An Exegetical Analysis Of 2 Peter 1:16-21

Eric Parker
12/30/17 - Miscellaneous

"For we did not follow shrewdly concocted myths when we revealed to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His splendor. 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 voice descending from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you must do well to pay attention as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private 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."

Since its composition, Second Peter has been one of the epitomes of debated literature in NT scholarship, plaguing the mind of theologians and atheologians alike. While the epistle explicitly claims to have been composed by Simon Peter (Su;mewn PejtroV; v. 1), several doubts have arisen concerning Petrine authenticity due to a number of factors.^[1] First, there is a notable lack of attestation by the early Church in two key areas: lack of quotation until the third century by the Alexandrian scholar Origen (followed by Eusebius and Jerome; all three indicated canonical skepticism of the book was prevalent) and absence from the Muratorian Canon (ca. AD 180-200).^[2] Second, the letter encapsulates the same message via the equivalent techniques used in the book of Jude.^[3] Third, the letter portrays second-century problems for the Church (i.e. Gnosticism

and early Catholicism). Fourth, the letter mentions the knowledge of a collection of Paul’s letters by the Church. Last, there is a distinct difference in literary style between First and Second Peter.

            In response, several key arguments have been made to defend Petrine authorship. The strong connection between Second Peter and Jude does not demand suspicion towards Petrine authorship, merely that they convey the same intentions for their respective audiences. Next, there are no direct references to any second-century issues for the Church and the speculations made for the deviant doctrine, especially that of Gnosticism and early Catholicism, is unclear. Additionally, Christians had grown concerned by the lack of Christ’s return by the time First Thessalonians was composed (c. 50-51 AD) and, according to tradition, Peter died under the reign of Nero in the mid-60s AD. This allows Peter over a decade to send a letter concerning the issues opposing Christianity. This letter serves a farewell purpose, a last opportunity for a dying man to exhort his peers (v. 14), whereas First Peter serves a more formal purpose. Furthermore, the mention in Second Peter to Paul’s letters can be resolved in that the letters would have already been circulating prior to the writing of Second Peter. Finally, the readers of Second Peter would have discarded and disregarded an epistle clearly not of Petrine origin. This fact is corroborated by the canonical dismissal of the Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Peter, Acts of Peter, and Letter of Peter to Philip.

CONTEXT OF 2 PETER 1:16-21

Allowing the above information, the dating of Second Peter at AD 64-65 is perfectly acceptable. Also, if the allusion in 2 Pet 3:1 is to First Peter, then the same audience would be the recipient, making Asia Minor the addressees.^[4] If 3:1 is not referring to First Peter, then it remains that the letter is never explicit as to who the true addressees are.^[5]

            Structurally, Second Peter is written as a chiasm in the following ABCB’A’ pattern:

                                    A. Certainty of the Revelation (1:16-21)

                                                B. Prediction of False Teachers (2:1-3a)

                                                            C. Certainty of the Judgment (2:3b-22)

                                                B’. Prediction of Scoffers (3:1-4)

                                    A’. Certainty of the Eschaton (3:5-13)

The focus of Second Peter’s chiasm is the certainty of the Judgment, while the other sections develop the foundation, showing how differing beliefs from those revealed in Scripture are a challenge to God’s justice. Peter writes this polemical document in order to denounce the false teaching plaguing the Church, to strengthen apostolic authority, and to emphasize the supremacy of the true Gospel in the Greco-Roman world of philosophical notions that pervaded even the plebeian populace. The letter focuses on several main ideas that are created by the use of various forms of the following terms: gnwsiV, bebaioV, mnhvmh, and ejpicorhgevw. By the end of 2Pet. 1:16-21, Peter presents a dynamic apology for his authority as a proper, knowledgeable teacher/interpreter, appealing to his primary witness of Jesus’ transfiguration and God’s revelation of His prophetic Word.

The Analysis of 2 Pet 1:16-21

"shrewdly concocted myths"

Peter begins the pericope strongly by rebuking the claims of the false teachers, stating the apostles were not presenting “shrewdly concocted myths.” The term, muvqoV, and its various forms, are only found elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles concerning the spread of "myths" and Paul’s exhortation to the evangelists, Timothy and Titus, to combat these false teachings (1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14). Identifying the real false teachers behind these myths (the very ones accusing Peter and the apostles of doing the same) is difficult due to Jesus’, Paul’s, and Peter’s silence concerning any definitive descriptions, and their focus on condemning the pseudo-teachers. The passage does, however, mention three key components that highlight the problematic teaching: that they had teachers with disciples, they taught eschatological skepticism (esp. the denial of the Parousia and Judgment), and they advocated ethical libertinism. Scholars have developed propositions ranging from early Catholicism, to Epicureanism, to Gnosticism as the false teaching addressed in Second Peter.

            The Gnosticism proposal is problematic because there is no definitive evidence available concerning the date Gnosticism came into existence, and the doctrines its believers actually followed.^[6]  Similarly, the case for the Epicurean hypothesis, proposed by Jerome Neyrey, is made difficult due to its vagueness.^[7] Early Catholicism is problematic because there is no specificity towards any proto-Catholic doctrines. Thomas Caulley reasons that the focus on the denial of future events, similar to the false teachers of the Pastoral epistles, suggests a proto-Gnostic hypothesis.^[8] While the arguments he proposes are certainly some of the most appealing, there is too much to be inferred to concretely pinpoint this, or any other proposal, as the specific problem plaguing the addressees of Second Peter.

            Whatever the case, Jesus was correct when He predicted that "wolves dressed in sheep's clothing" (Matt 7:15) would ravage the Church, accuse the apostles of corrupt teaching, and lead members astray.

"the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"

The use of duvnamin kai; parousivan is a reference to the second coming of Christ. Parousia refers to the coming of a royal authority and can hardly be taken to refer to the original descent of Christ from Heaven to Earth as a man. Contextually, Peter is addressing the denial of the Judgment, thus indicating an appeal to future events, here being the return of Christ. 

            The second coming of Christ, or Parousia, is referenced in a variety of biblical passages, including apocalyptic eschatological books like I and II Thessalonians (cf. 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1) and even in the Gospels (cf. Matt 24). This event is the immediate precursor of God’s divine judgment on mankind. The Parousia will assuredly occur with swiftness and just recompense for every man.^[9] Christ will come and His return will be wonderful, awesome, and terrifying. The Church had forgotten the assurance of the Judgment, and Peter was not going to let that continue uncorrected.

            Additionally, the addressees' limited scope of time convinced them that God had abandoned His promise and had ultimately forsaken His children. There are two main issues with this perspective. First, while time is of no consequence to God (Ps 90), time is finite for man (Jas 4:13-14, Ps 103:15-16; 144:4) and will ultimately result in judgment by God. Second, God has never, and will never, forsake His children (Deut 31:6, 8; Josh 1:5; 1 Sam 12:22; 1 Chr 28:20). As an eternally loving Father, God is always expressed as filled with determination to never utterly forsake His children, oftentimes in the midst of His children’s plenary rejection.^[10]

"we were eyewitnesses of his splendor" and "we ourselves heard"

Being an eyewitness in Greco-Roman culture had much more value than in today’s world. In the historical context of the letter, eyewitness testimony was highly regarded and the only way to make an authentic claim. Peter, James, and John were eyewitnesses (ejpovptai) to the Transfiguration, so they alone knew what had occurred on the Mount.^[11] As recorded in Matthew’s Gospel, Peter is intimately involved in this event. His failure to comprehend the significance of the circumstance led to his chastisement by God’s rebuke to “listen to [His] Son.” This supplied Peter with primary experience that could not be challenged. As readers reflect on the recorded activities involving James, John, and Peter, they realize the failures of all three apostles in particular key events in the Bible. Nonetheless, Peter utilizes this specific event to give authority to apostolic teaching. Paul and John use the same line of argumentation in their defenses against false teaching (1 Cor 15:3-8; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14). The false teachers had no such intimate experiences with Jesus and therefore were untrustworthy.

"when He received honor and glory" and "on the holy mountain"

This particular allusion is plainly the Transfiguration, as recorded elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36). Peter’s apologetic approach is based on his personal eyewitness at this event. Contextually, other than condemning the false teachers, Peter is exhorting the recipients to remember God’s faithfulness to His Word (i.e. Judgment). The false teachers had come into the Church casting doubt on the Parousia (2 Pet 3:4) and Peter hoped to persuade the Christians otherwise. In turn, Peter’s appeal to the Transfiguration would influence the belief that the Parousia would still come. Peter was not the only disciple to connect the Transfiguration with the Parousia. In fact, all three Synoptic Gospel writers follow the Transfiguration account with Jesus’ promise of the Parousia, thus suggesting a strong connection between the events.^[12]

            By mentioning “the holy mountain,” Peter alludes to antecedents in Israelite history where God made covenants to His chosen people. Mountains were the location for epiphanies, revelations, and other major happenings for the Jews. Just a brief collection of these incidents include the Law of Moses being given on Mount Sinai (Exod 19-24), God manifesting Himself to Moses and Elijah on a mountain (Exod 3 and 1 Kgs 17 respectively), Moses seeing the promised land from a mountain (Deut 34:1ff), Jesus' most memorable sermon being given on a mountain (Matt 5-7), the appointing of the Twelve occurring on a mountain (Matt 10), and the Jews fleeing to the mountains at the conquest of Jerusalem. For Judeans, the mountains were places of refuge and signified being closer to God in the most literal sense. Consequently, the Transfiguration must be seen as one of the most important events of the Bible, especially in regard to Peter's apostolic authority, the result of his eyewitness to God declaring His Son as the fulfillment of the promises recorded in the OT. Peter was present with all three representatives of God's plan: Moses (composer of the Torah), Elijah (principal among the prophets), and Jesus Christ (reconciliation of the saints).

"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"

There are two key occasions on which God the Father bestows this title on Jesus Christ: Jesus’ baptism and His transfiguration. God’s following exhortation to listen to His Son is a powerful sentiment. Regardless, the multitudes did not listen to Jesus, did not believe what He said, and, therefore, chose condemnation rather than God’s grace. The Father identifies that Jesus fulfilled His purpose through His obedience to the Father’s will, thereby setting the perfect goal of a God-centered life (Matt 5:48).

            Peter’s use of this phrase and the absence of the key phrase “listen to Him,” as recorded elsewhere, is difficult to understand. The absence of the Godly rebuke suggests that Peter was more focused on God’s allusion to several OT passages including Isa 42:1 and Ps 2:7, in which the messianic title of "son" is founded. Important to note, is the use of the term pai:V, or “servant” in place of u”ioV, or “son” in Isa 42:1. God’s quotation from these passages demonstrates how Jesus fulfills the OT Scriptures through His servitude as the only begotten Son of the Father.

"a light in a dark place"

The word used for dark here is a hapax in the NT and is used elsewhere in Ps 119:105 and 4 Esd 12:42. The word translated here as “dark place” is ajucmerw:/ and denotes a “dry and parched” place and, later, “murky and dirty,” a condition resulting from neglect.^[13] Many views have arisen over what this “dark place” refers to. For instance, this phrase is used as a reference to Hell in the Apocalypse of Peter. However, the most natural view is that this "dark place" is the present world (e.g. John 1:5; Eph 6:12; 1 Thess 5:4f; 1 John 2:8). This reference to a dark, murky, dirty place allows a preparation for the illumination of God’s Word and for the imagery of 2 Pet 2.

"the prophetic word"

The Prophetic Word (to;n profhtico;n logojn) refers to God's revelation to mankind. This may include the Jewish Bible, God’s spoken Word not recorded in Scripture, and His fulfillment of prophecy through His Son.

             The Jewish Bible consists of the three-part division of the Tanakh: Torah (the Law), Nevi’im (the Prophets), and Ketuvim (the Writings). The OT scriptures point to a Messiah that would fulfill the desire of reconciliation between God and mankind, reuniting the two in a relationship that had not existed since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3).

            God’s Word, both written and spoken, serves as a means of assurance for the personal eyewitness of the apostles. Their claim of being present for this incident and hearing God speak to them is an experience few people are ever privileged to have. Peter points out how the OT scripture highlighted the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. If doubts had arisen over the testimony of the apostles, the OT Scriptures, being the core of Jewish culture, could be appealed to for confirmation. The Jews had searched for a physical king. God’s spiritual Messiah, His only begotten Son, did not fit the expected mold. Nonetheless, an appeal to the Scriptures ascribed Jesus as the Divine Messiah. Jesus came to fulfill the OT promises to the patriarchs (Rom 15:8).

"until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts"

“Until” calls into remembrance that the addressees are currently in a period of waiting until prophecy is fully revealed and partial revelation passes away (1 Cor 13:8-10). The time would come when all prophecy would be revealed and Scriptures would be fully exposed. The key manifestation of this was Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor 15). The recording of Jesus' life illuminated what the OT Scriptures had not fully revealed, thereby making the recordings of the NT a necessary supplement to the OT.

            The word used here for “dawn” is a compound form of the Greek term diaugavsh, /and is another NT hapax, signifying the first rays of the sun breaking through the darkness, the beginning of a new day. The anarthrous use of hJmevra contrasts the current darkness of the world and the revelatory light of the Parousia.

            There are two main uses of “the morning star” in verse 19: the planet Venus and the rising sun. As a substantive, the morning star most often refers to the planet Venus, whose appearance precedes the rising sun.^[14] There are also early writings that refer to “the morning star” as the day-breaking sun, the only star that is light bearing for mankind (fwsfovroV).^[15] The core idea is that, before the sun has fully risen, there is a light that breaks the horizon and illuminates the beginning of a new day. The passage can be seen as a hendiadys in which the two words serve to characterize the idea being discussed. Peter’s use of “the morning star” and “day dawns” suggests that Christ’s Parousia will immediately precede the Judgment. In support of this are the multiple prophetic uses of this astrological title for Jesus (Num 24:17; Rev 2:28; 22:16; Luke 1:78; Eph 5:14).

            Regarding the prepositional phrase at the end of v. 19 (ejn tai:V kardivaiV uJmw:n), nearly all scholars interpret it as modifying the immediately preceding verb (ajnateivlh/).^[16] Nevertheless, another interpretation has been made, which is that the phrase modifies ginwvsconteV in v. 20. This interpretation would indicate, though, that Christ’s Parousia would be an event occurring in the psyche. Since the NT always refers to the Parousia as an outward physical event, the more probable reference would, therefore, be to ajnateivlh/. Applying the more generally accepted view would be more consonant with 2 Pet and the rest of the NT.^[17]

"no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation"

In this verse, the main point of concern is that of interpreting the word ejpiluvsewV. There are two main ways to understand this: either that prophecy is interpreted by God alone, or prophecy cannot be interpreted by anyone other than the ecclesiastical structure. In order to properly deduce what Peter means, due attention must be given to the context. Peter acknowledges the fallacious nature of the false teachers’ gospel by stating that Scripture both originates from God and is properly interpreted by God (i.e. God‘s interpretation of OT Scripture on the Mount of Transfiguration). Thus, authoritative teaching is manifested purely by God’s own mouth (cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17). False teachers interpret however they wish (Jer 23:16; Ezek 13:3) and forget about the omnipotent God who spoke His Word into existence through the biblical authors.

"by the will of man"

Peter subtly identifies the perfect nature of God and, thus, the inherent purity of Scripture. He uses a merism to associate the discrepancy between a man’s will, fallible by nature, and God’s holy will. The will of man is compromised by his depraved nature, created not from one’s birth (as John Calvin and Augustine believed), but from the moment each individual chooses to forfeit a relationship with God. As William Cooper states, “when the prophets sought to interpret intelligibly to men the will and purpose of God they did not fall back upon their own ingenuity or trust their own calculations.”^[18] The will of Peter was driven by God’s use of him in evangelism, not by his own selfish drive or ambition like the false teachers he is addressing.

“men spoke from God”

Men speaking "from God" brings up the topics of inspiration and inerrancy. Tradition ascribes three key attributes of inspiration: plenary (total), verbal (the words themselves), and confluent (product of man as well as God). The biblical writers directly claim to be inspired and treat the writing of the Bible as inerrant. Probably the single most familiar, and influential, passage in regards to biblical authority would be 2Tim 3:16-17, in which plenary inspiration, even the levicula, of the Bible is affirmed.

            In multiple cases, biblical authors express their knowledge of God's speaking through their writing. Paul expresses an awareness of his writing being divinely authorized (1 Cor. 2:12; 14:37; Gal 1:11-12; 1 Thess 2:13) and cites Luke 10:7 as inspired scripture (1 Tim 5:18). Peter considers the epistles of Paul as inspired (2 Pet 3:15-16). Jesus Himself makes the famous statement that “Scripture cannot be broken” in John 10:35. Prophecy is regarded as being spoken through the mouth of the holy prophets in Matt 1:22 and Luke 1:70. Lastly, the book of Revelation unequivocally claims inspiration in Rev 1:10-11 and even goes as far as to say that if anyone adds or takes away from the book, God will express His wrath in afflicting that individual with the plagues and curses found in the book (Rev 22:18-19).

“carried along by the Holy Spirit”

At the forefront, it must be acknowledged that man, apart from God, is capable of making an inerrant statement. Therefore, it is not required that God exercise total control over the human authors to compose an inerrant document. However, creating a document with the magnitude and literary variance as the Bible, including such a vast assortment of interconnections, parallelisms, styles, and literary affinities, demands involvement of God. Consequently, God must have been involved, as the Bible suggests. This passage identifies the involvement of the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Bible.

            Multiple passages in both the OT and the NT refer to the Spirit’s role in guiding biblical characters towards recording Scripture. David verbalizes, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His Word was on my tongue” (2 Sam 23:2), and the Hebrew writer attributes Ps 95:7 to the Holy Spirit. The problem lies in that human free will seems to be incompatible with the guiding of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, multiple postulations have arisen over the exact answer to the confluent nature of Scripture.

            The Dictation Theory, suggested by historical figures like Athenagoras and Hippolytus, has long since floundered because of its impractical, unreliable foundation. Some suggested this was a sort of "good possession" opposite of demon-possession. The Holy Spirit did not "possess" the writers, but guided them to record the proper details. William Lane Craig suggests a perceived fundamental problem with the Dictation Theory when he states that,

            More recently, one suggestion that has peaked interest in scholars, such as William Lane Craig, is the theory of media scientia, or “middle knowledge”. This theory suggests that God, before the Creation of the world, set circumstances into place that allowed the biblical writers to experience the necessary elements needed to record what He desired to be recorded in Scripture. This theory gives high credence to the omnipotent, omnibenevolent power of God, but again seems to indicate a violation of free will. But, what exactly is a violation of free will? God set these matters into course before the Creation, which included the creation of man. God’s divine foreknowledge before the creation of man cannot be considered incompatible with free will. A man may choose to follow or disobey God according to how he sees fit. God’s knowledge does not supersede that or change the outlook of man. This theory seems in some ways to be more compatible with statements like that of Luke at the beginning of his Gospel (vv. 1-4) when he states that,

The theory of Middle Knowledge is based on the identification of God’s directing of the biblical authors as opposed to strict dictation, which predicates copious challenges on the basis of human free will.

            These are only two of the more historically prevalent arguments for inspiration. Countless other theories have been presented that try to resolve the seemingly incompatible nature of free will and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Regardless of the answer to this Scylla and Charybdis, the Bible has survived the ages, being the all-time bestseller, written in over 700 languages, and experienced by billions throughout the pre and post-Guttenberg ages.

Application of 2 Pet 1:16-21

What we learn from Scripture fulfills nothing if not applied to our lives and expressed to others. Therefore, increased attentiveness should be dedicated to 2 Pet 1:16-21, in which inspiration, inerrancy, and the true gospel are expressed as the fulfillment of God’s Word, both written in the Bible, and spoken in Creation. This pericope has received much criticism by multitudinous scholars, but still remains at the core of the Christian Apologetic’s repertoire as the source of reasoning the validity of God’s Holy Scriptures. In the end, the cautious approach taken towards accepting the book gives us confidence that we are correct in accepting it as profitable.

            True Christians are convicted by their steadfast consecration to the inspired, inerrant Scriptures, and are willing to die to uphold that beloved Truth. This fact is substantiated by the martyrdoms of Stephen and the Apostles, believers of the past, and today, and their willingness to pay the ultimate price for the ultimate truth.

            Peter’s rebuke of the false teachers serves as a reminder that Christians need to be sober and diligent because of the adversary and his wicked schemes (1 Pet 5:8; Eph 6:11). False teachers will always be a problem amongst Christians until the Parousia. While no specific date is known for His return (Mark 13:32), at any moment we could pass away in unquenchable flames (2 Pet 3). Therefore, zeal for God’s Word must be maintained and no tolerance can be granted to any deviant teachings. We must heed Scripture as Peter exhorts in his statement, “we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

Bibliography

Bauckham, Richard J. 2 Peter and Jude. Word Biblical Commentaries 50. Waco: Word Books,      1983.

Buis, Harry. "The Significance of II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:21." Reformed Review 14, no. 3 (March 1, 1961): 43-49.

Callan, Terrance. "A Note on 2 Peter 1:19-20." Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 1 (2006):    143-150.

Carson, D. A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids:             Zondervan, 2005.

Caulley, Thomas S. "The Idea of Inspiration in 2 Peter 1:16-21." Theologische Literaturzeitung    109, no. 1 (1984): 76-77.

Cavallin, Hans Clemens Caesarius. "The False Teachers of 2 Peter As Pseudo-Prophets." Novum             Testamentum 21, no. 3 (1979): 263-270.

Chamberas, Peter A. "Transfiguration of Christ : A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of Scripture." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 14, no. 1-2 (1970): 48-65.

Chilton, Bruce D. "The Transfiguration : Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision." New          Testament Studies 27, no. 1 (1980): 115-124.

Cooper, William Henry. "The Objective Nature of Prophecy According to II Peter." Lutheran      Church Quarterly 13, (1940): 190-195.

Craig, William Lane. "Men Moved By the Holy Spirit Spoke From God" (2 Peter 1:21): A           Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration." Philosophia Christi 1, no. 1    (1999): 45-82.

Curran, John T. "The Teaching of II Peter 1:20: On the Interpretation of Prophecy." Theological             Studies 4, no. 3 (1943): 347-368.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand            Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Donnelly, Edward. Peter: Eyewitness of His Majesty. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1998.

Farkasfalvy, Denis. "The Ecclesial Setting and Pseudepigraphy in 2 Peter and Its Role in the         Formation of the Canon." Second Century: A Journal of Early Christian Studies 5, no. 1          (1986): 3-29.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Use of Agein and Pherein in the Synoptic Gospels." In Festschrift to   honor F Wilbur Gingrich, 147-160. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Fuliga, Jose B. "The Temptation on the Mount of Transfiguration." Asia Journal of Theology 9,   no. 2 (1995): 331-340.

Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand    Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Green, Michael. II Peter and Jude. Rev. ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand          Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. [1st ed., 1968]

Hall, Stuart G. "Synoptic Transfigurations : Mark 9:2-10 and Partners." King's Theological          Review 10, no. 2 (1987): 41-44.

Hiebert, D Edmond. "Selected Studies From 2 Peter, Pt 2 : The Prophetic Foundation for the        Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:19-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 141, no. 562 (1984):          158-168.

Hutton, Rodney R. "Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration." In Hebrew Annual Review, Vol 14,           99-120. Columbus: Melton Center for Jewish Studies, 1994.

Jacobs, Paul E. "Exegetical-Devotional Study of 2 Peter 1:16-21." Springfielder 28, (1964): 18-     30.

Klotz, John W. "The Transfiguration of Our Lord, Last Sunday after the Epiphany: 2 Peter 1:16-            21." Concordia Journal 9, no. 1 (1983): 25-26.

Kraftchick, Steve J. 2 Peter and Jude. Anchor New Testament Commentary. Nashville:    Abingdon, 2002.

Krodel, Gerhard. The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, Jude, 1-2-3 John.         Proclamation Commentaries. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995.

Kuske, David P. "Exegetical Brief: Conveyed From Heaven--2 Peter 1:17, 18, 21." Wisconsin       Lutheran Quarterly 99, no. 1 (2002): 55-57.

Luckey, Samuel. "The More Sure Word of Prophecy; Sermon on 2 Pet i,19." Methodist Review     11, no. 2 (1828): 41-52.

Miller, Robert J. "Is There Independent Attestation for the Transfiguration in 2 Peter." New         Testament Studies 42, no. 4 (1996): 620-625.

Moo, Douglas. 2 Peter, Jude. New International Version Application Commentary. Grand            Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter and Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.       Anchor Bible 37C. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

______________. "The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16-21." Catholic         Biblical Quarterly 42, no. 4 (1980): 504-519.

Otto, Randall E. "The Fear Motivation in Peter's Offer to Build Treis Skēnas." Westminster          Theological Journal 59, no. 1 (1997): 101-112.

Packer, James I. "A Lamp in a Dark Place: 2 Peter 1:19-21." In Can We Trust the Bible, 15-30.     Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publ, 1979.

Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. "Touto Prōton Ginōskontes Oti in 2 Peter 1:20 and       Hellenistic Epistolary Convention." Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 1 (2008): 165-      171.

Sherwood, John. "The Only Sure Word." Master's Seminary Journal 7, no. 1 (1996): 53-74.

Uhlig, Siegbert. "Textcritical Questions of the Ethiopic New Bible." In Semitic Studies in Honor   of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, 1583-1600. Wiesbaden:       Otto Harrassowitz, 1991.

Vakarik, Antonij, Abp. "Excellent Glory: Sermon for the Transfiguration of the Lord." Journal     of the Moscow Patriarchate (1985): 39-40.

Wenham, David, and A D A. Moses. "There Are Some Standing Here . . ." : Did They Become     the "Reputed Pillars" of the Jerusalem Church? Some Reflections on Mark 9:1, Galatians    2:9 and the Transfiguration." Novum testamentum 36, no. 2 (1994): 146-163.

Wilmington, Harold L. "Peter's Two Epistles." Fundamentalist Journal 4, no. 5 (1985): 59-318.

Witherington, Ben. "A Petrine Source in 2 Peter." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers    no. 24 (1985): 187-192.

Yanney, Rodolph. "The Transfiguration of Christ in the Writings of the Church Fathers." Coptic Church Review 1, no. 2 (1980): 78-91.

Share Online