Discovery Box2 Peter 1:16-19 
Context1:16 For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return 1 of our Lord Jesus Christ; 2 no, 3 we were 4 eyewitnesses of his 5 grandeur. 6 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that 7 voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: “This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted.” 8 1:18 When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves 9 heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 10 1:19 Moreover, 11 we 12 possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. 13 You do well if you pay attention 14 to this 15 as you would 16 to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star 17 rises in your hearts. 18
1 tn Grk “coming.”
2 tn Grk “for we did not make known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ by following cleverly concocted fables.”
3 tn Grk “but, instead.”
4 tn Grk “became.”
5 tn Grk “that one’s.” That is, “eyewitnesses of the grandeur of that one.” The remote demonstrative pronoun is used perhaps to indicate esteem for Jesus. Along these lines it is interesting to note that “the Pythagoreans called their master after his death simply ἐκεῖνος” as a term of reverence and endearment (BDAG 302 s.v. ἐκεῖνος a.γ).
6 sn The term grandeur was used most frequently of God’s majesty. In the 1st century, it was occasionally used of the divine majesty of the emperor. 2 Pet 1:1 and 1:11 already include hints of a polemic against emperor-worship (in that “God and Savior” and “Lord and Savior” were used of the emperor).
7 tn Grk “such a.” The pronoun τοιᾶσδε (toiasde) most likely refers to what follows, connoting something of the uniqueness of the proclamation.
8 tn The verb εὐδόκησα (eudokhsa) in collocation with εἰς ὅν (ei" Jon) could either mean “in whom I am well-pleased, delighted” (in which case the preposition functions like ἐν [en]), or “on whom I have set my favor.”
sn This is my beloved Son, in whom I am delighted alludes to the Transfiguration. However, the author’s version is markedly different from the synoptic accounts (in particular his introductory phrase, “when that voice was conveyed to him,” an unusual expression [perhaps used to avoid naming God directly as the one who spoke from heaven]). The most natural explanation for such differences is that he was unaware of the exact wording of the Gospels. This is, of course, easier to explain if 2 Peter is authentic than if it is a late document, written in the 2nd century.
9 tn The “we” in v. 18 is evidently exclusive, that is, it refers to Peter and the other apostles.
10 tn 2 Pet 1:17-18 comprise one sentence in Greek, with the main verb “heard” in v. 18. All else is temporally subordinate to that statement. Hence, more literally these verses read as follows: “For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am delighted,’ we ourselves heard this voice when it was conveyed from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain.”
11 tn Grk “and.” The use of καί (kai) is of course quite elastic. Only the context can determine if it is adversative, continuative, transitional, etc.
12 sn We in v. 19 is apparently an inclusive “we” (the author and his audience). Such shifts in the first person plural are quite common in epistolary literature (cf., e.g., 2 Cor 10-13, passim).
13 tn The comparative adjective βεβαιότερον (bebaioteron) is the complement to the object τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον (ton profhtikon logon). As such, the construction almost surely has the force “The prophetic word is (more certain/altogether certain) – and this is something that we all have.” Many scholars prefer to read the construction as saying “we have the prophetic word made more sure,” but such a nuance is unparalleled in object-complement constructions (when the construction has this force, ποιέω [poiew] is present [as in 2 Pet 1:10]). The meaning, as construed in the translation, is that the Bible (in this case, the OT) that these believers had in their hands was a thoroughly reliable guide. Whether it was more certain than was even Peter’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration depends on whether the adjective should be taken as a true comparative (“more certain”) or as an elative (“very certain, altogether certain”). Some would categorically object to any experience functioning as a confirmation of the scriptures and hence would tend to give the adjective a comparative force. Yet the author labors to show that his gospel is trustworthy precisely because he was an eyewitness of this great event. Further, to say that the OT scriptures (the most likely meaning of “the prophetic word”) were more trustworthy an authority than an apostle’s own experience of Christ is both to misconstrue how prophecy took place in the OT (did not the prophets have visions or other experiences?) and to deny the final revelation of God in Christ (cf. Heb 1:2). In sum, since syntactically the meaning that “we have confirmed the prophetic word by our experience” is improbable, and since contextually the meaning that “we have something that is a more reliable authority than experience, namely, the Bible” is unlikely, we are left with the meaning “we have a very reliable authority, the Old Testament, as a witness to Christ’s return.” No comparison is thus explicitly made. This fits both the context and normal syntax quite well. The introductory καί (kai) suggests that the author is adding to his argument. He makes the statement that Christ will return, and backs it up with two points: (1) Peter himself (as well as the other apostles) was an eyewitness to the Transfiguration, which is a precursor to the Parousia; and (2) the Gentile believers, who were not on the Mount of Transfiguration, nevertheless have the Old Testament, a wholly reliable authority that also promises the return of Christ.
14 tn Grk “paying attention” (the adverbial participle is either conditional [“if you pay attention”] or instrumental [“by paying attention”]; though there is difference in translation, there is virtually no difference in application). On a lexical level, “pay attention to” (προσέχω [prosecw]) does not, in a context such as this, mean merely observe or notice, but follow, give heed to, obey.
15 tn “To this” is a relative pronoun in Greek. The second half of v. 19 is thus a relative clause. Literally it reads “to which you do well if you pay attention.”
16 tn Grk “as”; ὡς (Jws) clauses after imperatives or implied commands (as here) make a comparison of what should be true (imperative) to what is true (indicative). This is the case even when the verb of the ὡς clause is only implied. Cf. Matt 6:10 (“may your will be done on earth as [it is] in heaven”); 10:16 (“be wise as serpents [are], and be as gentle as doves [are]”); 22:39 (“love your neighbor as [you already do] love yourself”).
17 sn The reference to the morning star constitutes a double entendre. First, the term was normally used to refer to Venus. But the author of course has a metaphorical meaning in mind, as is obvious from the place where the morning star is to rise – “in your hearts.” Most commentators see an allusion to Num 24:17 (“a star shall rise out of Jacob”) in Peter’s words. Early Christian exegesis saw in that passage a prophecy about Christ’s coming. Hence, in this verse Peter tells his audience to heed the OT scriptures which predict the return of Christ, then alludes to one of the passages that does this very thing, all the while running the theme of light on a parallel track. In addition, it may be significant that Peter’s choice of terms here is not the same as is found in the LXX. He has used a Hellenistic word that was sometimes used of emperors and deities, perhaps as a further polemic against the paganism of his day.
18 sn The phrase in your hearts is sometimes considered an inappropriate image for the parousia, since the coming of Christ will be visible to all. But Peter’s point has to do with full comprehension of the revelation of Christ, something only believers will experience. Further, his use of light imagery is doing double-duty, suggesting two things at once (i.e., internal guidance to truth or illumination, and OT prophecy about Christ’s return) and hence can not be expected to be consistent with every point he wishes to make.
