The Transfiguration from II Peter: The Quest for Authority

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

I. Introduction

Let me state at the outset that if you expect a pleasant exposition of the "doctrine of inspiration of Scripture" or an easily commendatory essay of this text, you should stop reading now. I will have a point to make about the text, to be sure, but I first want to speak of II Peter as an Epistle. In short, just as James Buchanan is considered by many to be the least popular US President (1857-61) in history, so II Peter is probably the least read/studied/loved book in the NT. II Peter (and Jude, to some extent) has the most unmitigated criticism of unnamed foes of any book in the NT. The vitriol and scorn coming from the lips of the author reminds me of the OT book of Nahum--no one's favorite from that Testament. The Lectionary makers no doubt will avoid the more unattractive parts of II Peter, but in order really to understand what the author is up to in 1:16-21, it is good to see how it fits into the flow of the whole. In a word, 1:16-21 functions as a means to assert apostolic authority in dealing with a shadowy conflict many years after Jesus' death (scholars are not in agreement as to the date of II Peter--good suggestions from the 70s to the early 2nd century have been made).

All we know is that the author, who claims the mantle of the Apostle Peter, is strongly set against what he calls "false prophets" (2:1). These false prophets deny the Master and bring quick destruction upon themselves (2:2). Just as God didn't spare the angels when they sinned but committed them to chains and the deepest darkness (stories of the original angelic "fall" were spreading in Judaism of the time), and just as God delivered some, like Noah, from the rampant immorality in historical time, so God will both deliver the righteous and send to punishment those who "indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority" (2:10). The authority that these people despise is probably that of the author of this epistle...

Not satisfied to describe the punishment awaiting those lusty people who despise authority, the author goes on. These people "are like irrational animals...born to be caught and killed" (2:12). These people are "blots and blemishes, reveling in their dissipation while they feast" (2:13). They are, in fact, "accursed" (2:14). The deepest darkness is reserved for them (2:17). Apparently these people are despised by the author not because of their outsider status but because they formerly were acquainted with and were part of the "way of righteousness" (2:21) but they turned back from it. Like the dog turning back to his own vomit and the washed sow who returns to the mud, so these people have abandoned the good way and returned to their regions of waterless springs (2:22, 17). You always hate those who were once part of you more than those who never joined the movement. This seems to be the dynamic at work in II Peter.

And, the author isn't finished. His screed so far just brings us through chapter two. In chapter three he reminds the hearers that "in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts" (3:3). One of the things they mock is the reality of the coming of the Lord. In fact, the author says, God can bring Christ back any time God wants: a thousand years are like a day to God (3:8). But that day will come like a "thief" and then everything will be consumed in a fiery dissolution (3:10). How then should his hearers live? Without spot or blemish (3:14). The hearers shouldn't mock Paul who has written some things hard to understand in his letters (3:16). Some people have twisted Paul's words "to their own destruction." The fact that the author speaks about Paul's letters as a well-known source of authority argues for a later date for II Peter--well after the historical Peter had been killed in Rome.

Who are these mockers, scofers, lustful people, people who don't want to knuckle under to apostolic authority? We really have no idea, and so the words of II Peter just hang "out there" with no particular historical referent. Because they are so brutally acrimonious, however, I have the same feeling reading II Peter as I do when watching a person on a tirade. I just let them be and try to keep my distance. I did think, however, in re-reading II Peter that I might be one of those that the author might not approve. After all, I don't believe in the quick coming of Christ, and I believe that his attempt to explain the delay by quoting from Ps. 90 doesn't really "work" for me.

II. The Transfiguration

But the Lectionary makers wanted us to read the passage for the morning in the context of the Gospel lesson for the day--on Jesus' Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-9). Yet when we read the words bolded above, we see how the Transfiguration has been reinterpreted within a generation or two from the event. Rather than its being seen as an experience that reveals deeper insight into the person of Jesus or the nature of the Gospel, the author of II Peter has used it as a means to shore up his authority. He writes in the name of the Apostle Peter himself, as if he, the author, was present at the very event. He stresses his "distance" from those who follow "cleverly devised myths" (the Greek word is sesophismenois mythois-- stories of supposed wisdom) but then he points to the honor and glory Christ received from the "Majestic Glory" (v. 17--a unique name for God in the NT). The words heard on the mountain were the same uttered by God after Jesus' baptism.

The result of this experience is to make the prophetic word "more fully confirmed" (1:19). But then we see where the author takes this--to confirm the truth of the Scriptures. He is trying to suggest that the line from Transfiguration to Petrine witness to account of the event to interpretation of the event to contemporary living is clear and authoritative. Therefore, anyone who opposes Peter (or the author writing in his name) must be opposing the one who first witnessed the power and glory of Christ on the mountain.

Conclusion

We only understand in a most shadowy way how difficult life was for the earliest Christian community. The central question--authority--was undecided. Indeed, how could you decide it in the earliest days? Someone would claim that he carried the authority of Paul with him; our author pointed to Peter's authority. Until things got sorted out in the early 4th century through council and war, authority in the early Church would be in considerable flux. Our author represents a time when that flux was most "fluid." It is our loss that we can't really understand the desperation, energy and occasional confidence that went through the Churches who wanted to associate themselves with one of the original Apostles. We only have the imperfect vessels representing that conflict that survive in our day. We are not superior to them; no doubt if we were alive at the time our struggle would have be as earnest. It is this earnest in some parts of the world today. II Peter helps us develop a deeply historical sense, and, I hope, a spirit of humility and gratitude for the difficult labors of our predecessors.

3257