Above all (v.20)… it’s a strong phrase. Whatever else you understand, you must understand this. Peter then lays out an extraordinarily high view of the process of inspiration. We may be a bit uneasy about it. It probably feels to us like Peter is undermining the human integrity of the ‘prophecy of Scripture’. But in spite of our misgivings, it does resonate very clearly with the experience of the prophets themselves, who seem much more comfortable with the explicit and self-conscious sense that God is active through them, by His Spirit. Just a couple of examples:

Jeremiah (1:9), Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth.

Balaam, (Num.22:28), ‘I have come to you now, but can I say just anything? I must speak only what God puts in my mouth’.

Ezekiel (3:1-4), And he said to me, “Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat. Then he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it.” So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth. He then said to me: “Son of man, go now to the people of Israel and speak my words to them…’.

It’s an expereince shared by the Apostles, classically stated by Paul in I Cor.2:11-13, ‘…no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words’.

Strangely we have a habit of rejecting their own testimony, and attributing to the Apostles and Prophets a different experience of being inspired, one of which htey were likely largely unaware. But over and over again they speak of their conscious awareness that the words that would become Scripture were not their own, but were coming to the prophets from outside themselves. Throughout the Bible, this is as relentless as it is unchanged. And it leads to quite a different sense of the place and purpose of Scripture in our lives as individuals and as a Church.

As we are increasingly aware, the question of what we think the Bible is, and how it functions in the life of the Church is of crucial importance. Key questions have the potential to unite or divide the Church. Is the writing of the Apostles and Prophets, for example, culturally conditioned?

Well, it was originally spoken / written into a specific cultural context, but is it limited in some way by that culture, or perhaps the the Author living in that culture? Or an even more serious question: Does it require us to be familiar with that cultural context before we can understand what the Prophets / Apostles were saying?

When we take seriously the Prophets’ / Apostles’ own account of their experience of being inspired, it becomes more difficult to see how our understanding the Bible well depends on our ability to understand the original culture well. That’s not to say the relationship with culture - either the Prophet’s or our own - is always straightforward. The ‘prophetic message’ was as alien to its original culture as it is to ours… and every bit as challenging! But it does suggest that the Bible might be much more straightforward to understand and apply than we generally assume. Which is good news for the majority of Christians in the world today (and throughout history) who don’t have access to the priveleged cultural studies that underpin many of the commentaries, and theological reasonings that increasingly characterise the Western Church. As our appreciation of the very direct way in which God’s Spirit inspired those writing the Bible (and indeed, the Bible they wrote) grows, we will find our confidence in the Spirit’s working equally directly to enable us to understand it grows and develops in equal measure (I Cor.2:14-16).

Questions:

vv.12-15

Why does Peter seem to think that Christians are prone to forgetfulness? Do you think he is right in his analysis? How can we help ourselves (and each other) to develop better retention of the things that matter?

What are the ‘these things’ Peter thinks we need reminding of?

Why is such spiritual amnesia so dangerous? How could you recognise a Church that hadn’t heeded Peter’s advise?

What is Peter’s strategy to help us overcome it? How should that shape our expectation of pastoral ministry at MIE?

vv.16-18

How does the very straightforward and unsophisticated manner of the Apostles’ teaching about Jesus encourage us in our Bible Study?

The Apostles were ‘eyewitnesses’ of Christ, and it is striking that the Scriptures are our only substantive link with Jesus. Do you see the Apostles as faithfully teaching us about the reality of Jesus, or do you think they are sometimes at odds with Jesus and His message? How does this affect how you read the Apostles’ writings?

Compare Peter’s quote here (in v.17) with the events he is recalling in Matt.17:1-8. What is missing? Why does Peter leave out something Jesus says? What does he put in its place in II Pet.1:18-21? What are the implications of this for our engaging with the Bible?

vv.19-21

Historically the Church has held to 4 characteristics of Scripture: Authority; Clarity; Necessity; Sufficiency. What do you think each of these mean? Do you agree with them? What is there in this passage that would help us understand the Church’s beliefs about Scripture?

Do you think the Bible is ‘completely reliable’ (1:19)?

What is Peter seeking to convey by speaking of the ‘prophetic message’ as ‘a light shining in a dark place’? …and by the ‘morning star’ rising in our hearts (freebie: see Rev.22:16)? When and how does this morning star rise? What does it mean to say ‘it’ will rise?

Are the introductory notes at the start of this study a good analysis and application of vv.20-21? Where do you agree / disagree with what I’ve written?