Peter next returned to the subject of God's promises (v. 4). He developed the importance of the Scriptures as the resource of the believer. He did so to enable his readers to appreciate their value and to motivate them to draw upon them so they would grow in grace.
"These verses make it obvious that Peter's primary concern in this epistle is not to refute the false teachers but to ground his readers in personal holiness."56
1:12 In view of what he had written to this point, Peter explained that he realized his previous words were a reminder to his readers, not new instruction. Verses 3-11 contain basic Christian life truth. His readers had heard this previously, but they, as all believers, needed a reminder of it periodically so they would not forget (v. 9).
"We must not glide lightly over Peter's concern about reminding the readers of already known and familiar truth. The history of the Church as a whole shows how careless the Church can be about clinging to divine revelation. So bad have things become in our own day, that the truth of justification by faith alone and of salvation as a free gift has already been submerged and lost among many evangelicals. The Reformation almost needs to occur again!"57
1:13-14 Peter's earthly dwelling (lit. tent) was his physical body (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1, 4). The Greek word apothesismeans "a divesting,"and it refers elsewhere to removing clothes (cf. Acts 7:58). We do not know exactly how Peter knew someone would separate his mortal body from his spirit soon. Peter's words allow the possibility of separation by death or translation. Both events were imminent: overhanging. He was probably at least in his 50s, if not older, when he wrote 2 Peter, and he may have known that he would die as a martyr soon. The Lord Jesus had told Peter that he would end his earthly life as a captive of some kind (John 21:18-19).
1:15 Peter wrote this epistle so that after his death his exhortation contained in it would be a permanent reminder to his brethren. It was his "testament"(cf. 2 Tim.). Whether Peter realized God was inspiring this epistle or not, he regarded it as containing very important and helpful information for Christians. We believe God did inspire it and consequently what Peter said of the value of this letter applies to the rest of Scripture as well. We too need reminders of what God has revealed. Mark's Gospel may also have been in Peter's mind when he wrote this.58There is good evidence that Peter's preaching formed the basis of the second Gospel.
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 himselfhas elected Jesus to be his vicegerent, appointed him to the office and invested him with glory for the task."59
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.65That 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.'69The 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.
