 |  |
(2)
And for those who did not share the vision on the holy mount, we
have in that prophetic Word something even more sure than any vision
can ever be.
We differ from Moffatt in much of his doctrine, but we read the words in his
preface to The New Testament, A New Translation 1913, with something of a
fellow -feeling:
'I wish only to add this caution, that a translator appears to be more
dogmatic than he really is. He must come down on one side of the fence
or on the other. He has often to decide on a rendering, or even on the
text of a passage, when his own mind is by no means clear and certain.
In a number of cases, therefore, when the evidence is conflicting, I
must ask scholars and students to believe that a line has been taken
only after long thought and only with serious hesitation'.
The word of prophecy is 'sure', sure as the promise (Rom. 4:16),
steadfast as the word spoken by angels (Heb. 2:2), steadfast as the anchor of
hope (Heb. 6:19).
As the passage stands in the A.V. the day Star is to arise 'in our
hearts', which is precisely what many teach who deny the personal return of
the Lord. 'In your hearts' should be read with the words, 'take heed', and
not be connected with the rising of the day Star. What does Peter put
forward to show why this prophetic Word is 'more sure' than the sublimest
'experience'? It is that, in the matter of prophetic inspiration the human
element is entirely subservient -- all is of God:
'Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any
private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the
will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost' (2 Pet. 1:20,21).
What are we to understand by the words, 'private interpretation'? Does
Peter impose upon us the bondage of tradition? Are we to surrender to the
interpretation of Scripture approved by the 'Church'? 'Private' is idios, a
word occurring 114 times. It is nearly always rendered 'own'. Only once is
idios rendered 'private'. The word translated 'interpretation' occurs
nowhere else in Scripture. It is epilusis. In a verbal form it is found in
the New Testament twice (Mark 4:34 and Acts 19:39). In the LXX it is found
in Genesis 41:12*, and 'interpretation', therefore, is a good rendering. It
means 'to interpret' in the sense of 'letting loose', 'breaking open' or
'unfolding'. It is found in classical Greek with the meaning of letting
loose dogs to chase a hare, or of breaking open a letter. In this verse,
moreover, the word 'is' is not the verb to be, but ginomai, which means, 'to
come into being'. Peter is not speaking about systems of interpretation, but
of the trustworthiness of Scripture itself, which, he says, is found in this
fact: 'No prophecy of Scripture came into being of its own unfolding'. He
then proceeds to show why this is so, by adding: 'For prophecy was not
brought at any time by the will of man'.
*
See:
To The Reader, on page (ix).
It is important to keep the rendering 'brought' in this passage, as
phero occurs again in the passage that follows. We therefore have the
subject negatively and positively; how it was not brought, and how it was