This is a discussion I had with my bible study teammates on 2Pe 1:19 last night. Feel free to comment on my logic and uncover any flaws from it. The last thing I want is to present a bible passage the wrong way. Thanks.
________________________________________
Subject: More on 2Pe 1:19
Here’s my view on the verse. Could any of you please let me know whether it makes sense to you?
Thanks,
Dandan
I vouch for the interpretation of 1a. First of all, verse 1:19 says “we have also a more sure word of prophecy”. The conjunction “also/and” does not carry a negative sense and the word “have” here means possess in the present tense. It should be viewed as a supporting statement rather than a comparative one. If Peter intended to compare his witness of transfiguration and the word of prophecy, he could have said clearly “the word of prophecy is more sure on this” or “but we have …”. As verse 2:1 says, “but there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”, some believers could have been shaken by the heresies that the false teachers/prophets brought in. If these false teachers/prophets denied the Lord that bought them, then they didn’t believe in Jesus, and their teaching could have been based on the OT alone, and most probably the word of prophecy in the scripture. My take is it was important that Peter brought up his witness of transfiguration to make a point that the word of prophecy in the scripture actually supported the truth that Jesus was the Savior, rather than denying it. And as those false teachers/prophets denied Jesus, Peter was making a statement that these people made their own “private interpretations” on the word of prophecy, something must not be done. On the contrary, per verse 1:16, Peter showed that he and the other disciples understood the word of prophecy not by “following cunningly devised fables”. The way they did it was through eyewitnesses. Note that he didn’t directly use the word of prophecy as an argument to proof the authenticity of their fable regarding the power and coming of Jesus. But the transfiguration of Christ itself provided a solid support of that fable they taught. And his witness of transfiguration was consistent with the word of prophecy, thus, his witness of transfiguration confirmed the word of prophecy. And such witness, together with, the word of prophecy, jointly supported the fable he and the other disciples taught regarding the power and coming of Jesus.
________________________________________
Subject: More on 2Pe 1:19
There are (at least) two different but widespread interpretations on verse 1:19, per
BNN and
GEB.
1. One interpretation is such that Peter wasn’t trying to compare the trustworthiness his witness of transfiguration with that of the word of the prophets.
a. On the contrary, the transfiguration confirmed the trustworthiness of the word of the prophets, as in the NIV Bible, according to
ACC,
JFB,
PNT,
RWP,
SRN, and
WEN.
2. Another interpretation is that he meant that the word of the prophets was “more sure” than his witness of transfiguration, as in the KJV Bible, according to
BCC and
MHC-COM. This was the view most of you cling to.
BTW, I now understand that I was wrong about considering the event of transfiguration itself a prophecy that foretold the second coming of Jesus. Thanks for taking time to clarify.
Thank you all,
-Dandan
