2 Peter 1

CHAPTER I

THE GREETING

2 Peter 1:1

1 Symeon Peter, slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those having obtained faith of equal value with ours, in connection with righteousness from our God and Savior Jesus Christ: may grace to you and peace be multiplied in connection with knowledge from our God and Lord Jesus! This translation is in part already an interpretation.

The optative of wish is identical with that used in 1 Pet. 1:2, save for the added phrase. Jude 2 also has this optative but with three objects. Peter introduces himself as “Symeon Peter, slave and apostle of Jesus Christ”; in First Peter he calls himself only “Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ.” A forger would never have added “Symeon” and would scarcely have added “slave” to “apostle.” He would have copied the words used in First Peter. This greeting was written by Peter’s own pen or was dictated by him. It is not a mere variation of 1 Pet. 1:1, 2, but every word is significant for his readers in regard to the contents of this letter.

“Symeon” is genuinely Semitic and has the stronger textual attestation; “Simon” is the Greek equivalent and is attested chiefly by Codex B. Peter intends to emphasize his Jewish origin. When he terms himself “slave of Jesus Christ,” as Paul does at times, he does not refer to his office, for “apostle” does that. “Slave” places Peter on the same level with his readers as being one who, like all his readers, submits his will wholly to that of the divine Master who bought him and them to be his own (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). The connotation of δοῦλος is not service or involuntary service but unquestioning submission to Jesus Christ’s will.

“Slave” would be out of the line of the thought of the contents of First Peter. That letter comforts, assures, fortifies Christians who are soon to suffer severely. “Apostle” is sufficient for all that Peter has to say by way of comfort and hortation in that letter. The readers of Second Peter are to be fortified against heretical libertinists, dogs turning to their own vomit, sows that, after being washed, again wallow in the mire, who mock at the Lord’s glorious Parousia. Peter and all his readers bow before that mighty Lord, they are governed by his will alone and are horrified at these fools who snap their fingers at this Lord’s will and the idea of his return. “Slave of Jesus Christ” is eminently in place. Yet Peter is one of those slaves to whom the Lord has given a great commission; ἀπόστολος is derived from ἀποστέλλω, “to commission.” In this letter Peter, a fellow slave of his readers, is carrying out a part of the great official commission of his great Lord “Jesus Christ.” He writes in this double capacity.

When critics tell us that somebody living in the second century impersonates Peter with no wrong intention but only in order to magnify Peter, and that we should not speak of a forger since our present ideas about such things differ entirely from the ideas of the second century, these critics would be right provided the impersonator of Peter indicated that he was only impersonating with such harmless intent by at once allowing his readers to know what he is doing. Compare the greeting found in First Peter, yea, those found in all the New Testament letters; they are all alike, intend to be alike. If the opening nominative in any one of them is intended as a harmless impersonation of the person named, that harmless fact is hidden, completely hidden. The name for such an action is forgery. The moral sense of all ages resents it as forgery, and not merely as literary forgery but as a forgery of the apostolic Word of God; Smith’s Bible Dictionary (see quotation in the introduction) calls it “Satanic.”

The dative designates the readers in regular letter form: “to those having obtained faith of equal value with ours,” etc., ἰδότιμονἡμῖν, literally, “of value equal to us.” We all wish that Peter might have added the name of some place as he does in First Peter. This dative reads as though all who have such faith are addressed; yet all students agree that Peter is writing to the Christians of some one locality, perhaps to those of only one city, one congregation. With this dative he describes them as people who have obtained faith that is just as valuable and precious as that which “we” have obtained. Peter wants his readers so to regard themselves and their precious faith.

Who are the ἡμῖν? With whose faith is Peter comparing his readers’ faith? This plural pronoun cannot refer to Peter alone. Some think that it refers to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, either the Twelve, or these and Paul (because of 3:15), or only Peter, John, and Paul. It would, however, be strange for Peter to refer thus to the faith of the apostles alone, whether of all or of only a few of them. Nowhere else is the faith of ordinary Christians compared with that of the apostles.

Besides, Peter does not call himself only an apostle. He first of all calls himself a slave of Jesus Christ, and does this after naming himself “Symeon Peter” and thus using his old Jewish name. We thus conclude that Peter refers to himself and to all Jewish Christians with ἡμῖν; that he is writing to certain Gentile Christians to whom also Paul has written a letter (3:15). Peter says that their faith is just as valuable and as precious as our faith, i. e., that of any and of all Jewish believers. That, of course, applies to all Gentile Christians everywhere. That is what Peter intends.

This does not force us to think that he is writing to all of them; that this is a grand encyclical to Gentiles. When he is writing to one particular group of Gentile Christians he very properly describes the whole class to which they belong: “to you Gentile believers, whose faith, like that of all Gentile believers, is of equal value with our faith, that of all Jewish believers.” We have strong substantiation for this view, for in Acts 11:17 Peter says that “God gave to them the same gift,” ἴσην is like ἰσότιμον; compare also Acts 15: 7–9 where this equality is stated at length.

Why does Peter stress the fact that the faith of his Gentile readers is of equal value with that of the Jewish believers to whom he himself belongs? The answer is, first of all, that Jesus Christ, our God and Savior Jesus Christ, values their faith just as highly as he does the faith of Peter himself and of all Jewish Christians. The readers are to do the same. The rest of the answer is, as this entire letter shows, that the faith of the readers must, therefore, be preserved and fortified. All that the word of prophecy makes so sure (verse 19), all this about “the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” all the Scriptural examples of judgment on the ungodly who would not believe (chapter 2), all this, finally, about the end of the world and “the promise of Christ’s Parousia” (3:4), pertains to all Christians alike. None of these things are merely Jewish. Those who scoff at what the Word of prophecy says about them are condemned by that Word; and Peter’s readers must not share their fate.

The statement that in the body of the letter no further reference is made to the distinction between Jewish and Gentile believers is only partially correct. There is no distinction in v. 1; there is equality of value. Since this is settled at the very beginning, nothing further needs to be said. This Jewish apostle takes his Gentile readers into the Jewish Word of prophecy and fortifies them so that they may be prepared for their Lord’s Parousia at the end of the world.

Λαγχάνω means “to obtain by lot” and then simply “to obtain,” yet not without the connotation expressed in Acts 11:17, the fact that God gave them this valuable gift, their faith. A few commentators have difficulty with the added phrase ἐνδικαιοσύνῃ. The supposition that it means that God (or Christ) acted in a righteous manner by letting the Gentile believers obtain a faith that is equal in value to that of the Jewish believers, is untenable. Ἐν does not mean auf Grand von, “on the basis of,” the word for which would would be ἐπί nor “through,” the word for this would be διά; nor is it “instrumental.” We translate, “in connection with” righteousness. This involves the great genitive τοῦΘεοῦἡμῶνκαὶΣωτῆροςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ and thus the same genitive that is found in v. 2, which is likewise attached to an ἐν phrase, namely ἐνἐπιγνώσει. We submit the claim that these two genitives are to be construed alike and not diversely. The one is not possessive: righteousness belonging to Christ, and the other objective: knowledge that knows Christ.

In two successive ἐν phrases that have the same grand genitive such a difference is unlikely. These two great genitives denote origin or source: “in connection with righteousness from our God and Savior Jesus Christ”—“in connection with knowledge from our God and Lord Jesus.”

Faith is always “in connection with righteousness,” the quality which that one possesses whom Christ declares righteous. C.-K. 312 states: “Second Peter 1:1 refers, not to the future righteousness of God, but to the redemptive righteousness revealed in producing salvation through Christ.” To this statement there should be added the fact that this righteousness is the quality that is bestowed by the verdict of Christ, the righteous Judge, on all faith equally, the imputed righteousness. Whether ἐν includes also the subsequently acquired righteousness is a minor question; if this is included it, too, is of Christ in the sense of from. We are sorry to see that C.-K. 253 regards the second great genitive as being objective.

The position which ἡμῶν has with the genitives here, in v. 2, and in v. 11, is immaterial (R. 785). It in no way affects the question as to whether one or two persons are referred to. The use of the one article would say that but one person is referred to, namely, “Jesus Christ, our God and Savior,” in v. 2 he is regarded as “our God and Lord”; so also in 2:20; 3:2, 18; 2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13; Eph. 5:5; Jude 4 (accusative). R. 786. The effort to find a reference to two persons, God and Christ, is nullified linguistically by the use of but one article in the Greek. There is nothing more to say. The deity of Christ stands forth here as a mountain that no false faith can plunge into the sea.

Robertson quotes Moulton as “clear enough to close the matter”: “Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times lends strong support to Wendland’s contention that Christians, from the latter part of i/A. D. onward, deliberately annexed for their divine Master the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some of the worst of men,” meaning the Roman emperors. This applies not only to ὁΘεός but equally to Κύριος (used in paganism for divine lord) and to Σωτήρ (a divine person that saves). These two were regularly employed by pagana as divine titles.

When in the face of all this in language and in history anyone asserts that Jesus Christ is here not called God, v. 9 states what is wrong with him: he suffers from a dogmatism that, like the old Jewish Sanhedrin, is determined to deny the deity of Christ at every price.

These designations found in Second Peter, together with Moulton’s remarks, substantiate the fact that the readers are Gentile Christians. Those who formerly regarded them as Jewish lacked a good deal of the material that is here offered.

Paul applies Σωτήρ to Christ as well as to God; see the word of the angel in Luke 2:11. Peter does so also in Acts 5:31. The very name “Jesus”=“Savior.” All that the Scriptures mean by σωτηρία, “salvation,” lies in the title “Savior.” He is the Rescuer who rescues us from sin and damnation and places us into complete, eternal safety. The fact that he is very God is added not only to indicate his power as Savior—which, of course, it does—but also because of so much that follows in this letter, all of which rests on his deity. Need we say that practically every word in verse one is utterly beyond any second-century forger?

2 Peter 1:2

2 On the greeting proper see First Peter. The added phrase: “in connection with knowledge from our God and Lord Jesus,” deserves fullest attention. Peter does not have three subjects: “grace, peace, and knowledge.” As in verse 1 faith is “in connection with” righteousness, so here grace and peace are “in connection with” knowledge; ἐν always indicates the connection that is natural to the context.

Ἐπίγνωσις is stronger than γνῶσις, it is Erkenntnis in contrast with Kenntnis. There may be a false gnosis, but never a false epignosis. The latter is a true, clear, full knowledge that is personally embraced and has the strongest effect on the personal religious life, C.-K. 253, also Trench. Its object is the Word. We thus see how grace and peace are “in connection with” this knowledge; unfortunately, we have no specific word for epignosis. With Peter’s prayerful wish regarding the epignosis compare Paul’s prayer in Eph. 1:16, etc.

This is one of the key words of this letter (1:3, 8; 2:20), to which add gnosis occurring in 1:5, 6, and in 3:18. The aim of this letter is to increase this knowledge in the hearts of the readers so that, when grace and peace are multiplied, they may abound in all godliness and be fully fortified against all libertinists and all libertinism when this sort of thing arises to harass them. We have stated why we regard the genitive as a genitive of source. This true, full knowledge comes to the readers “from our God and Lord Jesus.” So in verse 3 “all that pertains to life and godliness has been granted to us by means of the epignosis.” Διά in verse 3 elucidates the ἐν found in verse 2.

The grand genitive magnifies the knowledge which Peter wants his readers to have. Peter substitutes Κύριος for Σωτήρ. “Lord” is, however, to be understood in the full soteriological sense of Savior-Lord. He is our Lord, we are his δοῦλοι (verse 1) who have been purchased and won by him to be his own forever. We know no authority save his; our will is his alone. Κύριος suggests his deity just as much as Θεός, a point that it is well to note also where the unmodified “Lord” occurs. We note that “Savior” is placed first, “Lord” second. Who would not follow the Lord who has rescued him as a Savior? There is no Lord like this Lord; no pleasure like serving this Lord as a δοῦλος or “slave.” The two ἡμῶν are equally confessional although they have different places in the phrases. “Our” combines Peter and his readers, in fact, thereby includes all confessors of Jesus; and thus it differs from ἡμῶν in v. 1. “Jesus Christ,” the full personal and official name used in verse 1, is reduced to “Jesus” as being a sufficient designation in connection with “our Lord.”

Part One

How the Entrance into the Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is Richly Supplied, v. 3–21

Diligently Use What God Has Granted, v. 3–7

2 Peter 1:3

3 There is an unmistakable similarity between the first grand sentence of First Peter, namely, 1:3–13, and the one before us in 2 Peter 1:3–11. Just as 1 Pet. 1:3–9 is a unit and but one extended sentence, so Isaiah 2 Pet. 1:3–9. The same mind conceived both sentences. The connectives differ, but the comprehensive grasp that links so much together, now in one way, now in another, is plainly the same.

This similarity may be extended. In both of the great opening sentences the vital thing in our hearts is faith. In 1 Pet. 1:9 we are referred to the end of this faith, “the salvation of souls”; in 2 Pet. 1:11 to “the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In both instances the readers are referred to the prophets: in 1 Pet. 1:10–12; in 2 Pet. 1:19–21. In both the ministry of the apostles and gospel preachers is mentioned: in 1 Pet. 1:12 they are called “those that proclaimed the good tidings to you”; in 2 Pet. 1:16, “we made known to you the power and Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here we have but one mind, not two, not one that is genuine, and another that is forging an imitation.

First Peter was written for those who are to meet persecution and suffering, whose faith, faithfulness, and hope are to be strengthened; Second Peter is written for those who are to meet false, libertinistic teachers, and whose faith, diligence in godliness, and knowledge are to be fortified. The readers are, therefore, not the same. Hope is one thing, full knowledge is an other. Sufferers need steadfast hope; fighters against loose errorists need true heart-knowledge. Yet in this case, since the libertinists mock at the Lord’s Parousia, the true knowledge that withstands them is the certainty of the Lord’s Parousia and thus the certainty of the true Christian hope. The hope of First Peter and the knowledge of Second Peter look to the same glorious goal.

We do not divide v. 3–9, do not begin a new sentence at verse 10. The whole of v. 3–11 is a unit. Our versions connect ὡς with v. 2 as though v. 3, 4 were appended to the greeting, and as though v. 5 begins a new sentence. No greeting known to us has such a peculiar extension. Ὡς is plainly causal and is introductory to καὶαὑτὸτοῦτοδέ (v. 5). The main verb is an imperative. As his divine power has granted all things to us regarding life and godliness by means of the knowledge from the One who called us with his own glory and praise, by means of which (glory and praise) he has granted the to us precious and greatest promises that by means of these we may get to fellowship divine nature by having escaped from the corruption in connection with lust in the world: even with respect to this very fact, etc.

Ὡς might be followed by οὕτω in verse 5: “as … so”; but so much material is attached to the genitive absolute introduced by “as” that the main clause is ushered in by the similar but much stronger αὑτὸτοῦτο, “with respect to this very thing.” “As” might introduce a finite verb; Peter uses a genitive absolute, the more to show that what he says in this preamble (v. 3, 4) is subsidiary to the hortation expressed in verse 5, etc.

The verbal arrangement is masterly. Linking clauses and participial modifiers, each in its own subordination, is characteristic of the Greek mind which notes and indicates all these relations of thought and thus rises above the English mind which is inclined to ignore such important relations. Peter absorbed the rich Greek method of thought and moved in it with perfect ease; if the student of today wishes to follow Peter’s mind he will have to take all this into account.

“His divine power has granted,” etc., refers to Christ’s power; “his divine power” as “our God and Savior,” as “our God and Lord.” “Divine power” matches these two designations. The deity of Jesus Christ is the foundation of this entire epistle; cancel it, and a jumbled ruin is left. This divine power has granted to us “all things, the ones regarding (πρός) life and godliness.” Τὰπρός is an apposition to πάντα. Not one thing has Christ’s divine power withheld from us. Eph. 1:3, “all spiritual blessing”; Rom. 8:32, “freely give us all things,” τὰπάντα. The “life” referred to is the one that is kindled in regeneration by the power of the Spirit through the means of grace (Word and Sacrament). All that pertains to this “life,” all that it needs to preserve, strengthen, and bring it to its consummation, our God and Lord Jesus Christ’s divine power has presented to us.

To “life” Peter adds the comprehensive “godliness,” which is the activity of this “life.” Εὑσέβεια includes our entire reverent, worshipful attitude and the actions emanating from it. The opposite of “life and godliness” is “the corruption in connection with lust in the world” (v. 4). Like the finite verb in v. 4, the perfect participle “has granted” implies that the past act of granting continues its effect to the present day and is to continue thus. In δωρέομαι there lies the idea of δωρημα: to make a present. That is exactly what Christ’s divine power has done.

When some read “divine power” they think of divine omnipotence as if this alone is divine power. But love, grace, mercy are also “divine power.” In the verb “has made us a present” there lies the very thought of grace. For “life and godliness” we need the gifts that are bestowed by the power of grace. The presentation is “by means of the epignosis or knowledge,” hence it comes by the gospel, “God’s power for salvation to everyone believing” (Rom. 1:16), i. e., the power of grace. We regard both the perfect participle and the following perfect finite verb as middle and not as passive.

“Divine power” was required to give all these spiritual presents. They are priceless, their very source is divine. To prize them as such is certainly also to use them accordingly. More than this; by using them we certainly shall obtain “the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (v. 11; the end of our faith, salvation of souls, 1 Pet. 1:9). All these presents were given us for that purpose.

Christ’s divine power has given these presents to us (to Peter and to his readers) “by means of the knowledge from him who called us with his own glory and praise.” This repeats the key word epignosis used in v. 2. Peter, like James, loves such repetition. See the repetitions in v. 1, 2, also that of “granting.” These are not mannerisms or indications of poverty of thought; they are purposeful, they emphasize, they link most closely.

Is this genitive objective, so that we are to know fully “him who called us” (God)? This is the generally accepted view which one might support with a reference to John 17:3. In v. 1, 2 we have two genitives of source: righteousness from our God, etc.; epignosis from, our God, etc. So we here have: the epignosis from him who called us. We regard this as a genitive of source because τῆςἐπιγνώσεως; has the article of previous reference and thus refers back to the epignosis already mentioned in v. 2. It seems best to regard God as our Caller as was done in 1 Pet. 2:9.

This makes Christ the source of the knowledge mentioned in v. 2, and God the source of that referred to in v. 3. Those who regard these as objective genitives, of course, retain the same difference. There is really no difference in the thought. Christ is God, to know him is to know God, and vice versa; thus also to have knowledge from him is to have it from God, and vice versa.

Source is the point of emphasis: Christ’s divine power presents all these things by means of the knowledge, the source of which is divine. Not cunningly devised fables (v. 16); Peter himself heard the divine voice from heaven (v. 18); holy men spoke, not by their own will, but by (ὑπό) the Holy Spirit from (ἀπό) God, v. 21. Peter himself thus stresses the source of our knowledge most elaborately. Our divine Caller is the source. This source makes this knowledge so firm and solid (βεβαιότερον, v. 19), hence so mighty for our “life and godliness,” so mighty to resist the pseudo-prophets (2:1) and their rank liberalism. Add the fact that all that Christ taught had God as its source, and that Peter again and again had heard him stress this fact (John 7:16, 17; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10, 24; 17:8, 14). Our Caller (God) is the source of our epignosis.

In the epistles καλεῖν always denotes the successful call by means of the Word. Yet Peter does not say: called us “with his own Word.” He says something far grander: called us “with his own glory and praise.” When R. 533 says that this is “clearly instrumental, not dative,” he means: “with his own glory” (means), and not “to glory,” etc. (A. V.) God’s glory and praise shine forth in the gospel-Word, in the precious and most magnificent promises that he has given us (v. 4). This glory and this praise of God, Peter says, were the means that drew and won us by God’s call. Compare 1 Pet. 2:9, and see what this call made of us, especially that it means that we should now proclaim the ἀρεταί or praises of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. Remember that all the glory and the praise of God are unfolded before our hearts in Christ, “as being his (God’s) glory’s effulgence and his being’s impress,” Heb. 1:3.

Feel the greatness of what Peter here says about Christ’s gifts to him and to his readers. He writes with almost the same exaltation as he did in 1 Pet. 1:3, etc. His object is the same. How can his readers, who have this knowledge and this call, lend an ear to pseudo-prophets and by libertinism insult the glory and the praise that called them? Their course must ever be that sketched in v. 5–7, the end their entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (v. 11).

We need not enter the discussion regarding ἀρετή (C.-K. 160, etc.; G. K. 460; others). The plural used in 1 Pet. 2:9 = “praises”; “glory and praise” is perfectly to the point here, the two being synonymous with this difference that δόξα is the emanation of the divine attributes that reaches our eyes and our hearts, and “praise” (Ruhm, fame) that which reaches our ears from those who already know him. “Virtue” in our versions is objectionable; there is too much of the old pagan flavor left in this rendering. Selbstbekun-dung, Selbsterweisung, i. e., self-manifestation, in our opinion, omit the note of the effect produced on the beholders.

2 Peter 1:4

4 The plural relative “by means of which” is to be referred to “his own glory and praise.” No other antecedent is pertinent. By means of these two the One who called us with them “has granted the to us precious and greatest promises,” and the appositional ἵνα clause states their content: “that by means of these (our Caller’s glory and praise) we may get to fellowship divine nature by escaping from the corruption,” etc. Since ἡμῖν is placed where it is it=“the to us precious and greatest,” etc., and is not the indirect object: “has granted to us.” Here we have another present: all these promises, which are truly “precious” or valuable and, when we see what they contain, the “greatest” that we can imagine. We do not reduce μέγιστα. to mean only “exceeding great” as R. 670 does; there are none greater for us. Ἐπαγγέλματα=“promises” in the sense of “things promised” (a word expressing a result and not one that expresses an action).

We regard ἵνα as appositional and not as introducing a purpose clause; Peter cannot fail to say what these precious, greatest promises contain and say only what purpose they are to serve. The reason that so many commentators regard this as a ἵνα of purpose is due to the fact that they think that every ἵνα must introduce a purpose whereas in the Koine this particle often introduces result (both contemplated and actual) and often introduces a substantive clause as is the case here. This is not a purpose to be attained by means of the immense things promised, attained, as some think, at Christ’s Parousia. This is what the things promised actually are; we are not left to surmise their contents. Here we have their contents and see that they are indeed “precious to us and the greatest.” If we see this we shall also see that διὰτούτων resumes διʼ ὧν, the antecedent in both cases being “glory and praise.” That is why we have the same preposition and also why we have “these” and not αὑτῶν, “them,” i. e., “the promises.”

Codex B has another διά in v. 3: διὰδόξηςκαὶἀρετῆς, in place of the dative ἰδίᾳδόξῃ‚ κτλ. Means—means—means. Peter is pointing them out: the knowledge by which all things that we need are granted to us—the glory and praise by which the greatest promises are granted—this very glory and praise by which we fellowship the divine nature. No wonder the preposition is repeated!

The adjective κοινωνοί which is derived from the noun for “fellowship” (we lack an equivalent English adjective) is inexactly rendered by “partakers”; we should keep the idea of fellowship lest, as Besser warns, we decorate ourselves “with a foreign feather.” For this “divine nature” is not the substantia but the qualitas; it is more than the imitatio, it is rather the imago Dei. As a foreigner is naturalized, so we are fully transplanted into God’s kingdom and are naturalized in it so that what is in that kingdom is properly ours. We are to be children and sons of God (John 1:12), begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the Word of God which lives and abides forever (1 Pet. 1:23). Ours is the restored divine image, righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24) plus knowledge (epignosis, Col. 3:10). The two former are divine attributes. When they are restored in us they do not deify us; yet they are derived from God and make us κοινωνοί of divine nature. Here belong all those passages that speak of the unio mystica such as Gal. 2:20: “Christ lives in me”; Phil. 1:21: “For me to live is Christ”; John 15:4, 5, “you in me, and I in you”; 14:23 and 1 John 2:24, also Rev. 3:20, which describe the koinonia.

The aorist means “actually be” in fellowship. When? The moment we “actually escape” (aorist) the corruption in the world. There is no intermediate state but only a sharp either—or. Yet this is true, not until the time of the Parousia will body and soul attain the consummation of this fellowship. The participle does not express a condition: so ihr fliehet, Luther.

It is not the mere negative side of the fellowship. An action on our part (escape) is not correlative (negative) with a condition (positive) into which we are brought. This expression should be understood as the knowledge mentioned in v. 3 and as the reception of the promises are: as granting involves reception, so possession of the divine nature involves flight from the corruption and hence this flight is also expressed by a participle.

Θείαφύσιν and φθορὰἐντῷκόσμῳ are direct opposites, as wide apart as the poles, as conflicting as fire and water, as exclusive of each other as life and death. What this “corruption” looks like we shall see in 2:12–19. It is rottenness, its end is destruction and perdition. It is “in the world,” the world of men is full of it, reeking to heaven, crying out to be swept into hell. The first ἐν is local, the second designates inner connection: the corruption “in connection with lust,” “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pretension regarding the course of life, not of the Father, but of the world, and the world passes away, and the lust thereof,” 1 John 2:16, 17. To escape suggests a terrible power that holds and enslaves; lust is corruption’s snare. Note the fine way in which both Greek phrases are placed between the article and the main noun, an elegance of style that we have noted repeatedly in First Peter.

With these preliminary clauses Peter lays a perfect foundation for the hortation that follows. See what is granted us and by what divine means! We are in the fellowship of the divine nature, having escaped from the rotten, lusting world. Hence we must live as Peter now states, must reach the kingdom to which he points (v. 11).

2 Peter 1:5

5 Peter continues: even with respect to this very fact, having brought along in all diligence, furnish in connection with your faith the (corresponding) praise, and in connection with the praise the (corresponding) knowledge, and in connection with the knowledge the (corresponding) self-control, and in connection with the self-control the (corresponding) perseverance, and in connection with the perseverance the (corresponding) godliness, and in connection with the godliness the (corresponding) fraternal friendliness, and in connection with the fraternal friendliness the (corresponding) love; for etc.

Here we have Peter’s golden chain of Christian virtues. There are seven jewels, and all of them are fastened to faith.

Peter might have said: ὡς … καὶοὕτω, “as … even thus”; he states it in a stronger way: ὡς … καὶαὑτὸτοῦτοδέ “as … even with respect to this very thing,” or we may say “for this very reason.” Αὑτὸτοῦτο is the adverbial accusative (R. 467, 686), which is common in Paul (R. 705). The δέ is not adversative. When it is used after καί, the δέ marks the fact that what follows is different from the preceding; by doing this it helps to emphasize the demonstrative. Our versions translate rather inaccurately: “And besides this” (A. V.); “Yea, and” (R. V.). Καί=“even” and does not begin a new sentence. Mark the progress indicated by the deictic demonstratives: v. 4, διὰτούτων—v. 5, αὑτὸτοῦτο—v. 8, ταῦτα—v. 9, again ταῦτα. “As regards this very thing” is properly the neuter singular, the antecedent being what v. 3, 4 state, in particular the double gift bestowed on us by Christ.

This very fact should prompt us to use the divine nature in which we have fellowship. The Greek marks the subsidiary action by the use of a participle; the English, which is less precise, would use two imperatives. By “bringing along in all diligence” the readers are to furnish or supply all that Peter states. The aorist participle, like the aorist imperative, is effective, decisive. Present tenses would be descriptive and milder. Peter wants a peremptory, strong command: “Bring along in” no less than “all diligence” and not only some! “Furnish!” with no “if” or “but” about it. The original sense of the latter verb (ἐπιχορηγέω) refers to the training and the staging of a grand chorus for some high civic or provincial celebration, the entire expense being provided by some rich patron; but the word became generalized and means “supply” or “furnish” and retains only the idea of furnishing completely, lavishly.

There are not eight items but only seven. The readers are not to furnish “faith.” This they already have by virtue of their having been called (v. 3): by his gospel call God gives us faith. Having this faith from God, it is not to remain “barren or unfruitful” (v. 8) but is to bring forth all its spiritual fruits. Thus Peter says: with all diligence “furnish in connection with your faith” this chain of golden fruit.

“As soon as the Holy Ghost, as has been said, through the Word and holy Sacraments has begun in us this his work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness. But this does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, as St. Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that ‘as workers together with him we receive not the grace of God in vain,’ 2 Cor. 6:1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by his Holy Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would withdraw his gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus, that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth.” C. Tr. 907, 65–66.

The divine nature in which we have fellowship (v. 4) is from God (thus “divine”) and hence has power to produce what Peter says. Augustine is right: Fidesest mater et radix bonorum operum. Faith is this, however, only as it constantly draws on God in this fellowship of the “divine nature” which we have from him. Thus all that by his grace we supply in living connection with our faith is acceptable to God; if we supply anything in connection with our flesh, this is an abomination to him. Rom. 14:23.

Peter’s seven nouns are often called virtues; yet knowledge is scarcely a virtue. In v. 8 “barren and unfruitful” imply that Peter thinks of the seven as fruits of faith. While he connects each of the seven with ἐν, we see that all of them are to be traced to faith. Each time, when he adds the next, he repeats the one fruit, and this repetition emphasizes. He uses the article throughout. Abstract nouns may or may not have the article in the Greek, yet when the article is used, the abstract noun is made specific. So it is here. Not anything that may be called ἀρετή‚ γνῶσις, etc., is to be supplied but the specific thing, the thing that corresponds to the preceding or, let us say, the true, Christian arete, gnosis, etc.

The list of seven is arranged with reference to the pseudo-prophets (2:1) and to the way in which they live according to their pretended faith. For praise they supply disgrace; for knowledge, blindness; for self-control, libertinistic license; for perseverance in good, perseverance in evil; for godliness, ungodliness; for fraternal friendliness, dislike of God’s children; for genuine love, its terrible absence.

In what sense is ἀρετή to be the first thing connected with faith? Many, like Luther and our versions, are satisfied with the term “virtue” although they often modify this: strenuus animae tonus ac vigor, Bengel; moral strength, manliness, manly activity. Regarding the pagan flavor of the word compare what we have said in v. 3 and in 1 Pet. 2:9. Peter uses it twice in succession, once with reference to God (v. 3), again with reference to us, and both times it ought to be taken in the same and not in a different sense. It should not be Tugend, “virtue,” when it is ascribed to God. The plural found in 1 Pet. 2:9 means “praises” (C.-K.; G. K.); the singular means “praise” in v. 3. We submit that, when it is now used with reference to us, the singular must again mean “praise,” Ruhm, fame.

The sense would then be as pertinent as it is in v. 3 and in 1 Pet. 2:9. Our faith is not to be hid like a lamp under a bushel; it is to shine forth (Matt. 5:15, 16). Its fame and its praise are to be known. That is why ἀρετή is properly named first. The pseudo-prophets and the libertinists have no faith and hence no praise or fame with which to impress men and to glorify God. Our faith puts us in fellowship with no less than “divine nature” (v. 4); thus as “praise” belongs to God, and his own praise has drawn us to him in faith, so this our faith should shine out and have its corresponding praise to impress, influence, and help draw men to a like faith.

God’s praise (and glory) is like the sun: it is immense. The praise connected with our faith is only a reflection of his praise even as our faith is wrought by his praise (and glory). Yet our faith must have this its proper praise; its light must shine out.

Connected with this praise must be the corresponding γνῶσις, “knowledge.” Peter does not use the compound here as he does in v. 2 and 3. He keeps the emphasis on “knowledge” as being vital to this entire letter (note the remarks on v. 2 and 3); but with the use of the simplex he pits the gnosis of his Christian readers against the fake gnosis of the libertinists. That, too, is why this knowledge is number two in the list of seven, and why “in connection with the praise” connected with our faith there must be “the (corresponding) knowledge.” Ignorance of the Word, false conceptions of its teachings, would destroy the praise, would rob our faith of its proper praise; true knowledge of the Word enhances the praise. Read Col. 1:9, 10. “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is,” Eph. 5:17. The Jews had zeal, “but not according to knowledge,” Rom. 10:2. Blind, ignorant faith is the scorn of men—rightly so.

Let no Christian supply fuel for such scorn! Knowledge is a weapon that smites error, it wields the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17). Do not invite derision by going into the fight with ignorance! Invite praise by wielding knowledge.

2 Peter 1:6

6 The next item is very properly ἐγκράτεια, “self-control,” the very control that all libertinists lack. They give rein to their lusts; because of our knowledge we have the κράτος or active power to keep all appetites and desires under complete control. This proper self-control connected with knowledge of the Word is not a legalistic abstinence from what God permits; it is not of the style mentioned in Col. 2:21, 22. Nor is it the so-called temperance of prohibitionists or of Romish celibates. It, of course, controls all bodily appetites, but does so by controlling reason, emotions, and will through the knowledge of the Word and the will of God.

Next is ὑπομονή, literally, “remaining under,” which Trench calls the perseverantia, the brave patience which lets nothing adverse force it to give up. This μακροθυμία, “longsuffering,” is ascribed to God, it bears with evil men, but ὑπομονή is never predicated of God, for the Almighty is never affected by things. We, however, suffer from them, and ours must be steady, unwavering perseverance. “Patience” in our versions states only a part of what the word means. The liber-tinistic invasion foretold by Peter will distress his readers to no small degree; the steadfast “perseverance” that corresponds with and is connected with the true self-control will fortify, protect, and hold them true.

In connection with this true perseverance there should be “the (corresponding) godliness,” godly attitude, conduct in general and true worship. The false prophets and their following will be ungodly (ἀσεβεῖν, 2:6) and distress the readers with “lawless works” as Lot was once distressed (2:7). Hence, connected with perseverance or endurance, there is to be this true godliness in Peter’s readers.

2 Peter 1:7

7 Godliness in order to be true to God and to resist the ungodly and their lawless works, and then in connection therewith φιλαδελφία, “fraternal friendliness” toward all the brethren. We may say “brotherly affection.” The godly must cling together like so many brothers (ἀδελφοί) of one family, like so many friends (φίλοι), in close friendship and friendliness (φιλία). There can be no Philadelphia for the ungodly but only complete severance from them.

In connection with this “the (corresponding) ἀγάπη or love.” This noun and its corresponding verb are not always correctly denned. We have repeatedly defined this word for “love” as being the love of intelligence and full understanding which is always coupled with a strong, corresponding purpose. So God loved the foul world, knowing it fully and set on cleansing it; so we are to love even our enemies, understanding their enmity and set on freeing them from it. Φιλία is the love of affection; hence Φίλημα=“kiss,” the act of such affection. We cannot kiss our enemies; they would smite us in the face. Jesus warned and denounced his enemies, which was ἀγάπη; he did not “like” them, embrace them, call them his Φίλοι (John 15:15), greet them with a kiss.

Only with this understanding may we say that this final item “love” is broader than “fraternal friendliness” and that it extends to all men as does the agape of God. As “faith” was the start and source, so “love” is mentioned last as being the complete crown. The false prophets and their following have no brotherly affection for true believers, in fact, their affection for each other, if we may call it so, is a base thing; and agape, this most precious fruit of faith, is wholly foreign to them.

When this section is used as a text for a sermon, the items are naturally generalized, i. e., the special reason for their selection by Peter is omitted. Indeed, apart from false prophets and libertinists our faith must diligently supply all that is here connected with it by Peter; there can be no question about that. We have other lists in the New Testament that are similar to this one, and the selection of items in the list is always governed by the main object of the epistle, by the situation of the readers. Lists of pagan virtues and of pagan vices are at times compared. We can see no profit in such a comparison. Paganism cannot shed light on the Christian life.

Even when an identical term is used by pagans, one may be led astray unless care is exercised. There is a tendency today to be too wissenschaftlich by reading all New Testament words through pagan spectacles.

The Promise of the Entrance into the Eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, v. 8–11

2 Peter 1:8

8 “For” continues the grand sentence begun at v. 3 although, when we are translating it into English, we prefer to divide it. Peter supports his hortation by a positive (v. 8), then by a negative fact (v. 9), finally by a deduction (διό, v. 10) coupled with the supreme promise (v. 11).

Peter continues: for these things, belonging to you and abounding, set (you) down as not barren or unfruitful with regard to the knowledge from our Lord Jesus Christ. Ὑπάρχω with the dative=es steht zur Verfuegung; here: “these things being at your disposal,” i. e., “belonging to you.” Peter adds: “and abounding,” a word that Paul often uses to designate the abundance of spiritual gifts and works which he wants his readers to have. The participle is intransitive; it makes no difference whether we translate “abound” or “increase” since the things enumerated in v. 5–7 do not come about in a day, and in order to abound they must increase. “All diligence” (v. 5) will produce abundance; and the greater the abundance, the more evident it is that we are not “barren,” etc.

Καθίατησιν = they set you down, they render or establish you; ὑμᾶς is understood, the two accusative adjectives are predicative: “as not barren (the same word that is used in James 2:20: faith without the works is barren) or unfruitful with regard (εῖς) to the epignosis (v. 2, 3) from our Lord Jesus Christ”; this genitive is a genitive of source as it was in v. 2, 3, which see. The sense is that these fruits of faith prove that the full, true knowledge which our Lord has bestowed upon us as the means (διὰἐπιγνώσεως in v. 3) for granting us “all things regarding life and godliness’1’ has, indeed, produced what such knowledge should produce. This epignosis is a part of the “divine nature” in which we have fellowship; hence the point is again the source of this knowledge just as this is the point in v. 2, 3. The fact that this true knowledge also knows “our Lord Jesus Christ,” its source, is self-evident. This genitive of source thus says more than an objective genitive would.

“Not barren nor fruitless for the knowledge” (εἰς = a dative, R. 594) is a litotes and here a meiosis, saying in a negative and a mild way what is intended to be positive and strong. Epignosis is again brought forward as the key word of this epistle; it is in contrast with the errorists who lack this soil and produce nothing but thorns and briars in their lives. Peter wants his readers to be fortified with this genuine knowledge in order to resist the invasion of error that is impending.

2 Peter 1:9

9 Another “for” substantiates in a negative way: for he to whom are not present these things (the same ταῦτα as in v. 8) is blind, (he) being myopic, having received forgetfulness of the cleansing from his old sins. There is not “but” (A. V.) but only an extension of the reasoning. Peter drops the personal “you” and changes to the third person singular “he to whom.” He does not even think that his readers could lose their true knowledge; he only points to some errorist who has lost it. The grammars remark on the use of μή with the indicative in a relative clause; this is done because the relative is intended to be indefinite (R. 962; B.-D. 428, 4): any man who, etc.

Such a man is “blind,” but he is so in a certain way, as “being myopic,” μυωπάζων, being a μύωψ, a nearsighted person. This, too, is explained: λήθηνλαβών, “having received lethe, amnesia, forgetfulness.” The epignosis of real knowledge in his heart is lacking. Luther’s tappet mit der Hand like a blind man is finely interpretative of the first participle; not so good is the A. V.’s “cannot see afar off,” and the R. V.’s “seeing only what is near,” margin, “closing his eyes.” “Myopic” is exactly the proper word, for this is not a pagan who never heard the Word and is therefore blind; this is a person who knows about the Word but has only a useless glimmer left in his heart. “Having forgotten” is less exact than “having received forgetfulness”; this man let somebody give him amnesia. The one participle is present, μυωπάζων, to indicate this man’s continuous condition; the other is aorist, λαβών, to indicate what produced this condition in the past.

Even the main thing is forgotten: “the cleansing from his old sins” when this man was baptized and justified, was rid of all the old sins of his past life, when a new life opened before him, one that accorded with the items mentioned in v. 5–7. The memory of that cleansing is not an utter blank; this amnesia is a blank in the heart: all the power, effect, blessing are blotted out. The deadness, the barrenness of “corruption” have returned (v. 4). Peter describes a complete case. Such cases are not always complete, nor are only such cases a warning. Spiritual myopia and amnesia progress. When the fruits begin to be wanting, the barrenness has begun to set in.

2 Peter 1:10

10 We need not make a break even at this point, for δώ with μᾶλλον indicates a close connection in thought; it is unlike the δώ occurring in v. 12. Peter repeats his admonition about diligence (v. 5) as a deduction from v. 8, 9 and now turns it so as to introduce the great promise at which the pseudo-prophets scoffed: wherefore the more, brethren, be diligent in making sure for yourselves your calling and election, for by doing these things you will not stumble ever, for in this way there will be furnished for you richly the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The adverb μᾶλλον=“the more” and not “the rather” (A. V.) and recalls the “all diligence” mentioned in v. 5. This is the only place in both of his epistles where Peter uses the address “brethren,” and this fact makes the appeal the stronger. With the term “brethren” he joins himself to his readers and separates himself and them from the gospel of loose living and from all its adherents.

When Peter urges more diligence he does not refer to mere outward works, in which alone some find diligence; for that reason Peter uses only abstract terms in v. 5–7 and begins with faith itself. It is on the basis of this first admonition, with all diligence to furnish the true sevenfold spiritual evidences of faith, that this further admonition now asks the readers to apply diligence to secure the great final result. The first result is subjective and immediate: “making sure for yourselves your calling and election”; the second is objective and occurs at the end of life: the entrance furnished us into the eternal kingdom.

We note that the infinitive is the middle voice, ποιεῖσθαι, and the present tense: for themselves the readers are to make sure, firm, secure their calling and election, and they are to continue doing this. It is equally important to note that Peter has one article with the two nouns and not two, that he regards τὴνκλῆσινκαὶἐκλογήν as a unit and does not even place ἡμῶν between the nouns. This making sure is to continue throughout life; it is to make us ourselves sure that we are, indeed, God’s called and elect; our personal assurance and certainty are to pertain to our calling and election as being ever combined and not separate. This personal assurance is to rest on the true evidence, namely the evidence already described in v. 5–7, i. e., on the very evidence that Christ himself will hold up publicly to the entire universe at the last day (Matt. 25:34–40). It is never to rest only on our own claim and assertion that we are the called and elect.

Keil makes our election depend on our call: by our call we are segregated from the world. That is, of course, true. But this call takes place in time, the election in eternity. Others reverse this order and make our call depend on our election: we are called in time because we for some unknown reason have been elected in eternity. Just why we are elected is in their opinion a mystery. Calvin says that we are elected by an immutable, absolute decree of God, a decree of his absolute sovereignty. But Peter did not write “our election and call”; he wrote “our call and election.”

The fact that κλῆσις always means the effective and successful gospel call is certain; follow the word (noun, verb, and verbal) through the epistles. The fact that the ἐκλογή is the eternal election is told us in so many words in Eph. 1:4, and in 1 Pet. 1:2: “elect according to God the Father’s foreknowledge.” The point is not God’s relation to these acts of his. On that point we must ever remind ourselves that he is not subject to relations and limitations of time as we are; and it is this fact that causes us difficulty when we are dealing with eternity and with time. All that occurs in time from the first day to the last was present with God as already completed and done because he viewed it with his timeless, eternal mind.

Peter speaks of our certainty regarding these two acts of God, his calling and electing us. Our mind must combine these two in this order. In Rom. 8:29, 30 Paul combines them in the reverse order because he presents objectively the acts of God as our time-bound minds see them in their succession in God himself. Hence Paul writes: οὕς … τούτους, “those … whom,” speaking objectively; not ἡμᾶς … οὕς “us … whom.”

The Lutheran fathers have answered the rationalizing idea that what is eternally fixed and done cannot be made sure by us. Certainly, not as far as God is concerned. Peter is not dealing with God but with us, with our making our call and election sure for ourselves. Besser expounds admirably: “I know that the God of all mercy has called me to his eternal glory, unto which he chose me in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, and I am certain that he will keep me firm unto the end, unto the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 11). Whence comes this blessed firmness and certainty for me? From some special revelation concerning God’s secret counsel?

No; but from the common revelation of the divine will of grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ in whom I believe. Because I know in whom I believe, namely in the God who has saved me and called me with a holy calling according to his own purpose and grace, therefore I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day, 2 Tim. 2:9–12. When the God of all grace perfects, establishes, strengthens me in faith, 1 Pet. 5:10, then is my calling and election sure.” John Gerhard states it briefly: “As certain as you are of your faith and perseverance, so certain are you of your election.”

There is for us no certainty of our election apart from the certainty of our calling although the one took place in eternity, the other in time. This is not the absolute certainty of Calvin, which rests on an absolute decree for which Christ and his limited atonement and the means of grace and faith are only the mode of realization; but a conditioned, ordinate certainty, which is revealed in the Scriptures and is conditioned on Christ, the means of grace, the order of salvation. “If you abide in my Word, then are you truly my disciples,” John 8:32, i. e., ἐκλεκτοί Even as we also confess: “That he will also strengthen, increase, and support to the end the good work which he has begun in them if they adhere to God’s Word, pray diligently, abide in God’s grace, and faithfully use the gifts received,” Latin, si modo, German wo sie (wenn sie), C. Tr. 1069. To say that this is not certainty is to deny John 8:32 and our own confession.

Peter himself explains βεβαίαποιεῖσθαι, this continuous making sure and firm for ourselves, by using the same verb in the active participle: “for by doing these things you will not stumble ever,” i. e., will never stumble. This is the same ταῦτα, “these things,” that was used in v. 8, 9; it is placed forward in the same emphatic position and thus refers to the same things, namely to all those mentioned in v. 5–7. “These things” in v. 10 does not refer to the making firm our calling and election for ourselves for the reason that this “for” in the clause in v. 10 expounds how we make our calling, etc., sure. The transitive subjunctive is an aorist and thus denotes an act of stumbling that is final (as in Rom. 11:11): stumble so as to fall and lose salvation.

The Christian sins daily even when his calling and election are sure to him in the gospel manner. This reminds him of his danger. Such sins are not the fatal stumbling of which Peter speaks. When they hold fast the former cleansing (v. 9), this cleansing is renewed daily by daily forgiveness.

There is an implied warning: those who fail to do these things will, indeed, stumble decidedly (aorist) and fatally. Whether they will again be raised up to faith God alone knows. Many that stumble in this way are lost forever. The German theologians call them die Zeitglaeubigen, those who believe for a time and then fall away. By their own refusal to continue to do the things mentioned in v. 5–7 they furnish the evidence that God could not include them among the elect. Their final unbelief excludes them as completely as does the total unbelief of so many others.

It makes no difference how we look at this sad fact with our finite minds that are bound to ideas of time, whether we view it from eternity (the timelessness of God) or from the time when these people live, believe for a while, fall, and then die, or from the day of judgment. The thought to hold fast is the fact that these distinctions, with which we labor and which are confusing to many when they try to apply them to God and to his eternal act of election, do not exist for God. Halt when the water becomes too deep, do not presume!

2 Peter 1:11

11 The “for” used in v. 10 points those who keep doing these things to the blessed certainty which they have in this life; the parallel “for” occurring in v. 11 points them to the end of their life and to the last day. “There shall be furnished for you,” with its future tense, is a divine promise. Peter’s hortation is sealed with this promise. It is a divine seal also for our own certainty of faith. Here is the hope, which accompanies the faith and the love mentioned in v. 5–7. While the word “hope” is not used in this epistle—in First Peter it is the key word for assuring and comforting sufferers—the full substance of this hope is repeatedly presented in our epistle, presented for the knowledge (gnosis, epignosis) of the readers who must face the scorners of this hope.

Οὕτω, “thus,” “in this way,” is emphatic and repeats adverbially the three ταῦτα occurring in v. 8–10, “these things,” the continued doing of them. “Thus” has the force of a result. Πλοναίως, “richly,” is equally emphatic. It balances with the σπουδὴπᾶσα, “all diligence,” referred to in v. 5, to which also “thus” refers. The richness of God’s grace, which already in this life grants us all things for spiritual life and godliness (v. 3, 4), will at the end richly reward the diligence with which we have used his gifts of grace. Some will be saved “so as by fire” (1 Cor. 3:15), like one who barely escapes the fire. Peter wants his readers to be saved “richly” at the end.

The verb and the subject are transposed and are thus equally emphatic. Here we have the same verb “to furnish” that was used in v. 5, and it has the same connotation of sparing no expense. After God’s grace grants us everything for a godly life we are to furnish the fruits (v. 5–8), and so God will richly furnish us the grandest reward of grace at the end.

“The entrance into the kingdom” is not the objective road or portal as though this would be made wide and grand for the diligent, and all the angels would welcome them; the adverb is to be construed with the verb. This is the subjective Eintreten, Eingehen, the act of entering. God supplies all that the act needs in a rich measure. As for the way into heaven itself, this is Christ who is supplied by God already from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). God “will furnish” makes grace glorious and rich to the very end.

“The eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” is heaven into which the soul enters at death and the body at the Parousia. Here belong all those passages which describe heaven and the Parousia. “Kingdom” makes “our Lord and Savior” the eternal King. Consider together “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” and “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (v. 1), “our God and Lord Jesus” (v. 2), and “our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 8). He is God—Savior—Lord, and the possessive pronoun “our” confesses that he is such. Also consider together “righteousness from our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (v. 1), “knowledge from our God and Lord Jesus” (v. 2), “knowledge from our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 8), and “the eternal kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ”—righteousness—knowledge (epignosis)—the eternal kingdom.

Witz writes on the Christian life of faith: “It originates from heaven, it seeks heaven, it leads to heaven. It descends from the heavenly heights to prepare us for the eternal glory in the school of sanctification.” Rooting and growing in faith are ever and ever the indispensable evidences of the Christian faith and state. Unfruitfulness, sloth, blindness, shortsightedness are the reverse. The diligent, “bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him” (Ps. 126:6)—“faring in with radiant display and with joy leaping into yonder life.” Luther.

The promise made in v. 11, the climax of the whole admonition (v. 3–11), is intended as a bulwark against the pseudo-prophets and their following. Without obtruding his purpose, which will appear soon enough, Peter aims throughout this chapter to fortify his readers against the scoffers who will soon assail them. The pertinence of every line is thus evident; the titles and the wording of the greeting and of this promise in v. 11 are especially effective.

Peter’s Personal Concern for His Readers, v. 12–15

2 Peter 1:12

12 To be told that Peter is personally concerned about his readers “in regard to these things” will make the readers the more attentive to them. Wherefore (because thus, as stated in v. 11, God furnishes the entrance into the eternal kingdom) I shall be ready always to remind you concerning these things, i. e., the same ταῦτα that was mentioned in v. 8–10 and referred to the seven things which the readers are to furnish in connection with their faith (v. 5–7) although knowing (them) and having been strengthened in connection with the truth present (with you).

The future μελλήσω is used as a finite verb and does not form a periphrastic future with the infinitive, for we should then have the present μέλλω. The R. V.’s translation is correct: “I shall be ready,” ich werde gedenken, beabsichtigen, im Sinne haben, B.-P. 787. “It shall be my object always to remind you concerning these things” just as I am now doing this. The A. V. follows a very inferior reading that has a negative. “Always” is not to be reduced in force to “whenever I have a chance”; the adverb is to be construed with the infinitive and is emphatic. Such a constant reminding the readers have in this letter which they will keep and read again and again, by which they will “ever” be reminded of these things.

Ὑμᾶς is modified by the two accusative participles: you “though knowing (them) and having been strengthened in connection with the truth present (with you).” Peter acknowledges that his readers “know” these things. The second perfect is used as a present; but it is a form of οἶδα, to know by having something present to the mind, and not of γινώσκω or of ἐπιγινώσκω, to know with an effect and affect in the heart (see epignosis in v. 2, 3, 8, and gnosis in v. 5, 6). The effect of this knowing is expressed by the added participle “having been strengthened” and thus now being in this strengthened condition (perfect tense). Peter uses the verb that Jesus employed when he told him: “Strengthen thy brethren!” Luke 22:32.

Because of ἐν our versions render “established in the truth,” which is smoother English. Yet Peter, like Jesus, means “strengthen,” to give a certain degree of strength; and ἐν=“in connection with” the truth, the connection being the fact that they know it, hence we also have παρούσῃ; the truth “present with you.” The readers should have a constant reminding. In view of what follows regarding the lying prophets who will appear the readers will need all their strength. Their defense and their safety will be in the truth which they possess.

2 Peter 1:13

13 Moreover, I consider it right as long as I am in this tabernacle to keep stirring you in a reminder, knowing that the putting away of my tabernacle is swift even as also our Lord Jesus Christ made plain to me.

Δέ merely adds this as another consideration. Peter deems it the right thing as long as (literally, “for so much as”) he is in this tent or tabernacle, i. e., his earthly body which is only a temporary tent for this life, to keep stirring them (present infinitive, durative) in reminding or in a reminder (not “remembrance,” our versions). In John 6:18 the sea “was being stirred up” by the wind. The thought is that as long as Peter lives he deems it the right thing to make his readers keep on remembering by his reminding them (compare the infinitive in v. 12).

2 Peter 1:14

14 For he knows (εἰδώς as in v. 12) that the putting away of his tabernacle is swift as also our Lord Jesus Christ indicated to him. When his end comes, there will be no time for anything; it will be ταχινός, “swift,” (the same adjective that is used in 2:1). There is some discussion as to whether this means “swift, sudden,” or “soon.” We prefer the former. If it were the latter, what about 2:1? We know nothing about when, how, and where the Lord made this indication to Peter about his dying soon. Then this letter must be dated shortly before Peter’s end.

John 13:36 and 21:18, etc., “indicate” a violent death by martyrdom, hence one that is swift. Peter was now an old man (John 21:18); the Lord said that when he became old, somebody would tie a rope around his body and hale him to his death; so executioners did with their victims. See the writer on that passage. Peter’s end would be swift.

Peter again uses the full grand name for Jesus. He knows that what the Lord has indicated will surely occur, and his readers are to believe it with the same certainty. Peter has his own end before his eyes, which will be a swift end when it comes. He has just mentioned their entrance into the eternal kingdom (v. 11); he ever thinks of his own entrance there. They must be spiritually diligent; he certainly also aims to be. To put away a tent is not a mixing of figures. A tent is put away (ἀπό, not “off,” our versions), is not to be used any more because its inhabitant is going to a permanent place (1 Pet. 1:4). The Greek says “is swift” whereas we should mark the time and say “shall be swift.”

2 Peter 1:15

15 In v. 13 Peter speaks about the time that he still has to live; in v. 14 about his sudden and swift death; now about the time when he will be dead. His concern for his readers extends far beyond his own decease. Moreover, I shall use diligence for you to be able also on any occasion after my own decease to effect for yourselves the recollection of these things.

Δέ, “moreover,” makes another point of this; καί is to be construed with the adverb: “also on each (or any) occasion” that may require it. Ἔχεινὑμᾶς is to be understood in the sense of koennen, “for you to be able” (B.-P. 520), and is thus followed by the complementary infinitive ποιεῖσθαι (middle). The readers are to be able also at any time after Peter’s decease to effect for themselves the recollection of these things. Peter will be dead, unable again to write and to do the reminding for them; they will be able to do it for themselves whenever occasion arises.

It is interesting to note that Peter uses ἔξοδος just as it is used with reference to Jesus and with reference to his “decease” in the conversation that Moses and Elijah had with him at the time of his Transfiguration as recorded in Luke 9:31. It is the more interesting because in v. 17, 18 Peter recalls the Transfiguration. We also note that he uses the stronger possessive adjective ἐμήν “my own decease,” and not the weak enclitic pronoun μον, “my.” “I shall use diligence” is the same type of future as “I shall be ready” in v. 12.

There is a debate regarding what Peter means. Is this a promise to do some more writing on “these things” (the τούτων referred to in v. 12, which resumes the ταῦτα occurring in v. 8–10)? Some have argued that Peter promises more letters; others that this is a reference to Mark’s Gospel. Peter will see to it that Mark shall write. These opinions stress the future tense “I shall use diligence.” Some think that Peter intended to write more letters, but that he was soon put to death and was prevented from carrying out his intention.

We ask ourselves why Peter should delay, why he did not write all that he had to say on “these things” right here in this letter since he knows that, when death comes to him, it will be swift and leave no time for writing. He proceeds to do that very thing in what follows; “I shall use diligence” need not refer to an indefinite future, it may well refer to the effort that Peter is about to make in the main body of this letter. Peruse it. Peter certainly proceeds to enable his readers at any future time to do their own reminding, namely to the effect that they must hold to “these things” mentioned in v. 5–7 as they are re-enforced by v. 8–11 on any and every occasion when libertinistic prophets and scoffers appear to mislead them. In other words, v. 15 is the preamble to all that follows. Peter does not put off what he has to say; that would not be right (δίκαιον, v. 13). His readers need only reread these chapters at any time and thus “effect for themselves the recollection of these things.”

Not Myths but Divine Revelation, v. 16–21

2 Peter 1:16

16 There is certainly reason for such diligence on Peter’s part in view of the future which his readers will have to face. For not by following out sophisticated myths did we make known to you the power and Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ but as became eyewitnesses of his majesty, for instance, when receiving from God (the) Father honor and glory, a voice being brought to him, such a one by the majestically befitting glory: This is my Son, the beloved, in regard to whom I was well pleased! And this voice we on our part heard brought out of heaven, being together with him on the mount, the holy one.

In this epistle the issue is “the power and Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The grand designations for Christ used in v. 1 and 2 plus “the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” in v. 11 reflect this issue which is fully revealed in 3:3–14: “the promise of his Parousia” (3:4), “not slack concerning his promise” (3:9), “the day of the Lord” (3:10). The pseudo-prophets, of whose coming Peter warns his readers, will charge that the true apostles followed out nothing but σεσοφισμένοιμῦθοι when they made known the Lord’s Parousia, “sophisticated myths,” of the nature of sophisms, “cunningly devised fables.” In this way these lying prophets will seek to dispose of the apostolic teaching. The perfect participle conveys the thought that these myths have the abiding character of sophistication or spurious wisdom. In the aorist participle “by following out” there lies the sneer that what the apostles said about the Parousia was not even a “myth” but only a deduction from cunningly fabricated myths.

The double terms have but one article: “the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and Parousia,” so that “power and Parousia” constitute one idea, “power” bringing out the thought of the omnipotent might involved in the Lord’s second coming (compare what is said in 3:10–13). The pagan use of the word “parousia” as a designation for the coming, presence, or visit of an emperor in some city, that city dating further events from such an imperial visit, sheds but little light on the Biblical use of this term. This word was used by the Twelve and by Jesus in Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39, and they had not borrowed it from paganism. The Twelve and Jesus also spoke Aramaic in Matthew 24 and used an Aramaic equivalent for this term.

Note that the aorist verbs and the participles occurring in v. 16–18 are strictly historical aorists that designate historical facts as facts and nothing more. Thus Peter speaks of the fact: we made known to you the Parousia. Again the fact: we did not follow out myths; on the contrary, the fact is that we were eyewitnesses of Christ’s majesty. Paul, too, uses “myths” in 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7 (“profane and old womanish myths”); 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14 (Jewish myths”); but these were silly inventions that were attached to Old Testament personages and were disseminated as most valuable wisdom. Here the apostles themselves will be charged with fabricating or using myths about Jesus with which they bolster up the notion of Christ’s Parousia.

Precisely whom does Peter refer to when he says that we became “eyewitnesses of his majesty”? Only three men were eyewitnesses of Christ’s Transfiguration, and only two of these three were now living; Herod had killed James a long time ago (Acts 12:2). Some think that Peter’s “we” refers only to John and to Peter, and that thus these two had brought the gospel to the people addressed in this letter. This idea is removed the moment the γάρ of v. 17 is understood. All the apostles were “eyewitnesses of his majesty.” “We beheld his glory, glory of the Only-Begotten from the Father,” beheld it when he tented among us, John 1:14. All of them also saw the risen Lord, saw his ascension.

Nobody knows who of them brought the gospel to Peter’s readers save that Peter was one of them. The “majesty” here referred to is divine: “our God and Savior” (v. 1), “our God and Lord” (v. 2); it is the majesty of the eternal King (v. 11).

2 Peter 1:17

17 When R. 1135 calls λαβών a violent anacoluthon he is evidently mistaken. This view is due to the fact that the meaning of γάρ is misunderstood. This particle does not mean “for” in the sense that it introduces a finite verb which Peter omitted and thus caused an anacoluthon. All of the anacolutha, of which so much is made especially in connection with Paul’s epistles, are intentional, are used to convey what could not be conveyed as well by other means. We hope that a proper study of the anacoluthon as a legitimate form of expression will soon be made.

The γάρ equals “for instance” as it does in other cases where it introduces a specific instance after a broader statement, here it introduces the fact that we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. At the time of the Transfiguration Peter, James, and John saw Christ in his majesty—a notable instance, indeed. When Peter writes: “This voice we on our part (ἡμεῖς) heard brought out of heaven,” it is quibbling to say that the eyewitnesses are now suddenly converted into earwitnesses. When they were together with Jesus (associative σύν and descriptive ὄντες) did they only hear and not see? Does λαβών not say that Jesus “received from God (the) Father honor and glory”? Do Peter’s readers not know the whole story of the Transfiguration?

In the Greek the participle has number, case, and gender and is thus used in a manner that the English participle cannot imitate. The form λαβών is a participle and not a finite verb because Peter intends to have what he says about this instance regarded as subsidiary; he could have reported still other instances of the majesty. Although his statement is attached to ἐκείνου and, back of that, to τοῦΚυρίσυ‚ κτλ, which are genitives, Peter does not continue with a genitive because he wants to follow with a succinct genitive absolute: φωνῆς, etc. He is perfectly free to use the nominative λαβών ad sensum, in fact, could do so even if he had not chosen to use the following genitive absolute. Every Greek reader or hearer understood the thought instantly and without effort especially since this is the nominative singular and a masculine.

The aorist λαβών denotes only the historical fact: “when receiving from God the Father honor and glory”; γάρ excludes any relation of time with something else. The nominative case itself prevents this. In the Greek “God Father” is considered as one name; “Father” is added here because “my Son” follows. The genitive absolute makes it clear that Christ’s receiving honor and glory is the historical receiving at the time of the Transfiguration and not at some other time (resurrection, ascension). Since the genitive absolute: “a voice brought to him to this effect by majestic glory,” etc., is simply placed beside λαβών, this is clear, for there is no dependence or relation of time in this genitive absolute. The aorist ἐνεχθείσης states no more than a fact. As God made Jesus “receive,” so “a voice was brought” to him by God.

Instead of saying “God,” Peter does more by saying “by the majestically befitting glory.” This is the glory from which Jesus received honor and glory. Ὑπό is the regular preposition used to indicate the agent with a passive. So “the glory” is personified. Yet this is Peter’s own expression for God (not a borrowed one). This is an exceptional adjective which is found in Deut. 33:26, and in 2 Macc. 8:15; 15:13; 3 Macc. 2:9, a compound of μέγας and πρέπει, “great” and “it befits.” “Excellent” in our versions is an inadequate translation, for this μεγαλοπρεπὴςδόξα = the μεγαλωιότης mentioned in v. 16, the one word meaning “greatness” in the sense of “majesty,” the other “befittingly great,” or, as we venture to indicate the correspondence, “majestically befitting” glory. We have here an instance of Peter’s fondness for repeating: glory—glory; and the two terms compounded with “great.” The correlative demonstratives such as τοιᾶσδε (here the feminine) have almost died out (R. 709): “a voice, such a one, i. e., so einzigartig (B.-P. 1312), so phenomenal, by the majestically befitting glory.”

Since Peter uses the accusative in v. 18: “this voice we heard,” we see that “a voice … such a one” refers to what the voice said and not to the kind of voice that it was even as also the ὑπό phrase already indicates the kind of voice, the speaking was done “by the majestic glory.” Thus Peter simply quotes what the glory said: “This is my Son, the beloved, in regard to whom I was well pleased!” It is the Father who says “my Son.” The Father thus calls him the second person of the Godhead. “The beloved” is an apposition, and, like most verbals, this verbal adjective is passive: “beloved by the Father.” The verb ἀγαπᾶν, from which ἀγαπητός is derived, denotes the highest type of love, that of fullest understanding and perfect corresponding purpose. The Son is truly worthy of this love of his Father.

We properly have such love indicated here and not that designated by φιλία or affection. The latter certainly also exists between the two divine persons, but here “the beloved” is the Son ensarkois, incarnate, whose human nature is transfigured in glory as it shall be forever when the redemption is complete. The fact that the Father loves the Son asarkos need not be announced. On three different occasions God proclaimed his approval of the incarnate Son and his work; at the time of his baptism, of his transfiguration, and shortly before his passion (John 12:28, etc.) Peter refers to the second of these three because of the glory in which the Son’s human nature appeared.

Some regard ἀγαπητός as equivalent to μονογενής “the only-begotten” and assert that this is the fixed meaning of this term. The evidence adduced, however, proves only this fact that an only son was at times also called “the beloved son” as, for instance, in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, which is regarded as the chief proof passage. We object to the sense that is attributed to μονογενής, namely that in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 the term refers only to the human birth of Jesus and not to the generatio æterna of the Son in his divine nature. The Son was “the only-begotten” from eternity and is called “the beloved” while he was in his human nature engaged in his redemptive work.

We have three accounts of the Transfiguration: Matt. 17:1, etc.; Mark 9:2, etc.; Luke 9:28, etc.; these three were not written by eyewitnesses. It is noteworthy that in place of “the beloved, in whom I was well pleased,” Luke 9:36 has ὁἐκλελεγμένος, “the one who has been chosen or elected,” although the variant reading “the beloved” also appears in important texts. It seems, however, that this reading was introduced only to make Luke to conform with Matthew and with Mark. The voice on the mount spoke in Aramaic, which the Evangelists and Peter translate. This means that Luke’s translation is in substance the same as that of the others who write “in whom I am well pleased.” This aorist is not gnomic. Our versions seem to have had this idea in mind when they translated it as a present tense: “In whom I am well pleased.” This aorist is historical, and Luke’s perfect tense “the one who has been elected or chosen” makes this clear.

The verb εὑδοκεῖν, “to be well pleased,” often has an intensive meaning when it is used with reference to a person and is then equal to ἐκλέγεσθαι and αἱρετίζειν, the former of which was chosen by Luke: “to select or choose for oneself.” The good pleasure expresses itself in the choice, Luke’s perfect participle saying that, once so expressed, the choice stands; the aorist used by Peter and by the other two simply registers the past fact, which the Father’s voice from heaven, however, states anew. The good pleasure of the Father’s choice must be dated in eternity (Rev. 13:8). See C.-K. 353. Whereas Matthew and Mark have ἐν, Peter has εἰς. This is either static εἰς: “in whom,” or is to be understood in the sense of “in regard to whom I was pleased”; in English we should say “have been pleased.” The Father’s good pleasure and choice refer to the Son in his incarnation and his redemptive work even as the Son’s human nature was transfigured, and the conversation with Moses and Elijah dealt with “the decease (ἔξοδος) which the Son should accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31).

2 Peter 1:18

18 Peter says that this wondrous voice “was brought or conveyed” to Jesus; how this was done he does not presume to say. By adding the participle: we “being together with him on the mount, the holy one,” he intends to say that he was one who was present with others; they certainly were ἐπόπται, “eyewitnesses” in the fullest sense of the word (v. 16). By adding the adjective “holy” with a second article Peter lends it emphasis (R. 776).

Efforts to locate this mountain are futile. The traditional site, Mount Tabor, will not do at all since Jesus had been in the north and had returned to Capernaum and had as yet not gone as far south as Tabor. Peter calls this mountain “the holy one” because of the fact of the transfiguration; there is no trace of its having been termed holy before this and for some prior reason.

Peter does not tell the whole story of the Transr figuration. He does not use the accounts of the Evangelists, for he helped to inform them, and not they him. Thus all four accounts agree perfectly. The point of importance for Peter is “this voice”; “we on our part (the witnesses present) heard it conveyed to Jesus out of heaven.” Note that “voice” and “brought (conveyed)” are repeated. Peter has already noted the phenomenal character of this voice: τοιᾶσδε marks what it said and the kind of voice that it was, he again emphasizes “this voice,” and now stresses the fact that “we on our part heard it.” This is a direct revelation, directly made by the Father himself, directly received by the witnesses. Let those who will regard it as being merely a “myth.” This revelation attests the glory and the deity of the Son in his earthly life by a voice and a revelation that were so einzigartig. This is he whom Peter has truly named in v. 1, 2, 11, whose Parousia will come in spite of all scoffers, for whom Peter’s readers are to wait with unshakable assurance.

2 Peter 1:19

19 And we have as more sure the prophetic Word, to which you are doing well in giving heed as to a lamp shining in a dismal place till day dawns and a light-bearer arises in your hearts; etc. “And” adds in the sense of “and so” as when a resultant fact is added. When Peter says “we have as more certain,” etc., he refers to himself and to all the apostles as those who made known the power and the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ. This “we” in the verb does not refer to Peter and to his readers, for “you do well” follows. Nor is it the emphatic “we” (ἡμεῖς) used in v. 18 which = Peter, James, and John at the time of the transfiguration. All the apostles became eyewitnesses of Christ’s majesty on many occasions, namely from their first to their last contact with him here on earth, and thus did not follow sophisticated myths in what they made known about his Parousia.

Thus all the apostles “have as more sure the prophetic Word,” namely “all prophecy of Scripture” (v. 20), the entire Old Testament which prophesied about Christ, in particular also about his power and his Parousia (v. 16). When they became eyewitnesses of his majesty, this their own experience with Christ made the entire prophetic Word more sure to them, and so they made it known to all to whom they preached.

Note that βεβαιότερον is predicative and thus emphatic: “we have as more sure (firm) the prophetic Word.” Luther misses this construction when he translates wir haben ein festes prophetisches Wort and makes the comparative adjective attributive and not predicative and even loses the comparative idea. The A. V. does the same although it retains the comparative. The opinion that Peter compares the prophetic Word with the transfiguration and calls this Word “more sure” than the transfiguration (v. 17, 18) or than all the majesty which the apostles came to see in Christ (v. 16–18) is untenable. No, after seeing Christ’s majesty the Old Testament prophecies were surer than ever to the apostles; they based nothing of their preaching on “myths” of any kind. By its fulfillment the fulfilled prophecy is naturally made more sure than it was while it was still awaiting fulfillment.

Regarding this prophetic Word Peter says to his readers that “they are doing well in taking heed to it” (complementary participle, R. 1121). How well they are doing this the apposition states: “as to a lamp shining in a dismal place,” etc, Αὑχμηρός is another of Peter’s rare words, which our versions render “dark,” and in which so many find the idea of darkness because Peter speaks of a lamp shining. They also find this “place” in the hearts of Peter’s readers. But people who are doing well are not be likened to “a dismal place.” The imagery does not refer to the outdoors and picture a traveller trying to pick his way amid a strueppige Wildnis, a Wirrsal of rocks, brambles, and jungle. This “place” is a house in which a “lamp” may afford some light until day breaks.

Peter indicates what kind of house this is; it is “dismal,” indeed, with its “heresies of perdition” and denial of the Master (2:1), with heretics speaking evil of the truth, making merchandise of you (2:2, 3), and carrying on their libertinism, etc. In a house of this kind, that is dismal for any righteous soul (2:7), Peter’s readers will be compelled to live their earthly lives. Their one hope and help is “the prophetic Word” which tells of Christ who also has come, and whose majesty the apostles have actually seen, and foretells the dawn of a better day at his Parousia. The room that Peter has in mind is worse than dark; it is full of dreadful dangers, and in order to see these and to guard ourselves against them we need this divine and brightly shining lamp.

The next clause is to be construed with the preceding one because it contains “your”: you are doing well in giving heed “till day dawn and a light-bearer arises in your hearts.” When day dawns, one no longer needs “a lamp.” Although he says only “day” (qualitative) and not “the day,” the great day of the Lord, Peter, nevertheless, refers to that day; but its “dawning” refers only to its breaking, to the great signs that immediately usher it in for the whole world. This dawning is described in 3:10–12.

The rest of the clause, and especially the phrase “in your hearts,” cause some perplexity. Φωσφόρος = “light-bearer.” One such “light-bearer” is the prophetic Word which Peter says serves as a lamp during this entire time until day breaks. It will be followed by another “light-bearer,” of which Peter says that it will “arise,” ἀνατέλλω; he uses a verb that refers to the rising of the sun or of a star so that this “light-bearer” is far greater than a stationary lamp with reference to which such a verb cannot be used.

Some identify this “light-bearer” with the ὁἀστὴρὁπρωϊνός mentioned in Rev. 2:28, “the morning star,” and with ὁἀστὴρὁλαμπρὸςὁπρωϊνός, “the star, the brilliant one, the morning one,” in Rev. 22:16, which Jesus says “I am.” Aside from this identification Peter’s meaning is apprehended when our versions translate “day-star,” i. e., not the sun itself but the bright morning star, “Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, or Venus, when rising shortly before the sun and forming a conspicuous object in the sky just before dawn” (Standard Dictionary). Dawning day and this daystar’s rising thus go together, the latter is the mark of the former.

Peter says that day will dawn and this harbinger of the day will arise “in your hearts.” The best commentary is Luke 21:28: “When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your head; for your redemption draweth nigh,” and Matt. 24:32, “ye know that summer is nigh.” Both the dawning day and its accompanying daystar’s appearing above the horizon are objective. Yet “in your hearts” modifies both and is subjective. For these hearts will apprehend what is happening; the hearts of all other men will not apprehend. The approaching light of the eternal day will not merely come on the outside, it will fill the hearts of the believers. Peter states it beautifully and truly indeed.

As this dawn breaks more and more it will supersede the lamp of the prophetic Word just as fulfillment always supersedes prophecy. The readers will repeat the experience of the apostles: the more they became eyewitnesses of the majesty of Jesus, the more what they actually saw in Jesus took the place of what the old prophets had foretold about him (John 1:14). This will be true to the greatest degree when the dawn of the eternal day actually breaks (note the aorists in the “till” clause). It is quite correct to say that the believers who are living near the end of time will know what is taking place and will lift up their hearts in joyous expectation just as Jesus says in Luke 21:28. That this does not and cannot conflict with 3:10 and the figure of the thief coming in the night we shall see in the interpretation of 3:10.

We scarcely need to say that 2 Cor. 4:4, 6 are not parallel passages, for they deal with conversion, the conversion which the Corinthians had already experienced; moreover, 2 Cor. 4:6 uses the first creation of light by God recorded in Gen. 1:3 as its imagery. We also do not construe “in your hearts” with the statement made in verse 20. The phrase cannot be restricted to the daystar’s arising but modifies the day’s dawning as well.

2 Peter 1:20

20 The prophetic Word is surer than ever since the apostles saw the majesty of Jesus (foretold in this Word); three of them in particular witnessed also the transfiguration and heard that phenomenal voice from heaven. The readers certainly do well to heed this Word as their lamp till a still greater light-bearer finally arises: realizing this, first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture occurs from one’s own interpretation, for not by man’s will was prophecy ever brought, but as borne along by the Holy Spirit from God men made utterance.

The participle is not an anacoluthon as R. 1039 asserts but modifies the “you” in “you are doing well.” In a fine Greek way the realizing of what is said about all of Scripture’s prophecy is made subsidiary (hence the participle) to the heeding of this prophecy. Peter chose the proper word when he wrote γινώσκοντες, personal realizing and not merely intellectual knowing, which is never sufficient protection. Many things are to be realized, but the one mentioned here is the most important and thus πρῶτον, the very first.

It is not a Hebraism to place “not” with the verb: “all prophecy does not occur” is only the Greek idiom for the English “no prophecy occurs.”

It is a prevalent conception that Peter intends to say: no person (some add: not even one of the prophets) is to interpret the Scripture’s prophecies according to his own notion—which is, of course, true enough. Our versions translate in this way. Then, however, Peter does not say how we are to interpret these prophecies. The commentators add that we must let the Holy Spirit interpret the prophecies. Although Peter does not say this, this, too, is true. Luther is a sample: “Thou art not to interpret thyself, the Holy Spirit himself is to interpret it, or it is to be left un-interpreted.” When we are told about the darkness and the obscurity of the Old Testament prophecies we dissent; such comment forgets that “the prophetic Word” is no less than “a shining lamp.” Its light is clear and not by any means dark according to Peter. He has especially shown that this is more than ever the case since Christ has come (v. 16–19).

The fact that ἐπιλύσεως means “interpretation” is beyond question. In Gen. 40:8 it is so used with reference to a dream; in Mark 4:34 the verb is used with reference to parables. The genitive is an ablative (R. 514). Ἰδίας does not refer to the prophecy of Scripture and does not convey the idea that this prophecy does not supply its “own interpretation.” Scriptura undoubtedly ex Scriptura explicanda est; in this way the Spirit interprets Scripture. Οὑγίνεται with its ablative=“does not occur from,” come or originate from. It is not the interpretation of anyone that governs the prophecy, but the prophecy governs the interpretation. Peter reverts to v. 16. The apostles did not invent myths and then in order to square with such myths prophesy a Parousia of Christ; no prophecy of Scripture was ever spoken in such a way: the prophet conceiving the way in which he wanted his interpretation and then shaping the prophecy to suit. Then the scoffers would, indeed, be right in scoffing at all such prophecies and calling them “myths,” yea, “sophisticated myths,” whether they were invented by the apostles (v. 16) or by the Old Testament prophets.

The proposition here laid down is general, hence we have the present tense which is regularly used in such general statements and also the universal πᾶσα … οὑ: “no Scripture prophecy occurred,” etc. To say that Peter should speak historically and use the aorist is to tell him what he should write. What is wrong with this general proposition?

To what lengths the opinion that Peter tells us how Scripture must not be interpreted has led we see in the case of the Council of Trent, Sessio IV: ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei et morwn ad aedificationem doctrinae christianae pertinentium s. Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens contra eum sensum, quern tenuit et tenet sancta Mater Ecclesia, cuius est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturam, sanctarum, aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum, ipsam scripturam sacram interpretari audeat.

2 Peter 1:21

21 Peter speaks of the origin of prophecy: “for not by man’s will was prophecy ever brought”; anything that any human being ever willed (θέλημα) had absolutely nothing to do with divine prophecy. Only false prophets utter prophecies that originate in what they have willed. They want things to happen their way and then so prophesy them; they fix up a certain ἰδίαἐπίλυσις, a certain interpretation of their own, and then fix up their prophecies so that men will find that meaning in them. It is their standard procedure. They cry: “Peace, peace!” just because they want peace when peace is the last thing to expect, when God says that there is none and is to be none. False prophets foretold that Jerusalem would never fall, that it would crush the Romans; that is what they wanted. They fixed symbolical, allegorical, figurative language to bear such an “interpretation,” but Jerusalem was utterly destroyed.

Ἀλλά states that true prophecy is the very opposite: “on the contrary, as borne along by the Holy Spirit from God men made utterance.” In v. 21 Peter uses historical aorists. The present participle φερόμενοι is descriptive: “borne along,” ὑπο denotes the agent with the passive: “by the Holy Spirit.” The verb is used with reference to ships that are borne along on a certain course by the wind (Acts 27:15, 17).

Thus “men” ἐλάλησαν, “spoke,” “made utterance” (the opposite is to keep silence). The verb is not λέγω as though these human beings contributed anything to the substance of the thought. Peter’s verb makes them only mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:22 the angel expresses the same thought: “the thing spoken by (ὑπό) the Lord by means of (διά) the prophet.” These significant prepositions appear often. The Lord God “made utterance by the mouth (διὰστόματος) of his holy prophets,” Luke 1:70. The Holy Spirit “spoke in advance by means of (διά) David’s mouth”; so also Luke 3:18, 21; 4:25.

Since ἐλάλησανἀπὸΘεοῦ is placed together, we translate, “spoke from God”; what they spoke came wholly “from” him. The readers do well to be heeding “the prophetic Word,” “all Scripture prophecy,” as spoken in this way. Truly, it is the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13), a shining lamp, indeed.

This is not a caution or a warning on the part of Peter that his readers are not to misinterpret the Scriptures. Peter does not say, “Be careful about using this shining lamp!” He says, “Use it! It is a shining lamp!”

There are men who interpret this passage and never once use the word inspiration. This is one of the great sedes for the fact of inspiration. Peter presents the fact, not a theory, not a hypothesis. The fact is that God and the Spirit are the real speakers, the anthrõpoi are their mouthpieces. Our fathers, therefore, called God the causa efficiens or principalis, the speakers (writers) the causae instrumentales. The act itself they called the suggestio rerum et verborum, meaning by this what Peter calls φερόμενοι, “borne along by the Spirit.” Since both the Hebrew ruach and the Greek πνεῦμα mean breath, wind, Peter’s participle is most expressive to denote the act of inspiration, this word “inspire” (from the Latin) is equally perfect.

The result attests the divine act. As no man ever spoke like this man Jesus (John 7:46), so no book ever spoke like this Book. None was ever scrutinized down to its every particle like this one; none has had such intensive and extensive commentaries written about it, the last of which is not yet in sight. None has experienced such assaults and has after every surge of attack appeared only the more as “the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture” (Gladstone), a Gibraltar that only smiles at attack.

Our fathers used three illustrations for the two causae, efficient and instrumental: a man dictating to an amanuensis; a player blowing the flute; a plectrum striking the strings of a lyre; in all three the tertiuim is the fact that the causa efficiens produces its desired results by means of the causae instrumentales. The fathers offered these illustrations as illustrations of this point just as any man seeks to illumine some point by means of illustrations.

If a man’s illustration is not adequate, show him a better one! Do so in the case of these three. But what has been done with our fathers’ illustrations? Some have selected one of these illustrations and have charged the fathers with “the dictation theory” They never charge them with “the flute theory” or with “the lyre theory” but confine themselves to the one illustration. Since when is an illustration that I or any man uses “a theory’“! An illustration should be distinguished from a theory. All similes limp, but only because they are only similes, for which reason those fathers also used no less than three. Compare the discussion of 2 Tim. 3:14–17, and of 1 Cor. 2:12, 13.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

G. K Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C. Tr Concordia Triglotta. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church, German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo., Concordia Publishing House.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.