In Harper Lee’s famous novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, set in the 1930’s in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama, a lawyer named Atticus Finch agrees to represent Tom Robinson, a black man charged with sexual assault of a white woman. In the course of the trial, Atticus demonstrates convincingly that Tom Robinson not only did not, but actually would have been physically unable to commit this crime. In his closing argument to the jury, after noting that there are all kinds of natural inequalities in the world, he says this: “But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal—there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court. It can be the Supreme Court of the United States or the humblest J.P. court in the land, or this honorable court which you serve. Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal. I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system—that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality.” Sadly, as the story goes on to tell, equality for Tom Robinson in Maycomb, Alabama, in the year 1935 was purely an ideal, not a living, working reality.
As human beings, we have an odd ability to profess loyalty to certain ideals that end up having little effect on our actual lives. These ideals can often function more like myths or fairy tales, means of escape from the real world, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty details of real life they quickly fade from view. I wonder if we can even do that with the gospel itself, the good news about Jesus’ death, resurrection, and future return. Is it possible to profess faith in Christ and to hold forth the gospel as a kind of ideal, but to fail to live as though Christ really is going to return someday to judge the living and the dead? Absolutely it is, and it is a danger of which we must beware.
What will move the gospel from a near-mythological ideal that hovers in the clouds above us to a living, working reality that shapes every part of our lives? Certain conviction of its truth. What will motivate you in the daily fight for holiness to kill the sin that so stubbornly holds its place in your heart? What will motivate you to let go of pursuits to advance yourself in this world when they come into conflict with your commitment to Christ and his church? What will motivate you to suffer the loss of your job, your social standing, or even your life because you refuse to compromise your commitment to truth? In all these cases, it will be the certainty of your conviction. Imagine you somehow got in touch with a young man who lives in Saudi Arabia. Let’s say you made contact with him through social media and led him to faith in Christ. And then let’s suppose that he said to you, “I know that I must now be baptized, and I know of a group of Christians who can baptize me. But I also know that if I am baptized, my family will disown me, and the chance that someone in my community will kill me as a result of my baptism is almost 100%.” If this young man had his whole life ahead of him, would you have the kind of certainty of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ to encourage him to go ahead with it? Is Jesus real enough to you to tell that young man that losing his life will be worth it? If you have hesitations in answering that question, what do you think you will do when your life or your livelihood is on the line?
Now, I understand that we as Christians have doubts. My point here is not to say that you should deny the reality of doubts or that you shouldn’t make room for honest questions. My point is that we should not assume, as the postmodern world has taught us, that certain conviction of the truth is an expression of arrogance and therefore should not be pursued. That is a lie from the enemy. The point I am making is not that you will never doubt the truth of what you believe; I think all of us will at some point. My point is about what you do with those doubts. Do you allow them to define the character of your faith, so that you end up holding the gospel as more of a mythological ideal than a reality, an ideal that will never motivate you to grow in the virtues Peter listed in verses 5-7 of this chapter? Or do you work through your doubts by listening attentively to the Word of God and seeking to strengthen the faith the comes by hearing?
In this text, Peter gives us two bases for the certainty of Christ’s future coming. He lays these out in order to combat the influence of false teachers who denied that Christ would come again. And you can see how a lack of certainty about Christ’s future coming would remove incentives for holiness of life, for perseverance in faith, for suffering for the sake of the gospel. So what Peter tells us here has massive effects on how we live our lives, because there is a big difference between living in world in which you believe Christ will return vs. living in world in which you are unsure of that fact. So let’s walk through the two bases for the certainty of Christ’s future coming that Peter gives us in these six verses.
First,
If you think through other religions of the world, most of them (maybe even all of them) do not hinge on historical events. Most eastern religions are more like timeless philosophies of life. Many pagan religions are based on mythological stories that can’t be dated to any particular time in history. But Christianity is different. Christianity depends on events that happened in history, specifically in the Roman Empire during the first century. The great creeds of our faith mention Pontius Pilate, a known historical figure who gave the order to crucify Jesus. If these events did not happen in history, in space and time, then the whole gospel crumbles to the ground. For this reason, there is a prominent emphasis in Scripture on the importance of eyewitness testimony. These events did not happen in the dark. They were seen by witnesses who have passed on testimony to us.
Peter gives his own eyewitness testimony in this section. In verse 16 he writes, “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 were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” Peter’s focus here is on the “power and coming” of Christ. What is he referring to there? The context of the whole letter indicates that he is speaking of the second coming of Christ. We might paraphrase “power and coming” as “powerful coming,” which must refer to his future return in power. At his first coming, Christ came in weakness and humility, not in power. But now that he is enthroned over the cosmos, having completed his redemptive mission, his second coming will indeed be in power.
The false teachers Peter opposes in this letter charged the apostles with spreading “cleverly devised myths” when they spoke about Christ’s future coming in power. They likely assumed, as we all have a tendency to do, that the world will go on and on as it always has, with no deviations from the natural order of things. The thought of a man descending from heaven to gather all the nations before him for judgment was too mythological for them to swallow. So here is Peter’s response: “We have seen it with our own eyes.”
Now, what did Peter and the two other apostles (James and John) see? They didn’t see the second coming, because that hasn’t happened yet. But they did see an event that was a foretaste of the second coming, a preview of the revelation of Jesus Christ in power and glory. They saw a glimpse of Jesus’ majesty that all nations will see at the end of history when he comes again. Look at verses 17-18: “For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.” Peter, James, and John were eyewitnesses of the event we know as the Transfiguration, when Jesus took them up on a mountain and was transfigured before them, shining in radiant, heavenly glory, while Moses and Elijah appeared next to him, and then they heard a voice from heaven identifying Jesus as God’s beloved Son. On the mount of transfiguration, which Peter calls “the holy mountain,” Peter, James, and John had an encounter with God much like Moses encountered God on a mountain when God met him in a burning bush. But in this case, Peter, James, and John did not behold a bush; they beheld Jesus Christ and saw the glory-cloud of God’s presence (which Peter calls “the Majestic Glory”), symbolizing the Holy Spirit, as they heard the testimony of God the Father to his Son.
Peter mentions “honor and glory” that Jesus received from God the Father in verse 17. While those two words could be overlapping in meaning, I think it more likely that the word “glory” refers to his transfigured physical appearance, and “honor” refers to the declaration of the heavenly voice. Peter, James, and John saw his glory, and they heard the declaration of honor borne to him from heaven. So they are both eyewitnesses and earwitnesses of the truth about Jesus Christ. And that truth is summed up in the words of the heavenly voice. When God said, “This is my beloved Son,” he echoed Psalm 2:7, in which God’s anointed king the Messiah says, “I will tell of the decree: the LORD said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’” When God said of Jesus, “with whom I am well pleased,” he echoed the words of Isaiah 42:1: “Behold, my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.” The testimony of God the Father to his Son on the mount of transfiguration communicated to Peter, James, and John that Jesus is the anointed king of the nations from Psalm 2 and the suffering servant of the Lord from Isaiah 42. He is appointed to redeem the nations and to rule over them, and that can’t happen if he doesn’t return in power to judge the living and the dead. Peter heard these words. Peter saw the majesty of Christ in his transfigured appearance. His future return is no myth.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries a theological movement known as Liberal Protestantism, or what has been called simply liberalism, became dominant in most institutions of higher learning. I’m sure many of you have heard that term before, but have you ever wondered what it actually means? Maybe the best way to define that movement would be to say that it was an attempt to reconcile Christianity to the modern world by stripping away all supernatural elements out of the Christian faith. Liberal theologians tended to argue, then, that the miraculous elements of the Bible—the virgin birth of Christ, his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, his future return in glory—are not actual, historical events. They are ways of representing universal, spiritual truths. For example, a liberal theologian might say that Jesus’ body never actually came out of the tomb. The resurrection is a way of picturing the endurance of his message of love among all who were inspired by him. The resurrection comes across, on that view, more like a cleverly devised myth than a real message of hope for us. As you can see based on what Peter says here, liberalism is diametrically opposed to the message of the Bible. Peter is not content to say that Jesus’ second coming is an inspiring symbol of universal spiritual truth. Peter says, “Make no mistake: Jesus Christ is going to return again in power and glory, and I know this because my companions and I beheld his glory with our own eyes on the mount of transfiguration.” You can be certain of the hope of the gospel because the message has been delivered to us by reliable eyewitness testimony. And because the hope of the gospel is certain, it is well worth giving our lives to the pursuit of the virtues Peter outlined in vv. 5-7, no matter how much it might cost us to do so.
But Peter doesn’t stop there. He goes on to provide another basis of our certain conviction of Christ’s return. Second,
Suppose you were to say, “Okay, Pastor, I get that we have eyewitness testimony about Jesus. But we also have eyewitness testimony about all kinds of weird things. For example, I have seen shows where multiple witnesses claimed to have seen the same UFO at the same time. And while I may find that interesting, it doesn’t really affect my life in any way. How is the eyewitness testimony to Jesus any different from that?” That’s a good question. There is a major difference between the events of Jesus’ life and the claim of a UFO sighting: in the case of Jesus, we have Old Testament Scriptures that foretold his coming and place it in the context of a whole story in which it has deeply significant meaning for us. I have no idea what people who claim to have seen a UFO did or did not see. There is no broader context or story that makes sense of it, telling me that it should have major significance for my life. A UFO doesn’t make any claims over my life, but Jesus does. That’s the main difference.
So Peter tells us in these last three verses that the testimony of the apostles to Jesus does not arise in a vacuum. It stands in continuity with the Old Testament Scriptures, the writings of prophets who foretold the coming of the Messiah centuries before Jesus ever appeared on the scene. In verse 19, Peter writes, “And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” It seems possible that the false teachers Peter is opposing in this letter tried to cast doubt on the Old Testament prophets. They may have read such passages as Isaiah 11, which foretells of the coming kingdom of the Messiah, and argued that the prophets misinterpreted the visions they received from God. There is no future coming of Christ; the prophets of the Old Testament were simply wrong about that.
In answer to that charge, Peter says the prophetic word of the Old Testament is now “more fully confirmed,” because it has been vindicated by Christ’s first coming. And because its testimony to Christ is true, we must pay attention to it, as though it were a lamp guiding our way through a darkened place until the morning comes. Peter says the day will come when we will no longer need the lamp of Scripture, namely, when the morning star rises, heralding the coming of the day. What is the morning star? It is the planet Venus, which can be seen in the morning before sunrise. Peter likely refers to Christ’s second coming as the rising of the morning star, heralding the start of a new day. In Numbers 24:17, the prophet Balaam spoke of the Messiah as a star: “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth.” So yes, the day will come when we will see Christ in his glory and will no longer need the light of Scripture to guide us. But we’re not there yet, and so we must be dependent on Scripture and let it guide us in all that we do.
In verses 20-21, Peter tells us why Scripture is a guide to which we should pay close attention: “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The prophets who wrote the Old Testament did not give their own interpretations of what God had revealed to them. It’s not as though they saw some vision from God and then were left to try to explain it according to their own fallible words and ideas. If that were the case, it would mean that the written prophecies of Scripture came to us from the will of man. But they didn’t. On the contrary, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. We call this the doctrine of “inspiration,” or the process by which God spoke through the authors of the Bible in order to declare his authoritative word to us. Scripture was produced by the working of the Holy Spirit, not by man.
Our church’s statement of faith (drawing from the Baptist Faith and Message) says this: “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” We often speak of the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. What do these terms mean? “Inspired” means that it has come to us from the Holy Spirit, not from man. “Inerrant” means that the Bible is completely true in all that it affirms. Its content is truth, without any mixture of error, and thus is to be believed and obeyed in all that it says. “Infallible” is an even stronger term. This word not only means that the Bible does not contain errors, but that it cannot err in any way. It is incapable of being mistaken, because it is God’s Word, and God cannot fail in anything that he says. We hold these doctrines of Scripture primarily because the Bible claims these things about itself, and 2 Peter 1:19-21 is one such passage where that claim is made.
What this means for your life is that you must devote yourself daily to renewing your mind by Scripture. I recently saw a video clip in which the late R.C. Sproul was introducing John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California. Dr. Sproul and Dr. MacArthur come from different church traditions. Sproul was a Presbyterian. MacArthur belongs to an independent, baptistic church. Sproul fit the story of the Bible together in a different way when it comes to questions about Israel, the church, and the future, than does MacArthur. And yet, I heard Dr. Sproul give one of the highest compliments imaginable to Dr. MacArthur on this occasion. He said, in essence, that having known John MacArthur for years, he knows that he is the kind of man who, if he ever becomes convinced that the Bible teaches something contrary to what he believes, he will change his view right on the spot. That is how John MacArthur approaches the Bible. We have to be willing to do the same. We have to be willing to let the Bible say what it says, even if it offends us. Because our standard of truth is not our own opinions; it is the Word of God. And if the Word of God cannot correct us, even in strongly held opinions, then we are really listening to God. And if you think about it, that’s how the best human relationships work as well, right? Don’t we want to have relationships with people who feel freedom to disagree with us and tell us things we don’t want to hear, rather than people who always affirm our prior opinions? May it be so in our relationship with God as well. All Scripture comes from God, and it is a lamp to guide us as a witness to Jesus Christ until his return.
Rene Descartes was a French philosopher of the 17th century who led the way toward the philosophy of the modern world, where the center of gravity shifted from reliance on God’s revelation to reliance on bare human reason. Descartes decided that the only way to build certain knowledge was to doubt everything until he could doubt no more. And he came to the conclusion that the one thing that he could not doubt was the fact that he was doubting. And since doubt is a form of thought, he concluded that by doubting, he was thinking. And from there, he concluded that he must exist, saying famously, “I think, therefore I am.” And from that starting point he sought to build up a whole edifice of reliable knowledge. Modern men have disagreed on the methods, but one of the hallmarks of modern thought ever since Descartes has been seeking a foundation of knowledge within ourselves rather than relying on God’s revelation. And the problem with that approach is that we are limited, finite beings. We can’t possibly ground certain knowledge in ourselves. We can’t, by pure reason alone, build up a certain edifice of knowledge of truth. God didn’t create us to be able to do that. He created us as dependent creatures, dependent on him not only for life, breath, food, and drink, but dependent on him for knowledge itself. If you look within, you will always find room for doubt and uncertainty, but if you look to God’s revelation, you will have a basis for a certainty of conviction that will drive you toward holiness and will sustain your perseverance in faith through any and all suffering you must endure from following Christ. People don’t stand against tyrants over matters they don’t hold as convictions; they don’t get thrown into fiery furnaces or into lions’ dens over matters of which they’re really not sure. If the gospel is not yet a certain conviction for you, then may it be your aim to make it so as you seek to grow in faith. Without conviction, this world will eat your faith alive. Don’t let that happen.
Jesus Christ is God’s anointed king, the Messiah. How do we know? God has given testimony to his Son through the prophets who foretold him and the apostles who saw his majesty. On the basis of their testimony, we confess the truth of his sinless life, the full sufficiency of his atoning death for our sins, his resurrection from the dead, his present reign at the right hand of the Father, and his future coming in glory. These are not mythological ideals. These are living, working realities. And that changes everything. Amen.