 |  |
generally too obvious to allow us to trust them. And, strictly speaking, the experiences
themselves often become very small when stripped of all associations and sentiments,
and submitted to a cross-examination. Peter, therefore, turns even from the true
experience of the mount of transfiguration to something "more sure":--
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed
in your hearts, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day
star arise" (II Pet. 1: 19).
The word of prophecy is "sure", sure as the promise (Rom. 4: 16), steadfast as the
word spoken by angels (Heb. 2: 2), fast 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 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 sub-servient--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" (II Pet. 1: 20, 21).
What are we to understand by the words "private interpretation"? Does Peter impose
upon us the bondage of Romanism? Are we to surrender to the approved interpretation
of Scripture 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 N.T. twice (Mark 4: 34 and Acts 19: 39). In the LXX it is found in
Gen. 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 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."
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 brought. "But being borne along (phero) by holy
spirit, holy men of God spake." If we would see something of the force of this word
phero we should read through Acts 27:, with its vivid description of the storm, the
wreck, and the utter helplessness of man in the tempest. Look at the words of verse 15:
"We let here drive", phero, and again in verse 17, "strake sail, and so were driven",
phero. The human element was of no avail in that driving euroclydon, and was brushed
aside. Even so is it with the mighty driving power of inspiration.