Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory ] The Greek construction is participial, For having received , the structure of the sentence being interrupted by the parenthetical clause which follows, and not resumed. The English version may be admitted, though it conceals this fact, as a fair solution of the difficulty. “Honour and glory.” The two words are naturally joined together as in Rom 2:7; Rom 2:10; 1Ti 1:17; Heb 2:7; Heb 2:9; Rev 4:9; Rev 4:11; Rev 5:12. If we are to press the distinctive force of each, the “honour” may be thought of as referring to the attesting voice at the Transfiguration, the “glory” to the light which enveloped the person of the Christ, like the Shechinah cloud of 1Ki 8:10-11; Isa 6:1; Isa 6:4; Mat 17:1-5; Mar 9:2-7; Luk 9:28-36.
when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory ] Literally, when such a voice as this was borne to Him. The choice of the verb instead of the more usual word for “came,” connects itself with the use of the same verb in St Luke’s account of the Pentecostal gift (Act 2:2), and the Apostle’s own use of it in 2Pe 1:21 in connexion with the gift of prophecy. The word for “excellent” (more literally, magnificent, or majestic, as describing the transcendent brightness of the Shechinahcloud), not found elsewhere in the New Testament, is, perhaps, an echo from the LXX. of Deu 33:26, where God is described as “the excellent (or majestic) One of the firmament.” The corresponding noun appears in the LXX. of Psa 21:5, where the English version has “majesty.” The Greek preposition has the force of “by” rather than “from” the glory, the person of the Father being identified with the Glory which was the token of His presence.
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ] The words are given, with one slight variation not perceptible in the English, as we find them in Mat 17:5. It is obvious, assuming the genuineness of the Epistle, that we have here a testimony of great value to the truth of the Gospel records. As there is no reference to any written record of the words, and, we may add, as St Peter omits the words “Hear ye Him,” which St Matthew adds, the testimony has distinctly the character of independence. Had the Epistle been the spurious work of a pseudonymous writer, it is at least probable that they would have been given in the precise form in which they are found in one or other of the Gospels. St Mark and St Luke, it may be noted, omit the words “in whom I am well pleased.” The tense used in the Greek of these words is past, and not present, implying that the “delight” with which the Father contemplated the Son had been from eternity. The whole passage has a special interest, as pointing to the place which the Transfiguration occupied in the spiritual education of the three disciples who witnessed it. The Apostle looked back upon it, in his old age, as having stamped on his mind ineffaceably the conviction that the glory on which he had then looked was the pledge and earnest of that hereafter to be revealed. Comp. the probable reference to the same event in Joh 1:14.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For he received from God the Father honour and glory – He was honored by God in being thus addressed.
When there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory – The magnificent splendor; the bright cloud which overshadowed them, Mat 17:5.
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased – See the notes at Mat 17:5; Mat 3:17. This demonstrated that he was the Messiah. Those who heard that voice could not doubt this; they never did afterwards doubt.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 17. For he received honour and glory] In his transfiguration our Lord received from the Father honour in the voice or declaration which said, This is my Son, the beloved One, in whom I have delighted. And he received glory, when, penetrated with, and involved in, that excellent glory, the fashion of his countenance was altered, for his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white and glistening, exceeding white like snow; which most glorious and preternatural appearance was a confirmation of the supernatural voice, as the voice was of this preternatural appearance: and thus his Messiahship was attested in the most complete and convincing manner.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Either honour and glory for glorious honour; or
glory may relate to that lustre which appeared in the body of Christ at his transfiguration, Mat 17:2, and
honour to the voice which came to him from his Father, and the honourable testimony thereby given him.
From the excellent glory; either from heaven, or from the glorious God, the Father of Christ, who, by this voice, did in a special manner manifest his glorious presence.
This is my beloved Son; i.e. This is the Messiah so often promised, and therefore all that was spoken of the Messiah in the law and the prophets centres in him.
In whom I am well pleased: this implies not only that Christ is peculiarly the Beloved of the Father, but that all they that are adopted to God by faith in Christ, are beloved, and graciously accepted, in and through him, Mat 3:17; Joh 17:26; Eph 1:6.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
17. received . . . honourinthe voice that spake to Him.
gloryin the lightwhich shone around Him.
cameGreek, “wasborne”: the same phrase occurs only in 1Pe1:13; one of several instances showing that the argument againstthe authenticity of this Second Epistle, from its dissimilarity ofstyle as compared with First Peter, is not well founded.
such a voiceas heproceeds to describe.
from the excellentgloryrather as Greek, “by (that is, uttered by)the magnificent glory (that is, by God: as His gloriousmanifested presence is often called by the Hebrews “the Glory,”compare “His Excellency,” Deu 33:26;Psa 21:5).”
in whomGreek,“in regard to whom” (accusative case); but Mt17:5, “in whom” (dative case) centers and rests My goodpleasure. Peter also omits, as not required by his purpose, “hearHim,” showing his independence in his inspired testimony.
I amGreekaorist, past time, “My good pleasure rested frometernity.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For he received from God the Father honour and glory,…. Not as an inferior from a superior, for he was equal in glory with the Father, and was, and is, the brightness of his Father’s glory; nor essentially, having the same glory as his Father, and to which nothing can be added; but declaratively, God the Father testifying of his glory, declaring the honour that belonged to him, as the Son of God, at the same time that an external glory was put on him, and received by him, as the son of man:
when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory; from the bright cloud which overshadowed Jesus, Moses, and Elijah and was a symbol of the glory and presence of God, as the cloud in the tabernacle and temple were, Ex 40:35, or from heaven, the habitation of the holiness and glory of God, and where he displays the glory of his being and perfections; or from himself, who is the God and Father of glory, and is glorious in himself, in all his attributes and works. So , “glory”, with the Cabalistic Jews, signifies the Shechinah, or divine presence d; and every number in the Cabalistic tree is called by the name of “glory”; the second number, which is “wisdom”, is called “the first glory”; and the third number, “understanding”, is called
, “the supreme”, or “chief glory” e: so the first path, which is the supreme crown, is sometimes called the first glory, as the Father is here the most excellent glory; and the second path, which is the understanding enlightening, the second glory f. And this voice was not that at his baptism; for though that was from heaven, and from God the Father, and expressed the same words as here; yet it was not on a mount, nor from a cloud, nor was it heard by the apostles, who, as yet, were not with Christ, nor called by him; nor that of which mention is made in Joh 12:28, for though that also was from God the Father, and from heaven, and which declaratively gave honour and glory to Christ, yet did not express the words here mentioned; but that voice which came from the cloud, when Christ was transfigured on the mount, and which was heard by his three disciples, Peter, James, and John, when the following words were articulately pronounced, “this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”: [See comments on Mt 17:5]. The Vulgate Latin version adds here, as there, “hear ye him”.
d Guido. Dictionar. Syr. Chald. p. 92. e Lex. Cabalist. p. 464. f Sepher Jetzirah, p. 1. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For he received ( ). Second aorist active participle nominative singular of , “he having received,” but there is no finite verb, anacoluthon, changing in verse 19 (after parenthesis in 18) to rather than .
When there came such a voice to him ( ). Genitive absolute with first aorist passive participle feminine singular of (cf. 1Pe 1:13), repeated in verse 18. (voice) is used also of Pentecost (Ac 2:6). (classical demonstrative) occurs here alone in the N.T.
From the excellent glory ( ). “By the majestic glory.” , old compound (, great, , it is becoming), here only in N.T., several times in O.T., Apocr. (II Macc. 8:15), adverb in the inscriptions. Probably a reference to (bright cloud, shekinah) in Mt 17:5. The words given here from the “voice” agree exactly with Mt 17:5 except the order and the use of rather than . Mark (Mr 9:7) and Luke (Lu 9:35) have . But Peter did not need any Gospel for his report here.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
When there came [] . Lit., having been born. Compare come (Rev., ver. 18); moved (ver. 21); and rushing wind, lit., a wind born along (Act 2:2).
From [] . Lit., by.
Excellent [] . Or sublime. Only here in New Testament. In Septuagint (Deu 33:26), as an epithet of God, excellency. The phrase excellent glory refers to the bright cloud which overshadowed the company on the transfiguration mount, like the shekinah above the mercy – seat.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For he received from the Father honor and glory The transfiguration of Jesus before the innercircle apostles was accompanied by his Father’s second special acknowledgment of him. Mat 3:16-17.
2) “When there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory “ The voice (phones) from the (Greek megaloprepous dokses) “Excellent or magnificent glory” establishing His divinity by vocal testimony of His own Father.
3) “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” God the Father’s “vocal testimony” and the apostles “eyewitness testimony” of Jesus brought to Him honor and glory from heaven and earth’s witnesses. Mat 17:1-5; Mar 1:11.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
17. For he received from God the Father. He chose one memorable example out of many, even that of Christ, when, adorned with celestial glory, he conspicuously displayed his divine majesty to his three disciples. And though Peter does not relate all the circumstances, yet he sufficiently designates them when he says, that a voice came from the magnificent glory. For the meaning is, that nothing earthly was seen there, but that a celestial majesty shone on every side. We may hence conclude what those displays of greatness were which the evangelists relate. And it was necessarily thus done, in order that the authority of that voice which came might be more awful and solemn, as we see that it was done all at once by the Lord. For when he spoke to the fathers, he did not only cause his words to sound in the air, but by adding some symbols or tokens of his presence, he proved the oracles to be his.
This is my beloved Son. Peter then mentions this voice, as though it was sufficient alone, as a full evidence for the gospel, and justly so. For when Christ is acknowledged by us to be him whom the Father has sent, this is our highest wisdom. There are two parts to this sentence. When he says, “This is,” the expression is very emphatical, intimating, that he was the Messiah who had been so often promised. Whatever, then, is found in the Law and the Prophets respecting the Messiah, is declared here, by the Father, to belong to him whom he so highly commended. In the other part of the sentence, he announces Christ as his own Son, in whom his whole love dwells and centres. It hence follows that we are not otherwise loved than in him, nor ought the love of God to be sought anywhere else. It is sufficient for me now only to touch on these things by the way.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
2Pe. 1:17-18 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Expanded Translation
For he (Christ) was the one who received from God the Father honor (respect, valuing as one of worth) and glory (credit and glorification arising from the good opinion of another) when a voice such as this was conveyed (borne, carried) by the Majestic Glory: This is my beloved (dear, loved) Son, in whom I am well pleased (approve, think well of). And this voice we ourselves heard conveyed (borne, carried) out of heaven, being, as we were, with him in the holy (sacred) mountain.
_______________________
For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased
The term Majestic Glory is not indicated as a title of God in the King James Versions excellent glory, but should be so considered. (It is one word in the original, meaning, by itself, magnificence, splendid, becoming or befitting a great man. )
In 2Pe. 1:16 we are given the testimony of their eyesthey actually saw the majesty of Christ when he was transformed before them. In these verses we have their earwitnesswhat they themselves heard concerning Christ from the very mouth of God!
Both honor and glory were conferred upon the Saviour in the statement, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The Father also added, hear ye himthis Son of mine must be listened to and obeyed!
and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount
The mountain is labeled holy simply because Christs transfiguration took place there. (Most geographers believe it was Mount Tabor.) Similarly, Zion is often called the holy mount by the prophets because the temple and Jerusalem, the holy city were located there. (Isa. 27:13; Isa. 66:20, etc.)
The we ourselves of this verse is deliberately emphatic in the Greek. We saw it with our own eyes, heard Gods voice with our own earswe were actually there with him! Peter, James and John had the most personal and iron-clad evidence of Christs deity, Therefore, when they preached His message, they could do so with certainty, boldness and authority.
See Mat. 17:1-9, Mar. 9:2-10, Luk. 9:28-36 concerning the transfiguration of Christ. The reading of all these accounts is necessary for a complete picture.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(17) For he received.Literally, For having received. The sentence is unfinished, owing to the long dependent clause, when there came . . . well pleased. The natural ending would be, He had us as His attendants to hear it, or something of that kind.
Honour and glory.Both refer to the voice from heaven. To make honour refer to the voice, and glory to the light shining from Christs body, about which nothing has been said, is forced and unnatural.
When there came such a voice to him.Better, in that a voice was borne to Him speaking thus. The expression a voice was borne to Him is peculiar, and occurs nowhere else. The Greek for the grace that is to be brought to you (1Pe. 1:13) is parallel to it, and is another small coincidence worth noting. Note also that the writer has not slavishly followed any of the three accounts of the Transfiguration, which a forger might be expected to do. A genuine witness, knowing that he is on firm ground can afford to take his own line; a claimant must carefully learn and follow the lines of others.
From the excellent glory.Rather, by the excellent gloryanother unique expression. The preposition by almost compels us to reject the interpretation that either the bright cloud or heaven itself is meant. It is rather a periphrasis for God. In Deu. 33:26. God is called by the LXX., the Excellent of the sky.
This is my beloved Son, . . .The Greek is almost the same as in St. Matthews account (Mat. 17:5); but hear him is omitted, and for in Whom we here have, unto Whom which can scarcely be brought into the English sentence. The meaning is unto Whom my good pleasure came and on Whom it abides. (Comp. Mat. 12:18, and Clem., Hom. III. liii.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. He received honour In what the voice of God, the Father Almighty, declared.
And glory From the brightness of the overshadowing cloud of glory, transcending that of the transfigured Jesus, whose “face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.” “We beheld his glory,” said John, referring to the same scene, “the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.” Joh 1:14.
There came glory Literally, a voice was borne to him by the excellent glory, such as this, this is my beloved Son. This excellent glory must be taken as identical with God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” ’
For he wants them to know that the disciples themselves had been witnesses and had seen Him receive honour and glory from God the Father. The ‘honour’ may well refer to the fact that Moses and Elijah had come to bear witness to Him. Or it may be because in their coming He had had the central place. Or it may simply be that Peter saw Him as having been honoured by the very fact of His full glory being revealed. The ‘glory’ refers to the fact that He had been transfigured before them in blinding light. An examination of the Transfiguration narratives brings out just how glorious it had been.
‘And He was transfigured before them, and His face shone as the sun, and His clothing became white as light’ (Mat 17:2). ‘And He was transfigured before them and His clothing became glistening, exceeding white as no launderer on earth could whiten them’ (Mar 9:3). ‘The fashion of His countenance was altered and His clothes became white and dazzling’ (Luk 9:29). ‘We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Son of the Father’ (Joh 1:14).
Peter’s very reticence in providing the full detail here is a sign that we have here his own words. He did not need to spell it out because the detail was burned into his heart. But we can sense beneath his words a memory of how glorious it had been.
And together with ‘the honour and glory’, and adding to and enhancing both, had come the voice from Heaven, from the Majestic Glory Himself, when He had said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.’ Interestingly this confirms the longer version of Mat 17:5 (although significantly differing in minor ways). But all three Gospels add ‘Hear Him’ which is omitted here. Peter omits this because his attention is focused on His honour and glory. It is a further sign of authenticity, a pseudepigraphist would almost certainly have included it.
The point he wants his readers to recognise is that the revelation of Jesus in honour and glory had been accompanied by a confirming voice from God in His majestic glory. For the cloud which so often in the Old Testament demonstrated the presence of God had descended on the mount. This was no Hellenistic tale or myth. This had happened in front of them, and they themselves had heard a real voice ‘from Heaven’, that is, from God Himself. And the voice had revealed that Jesus was God’s true and beloved Son, and was fully pleasing to Him. The King was here.
It is difficult for us to know whether he was expecting his readers to pick up the further reference to the Davidic King (My Son – Psa 2:7) and Servant (in Whom I am well pleased – Isa 42:1), as well as His unique Sonship. The words about the prophecies that follow may suggest that he did.
Thus what they had experienced had not been some Hellenistic vision, some vivid hallucination, but a genuine experience of something seen with their own eyes, which was now being, and would also be in the future, manifested on earth.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Pe 1:17 . ] : “that is;” explanation of the immediately preceding: . The participle does not require any such supplement as or , nor is it put instead of the finite verb. For the principal thought is, not that Christ was transfigured, but that Peter was a witness of this transfiguration, which was typical of the of Christ. The finite verb belonging to the participle is wanting. Its absence is most naturally accounted for by supposing, that the addition of . . . caused the author to forget to notice that he had not written . How after writing he intended to proceed, cannot be definitely said; what is wanting, however, must be supplied from that which goes before, not from what follows. Winer, p. 330 [E. T. 442], incorrectly supplies the necessary complement from 2Pe 1:18 , since he says that Peter should have continued: , or in a similar manner. But it is still more arbitrary to borrow the supplement from 2Pe 1:19 (as is done by Dietlein and Schott).
] is applied here to God in His relation to Christ, with reference to the subsequent .
] “Honour and glory,” as in Rom 2:7 ; Rom 2:10 ; denotes not the brightness of Christ’s body at the transfiguration (Hornejus, Gerhard, etc. Steinfass would understand both expressions of the shining figure of Christ). Hofmann is unwarranted in finding in . . . a confirmation of his opinion that it is the resurrection and ascension that are here referred to, inasmuch as God first conferred honour and glory upon Christ, by raising Him from the dead and exalting Him. To this it may be said that by every act of God which testified to His glory, Christ received , i.e. “honour and praise.”
] states through what Christ received “honour and praise:” the expression , here only; Luk 9:35-36 , ; so also Mar 1:11 ; Luk 3:22 (cf. Joh 12:28 ; Joh 12:30 ); : the dative of direction, not: in honorem ejus (Pott).
] is neither equivalent to “accompanied by” (Wahl), nor to “from out of” (Winer, 5th ed. p. 442 f.): the preposition, even where in local relations it inclines to these significations, always maintains firmly its original meaning: “under;” here, as generally in passives, it signifies “by;” thus, too, Winer, 6th ed. p. 330 [E. T. 462], 7th, 346: “when this voice was borne to Him by the sublime Majesty.” ( . .) means neither heaven nor the bright cloud (Mat 17:5 ); [50] it is rather a designation of God Himself (Gerhard, de Wette-Brckner, Wiesinger, Fronmller, Hofmann); similarly as, in Mat 26:64 , God is called by the abstract expression . With , cf. Deu 33:26 , LXX.
] So in Matthew; only with the addition , and instead of : “ ” In Mar 9:7 and Luk 9:35 (where, instead of , there is “ ”), the words are entirely wanting. The reading adopted by Tisch. 7: , corresponds to none of the accounts in the Gospels; cf. with it the O. T. quotation from Isa 42:1 in Matthew (Mat 12:18 ): , .
The construction of with does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; there is no warrant for the assertion that points “to the historical development of the plan of salvation”(!) (Dietlein).
[50] Schott, indeed, interprets correctly, but yet thinks that . means the cloud; “not indeed the cloud in itself, but as the manifestation which God gave of Himself”(!).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Ver. 17. This is my beloved Son. ] See Trapp on “ Mat 3:17 “ See Trapp on “ Mat 17:5 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
17 .] For (justification of the above assertion that we were admitted witnesses of His majesty) having received (the construction is an interrupted one, and seems rightly explained by Winer, as in reff.: “the construction is broken off by the parenthetical clause . , and the Apostle continues, 2Pe 1:18 , , instead, as he would have said, (- ?), or the like.” So that the participle does not want supplying by or , nor is it put for the finite verb) from God the Father (not , or . , because was a term well known: cf. the same in Gal 1:3 ; Eph 4:23 ; Phi 2:11 ; 1Th 1:1 ; 2Ti 1:2 ; Tit 1:4 ; 1Pe 1:2 ; 2Jn 1:3 ; Jud 1:1 ) honour and glory (honour, in the voice which spoke to him: glory, in the light which shone from Him), when a voice was borne to Him (the occurrence of a similar expression in ref. 1 Pet. is to be noticed. The dative is purely local) of such a kind (viz. as is stated in what follows: “purporting as follows”) by (uttered by: the of agency after a passive verb. As Winer remarks, 47, all other renderings are arbitrary) the sublime glory (the words seem to be a periphrasis of God Himself. In ref. Deut., God is called . So Gerh., De Wette, Huther. Others understand them of the bright cloud which overshadowed the company: others of the heaven: but , in its only admissible meaning (see above), will not suit either interpretation), This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (the words are as in Mat 17:5 , where however we have for , and is added. In Mark and Luke the words . . . are wanting [and in the critical text of St. Luke. it is ]. It is worth notice, that the words are in an independent form here. is a pregnant construction, “on whom my pleasure has lighted and abides.” , aor., but only to be given in Eng. by the present. If an account is to be given of the aoristic sense, it must be “my pleasure rested from eternity”).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
2Pe 1:17 . . It is well-nigh impossible to say what is the case agreement of the participle here. It is at least certain that the subject is Jesus. Dietlein, Schott, Ewald, and Mayor agree that the writer intended to go on, for which he substitutes , after the parenthetic 18th verse. . See Hort’s note, 1Pe 1:2 . The usage (without the article) indicates the growth of a special Christian terminology. The two words are treated as one proper name. . A frequent combination, cf. Psa 8:6 , Job 40:10 , 1Pe 1:7 , Rom 2:7 ; Rom 2:10 , 1Ti 1:17 , Heb 2:7 ; Heb 2:9 . is the personal honour and esteem in which Jesus is held by the Father, cf. Hort’s note on 1Pe 1:7 . “Honour in the voice which spoke to Him; glory in the light which shone from Him” (Alford). . This is the only instance of in N.T. = “to the following effect”. . Retaining reading , we may regard . as a vehicle of expression. The voice expresses its significance. It is not a mere accompanying phenomenon of the voice. cf. the instrumental dative in 2Pe 1:21 after . . corresponds to “the bright cloud” ( ) of the Synoptics. is used in 2Pe 1:18 to describe the source from which the voice came; “the sky,” cf. 2Pe 3:12-13 . . Moulton ( Proleg. p. 63) points out that tendency in N.T. is for to encroach on the domain of . cf. Joh 1:18 , ( ib. p. 235).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Father. App-98.
came = was borne. Greek. phero, as in 1Pe 1:13 (brought).
such. Greek. toiosde. Only here. Implying emphasis. The usual word is toioutos, which occurs 61 times.
from = by. App-104.
excellent. Greek. megaloprepes. Only here. Compare 2Pe 1:16.
beloved. App-135.
Son. App-108.
well pleased. See Mat 3:17; Mat 12:18; Mat 17:5.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
17.] For (justification of the above assertion that we were admitted witnesses of His majesty) having received (the construction is an interrupted one, and seems rightly explained by Winer, as in reff.: the construction is broken off by the parenthetical clause . , and the Apostle continues, 2Pe 1:18, , instead, as he would have said, (-?), or the like. So that the participle does not want supplying by or , nor is it put for the finite verb) from God the Father (not , or . , because was a term well known: cf. the same in Gal 1:3; Eph 4:23; Php 2:11; 1Th 1:1; 2Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; 1Pe 1:2; 2Jn 1:3; Jud 1:1) honour and glory (honour, in the voice which spoke to him: glory, in the light which shone from Him), when a voice was borne to Him (the occurrence of a similar expression in ref. 1 Pet. is to be noticed. The dative is purely local) of such a kind (viz. as is stated in what follows: purporting as follows) by (uttered by: the of agency after a passive verb. As Winer remarks, 47, all other renderings are arbitrary) the sublime glory (the words seem to be a periphrasis of God Himself. In ref. Deut., God is called . So Gerh., De Wette, Huther. Others understand them of the bright cloud which overshadowed the company: others of the heaven: but , in its only admissible meaning (see above), will not suit either interpretation), This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (the words are as in Mat 17:5, where however we have for , and is added. In Mark and Luke the words … are wanting [and in the critical text of St. Luke. it is ]. It is worth notice, that the words are in an independent form here. is a pregnant construction,-on whom my pleasure has lighted and abides. , aor., but only to be given in Eng. by the present. If an account is to be given of the aoristic sense, it must be my pleasure rested from eternity).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
2Pe 1:17. , having received) The participle is put for the indicative. He received, by the testimony of His Father.- , honour and glory) divine. The word glory is immediately after repeated.- , when a voice was borne) This is emphatically repeated in the next verse.-) to Him alone.- , the magnificent Glory) So God Himself is termed.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
God: Mat 11:25-27, Mat 28:19, Luk 10:22, Joh 3:35, Joh 5:21-23, Joh 5:26, Joh 5:36, Joh 5:37, Joh 6:27, Joh 6:37, Joh 6:39, Joh 10:15, Joh 10:36, Joh 13:1-3, Joh 14:6, Joh 14:8, Joh 14:9, Joh 14:11, Joh 17:21, Joh 20:17, Rom 15:6, 2Co 1:3, 2Co 11:31, 2Jo 1:3, Jud 1:1
there came: Mat 17:3, Mar 9:7, Luk 9:34, Luk 9:35, Joh 12:28, Joh 12:29
This: Mat 3:17, Mat 17:5, Mar 1:11, Mar 9:7, Luk 3:22, Luk 9:35
in whom: Isa 42:1, Isa 53:10, Mat 12:18
Reciprocal: Exo 28:2 – glory Deu 4:12 – only ye heard a voice 1Ki 19:11 – stand upon the mount Est 1:4 – excellent Job 40:10 – majesty Psa 68:34 – his excellency Psa 96:6 – Honour Joh 1:14 – we Joh 5:20 – the Father Joh 5:41 – General Joh 8:54 – it is Act 7:55 – and saw 2Co 1:19 – the Son 2Co 3:10 – had Phi 2:9 – God 2Ti 4:1 – his kingdom 1Jo 2:27 – but
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Pe 1:17. He received means Christ when lie received honor and glory in the mount of transfiguration (Mat 17:1-5). Such a voice refers to the voice of God that was heard by Peter, James and John who were taken by Christ up into the mount. The honor and glory consisted in the acknowledgement of Christ as the Son of God, and also the announcement that the Father was well pleased in his Son.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
2Pe 1:17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory. In the original it is For having received, etc., the sentence being broken by what is said about the voice, and the writer hurrying on to the conclusion unmindful of the fact. The title Father is appropriately introduced here, as the testimony which Christ received from God was one to His own Sonship. The same conjunction of honour and glory, or praise, occurs in Rom 2:7; Rom 2:10. In 1Pe 1:7 we have the richer conjunction of praise and honour and glory, or, as the better reading gives it, praise and glory and honour. Certain distinctions are attempted between the two terms here. The honour being supposed to refer, e.g., specially to the honourable witness borne by the voice, and the glory to the light that shone about Christ, or broke forth from Him. Such distinctions, however, are precarious. The thing dwelt on is not the splendour of Christs own appearance on the occasion, but the tribute which came by the voice. The two terms, therefore, are generally descriptive either of the magnificence of the scene, or of the majesty of that particular tribute. Compare with this the words of another eye-witness of the same event; Joh 1:14.
when such a voice was borne to him by the sublime glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The voice is called such a voice, that is to say, such as I am now to record, or perhaps a voice so wonderful in kind. It is also described, both here and in the next verse, not as coming, but as being borne or brought to him, the verb employed being that which is applied again to the prophets as moved or borne by the Holy Spirit (in 2Pe 1:21), and also to the rushing (as it is there rendered) mighty wind, noticed by Luke in his narrative of the Pentecostal descent (Act 2:2). The next words are rendered from the excellent glory by the A. V.; in which it follows Cranmer and the Genevan. Tyndale gives from excellent glory; Wycliffe, from the great glory; the Khemish, from the magnificent glory. Excellent is a somewhat weak representation of the adjective, which means rather magnificent or sublime. This is its only New Testament occurrence. The from also is in reality by, the preposition being the one regularly used with that sense after passive verbs. Hence many of the best recent interpreters regard the words as a designation of God, and translate them by the sublime majesty. In support of this, Mat 26:64 is referred to, where the term power is taken to be a title of God. It is possible that the peculiar phrase is due to Peter mentally likening the cloud out of which the voice broke to the glory-cloud of the Shechinah, which was to Israel the visible sign of the Divine presence. The testimony uttered by the voice differs very slightly from the form in which it is reported in Matthews Gospel. A shorter form is given in Mark (Mar 9:7) and Luke (Luk 9:35). Here the reading which is preferred by the most recent editors gives it still greater intensity. It may be represented thusMy Son, My beloved One, this is,in whom I am well pleased. The well pleased is given in the past tense (= on whom I set My good pleasure), as expressive of the changelessness of the satisfaction once for all placed in Him.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The apostles’ message was essentially that Jesus was the Christ (i.e., God’s promised Messiah; cf. 1Jn 5:1). God had revealed this clearly at Jesus’ transfiguration when He had announced that Jesus was His beloved Son (Mat 17:5; Mar 9:7; Luk 9:35). Peter referred to that event to establish the credibility of his witness and that of the other apostles. The terms "honor," "glory, "Majestic Glory," and "holy mountain" all enhance the special event that was the Transfiguration.
"The author is . . . pointing out to his readers that the Transfiguration, to which the apostles bore witness, is a basis for the expectation of the Parousia. . . .
"The emphasis of the account is that God himself has elected Jesus to be his vicegerent, appointed him to the office and invested him with glory for the task." [Note: Bauckham, p. 222.]