seduced by them, 2Pe 2:1-22 , and continue in holiness, notwithstanding the profaneness of scoffers, 2Pe 3:1-18 .

2 PETER CHAPTER 1

2Pe 1:1-4 The apostle, saluting the Christians, admonisheth

them of the gifts and promises of the gospel, and

their tendency to promote a godly life.

2Pe 1:5-9 He exhorteth them to add to their faith such virtues

as would make it fruitful,

2Pe 1:10,11 and thereby to make their calling and election sure,

2Pe 1:12-15 He is careful to remind them hereof, knowing his

dissolution to be near,

2Pe 1:16-21 and urgeth the evidence of what he had seen and

heard in the holy mount in confirmation of Christ’ s

second coming, together with the word of prophecy,

which he recommendeth to their regard.

A servant and an apostle i.e. such a servant as is likewise an apostle. The former agrees to all gospel ministers generally, the latter is a title of a greater eminency; and so he intimates, that he wrote to them not merely as an ordinary minister, but in the authority of an apostle, an officer of the highest degree in the church.

Like precious faith not in respect of the degree or strength of it, but in respect of the object, Christ, and the benefits that come by it, justification, sanctification, adoption, &c., in which respect the faith of the weakest believer is as precious as that of the strongest.

With us either with us apostles, or with us Jewish Christians, born or inhabiting in Judea.

Through the righteousness of God the Greek preposition which we render through, may likewise be rendered with, as 2Pe 1:5 Act 7:38 , in the church, that is, with the church; and so the sense is either:

1. Through the righteousness, i.e. truth and faithfulness, of Christ in his promises, whereof the faith of the saints was an effect: or:

2. Through the righteousness of Christ, as the meritorious cause of their faith: or:

3. With the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and made theirs upon their believing. They had obtained like precious faith as the apostles themselves and others had, together with the righteousness of Christ, an interest in which always accompanies faith, Rom 4:22 .

And our Saviour Jesus Christ: there being but one article in the Greek, these words are to be understood conjunctly, the particle

and being but an explicative, and the sense is: Through the righteousness of our God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is God: see the like, 2Pe 1:11 3:18 Joh 20:28 Tit 2:14 .

MHCC: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

This epistle clearly is connected with the former epistle of Peter. The apostle having stated the blessings to which God has called Christians, exhorts those who had received these precious gifts, to endeavour to improve in graces and virtues. They are urged to this from the wickedness of false teachers. They are guarded against impostors and scoffers, by disproving their false assertions, 2Pe 3:1-7, and by showing why the great day of Christ's coming was delayed, with a description of its awful circumstances and consequences; and suitable exhortations to diligence and holiness are given.

MHCC: 2 Peter 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(2Pe 1:1-11) Exhortations to add the exercise of various other graces to fait.

(2Pe 1:12-15) The apostle looks forward to his approaching decease.

(2Pe 1:16-21) And confirms the truth of the gospel, relating to Christ's appearing to judgment.

Matthew Henry: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Second Epistle General of Peter

The penman of this epistle appears plainly to be the same who wrote the foregoing; and, whatever difference some learned men apprehend they discern in the style of this epistle from that of the former, this cannot be a sufficient argument to assert that it was written by Simon who succeeded the apostle James in the church at Jerusalem, inasmuch as he who wrote this epistle calls himself Simon Peter, and an apostle (2Pe 1:1), and says that he was one of the three apostles that were present at Christ's transfiguration (2Pe 1:18), and says expressly that he had written a former epistle to them, 2Pe 3:1. The design of this second epistle is the same with that of the former, as is evident from the first verse of the third chapter, whence observe that, in the things of God, we have need of precept upon precept, and line upon line, and all little enough to keep them in remembrance; and yet these are the things which should be most faithfully recorded and frequently remembered by us.

Matthew Henry: 2 Peter 1 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. An introduction, or preface, making way for, and leading to, what is principally designed by the apostle (2Pe 1:1-4). II. An exhortation to advance and improve in all Christian graces (2Pe 1:5-7). III. To enforce this exhortation, and engage them seriously and heartily to comply with it, he adds, 1. A representation of the very great advantage which will thereby accrue to them (2Pe 1:8-11). 2. A promise of the best assistance the apostle was able to give to facilitate and forward this good work (2Pe 1:12-15). 3. A declaration of the certain truth and divine origin of the gospel of Christ, in the grace whereof they were exhorted to increase and persevere.

Barclay: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND LETTER OF PETER

The Neglected Book And Its Contents

Second Peter is one of the neglected books of the New Testament. Very few people will claim to have read it, still less to have studied it in detail. E. F. Scott says "it is far inferior in every respect to First Peter"; and goes on "it is the least valuable of the New Testament writings." It was only with the greatest difficulty that Second Peter gained entry into the New Testament, and for many years the Christian Church seemed to be unaware of its existence. But, before we approach its history, let us look at its contents.

The Lawless Men

Second Peter was written to combat the beliefs and activities of certain men who were a threat to the Church. It begins by insisting that the Christian is a man who has escaped from the corruption of the world (2Pe_1:4 ) and must always remember that he has been purged of his old sins (2Pe_1:9 ). There is laid upon him the duty of moral goodness, which culminates in the great Christian virtue of love (2Pe_1:5-8 ).

Let us set out the characteristics of the men whom Second Peter rebukes. They twist Scripture to make it suit their own purpose (2Pe_1:20 ; 2Pe_3:16 ). They bring the Christian faith into disrepute (2Pe_2:2 ). They are covetous of gain and exploiters of their fellow-men (2Pe_2:3 ; 2Pe_2:14-15 ). They are doomed and will share the fate of the sinning angels (2Pe_2:4 ), the men before the Flood (2Pe_2:5 ), the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah (2Pe_2:6 ), and the false prophet Balaam (2Pe_2:15 ). They are bestial creatures, ruled by their brute instincts (2Pe_2:12 ), and dominated by their lusts (2Pe_2:10 ; 2Pe_2:18 ). Their eyes are full of adultery (2Pe_2:14 ). They are presumptuous, self-willed and arrogant (2Pe_2:10 , 2Pe_2:18 ). They spend even the daylight hours in unrestrained and luxurious revelry (2Pe_2:13 ). They speak of liberty but what they call liberty is unbridled licence and they themselves are the slaves of their own lusts (2Pe_2:19 ). Not only are they deluded, they also delude others and lead them astray (2Pe_2:14 ; 2Pe_2:18 ). They are worse than those who never knew the right, because they knew what goodness is and have relapsed into evil, like a dog returning to its vomit and a sow returning to the mud after it has been washed (2Pe_2:20-22 ).

It is clear that Peter is describing antinomians, men who used Godgrace as a justification for sinning. In all probability they were Gnostics, who said that only spirit was good and that matter was essentially evil and that, therefore, it did not matter what we did with the body and that we could glut its appetites and it made no difference. They lived the most immoral lives and encouraged others to do so; and they justified their actions by perverting grace and interpreting Scripture to suit themselves.

The Denial Of The Second Coming

Further, these evil men denied the Second Coming (2Pe_3:3-4 ). They argued that this was a stable world in which things remained unalterably the same, and that God was so dilatory that it was possible to assume that the Second Coming was never going to happen at all. The answer of Second Peter is that this is not a stable world; that it has, in fact, been destroyed by water in the Flood and that it will be destroyed by fire in the final conflagration (2Pe_3:5-7 ). What they regard as dilatoriness is in fact God withholding his hand in patience to give men still another chance to repent (2Pe_3:8-9 ). But the day of destruction is coming (2Pe_3:10 ). A new heaven and a new earth are on the way; therefore. goodness is an absolute necessity if a man is to be saved in the day of judgment (2Pe_3:11-14 ). With this Paul agrees, however difficult his letters may be to understand, and however false teachers deliberately misinterpret them (2Pe_3:15-16 ). The duty of the Christian is to stand fast, firmly founded in the faith, and to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ (2Pe_3:17-18 ).

The Doubts Of The Early Church

Such are the contents of the letter. For long it was regarded with doubt and with something very like misgiving. There is no trace of it until after A.D. 200. It is not included in the Muratorian Canon Of A.D. 170 which was the first official list of New Testament books. It did not exist in the Old Latin Version of the Scriptures; nor in the New Testament of the early Syrian Church.

The great scholars of Alexandria either did not know it or were doubtful about it. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote outlines of the books of Scripture, does not appear to have included Second Peter. Origen says that Peter left behind one epistle which is generally acknowledged; "perhaps also a second, for it is a disputed question." Didymus commented on it, but concluded his work by saying: "It must not be forgotten that this letter is spurious; it may be read in public; but it is not part of the canon of Scripture."

Eusebius, the great scholar of Caesarea, who made a careful investigation of the Christian literature of his day, comes to the conclusion: "Of Peter, one Epistle, which is called his former Epistle, is acknowledged by all; of this the ancient presbyters have made frequent use in their writings as indisputably genuine; but that which is circulated as his second Epistle we have received to be not canonical although, since it appeared to be useful to many, it has been diligently read with the other Scriptures."

It was not until well into the fourth century that Second Peter came to rest in the canon of the New Testament.

The Objections

It is the well-nigh universal judgment of scholars, both ancient and modern, that Peter is not the author of Second Peter. Even John Calvin regarded it as impossible that Peter could have spoken of Paul as Second Peter speaks of him (2Pe_3:15-16 ), although he was willing to believe that someone else wrote the letter at Peterrequest. What, then, are the arguments against Peterauthorship?

(i) There is the extreme slowness, and even reluctance, of the early church to accept it. If it had been truly Peter there can be little doubt that the Church would have welcomed and honoured it from the first. But the case was very different. For the first two centuries the letter is never quoted at all in any certain instance; it is regarded with doubt and suspicion for more than another century; and only late in the fourth century is it accepted.

(ii) The contents make it difficult to believe that it is Peter There is no mention of the Passion, the Resurrection and the Ascension of Jesus Christ; no mention of the Church as the true Israel; no mention of that faith which is undefeatable hope and trust combined; no mention of the Holy Spirit, of prayer, of baptism; and no passionate desire to call men to the supreme example of Jesus Christ. If one took away these great verities from First Peter there would be little or nothing left, and yet none of them occurs in Second Peter.

(iii) It is wholly different in character and style from First Peter. This was realized as early as Jerome who wrote: "Simon Peter wrote two Epistles which are called Catholic, of which the authenticity of the second is denied by many because of the difference of the style from the first." The Greek style of this letter is very difficult. Clogg calls it ambitious, artificial and often obscure, and remarks that it is the only book in the New Testament which is improved by translation. Bishop Chase writes: "The Epistle does produce the impression of being a somewhat artificial piece of rhetoric. It shows throughout signs of self-conscious effort. The author appears to be ambitious of writing in a style which is beyond his literary power." He concludes that it is hard to reconcile the literary character of this letter with the supposition that Peter wrote it. Moffatt says: "Second Peter is more periodic and ambitious than First Peter, but its linguistic and its stylistic efforts only reveal by their cumbrous obscurity a decided inferiority of conception, which marks it off from First Peter."

It might be claimed, as Jerome claimed, that, while Peter used Silvanus for First Peter, he used a different amanuensis for Second Peter and that this explains the change in style. But J. B. Mayor compares the two letters. He quotes some of the great passages of First Peter and then says: "I think that none who read these words can help feeling that, not even in Paul, not even in John, is there to be found a more beautiful or a more living description of the secret of primitive Christianity, of the force that overcame the world, than in the perfect quaternion of faith and hope and love and joy, which pervades this short epistle (i.e. First Peter). No one could make the same assertion with regard to Second Peter: thoughtful and interesting as it is, it lacks that intense sympathy, that flame of love, which marks First Peter.... No change of circumstances can account for the change of tone of which we are conscious in passing from one epistle to the other." It is the conclusion of that great and conservative scholar that no explanation, other than difference of authorship, can explain, not so much the difference in style as the difference in atmosphere between First and Second Peter. It is true that from the purely linguistic point of view there are 369 words which occur in First Peter which do not occur in Second Peter; and there are 230 words which occur in Second Peter and not in First Peter. But there is more than a difference in style. A writer can change his style and his vocabulary to suit his audience and his occasion. But the difference between the two letters in atmosphere and attitude is so wide that it is hardly possible that the same person should have written both.

(iv) Certain things within Second Peter point well-nigh irresistibly to a late date. So much time has passed that men have begun to abandon hope of the Second Coming altogether (2Pe_3:4 ). The apostles are spoken of as figures of the past (2Pe_3:2 ). The fathers, that is the founders of the Christian faith, are now figures of the almost dim and distant past; there have been generations between this letter and the first coming of the Christian faith (2Pe_3:4 ).

There are references which require the passing of the years to explain them. The reference to Peterapproaching death looks very like a reference to Jesusrophecy in Joh_21:18-19 , and the Fourth Gospel was not written until about A.D. 100. The statement that Peter is going to leave something which will continue his teaching after he has gone looks very like a reference to MarkGospel (Mar_1:12-14 ).

Above all there is the reference to the letters of Paul (2Pe_3:15-16 ). From this it is quite certain that Paulletters are known and used throughout all the Church; they are public property, and furthermore they are regarded as Scripture and on a level with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe_3:16 ). It was not until at least A.D. 90 that these letters were collected and published, and it would take many years for them to acquire the position of sacred Scripture. It is practically impossible that anyone should write like this until midway through the second century A.D.

All the evidence converges to prove that Second Peter is a late book. It is not until the third century that it is quoted. The great scholars of the early church did not regard it as Peteralthough they did not question its usefulness. The letter has references which require the passing of the years to explain them. The great interest of Second Peter lies in the very fact that it was the last book in the New Testament to be written and the last to gain entry into the New Testament.

In PeterName

How, then, did it become attached to the name of Peter? The answer is that it was deliberately attached. This may seem to us a strange proceeding but in the ancient world this was common practice. Platoletters were written not by Plato but by a disciple in the mastername. The Jews repeatedly used this method of writing. Between the Old and the New Testament, books were written under the names of Solomon, Isaiah, Moses, Baruch, Ezra, Enoch and many another. And in New Testament times there is a whole literature around the name of Peter--The Gospel of Peter, The Preaching of Peter, The Apocalypse of Peter.

One salient fact makes this method of writing even more intelligible. The heretics used it. They issued misleading and pernicious books under the names of the great apostles, claiming that they were the secret teaching of the great founders of the Church handed down by word of mouth to them. Faced with this, the Church retaliated in kind and issued books in which men set down for their own generation the things they were quite sure that the apostles would have said had they been facing this new situation. There is nothing either unusual or discreditable in a book being issued under the name of Peter although Peter did not write it. The writer in humility was putting the message which the Holy Spirit had given him into the mouth of Peter because he felt his own name was unworthy to appear upon the book.

We will not find Second Peter easy to read; but it is a book of first-rate importance because it was written to men who were undermining the Christian ethic and the Christian doctrine and who had to be stopped before the Christian faith was wrecked by their perversion of the truth.

FURTHER READING

2 Peter

C. Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; G)

C. E. B. Cranfield, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Tch; E)

J. B. Mayor, The Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude (MmC; G)

J. Moffatt, The General Epistles: James, Peter and Jude (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC : Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

NCB: New Century Bible

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: 2 Peter 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The Man Who Opened Doors (2Pe_1:1)

The Glorious Servitude (2Pe_1:1 Continued)

The All-Important Knowledge (2Pe_1:2)

The Greatness Of Jesus Christ For Men (2Pe_1:3-7)

Equipment For The Way (2Pe_1:3-7 Continued)

(1) The Ladder Of Virtues (2Pe_1:3-7 Continued)

(2) The Ladder Of Virtues (2Pe_1:3-7 Continued)

On The Way (2Pe_1:8-11)

The Pastor's Care (2Pe_1:12-15)

The Message And The Right To Give It (2Pe_1:16-18)

The Words Of The Prophets (2Pe_1:19-21)

Constable: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

This epistle claims that the Apostle Peter wrote it (1:1). It also claims to follow a former letter by Peter (3:1) that appears to be a reference to 1 Peter, though Peter may have been referring to a letter we no longer have. The author's reference to the fact that Jesus had predicted a certain kind of death for him (1:14) ties in with Jesus' statement to Peter recorded in John 21:18.

The earliest external testimony (outside Scripture) to Petrine authorship comes from the third century.¹ The writings of the church fathers contain fewer references to the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter than to the authorship of any other New Testament book. It is easy to see why critics who look for reasons to reject the authority of Scripture have targeted this book for attack. Ironically in this letter Peter warned his readers of heretics who departed from the teaching of the apostles and the Old Testament prophets, which is the very thing these modern critics do. Perhaps that is another reason some contemporary teachers question its authenticity. Not all who reject Petrine authorship are false teachers, however. The arguments of these modern critics have convinced some otherwise conservative scholars who retain belief in the epistle's inspiration.

Regardless of the external evidence, there is strong internal testimony to the fact that Peter wrote the book.² This includes stylistic similarities to 1 Peter, similar vocabulary compared with Peter's sermons in Acts, and the specific statements already mentioned (i.e., 1:1, 14; 3:1). In addition, the writer claimed to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration (1:16-18) and to have received information about his own death from Jesus (1:13-14; cf. John 21:18).

Assuming Peter's reference to his former letter (3:1) is to 1 Peter, he seems to have sent this epistle to the same general audience. That audience was primarily Gentile but also Jewish Christians living in northern Asia Minor (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1). The background of the readers and the situation they faced, as Peter described these, fit such an audience well.³

Peter's reference to his imminent departure from this life (1:13-15) suggests that the time of composition may have been just before Peter suffered martyrdom.⁴ The writings of church fathers place Peter's death at A.D. 67-68 in Rome.⁵ Consequently a date of composition about that time seems most likely. Early church tradition also says Peter spent the last decade of his life in Rome.

"Second Peter is the swan song of Peter, just as 2 Timothy is the swan song of Paul. There are striking similarities between the two books. Both epistles put up a warning sign along the pilgrim pathway the church is traveling to identify the awful apostasy that was on the way at the time and which in our time has now arrived. What was then like a cloud the size of a man's hand today envelops the sky and produces a storm of hurricane proportions. Peter warns of heresy among teachers; Paul warns of heresy among the laity."⁶

The similarities between 2 Peter 2 and the Book of Jude, especially Jude 4-18, have raised several questions. Did Peter have access to Jude's epistle, or did Jude have a copy of 2 Peter? Which book came first? Did one man use the other's material, or did both draw from a common source? The commentators and writers of New Testament introductions deal with these questions thoroughly. See them for further explanations.⁷

Suffice it to say that the church through the ages has recognized the end product of both 2 Peter and Jude as epistles that God inspired. As far as which came first, we may never know for sure until we get to heaven. The consensus among scholars now is that Jude probably wrote before Peter (or his agent) composed 2 Peter.⁸ I tend to favor the priority of 2 Peter as do many conservative authorities.⁹

"Most scholars, in fact, date 2 Peter in the early part of the second century and consider it the last New Testament book to have been written. The author's claim to Petrine authorship, therefore, is part of the phenomenon of pseudonymity' in the ancient world, whereby the authority and tradition of a revered religious figure were attributed to a later work by an anonymous author."¹⁰

This quotation reflects the majority of scholarly opinion but not the conviction of many conservatives including myself.

"The purpose of 2 Peter is to call Christians to spiritual growth so that they can combat apostasy as they look forward to the Lord's return."¹¹

Message¹²

Peter wrote this epistle, as he did 1 Peter, to establish believers in their faith. He wrote both letters in obedience to Jesus' instructions to him to "strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:32). Both epistles contain reminders of fundamental Christian teaching. Both evidently went to the same audience (2 Pet. 3:1). Both deal with how to handle various kinds of trials among other things, suffering in 1 Peter and false teachers in 2 Peter. Both also emphasize God's grace.

The differences between these two epistles are also significant.

The first epistle ends, "Stand firm in it [grace]" (5:12). Its theme is the sufficiency of God's grace. We need to stand fast in grace as Christians.

The second epistle ends, "Grow in grace" (3:18). Its theme is the responsibility of grace. We also need to keep growing in grace. This letter builds on the first. We do not only need to stand fast in grace, but we also need to keep growing in it.

We could state the message of the book therefore as follows: fulfill your responsibilities as recipients of the true grace of God. The message of 1 Peter was, "Stand firm in the true grace of God."

Let me identify the major revelations of this letter.

First, as recipients of God's grace we have resources that create responsibilities. Peter emphasized two of our resources.

Our first resource is the power of God (1:3). God's power grants us everything we need for godly living. Godly living becomes possible when we come to know God by saving faith. We grow in our knowledge of God as we get to know Him better through study of the Scriptures. We also do so as we respond to our increasing knowledge of Him properly by abiding in Him.

One area of life that God's power transforms is our spiritual vitality, energy. God wants us to be vital Christians (John 10:10; cf. James). The opposite condition is to have no spiritual energy. God's power enables us to demonstrate His own "glory" by giving us spiritual vitality (1:3). Peter saw the glory of God manifested through Jesus Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration (1:17). God wants to manifest His glory through every Christian (3:18). People can see God's glory in our spiritual vitality. The clearest illustration of spiritual vitality is Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.

Another area of life that God's power transforms is our conduct, more specifically. By conduct I mean how we conduct ourselves in thought, word, and deed--what we do, and what we do not do. God wants us to be godly Christians as well as glorious Christians. He wants us to be virtuous as well as vital. The opposite condition is ungodly and unclean. The false teachers reflected the opposite condition, and Peter described their conduct quite fully in chapter 2. God's power enables us to demonstrate His own "excellence" by making us godly (1:3). Peter heard the excellence of God testified to on the Mount of Transfiguration when he heard God say of Jesus Christ, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (Cf. 1:17-18). God wants to manifest His excellence through every Christian (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9). People can see God's excellence in our godly conduct.

The second resource Peter emphasized that every Christian has is the promises of God (1:4). God's promises grant us everything we need to realize our potential and to maintain our purity in godly living. These promises are "magnificent" because they are essentially great and wonderful. They are "precious" to us because they are gifts of our loving heavenly Father and because they are the keys to our realizing our potential and maintaining our purity.

One area of life that God's promises transforms is our character. God wants us to partake of His nature. We receive His nature (i.e., the Holy Spirit) initially when we believe His promise that Christ died for our sins. However, He wants us to partake of that nature fully in this life. When we do so, we realize our potential as the children of God. We do so by continuing to believe God's promises to us. As we began the Christian life by faith, we should continue to walk by faith (cf. James). Because the false teachers rejected the promises of God they failed to realize their potential as human beings. They did not become partakers of the divine nature.

Another area of life that God's promises transforms is, more specifically, our morality. Again we receive future deliverance from the penalty of sin by believing that Christ died for our sins. Nevertheless we also receive present deliverance from the power of sin by believing other of God's promises to us. For example, God promises us that sin will no longer have enslaving power over us (Rom. 6:14; cf. 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11). He also promises us that He will give us a way of escape in temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). He also promises us that He will give us the desire and the ability to obey Him (Phil. 1:6). One of the promises that Peter emphasized especially in this epistle was the promise that Jesus Christ would return (3:4, 9, 13). He discussed this promise in 3:4-16. When Christ returns He will perfect us. God has given us many more promises. Relying on these is key to maintaining our purity as Christians. Because the false teachers rejected the promises of God, they failed to maintain moral purity. They did not escape the corruption that is in the world through lust.

These then are the resources that create our responsibility: God's power within us, and God's promises in His Word. You can succeed in life and in ministry because you have these resources.

Next let us notice what Peter appealed to his readers to do in view of their resources. He called them to give diligence to two things.

First, we should diligently appropriate our resources (1:5-8). We do this be responding responsibly. We must respond by fulfilling our responsibility as well as by trusting God to fulfill His. We must exercise effort and self-discipline to develop qualities God wants to perfect within us (1:5-8). No one can become a strong Christian without self-discipline.

Second, we should diligently avoid our perils. We do this by remembering God's promises (1:9, 12-13; 3:1-2). Our tendency is to forget God's power and our responsibilities (1:9; 3:5). Our tendency is also to forget God's promises (3:4). Peter's concern was mainly that his readers not forget the promise of the Lord's return (3:9, 13). This promise should affect us by encouraging us to live pure lives (3:14). Because the false teachers chose to forget it, they failed to fulfill the responsibilities of God's grace. Scripture memorization and review are valuable activities because they help us remember God's promises.

These are the major revelations in the book. As recipients of God's grace we have resources that create responsibilities, namely God's power and promises. We also need to give diligence to our responsibilities of responding to God's power and remembering God's promises.

I would also like to point out some applications of this epistle's message to our lives.

First, God's resources do not free us from responsibility to cultivate godliness diligently. They increase that responsibility. The Christian life is a combination of trusting and toiling. We must balance these things. When we neglect either responsibility, we get into trouble (1:5). We are partners with God.

Our sanctification is a process in which we labor together with God.

We are responsible to trust and to obey, to exercise faith in God and to work. We frustrate the Holy Spirit's work of sanctifying us if we do not trust or if we do not obey. The Christian life is a lot like water skiing. We have to lean back and let God pull us out of the stuff that holds us down. However we also have to hold on to the rope, to keep following His leading. When we do both things He enables us to overcome. We can even fly over what formerly held us in its clutches.

Second, we should cultivate habits that will help us remember our resources: God's power and promises. One of the most important reasons we should read our Bibles regularly is that they remind us of things we need to remember. The same is true of memorizing Scripture, attending church services, and having fellowship with other Christians. Peter said it is better not to know Scripture than to forget it (2:21).

Third, God intended the promise of the Lord's return and the events that will follow to be important motivations for us. This is our hope. If we neglect the prophetic portions of Scripture, our motivation for godly living will sag (3:14).

Constable: 2 Peter (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-2

II. The condition of the Christian 1:3-11

A. The believer's resources 1:3-4

B. The believer's needs 1:5-9

C. The believer's adequacy 1:10-11

III. The authority for the Christian 1:12-21

A. The need for a reminder 1:12-15

B. The trustworthiness of the apostles' witness 1:16-18

C. The divine origin of Scripture 1:19-21

IV. The danger to the Christian 2:1-22

A. The characteristics of false teachers 2:1-3

B. The consequences of false teaching 2:4-10a

C. The conduct of false teachers 2:10b-19

D. The condemnation of false teachers 2:20-22

V. The prospect for the Christian 3:1-16

A. The purpose of this epistle 3:1-2

B. Scoffing in the last days 3:3-6

C. End-time events 3:7-10

D. Living in view of the future 3:11-16

VI. Conclusion 3:17-18

Constable: 2 Peter

2 Peter

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. Alford's Greek Testament. 4 vols. New ed. London: Rivingtons, 1884.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barbieri, Louis A. First and Second Peter. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago Moody Press, 1978.

Barnes, Albert. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1964.

Barclay, William. The Letters of James and Peter. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960.

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Bennett, W. H. "The General Epistles, James, Peter, John, and Jude." In The Century Bible: A Modern Commentary. London: Blackwood, Le Bass & Co., n.d.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. International Critical Commentary series. 2nd ed. and reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1961.

Blum, Edwin A. "2 Peter." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Grank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Caffin, B. C. "The Second Epistle General of Peter." in The Pulpit Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950.

Calvin, John. "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter." In Calvin's Commentaries. Translated by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.

Cedar, Paul A. James, 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

Chang, Andrew D. "Second Peter 2:1 and the Extent of the Atonement." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):52-63.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Culver, Robert D. Daniel and the Latter Days. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1954.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Desjardins, Michel. "The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does It Tell Us More About the Godly' Than the Ungodly'?" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (June 1987):89-102.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. S.v. "Peter, Epistles of," by S. J. Case.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. S.v. "Peter, Second Epistle of," by F. H. Chase.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dunham, Duane A. "An Exegetical Study of 2 Peter 2:18-22." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):40-54.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Peter and Jude." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 437-71. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fischel, H. A. "The Uses of sorites (Climax, Gradatio) in the Tannaitic Period." Hebrew Union College Annual44 (1973):119-51.

Fornberg, T. An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter. Coniectanea biblica. New Testament series. Lund, Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1977.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "2 Peter." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 859-79. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Green, Michael. The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vol. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary. Greenville, S.C.: Unusual Publications, 1989.

_____. "Directives for Living in Dangerous Days." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:564 (October-December 1984):330-40.

_____. "The Necessary Growth in the Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:5-11." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:561 (January-March 1984):43-54.

_____. "A Portrayal of False Teachers: An Exposition of 2 Peter 2:1-3." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:563 (July-September 1984):255-65.

_____. "The Prophetic Foundation for the Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:19-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):158-68.

Hodge, Charles Systematic Theology. 3 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887.

Hodges, Zane C. "Exposition of Second Peter." The KERUGMA Message 1:1 (May-June 1991):3-4; 1:2 (July-August 1991):3-4; 1:3 (November-December 1991):2-3; 2:1 (Spring 1992):2-3; 2:2 (Winter 1992):2-4, 6; 3:1 (Spring 1993):2-3; 3:1 (January-March 1994):1, 3-4.

Howe, Frederic R. "The Christian Life in Peter's Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:627 (July-September 2000):304-14.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. S.v. "Peter, The Second Epistle of," by William G. Moorehead.

Ironside, H. A. Expository Notes on the Epistles of Peter. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1947.

Jamieson, Robert; A. R. Fausset; and David Brown; eds. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude. Thornapple Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Kennard, Douglas W. "Petrine Redemption: Its Meaning and Extent." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:4 (December 1987):399-405.

Kruger, Michael J. "The Authenticity of 2 Peter." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:4 (December 1999):645-71.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scripture. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 12: James--Revelation, by J. P. Lange, J. J. Van Oosterzee, G. T. C. Fronmuller, and Karl Braune. Enlarged and edited by E. R. Craven. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert and Evelina Moore.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lillie, John. Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.

Long, Gary D. Definite Atonement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977.

McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Calif.: Thru the Bible Radio, 1983.

McNab, Andrew. "The General Epistles of Peter." in The New Bible Commentary. Edited by F. Davidson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Merrill, Eugene H. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter and Jude. The NIV Application Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1952.

Nieboer, J. Practical Exposition of 2 Peter Verse by Verse. Erie, Pa.: Our Daily Walk Publishers, 1952.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "A Study of 2 Peter 3:10-13." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):354-71.

Paine, Stephen W. "The Second Epistle of Peter." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1453-62. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 3 vols. New York: Frank & Wagnalls, 1884.

Plummer, Alfred. "The Second Epistle General of Peter." In Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

Rakestraw, Robert V. "Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997):257-69.

Richard, Ramesh P. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Ryrie, Charles C. "Apostasy in the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1984):44-53.

_____. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Scott, Walter. Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.

Senior, Donald. "The Letters of Jude and Second Peter." The Bible Today 25:4 (July 1987):209-14.

Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889.

Sidebottom, E. M. James, Jude, 2 Peter. 1967. New Century Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publishers, Ltd., 1982.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Strachan, R. H. "The Second Epistle General of Peter." In The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 (1910):81-148. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. 5 vols. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900-10.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. The Apostle Peter: Outline Studies in His Life, Character, and Writings. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Wheaton, David H. "2 Peter." In The New Bible Commentary, Revised. Third edition. Edited by Donald Guthrie and J. A. Motyer. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1970.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

Williams, Nathaniel Marshman. "Commentary on the Epistles of Peter." In An American Commentary on the New Testament. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n.d.

Witmer, John A. "The Truth about Error." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):248-53.

Wolston, W. T. P. Simon Peter: His Life and Letters. 2nd ed. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1896.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

THE

SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER,

THE APOSTLE.

INTRODUCTION.

This epistle, though not at first received [by some Churches] as canonical, was acknowledged as such [by all Churches] about the end of the fourth age [century]. See Eusebuis, lib. iii. History of the Church, chap. iii.; St. Jerome, de Vir. Illust. Tillem. art. 33. The design, as it appears, Chap. i. 13. and Chap. iii. 1. was to give them admonitions and instructions against teachers of false doctrine, particularly against the Simonites. It seems to have been written a little before his martyrdom, about the year 66. (Witham) --- In this epistle St. Peter says, (Chap. iii.) "Behold this is the second epistle I write unto you:" and before, (Chap. i. 14.) "Being assured that the putting off of this my tabernacle is at hand." This shews that it was written a very short time before his martyrdom, which was about thirty-five years after our Lord's ascension. In this epistle he admonishes the faithful to be mindful of the great gifts they received from God, and to join all other virtues with their faith. He warns them against false teachers, by describing their practices and foretelling their punishments. He describes the dissolution of this world by fire, and the day of judgment. (Challoner) --- This epistle may be considered as the spiritual testament or last will of the apostle, as it contains his last admonitions to the faithful. He first calls their attention to the care they should have of their sanctification and perfection, next to the perils that concern the Church one the part of heretics, those that menaced her in her infant state, and those that will assail her in the latter days, which includes an invincible proof of her perpetuity; for is is the same infallible and indefectible Church that is to encounter the latter as the former trials, but always with promised success. Hence the great St. John Chrysostom says: the same day that shall see the Church of God ended, shall see the end of the world; and to these continued struggles shall succeed perfect peace, to be enjoyed through a blissful eternity. If some are still found to object, that the present epistle was not written by St. Peter, on account of the marked difference of the style, St. Jerome removes this objection thus: St. Peter employed different interpreters, sometimes Glaucias, and sometimes St. Mark; hence the difference of the style, from the diversity of his scribes. St. Mark was with him when he penned the first, but was not with him when he dictated the present. The present epistle contains, as we said above, an account of the last dreadful trials that are to assail the faithful before the end of time; but all that faith teaches us on that subject is: first, That the world will have an end; secondly, that it will end by fire; and thirdly, that the world will not be destroyed, but changed and perfected. Hence all that is said with regard to the duration of the world; on the nature and quality of the fire that is to burn and purify the world; if it be to precede or follow the last judgment, all is problematical, all is doubtful. Hence the Christian knows a good deal, who knows how to entertain proper doubts.

====================

Gill: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 2 PETER

Though there was, among the ancients, a doubt concerning the authority of this epistle, which is first mentioned by Origen ^a, and afterwards by Eusebius ^b and Jerom ^c, yet it prevailed not among the churches, nor hindered the diligent reading and use of it, together with other Scriptures; it appearing to be useful and profitable, as Eusebius declares; and in process of time this doubt was entirely removed, and it was universally received by fathers and councils into the canon of the Scriptures, where it is justly retained, it having plain signatures of its divine original. Nor is there anything in it unworthy of so great an apostle, whose name it bears; but the whole of it is agreeable to the analogy of faith, to the rest of the sacred writings, particularly to the epistle of Jude, between which, and the second chapter of this, there is a great likeness. The only reason of the doubt of the genuineness of this epistle, and whether it was written by the Apostle Peter, is the difference of its style from the former; but the Holy Ghost, the dictator of the sacred writings, is not limited to a man's natural style, but could vary it as he pleased: besides, a man's style is not the same at different times, and when writing on different subjects; add to which, that this objection can only regard the second chapter, for the first and third agree with the former epistle. And some have thought that the second chapter is an extract out of some ancient Hebrew book, describing the characters of the old false prophets; which book Peter and Jude having before them, took the characters of the old prophets, and, under divine direction, applied them to the false teachers of the present age; and if so it is not to be wondered at that the style of the epistle should differ from the former, and even from itself in this part. But that it was written by the Apostle Peter, not only the inscription shows, which, if false, would indeed discredit the genuineness of the book, but the account that is given of the writer of it, as one that was with Christ at his transfiguration, 2Pe 1:16. Now there were only the three following disciples there, Peter, John, and, James. The last of these had been dead some time when this epistle was written, and it was never ascribed by any to the Apostle John, and therefore it remains that Peter must be the writer of it. As for Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, that succeeded James, whom Grotius would suggest as the author of it, the character does not agree with him; he was not with Christ on the holy mount, nor heard the voice from heaven, asserting the sonship of Christ, and the divine complacency in him: moreover, this epistle is called a "second epistle", 2Pe 3:1 and supposes a first, and manifestly refers to the former epistle of Peter's, about which there never was any doubt, as the authors before mentioned observe. It was written by the apostle in his old age, when upon the decline of life, just as he was about to put off his tabernacle, 2Pe 1:13 a little before his martyrdom, in the year 68, though Dr. Lightfoot places it in 66; and it is sent to the same persons as his first, namely, to the believing Jews scattered throughout several parts of Asia, he being the minister of the circumcision; see 1Pe 1:1 compared with 2Pe 3:1. The scope and design of it are, to put them upon a concern for a larger increase of grace and spiritual knowledge; to confirm and establish them in the present truth of the Gospel; to warn them against false teachers, which he largely describes; and he puts them in mind of the dissolution of all things, and of what will precede and follow it; from whence he draws several useful hints and inferences.

Gill: 2 Peter 1 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 2 PETER 1

In this chapter, after the inscription and salutation, the apostle takes notice of gifts of grace bestowed; and exhorts to the exercise of holiness and good works; and gives the reasons why he was so pressing to them; and endeavours to establish the saints in the Gospel that had been preached among them. In the inscription, the writer of the epistle describes himself by his names, the one given him by his parents, the other by his Lord and master, and by his character and office; and the persons to whom he writes are described as having faith, and that of the same kind with the apostles, and which they obtained through the righteousness of Christ, 2Pe 1:1. The salutation is the same with that in the former epistle, only here is added a wish for an increase of divine knowledge, 2Pe 1:2 and which might be expected, since, by the power of living grace, everything necessary to a spiritual and godly life bad been given them in the effectual calling, through the knowledge of Christ; even exceeding great and precious promises, whereby they partook of the divine nature, and escaped the vices which prevailed in the world, 2Pe 1:3 upon which he exhorts not to rest where they were, but to go on in the exercise of grace, and performance of duties, many of which he enumerates, 2Pe 1:5 to enforce which he adds several arguments, as that through an abounding in these things they would appear not to have a superficial and speculative knowledge of Christ, 2Pe 1:8 or otherwise it would be evident that they were blind and ignorant, and in an unrenewed state, 2Pe 1:9 whereas by these things they would make their calling and election sure and manifest to men, and would never fall totally and finally, and in the issue have an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of Christ, 2Pe 1:10 and then he gives the reasons of his conduct, why he so much urged a regard to these things, and put them in mind of them; namely, the usefulness of them for their establishment, the duty of his office, which required it, the short time he had to live, and the profitableness of such exhortations to them, after his decease, 2Pe 1:12 and in order to establish them in the truths of the Gospel, and particularly in that which concerns the coming of Christ in power and glory, on which he enlarges in the latter part of this epistle; he observes, that this was not a cunningly devised fable, but was what he and others were eyewitnesses of, even of that which was an emblem and pledge of it; namely, the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, when they saw the glory he received from God his Father, and heard the voice from heaven which declared him to be his well beloved Son, 2Pe 1:16, and besides, they had a surer proof of the certainty of his coming; namely, the prophecies concerning it, which should be regarded and given heed to, being as a lamp to direct in the present state of darkness and imperfection, until the illustrious day of Christ's coming appears, 2Pe 1:19 and the rather this should be attended to, since no scriptural prophecy is an invention and device of men; nor was it formerly given out at the pleasure of men, but by saints, who were influenced and moved unto it by the Holy Ghost, 2Pe 1:20.

College: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

This commentary is written for serious students of the Bible, including Bible class teachers, preachers, college students, and other motivated readers. However, it is written on a popular rather than a scholarly level, so that readers need not be familiar with Greek or scholarly methods or jargon.

The goal is to help the modern reader to hear the message of 2 Peter as its first readers heard it. Our assumption is that we must know what it meant before we can know what it means . Peter wrote for a particular group of Christians facing a particular set of problems. The letter was therefore not written to us (although we believe that it was written for us). To be faithful to Peter's intent, we must attempt to place ourselves in the shoes of the earliest readers.

This is a difficult task for a couple of reasons. First, this "book" of the New Testament is a letter. This means we are reading someone else's mail. The problem is that both Peter and his readers knew the situation, so that Peter only makes allusions to what was going on. For example, we would like to know much more about the false teachers. However, Peter had no need to discuss in detail what both he and his readers already know. We are left to read between the lines in order to reconstruct the situation. Second, we are dealing with literature written in an ancient language to an ancient culture. They had a very different worldview, lived very different lifestyles, and practiced very different customs from those with which we are familiar.

Our task is therefore difficult, but it is not hopeless. We will never grasp the details of this letter exactly as the first readers did, but we can have confidence that we are understanding the larger picture. Greek scholars, historians, specialists in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, and others have spent countless hours studying this and other ancient documents. We are fortunate to stand on their shoulders.

Finally, we must mention the nature of this letter. Many dislike it because it is largely negative. After all, it is Peter's scathing denunciation of false teachers. Everyone prefers the message of grace to the message of judgment. However, it is sometimes necessary to expose error, even if the task is not enjoyable. This letter ought to remind Christians of the importance of guarding the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. As Peter makes painfully clear, bad doctrine leads to bad living, which leads to sure judgment. Christians must never shrink from the unpleasant task of fighting heresy.

The reader will quickly discover that I am greatly indebted to the fine commentaries of Douglas J. Moo and especially Richard Bauckham. Moo offers excellent comments from an evangelical perspective. Bauckham's detailed discussion of linguistic, historical, and literary matters is without equal. The reader is referred to his commentary in numerous footnotes simply because his discussion is the most thorough available.

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

Second Peter claims to have been written by Simon Peter, the apostle of Jesus (1:1) and eyewitness to his transfiguration (1:16-18). Since he writes of his approaching death (1:14-15), Peter must have written this letter by the mid-60s of the first century A.D. (The tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome under the emperor Nero is probably reliable.)

A large number of modern scholars, however, are convinced that Peter could not have written this letter. In fact, this New Testament writing more than all others is believed to be pseudonymous (written under a false name). A number of reasons are given for this belief.

First, there is the language and style of the original Greek. Second Peter is written in elaborate Greek, often using rare and poetic terminology. Many believe that a Galilean Jew could not have written in this style. More significantly, 2 Peter is very much unlike 1 Peter. Most argue that the writer who wrote 1 Peter could not have written this letter. In response it must be admitted that this is an argument of some weight. However, conservative scholars are not convinced. First, no one can really know what Peter could and could not have written at different times in life and to different audiences. The style argument always involves considerable subjectivity. Second, many conservative commentators admit that the style of 2 Peter disallows thinking that Peter wrote it himself. They suggest that an amanuensis probably wrote the letter for Peter, as Silvanus may have done in 1 Peter (5:12). A trusted "secretary" may well have written Peter's thoughts in a different style from that of Peter.

A second argument against Petrine authorship is that even some of the early Christians had their doubts about this letter. The evidence is quite complex and difficult to analyze, but a few facts are fairly clear. Origen (3rd century) notes that 2 Peter was a disputed letter, although he believes that Peter wrote it. Eusebius (4th century) rejects its authenticity, although he suggests that the majority accepted it. Jerome (end of 4th century) writes that many rejected it because it was so unlike 1 Peter; yet he contends that Peter probably used two different amanuenses (secretaries). In response, it must again be granted that this is a substantive claim. More than any other New Testament book, 2 Peter was late in being universally accepted. However, evangelical scholars underscore the fact that it was accepted; and it was accepted at a time when a number of works falsely attributed to Peter were being rejected. The evidence from the early church is not unanimous, but it is clearly for the authenticity of 2 Peter.

A third argument for the pseudonymity of 2 Peter concerns the time references regarding the false teachers. At times the writer speaks of false teachers who will come, but at other times he makes it clear that they are already present. The argument is that the actual writer attempts to write as if Peter is predicting the future. In reality he betrays the fact that he is actually living during the times of the false teachers. In response, conservatives note that there are many possible reasons for the changing tenses. The possibility that the pseudonymous writer forgot to continue his fiction is not the most likely. Perhaps the false teachers had not arrived yet but were known because they were already present in other locations. The full discussion is found in the comments on 2:1.

Fourth, many think that the inference in 3:16 that Paul's letters are "Scripture" betrays a late date. Paul's letters, it is argued, were not considered Scripture until at least the late first century. Those who accept Petrine authorship must admit that Peter's words are somewhat surprising. However, it cannot be ruled out that the written words of one regarded as an inspired apostle would be called Scripture. Scholars are often too sure that they know what early Christians could and could not think.

Fifth, many who deny that Peter wrote this letter do so on the basis that it is a "testament," a final address of a leader before his death to the group which reveres him (see comments on 1:11). Most often, a testament was written well after the death of the hero whose name is attached to it, and it addressed the needs of the later generation. Many believe therefore that someone wrote this testament in Peter's name in order to lend his authority to the crisis provoked by the false teachers. Conservatives have responded that there are certainly some elements of the testament genre in 2 Peter, but that these elements do not make 2 Peter a testament like others. Furthermore, testaments need not be pseudonymous. Peter certainly could have written this way at the end of his life.

Sixth, many scholars reject 2 Peter on the basis of the false teaching it opposes. Many think that the heresy is Gnosticism, which developed in the second century. However, while there are minor similarities to that heresy, there is nothing in 2 Peter that would identify the false teachers as second-century Gnostics. The sort of false teaching in 2 Peter is already seen in Paul's letters.

Finally, some also argue that the apostle Peter would not have borrowed from the letter of Jude (see section on "Relation to Jude"). However, this argument is really quite weak. It is not clear why Peter would not have borrowed useful material from another source. Neither is it certain that Peter borrowed from Jude. Jude may have borrowed from Peter, or both may have borrowed from another source, whether oral or written.

In the final analysis, most conservative scholars argue that the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter. They know that this can never be proven and that the decision is in part based on faith and tradition. Nonconservative scholars make significant arguments against Petrine authorship, but they wrongly claim that they have proven that Peter did not write this letter. We find their arguments weighty but not conclusive. In this commentary we will assume that Peter wrote 2 Peter.

OCCASION

Peter wrote to a specific church (or group of churches) facing specific problems, namely the coming of false teachers. Second Peter may have been written to the same churches as 1 Peter (churches in Asia Minor, according to 1:1), since 2 Peter mentions an earlier letter to this group (3:1). However, the fact that he may have written letters to other churches means that we cannot be sure.

Peter wrote this letter primarily because false teachers were 1) denying the Second Coming of Jesus, and 2) living without moral restraint and encouraging others to do so. Peter writes that they denied the teachings of prophets and apostles and that they arrogantly slandered spiritual beings. They denied the Second Coming, arguing that the world was simply continuing on its course as it had since the creation.

Their belief that there would be no Second Coming (and therefore no final judgment) led these false teachers into ungodly lifestyles. They willfully satisfied their sinful desires, including greed, sexual immorality, and gluttony. They encouraged others to follow their sinful examples, especially recent converts who were just escaping these very sins.

Readers of 2 Peter would like to know more about these teachers of error. There is much that we do not know, because of the nature of a letter. (Both author and recipients knew the situation, so there was no need to rehearse the details.) It would be helpful to know more precisely the identity of the false teachers, their background, their practices, and their teaching. This lack of information has led scholars to speculate regarding the identity of the troublemakers. Many have theorized that they were Gnostics, a group of second-century heretics who argued that knowledge was the key to salvation. They believed in a strict dualism between the spiritual and the physical worlds. Therefore they did not believe that Christ was actually human. They also tended to discount the importance of sins involving the body, such as sexual sin. The body, they claimed, belonged to the evil physical world that was created by an inferior god.

There is no evidence in 2 Peter that the false teachers were Gnostics since there is not a trace of the developed Gnostic systems of the second century. Furthermore, all of the teachings which Peter attacked are also found in Paul's letters. For example, in 1 Corinthians Paul writes against some who deny the resurrection (15:12-34) and others who argue for the right to engage in sexual sin (5:1-2; 6:12-20). The most that can be said is that 2 Peter's antagonists may have been the predecessors of what would later be called Gnostics.

A better and more cautious approach is to call these false teachers simply libertines. Their libertine approach seems to have sprung from their (false) understanding of grace and their denial of the judgment at the Second Coming of Jesus.

Another reason Peter wrote 2 Peter is that he was nearing the end of his life. This may have been his last opportunity to offer his teachings concerning sin, judgment, and false teachers. This was especially important because he was an eyewitness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. As an apostle, it was his responsibility to testify to the truth about Jesus and to destroy the efforts of the false teachers.

RELATION TO JUDE

Portions of 2 Peter and Jude are remarkably similar. This applies not only to their contents but also to their order. They use the same examples of destruction for sinfulness: evil angels cast into hell and the judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah. They use similar metaphors, such as clouds or mists driven by a storm. They speak in the same way of the false teachers, including their slander of celestial beings and their following the way of Balaam. They speak of their opponents as "scoffers" and their readers as "friends."

Most scholars think that the resemblance between the two letters is simply too close to be coincidental. It is remotely possible that both may be relying on an oral body of teaching against false teachers. However, it is likely that there is a literary dependence between the two letters. It could be that Peter has used Jude, Jude has used Peter, or that both have used another written source. Very few argue for a third (unknown) source used by both, since this only compounds the problem. Most think that Peter used Jude, and they may be correct. It does seem more plausible that Peter adapted and expanded Jude than that Jude used only a portion of 2 Peter and added very little to it.

However, the fact is that all theories about the literary relationship are conjectural. Fortunately, we need not know the direction of influence in order to interpret the letter. It is obvious that both writers are facing similar problems. Their churches were facing so-called Christian teachers who not only taught false doctrine but lived ungodly lives.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 PETER

Bauckham, Richard. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1983.

Green, Michael. The Second General Epistle of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Hillyer, Norman. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude . Harper's New Testament Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1969.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter: Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Comments. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 (orig. 1907).

Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter and Jude. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: 2 Peter (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - 1:1-15

A. Salutation and Greeting - 1:1-2

B. Preface: Exhortation to Godly Living - 1:3-11

C. Occasion: The Approaching Death of Peter - 1:12-15

II. BODY OF LETTER - 1:16-3:13

A. Reasons for Believing in Christ's Return - 1:16-21

1. Peter's Eyewitness Testimony - 1:16-18

2. The Sure Prophetic Word - 1:19-21

B. Warning against False Teachers - 2:1-22

1. The Coming of False Teachers - 2:1-3

2. The Condemnation of False Teachers - 2:4-10a

3. The Sins of the False Teachers - 2:10b-16

4. The Future Suffering of the False Teachers - 2:17-22

C. The Necessity of Believing in Christ's Return - 3:1-13

1. The Content of the False Teaching - 3:1-7

2. The Sure Return of Christ - 3:8-10

3. Christian Living in Light of Christ's Return - 3:11-13

III. FINAL EXHORTATIONS - 3:14-18

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV