Peter is contrasting, here, the miraculous manifestation of Jesus’ glorification, which he experienced at the Mount of Transfiguration (vv. 16—18), against “the more sure word of prophecy” — that is, against the Bible. Peter writes, “We have a more sure word of prophecy...” to indicate that the written Word of Scripture is even more reliable than what he heard the Father say from Heaven about his Son, Jesus. Therefore, we should eschew all subjective — so called — prophetic experiences and take heed to pay attention to the more sure Word of the Old and New Testaments.
First, those who insist that Peter is speaking about the Old and New Testaments when he writes, “We have a more sure word of prophecy” are committing the same anachronistic and logical fallacy that was committed in the first four arguments examined in this series. If 2 Peter did not complete the canon then it is a logical and exegetical impossibility that Peter could be referring to the canon. As will be made clear, Peter is not writing about the New Testament — whether complete or in process — rather, he is pointing his audience back to the Old Testament1 which predicted the coming of Messiah.
Second, Peter wrote this epistle at a time in history when cessationists and continuationist agree that extra-biblical revelation was being given. Therefore, if the “more sure word of prophecy” did not extinguish revelatory gifts then, how can this text be used to prove that they have ceased today?
Third, Paul is not contrasting his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration against holy Scripture — as though his personal experience should hold no sway in building confidence in what those scriptures contain.2 Quite the opposite, actually. To shore up their position, cessationist must appeal to a minority opinion on the translation of “καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον.”— “We have also a more sure word of prophecy.” Their interpretation of the text works well if used alongside the King James Version, but if other translations are used, footnotes are required to “correct” the more appropriate translation. John MacArthur writes,
This [NKJV] translation could indicate that the eyewitness account of Christ’s majesty at the Transfiguration confirmed the Scriptures. However, the Gr. word order is crucial in that it does not say that. It says, “And we have more sure the prophetic word.” That original arrangement of the sentence supports the interpretation that Peter is ranking Scripture over experience.3
However, Dr. W. Hall Harris III replies,
The comparative adjective βεβαιότερον (bebaioteron) is the complement to the object τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον (ton propheœtikon 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...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). [see endnote for extended commentary]4
And most translating committees agree:
NKJV — And so we have the prophetic word confirmed.
NIV — We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable.
NLT — Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets.
NAS — So we have the prophetic word made more sure.
NET — Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing.
ISV — Therefore we regard the message of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt.
In sum, Peter was not teaching that experience is to be abandoned, as though it presented no possible capacity to confirm truth (a contrast between Scripture and experience, or ranking the two is not in view). Rather, he is writing to say that the Church can trust Jesus’ promise to return in power (v. 16) precisely because the promises of the Old Testament were confirmed by what Peter witnessed on the Mount of Transfiguration.
The cessationist who uses this verse as a prooftext against continuationism must wrongly interpret a poor translation to prove his point. This multiplies the error and the force of Peter’s consolation is utterly lost. It causes him to say,
We were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw him glorified and heard the voice of the Father from heaven. And though I write this letter to you as an inspired author, with full authority as Christ’s Apostle, don’t trust my experience, put your confidence in the more trustworthy — albeit unsubstantiated — text of the Old Testament.
Cessationists would do well to refrain from making a point with this text at the expense of its proper interpretation. An otherwise sound hermeneutic is abandoned, and the necessity of having to appeal to an inferior translation exposes the bias in cessationist’s interpretation of this text. Those who push this understanding import cessationism where it does not belong and the Apostle’s message is obliterated in the process. Therefore, both the minority translation of 2 Peter 1:19, which reads, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy,” and the cessationist’s argument where this translation is wrongly employed should be rejected.
Endnotes
1 “The ‘prophetic word’ refers not just to the OT major and minor prophets, but to the entire OT.” — John MacArthur, “The Second Epistle of Peter” in The John MacArthur Study Bible. (ed. John MacArthur; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 1954.
2 Cf. 1 Cor 15:3—8; 1 John 1:1—4 ↩
3 MacArthur, “Second Peter,” 1954. ↩
4 “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 [poieoœ] 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 καὶ (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.” — W. Hall Harris, ed., The NET Bible Notes (1st, Accordance electronic ed. Richardson: Biblical Studies Press, 2005), n.p.
Ceslas Spicq, in the Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (TLNT), explains, “in Mark 16:20—ton logon bebaiountos —the Lord does more than confirm the word of the apostles by the miracles that accompany him; he also authenticates and guarantees it. Inasmuch as the law of Moses was promulgated by angels, this ‘word’ is valid and authentically divine (logos bebaios, Heb 2:2). At the transfiguration, the appearance of Moses and Elijah evokes the messianic prophecies of the OT; these prophecies become more sure, their veracity is guaranteed by the transfiguration of Jesus (bebaioteron . . . logon, 2Pet 1:19).” — “PREFACE,” TLNT, n.p. ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment