1 Peter 1:20

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

1 Peter 1:20

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:05 am

Richard Carrier insists that Rev 13:8 (and GPhilip 9) is not evidence of a Jesus crucified before the creation of the world.


He says:
Additionally, Jesus’s death canceled the rule of Satan (and thus death itself) over the sublunar world. It makes no sense that Jesus would have achieved that thousands of years ago, but never made use of that since.
(my bold)


But about the killed Lamb, I read:

17 Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. 18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

(1 Peter 1:17-20)


What was "revealed in these last times"? The death and resurrection that happened before the creation of the world.

It seems very hard to think otherwise. In liturgical rituals, usually a lamb is 'chosen' only immediately before his death. It would make no sense to chose a lamb two days ago to kill him the day after tomorrow. The choice of the lamb coincides with the time of the his being killed.

So, I think that 1 Peter 1:20 would support more the interpretation of Rev 13:8 along the lines of a crucifixion before the creation of the world. But an evidence of the contrary would be Rev 17:8.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: 1 Peter 1:20

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:43 am

The more probable interpretation of the verse assumes that the choice of the Lamb is functional to his sacrifice on the altar:

He was chosen to be killed before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.


Now, if the author had wanted to say that the Lamb was killed only recently, he would have written so:


He was chosen to be killed before the creation of the world, but was killed in these last times for your sake.

...While what he has said is that only the revelation of the Lamb is happened recently. So the sacrifice is already happened before the recent/present time, already at the moment of the choice of the Lamb.


I.e., before the creation of the world.


In addition to this, another argument to support a crucifixion before the creation of the world is that the love of the Lamb for the Christians addressed by 'Peter' is so much greater insofar the his (already happened) sacrifice is been revealed only now, recently, for them and only them.
The Lamb loved less an Abraham or a Moses insofar he didn't reveal the his happened sacrifice to Abraham or Moses, but he awaited the Christians to reveal it (in virtue of the his greater love for the latter).

EDIT: So 1 Peter 1:20 is not evidence of mythicism (since a historicist interpretation assumes that the revelation of the Lamb 'in the last days' takes the form of a historical reality: the revelation is also what Jesus PREACHES before the his death).

But 1 Peter 1:20 is evidence of the fact that, if mythicism is true, then the sacrifice of the mythical victim happened before the creation of the world.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

John2
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Peter 1:20

Post by John2 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:02 am

I take 1 Peter 1:18-20 the same way as Rom. 16:25-26 (whether the latter is an interpolation or not);
Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith ...
I think 1 Peter 1:18-20 is similarly saying that the Jesus story (the "gospel") was already known to God (and hidden in the OT) before the creation of the world. And the idea seems similar to God knowing about everyone who ever existed in the Damascus Document:
God loves knowledge. Wisdom and understanding He has set before Him, and prudence and knowledge serve Him. Patience and much forgiveness are with Him towards those who turn from transgression; but power, might, and great naming wrath by the hand of all the Angels of Destruction towards those who depart from the way and abhor the Precept. They shall have no remnant or survivor. For from the beginning God chose them not; He knew their deeds before ever they were created and He hated their generations, and He hid His face from the Land until they were consumed.

For He knew the years of their coming and the length and exact duration of their times for all ages to come and throughout eternity. He knew the happenings of their times throughout all the everlasting years. And in all of them He raised for Himself men called by name, that a remnant might be left to the Land, and that the face of the earth might be filled with their seed. And He made known His Holy Spirit to them by the hand of His Messiah, and He proclaimed the truth (to them). But those whom He hated He led astray.


So I see Jesus as a human being (one who was supposedly infused with the Holy Spirit and died and was "made alive in the spirit") whose story was known to God "from the beginning" (like other human beings), because Peter goes on to say in 1:21 that God had "raised him from the dead and glorified him," which I see as being the same thing that Peter says about Jesus in 3:18, that "he was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit." And I think Jesus had to be "made alive in the spirit" because, as Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:50-53:
... flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.


I see the same idea reflected in what Jesus says in Mk. 12:25:
When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

John2
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Peter 1:20

Post by John2 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:23 am

I'm thinking this idea of a spiritual resurrection comes from Dan. 12:1-3 (just like the "Son of Man" idea comes from Dan. 7:13-14).
At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
Rev. 1:12-18:
I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Php. 3:20-21:
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
Mk. 12:25:
When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
1 Peter 3:18:
He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
So I'm starting to suspect that perhaps Mark had an original ending with a spiritual resurrection of Jesus (with perhaps even an appearance to Judas?) and it was removed (and then altered with the Long Ending) as a way of countering any appearance of Docetism. But if this was the case, then why weren't Paul's letters similarly altered? I've wondered about that anyway. How did the idea of a physical resurrection emerge in a religion that regards Paul's letters (and 1 Peter) as scripture? I don't know, but somehow the two ideas have managed to co-exist. Perhaps it was easier to overlook Paul (and 1 Peter) than the ending of Mark?

And the proof is the in the pudding. Jesus himself says in Mark, "When the dead rise ... they will be like the angels in heaven." Case closed, in my view. And if there is a physical resurrection, then why isn't Jairus' daughter in Mk. 5:35-43 thought of as being resurrected? Why aren't any of the people who were physically raised from the dead in the OT thought of as being the "first fruits" of the resurrection? Why aren't the dead people who "came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people" in Mt. 27:53 thought of as being resurrected (or are they? What do you suppose happened to them? Did they ascend to heaven like Jesus? Is this the "transformed" resurrected body that Paul talks about?)?

No, I think the resurrection at the End Time is spiritual, like Paul and Peter (and Daniel and Jesus) say, and that somehow, despite this (I would guess it was in response to Docetism), this idea became uncool and was supplanted by the idea of a physical resurrection (as per Mt. 28:9, Lk. 24 and Jn. 20).
Last edited by John2 on Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7579
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Peter 1:20

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:27 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:23 am
So I'm starting to suspect that perhaps Mark had an original ending with a spiritual resurrection of Jesus (with perhaps even an appearance to Judas?) and it was removed (and then altered with the Long Ending) as a way of countering any appearance of Docetism. But if this was the case, then why weren't Paul's letters similarly altered?
Well, the resurrection is still bodily in Paul. In the abstract 1 Corinthians 15 can be read as whatever you think a bodily resurrection ought to look like. What is a "spiritual body," anyway, after all? One person might think of it as nonphysical, like a ghost's aura or something, while another might think of it as physical but specially endowed somehow with spiritual energy. But, in a narrative text like the putative lost ending of Mark, perhaps it was just too obvious what kind of presence the risen Jesus had; perhaps his body was described too docetically for comfort.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Peter 1:20

Post by John2 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:50 pm

I'm thinking that a spiritual resurrection in Mark (in the manner of, and along with, 1 Cor. 15 and such) could be why Docetism emerged in the first place. If Jesus had a spiritual body when he was resurrected, maybe he had always had one and didn't really die (etc., etc.). And if Judas saw the resurrected Jesus in Mark, it would explain the existence of the Gospel of Judas, for example:
In contrast to the canonical gospels, which paint Judas as a betrayer who delivered Jesus to the authorities for crucifixion in exchange for money, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given to him by Jesus of Nazareth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
This is, after all, how Jesus puts it in Mk. 14:17-21:
When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”

They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely you don’t mean me?”

“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”


Surely someone has to be alive in order to wish that they hadn't been born (like Job in 3:1-3)? And surely Judas is included with the disciples that Jesus says he will "go ahead of" after he is resurrected in 14:27-29?
You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written: “ ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”


Surely Judas' betrayal and desertion of Jesus constitutes his "falling away" (like the other disciples' desertion and Peter's denials of Jesus), after which (as Jesus specifically says), "I will go ahead of you into Galilee"?
Last edited by John2 on Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

John2
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Peter 1:20

Post by John2 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:59 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:27 pm
John2 wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:23 am
So I'm starting to suspect that perhaps Mark had an original ending with a spiritual resurrection of Jesus (with perhaps even an appearance to Judas?) and it was removed (and then altered with the Long Ending) as a way of countering any appearance of Docetism. But if this was the case, then why weren't Paul's letters similarly altered?
Well, the resurrection is still bodily in Paul. In the abstract 1 Corinthians 15 can be read as whatever you think a bodily resurrection ought to look like. What is a "spiritual body," anyway, after all? One person might think of it as nonphysical, like a ghost's aura or something, while another might think of it as physical but specially endowed somehow with spiritual energy. But, in a narrative text like the putative lost ending of Mark, perhaps it was just too obvious what kind of presence the risen Jesus had; perhaps his body was described too docetically for comfort.
The part I underlined in your response it exactly what I'm suspecting. As far as Paul (and 1 Peter) goes, I do agree that it is a "bodily" resurrection, but it is a transformed body, because, as Paul puts it, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." But yes, of course, "what is a 'spiritual body,' anyway, after all?" Whatever it may be, it appears to be a transformed physical body.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: 1 Peter 1:20

Post by John T » Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:58 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:05 am
What was "revealed in these last times"? The death and resurrection that happened before the creation of the world.
The plan for a redeemer was made before the foundation of the world but was not put into action/revealed until the resurrection of Christ.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Post Reply