1st Peter 5:13 ... re: Babylon

[GlennO]

Hi Adrian,

We spent the weekend at my Berean Brother’s home 15 miles east of our place. The High Sierra Music Festival music at the fairgrounds takes over our little town of 5,000 each July 4 holiday weekend. I always look forward to the sanctuary and fellowship slicing and dicing scripture during this holiday. In the course of perusing scripture we got stumped at 1st Peter 5:13.

Here is my contribution to get past 10K posts.

Question:
While studying, 1 Peter 5:13 hung us up. Regarding the mention of Babylon, was it Rome (doubtful since John had not yet received the Revelation; however Babylon has been a bad actor since Nimrod’s time); or was it a reference to the Babylon church in Assyria, or was it to his wife? Feel free to expand!!

VERSIONS Considered:
(1Pe 5:13) She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. (NIV)
(1Pe 5:13) Salute you doth the [assembly] in Babylon jointly elected, and Markus my son. (Young’s)
(1Pe 5:13) The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. (KJV)
(1Pe 5:13) She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son. (ESV)
(1Pe 5:13) She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son. (NKJV)
(1Pe 5:13) She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark. (NASB)


Fausset Dictionary: Babylon, Mystical

(Rev_16:19; Rev_16:17; Rev_16:18; Rev_19:2-3). Not 1Pe_5:13, where "Babylon" can only mean the literal Babylon: "the (church) at Babylon .... saluteth you." A friendly salutation is hardly the place wherein to find mystical phraseology. The whole epistle, moreover, is remarkably plain, and contains none of the imagery of prophecy. Moreover the literal Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic "dispersion" (dispersed Jews), whom Peter addresses, was derived. Babylon contained many Jews in the apostolic age ("one of the greatest knots of Jews in the world:" Lightfoot, quoted in Smith's Dictionary), and doubtless "the apostle of the circumcision," Peter, who had among his hearers on Pentecost (Acts 2) "the dwellers of Mesopotamia," would visit the Jews there. "Bosor," which Peter uses for Pethor (Num_22:5; 1Pe_5:15), is the Aramaic pronunciation moreover; Josephus contra Apion, 1:7, Ant. 15:3, section 1, also favors the Aramaic Babylon.
The "woman arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication, and upon her forehead having a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (Rev_17:4-5), is avowedly mystical. The later Jews regarded Rome in the same light as their fathers regarded Babylon (Jer_51:7, compare Rev_14:8.) John had seen the woman "clothed with the sun, and the moon (the earth's satellite) under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars "; i.e. God's pure church of the Old Testament and of the New Testament clothed with the Sun of righteousness, and having the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles as her coronet (Revelation 12).
Then she was "persecuted" by" the dragon, Satan," but nourished by divine Providence for "three and a half times" "in the wilderness" of the Gentile world. But now he prophetically sees her sadly and awfully changed. So he "wondered great admiration." The spiritual Jerusalem has become mystical Babylon; the church has become the harlot! The same truth under the same imagery appears in Isa_1:21, "How is the faithful city become an harlot!" That the world should be beastly (Daniel 7) is natural, but that she whose calling was to be the faithful bride should become the Babylonian ***** is monstrous (Jer_2:12-13; Jer_2:20). Not that the elect apostatize; but Christendom, as a whole, and as the visible "woman," has apostatized from its first faith and love. The elect invisible church, the true "woman" and "bride," remains hidden in the visible that has become the harlot, and shall only be manifested when Christ our Life is manifested (Col_3:1).
External prevalence over the world, and internal corruption by the world, (the spirit of the world ruling the church) is symbolized by the world-city's name Babylon; the contrast to "Jerusalem above, the mother of all" believers (Gal_4:26), the "holy Jerusalem, that great city," which shall hereafter on the "new earth" "descend out of heaven from God, having the glory of God" (Rev_21:10). The Roman Catholic Church is the prominent type of Babylon, resting on the world power, and arrayed like it in its "scarlet" gauds, and ruling it by its claim of supremacy, while the beast or secular power on which it rests is "full of names of blasphemy," which after the harlot's overthrow shall be more glaringly displayed. It and the Greek apostasy are whorish in principle, by external and internal idolatry and systematized worldliness.
The evangelical Protestant church is pure in theory, and eschews image and host-mass worship; but in so far as it yields to "covetousness which is idolatry," and conforms to the world, it partakes of the harlot and ceases to be the bride. Compare Achan's "Babylonian garment," Jos_7:21; Hebrew: "a robe of Shinar." While the Syrians were noted for dyeing, and the Phrygians for patchwork, the Babylonians inwove their garments (Tertullian De Habitu Mul., i.), i.e. tapestry work with colored figures inwoven or wrought with the needle: Pliny H.N., 8:48. Septuagint has psilee poikilee, "a smooth, pictured coat." Such garments passed through Jericho in the trade between the Phoenicians and Babylon (Eze_27:24.) In the case of both the Catholic churches and the Protestant churches God's retributive law holds good.
When the church forsakes her true Husband for the love of the world (contrast Psa_45:10-11), the world, the instrument of her sin, becomes the instrument of her punishment. Already this is taking place in Spain, Italy, Austria, and France (Rev_17:16). Our turn shall come next; as in the case of Israel first, then Judah (Ezekiel 23), then the restored Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome, for whom Jerusalem gave up the true "King of the Jews" (Joh_11:48; Joh_11:50; Joh_19:15). Then "iniquity" shall be no longer as now in "mystery," but openly developed in the last awful Antichrist who shall combine the world against Christ in a system of superstitious credulity and infidelity together (2 Thessalonians 2; Rev_16:13-16; Rev_17:17; Rev_19:19). The final judgment on Babylon the ***** (Revelation 17), after the elect shall have been translated out of it and transfigured, seems to be just before the judgment on Antichrist.
Babylon, the spiritual *****, is succeeded "the false prophet," who ministers to Antichrist and perishes with him (Rev_19:20). Rome's forced outward unity, of which its one official language, Latin, is the symbol while inwardly there is spiritual confusion, answers to Babel, the scene of the forced attempt at concentration of power and peoples, issuing in utter confusion of tongues; so too, in a wider sense; does all Christendom in its apostasy from apostolic unworldly purity, faith, and love.
The harlot retains human shape as woman, does not become a beast; i.e., has "the form of godliness while denying the power." (Manliness is godliness, because man was made in the image of God.) The worldliness of the church is therefore the most worldly of all worldliness, and shall be terribly judged by God. But the ***** or Babylon is not to be confounded with the beast. She, however degraded, has borne the divine image; the beast never has. She must fall before the beast develops all his hostility to God.

Commentaries & Study Notes:
Matthew Henry….a trusted source
V. He closes with salutations and a solemn benediction. Observe, 1. Peter, being at Babylon in Assyria, when he wrote this epistle (whither he travelled, as the apostle of the circumcision, to visit that church, which was the chief of the dispersion), sends the salutation of that church to the other churches to whom he wrote (v. 13), telling them that God had elected or chosen the Christians at Babylon out of the world, to be his church, and to partake of eternal salvation through Christ Jesus, together with them and all other faithful Christians, ch. 1:2. In this salutation he particularly joins Mark the evangelist, who was then with him, and who was his son in a spiritual sense, being begotten by him to Christianity. Observe, All the churches of Jesus Christ ought to have a most affectionate concern one for another; they should love and pray for one another, and be as helpful one to another as they possibly can. 2. He exhorts them to fervent love and charity one towards another, and to express this by giving the kiss of peace.

The Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament …new to me
(1Pe 5:13) She that is in Babylon, elect together with you (h en Babulwni suneklekth). Either actual Babylon or, as most likely, mystical Babylon (Rome) as in the Apocalypse. If Peter is in Rome about A.D. 65, there is every reason why he should not make that fact plain to the world at large and least of all to Nero. It is also uncertain whether h suneklekth (found here alone), "the co-elect woman," means Peter's wife ( 1 Corinthians 9:5 ) or the church in "Babylon." The natural way to take it is for Peter's wife. Cf. eklekth kuriai in 2 John 1:1 (also verse 2 John 1:13 ). Mark my son (Marko o uio mou). So this fact agrees with the numerous statements by the early Christian writers that Mark, after leaving Barnabas, became Peter's "interpreter" and under his influence wrote his Gospel. We know that Mark was with Paul in Rome some years

JFB Commentary
1Pe 5:13 The ... at Babylon — Alford, Bengel, and others translate, “She that is elected together with you in Babylon,” namely, Peter’s wife, whom he led about with him in his missionary journeys. Compare 1Pe_3:7, “heirs together of the grace of life.” But why she should be called “elected together with you in Babylon,” as if there had been no Christian woman in Babylon besides, is inexplicable on this view. In English Version the sense is clear: “That portion of the whole dispersion (1Pe_1:1, Greek), or Church of Christianized Jews, with Gentile converts, which resides in Babylon.” As Peter and John were closely associated, Peter addresses the Church in John’s peculiar province, Asia, and closes with “your co-elect sister Church at Babylon saluteth you”; and John similarly addresses the “elect lady,” that is, the Church in Babylon, and closes with “the children of thine elect sister (the Asiatic Church) greet thee”; (compare Introduction to Second John). Erasmus explains, “Mark who is in the place of a son to me”: compare Act_12:12, implying Peter’s connection with Mark; whence the mention of him in connection with the Church at Babylon, in which he labored under Peter before he went to Alexandria is not unnatural. Papias reports from the presbyter John [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39], that Mark was interpreter of Peter, recording in his Gospel the facts related to him by Peter. Silvanus or Silas had been substituted for John Mark, as Paul’s companion, because of Mark’s temporary unfaithfulness. But now Mark restored is associated with Silvanus, Paul’s companion, in Peter’s esteem, as Mark was already reinstated in Paul’s esteem. That Mark had a spiritual connection with the Asiatic’ churches which Peter addresses, and so naturally salutes them, appears from 2Ti_4:11; Col_4:10.

Babylon — The Chaldean Babylon on the Euphrates. See on Introduction, on the Place of Writing this Epistle, in proof that Rome is not meant as Papists assert; compare Lightfoot sermon. [Sec 2 at page 491 last paragraph] The Apostolic Fathers by J.B. Lightfoot: Part I, Volume 2: Saint Peter in Rome
How unlikely that in a friendly salutation the enigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, Rev_17:5), should be used! Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived. Philo [The Embassy to Gaius, 36] and Josephus [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 23.12] inform us that Babylon contained a great many Jews in the apostolic age (whereas those at Rome were comparatively few, about eight thousand [Josephus, Antiquities, 17.11]); so it would naturally be visited by the apostle of the circumcision. It was the headquarters of those whom he had so successfully addressed on Pentecost, Act_2:9, Jewish “Parthians ... dwellers in Mesopotamia” (the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these he ministered to in person. His other hearers, the Jewish “dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia,” he now ministers to by letter. The earliest distinct authority for Peter’s martyrdom at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century. The desirableness of representing Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles, as together founding the Church of the metropolis, seems to have originated the tradition. Clement of Rome [First Epistle to the Corinthians, 4.5], often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it as a distinguishing circumstance of Paul, that he preached both in the East and West, implying that Peter never was in the West. In 2Pe_1:14, he says, “I must shortly put off this tabernacle,” implying his martyrdom was near, yet he makes no allusion to Rome, or any intention of his visiting it.

ESV Study Note:
1 Pet. 5:13 She who is at Babylon, who is . . . chosen almost certainly refers to the church in Rome, not a literal woman (cf. “elect lady,” 2 John 1, 13). Although the Babylon of the OT was in ruins, the reference resonates with the OT, where “Babylon” represents a center of earthly power opposed to God (cf. Isaiah 13–14; Jeremiah 50–51; see also Revelation 17–18), and in Peter's day that city would be Rome. The language of “Babylon” and “chosen” forms an inclusio (a literary envelope) with the first verse of the book: the OT background to “Babylon” reminds believers that though they are exiles, they are “elect exiles” (1 Pet. 1:1) who will receive the promised inheritance. Mark is the same John Mark who traveled with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (cf. Acts 12:25; 13:5, 13; 15:36–39). Though he left Paul and Barnabas, he was later restored to his former usefulness (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24). Peter would have known Mark from the earliest days, because the church met in his mother's home (Acts 12:12). In addition, this verse shows a close relationship between Peter and Mark (my son) and is one indication of the validity of the early church tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel at Peter's direction.

Ryrie NASB Study Note:
1 Pe 5:13 She who is in Babylon. The church in Rome , where Peter evidently was writing this letter. …my son, Mark. John Mark the writer of the gospel, who was not Peter’s natural son but his son in the faith.


I had to use on-line sources since my library is 15 miles away.

Free Bible Commentaries Online

The Apostolic Fathers by J.B. Lightfoot: Part I, Volume 2: Saint Peter in Rome

Online Bible

So far I have learned that Peter apparently had a wife (a mother in law Mat 8:14) … also showing I’m a poor student…and being made aware I had been picturing the Apostles to be bachelors, missing 1 Cor 9:5!

YBIC
Glenn

[Robert]

Glenn,

I know you intended this for Adrian, but I was drawn into reading it. In reading the chapter, and indeed the letter, I do not believe that Peter was talking about mystical Babylon but literal Babylon. In ancient letters, it was common to place the greetings at the end, and it would not make much sense to, in mid-greetings, include something that was mystical. In the epistles, the writers did not suddenly change gears and throw a wrench into the works, as it were, and for Peter to have done so near the end of his letter when he was sending greetings from other brethren would disrupt the flow of the letter. Peter tended to be a practical man, and in his writings, denoted when he was talking about the future or things that were to come. It's in Revelation that we find mystical references to Babylon via John's relating details to us.

I think in this case, peter was just sending greetings from those at the church in the Caldean region, bro. :)

[mattfivefour]

Bro, many truly great commentators, both ancient and modern, whom I greatly respect, say the use of the name "Babylon" here is a reference to the apocalyptic Babylon, namely Rome. At the same time, an equal number of truly great commentators, both ancient and modern, whom I greatly respect, are as convinced that it was the Aramaic Babylon on the Euphrates.

Given all of the arguments—1) Until Revelation nobody in the NT referred to Rome as anything else but Rome; 2) First Peter was written roughly 30 years before Jesus' Revelation to John and the fist known use of the term "Babylon" to refer to Rome ... and even there it is referred to as "Mystery Babylon the Great"; 3) Peter writes this epistle in very plain and straightforward language, thus an apocalyptic reading of this word does not fit the style of the letter or of the standard closing; 4) Ancient Babylon at this time was a great center of the Jewish diaspora, holding a huge population—given all of that, I tend to line up with those who view this literally rather than figuratively. I appreciate the arguments on the figurative side, and do not dismiss them out of hand; in fact I once held to that view myself. However, I believe the preponderance of probability lies on the literal side.

I also believe from the context that the "she" refers to the Church at Babylon. To believe it refers to Peter's wife makes no sense since clearly there had to be more than one Christian woman in Babylon. To which one was he referring? So, it has to be a reference to the Church which is often referred to in the feminine.

Having said that, I will now ask what I always ask when a matter of dispute about a passage arises: "What does it matter?" Does the topic in question bear in any way on the reliability of scripture, the underpinning of a doctrine, or the foundation of our faith? Would the resolution of it in any way lead to the salvation of souls? Or contribute in some way to our own Christian growth? Unless the answer is "yes" to one of these questions, then we have—with respect— found ourselves discussing what the Bible terms "a foolish question". And those we are told to avoid (2 Timothy 2:23). Indeed in Titus 3:9 we are again warned to "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." Some read this as though it read "avoid foolish controversies, avoid genealogies, and avoid arguments and quarrels about the law." This is an incorrect understanding because "arguments" and "quarrels" would be redundant and the Greek makes it clear that it is to be read this way: "Avoid foolish controversies; and avoid genealogies; and avoid arguments; and avoid quarrels about the law." In fact the latter phrase in Greek is μάχας νομικὰς, literally "law quarrels". So we are to avoid foolish controversies and all arguments because "they are unprofitable and worthless".

That is why I ask the above questions before getting into a discussion.

In this case, bro, the answer to all of the questions is "No". Respectfully, there is nothing of any real value to be gained by arguing over which view is correct. Frankly, whichever view one holds to is fine. It makes no difference to anyone ... except, perhaps, the Roman Catholic Church which MUST maintain that Peter was referring to (thus meaning he was writing from) Rome in order to bolster their spurious claim to him being the first pope.

Hope this helps.

[GlennO]

Robert & Adrian

Thank you both!! Great responses! BTW my buddy & me generally (almost always) see things the same way. If one of us gets stumped the other adds the last piece, and the picture comes together....truly an iron sharpening iron fellowship! Thank you Jesus!!

This was a rare moment when we looked at each other an said
So we kicked it up to the better informed

Glenn

[Robert]

Bro, I'm not better informed; like you, I'm just a visitor. A traveler whose home is not this decaying orb but my father's mansion in heaven, who stopped by earth for a cheeseburger or two. :D

[GlennO]

Adrian,

No arguments or doubtful disputations here in NorCal.... just seeking an understanding where there was a lack of same.

I did learn that at the time of the writing, there were only about 8K Hebrews in Rome and many many more more than that in Babylon. I think Peter writing from historic Babylon makes the most sense now.

Glenn