Transfiguration of Our Lord

A foretaste of the second coming

Commentary on 2 Peter 1:16-21

Ruth Anne Reese

Peter has written to the believers, reminding them that through God’s divine power they have already been given everything they need for life and godliness (1:3), and he has encouraged them to add virtuous living to their life of faith (1:5–7). Peter prompts them to confirm their calling through their righteous behavior so that they can enter the kingdom of Jesus (1:10–11). And he indicates that he is writing this letter to serve as a reminder about these things (1:12–15). But how can his audience know that what Peter wants to remind them of is true?

Knowing what’s true

Peter’s first claim is that we (the apostles and perhaps his audience) did not follow cleverly devised myths. The verb sophizō (cleverly devised) has the implication of self-serving cleverness or ingeniously or slyly concocting something. We see such self-serving myths springing up even in the Gospel of Matthew around the resurrection account. There, the chief priests pay the soldiers who were guarding the tomb to say, “His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13). The “spin” around Jesus started early.

In our own time, a whole vocabulary has developed related to the narratives we encounter. We use words like “alternative facts,” “misinformation,” and “fake news,” and arguments unfold all around over who is telling the truth and what kind of bias they have. Peter declares that his purpose is to make known the powerful second coming of Christ. This declaration is based on the eyewitness account of Jesus’ majesty. Peter indicates that he was present on the mountain and heard the voice that spoke from heaven identifying Jesus Christ as the Son of God (see also Matthew 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36).

The narrative about Christ’s transfiguration is not just a story that Peter and the apostles made up to manipulate potential converts. Instead, they are sharing an eyewitness account of a supernatural experience that transformed their understanding of Jesus. He was not just a messiah but was also the Son of God who embodied the glory of God.

Glory, majesty, and honor

Our passage is full of ideas connected to the concept of honor. In the first century, honor was an important value connected to one’s status and social standing. An important source of honor was derived from one’s family. Here, we see that Jesus is identified as majestic, alluding to his royal status (verse 16). And he receives honor (a manifestation of esteem) and glory (a recognition of his status associated with his transcendence) from God the Father.

As part of God’s family, Christ shares in the honor of that family. God is also identified as magnificent (verse 17), and God shares these qualities with the Son, who is identified as beloved and one who pleases God. Each of these—honor, glory, familial identity, being beloved, and being well-pleasing—points to the high status of Christ in this passage. Both God and Christ are worthy of deep honor.

The prophetic word

In addition to the eyewitness account of the transfiguration, Peter points to the prophetic word, a reference to the Old Testament prophets, as further evidence that he isn’t just making up myths about Jesus. But note that the prophetic word is temporary—it is an ongoing word for the dark places and dark times that we live in. Yet, our anticipation is for the dawn of a new day when the morning star—Jesus himself (see also, Revelation 22:16)—will rise in our hearts. This is another reference to the second coming of Jesus and the dawn of a new age with Jesus as the true ruler of humanity.

There are two different translations of 2 Peter 1:20. Either the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition’s “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (also English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible) or “no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things” (New International Version, similar New Living Translation, New English Translation).

Both are grammatically possible. As Michael Green says, “The two main ways of taking it are, first, no prophecy arises from the prophet’s own interpretation—in other words, it is given by God; and second, no prophecy is to be understood by private interpretation—in other words, but as the church interprets it” (113).

The majority of scholars take the first view, arguing that in the context the point is that the surety of the prophetic word comes about because it is spoken by God. Richard Bauckham has shown that in both Jewish and non-Jewish contexts prophets were a conduit for the divine voice and that their utterances were not their own interpretation. Those who take the second view argue that the word “prophet” is missing in the Greek, making it a matter of “one’s own” interpretation. Instead, the prophetic word came about through the movement of the Holy Spirit bringing the divine message.

Both Peter’s eyewitness account and the work of the Holy Spirit through the prophets are support for the reliability of Peter’s testimony about Jesus. He who was transfigured is able to transform (see also verses 4–7). He who was spoken of through prophecy calls his people to the kingdom (see also verses 10–11).

Conclusion

As we teach on the transfiguration of our Lord, let us remember that it is also a foretaste of the second coming, a reminder that our majestic king is returning to make all things new (2 Peter 3:13). Until his coming, we are blessed to have the witness of the apostles as recorded in the New Testament and the wisdom of the Old Testament to guide the church as it seeks to live in light of the truth God has spoken.