"Babylon" as a Cipher for Rome in 1 Peter 5:13: Evidence for Post-70 Authorship?

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. (1 Pet 5:13)

Some critics of Petrine authorship of 1 Peter argue that the text must have been written post-70 as it would not have made sense for a pre-70 text to use "Babylon" as a cipher for Rome as such is believed to be a post-70 phenomenon in Jewish apocalyptic literature.

Liberal New Testament scholar Markus Bockmuehl offered the following refutation of such an argument:

[T]he use of Babylon as a cipher for Rome does in fact pre-date the year AD 70. Jewish reapplication to the second temple of prophecies about Babylon’s destruction of the first temple is well attested since at least Dan. 9 and appears to feature in Jesus’s predictions of the temple’s destruction (e.g, Mark 13:14). Josephus likewise believed Jeremiah to be speaking about the year 70 (Ant. 10.79), while Yohanan ben Zakkai was said to have attributed to the prophecy of Jerusalem’s fall to Isa. 10:34 (‘Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 4.41ff.). As early as Dan. 11:30 one encounters the identification of the “Kittim” with the Romans (explicitly so in the case of the Septuagint and several other ancient versions), an interpretation that is also common in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where additional links with Assyrian/Babylonia are also found (cf. 4Q163 [Isaiah pesher] frag. 4 7.ii 1-4, frag. 8 10.1; 4Q554 frag. 3 iii.14-22). In the first century AD, the Sibylline Oracles lumps together “Babylon and the land of Italy” (5.159-60; cf. 168-70; cf. also the Christian text 4 Ezra [= 2 Esdras/6 Ezra] 15.46-48). (Markus Bockmuehl, Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2012], 128)

Markus Bockmuehl on Successors to the Apostle Peter

Commenting on the question of successors to the apostle Peter and its relationship to the later development of the Papacy, Markus Bockmuehl wrote the following, which is rather devastating to the claims of Pastor Aeternus (1870), Satis Cognitum (1896), and other dogmatic and encyclical works affirming that Vatican I’s dogmatic teachings have always been the teachings of the ancient church and only denied by heretics:

That a figure like Peter may nevertheless have identified one or more successors—whether in Rome, Antioch, or elsewhere—is perhaps more likely than many contemporary critical scholars are prepared to countenance. Antiquity, like Middle Eastern societies to this day, did quite readily expect the appointment of successors and the formation of dynasties, and by the end of the second century agreed upon lists of apostolic succession were apparently accepted in Rome, Jerusalem, and other churches. At the same time, the specific Petrine predicates of the foundation, the keys of the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose seem unique and non-transferable in Matthew. And, of course, neither Peter nor the other apostles were ever remembered to have passed on their own apostolic status. Specifically, Petrine authority was not claimed by the bishop of Rome until much later, and the self-understanding of that church and office remained for a long time linked to the idea of both Peter and Paul as the twin founding apostles. Where the early commentators do seek a contemporary application of Matt. 16:18-19 to anyone other than the apostle Peter, they tend to see his role as paradigmatic for all the believers or at least all bishops (So, very clearly, Origen, Cels. 6.77; Comm. Matt. 12.10-11; Tertullian, Paul, 21, Cyprian, resisting Pope Stephen’s claims [AD 254-257] for Roman papal authority as an innovation, stressed the application of Matt. 16:18-19 to all bishops [Unit. Ecc. 4-5]. It may be that Tertullian and Origen already opposed the emergence of positions analogous to that of Stephen). There is no evidence prior to the third century of a Roman assertion of primacy specifically on the basis either of this passage or of genuine claims to Petrine memory; indeed, everything we have seen suggests that the potential for any such appeal to living memory ceases not later than the year 200 . . . this need not rule out a priori the potential legitimacy of a later Roman relecture (rereading) of Matt. 16:18-19 in papal terms, particularly when this is linked with other NT passages such as John 21, but such an argument would need to be established in open reflection on well-documented patristic alternatives. (Markus Bockmuehl, Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2012], 86, emphasis in original)

Mary Healy, "How Jesus Fulfills the Sacrifices of the Old Covenant"

In her commentary on Hebrews, Catholic scholar Mary Healy discussed how Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant sacrifices and how his atoning work (and/or the Lord’s Supper) can be seen as the antitypes of these Old Testament types:

How Jesus Fulfills the Sacrifices of the Old Covenant

The law of Moses provided detailed instructions for five main types of sacrifice in ancient Israel: the burnt offering, grain offering, peace offering, purification offering, and reparation offering (Lev 1-7). Although the New Testament does not mention each of these explicitly, in the light of the New Testament each can be recognized as prefiguring Christ in a unique way; each brings out a distinct aspect of his paschal mystery.

The first three types are freewill sacrifices, offering voluntarily to express one’s love and devotion to the Lord. In the burnt offering, or holocaust (lev 1), the animal was entirely burnt on the altar, going up to the Lord in the form of smoke (the Hebrew word for “holocaust,” olah, is from the verb “ascend”). It was a powerful symbol of offering oneself totally to God, holding nothing back. On a national level, Israel offered the tamid, or daily burnt offering, of a lamb every morning and evening. Jesus’ death on the cross was a “holocaust” in that he was entirely consumed by his self-offering; he gave himself so completely that he had nothing left to give. As the Gospel of John puts it, “he loved them to the end” (13:1)—that is, to an unlimited extent. And he ascended back to God having been “made perfect” (Heb 2:10; 5:9), transformed in his human nature, by the fire of the Holy Spirit.

The grain offering (Lev 2; 6:7-16) consisted of raw flour, cooked cakes, or roast grain, part of which would be burned on the altar and the rest eaten by the priests. It may have been intended as a form of burnt offering that the poor could afford. Grain, along with wine and oil, was also offered with the daily tamid. Jesus’ passion was a “grain offering” in that through it he becomes the bread of life for us (John 6:35; see John 12:24). By partaking of this bread in the Eucharist (see Heb 13:10), we share in his own divine life.

The peace offering, or communion sacrifice (3; 7:11-36), the only sacrifice in which some of the meat was eaten by the worshiper and his household, was a festive sacrifice offered to fulfill a vow, celebrate a special occasion, or thank God or a particular favor such as saving one from death. In the latter case it was called the “thanksgiving sacrifice” (see Ps 107:21-22; 116:17). The sacred banquet in the vicinity of the temple, accompanied by songs of praise, was an expression of joyous communion with the Lord and with one another (see Deut 12:7). The annual Passover sacrifice was Israel’s great national peace offering. The New Testament reveals that Jesus’ passion, and the sacred banquet by which it would be signified and made present for all time, are the fulfillment of Passover and the peace offering that establishes the ultimate communion between God and man (see Luke 22:17-19). Thus the Christian name for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is “Eucharist” (eucharistia), meaning “thanksgiving.”

The last two types were expiatory sacrifices, offered to atone for wrong-doing. The purification offering, or sin offering (Lev 4:1-5; 5:13; 6:17-23), was for the purpose of cleansing the sanctuary from contamination due to sins. The victim’s blood was sprinkled before the veil of the Holy of Holies and smeared on the altar of incense, after which the animal was burned outside the camp. The annual Yom Kippur sacrifices were Israel’s great national purification offering. Hebrews 13:11-12 suggests that Jesus’ passion was a purification offering, since he “suffered outside the gate to sanctify the people with his own blood” (NJB). His blood purifies the living temple, the Church, of all sin for all time (see 1:3; 10:10).

The reparation offering, or guilty offering (Lev 5:14-26; 7:1-10), was the sacrifice of a ram in atonement for acts of sacrilege or offenses against one’s neighbor such as theft or perjury. Besides bringing the ram, toe worshiper confessed his guilt and made restitution plus one fifth. Isaiah foretells that the Suffering Servant of the Lord, in accord with God’s will, would give himself as a “reparation offering” (Isa 53:10)—a prophecy fulfilled by Christ, whose sacrifice was the all-sufficient restitution to God of the human love, trust, and obedience that had been withheld due to sin. (Mary Healy, Hebrew [Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2016], 152-53)

 While Latter-day Saints would have no issue with the focus on the Eucharist ("Sacrament"), such would not necessarily entail, as Healy and other faithful Catholics hold to, the Eucharist itself being a propitiatory sacrifice and, related to that, Transubstantiation. For a listing of articles addressing these important issues, see:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)

Mary Healy on the "Perfection" of Jesus and Christians in Hebrews

Commenting on Heb 2:10, Catholic scholar Mary Healy offered the following comments on Jesus and His becoming "perfect":

What does Hebrews mean by saying that Jesus had to be made perfect? The author seems to be using this verb in three senses. First, “make perfect” (teleioō) is related to the adjective “perfect” (teleios), used in the Septuagint for human beings who are morally blameless and upright (Gen 6:9; 1 Kings 15:3) and for animals that are whole and unblemished, worthy to be offered in sacrifice to God. That Jesus had to be “made perfect” does not mean that he was ever morally flawed; rather he freely chose to take on human nature in its fallen state, with the weakness, pain, and death that are intrinsic to it, and through suffering to perfect it in holiness. It is easy to be virtuous when all goes well and people treat you kindly, as Jesus himself noted (Luke 6:32-34). But human virtue comes to perfection only when it is tried and tested by suffering. In enduring his passion, Jesus allowed all the evil unleashed upon him to bring forth the most perfect act of love, trust, and obedience to God that could never come from a human heart. In the furnace of suffering his human nature was refined to limitless perfection. He was thus qualified to be offered in sacrifice as the perfect, unblemished Lamb (1 Pet 1:19).

Second, Christ was “made perfect” in that his human nature was transformed by his entrance into divine glory (v. 9); or to use a patristic term, he was “divinized.” By becoming man he assumed our nature, which was subject to weakness and deprived of the heavenly glory for which it was made (see Rom 3:23). As Jesus affirmed in the Gospels, his passion was therefore necessary as the God-appointed means for him to ascend to divine glory (Mark 8:31; Luke 24:26). So too for his followers, the path to glory is usually through suffering (2 Cor 4:17; Phil 3:10-11; Heb 12:10-11).

Finally, there is a further significance to teleioō. In the Septuagint, this verb is used to translate the Hebrew expression meaning to “ordain” a priest (Exod 29:9; Lev 8:33; Num 3:3). As Hebrews will proceed to show, Jesus is the great high priest (4:14), and his rite of ordination is the cross. (Mary Healy, Hebrew [Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2016], 62-63, emphasis in original)

Tying Jesus’ “becoming perfect” with our becoming perfect in Heb 10:11-13, Healy offers the following insightful commentary:

Several times Hebrews has used the term “make perfect” (teleioō) to express how Jesus was transformed by his passion (2:10; 5:9; 7:28). Here the author reiterates what Christ’s sacrifice has accomplished by sing this term in a new way, now applied to his people! For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated. This suggests that the same three senses of teleioō that applied to Jesus (see comments on 2:10) also apply to those “many children” he is bringing to glory; they are made holy and pleasing to God, they are made shares in divine life, and they are ordained priests of the new covenant. This is confirmed in verse 19 below, where Hebrews declares that believers have a privilege surpassing that of the high priest of Israel: we can freely enter the sanctuary, the presence of the living God—and not only one day a year but always. The whole life of Christians is now qualified to be a priestly life, in which all our actions and sufferings can be offered as “a sacrifice of praise,” that is pleasing to God (13:15-16; see 12:28-29).

Hebrews refers to believers with the same term “consecrated” (or better, “made holy”) as in verse 10, but now with a different verb tense. Whereas verse 10 said we have been made holy (an already existing state), verse 14 says we are being made holy (an ongoing action). Again there is the paradox of the “already” and the “not yet.” The sacrifice of Christ truly has uprooted sin from the human heart and cleansed the conscience of all who believe in him. But believers must appropriate and live this new freedom. We are like a paralyzed person whose nervous system has been restored through surgery: the disability has been removed, but now the person must learn to use muscles unaccustomed to walking. In Christ, believers have a new ability to resist sin and obey God from the heart, which now has to be exercised. As Paul says, “You also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies” (Rom 6:11-12 RSV). (Ibid., 205-6, emphasis in original)

Heb 10:10-14 is often abused by Reformed apologists to support their view of the atonement (definite atonement) and perseverance of the saints. For a refutation, see the exegesis of the pericope at:

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement

Ralph M. Wiltgen on the Debate over the Schema on Mary during Vatican II

During Vatican II (1962-1965), there was a debate as to whether there would be a document on the topic of Mariology. As a result of a lot of debate, it was finally concluded that Mariology would be attached to the document discussing the Church as chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium. Furthermore, there was much debate for and against the use of various titles, especially Mary as “Mediatrix” (e.g., Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger opposed it on Ecumenical grounds). Rev. Ralph W. Miltgen, S.V.D., who was at the Council and reported on the events as part of the Council News Service, discussed the debates in detail. Note, for example, the following sample:

According to Father Rahner, whose written comments were distributed to all participants in the conference, the schema as then drafted was “a source of the greatest concern” for himself and for Fathers Grillmeier, Semmelroth, and Ratzinger, who had also examined it from a theological point of view. Were the text to be accepted as it stood, he continued, “unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants.” It should not be too strongly stressed, he said, “that all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with that Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands.”

It would be too much to expect, continued Father Rahner, that the schema on the Blessed Virgin could be rejected as simply as the schema on the sources of revelation. It should therefore be urged “with all possible insistence” that the schema on the Blessed Virgin be made either a chapter or an epilogue of the schema on the Church. “This would be the easiest way to delete from the schema statements which, theologically, are not sufficiently developed and which could only do an incalculable harm from an ecumenical point of view. It would also prevent bitter discussion.

Father Rahner contended further that the schema as it stood used “tactics which objectively are not honourable,” since “it declares that there is no intention of defining new dogmas, and at the same time presents certain teachings as though they already belonged to the doctrine of the Church, although they are not as yet dogmas and, from a modern theological standpoint, cannot become dogmas.”

What he attacked especially was the schema’s teaching on the mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the title “Mediatrix of all graces,” which it gave the Blessed Virgin. This teaching was not proposed as a dogma of faith, but rather as a doctrine commonly held by Catholics. Although the teaching was supported by many pronouncements of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church, especially by recent papal encyclicals, “this doctrine must nonetheless be carefully pondered anew,” for the schema would have “great influence on Mariology and on the devotion of the faithful to Mary.” If the word “mediation” were to be used at all, it must be most clearly defined . . . Monsignor Philips insisted on leaving out the titles “Mother of the church” and “Mediatrix,” but the theological Commission decided to include “Mediatrix,” convinced that if neither of the two were in the text, it would not get the desired unanimous approval from the Council Fathers.

Thirty-three Council Fathers took the floor to discuss this chapter. Cardinal Ruffini, of Palermo, said that the schema “almost veiled” the cooperation of Mary in the work of redemption, which had been willed by God . . .Cardinal Léger, of Montreal, said that it was necessary “to renew the Marian doctrine and cult.” This renewal, or reform, had already begun among the theologians, he said, “but it must also reach the pastors and the faithful, and this final chapter on the Constitution on the Church offers the best opportunity for promoting it.” The desired renewal “consists in using accurate words and precise and sober terms to express Mary’s role.” In that connection, he questioned the use of the titles given to Mary in the schema—“Mother of Men,” “Handmaid of the Lord Redeemer,” “Generous Companion,” and “Mediatrix” . . . Cardinal Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, also objected to the title “Mediatrix.” A Council text, he said, was not intended as a manual for personal devotion . . . Archbishop Corrado Mingo, of Monreale, Italy, severely criticized the text. Contrary to what had been promised in the Council hall, the text had been “absolutely and radically mutilated” in the process of being turned into a chapter of the schema on the Church. The title “Mother of the Church” had been deleted without any justification whatsoever, he said, contrary to the wish expressed by Pope Paul in his discourses of October 11, 1963, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major, and December 4, 1963, at the closing of the second session of the Council. Not only should the title “Mediatrix” be retained in the text, he said, but it should be amplified to read “Mediatrix of all graces” . . . Leo Cardinal Suenens, of Mechelen, Belgium, also objected to the revised text, saying that it appeared to minimize the importance of Mary, “a tendency which today constitutes a real danger.” The text did not place the spiritual maternity “which Mary continues to exercise in the Church even today” in its proper light. IT was also somewhat defective in its exposition of what the ordinary teaching authority of the church had to say about Mary, and what the faithful believed regarding the cooperation of the Virgin in the work of redemption. It was necessary, he felt, that the schema should make the faithful realize that they were associated with the maternal action of Mary in carrying out their apostolate . . . Bishop Francisco Rendeiro, of Faro, Portugal, speaking on behalf of eighty-two bishops, expressly asked that the title “Mediatrix” should be retained in the text. Its commission would generate scandal among the faithful, since the public was by this time aware that the matter had been discussed in the Council hall . . . As for the controversial title “Mediatrix,” the solution proposed by Cardinal Ruffini, Bishop Ancel, and others had been adopted in Article 62, which stated: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. These, however, are not to be understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature could ever be classed with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer . . . The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.”

Professor Oscar Cullman, a guest of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, gave a lengthy press conference at the end of the Council in the course of which he said: “We cannot pass over in silence the disappointment that we experienced as seeing the title of ‘Mediatrix’ given to Mary . . . The fact that the text on Mary, after so much discussion as to where it should be placed, should have finally become the concluding chapter of the schema on the Church—a decision which was in fact intended to weaken Mariology—has in reality made it even stronger, because everything stated about the Church culminates, so to speak, in this chapter.”

He went on to observe that, in the light of the many ceremonies honouring Mary during the Council, and also of the statements made about her by both Pope John and Pope Paul, it must be concluded, “that Mariology at this Council has in general been intensified to a degree which is not in keeping with the ecumenical tendencies of Protestantism . . . and with a return to the Bible. Our expectations in this connection have not been fulfilled.” It was clear, he said, “that we could not require the surrender of a teaching and tradition which belongs to the very kernel of Catholic piety.” What he had expected, however, was “a weakening of emphasis, not some sort of revision of the fundamental relationship to the Virgin Mary.” (Ralph M. Wiltgen, The Inside Story of Vatican II: A Firsthand Account of the Council’s Inner Workings [Charlotte, N.C.: TAN Books, 2014], 126-27, 225-26, 228, 232-33)

 For a lengthy discussion of Mariology from a Latter-day Saint perspective, be sure to check out my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017)

The Mormon Doctrine of Pre-Existence: Platonic?

Some critics of Latter-day Saint theology concerning the personal pre-existence of all men, not Jesus merely, have argued that it is “Platonic.” Such is simply false and shows that such critics are neither aware of Platonism and/or Latter-day Saint theology. As one Evangelical Protestant and critic of LDS theology correctly noted:

The Mormon teaching on the eternity of spirits and the spirit world might make Mormonism sound something like ancient Platonism or Origenism. Yet there is a decisive difference: Mormonism regards matter and body as fundamental to all reality and so shows itself on this point to be anti-Platonic. Mormonism teaches that a material body is necessary for happiness. The devil's punishment consists in the fact that he lacks a body. The evil spirits, in seeking to possess or infest human beings, display their own awareness and they are deficient and that they need a body to inhabit. This focus extends to God himself: God the Father and Jesus Christ are exalted beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bones . . . This teaching is as firmly established as any Mormon doctrine, since it came as an integral part of Joseph Smith's original vision. ("Appendix K: Mormon Teachings on God, Cosmos, and Salvation" in Michael J. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism, volume 2 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2018], ebook version)

For more on materialism in LDS theology, see the late Stephen Webb’s (Catholic) paper:

Why Mormon Materialism Matters

On the evidence in favour of creation ex materia and against creation ex nihilo, see:

Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought

On the necessity of maintaining the personal pre-existence of all people to preserve the true and full humanity of Jesus, see my article:

The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence

While it is true there is no explicit witness to the personal pre-existence of all people, and, in my opinion, the Christological argument outlined in my article above is the best route to go down to support it to non-LDS inquirers and opponents, the issue of Sola Scriptura will be an issue when discussing this and many other doctrines with Protestants. Be sure to read my article addressing this topic:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

3 Mormons on "How to Write and Give a Mormon Talk"

In the recent 3 Mormons video is a good (if playful, as always) video discussing how to write a good talk (such would be useful to both neophyte and well-seasoned member--I have encountered many talks in the Church, even from long-standing members, which were . . . . dreadful . . . )

How to Write and Give a Mormon Talk