Showing posts with label Book of 2 Peter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book of 2 Peter. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2026

Listening

 Listening

Matthew 17:1-13; 2 Peter 1:12-21[1]

I had an experience growing up that I think some of you might be familiar with. I would be engaged in something, completely immersed in what I was doing. My mother would be talking to me about finishing my homework or doing chores, and she would ask me, “Are you listening?” I would answer yes, but the truth of the matter was that while I may have been “hearing” her speak, I wasn’t “listening” to what she was saying at all. I wasn’t trying to be rude; I was just so immersed in what I was doing that I simply couldn’t hear her. As a parent, like many of you, I’ve had the joy of experiencing the other side of that conversation. With my children I learned that it worked best for me to actually touch them on the shoulder to get their attention before trying to communicate something important. That seemed to work for them. I would imagine a lot of us have been on both sides of that conversation.

When you read the stories from the Gospels about Jesus teaching his disciples, it can feel like something similar was going on. While they were paying attention to him, they really didn’t understand what he was telling them. They were distracted by their own concerns, their own expectations, and their own preconceived ideas. One of the classic examples of this is when he told them (not once but several times) that his path of obeying God was going to lead to his dying on a cross. That just didn’t make any sense to them. They heard the words he was saying, but they didn’t have the ability to actually “listen.”

We see something like this in the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus. In Matthew’s version of the story, Peter is overwhelmed by what he’s witnessing and wants to stay there on the mountain. He even offers to build three tents for them. That might seem like a strange request. But it might not have been that strange to Peter. One of the great festivals in Judaism still today is called Sukkot, or the “festival of booths.” In Scripture it was related to the idea that the people lived in tents when they came out of Egypt (Lev 23:42-43). It’s not much of a stretch to think that when Peter and the others saw Jesus transformed, and when they saw Moses and Elijah him, they believed that God was fulfilling their hopes and dreams for a new Exodus to liberate the people from the Roman Empire. It’s not surprising that Peter wanted to set up tents and stay on that mountain!

But in Matthew’s Gospel, Peter’s request was answered by the voice of God himself: “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” (Mt 17:5). I would say that this voice responds to Peter with a (gentle) rebuke. He wanted to stay on the mountain, where he believed he was witnessing the beginning of his hopes and dreams coming true. But the voice from the cloud instructed Peter and the others to direct their attention to Jesus. More than that they were to “listen to him.” And the implication here is that they were not only to listen to him but also follow his instructions. Afterwards, Jesus took them down the mountain where they were to engage with people he called a “faithless generation” (Mt 17:17). It’s no wonder they had difficulty hearing and understanding what he was trying to teach them about how they were to live and serve in that setting.

When I think of that situation of hearing but not really listening, it reminds me also of our reading from 2 Peter for today. Apparently, 2 Peter was written long enough after Jesus’ resurrection that many were beginning to deny that there would be a “second coming” at all (2 Pet 3:4). In response, our reading for today reminded them that Jesus’ transfiguration on that mountain was a kind of a foreshadowing of his “second coming.” What those who were there saw and heard left them with no doubt that Jesus would indeed return in the full majesty of his glory as Savior and Lord.

Unfortunately, some have approached this passage as if it advocates that Scripture is to be accepted at face value, simply embracing the “literal meaning” of the words. The truth is any written document has to be interpreted. That’s especially true for a document written as long ago and in such a different setting from ours as the Bible. More than that, the Bible itself raises some questions that we cannot readily answer. That makes it difficult if not impossible to simply embrace the “literal meaning.” I think what all this means is if we’re going follow the advice to “pay close attention” to Scripture we’re going to have to put forth some effort (2 Pet. 1:19, NLT). We’re going to have to be intentional about it. I think that means more than a casual reading of select verses. It means serious and sustained study of the Bible!

Listening closely to Scripture has never been easy. There have always been those who raised objections that seem to call into question the validity of the Bible as a source for faith. And there will always be a wide range of voices claiming to speak on behalf of the Bible. It takes some effort to sort through the tangle of conflicting messages out there. But it seems to me that our lesson for today points us in the right direction. As those who have gone before us have framed it, “the clear teaching of Scripture” has always been there to guide us. There are some things that are clear. There are some things we can say confidently that “the Bible teaches this.” Those who have gone before us have called that “the clear teaching of Scripture.” That doesn’t mean we’re going to automatically find the answer to our questions simply by flipping through our Bible. It’s going to take intentional study of the Bible if we’re going to do a better job of “paying attention” to Scripture.

I guess the place to start is making time to listen to the Scriptures. Most people would just try to “read through” the Bible. But if you start with Genesis chapter 1, the likelihood that you’ll make it all the way through to Revelation chapter 22 is fairly small. Most people don’t succeed at reading through the Bible in that way. That’s where Bible reading plans can help us. We do hear the Scripture in worship on Sunday morning, but I dare say that we may not always be “listening,” even in this place. Sacred music, whether traditional or contemporary, can contain scripture. But musicians aren’t always the best Bible teachers. Let’s face it, sometimes Pastors aren’t always the best Bible teachers! I’ve found the Bible itself to be the best teacher. And the way we “let” the Bible teach us is by reading it. Over and over again. And preferably in different versions. We do that until what is the “clear teaching” in the Scriptures begins to stand out in contrast to some things that aren’t so clear. Our faith can focus on those clear, foundational teachings, and we don’t get so bothered by what may be not so clear. That’s how the Bible teaches us to read the Bible. Paying close attention to the voice of the Bible is a bit like actually listening to someone who’s talking to us. We have to “tune in” rather than “tuning out.” As it turns out, really listening always takes effort on our part. If we believe the Bible is the basis for our faith, then we’d better get with it when it comes to “paying closer attention.” Our lessons for today challenge us to start being much more intentional about listening for the “word of the Lord” through Scripture!



[1] © 2026 Alan Brehm. A sermon delivered by Rev. Alan Brehm PhD on 2/15/2026 for Hickman Presbyterian Church, Hickman, NE.

Monday, April 03, 2017

Paying Attention

Paying Attention
2 Peter 1:16-21[1]
One of the benefits of living in the “information age” is that we have relatively quick and easy access to a lot of information. Many of us have at our fingertips the equivalent of an unimaginably large library with just about anything you might need. But at the same time, I think one of the great challenges of living in this age is that we have access to so much information. Without a proper framework for making sense of it all, it can just become overwhelming. Rather than putting forth the effort to sort out fact from farce, we accept as truth whatever seems convenient. Or what’s worse, we simply tune out.
Unfortunately, this also applies to our faith. With all the different voices claiming to represent Christ in our world, it can be confusing. Between television, radio, the internet, social media, books, and magazines, the fact is that those who speak for Christ do not speak with a consistent voice. To some extent, variety in the Christian message is to be expected. It comes from our different backgrounds and experiences and perspectives. That’s a healthy thing. But I’m afraid it goes beyond that. The collective voices of all those who speak for our faith disagree on matters that are fundamental, ranging from how we experience new life to what living out that life looks like to what our ultimate hope is. The resulting confusion can lead us to tune out rather than paying attention and trying to find a perspective that makes sense out of the teachings of Scripture.
The fact of the matter is that the Christian community has always had to deal with divergent voices that have made it challenging for people to know what to believe. Most of the apostolic writings in the New Testament bear witness to this. There was no mass communication technology in that day. The only methods the apostles had for dealing with this problem were to personally visit a church, to send a representative, or to write a letter. That’s why many of the New Testament letters were written in the first place: to clear up the confusion caused by rival preachers and teachers presenting views that called the apostolic faith into question.
This was the case for 2 Peter. In fact, much of the letter is devoted to refuting “false teachers” who contradicted the message of the apostles, who advocated a blatant disregard for the most basic ethical principles of the Bible, and who did all this in order to enrich themselves at the expense of their audience. As you can imagine, the response to this kind of flagrant deception was less than polite. In fact, 2 Peter is not unique in that. Most of the apostles saw those who were teaching with a different voice as a threat—primarily a threat to the well-being of those who were led astray by their “deceptive words” (2 Pet. 2:3).
In the case of 2 Peter, the primary problem had to do with the Christian hope. In the New Testament, that hope was focused on the return of Christ. Of course, throughout the history of the church, our faith in the return of Christ and the final fulfillment of God’s saving work has raised basic questions. What happens to believers when we die? Do we have to wait for the day when Jesus returns to be raised to new life? Are we looking forward to all of this taking place in heaven or on a new earth? It’s not hard to find conflicting views on these and many other aspects of our hope.
Apparently, 2 Peter was written long enough after Jesus’ resurrection that many were beginning to deny that there would be a “second coming” at all (2 Pet. 3:4). In response, the letter pointed to the transfiguration of Jesus as a foreshadowing of his return. Claiming to be a witness of the glory revealed at that time as well as the voice that attested Jesus’ identity as God’s beloved son, 2 Peter insists that “we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (2 Pet. 1:19). What those who were there saw and heard left them without doubt that Jesus would indeed return in the full majesty of his glory as Savior and Lord.[2]
Unfortunately, some have approached this passage as if it advocates that Scripture is to be accepted at face value. The truth is that kind of simple faith works for some people. But I find that unquestioning belief doesn’t go over too well with most of us. Scripture itself raises questions, some of which we cannot readily answer.[3] And any written document has to be interpreted—especially ancient writings that addressed a very different time or place. I think what all this means is that we’re going to have to put forth some effort if we’re going to “pay attention" to the apostolic message, "because it is like a lamp shining in a dark place until the Day dawns” (2 Pet. 1:19, TEV). I think that means more than a simple casual reading of select verses. It means serious and sustained study of the source of our faith.[4]
Cultivating faith has never been easy. There have always been those who raise objections they think clearly refute what we believe. There will always be a wide diversity of voices claiming to speak on behalf of Christ. It takes some intentional effort to sort through the tangle of sometimes conflicting messages out there. But it seems to me that our lesson for today points us in the right direction: the fundamental teachings of the Scriptures have always been our guide. That doesn’t mean we’re going to automatically find the answer to our questions simply by flipping through our Bible. We have to do more than that to be able to sort through the chaotic voices in our day. It takes systematic and serious study of the Bible. In order to find clarity, we have to do a better job of “paying attention” to Scripture.





[1] ©2017 Alan Brehm. A sermon delivered by Rev. Dr. Alan Brehm on 2/26/2017 at Hickman Presbyterian Church, Hickman, NE.
[2] Cf. Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16-21,”  Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 509-514.
[3] Cf. Neyrey, “ Apologetic Use,” 517 (fn 50), where he points out that “the position of Peter as an intelligent interpreter of oracles and tradition stands in tension with other traditions that portray him as not understanding what he sees or hears” (e.g., in the Gospels).
[4] In this particular context, Neyrey, “Apologetic Use,” 518-19, makes a persuasive argument that the “prophecy” that is at issue is the transfiguration as a foreshadowing of the return of Christ. He says, “The parousia-prophecy has already been defended as regards its source (i.e., God, vv. 17-18) and its authenticity (έπόπται, v. 16); vv. 20-21 add the author’s apology for his interpretation (see 3:1-2, 9-13,15-16). In this framework, the author senses that his opponents consider this interpretation of eschatological materials idiosyncratic and self-serving; hence it is incumbent upon him to continue to defend his own credentials for leaving an accurate remembrance of these matters.” Contrast R. J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, 224. While he recognizes that Neyrey’s view is held by the majority of NT scholars, he argues that the “prophetic word” refers to passages from the prophets of the Hebrew Bible which the NT authors used along with their eyewitness experience to confirm the promise of the return of Christ.