The Word of God is Important (2 Peter 1:12-21)

Peter has described what a holy life looks like in the previous verses. Did he think that his readers would recall what he had written? Whether he did or not, he did not want to make any assumptions that they would. So he proceeded to give them an explanation of how they would remember his words.

The method of repetition (v. 12)

Sometimes people imagine that to hear something once is sufficient. Yet is that the case? Apparently, people only retain one third of what they hear in an address, which may explain the advice that says a preacher in a sermon should follow the method of (1) an introduction in which he tells the audience what he is going to say, (2) the substance of his address, (3) followed by a summary of what he has said. Whether Peter would have approved of that method is impossible to say, but he did approve of repetition even to those who already knew the doctrines of the faith, which here meant him focussing on aspects of the doctrine of sanctification (the qualities that he had listed in the previous verses).

There may have been several reasons for that problem of not retaining what should be retained in our minds. One could be only mentioning favourite doctrines. Second, another could be the possibility of not mentioning Jesus in a sermon, which I have heard some preachers do in their sermons, particularly when speaking about Bible characters from the Old Testament. Third, some doctrines need further explanation, so repetition is necessary for understanding them. No doubt, there are other reasons. But the obvious point is that repetition of truths is good for the soul.

The mission of Peter (vv. 13-15)

Peter knew that he would soon leave this world. Jesus had warned him about his exit three decades previously, but he had not told him when it would take place (as recorded in John 21). Peter was now in his sixties, which was old at that time in history. A short time after writing this letter, Peter was crucified (he does not say that he personally would put off his body, but that someone else would do it).

Jerome tells us that Peter was crucified upside down at his own request because he did not regard himself as worthy enough to be crucified in the same way as his Master. Clement of Alexandria, as quoted by F. B. Meyer, tells us that Peter’s wife was crucified first: ‘They say that when Peter beheld his wife led out to death, he rejoiced at her calling of her Lord and her conveyance to her heavenly home; and he cried out, encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, “Oh, remember thou the Lord! Such was the marriage of that blessed pair, and their perfect agreement in those things that were dearest to them.’

Peter here shows us the extent of his dedication. He could have tried to avoid his fate, but he did not. Instead, he intensified his efforts the shorter the time he had available. He was not concerned about himself because he knew that he was going to heaven, but he was concerned about the believers that he knew, for whom he had a pastoral heart, and who had to be prepared for his absence.

What was the desire of Peter? We can see it in the clause ‘after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.’ He knew that for his readers there were occasions coming when they would need to recall what they had been taught. So he made it his mission to tell them in such a way that they would recall them, which of course tells us that it is possible to learn them well.

The majesty of Jesus (vv. 16-18)

Peter had obviously told his readers about the Transfiguration of Jesus, an indication that it was a crucial event in his earthly journey. Peter had been given a foretaste of what it will be like to see the glorified Christ. As a result, Peter knew what it would mean to see the exalted Saviour in the future because he, along with James and John, had seen Jesus when he was glorified and remained with them in that state for a while on the mountain. Those apostles had seen something unique – the real identity of Jesus of Nazareth.

God the Father on that occasion gave honour and glory to Jesus. Peter does not mean that the Father added honour and glory to the divine nature of Jesus because he already possesses all honour and glory, and he has always done so. Rather, Peter has in mind the exaltation of the human nature of Jesus and here, on the mountain, the three disciples were given a foretaste of what would occur when Jesus ascended to heaven after his death and resurrection.

Some words become unsuitable to use of beautiful sights when one has seen a better. A person may think a sunset in Scotland is glorious until he sees one at the Grand Canyon which is so great that the former is forgotten. After seeing the glorified Christ, of whom else could Peter use the word ‘majestic’? After all, Matthew says that the face of Jesus shone like the sun and Mark and Luke say that his clothes shone exceedingly brightly. It was an extraordinary experience to see their Master in this way.

Moreover they had heard amazing words conveyed to Jesus in a marvellous manner. The voice of the Father instructed them out of the cloud (the Majestic Glory is a way of describing the shekinah glory) that appeared on the mountain and told them who Jesus is and to what degree the Father estimated the work of his Son. Here we have a reference to the dignity of Jesus – he is the eternal Son; to the divine affection of the Father for Jesus; and to the delight of the Father in the perfect life of Jesus.

Peter stresses that he and James and John heard the Father’s voice. What could be more authoritative than that voice? Moreover, he spoke from heaven, and what could be more binding than a word from that source? Peter perhaps is also saying that the location of the Transfiguration was greater than a previous mountain to which God came down – Sinai, which was called the holy mountain, but now so was the mountain on which the Transfiguration took place. What a privilege was given to them! Could anything be more significant?

So we can say that Peter was astonished by what he saw happening to Jesus. Then it was affirmed to him that Jesus was the divine Son of the Father who had come to be the Mediator between God and man. Peter chooses not to mention other details from that occasion such as the appearance of the heavenly visitors and the topic that they spoke to Jesus about – his exodus soon to happen in Jerusalem.

The Word of God

That incident did something else for Peter, which was that it confirmed the authenticity of the Old Testament, which he here calls the prophetic word. I suspect he means that prior to that incident he had not seen Jesus fulfil everything that the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would do. Obviously, he had seen the miracles that Jesus performed and listened to his profound teachings. But there was more to the Messiah than that. The Old Testament was clear that he would suffer and then have great glory. Peter had now seen what Jesus would be like in his glory, and later he would see Jesus’ great suffering in Gethsemane. While he did not see Jesus on the cross, others would have told him of the sufferings that Jesus experienced there. But all that authenticated the Old Testament for Peter.

Instead of abandoning the Old Testament, he tells his readers that they should pay close attention to it. It is the light from heaven that shines in the dark world of sin, shining in a way similar to how Jesus did when he was here. The scriptures are the God-given lamp that we should use all the time, because what Peter had found the Old Testament to be – the reliable Word of God – is also true of the New Testament. They are a place to see the glory of Jesus and the distinctiveness of his kingdom.

How long are they to pay attention to the Scriptures? Until Jesus returns. In the meantime it is the night, and we are waiting for the day to dawn. We are closer to it than ever before. What does Peter mean when he says that ‘the morning star rises in your hearts’? One commentator observes that ‘the addition of the words “in your hearts” suggests that the writer was thinking rather of effects in the spiritual sphere than of the outward splendours of that day of revelation.’ The morning star in the sky indicates that day is about to come. Peter may be suggesting that the morning star is already in their hearts but has not yet started to rise, which would be a reminder that through the Spirit believers already have fellowship with Jesus in their hearts, and that it will increase when Jesus returns, and the day of glory arrives.

The commentator I mentioned went on to say: ‘Now Christ in you is the hope of glory; then Christ in you shall be glory itself. “The Lord God shall lighten them.” “I am,” says Jesus, “the bright and morning star”; and He says also, “He that over cometh . . . I will give him the morning-star.” Every Christian is yet to be as it were a miniature Christ – one of innumerable lesser fires around the Sun of righteousness, burning and shining in His light.’

Meanwhile, we have the Word of God. It was possible for someone to say that the contents of the Old Testament were only the opinions of individuals, that the source of the messages was only in the minds of men (v. 20). Peter points out that the reality is quite different. Rather, every statement in the Word of God came from God. By prophecy, he does not merely mean the prediction of future events. Prophets were individuals through whom God gave his Word at various times and in diverse ways. The way that God gave his Word was by the Holy Spirit guiding those men as to what to say or write. He carried them and controlled them like a wind. Because of the Spirit’s involvement and enabling, the Word of God was given and recorded, and Peter’s readers should listen to it.

Lessons

First, the Puritan writer Thomas Adams points out that ‘Good things are not wearisome in their continual use’. He points out that people do not get tired of the light of the sun or of their daily bread. How much more is that the case with the contents of the Bible? A failure to delight in the truths of God is evidence of backsliding.

A second lesson that we can learn from Peter here is that we should view death through the promises of Christ. Obviously, Peter had a personal word from Jesus about what would happen in his case. Yet there is an obvious sense in which all the promises of Jesus are a personal word to each of his people and among those promises are those connected to the death of his people. Their deaths are precious in his sight. It would do us a lot of good to identify such promises and think about them because the prospect of death is a frightening one without Christ.

A third lesson is that Jesus is the main message of the Old Testament, which means he is there to be found. He himself took his disciples through the Old Testament, pointing out where it applied to him. He is revealed through types, prophecies, and promises, and by thinking about them our souls are fed.

A fourth lesson is that we can think of Jesus and his humiliation and his exaltation. For most of the three or so years of discipleship that he had with Jesus, Peter only saw the self-humbling of Jesus. But on one occasion, he saw what glorification would mean for Jesus.

A fifth lesson is that we should consider the glory that we are yet to have as believers. Often we consider the external, the world of glory that we will be in. But Peter wants us to think about the internal, the glory within that will mark all God’s people then.

The sixth lesson is that we should be thankful for the Word of God. The Lord put some people through desperate difficulties in order for them to be able to write parts of the Word of God. Moses was an exile, as was Daniel. The psalmists recite their experiences. Peter himself was a martyr, as was Paul. But God had us in mind, as well as millions of others, as he enabled those men to compose his Word.