Bible Commentaries
2 Peter 1

Verses 1-15

2 PETER

XXII

THE BOOK OF 2 PETER: AN INTRODUCTION, OUTLINE, AND EXPOSITION

2 Peter 1:1-15

An introduction to 2 Peter. First of all, I call attention to the fact that from the middle of the second century to the end of the fourth century certain New Testament books had not attained so wide a circulation and general acceptance as others. Generally speaking, these were the smaller books, including the letter of James, Peter’s second letter, the letter of Jude, the two short letters of John, and the two longer books, Hebrews and Revelation. These were called Antilegomina, that is, some people somewhere expressed doubt as to the place that these books should have in the New Testament. The book which more than any other was doubted was this second letter of Peter. I mean to say that the historical evidence for the canonicity of this letter is less satisfactory than that of any other, so that if it can be shown that the evidence is sufficient for this book, we need not question that of any other.

I next call attention to a well-known fact of history which accounts for the lack of more evidence than is obtainable. This fact was the persecution under the emperor Diocletian, which extended from A.D. 303-311. The decree of Diocletian was universal, that all church buildings should be razed to the ground and all the Holy Books burned.

We have in Eusebius, the father of church history, who lived from A.D. 270-340, two books, Vols. 8 and 9, devoted to this persecution. The famous sixteenth chapter of the Decline of the Roman Empire, by the infidel Gibbon, tells much of the rigor of this persecution. This decree was executed with great rigor in the Roman provinces of Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Italy, and Spain. Thus thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament, or parts of it, were destroyed under this decree.

In this connection I wish to commend to the reader McGarvey’s Text and Canon of the New Testament as an exceedingly able but terse presentation of the main facts of historical introduction, from which as a matter of convenience I cite most of the testimony below.

The first testimony is the catalogue of the New Testament books, and the declarations concerning them, issued by the council of Carthage in the Roman province of North Africa. This council was held A.D. 397. They issued a catalogue of all of the New Testament books as we have them, accompanied with two declarations: First, "It was also determined, that besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing be read in the churches under the title of divine Scriptures." Second, "We have received from our fathers that these are to be read in the churches."

The oldest manuscript we now possess of the New Testament is the Sinaitic, discovered by Tischendorf in the convent on Mount Sinai. He estimates the date of this manuscript at A.D. 350, and thinks it to be older than that. This manuscript has the entire New Testament in it – every book.

I next cite the testimony of Athanasius, who lived between the dates A.D. 326 and 373. He also gives a complete list of all our New Testament books, and says, "These books were delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; I have learned this from the beginning, and that they are the fountains of salvation; that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In them alone the doctrine of religion is taught; let no one add to them, nor take anything from them."

The next testimony is that of Cyril, a noted pastor of the church at Jerusalem, living from A.D. 315-388. In one of his catechetical lectures to candidates for baptism he gives a list of the books to be read as inspired Scriptures. This list includes all our New Testament books except the book of Revelation.

The next witness is Eusebius, the father of church history, who lived from A.D. 270-340. He passed through the Diocletian persecution, which destroyed the church buildings and burned the sacred writings. He recites by name every New Testament book that we have, but calls attention to the fact that some have questioned Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation.

The next witness is Origen, whom Dr. Broadus classes as the greatest Christian scholar of the fathers, the man who prepared the Hexapla, or six-column New Testament. He himself suffered martyrdom, living from A.D. 185-254. In his Greek works he cites the New Testament books, but like Eusebius, refers to certain questionings of some of them. In the Latin version of his Homily on Joshua, he distinctly attributes two letters to Peter, and gives all our New Testament books.

The next witness is Clement, of Alexandria, who was Origen’s teacher, living from A.D. 165-220. His testimony is much the same as that of Origen’s. The next point that I make is that every book in the world must be older than any translation of it into other languages. We have two translations into the Coptic language, one for lower Egypt and one for upper Egypt. These translations, called the Memphitic and Thebaic translations, or at least portions of them, were made before the close of the second century, and both of these versions contain all of the books of the New Testament, including 2 Peter. Revelation, however, is usually in a separate volume.

So far the evidence has been virtually a testimony of catalogues, whether in manuscripts, versions, decrees of councils or authors, and this evidence for the New Testament books to the last quarter of the second century, two full centuries, always includes 2 Peter.

Another kind of evidence is derived from quotations. The extant writings of the early Christian authors bear testimony to Bible books by quotations, direct or indirect, or by allusions. This evidence is not nearly so strong for 2 Peter as for other New Testament books. Many citations, pro and con, are given by modern Christian scholars. What one considers a quotation or evident allusion others question. The author has read them all. Those that in his judgment have evidential value are the following:

Origen, A.D. 185-254, whose catalogue testimony has been cited, quoted 2 Peter 1:4 with the formula, "Peter said," and 3 Peter 2:16 with the formula, "As the Scripture says in a certain place." (See Westcott, Canon of New Testament.) Melito, bishop of Sardis, A.D. 170, in the region addressed by Peter, in writing of both a water flood and a fire flood evidently alludes to 2 Peter 3:5-10.

Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168-180, in a treatise, and Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, A.D. 220, both allude to 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Firmilian, bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea, in a letter to Gypuian of Carthage referring to Peter and Paul as blessed apostles, says that in their epistles they "execrated heretics and warned us to avoid them," but it is in his second letter alone we find Peter’s "execrations of heretics and warnings to avoid them."

Irenaeus, A.D. 135-200, born about forty years after the death of John, the last apostle, in two instances uses almost the exact words in 2 Peter 3:8: "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years."

Justin Martyr wrote about A.D. 146, and as in Irenaeus above, uses Peter’s words of "the day of the Lord as a thousand years." In another place commenting on the delay to send Satan and those who follow him to their final punishment assigns the precise reasons given in 2 Peter 3:9.

Clement, pastor at Rome, a man of apostolic times, in his epistle to the Corinthians, twice refers to Noah as a preacher: (1) of "repentance," (2) of "regeneration to the world through his ministry." But nowhere in the Bible is Noah called a preacher except in 2 Peter 2:5.

We now must consider what the writer of the letter says of himself.

2 Peter 1:1: He expressly calls himself Simon Peter, the apostle, using the Aramaic name "Symeon" as James does in Acts 15.

2 Peter 1:14: He claims that the Lord Jesus had shown him how he was to die. This is confirmed in John 21:18-19, which gospel was written after this letter.

2 Peter 1:16-18: He claims to have been an eyewitness of the transfiguration of our Lord recorded in Matthew 18; Mark 9; Luke 9, and gives the clearest import of the transfiguration to be found in the Bible.

2 Peter 3:15-16: He claims acquaintance with all of Paul’s epistles, classes them as Scriptures, and says that Paul wrote to the Hebrews whom he is addressing.

Making these claims the letter is a barefaced forgery if the author was not the apostle Peter. There is no escape from this conclusion. Hebrews may be canonical, even if Paul did not write it – but not so this letter if the apostle Peter did not write it. But, utterly unlike the many forgeries attributed to apostolic authors, there is nothing in the subject-matter of this letter unworthy of an apostle and out of harmony with indisputable New Testament books.

The author accepts 2 Peter as apostolic according to its claims.

OUTLINE

1. The Address, 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 3:1: "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us. . . . This is now, beloved, the second epistle I write unto you," evidently referring to these words of 1 Peter: "Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus) Cappadocia, Asia, Galatia, and Bithynia." In this address he calls himself "Symeon," the Aramaic form of which, "Simon," is Greek. We find the same Aramaic form used by James in Acts 15.

2. The Greeting, contained in 2 Peter 1:2-4 inclusive: "Grace to you, and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord." The third verse tells how the multiplication takes place: "Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness through a knowledge of him that calls us through his own knowledge and virtue, whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lusts." The grace and the peace, these are to be multiplied through the promises.

3. The Heavenly Progress by Additions (2 Peter 1:5-11) with the abundant entrance.

4. The Need of Remembrance (2 Peter 1:12-15).

5. The Prophecy of the Manner of Peter’s Death (2 Peter 1:14).

6. The Import of the Transfiguration of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16-18).

7. The Surer Word of Prophecy, how it came, and how to interpret it (2 Peter 1:19-21).

8. The Foretold False Teachers, their heresies and condemnation (2 Peter 2).

9. The Second Advent and Its Lesson (2 Peter 3). Now let us expound item three, a heavenly progress, or a progress by a series of heavenly additions, and is thus expressed: "Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue, and in your virtue knowledge, and in your knowledge self-control, and in your self-control patience, and in your patience godliness, and in your godliness brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kind ness love. For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of I our Lord Jesus Christ. For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins. Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure, for if ye do these things ye shall never stumble."

Here we have the grace part in the exceeding great and precious promises, and then what we are to add on our part. Peter, no more than Paul, ever had the idea of a converted man remaining a babe in Christ. Both of them urge a leaving of the foundations and going onward to maturity, growing in grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When I was a school boy at Baylor University at Independence I heard old Father Hosea Garrett, the President of the Board of Trustees of Baylor University, preach a sermon on this heavenly addition of Peter. It was delivered in an exceedingly homely, quaint, and simple style. He commenced by saying: "I am President of the Board of Trustees of Baylor University. I have very little education, but I have been through the rule of three in Smiley’s Arithmetic and I do not forget that the first rule in that arithmetic is addition. But in this text we have some spiritual arithmetic, adding one spiritual thing to another, and we have the sum or result in two ways: ’He that lacketh these things is blind, having forgotten the cleansing of himself from his old sins, but if you add these things you reach this sum: Thus shall be supplied unto you the entrance to the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’" Pointing his finger at different persons in the audience, he would say: "Have you faith?" Then, "Have you added virtue or courage? If you have added courage, have you also added knowledge; and if knowledge, have you added self-control, are you able to control your own spirit? He that ruleth his own spirit is greater than one that taketh a city." I sat there and looked at the old man, in his quaint way discussing spiritual multiplication and addition, and witnessed the effect on the audience. The personality of the man stood behind his sermon. It was very unlike a sermon by a sophomore preacher. A young man wants to scrape down the star dust and cover himself, and gild himself with its glitter, but not so with this preacher.

When I was a young preacher I preached a sermon on that "abundant entrance," and took for an illustration two ships sailing from the same port, and bound to the same port across the ocean. The captain and sailors of one of them added everything that was necessary on their part to co-operate with the ocean winds and tides in reaching their destination in safety. One of them got to the port with every mast standing, every sail set, and with the cargo unimpaired and the passengers all safe. It was welcomed with a salute of the batteries from the shore, and the waving of flags, crowds of people came down to see the ocean voyager reach its destination in safety, with everything entrusted to it preserved.

On the other ship neither the captain nor crew added on their part the things necessary to a safe and prosperous voyage. They did indeed reach the destination after a while, but dismasted, shrouds rent to tatters, towed in by a harbor tug, almost a wreck. "He that lacketh these things is dim-eyed, he cannot see things afar off." Point to a beacon and ask him if he sees it. "No, I cannot see that far." Point to the tall mountains of grace that mark the shore between this world and the next: "Do you see the light on those mountaintops?" "No, I cannot see that far." "Do you see that rift in the eternal heavens through which the light shines down and bathes you in glory? Do you see Jesus standing at the right hand of the Majesty on high ready to welcome you? Do you see the angels poised on wings of obedience interested as to your outcome? Do you see the redeemed who have passed on before, and are waiting and watching for you?" "No, I cannot see any of these."

Faith is the eye of the soul, and its hand, and its heart. It sees things invisible to the natural eye, it apprehends what cannot be touched by the human hand. It feels what the natural heart cannot feel. Yea, faith is the imagination of the soul. Imagination is a painter; it can create and reproduce; as a divine element it can outline things, and follow up the outline and put in the coloring and make it appear before us with all its blossoms, fruits, and foliage. A man that is dim-eyed has no vision; the powers of the world to come do not take hold upon him; he seems to have forgotten that he was purged from his old sins; he doubts his acceptance with God; he fails in his heavenly additions.

In this connection also is the appeal of Peter to memory. It is that faculty of the mind by which we recall former things. He says, "As long as I am in this tabernacle I must stir you up by putting you in remembrance." Memory survives death. When the rich man in hell appealed to Abraham, that patriarch replied: "Son, remember that in yonder world you had your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things." Indeed, memory united with conscience constitutes the very eternity of hell.

QUESTIONS

1. What New Testament books were latest in receiving general acceptance as canonical?

2. Which of these most and longest doubted?

3. Tell about the great persecution which destroyed so much evidence not now attainable and where you find a history of the persecution.

4. Give the testimony of the Council at Carthage and its declarations concerning all the New Testament books.

5. What famous manuscript gives them all and what its date?

6. What early versions give them all and their date?

7. Give the evidences of the Catalogue of Athanasius, its date and declarations.

8. Give the evidence and date of Cyril’s Catechism.

9. Give summary of evidence on quotations and allusions.

10. What does the letter itself say of the author?

11. Why is this letter a forgery if the author was not the apostle Peter?

12. Give outline.

13. Give the heavenly "addition."

Verses 14-18

III

PART III

THE TRANSFIGURATION

Harmony, pages 92-94 and Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9; Mark 2:13; Luke 9:28-36; John 1:14; 2 Peter 1:14-18.

The transfiguration of Jesus is one of the most notable events of his history. The occasion which called forth the event – the wonderful facts of the event itself – the manifest correlation of these facts with both the near and the remote past, and the near and distant future – the primary and multiform design of this event, and the secondary important lessons which may be deduced from it, all conspire to make it notable. The history of the whole case may be gathered from what are called the Synoptic Gospels, that is, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and from the references to the event by two out of the three witnesses, Peter and John. James, the other eyewitness, was prevented by an early martyrdom from leaving any record. We find an account of his death in Acts 12. He was put to death by Herod. So these are the five historians of the transfiguration. In discussing the subject of the transfiguration, let us consider:

1. The occasion. – From the context in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we group in order the following facts, which, taken as a whole, constitute the occasion of the transfiguration:

First fact: While the people generally had vague and conflicting views of the person and mission of Jesus, his immediate disciples had now reached a definite and fixed conclusion that he was the divine Messiah, and had publicly confessed that faith near Caesarea Philippi.

Second fact: On this confession of their faith in his messiahship, he began for the first time to openly and plainly show that the Messiah was to be a suffering Messiah; that he must die; that he must die an ignominious death; that he must die under the condemnation of the supreme court of their nation.

Third fact: At this plain revelation of his death their faith staggers. It is both an inexplicable and abhorrent thing to them. It so deeply stirred them that, through Peter, they present the strongest possible protest. Peter says, "Mercy on thee, Lord, it shall never be." They, while believing him to be the Messiah, wanted a living, conquering Messiah, with a visible, earthly, triumphant kingdom and jurisdiction.

Fourth fact: He sharply rebukes this protest, as satanic in its origin – as coming from the devil, and it had originally come from the devil. Now, one of his own apostles comes as a tempter. As if he had said, "You are a stumbling block to me. You quote the very sentiments of the devil, when you would beguile me from the cross to accept an earthly crown." He then adds that to take that view of it is to think men’s thoughts and not God’s thoughts. He says, "You are minding the things of men and not the things of God when you present such a view as that to me."

Fifth fact: Whereupon, after his turning sharply away from Peter, he calls up the whole multitude to hear with his disciples, the great spiritual and universal law of discipleship, and perhaps it will stagger some to hear it, if they take it in. What was it? Absolute self-renunciation – the taking up daily of the cross upon which one is appointed to die, and the following of Christ; carrying the cross even unto the death which is appointed. We have such low conceptions of self-denial. We count it self-denial if we want a little thing and do not get it. We count it cross-bearing if some little burden is put on us and we bear it. That is not the thought in this connection at all. "If any man, whether he be an apostle or anybody else – if any man would be my disciple, he must have absolute self-renunciation, and he must take up every day the cross upon which he is appointed to die, and he must follow me, bearing that cross even unto the appointed death." He assured them that a man must not be merely willing to suffer temporal death, if an occasion should arise – not at all such a mere contingency – but he must actually lose temporal life in order to find eternal life. He must do it. He must lose temporal life to find eternal life, and then puts it to them as a supreme business question of eternal profit and loss. In that very connection he says, "What will it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul, and what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" It is the universal law of discipleship, from which there is no exception. No Christian can escape crucifixion. The reference is to our sanctification. We not only die judicially on the cross in Christ our substitute (Colossians 3:2), but we must actually "put to death our members which are upon the earth" (Colossians 3:5). I say this is a universal law: "If ye through the Spirit do mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body ye shall live" (Romans 8:13). Our sanctification consists of both death and life. The old man must die. The new man must be developed. Paul died daily. In putting on the new man we put off the old man. Our baptism pledges us both to death and life. ’ In our progressive sanctification the Holy Spirit reproduces in every Christian the dying of our Lord, as well as his living. In every Christian "a death experience runs parallel with his life experience." Not only Paul must fill up "that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh, for his body’s sake, which is the church" (Colossians 1:24), but all of us must have fellowship with his sufferings. We must suffer with him if we would reign with him. The lamented Dr. Gordon quotes this remarkable passage: "The church is Christian no more than as it is the organ of the continuous passion of Christ." Yes, it is no possible contingency, but a universal fact – we must take up the cross. We must lose our life to find it.

Sixth fact: The solemnity of this occasion was deeply intensified by his announcement of his second coming in power and great glory for the final judgment of all mankind according to their decision of that question which he had presented. All this comes just before the transfiguration. After announcing to them his death; after rebuking other conceptions of the messiahship; after presenting the great universal law of discipleship; now he says, "For the Son of man shall come in his glory, with his angels, and shall reward every man according to his doings.”

Seventh, and last, fact: Mark it well. Then follows the startling announcement that some of them standing there should never taste of death until they saw this second coming.

These seven facts, taken as a whole, constitute the occasion of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ. Let us restate them: (1) That while the world had vague and conflicting ideas of his person and missions, his immediate disciples had reached the conclusion that he was the divine Messiah, and had publicly confessed that faith. (2) That upon that public confession he commences for the first time plainly and openly to show that this Messiah must be a sufferer and must die. (3) They indignantly and abhorrently repudiate that conception of the Messiah. (4) He rebukes their protest as coming from the devil. (5) He announces the great law of discipleship, that no man could be a disciple of Jesus Christ without absolute self-renunciation, and without taking up every day the cross upon which he was appointed to die, and following Jesus even unto the appointed death, and that it was simply a question of business – a supreme business question of profit and loss, and they had to decide one way or the other. "If you prefer to find your life, you will lose it; if you prefer to lose your life, you will find it; if you want to take this world, you will lose your own soul; if you want to save your soul, you must renounce the world." Just that, no less and no more. (6) He announces his second coming in power and glory, as a final judge to determine the destiny of men upon this solitary question: "Did you lose your life for my sake?" (7) The still more startling announcement that some people – some of those to whom he was speaking would never taste death until they saw his second coming. That these seven facts, considered as a whole, do in some way constitute the occasion of the transfiguration, is to my mind incontrovertible. Some of the most convincing reasons for the conclusion may be stated.

First: In all the histories the account of the transfiguration follows immediately after the record of these events without & break in the connection. No event of the intervening week is allowed to separate the two transactions. Now, that three historians should, without collusion, follow this method, seems to establish a designed connection between these facts and the transfiguration which followed.

Second: The disheartening protest of the disciples against his position and in favor of the common Jewish idea of an earthly kingdom, would naturally so depress the humanity of Jesus that he himself would need some marvelous encouragement from heaven and would seek it in prayer.

Third: From the same sad cause, it would be necessary that some compensating revelation of future glory must be shown to the disciples in order to make them bear up under the hard condition of present discipleship, and under the awful thought of separation from him by death.

Fourth: It cannot be a mere coincident that the transfiguration is calculated to so exactly supply these things – the encouragement to Jesus and compensation to the disciples, both for the death of Jesus and for the hard terms of present discipleship.

2. The event. – Such being the occasion, then, let us reverently approach the wonderful transaction itself. The scene cannot have been at Mount Tabor in Lower Galilee, as tradition would have us believe. While it is not now necessary to show how insuperable are the objections to Mount Tabor as the place, yet it is important to note, by the way, that little reliance can ever be placed on the exact localities of great events in the New Testament, as indicated by tradition, because the inspired record oftentimes designedly and wisely leaves them indeterminate. It is not small proof of inspiration by him who knew the superstitions of men, and would provide no food to feed it on. Christ left neither autograph nor portrait to be worshiped as relics. None of the historians even/ hint at a personal description of Jesus. We know absolutely nothing of the color of his eyes or hair. Absolutely nothing of his height or size. Worshipers of shrines, relics, and souvenirs derive no sort of help or encouragement from the New Testament. The scene of the transfiguration was evidently near Caesarea Philippi, and on some mountain spur of the Hermon range. It could not have been anywhere else from the circumstances going before and after the event. The time is night, somewhere about seven months before his crucifixion. The object is prayer in some lonely private place. His companions are Peter, James, and John. It must have been an all-night prayer meeting, for they did not come down from the mountain until the next day, and it is stated that the three disciples were heavy with sleep, as on a later and more solemn occasion, these very three men succumbed to the spirit of sleep, through the weakness of the flesh. The original here, however, would lead us to infer that they forced themselves to remain awake, notwithstanding their strong inclination to sleep, and now, late in the night, struggling against an almost irresistible desire to sleep, but yet their gaze fixed upon their Master, who is yet praying, they behold a sight that drives sleep utterly away. What do they see? A wonderful sight indeed; earth never saw a more wonderful one. Mark you, it is no vision or dream. With the use of their natural senses, sight and hearing, being fully awake, they became the wit- nesses of three distinct remarkable supernatural events. These three things are: first, the transfiguration of Jesus; second, the glorified forms of Moses and Elijah; third, the luminous cloud symbol and the voice of the eternal God. Now, let us consider separately each one of these things:

"Transfiguration: – what does the word mean? The word means to transform – to change the form or appearance. In what respect was the appearance or form of Jesus changed? It was this: It is in the night; it is on that lonely mountaintop; and while they look at him, he begins to shine as from a light within. The light seems to struggle through him. He seems to become translucent, and his whole body becomes luminous, as if it were a human electric jet, and the light is white – whiter than any fuller on earth could make it, and his face is brighter than the shining of the sun at midday. Let us carefully collate the several records: Matthew says, "And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart." Mark says, "They went up into that mountain to pray." There are the four separating themselves from all the others and going up into that high mountain to hold a prayer meeting. Luke then says, "And as Jesus was praying, the fashion of his countenance altered," or, as Matthew says, "His face did shine as the sun and his garments became as white as light," or, as Mark says, "And his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth could whiten," and, as Luke says, "His raiment became white and dazzling." We notice that two things are referred to, first, the fashion of his countenance, and second, the shining of his garments. Jesus becomes as a pillar of fire to them, as they look at him. That is the first thing they saw that night. Then suddenly there is an interview held with him. Those who come to hold the interview with him are not from hell; they are not from earth. He has gone up on that mountaintop and implored the Father for something. As a result of his prayer, an interview is held with him. Who comes to hold that interview with him? The two most remarkable men of the past: the representative of the law, and the representative of prophecy – Moses, the great law-giver, and Elijah, the greatest of the prophets. These three witnesses could instinctively, by spiritual intuition, recognize them. Of course, they had never personally known them, but it was given to them to recognize them. And what do they look like? They are also in glory; they are luminous. There are the three shining bodies together, and they enter into conversation – they are talking. What are they talking about? Now, mark the occasion. Jesus had said to his disciples, "I go up to Jerusalem to die. I must die. There is a’ necessity that I should die, and these disciples abhorred the thought that I should die. Oh, Father, show them by some way that I must die. Is there no one in the past whose evidence would avail?" Out from the past comes Moses and says, "Jesus, I came to talk to you about your death." Out from the land of the prophets comes Elijah and he says, "Jesus, I came to talk to you about your death." The law says the substitute of the sinner must die. Moses comes from the other world, representing the law, saying to the substitute of the sinner, "You must die." Elijah says, "You must die." Every voice from the prophets calls for the death of the Messiah. "And they come to talk to him about his death" – his death that should take place at Jerusalem. Suppose Moses had said this: "Jesus, I died on Mount Nebo. No man on earth knows where my bones are resting. Unless you die, that body will never be raised, never, never." Suppose Elijah had said: "Jesus, I escaped death as to my body. I was translated. I was carried up to heaven, and am now enjoying in both soul and body the blessed glories of the eternal world, upon your promise to die. That promise must be redeemed. I am in heaven on a credit – the credit is on your promise to pay. You must die." "They talked with him concerning his/ death at Jerusalem."

They are now about to leave. They have had their interview, and they are going back, and just as they are about to depart. Peter is terribly frightened, but they never could put Peter in a place where he would not say something. Peter sees that the guests are about to leave, although trembling with apprehension, and not knowing what he did – thinking, however, that he ought to say something, as if he had said, "Lord, they intend to go," and in the original it does not say, let us build three tabernacles; it says, "Lord, I will build three tabernacles, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." Now, while Peter said that, there came the third wonderful thing, and the only time that it ever was seen in the New Testament dispensation, though it had often been seen in the earlier days – the cloud symbol of God. How did the cloud symbol of God appear? If it was in the daytime, it appeared as a beautiful pillar of cloud; if it was the nighttime, it appeared as a pillar of fire. Now, the old-time drapery of God, the fire cloud, that had not been witnessed since far off Old Testament days – that fire cloud came down and wrapped Moses and Elijah and Jesus in its folds of light. As it wrapped them, there leaped from its bosom, as leaps the lightning from the clouds, a voice: "This is my beloved Son: hear ye him." And they fell as if lightning had struck them. Fear had taken possession of them from the beginning; their apprehensions had grown more and more demoralizing from the very beginning of the supernatural manifestation, but when this voice spoke – this voice of God, they fell on their faces; they could not bear to face that burning cloud and to hear that awful voice, and there they lie, as still as if dead, until Jesus comes and stoops over them, and touches them, each one, and says: "Do not be afraid," and they rise up and the cloud is gone, and Moses and Elijah are gone. Now, these are the things they witnessed – three entirely distinct things: The transfiguration of Jesus; the glorified appearance of Moses and Elijah; the fire cloud, which was the symbol of the divine presence, and the audible Voice. Such were the wonderful facts of the event. Now comes the next question:

3. The design – What was meant by the transfiguration? We go back and look at it to see if we can gather there the design. We take the testimony of the men who actually witnessed these transaction, in order to get the design. Let’s see what that is. First, he had said that there were some people there that should never taste death until they saw the coming of the Son of man – until they saw the second coming of the Son of man – until they saw the kingdom of God come with power. Unquestionably that is what he said: that there were some people there that should never taste death until they saw the second coming of Jesus Christ. Let’s see what one of the witnesses says about this. I cite the testimony of Peter: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father, honor and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." Now mark what Peter says, that in preaching to these people that Christ would come again the second time with power and great glory and as a final judge, he had not followed a cunningly devised fable, but he preached what he had witnessed; that he, on Mount of Transfiguration, had gazed upon the second coming of Christ in some sense, in whatever sense that might be. He had seen it. He was an eyewitness of the power and majesty of that second coming. Let’s see what J John said about it. He was the other witness. In John 1:14, and in the parenthesis of that verse, we have this: "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." When did John see his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father? The glory of Christ always in the New Testament when spoken of in its fulness, is that glory which shall attend him when he comes the second time. The first time he came without glory; he came in his humiliation. The second time, he comes in glory, as we learn from Matthew 24: "The Son of man shall come in all of his glory, and all of his holy angels with him, and then shall he sit on the throne of his glory." John says that he, with others witnessed the glory of Jesus Christ, as of the only begotten of the Father. He saw it, and like Peter, he saw it on the Mount of Transfiguration. As a further proof of it, in John 12:24 we have an account of Jesus praying, and he says, "Father, glorify me," and instantly that same voice says, loud as thunder, "I have glorified thee, and will glorify thee." So that the glory that they witnessed was in some sense the glory of the second Coming of Jesus Christ. It was a miniature representation of the power and glory that would be displayed when he does come – an anticipatory scene – presenting to the ye on a small scale that great and awful event in the future.

When Jesus does come, every living Christian will instantly be transfigured. He will take on the resurrection body. He will take on a glorified body – just as Elijah and Enoch did. As Paul puts it: "Behold I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" Here was Elijah, the type and representation of that work. Here was Elijah, who without death, by the transfiguring power, had been carried up to heaven. Here he was talking to Jesus.

There is another thing that will take place when Jesus comes. The dead will be raised. The bodies that have been buried and turned to dust are to be reanimated and "are to be glorified in one moment of time. Corruption puts on incorruption; mortality puts on immortality; sleep changes to waking; and the dead rise up and are glorified in the twinkling of an eye. As Paul again puts it: "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." Here is Moses representing that thought. Moses died; he did not escape death like Enoch and Elijah. Moses died, and no man has ever been able to tell where he was buried. The devil tried to take possession of his body, but here in this transfiguration scene appears Moses glorified as Elijah is glorified. In type, these represent the two great displays of divine power at the second coming of Jesus Christ, and they are the very two that are needed to be brought to bear on the discouraged heart of the disciples who have been informed that Jesus will die.

They wanted a living Messiah. They wanted an earthly king. To say that he will die means the loss of everything to them. They have not yet looked over the border. Now, how can a revelation be given to them that will compensate them for the awfully disheartening effect of the announcement that their Messiah must die? Why, in order to compensate them, there must be some revelation of the future. They must have an insight into the things which shall be. The curtains must be drawn aside. They must look beyond death. They must see into the spirit world. They must see samples of heavenly glory that are to be brought about by the death of Christ, and as they gaze upon that transfiguration of Jesus, which pledges the resurrection of his body when he dies, they can understand that death; and when they see the forerunner of his death in Moses and Elijah, as types of classes, and can thereby look to the end of time and see all the sleeping bodies brought to life, and the living Christians changed – if anything on earth is calculated to remove their depression, that scene is certainly calculated to remove it.

I venture to say that every Christian has become at times disheartened and depressed when he looked at the sacrifices that have to be made in order to be a Christian; when he looked at the stern and unrelenting laws of discipleship – absolute self-renunciation – absolutely, a man must deny himself. When one denies Christ, what does that mean? "I will not have him to rule over me." Now, when we deny self, what does that mean? "I absolutely abjure thee, O self, as the ruler of my life. I repudiate thee, self. I have another King." When we take up these duties and requirements, that is the start only, but every day of our lives requires us to see to it that self is crucified; that the body shall be mortified; that the deeds of the flesh shall be crucified; that they shall be put to death. When we daily take up that cross, and know that this must go on as long as we live, even up to the very time that we die, where is the compensation? It is in this: If I do not renounce self, if I do not follow Christ to crucifixion, I will ultimately lose self. I will lose my soul. This supreme business question comes up before me for decision: Shall I gain the world and lose myself, or shall I save myself and lose the world? Now, to help a man on that; to help him to decide rightly; to take away from him any discouragement, and the disheartening depression, what can do it so forcibly as to bring him up on a mountain and cause him by night, in the loneliness of its solemn hours, to witness an interview with the glorified spirits that have passed out of earth’s sorrows and pains and disappointments, and now in the midst of the blessedness which is theirs forever. It is to bring him where he can see the ordinarily closed doors of the arching heavens open, and down through the opening the light of the eternal world transfigures everyone upon whom it shines, and looking at that he will say, "Oh, self, die; oh, world, you shall not be my master. Jesus, I am coming; I follow; I take up the cross. I carry it to the place where I must die the appointed death on the appointed cross. I accept it for Christ’s sake." So the transfiguration fits the occasion of it by meeting the needs of the disciples.

Let us now see if that design of the transfiguration met the need of Christ. Oh we must remember that he had humanity, that, he could not help feeling terribly discouraged when these, his chosen disciples, the witnesses of his power, at this late day in his ministry, while they had clearly recognized him as the divine Messiah, yet did not recognize him as a suffering Messiah, and still clung with old Jewish ideas to the thought of an earthly conquering king. How it must have disheartened him! Then, we remember that from the beginning he saw his death, but as he neared it, the shadows on his brow had deepened, and the depressing effect of it weighed him down more and more as he got closer to it, at every approach of it, feeling more and more the anguish of it, and now with these thoughts upon him, he had spent so much time and labor, his loneliness, his solitariness oppresses him, and he wants to pray. He wants to get alone and pray; and on that mountain top he prays: "Oh, Father, nobody down here understands me, nobody, not even my disciples; send me sympathy, send me some revelation that shall cheer and sustain me; let somebody from the upper world come and talk with me here on the edge of the battlefield, where I am breast- ing the tide by myself." And he prays until the glory of God in him bursts through the opaqueness of the flesh and makes translucent, and he is glorified by his importunate prayer. And the Father comes down from heaven, comes in a drapery of clouds, comes in his drapery of fire, and wraps around with its folds of light the dear Redeemer, and speaks to him. "My Son, my beloved Son, my chosen One on earth, hear him! Hear him! Hear him I Not Moses, not Elijah, hear the Son of God." That strengthened him, and he went back to his burden with lighter heart. That is what I understand to be the design of the transfiguration.

4. Its relations – See how the facts of that transfiguration correlate themselves with the near and the remote past and with the near and the remote future.

The facts of the transfiguration reached right over and took hold of the scene of that confession at Caesarea Philippi; they go on back until they touch the prophetic days and grasp the hand of Elijah; they go on back to the days of Israel in the wilderness and take the hand of Moses; they go on back until they touch the first promise of mercy in Eden. Then they go forward until they touch the death in Jerusalem. They touch the resurrection after that death; they reach through the silent centuries of the unborn future and take hold of the second coming; they speak of hovering angels and heavenly glory, and open graves, and the white throne of the judgment, correlating with all the past, and correlating with all the future, harmonizing law and prophecy and gospel; showing that in Jesus, they all meet in perfection, and also showing that in Jesus is the redemption of all the world.

Such is the relation of the transfiguration to the past and present and future.

"Say nothing about it; say nothing about ill" Well, why say nothing about it? "Do not tell it now; wait until I am dead; wait until I have risen from the dead; and when I have risen from the dead you may tell this story, and it will fit into the resurrection so that no man will disbelieve it. If you tell it now they cannot understand it, but wait until I have risen and then it will instantly appear to men to be a miniature resurrection scene."

I have thus presented to you what I conceive to be: (1) the occasion of the transfiguration; (2) the wonderful facts of the event itself; (3) the design of that event; (4) the correlation of that event with the past and with the future, and now what are its lessons for us?

5. Its lessons for us. – There is one thing about a pastor that a congregation never can understand – never can, and that is his concern that the congregation may get upon a higher plane of Christianity. Sometimes it is like a stroke of death. What kind of Christians are we? What kind of self-denial do we now exhibit? What kind of cross-bearing? What kind of discipleship? What kind of decision of the question of profit and loss? And after intense agony, I pray, "Oh, God, multiply the number that will make a full renunciation of self." We ourselves know that the majority of church members are walking on the edge only of practical Christianity; just on the edge of it. Oh, the value of the spiritual power that will come upon all who will utterly decide the question – who will truly say: "I am God’s all over. He is Lord of all my time, and all my money and all of my life." Now and then we find a few that will come up to that – just a few. In view of the low grade of present Christianity, the very few that attain the gift of the Spirit, what is it that keeps pastors from being discouraged? From being utterly disheartened? What is it that keeps despair from spreading her mantle of gloom over his pulpit and over his heart? What is it that keeps away the howling wolves, and the ill-boding owls and ravens, that creeping or swooping from the plutonian shores of night, croak and howl their prophecies of evil? What is it? It is that every now and then he gets on some mount of transfiguration, where after long prayer; where after reconsecration; where after offering up himself and his soul and his body to God Almighty, the heavens open and show him the glorious future, so beautiful, so shining, so near, so enchanting, so drawing, so thrilling, that he goes back, and says, "Well, I can stand anything now." And every now and then God comes so to a church. He did to us, once, while I was pastor in Waco. He did rend the heavens and come down. The fire cloud was on the church. Heaven was near to us. We saw it. We felt it. Its glory could be touched, and under the power of that revival, earth seemed little and insignificant, and all of its claims were DO more than thistledown on the breath of the storm.

O that our children some dark night, awfully dark night, should be up on a spiritual mountain and see a fire church, see a translucent church, a church in touch with angels, a church hearing heavenly voices, a church wrapped in the great fire symbol of God, then might they believe and receive in their trusting hearts an impression that would affect forever and forever their life.

Shall we not pray that God may cause us to take a solemn look at that universal and spiritual and absolute law of discipleship? "If any man would be my disciple, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow me. He that loses his life for my sake shall find it." "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" O Lord, we are in the valley just now. Its shadows are as the shadows of death. Lead us, we pray thee, for a little while up to the top of the Delectable Mountains, from whose unclouded summits we may catch again the inspiring, transfiguring view of the Heavenly City. Thus reassuring our desponding hearts, and refreshing our weary minds, we may resume our pilgrimage in hope of speedily arriving at our heavenly home.

QUESTIONS

1. What things conspire to make the transfiguration a notable event?

2. What are the sources of its history and import?

3. What facts constitute its occasion?

4. What reasons assigned for the conclusion?

5. What was the scene of this event and what left in doubt by the inspired record? Illustrate.

6. What was the time?

7. What was the object of the going on this mountain?

8. Who were Jesus’ companions?

9. What were the events while on the mountain leading up to the transfiguration?

10. Was what they saw a dream or vision?

11. What were the three distinct, supernatural events which they saw here?

12. What is the meaning of the word "transfiguration"?

13. Describe this transfiguration of Jesus.

14. What two Old Testament characters appear in interview here with Jesus, how were they recognized by Peter, James, and John and what was the bearing on the question of heavenly recognition?

15. What was the subject of their conversation, what were the circumstances which led up to it, what was the bearing of the work of Moses and Elijah on this subject, respectively, and how illustrated in each case?

16. What was Peter’s proposition and why?

17. What Old Testament symbol reappeared here and what was its special significance?

18. What voice did they hear and what was its import?

19. What was the design of this incident?

20. What was Peter’s testimony? What was John’s?

21. What was the significance of the appearance of Elijah here and how does this correlate with the New Testament teaching on this thought?

22. What was the significance of the appearance of Moses here and how does this thought correlate with New Testament teaching?

23. What was their conception of the Messiah and what was the bearing of this incident on that conception?

24. What was the requirement of discipleship and what was the bearing of this incident on it?

25. Show that the design of the transfiguration met the need of Christ just at this time.

26. What was probably Christ’s prayer here on this occasion and how does this fit the idea of his need at this time?

27. How do the facts of the transfiguration correlate themselves with the past and the future?

28. What charge did our Lord give his disciples relative to this incident & why?

29. What are the lessons of the transfiguration for us?

30. What illustration of this transfiguration power from the life of the author?

Verses 16-21

XXIII

IMPORT OF THE TRANSFIGURATION OF JESUS AND FALSE TEACHERS

2 Peter 1:16-2:21

This discussion commences with 2 Peter 1:16, and the item of the analysis is the import of the transfiguration of Jesus. The reader will find the historical account of the transfiguration in Matthew 17; Mark 8; and Luke 9, and he should very carefully study (the better way is as it is presented in Broadus’ Harmony) the account of the transfiguration.

I will refer very briefly to the history. Just after the great confession of Peter recorded in Matthew 16:18, when Christ said, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," he began to show plainly to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and be put to death, whereupon Peter protested. He was not yet ready to accept the idea of Christ dying. In order to fix the right view of the death of Christ upon the minds of these disciples that were still clinging to the Jewish notion of the kingdom, Christ took three of the disciples, Peter, James, and John, and went upon a mountain. Before he went he stated that there were some of them standing there who would never taste death until they should see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

It has always been a difficult thing with commentators to explain how it was that he could say that some people that heard him would never taste of death until they saw him coming in his kingdom. The transfiguration, according to Peter, was the fulfilment of that promise. Peter says here in this connection, "We did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the majestic glory, This is my beloved Son) in whom I am well pleased. And this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount." Mark it well, Peter says that when he preached the final advent of Christ, he was not following cunningly devised fables. He was preaching something of which he had, in a certain sense, been an eyewitness. The question, then, is in what sense was the transfiguration a second coming of Christ? The answer to it is that it was a miniature representation, or foreshadowing, of the majesty and power of the second advent. In other words, there passed over Christ’s person a transfiguration, a manifestation of his glory, such glory as he will have when he comes again. That glory radiates from Christ. It was the kind of glory in which he will come to judge the world.

In the next place, when he comes he will come exercising two great powers: One will be resurrection power, and the other will be the changing of the living saints in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and so that transfiguration scene presented those two thoughts in miniature, in that, Moses appeared to them, who died, and Elijah appeared to them who did not die but was changed in a moment. So that Moses represents the class who died and who, at the second coming of Christ, will be raised from the dead; and Elijah represents the class at the second advent of Christ, who will, in the twinkling of an eye, be changed and fitted for their heavenly estate.

It is remarkable that, while Peter looked upon the death of Christ with abhorrence, Moses and Elijah appeared there to talk with him about his death. It was the most significant event of the world, the death of Christ. Moses was the lawgiver, and Elijah the prophet. Now, in that sense the transfiguration represented the final coming of our Lord, and Peter quotes it for that purpose.

Now we come to 2 Peter 1:19: "And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in & dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts." That describes the nature and value of prophecy. Prophecy foreshows a coming event, and its value is compared to a lamp shining in a dark place and to the morning star which heralds the coming dawn. That lamp is a long ways better than nothing. If one were, in the night, in an unknown country, he would like very much to have a lantern. The lantern would not illuminate the whole landscape, but it would illumine a small space right near about. It would not illumine all the course at one time, but would show the one how to take the next step. And as the lantern moves with him would guide him step by step. So the morning star, while not the day itself, foretells its speedy approach and only pales in the brighter light of the dawning. Now, as that lamp ceases to be valuable after the day comes, so when the fulfilment of the prophecy comes, then what was dimly understood is thoroughly understood.

Peter’s precise thought seems to be this: "I was an eyewitness of the majesty and power of the final advent. But prophecy is surer than sight, though its light be but as a lantern in the night, or as the daystar. You do well to take heed to prophecy." It is on a line with the thought of Abraham, in speaking to the rich man: "Moses and the prophets are better testimony than Lazarus, risen from the dead."

In other words, Peter’s idea was this: "It is true I saw the second advent unfolded in the transfiguration, but you are not dependent on what I saw. You have for your guidance the unerring word of God. Prophecy now holds the right of way. It is all the light we have. But its fulfilment is coming, which is perfect light. Then you will not need my testimony of what I saw, nor prophecy itself. The dawn is better light than lanterns and morning stars."

In 2 Peter 1:20-21, the closing paragraph of this chapter, he sets forth the reason of the present value of prophecy and how alone it is to be interpreted.

1. It never came by the will of man.

2. Men wrote or spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

3. It is not of man to interpret it. Only the illumination of the Holy Spirit, its author, can bring out its meaning.

This is one of the best texts in the Bible on inspiration. We have already seen that the prophets, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, foretold things to come, and then would search what time or manner of time these things would be, the date of it, and the circumstances of the date. They were moved to tell it just that way. They did not thoroughly understand it. It was a subject of their own contemplation and investigation, and was so to the angels. They can’t interpret the promises and the prophecies of God. They can only look into them, and as the church, in carrying out the will of God, unfolds his purposes, they can learn them by the unfolding, but they cannot know them beforehand.

2 Peter 2 of this letter is devoted to false teachers. The teachers here referred to are the Gnostics, and in the letter to the Ephesians and Colossians I have already explained the Gnostic philosophy; that, as a philosophy, it attempted to account for the creation, and for sin; that it claimed to have a subjective knowledge and was more reliable than the written word of God. That it made Christ a subordinate eon or emanation from God, and that inasmuch as sin resided in matter, one form in which this philosophy shaped itself was that there was no harm in any kind of sensual indulgencies. That the soul could not sin, and that the body was just matter, and so it made no difference if one did get drunk, or if he did go into all forms of lasciviousness and sensuality. Inasmuch as he is a child of God, he will be saved. One might do just whatever he pleased to do, since he is not under law at all, but free. Now, that was the philosophy, and, as explained in the other discussions, the method of this philosophy was not by public teaching, but by private teaching. They would come to families or to individuals and say to them: "Gnosticism is only for a cultured few, and we will initiate you into its mysteries at so much a head. Let the great body of common people come together in assemblies if they want to. You don’t need to go to church. You don’t need anything of that kind." That philosophy started in Proconsular Asia, and Peter is addressing his two letters to that section of the country. He says there were false prophets in the old times, and that there were false teachers among them, and in this letter and in Jude we have a very vivid description of these teachers and the errors of their teaching, and the most vivid description setting forth their doom. In 2 Peter 2, then, we have these false teachers presented as follows:

1. What they teach is false.

2. In their character they are lascivious or sensual.

3. They are covetous, they are teaching things in order to make money.

4. They despise dignities or dominion. They set at naught the apostolic offices of Paul and Peter; they disregard church government. A pastor doesn’t amount to anything; they are just like beasts that have no reason.

In other words, as a wolf follows his own blood lust, these men follow their instincts. They revel in the daytime. Then he sets them forth in pictures. He says they are wells or springs without any water in them. They are mists driven by the storm. They are like the dog that returneth to his vomit, and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire. These are very powerful descriptions. Nowhere in the Bible is such language used to describe the false teachers as in 2 Peter and in Jude. He then tells us about their methods. They come in privily. These are the abominable heresies they teach: the denial of the Lord, the subordinate place in which they put him, and his word, it makes no difference how one lives. They come offering liberty, when they themselves are the slaves of corruption. The whole chapter is devoted to them.

He replies to their teaching and of the life that follows such teaching by citing certain great facts. The first fact is that God has demonstrated in the history of the past that whosoever goes into heresy and teaches abominable doctrines shall certainly be punished, and fearfully punished, and he takes as his first example: "If God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell and committed them to pits of darkness to be reserved unto judgment; if the angels, the bright shining spirits that stand around his throne, cannot escape sharp eternal and condign punishment, how can these men expect to escape?"

The next example that he cites is the case of the antediluvians. These people lived before the flood. They would not hear Enoch, they would not hear Methuselah, they would not hear Noah. They gave themselves up to this world. There were giants among them. The whole earth was filled with violence. There was no purity left upon the earth. Homes were defiled, honor lost. Woman’s name was held as an outcast thing, and they lived like wild beasts, and God swept that world away.

The next fact that he cites is the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. We find the account of it in Genesis, and reference to it in a number of the prophets, particularly Isaiah. Sodom and Gomorrah had a preacher, Lot. His righteous soul was vexed by the fearful crimes that he witnessed every day. They paid no attention to his warning. All of the cities of the plains were given up to the most abominable vileness of life, so shameful that I cannot speak about it. It would make a man blush to read it off by himself. It won’t do to talk about, even when men are talking to men. He says those cities were swallowed up in the wrath of God, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire, and on those three great facts – the punishment of the angels, the punishment of the antediluvians, the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, we do know that God can take care of his people and punish the wicked. He saved Noah, and he saved Lot. The others perished.

There is one other thought in the chapter that needs to be brought out. It is presented in 2 Peter 2:10-11: "Daring, selfwilled, they tremble not to rail at dignities: whereas angels, though greater in might and power, bring not a railing judgment against them before the Lord." Peter seems to refer to this remarkable passage in Zechariah 3:1: "And he showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. And Jehovah said unto Satan: Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before him saying: Take the filthy garments off of him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with rich apparel. And I said, let them set a clean mitre upon his head, etc."

There the high priest, Joshua, and Zerubbabel were endeavoring to rebuild the Temple and the case came up before God. The devil appeared as an accuser, and reviled the high priest, saying that those people were not worthy of restoration. The angel of the Lord says, "The Lord rebuke thee, Satan." He did not bring a railing accusation against him like the devil had brought against Joshua, but he says, "God rebuke thee." Now, says Peter, when the angel would not rail at Satan, not assuming to judge Satan, but said, "God rebuke thee, Satan," these men that he is discussing here, they rail at dignities. Here were these apostles whom God had appointed; here were these pastors of the church whom they disregarded, the discipline of the church that they set aside. They had no reverence for official position of any kind.

QUESTIONS

1. Where the history of the transfiguration?

2. What Peter’s interpretation of its meaning?

3. What thing in the transfiguration represented the majesty of the final advent?

4. What two things represented its power?

5. Elijah appeared in his glorified body. Did the appearance of Moses imply that he, too, was in a glorified body like Elijah’s, i.e., Never having tasted death, or in a risen body, and if neither, why?

6. What does Peter hold as surer and better evidence of the final advent than what he saw at the transfiguration?

7. In our Lord’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the word of God and prophecy is said to be better than what other thing?

8. In Psalm 19 why is the same word of God declared to be better than the light of nature?

9. What illustration does Peter employ to show the value of prophecy?

10. Did the prophets themselves always understand their prophecies?

11. Why is prophecy not of private interpretation?

12. How alone can it be interpreted?

13. Who the false teachers of 2 Peter 2?

14. What their heresies, (1) about our Lord? (2) about creation? (3) about sin? (4) what the effect of this teaching on the life? (5) what their method of teaching and motive? (6) what did they mean by "knowledge," and how did this supersede the word of God?

15. What great historic examples did Peter cite as proofs that God could punish the wicked and save the righteous?

16. Where alone do you find proof that Noah was a preacher?

17. To what historic occasion does Peter refer in 2 Peter 2:11?

18. What was "the way of Balaam" which these heretics followed (2 Peter 2:15)?

19. With what natural things does Peter compare these heretics?

20. How is their presence at the Christian feasts illustrated?

21. How will you show that 2 Peter 2:21 does not teach the final apostasy of real Christians?