Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Peter 1:21
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.
21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ] More accurately, For prophecy was not sent (or borne) at any time by the will of man. The article before “prophecy” in the Greek simply gives to the noun the generic sense which is better expressed in English by the absence of the article. The word for “came” is the same as that used of the “voice” in 2Pe 1:17-18, and is, as there shewn, characteristic of St Peter. That for “old time” is wider in its range than the English words, and takes in the more recent as well as the more distant past, and is therefore applicable to the prophecies of the Christian no less than to those of the Jewish Church. In the phrase “by the will of men” we have a parallelism with Joh 1:13.
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ] Better, but being borne on (the same word as the “came” of the previous verse, and therefore used with an emphasis which cannot well be reproduced in English) by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God. Some of the better MSS. have the preposition “from” instead of the adjective “holy.” The words assert in the fullest sense the inspiration of all true prophets. Their workdid not originate in their own will. They felt impelled by a Spirit mightier than their own. The mode and degree of inspiration and its relation to the prophet’s cooperating will and previous habits of thought are left undefined. The words lend no support to a theory of an inspiration dictating the very syllables uttered by the prophet, still less do they affirm anything as to the nature of the inspiration of the writers of the books of the Old Testament who were not prophets. If we retain the Received Text, we have in it an example of the use of the term “man of God” (i.e. called and sent by Him) as equivalent to “prophet,” parallel to what we find in Deu 33:1; 2Ki 4:9; 2Ki 4:16; 2Ki 5:8, and probably in 1Ti 6:11.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For the prophecy came not in old time – Margin, or, at any. The Greek word ( pote) will bear either construction. It would be true in either sense, but the reference is particularly to the recorded prophecies in the Old Testament. What was true of them, however, is true of all prophecy, that it is not by the will of man. The word prophecy here is without the article, meaning prophecy in general – all that is prophetic in the Old Testament; or, in a more general sense still, all that the prophets taught, whether relating to future events or not.
By the will of man – It was not of human origin; not discovered by the human mind. The word will, here seems to be used in the sense of prompting or suggestion; men did not speak by their own suggestion, but as truth was brought to them by God.
But holy men of God – Pious men commissioned by God, or employed by him as his messengers to mankind.
Spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost – Compare 2Ti 3:16. The Greek phrase here ( hupo Pneumatos Hagiou pheromenos) means borne along, moved, influenced by the Holy Ghost. The idea is, that in what they spake they were carried along by an influence from above. They moved in the case only as they were moved; they spake only as the influence of the Holy Ghost was upon them. They were no more self-moved than a vessel at sea is that is impelled by the wind; and as the progress made by the vessel is to be measured by the impulse bearing upon it, so the statements made by the prophets are to be traced to the impulse which bore upon their minds. They were not, indeed, in all respects like such a vessel, but only in regard to the fact that all they said as prophets was to be traced to the foreign influence that bore upon their minds.
There could not be, therefore, a more decided declaration than this in proof that the prophets were inspired. If the authority of Peter is admitted, his positive and explicit assertion settles the question. if this be so, also, then the point with reference to which he makes this observation is abundantly confirmed, that the prophecies demand our earnest attention, and that we should give all the heed to them which we would to a light or lamp when traveling in a dangerous way, and in a dark night. In a still more general sense, the remark here made may also be applied to the whole of the Scriptures. We are in a dark world. We see few things clearly; and all around us, on a thousand questions, there is the obscurity of midnight. By nature there is nothing to cast light on those questions, and we are perplexed, bewildered, embarrassed. The Bible is given to us to shed light on our way.
It is the only light which we have respecting the future, and though it does not give all the information which we might desire in regard to what is to come, yet it gives us sufficient light to guide us to heaven. It teaches us what it is necessary to know about God, about our duty, and about the way of salvation, in order to conduct us safely; and no one who has committed himself to its direction, has been suffered to wander finally away from the paths of salvation. It is, therefore, a duty to attend to the instructions which the Bible imparts, and to commit ourselves to its holy guidance in our journey to a better world: for soon, if we are faithful to its teachings, the light of eternity will dawn upon us, and there, amidst its cloudless splendor, we shall see as we are seen, and know as we are known; then we shall need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God shall give us light, and we shall reign forever and ever. Compare Rev 21:22-24; Rev 22:5.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 21. For the prophecy came not in old time] That is, in any former time, by the will of man-by a man’s own searching, conjecture, or calculation; but holy men of God-persons separated from the world, and devoted to God’s service, spake, moved by the Holy Ghost. So far were they from inventing these prophetic declarations concerning Christ, or any future event, that they were , carried away, out of themselves and out of the whole region, as it were, of human knowledge and conjecture, by the Holy Ghost, who, without their knowing any thing of the matter, dictated to them what to speak, and what to write; and so far above their knowledge were the words of the prophecy, that they did not even know the intent of those words, but searched what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. See 1Pet 1:11-12, and the notes there.
1. As the writer of this epistle asserts that he was on the holy mount with Christ when he was transfigured, he must be either Peter, James, or John, for there was no other person present on that occasion except Moses and Elijah, in their glorious bodies. The epistle was never attributed to James nor John; but the uninterrupted current, where its Divine inspiration was granted, gave it to Peter alone. See the preface.
2. It is not unfrequent for the writers of the New Testament to draw a comparison between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations; and the comparison generally shows that, glorious as the former was, it had no glory in comparison of the glory that excelleth. St. Peter seems to touch here on the same point; the Mosaic dispensation, with all the light of prophecy by which it was illustrated, was only as a lamp shining in a dark place. There is a propriety and delicacy in this image that are not generally noticed: a lamp in the dark gives but a very small portion of light, and only to those who are very near to it; yet it always gives light enough to make itself visible, even at a great distance; though it enlightens not the space between it and the beholder, it is still literally the lamp shining in a dark place. Such was the Mosaic dispensation; it gave a little light to the Jews, but shone not to the Gentile world, any farther than to make itself visible. This is compared with the Gospel under the emblem of daybreak, and the rising of the sun. When the sun is even eighteen degrees below the horizon daybreak commences, as the rays of light begin then to diffuse themselves in our atmosphere, by which they are reflected upon the earth. By this means a whole hemisphere is enlightened, though but in a partial degree; yet this increasing every moment, as the sun approaches the horizon, prepares for the full manifestation of his resplendent orb: so the ministry of John Baptist, and the initiatory ministry of Christ himself, prepared the primitive believers for his full manifestation on the day of pentecost and afterwards. Here the sun rose in his strength, bringing light, heat, and life to all the inhabitants of the earth. So far, then, as a lantern carried in a dark night differs from and is inferior to the beneficial effects of daybreak, and the full light and heat of a meridian sun; so far was the Mosaic dispensation, in its beneficial effects, inferior to the Christian dispensation.
3. Perhaps there is scarcely any point of view in which we can consider prophecy which is so satisfactory and conclusive as that which is here stated; that is, far from inventing the subject of their own predictions, the ancient prophets did not even know the meaning of what themselves wrote. They were carried beyond themselves by the influence of the Divine Spirit, and after ages were alone to discover the object of the prophecy; and the fulfilment was to be the absolute proof that the prediction was of God, and that it was of no private invention-no discovery made by human sagacity and wisdom, but by the especial revelation of the all-wise God. This is sufficiently evident in all the prophecies which have been already fulfilled, and will be equally so in those yet to be fulfilled; the events will point out the prophecy, and the prophecy will be seen to be fulfilled in that event.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The prophecy; the prophetical writings, or word of prophecy, 2Pe 1:19.
Came not in old time by the will of man; the prophets spake not of themselves what and when they pleased.
But holy men of God; prophets, called men of God, 1Sa 2:27; 9:6; 1Ki 17:18, and elsewhere. They are here called holy, not only because of their lives, wherein they were examples to others, but because they were the special instruments of the Holy Ghost, who sanctified them to the work of preaching, and penning what he dictated to them.
Spake as they were moved; or, carried out, or acted, i.e. elevated above their own natural abilities. This may imply the illumination of their minds with the knowledge of Divine mysteries, the gift of infallibility, that they might not err, of prophecy, to foretell things to come, and a peculiar instinct of
the Holy Ghost, whereby they were moved to preach or write.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. came not in old timerather,”was never at any time borne” (to us).
by the will of manalone.Jer 23:26, “prophets ofthe deceit of their own heart.” Compare 2Pe3:5, “willingly.”
holyOne oldestmanuscript has, “men FROMGod“: the emissaries from God. “Holy,” if read,will mean because they had the Holy Spirit.
movedGreek,“borne” (along) as by a mighty wind: Ac2:2, “rushing (the same Greek) wind”:rapt out of themselves: still not in fanatical excitement (1Co14:32). The Hebrew “nabi,” “prophet,”meant an announcer or interpreter of God: he, as God’sspokesman, interpreted not his own “private” will orthought, but God’s “Man of the Spirit” (Ho9:7, Margin). “Thou testifiedst by Thy Spirit in Thyprophets.” “Seer,” on the other hand, refers to themode of receiving the communications from God, rather than tothe utterance of them to others. “Spake” impliesthat, both in its original oral announcement, and now even when inwriting, it has been always, and is, the living voice of Godspeaking to us through His inspired servants. Greek,“borne (along)” forms a beautiful antithesis to “wasborne.” They were passive, rather than active instruments. TheOld Testament prophets primarily, but including also allthe inspired penmen, whether of the New or Old Testament (2Pe3:2).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For the prophecy,…. The whole Scripture, all the prophetic writings; so the Jews call the Scriptures , “the prophecy” g, by way of eminence, and from the subject matter of the sacred word:
came not in old time by the will of man; was not brought into the world at first, or in any period of time, as and when man would, according to his pleasure, and as he thought fit: neither Moses, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Jeremiah, nor Ezekiel, nor Daniel, nor any other of the prophets, prophesied when they pleased, but when it was the will of God they should; they were stirred up to prophesy, not by any human impulse, but by a divine influence: with this agrees what R. Sangari says,
“that the speech of the prophets, when the Holy Spirit clothed them, in all their words was directed by a divine influence, and the prophet could not speak in the choice of his own words,”
or according to his will:
but holy men of God; such as he sanctified by his Spirit, and separated from the rest of men to such peculiar service; and whom he employed as public ministers of his word: for so this phrase “men”, or “man of God”, often signifies, 1Sa 2:27
spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; who illuminated their minds, gave them a knowledge of divine things, and a foresight of future ones; dictated to them what they should say or write; and moved upon them strongly, and by a secret and powerful impulse stirred them up to deliver what they did, in the name and fear of God: which shows the authority of the Scriptures, that they are the word of God, and not of men; and as such should be attended to, and received with all affection and reverence; and that the Spirit is the best interpreter of them, who first dictated them; and that they are to be the rule of our faith and practice; nor are we to expect any other, until the second coming of Christ.
g R. Eliahu in Adderet apud Trigland. de Sect Karaeorum, c. 10. p. 153.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For (). The reason for the previous statement that no prophet starts a prophecy himself. He is not a self-starter.
Came (). First aorist passive indicative of (verses 17f.).
By the will of man ( ). Instrumental case of . Prophecy is of divine origin, not of one’s private origination ( ).
Moved by the Holy Ghost ( ). Present passive participle of , moved from time to time. There they “spoke from God.” Peter is not here warning against personal interpretation of prophecy as the Roman Catholics say, but against the folly of upstart prophets with no impulse from God.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Came [] . Lit., was born or brought. See on vv. 17, 18.
Holy men of God [ ] . The best texts omit holy, and read ajpo qeou, from God. Render, as Rev., men spake from God.
Moved [] . The same verb as came. Lit., being born along. It seems to be a favorite word with Peter, occurring six times in the two epistles.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For the prophecy came not in old time.” Because prophecy (Greek enechthe) “was borne, carried, or came” (not) (pote) at any time or in olden time (past).
2) “By the will of man.” (Greek thelemati) by. will or strong desire of (Greek anthropou) humanity; thus Peter disavowed any belief in the theory of aspiration, or stimuli, or natural phenomena, as the source, by which prophecy was produced.
3) “But holy men of God spake.” (Greek alla) “but” strongest adversative in the Greek and English languages (apo theou anthropoi) men from God (commissioned, empowered) (Greek elalesan) they spoke.
4) “As they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (Greek pheromenoi) “being borne” or carried gently along in their prophetic writings as a person riding a ferry boat – – (Greek hupo pneumatos hagiou) by means or aid of Holy Spirit. Luk 1:70; Isa 1:1-2; Jer 1:4-7; Jer 1:11-14; Eze 1:3; Eze 2:1-3; Jon 1:1-2; Mal 1:1; Holy men of God were inspired, empowered, superintended by the Holy Spirit to prophesy and write, guarded by the Spirit from speaking or recording any error.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
But holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. They did not of themselves, or according to their own will, foolishly deliver their own inventions. The meaning is, that the beginning of right knowledge is to give that credit to the holy prophets which is due to God. He calls them the holy men of God, because they faithfully executed the office committed to them, having sustained the person of God in their ministrations. He says that they were — not that they were bereaved of mind, (as the Gentiles imagined their prophets to have been,) but because they dared not to announce anything of their own, and obediently followed the Spirit as their guide, who ruled in their mouth as in his own sanctuary. Understand by prophecy of Scripture that which is contained in the holy Scriptures.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) For the prophecy came not in old time.Rather, For prophecy was never sent, or brought. Wiclif and Rheims alone have brought; all the rest came. The verb is the same as that used of the voice from heaven (2Pe. 1:17-18), and also in this verse for moved, so that there is a telling antithesis, difficult to preserve in English. Prophecy was not brought in by men; but men were brought to utter it by the Spirit. (Comp. 2Jn. 1:10.) The rendering in the margin is rightnot at any time rather than not in old time. Not at any timenever, which both Tyndale and Cranmer have; Wiclif has not ony time. The erroneous in old time comes from Geneva.
But holy men of God . . .The Greek is uncertain. A reading of very high authority would give us, But men spoke from God moved by the Holy Ghost. This is probably to be preferred. Men spoke not out of their own hearts, but as commissioned by God; not by the will of man, but under the influence of the Holy Spirit. (Comp. St. Peters speech at the election of Matthias, and again in Solomons Porch, Act. 1:16; Act. 3:18.) The word for moved is a strong one, meaning borne along, as a ship before the wind (Act. 27:16-17). Theophilus of Antioch (Autolycus, II. ix.) writes men of God, moved (or, filled) by the Holy Ghost, and becoming prophets, inspired and made wise by God Himself, became taught of God. Here, again, the parallel is too slight to be relied on as evidence that Theophilus was acquainted with this Epistle. (See above, third Note on 2Pe. 1:19.) The same may be said of a passage in Hippolytus (Antichrist, 2), These fathers were furnished with the Spirit and largely honoured by the Word Himself. . . . and when moved by Him the Prophets announced what God willed. For they spake not of their own power, neither did they declare what pleased themselves, &c. &c.
Some have fancied that these last three verses (2Pe. 1:19-21) savour of Montanism, and are evidence of the late origin of the Epistle. But what is said here of the gift of prophecy is not more than we find elsewhere in the New Testament (Mat. 1:22; Mat. 2:15; Act. 1:16; Act. 3:18); and in the Old Testament (Num. 11:17; Num. 11:25; Num. 11:29; 1Sa. 10:6; 1Sa. 10:10; 1Sa. 19:20; 1Sa. 19:23; Jer. 1:5-7). Montanists used much stronger language, as readers of Tertullian know. With them prophecy was ecstasy and frenzy; prophets ceased to be mentheir reason left them, and they became mere instruments on which the Spirit played. The wording of these verses points to an age previous to Montanism. A Montanist would have said more; an opponent of Montanism would have guarded himself against Montanist misconstruction.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Not of man The Scripture prophecy had no human author. It was not borne to the prophet or to men by the will of himself or of any man. He was simply the instrument in delivering it.
Holy men of God They were called to a holy office and used in a holy work; besides which, they were, as a rule, holy in character and life. But holiness does not constitute a prophet. They spake, being borne by the Holy Ghost. He was sole author: their minds and speech were taken possession of, and borne along by his might, and made to utter, under his impulse, whatsoever he pleased, whether they at the time understood it or not.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Pe 1:21 . ] These words correspond with the preceding . ; “ not from or by the will of a man ;” cf. Jer 23:26 , LXX.: .
] Vulg.: allata est; the verb as in 2Pe 1:17-18 (cf. also 2Jn 1:10 ). De Wette’s translation: “is delivered or uttered,” is inexact, inasmuch as the idea of a set discourse is not directly contained in the verb. Steinfass’s interpretation of . is wrong from a linguistic point of view: “gift of prophecy.”
belongs closely to the negative , equal to “ never .” The sense of the clause is: “the cause in which has its origin is not the free will of man, determining itself thereto.”
. . .] The form of this, which does not exactly correspond with that of the preceding clause, serves to bring into greater prominence the passivity of the prophets.
: “ borne along ” (as by the wind, e.g. the ship was driven, Act 27:15 ; Act 27:17 ). The impelling power is the . Joseph. Ant . iv. 6, 5, says of Balaam: ; cf. the expressions in the classics: , . Macrob. i. 23: feruntur divino spiritu, non suo arbitratu, sed quo Deus propellit. Calvin correctly remarks: impulsos fuisse dicit, non quod menti alienati fuerint (qualem in suis prophetis fingunt gentiles), sed quia nihil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tantum obedienter sequuti sunt Spiritum ducem.
] Hornejus: intellige tam voce, quam scripto. “Men it was who spoke; but their speaking had the active reason of its origin, and its starting-point in God” (Schott).
] In this expression, considered to be genuine, denotes the starting-point of the speaking: “men spoke from God.” The prophets are thus significantly called simply , in reference to the going before. They were but men; prophets they became only by the . [60] The Rec. is only a circumlocution for prophets, who are called . because they were in the service of God, inasmuch as they were the instruments of His , cf. 1Ti 6:11 .
[60] Into this verse also Dietlein inserts much that is foreign, by saying in explanation of it: “not only are man and God placed in antithesis to each other, but over against the designs of man and the unreal world of human thoughts and conceptions(!) stands the Spirit of God, which so powerfully takes hold of the prophets only because that which He teaches possesses historical reality, or else will do so in time.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
REFLECTIONS
Blessed and Holy Lord God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost! Praised be our Covenant God in Christ, for his unspeakable gift. What everlasting love, adoration, and praise, do thy people owe thee, O Father of mercies, and God of all grace, for having chose the Church in Christ, before the world! And thee, no less, thou glorious Son of God, for having taken thy Church into union with thyself, when the Lord possessed thee, in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old; and for redeeming thy Church from the Adam-fall of ruin, in which, in this time-state, she was involved. And thee, with equal love and praise, O thou eternal Spirit, for thy gracious act of regeneration, in quickening the Church, in every individual of her members, whereby alone each child of God is brought into an apprehension of the Father’s love, the Son’s grace, and the Spirit’s fellowship. Blessed, forever blessed be God.
And we specially praise thee, dearest Jesus, for thy mercies to all thy Church, in this grace of thine to the Apostles, in the Mount of Transfiguration. It was surely for thy Church, in all ages, as well as for their personal comfort, so glorious a display of thy glory was vouchsafed. God, our Father, be praised, for the precious testimony then given to thy Son-ship. And God the Holy Ghost, in causing Peter, with his dying testimony, to bless the Church once more in the relation. And now, O Lord, may thy Church, and especially in the present awful day, be blessed of our God, with-grace to receive and treasure up so sweet a record of the glory of our risen and exalted Savior. Oh! Lord, continually make known to all thy members in grace, thy power and coming. Make known to us, in the blessed prophecies of our God, and in all the ordinances of his house of prayer, this power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Oh! to be heart-witnesses of Christ’s majesty here on earth, till we come to be eye-witnesses of his majesty in heaven. Amen!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
21 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.
Ver. 21. As they were moved ] . Forcibly moved, acted, carried out of themselves to say and do what God would have them.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
21 .] Reason of the above position . For prophecy was never (at any time: belongs to the negative, and though pointing, as do likewise the aorr., to a state of things passed away, and therefore not to be referred to N. T. prophecies, (see on ch. 2Pe 2:1 ,) must not be rendered as E. V. (after Beza, as usual) “ in old time ”) sent (‘allata,’ vulg.: cf. above, 2Pe 1:17-18 ) after the will (dat. of the cause; or rule, by or according to which: as in ; 1Co 9:7 ; cf. 1Co 11:5 ; Heb 12:18 ) of man: but men spoke from God (spoke as with the voice of, as emissaries from, God: the of and . Besides critical considerations, probability seems against the reading , in that, on account of the repetition, . , the stress, in the latter part of the sentence, would be laid on the fact of , which does not form any logical contrast to , instead of on the fact of the and the coming from God, which does ), [ being ] borne (borne along, carried onward, as a ship by the wind, reff. Acts. “Impulsos fuisse dicit, non quod mente alienati fuerint (qualem in suis prophetis fingunt Gentiles) sed qui nihil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tantum obedienter sequuti sint Spiritum ducem.” Calv. See besides reff., Jos. Antt. iv. 6. 5, , : Macrob. i. 23, speaking of the processions carrying the image of the Sun at Heliopolis, “ferunturque divino spiritu, non suo arbitrio, sed quo deus ropellit vehentes”) by the Holy Spirit .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
2Pe 1:21 . . With cf. 2Pe 1:17-18 . , cf. Act 2:2 . . Here we have the only reference to the Holy Spirit in the Epistle, and only in this connexion, viz. as the source of prophetic inspiration. The spirit is an agency rather than an agent. The men speak. The spirit impels. It is of much significance for the interpretation of the whole passage that occupies a position of emphasis at the end of the sentence, thus bringing into prominence the human agent. The prophets were not ignorant of the meaning of their prophecies, but they saw clearly only the contemporary political or moral situation, and the principles involved and illustrated therein.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
in old time = at any time. Greek. pote.
by. No preposition. Dative case.
will. App-102.
man. App-123.
holy. Omit.
of. The texts read apo, from.
spake. App-121.
moved = borne along. Greek. phero, as in 2Pe 1:17.
the Holy Ghost = Divine power. No art. App-101.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
21.] Reason of the above position. For prophecy was never (at any time: belongs to the negative, and though pointing, as do likewise the aorr., to a state of things passed away, and therefore not to be referred to N. T. prophecies, (see on ch. 2Pe 2:1,) must not be rendered as E. V. (after Beza, as usual) in old time) sent (allata, vulg.: cf. above, 2Pe 1:17-18) after the will (dat. of the cause; or rule, by or according to which: as in ; 1Co 9:7; cf. 1Co 11:5; Heb 12:18) of man: but men spoke from God (spoke as with the voice of, as emissaries from, God: the of and . Besides critical considerations, probability seems against the reading , in that, on account of the repetition, . , the stress, in the latter part of the sentence, would be laid on the fact of , which does not form any logical contrast to , instead of on the fact of the and the coming from God, which does), [being] borne (borne along, carried onward, as a ship by the wind, reff. Acts. Impulsos fuisse dicit, non quod mente alienati fuerint (qualem in suis prophetis fingunt Gentiles) sed qui nihil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tantum obedienter sequuti sint Spiritum ducem. Calv. See besides reff., Jos. Antt. iv. 6. 5, , : Macrob. i. 23, speaking of the processions carrying the image of the Sun at Heliopolis,-ferunturque divino spiritu, non suo arbitrio, sed quo deus ropellit vehentes) by the Holy Spirit.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
2Pe 1:21. , by the will) the desire: Jer 23:26, Septuagint. Man often feigns by fables, or conceals by error, that which he wishes. Comp. willingly, ch. 2Pe 3:5.-) of man, alone. There is an antithesis between this and holy men of God, the definition of the prophets.-, was borne) Thus 2Pe 1:17-18. Heb. from , to bear.-) ever, at a remote or nearer time: hence prophecy, without the article, is used indefinitely.- , but by) Comp. Joh 11:51.-, carried) This has reference to , was borne. A most beautiful antithesis: they did not bear, but were borne: they were passive, not active instruments. That which is borne, is borne by no force of its own; it does not move and advance anything forward by its own labour. Comp. respecting the prophets, Psa 45:2; Jer 36:18. Shortly afterwards, the word spake denotes also the readiness with which they uttered prophecies.-, spake) This has also reference to the pen of the written word. They spake: the past tense shows that Peter is speaking particularly of the prophets of the Old Testament. Comp. ch. 2Pe 2:1, note, and ch. 2Pe 3:2.-, holy) Because they had the Holy Spirit.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
the prophecy: Luk 1:70, 2Ti 3:16, 1Pe 1:11
in old time: or, at any time holy, Deu 33:1, Jos 14:6, 1Ki 13:1, 1Ki 17:18, 1Ki 17:24, 2Ki 4:7, 2Ki 4:9, 2Ki 4:22, 2Ki 6:10, 2Ki 6:15, 1Ch 23:14, 2Ch 8:14
spake: Num 16:28, 2Sa 23:2, Mic 3:7, Luk 1:70, 2Ti 3:15-17, 1Pe 1:11, Rev 19:10
by the Holy: Mar 12:36, Act 1:16, Act 3:18, Act 28:25, Heb 3:7, Heb 9:8, Heb 10:15
Reciprocal: Num 11:25 – they prophesied 1Sa 2:27 – a man 2Ch 15:1 – the Spirit Neh 9:20 – good Neh 9:30 – by thy spirit Psa 45:1 – tongue Psa 89:19 – Then Psa 116:10 – therefore Psa 119:140 – pure Isa 1:1 – saw Jer 2:1 – the word Jer 30:2 – General Jer 50:1 – Jeremiah Eze 35:1 – General Hos 1:1 – word Joe 1:1 – word Amo 2:11 – I raised Hag 2:1 – the prophet Zec 7:12 – sent Mat 10:20 – but Mat 22:43 – General Luk 1:67 – filled Luk 2:25 – Holy Ghost Joh 14:26 – Holy Ghost Act 2:4 – as Act 2:30 – being Act 3:21 – holy Rom 1:4 – according Rom 3:2 – the oracles Rom 4:3 – what Rom 15:4 – whatsoever 1Co 12:10 – prophecy 1Th 4:8 – who Heb 1:1 – at Heb 11:32 – the prophets Rev 22:6 – the holy
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
HOW THE SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN
Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2Pe 1:21
Here we have the apostolic definition of the work of inspiration, and by that definition we are taught that there are two distinct elements to be considered, the Divine and the human; the Divine, for the Holy Ghost moved the writers; and the human, for the communication did not come as a direct voice from heaven, but holy men spake as they were moved. In order therefore fully to investigate the subject, it will be necessary to examine: (1) the Divine element; (2) the human element; and (3) the combination of the two.
I. The Divine element.I need scarcely say that this Divine element is the great subject of modern controversy. But I hope we may meet the points more especially agitated, by considering four questions:
(a) Does it extend over the whole book? We have no right to pick and choose amongst the various portions of the Word of God. The whole is arranged as a whole for the accomplishment of Gods great purpose, the whole is included in the Scriptures, and the parts are so interwoven one with another, and so beautifully fitted into each other by Gods Divine hand, that there will be found ultimately to be no intermediate path between receiving the whole as the Word of God, or sweeping away the whole and launching forth on a sea of scepticism, without a Bible, without a Saviour, and, as the last step, without a God.
(b) Is it equal? So far as the authorship is concerned, we find no distinction whatever. All alike is called Scripture; all the Word of God; all is included in the statement, Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope; and all is stamped by Divine authority in the words, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
(c) Is it verbal? It is our privilege to regard the whole as one, to receive the whole with equal reverence, and to accept the whole, prediction, psalm, history, facts, thoughts, and words, as the inspired Word of the living God. But the question of verbal inspiration is not the one really at issue. For no one believes that, if there be any accuracy, it took place in the words only. It must have taken place in the thoughts, in the matter, in the facts. If, e.g., there is a variation between St. Matthew and St. Luke, no one supposes that they meant to convey the same thoughts, but made a mistake in accidentally selecting different words. The real point of the controversy is the infallible accuracy of the matter.
(d) Is it infallible? The testimony of our Lord Himself is sufficient. Witness two passagesthe one referring to a nice point in a quotation from the Psalms (Joh 10:35); the other to the whole Word in its sanctifying power (Joh 17:17). Now what is His language? In the one, The Scripture cannot be broken; in the other, Thy word is truth. With these statements of our Blessed Lord, I am content to leave the subject. In the words of Scripture, I believe that God Himself has spoken to man, and therefore, in the midst of all the worlds disappointments, and in all the failures of even the Church of God, we have here that on which the soul may calmly, peacefully, and fearlessly repose. And whether we look at history or prediction, at promises or judgments, at prophecies understood by those who uttered them, or language veiled in mystery until the Divine purpose is developed in history, we receive the whole as inviolable truth, for all has the stamp of the Spirit Himself, and all is given by inspiration of God. We receive it, we honour it, we submit to it, we acknowledge its Divine authority, and welcome with heartfelt thanksgiving its infallible promises. Yes, we receive it not merely with the deepest conviction of our most deliberate judgment, but we welcome it to our soul with all the deep feelings of a thankful heart, and say with the inspired Psalmist, Thy word is very pure, therefore Thy servant loveth it.
II. The human element.But there is a human element in the book as well as a Divine. Holy men spake as they were moved. The human authorship is as prominent and conspicuous as the Divine, and any theory of inspiration which excludes it is, I cannot but think, opposed to the facts of Scripture.
(a) There is distinctive character in the different writers. Compare St. Paul and St. John, St. Peter and St. James, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and you see the most transparent variety, a variety which renders it impossible to suppose that they were merely pens, machines, or copyists.
(b) There is the use of natural powers or gifts. St. Paul was a well-educated, intellectual man, with great reasoning powers, so he supported truth by argument. David was a poet, so he breathed out as the sweet psalmist of Israel the hallowed outpourings of a sanctified heart.
(c) There is the use of feeling. All the emotions of the human heart may be found in Scripture.
(d) There is the use of memory. Our Lords promise to His Apostles in Joh 14:26 applies clearly to this point, and shows that the gift of the Holy Ghost, so far from superseding memory, would quicken it, and give it the power of recalling with accuracy the words entrusted to it. He shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(e) There was also the use of personal experience, as, e.g., when St. John said, The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory (Joh 1:14); and again, That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (1Jn 1:1; 1Jn 1:3).
(f) There was the diligent use of collected information. See St. Luk 1:1-3, where St. Luke does not claim to write original matter, but to have received it from those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word.
III. The Divine and the human element.How is the union to be explained?
(a) Not by supposing that the writers were mere pens, or machines. This is sometimes termed the mechanical theory, but it is clearly inconsistent with facts. Pens never think, argue, remember, weep, or rejoice, and all these things were done by the writers of Scripture.
(b) Not by supposing them to be mere copyists or amanuenses employed to write down the words of the Spirit, as Baruch took down the words of Jeremiah. This may have been the case when they received direct communication, as when Moses wrote out the ten commandments at the dictation of God; but it will not apply to inspiration, as it gives no scope for variety of character. The one dictating mind would be the only one to appear on such a theory.
(c) We will not attempt to explain it by constructing any artificial theories as to the action of the Spirit on the mind of men. Some have endeavoured to classify the modes in which they consider the Spirit may have acted, as, e.g., supervision, elevation, direction, and suggestion. All this may be right, and it may be wrong; for we are taught (Heb 1:1) not merely that God spake in divers times, but in divers manners unto the fathers by the prophets. But all such distinctions are unsupported by Scripture, and therefore we may leave them.
Remember that there are two channels through which God has manifested His will, viz. the incarnate Word and the written Word; and surely we are justified in expecting that there will be something of the same character in the two manifestations.
Rev. Canon Edward Hoare.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
2Pe 1:21. The thoughts of the preceding verse are continued. Will of man is used in the sense of “private interpretation.” meaning that the prophecies –ere not the production of mere human beings. Instead. they spoke as by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
2Pe 1:21. For not by mans will was prophecy borne at any time. The statement is more absolute than it is made to appear in the A. V. The phrase not of old time means never, or not at any time. The verb rendered came is the one which was used already in 2Pe 1:17-18, and means sent or communicated in the sense of being borne on. It points here, therefore, not to the utterance of prophecy, but to the prophetic afflatus, or to the prophecy as a gift imparted by God, and in relation to which man himself was simply a recipient.
but, being borne on by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God. Documentary evidence is in favour of this reading, which is both shorter and more expressive than that of the A. V. It drops the official title of the prophets as holy men of God, and, in harmony with the emphatic denial of the agency of mans will in the prophetic message, speaks of the bearers of prophecy simply as men. it describes them further as men who became prophets only by receiving an impulse from the Holy Spirit which bore them on, and as speaking, therefore, from God, that is to say, as commissioners from Him, having the point of issue for their message not in their own will but in Gods will. On the term borne on compare Act 17:15; Act 17:17, where it is used of the ship driving before the wind. The A. V. misses the point when it renders as they were moved. The statement is, that they spake because they were so moved.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 21
Spake as they were moved, &c. They delivered the message which was committed to them, though its full import, being known only to God, the event must reveal.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but {p} holy men of God spake [as they were] {q} moved by the Holy Ghost.
(p) The godly interpreters and messengers.
(q) Inspired by God: their actions were in very good order, and not as the actions of the profane soothsayers, and foretellers of things to come.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
What we have in Scripture did not originate in the minds of men but in the mind of God.
"False teaching flows from the minds of men and women; truth flows from the heart and mind of the living God." [Note: Cedar, p. 218.]
The prophets did not simply give their views of how things were or would be (2Pe 1:20). They spoke as God’s mouthpieces articulating His thoughts in words that accurately represented those thoughts. The Holy Spirit "moved" the prophets to do so as the wind moves a sailboat (cf. Joh 3:8). The same Greek verb (phero) occurs in Act 27:15; Act 27:17 to describe that action.
"The Spirit, not human volition, is the originating power in prophecy." [Note: Hiebert, "The Prophetic . . .," p. 166.]
This passage does not explain specifically how the Holy Spirit did this. However in view of what we find elsewhere in Scripture, we know He did it without overriding the vocabulary and style of the prophet. In some cases the writers of Scripture used other resource materials (e.g., Jos 10:13; 1Ki 14:19; Luk 1:3; et al.). Even though 2Pe 1:20-21 do not describe the method of inspiration in detail, they clearly affirm the basic method and the fact of inspiration. God is the Author of Scripture (cf. 2Ti 3:16). He guided the writers of Scripture to record His words by His Holy Spirit.
"Peter’s statement recognizes both the divine and the human element in the production of Scripture. Any balanced doctrine of the origin of Scripture must recognize both." [Note: Ibid.]
"A prevailing view is that the reference is to the reader’s own efforts to understand written prophecy, that ’one’s own interpretation’ must not be imposed on a specific prophetic passage. Under this view the problem is the method of interpreting prophecy. Yet Peter does not tell how believers are to interpret prophecy.
"Varied views as to the meaning of ’one’s own interpretation’ are offered. (1) The believer as a private individual does not have the ability to interpret prophecy but needs ecclesiastical direction. But many scriptural prophecies have been rightly understood by the common reader apart from any ecclesiastical guidance; nor have the views of ’authorized interpreters’ always been uniform. (2) A prophecy must not be interpreted in isolation but needs the light of the unfolding fulfillment thereof. While it is true that Christians’ understanding of prophecy now is often vague and uncertain, to hold that it cannot be understood till it is fulfilled makes valueless the present lamp of prophecy. (3) Prophetic predictions should not be interpreted in isolation from other Scriptures. It is obvious that each prophecy must be so interpreted as to be consistent with other prophecies; but this does not prove that any individual prophecy in itself is obscure. Peter has just declared that Old Testament prophecy was a shining lamp. And its light is clearer now that Christ has come in His First Advent. (4) It is not the individual but the Holy Spirit who must interpret, as well as inspire, prophecy. This is true, but it does not invalidate or eliminate the human effort to understand. These views do not arise out of the main thought of the context.
"More probable is the view that the statement concerns the origin of prophecy and relates to the prophet himself. This is the view of the New International Version: ’No prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet’s own interpretation.’ The meaning, then, is that no prophecy arose out of the prophet’s own solution to the scenes he confronted or his own interpretation of the visions presented to his mind. Calvin remarked that the prophets ’did not blab their inventions of their own accord or according to their own judgments.’ [John Calvin, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter," in Calvin’s Commentaries, p. 343.] The false prophets of Jeremiah’s day were charged with doing precisely this (Jer 23:16-17; Jer 23:21-22; Jer 23:25-26; Eze 13:3).
"The view that prophecy did not arise ’from one’s own interpretation’ (ablative case) is supported by the natural meaning of the verb (ginetai ["was made," "had its origin," or "came"]); it is in harmony with the scriptural picture of prophecy; and it is in accord with the following verse. It is supported by Peter’s picture of the prophets in 1Pe 1:10-12. The prophetic lamp ’was neither fashioned nor lighted by the prophet himself,’ and its divine origin offers ’a distinct and powerful motive for taking heed to the prophetic word, and one well fitted to produce a patient and reverent and docile spirit of investigation.’" [Note: John Lillie, Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter, p. 428. Cf. Bigg, p. 270.]
"Peter is not here warning against personal interpretation of prophecy as the Roman Catholics say, but against the folly of upstart prophets with no impulse from God." [Note: Robertson, 6:159. See also Hiebert, Second Peter . . ., pp. 81-82; and Buist M. Fanning, "A Theology of Peter and Jude," in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 462-65.]
In this section (2Pe 1:12-21) Peter reminded his readers that they had adequate resources for their own spiritual growth in the apostles’ teachings and in the Old Testament.