2 Peter 1:16-21 Commentary

At first glance this Sunday may seem like a less than ideal Sunday on which to explore what its Epistolary Lesson has to say about the doctrine of inspiration. While, after all, the North American church generally pays little attention to Jesus’ transfiguration, this Transfiguration Sunday gives Jesus’ followers a chance to think about it together – at least for an hour or so.

Preachers who wish to speak to how 1 Peter 1:16-21 helps us understand Jesus’ transfiguration might benefit from consulting earlier commentaries on it (https://cepreaching.org/commentary/2017-02-20/2-peter-116-21/) and (https://cepreaching.org/commentary/2023-02-13/2-peter-116-21-3/). Those who wish to explore links between Peter’s account of Jesus’ transfiguration and divine inspiration might consult another commentary on it (https://cepreaching.org/commentary/2020-02-17/2-peter-116-21-2/).

But preachers who feel the Spirit prompting them to focus more closely on Peter’s description of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures might begin to do so by exploring the reliability of eyewitness accounts. This issue, in fact, looms over Americans’ reactions to the sometimes-conflicting accounts of the recent killings of protestors in Minnesota.

We wonder (or in some cases have already decided) just whose testimony about them we should believe. Whose testimony is, to use Petrine language, “cleverly devised [sesophismenois*] stories [mythois] (16a)”? Can we rely on the testimony of “eyewitnesses [epoptai]”? (16b).

This Sunday’s Epistolary Lesson’s Peter, of course, isn’t addressing 21^st century North American controversies. But he is speaking about the reliability of the apostles’ account of “the coming [parousian] of our Lord Jesus Christ in power [dynamin] (16).” The apostle insists that account was not what the NRSV translates as “cleverly devised myths.” Peter’s description of Christ’s coming in power was not, he insists, some “fable.”

The apostles were, in fact, “eyewitnesses of Christ’s majesty [megaleiotetos] (16).” They, what’s more, actually heard the voice “from the Majestic God, saying, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well-pleased’” (17b). Peter, James and John, in other words, heard with their own ears God’s voice “that came from heaven” that confirmed Jesus’ identity when they “were with [the transfigured Jesus] on the sacred mountain” (18).

Peter’s summary of what some of Jesus’ apostles saw and heard on what we call “the Mount of Transfiguration” bolsters his insistence that he didn’t make up what he shared with his readers about that revelation of the Son of God’s true glory. The apostle is insisting Jesus’ friends can believe what the apostles tell us about Jesus’ transfiguration because they saw it with their own eyes and heard it with their own ears.

In verses 19-21 Peter pivots to an assertion of the “prophetic message’s [prophetikon logon]” reliability. He insists the prophets’ messages were no more “cleverly devised stories” than Peter’s account of Jesus’ transfiguration. God’s adopted children can trust that they are the Word of God.

By introducing verses 19-21 with the conjunction kai (“also”) Peter links what he says about the prophets’ reliability to what he has just written about the trustworthiness of his account of Jesus’ transfiguration. In fact, it’s almost as if he implies what the prophets proclaimed somehow at least pointed ahead to what he witnessed on the Mount of Transfiguration.

“We also have,” Peter writes in verse 19, “the prophetic message [prophetikon logon] as something completely reliable [bebaioteron].” In other words, Jesus’ friends can trust not just Peter’s account of Jesus’ transfiguration, but also the prophets’ message. In fact, both the NRSV and The Message refer to the prophetic message as “confirmed.” They at least suggest God’s adopted children can rely on both the apostolic and prophetic testimonies because the Spirit affirms their trustworthiness.

Peter goes on to insist “You will do well to pay attention [prosechontes] to [the prophetic message], as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (19b). Preachers might note a couple of things about this wisdom. Prosechontes (“pay attention”) implies an element of not just hearing the prophetic word but also applying oneself to it. In making that assertion Peter is reminding Jesus’ followers that we aren’t just hearers of the prophetic word; we’re also doers of it.

What’s more, by referring to that prophetic word as lychno phainonti en auchmero topo (“light shining in a dark place”), Peter alludes to the spiritual darkness of our world as well as the prophetic message’s power to illuminate the path through it. God’s dearly beloved people live in a world characterized by all sorts of darkness. However, we can rely on the Spirit’s power to use the prophetic message to point us toward Jesus Christ, the world’s only true Light in that deep darkness.

Why can Jesus’ friends rely on that prophetic message to point us toward our rescue? In verses 20-21a Peter answers, “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation [idias epilyseos] of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will [thelemati anthropou].” Christians can look to and trust the prophets’ messages because they never devised clever stories. They didn’t make things up or express their own opinions.

After all, “prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit” (21b). The prophets were human – but inspired by God. The prophets’ own personalities factored into their messages – but the Holy Spirit inspired them. It’s sometimes hard to apply the prophets’ messages to our own time and place – but the Spirit “prompted” them to “speak God’s Word” (The Message).

Verse 21b’s profession about the Spirit’s inspiration of the prophets in some ways echoes Paul’s assertion to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed.” Jesus’ friends have often cited both professions as support for Christians’ trust in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

In fact, Article 3 of the Belgic Confession quotes 2 Peter 1:21 when it professes, the “Word of God was not delivered by ‘human will,’ but … ‘men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,’ as Peter says.” What’s more, in Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony, Reformed Christians profess, “The Spirit, active from the beginning, moved human beings to write the Word of God” (31).

Yet while the doctrine of divine inspiration has strong support in the Scriptures, preachers can admit it’s not perfectly clear just what “message” Peter is referring to in verse 19. Prophetikon logon (“prophetic messages”) almost certainly refers to the message of prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos. But some scholars aren’t sure what, if anything, the apostle is also referring to. After all, what we think of as the New Testament wasn’t yet recorded when he addressed Jesus’ scattered friends with this letter. What’s more, much of what we refer to as the Old Testament was not prophecy, but God’s Word to God’s Israelite people.

In any case, preachers might interpret Peter’s insistence that Jesus’ friend “will do well to pay attention” (19) to the prophetic message as a summons to a more robust proclamation of prophets like Ezekiel, Joel and Obadiah. Even preachers who largely base our messages on passages the Revised Common Lectionary’s readings suggest might choose to pay closer attention to its Old Testament readings.

But as we pay attention to the prophets’ messages, we do well to remember that they were first addressed to Israel in specific times and places. So they must be heard and considered first in that context. Preachers want to listen closely to the Spirit’s promptings as we seek to apply the prophets’ messages to Christians and churches in the 21^st century. After all, while the Scriptures remain our only guide for faith and life, it is not always readily clear to whom and what they apply in our own time and place.

What’s more, while some preachers like to use the prophets as a kind of 21^st century rules for engagement, we never want to forget that those messages are always grounded in God’s character. Before prophetic messages are rules for obedience (and perhaps disobedience) to various authorities, they are primers in God’s character.

On top of all that, while Jesus’ friends sometimes wish to use the prophets to laud ourselves and attack our enemies, the prophets seldom compliment people who thought of themselves as righteous. They called all of God’s people to holiness. Their calls seemed especially directed to people who deluded themselves about their own holiness. What’s more, the prophets’ challenges to the religious leaders of their day seem particularly pertinent to preachers and other religious leaders of our day.

It is always tempting for preachers and other modern prophets to speak as we’re “carried along” by the issues and controversies that surround us. Peter summons us to join the prophets in letting our messages and us speak from God as we’re carried along by the Holy Spirit.

*I have here and elsewhere added in brackets the Greek words for the English words the NIV translation uses.

Illustration

Charles Baxter’s Blood Test features Brock Hobson who has recently learned that he is genetically disposed toward murder. Hobson has a teen-aged son Joe who lifts weights in order to build muscle tone. Because he’d also done some weightlifting when he was a teenager, Brock knows as well about bodybuilding’s attraction and ultimate futility.

As a Christian, Hobson also knows about 1 Timothy 4:5’s reminder that “bodily exercise is of little use.” But he doesn’t quote it to his son “because Joe doesn’t like it when I invoke biblical authority, nor do most adolescents, who regard the Bible as little more than an etiquette manual, if that.”