Faith without religion.
Prophecy as Guiding Light: Truth, Discernment, and Spiritual Growth
In a recent teaching, we delved into the profound insights of 2nd Peter 1:19, where Peter emphasizes the importance of prophecy as a guiding light in our spiritual journey. He describes prophecy as a “more sure word,” urging believers to heed it as a light shining in a dark place until clarity and understanding arise in their hearts. This metaphor of light—both the “day dawn” and the “day star”—symbolizes the progressive revelation and clarity that comes with spiritual growth and understanding.
Peter’s message is clear: the pursuit of truth through prophecy is not static but dynamic, unfolding as we allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit. This journey of understanding is akin to a light breaking through darkness, offering clarity and insight into the mysteries of faith and the nature of Jesus Christ.
Moreover, Peter warns against false teachings, drawing a parallel between the false prophets of the Old Testament and the false teachers of his time. He cautions believers to be vigilant, as these false teachers may introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who redeemed them. This serves as a reminder of the ongoing battle between truth and deception, urging believers to remain steadfast in their faith and understanding.
In essence, Peter’s teachings encourage us to engage deeply with scripture, allowing the Holy Spirit to illuminate our understanding and guide us through the complexities of faith. As we navigate this journey, we are reminded of the importance of discernment and the need to remain anchored in the truth of God’s word.
Teaching Script:
WELCOME
PRAYER
MUSIC
SILENCE
Alright, Peter has been talking about ways and means for his reader to remind themselves of the things He has taught them.
Last week we left off at verse 19 in 2nd Peter 1 where Peter has given them another source of information saying:
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,” and he says to pursue this “until the day dawn, and the day star, arise in your hearts.
Let’s talk about these unique terms for a minute.
At verse 19 Peter has given to his reader a means to know the truth – the more sure word of (what?) That’s right, prophecy.
Now, as we read through prophesy it opens up to us according to the Holy Spirit – and often this revelation is progressive.
Many of us here saw and understood scripture in one light and have come to see its meaning in an entirely different manner.
For instance I used to read the Word and everything said, “futurism, futurism.”
That was until I came more fully into the light and began to see it another way – which included the failure of my former views.
It is one of the most radical facts about being a believer – that God’s revelations continue to unfold to people as they allow themselves to see and seek.
So here, Peter has first said that there is a more sure way to obtain truth – and he called it “the more sure word of prophesy.”
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy (He says); whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place until, (he says) the day dawn, and the day star, arise in your hearts.
The day dawn, in my estimation and in the context of what he has said is akin to us saying:
“I studied and studied and then it dawned on me!”
The Word of Prophesy, Peter says, acts like a “light that shines in the darkness – seek it – until the day dawn (and the Day Star) arise in your hearts.”
Its an obvious point of comparison between the obscurity of prophecy and the clearness of things once they finally occur.
Now, Peter mentions two elements of light in his illustration – what he calls the “day dawn” and the “day star” and he speaks of both of them “arising in our hearts.”
It seems to me he is speaking of clarity – of information relating to the faith and/or to Jesus Himself.
As mentioned Peter has spoken a LOT about knowledge and knowing and it appears that we will not have complete clarity until our view is wholly unobstructed and illuminated – a day and time which Peter describes (at least for them) as when,
“the day dawn and day star rises in the heart.”
Then there is another factor we have to consider in light of this advice. Peter has been speaking and referring to the return of Jesus to earth, his second coming.
And so the period referred to here by Peter (as the time when the day dawn and day star would arise in their hearts and make all things clear) could easily be seen as when the Savior shall return in the full revelation of his glory.
Then all will be clear.
So until that day Peter instructs his reader to search the more sure Word of prophecy,” which again, seems to refer to the Old Testament.
Why “Day Dawn” and “Day Star?”
“Day dawn” is hemera diaugazo
(DEE-OW-GADZO) (day glimmer or breakthrough)
AND
“Day Star”
(phosphoros) Fos FOR US
Phos (fire)
Phoros (bearer)
One seems to speak of a breaking forth of the light, as we might imagine Jesus breaking into this world from the east (or like the dawn breaks through the dark) and the other seems to speak specifically of a being that bears light or fire.
So “day dawn” seems to speak of a sign or evidence of the light breaking and the “Day Star” seems to speak of the actual being that brings the Light or fire itself.
There are four places in scripture that relate (RELATE) to this title or term.
(ON BOARD)
The first is Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Lucifer is translated from HEYLEL – which means morning star and then Son of the Morning means Son of the dawn.
The second is here in 2nd Peter
“and the day star arise in your hearts.”
Which as we’ve said, is:
FOS-FOR-US meaning firebearer or bringer of light.
The third is
Revelation 2:28 where And I will give him the morning star.
“PRO-EE-NOS ASTER”
In those verses Jesus speaks in some very end-time language and says:
Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
28 And I will give him the morning star.
I believe that these words match-up well with Peter’s meaning here in 2nd Peter.
Finally, the last time we read a title similar to this is in the last chapter of Revelation, chapter 22 where Jesus says (at verse 16):
“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. (Now notice what He says about Himself here) I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”
Interestingly enough, the Greek for “morning star” here is
OR THRIN OS ASTER, which means,
related to dawn or the morning, as in Venus and or Jupiter. Why Venus or Jupiter?
Because at certain astronomical times Venus and Jupiter can be seen in the sky at sunset and at dawn ten times more brightly (at least in the case of Venus) to Sirius – which is a very bright star.
When this occurs it is a precursor to dawn, and has therefore been known as the Morning Star for centuries.
I think we can safely say that when Peter is speaking of the Day Star he is speaking of Jesus Christ himself rising up in the hearts of those who believe on Him and possibly those who will see Him coming in the clouds with glory.
Difficulty arises in the Old Testament translation of Isaiah because there we read:
“O Lucifer, son of the morning.” And we are left asking ourselves how many Sons of the Morning are there? And could one be Satan (translated from the Latin luc to Lucifer) AND one be Jesus?
So where the context of this passage speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar it has been, due to tradition, assigned to Satan, chief of the fallen angels, who at the same time been incongruously named Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil.
It is very strange that the prophets by and through the Holy Spirit would call this arch-enemy of God and of man “light-bringer,” is strange but what it really odd is that Jesus shares the title with Satan in scripture.
The fact of the matter is the text of Isaiah says nothing (at all) about Satan nor his fall which many people deduce from this text.
The only exception could be – and I admit this is possible – but the exception might be that just as Jesus was called in scripture, “the first Adam” (with all of us knowing that the first Adam rebelled against God and introduced sin to the world) that in a similar light Jesus became the true Morning Star after the first Morning Star failed.
Just a thought.
What we can be sure of is Jesus was (as John 5:35 says) “a burning and a shining light,” but we also know that Paul tells us not to marvel because “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”
Somewhere in all of this lies the truth. But what we do know is Peter instructs his readers to expect and look for both the morning star and the Day star to rise in their hearts.
Working backward a bit into the text he has told them to study the Old Covenant prophesies until the day dawn and the day star shine in their hearts – which I interpret as being not faith in a prophesy but the actual revelation appears to them.
If He came to them in 70 AD we understand this directive – search out and study the prophesies about Him in the Old Testament to sustain you.
But how do these words apply to us today? I’d suggest in the same manner. We read such things as witnesses of these biblical prophesies fulfilled until we too have the day star and day dawn rise in our hearts.
Some contend that such certainty is impossible until death while others maintain that believers today can have such spiritual knowledge given here and now.
Can’t say. What I can say is the more I dive into scripture by faith the more light shines and the less obscured things remain.
Peter adds:
2nd Peter 2.1
January 17th 2016
Meat
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
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.
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
So he’s told them to consult the scripture. But he says bear this in mind while you do:
Bear in mind that . . .
“No prophecy contained in the inspired records is, (at least as the King James put it,) “of any private interpretation.”
This line has been debated greatly. One version thinks its saying:
“Be sure of this, that no prophesy in scripture can be interpreted by an individuals own opinion.”
The majority of translations suggest this is the meaning.
The second way this verse is understood is to be saying:
“Be sure of this, no prophecy found in scripture is the result of a man creating it out of His own mind or reason.”
I prefer this interpretation and have never felt settled in the first interpretation – because it does NOT fit!
Peter instructs them saying:
“Search the prophesies of the Old Coventant – they will reveal things to sustain you in your trials, and do this until He comes.
And rest assured, none of those prophesies that you read is the result of a man creating it out of their own mind.”
That makes sense to me. But to say:
“Search the prophesies of the Old Coventant – they will reveal things to sustain you in your trials, and do this until He comes.
And rest assured, none of those prophesies that you read can be interpreted by you through your own opinion,” just doesn’t WORK.
I think the best Greek says:
IDIOS EPILOOSIS
Remember we explained how Idios meant someone who was not a public speaker?
And EPIL-OOS-IS means “explanation.”
So what I believe Peter is saying is:
“Search the prophesies of the Old Coventant – they will reveal things to sustain you in your trials, and do this until He comes.
And rest assured, none of those prophesies that you read were created by idios explanations!
That’s a reassurance that the words they read can be trusted and NOT that their interpretations of the verses is limited (which again is how most people read this).
And this view makes the next verse make even more sense:
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.
This clearly supports the later (and yet unorthodox view) of verse 20, for
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men (or by idios explanations”) but instead, they came through another means.
“But Holy men of God spoke when they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Your not reading “fairy tales” and “muthos” (as he said earlier) not writings that were created by the fanciful imaginations of men (or as the King James puts it)
“Not by the will of man.”
It was not of human origin. “But holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Of course this concords with 2nd Timothy 3:16 which says the all familiar:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
The Greek phrase here in verse 21 means to be “borne along, moved, influenced by the Holy Ghost.”
The idea is, that in what they spake was carried along by an influence from above and unless they were moved along from above they did not move.
Because of the Greek for “moved along” we might understand them to be like a sailboat that only moves along when the wind propels it.
On the one hand I think this image is difficult for us to fully grasp because we have probably not experienced it the way prophets of old did. But on the other hand we do, as regenerated believers, understand what it’s like to have the Holy Spirit move us because when it does we know it’s not us.
So the concept is paradoxical.
However, I do not see how the Holy Spirit in believers today is different. Even if we sit down to write or stand up to teach, or speak to others soothing words of love, isn’t the end result the same?
Granted we may not write words that are materially any different than what has already been written but can believers compose words that are also from the influence of the Holy Spirit that enhance and support what has already been composed?
I honestly don’t see why not? Preaching and teaching and loving presently is not one whit different from the Spirit that influenced and moved these men along.
And we might suppose that the Holy Spirit move “all believers along” in the sea of the Christian life – as it wants – and perhaps a we allow.
We wonder about Holy Writ being inspired. Peter himself validates the notion.
The question remains:
Since the scriptures are inspired how do they relate to us today? I don’t have any issue with God moving men to write the Words He wanted them to write but I tend to think the greater question is how do these scriptures relate and work with us?
On this we have a continuum of views. I met with a woman last week who believes she needs to warn Christian leadership that Sabbath needs to be observed – as well as the Ten Commandments – Torah!
That is one end of the spectrum.
On the other end we have the value of reading these ancient prophesies and learning the universal lessons within. Not a bad idea at all.
So the question is NOT “are these writings inspired?” They certainly should be seen this way and in the context of why they were given.
But beyond this we have to try and use some reason, context, and purpose in assigning them to ourselves.
Peter has told his reader to consult the prophesies of Old. And that wraps up chapter 1 but the thought continues on to chapter 2 where he says
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Now, before we address the contents of this verse let’s look at the context.
Peter is writing to an audience that was in grave physical and spiritual danger. He has told them to consult the Old Testament to obtain light that shined in their dark world, and to do this until the day dawn and day star shined in their hearts.
Then speaking of prophets, who he clearly said did NOT speak of their own intelligence but spoke as the Spirit moved them, he adds:
“But!!!!
In other words, “the inspired prophets spoke only as lead along by the Spirit . . . HOWEVER, BUT . . .and he presents to us exception to this.
“there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
So we are given two elements to consider here:
The false prophets of Old
And the false teachers of that day.
It’s really amazing that in almost everything we see and experience on this earth there is the real McCoy and there are counterfeits.
I mean the battle between light and dark, truth and error has existed long before Jedi Knights and Storm-troopers.
It’s a fascinating concept that even in the face of all knowing and an all powerful God there are naturally forces that oppose Him.
It’s not a fiction and in terms of human thought existed in the building of the pyramids and what is called the Square of Opposition from Aristotle.
And so it is with everything in scripture – including prophets and false prophets (in Old Testament times) and teachers and false teachers in the New (and beyond).
Moses wrote about false prophets all the way back in Deuteronomy and said:
Deuteronomy 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;”
So there is the false prophets invitation.
And this is the way God tells them why the prophets exists and how to react. Ready?
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Six times God says that the people are to look to HIM. HIM.
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
It’s interesting that the Nation of Israel collected the books they accepted as inspired an gathered them into a body of writings we call the Old Testament and that Peter here I assuring his readers that the words of that book were truly inspired.
It is equally interesting that in the New Testament age this practice was adopted (apparently) when the Apostles (and those appointed by the apostles) wrote epistles and over many many years men also gathered them together and they became known as the New Testament.
Just as the contents of the Old Testament obviously do NOT have direct application to readers and believers today (but ought to be seen as spiritual narratives used to guide) we have to wonder what in the New Testament is directly applicable and what is beneficial for correction, and instruction, etc.
Anyway, Peter has mentioned that just as the Old Testament
“there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you (speaking to them there).
Pseudo “prophetase” and pseudo “didaskalos.”
In that day warnings were all over scripture for both false prophets and false teachers.
In describing the end days Jesus said in Matthew 24:
“And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.”
In Acts Luke warns
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Bottom-line, Peter says there were false prophets in days of Old and false teachers then but in the New Testament false prophets and teachers became almost synonymous.
Quite frankly prophets in the New Testament are best understood as teachers.
What would these pseudo teachers do or cause”
“who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
In this last part of verse 1 Peter gives us a pretty strong description of these people of that day (and of our day today) saying of them they:
“who privily shall bring in”
“Damnable heresies”
“Even denying the Lord that bought them”
“And bring upon themselves”
“Swift destruction”
It is interesting that Peter describes these pseudoteachers as acting in secret.
Based on the Greek,
“PAR- ICE- AG-O”
The idea is they would fly in under the radar and while seeming to present truth slip in their corrupting heresies as PARICEAGO means to “lead in by the side” or “along with others.”
In other words they would bring their heresies in alongside with other doctrines where were true.
The idea is supported through the illustration of planting weeds along with good seed.
I have to admit that I am both accused of this very thing and the charge frightens me.
The last thing I want to do is teach a lie – especially along with the truth. If I am going to be a pseudo-didaskalos then I pray all I teach will be a lie and therefore easy to discern OR that God would just kill me on the spot.
I have pleaded with God on many occasions to be exposed if the way I see the faith is off.
What makes this description of Peter’s difficult is it causes many people to cling so tightly to tradition they never see outside of it and charge all who question it with being pseudo didaskalos.
What exactly does Peter say these false teachers were introducing? He calls them:
“Damnable heresies.”
APOL-EE-A HAH-EE-REE-SIS
“Heresies of ruin, loss and or destruction” teachings that will result in ruin, loss, death and/or destruction.
This word apoleea is translated, “perdition” in John 17:12; Philippians 1:28; 1st Timothy 6:9; Hebrews 10:39; 2nd Peter 3:7; and Revelation 17:8
And we could read it here as, “perdition heresies.”
The word hah-ree-sis is typically tied to individual divergences in doctrine but in this case the context seems more to be false teachings that belonged to groups and the beliefs they held that were contrary to the Apostolic teachings as a whole
(like the Gnostics or others).
In other words which these false teachers would attempt to create divisions, alienations, or parties in the church and they would do this by appealing to errant doctrines.
Once of these errant doctrines went so far (and is mentioned here by Peter) as they
“would deny the Lord that bought them.”
The idea then is, that these false teachers would form sects or parties in the church, of a destructive or ruinous nature, founded on a denial of the Lord who bought them with either His life and or His blood or His resurrection or all three.
Obviously these teachings would ruin
Not only the unity of the Bride in Christ but the salvation of those who had once been saved.
Saved from what?
I believe in the case of these men and women saved from immediate physical destruction and from after-life purging.
Contextually it is believed that Peter was speaking specifically about Gnostics but admittedly there appears to have been a number of early heretical sects at the time he could have been talking about.
And we might suppose that when Peter says that they deny the Lord this could be on a continuum, meaning they may have
denied just part of Him and His ministry or all.
There is one strange factor to consider in this verse however, and it is really interesting to me because this very factor came up last week in our study of the book of Acts.
It’s the Greek term translated to “Lord,” here, as in “denied the Lord that bought them.”
Normally the term translated, Lord, in scripture is “KOO-REE-OS.”
But here the word is despotace – the word from where we get despot. In an application to God it is thought to be superior to KOO-REE-OS because it means supreme authority over all things.
For example, in Acts chapter 4, when the believers were gathered together they prayed and we read that they said:
(verse 24)
“they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is,”
Despotace is translated 5 times as master (and refers to non-God authority in scripture) and 5 times as “Lord” with those times referring to God the Father four of them and Jesus once (in the Gospels.)
Okay, here’s the deal – who, in context, do YOU THINK Peter is referring to with the term despotace?
Let me read it to you again:
False prophets and teachers will
“privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Many commentators maintain that here that “denying the despotace” refers to the Father, and that when it says that “he had bought them,” it means in a general sense that he was the Author of the plan of redemption, and had caused them to be purchased or redeemed.
To me this is a stretch. I think the most simple understanding of the passage suggests that when Peter says that they “deny the Lord that bought them,” that this description is always assigned to Jesus.
However, the term despotace is more frequently assigned to God the Father.
Now here’s the deal – listen carefully.
If people say that this address is referring to Jesus then we have an irrefutable conclusion that there are those for whom Christ died that would still perish.
Do you see that?
Let me read it one more time:
denying the Lord (Jesus) that bought them (he atoned for them), and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
It does seem to refer to the Lord Jesus in context and even those despotace is used for the following reasons:
It is the most obvious interpretation. Ask most Christians who Peter is speaking of here and they would say, “Jesus of course,” because the phrase of having bought is always assigned to Him.
The Greek word means properly to buy, purchase, redeem, or ransom. It also means bought, as in 1st Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23,
“Ye are bought with a price.” It is not used elsewhere in the New Testament.
Admittedly in the large sense this word it might be applied to the Father who so loved the world He caused his people to be redeemed but it is also true that the word is more properly applicable to the Lord Jesus, and that, when used with reference to redemption, it is uniformly given to him in the New Testament.
Finally, scripture always speaks of Jesus buying us – only Jesus.
These considerations seem to me to make it clear that Peter referred here to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he meant to say that the false teachers mentioned held doctrines which were in fact a denial of Him as Savior, a denial that would:
“ . . . bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Most Christians believe this refers to afterlife destruction but I believe it may speaks to their present physical circumstances.
The reason for this is Peter’s use of the phrase swift destruction.
If it referred to the present physical it made sense. If to the afterlife it really flies in the face of those who believe God will burn people eternally since Peter says it will be “swift.”
We’ve gotta decide how we’re gonna start seeing all this stuff.
Q and A
