1 Peter 5:13

1 Peter 5:13. The church in Babylon, co-elect, saluteth you. The original runs simply ‘the co-elect one in Babylon saluteth you,' or, as the R. V. renders it, ‘she that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you.' Hence some good expositors, including Bengel and Alford, are of opinion that Peter names in this way his own wife, (to whom there is also supposed to be a reference in 1 Corinthians 9:5), as uniting with him in these greetings. Others think that some notable Christian woman belonging to the Babylonian church itself, is in view. The grounds on which this interpretation is urged are such as these: the unlikelihood of the whole Christian community, designated as it is with so strange an indefiniteness, being united in these parting salutations with a single individual, who is distinctly described by his name Mark; the probability that in an Epistle addressed to ‘elect strangers' individually, and not to churches named as such, the ‘co-elect one' should also be an individual; the necessity of supplying a term, viz. church, which nowhere occurs in the Epistle itself. The great majority of interpreters, however, including Luther, Calvin, and most of those of our own day, prefer the other view; and there is an obvious fitness in giving the greetings of the Christian community, within whose bounds Peter was at present resident, as the greetings of a church which, though widely separated geographically, was ‘co-elect' with those ‘elect sojourners' in other countries to whom he was writing. One of our two oldest manuscripts, the Sinaitic, indeed inserts the word ‘church,' as does also the Vulgate. Wycliffe gives ‘the church that is gathered,' etc.; Tyndale, ‘the companions of your election,' etc.; Cranmer, ‘the congregation of them which at Babylon are companions of your election.' The A. V. follows the Genevan and the Rhemish. But what is to be understood by Babylon here? Some few, including Vitringa and our own Pearson, have supposed the place in view to be an Egyptian Babylon, a military station mentioned by Strabo. Others have imagined it to be a mystical name for Jerusalem, or for the house in which the apostles met on the day of Pentecost. Passing over these eccentric opinions, however, we have to choose between two views, namely, that which takes the term literally and as designating the well-known Babylon on the Euphrates, and that which takes it figuratively and as designating Rome. The latter is undoubtedly a very ancient opinion. It was held, for example, by Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, and others of the Fathers. It is carried back indeed by the historian Eusebius to Papias of Hierapolis in the second century. It has been the prevalent Roman Catholic interpretation, but has also won the adhesion of Reformers like Luther, and of not a few eminent Protestant exegetes belonging to our own time, e.g. Hofmann, Ewald, Schott, etc. In favour of this allegorical interpretation it is urged that there are other occurrences of Babylon in the N. T. as a mystical name for Rome (Revelation 14:8; Revelation 18:2; Revelation 18:10); that it is in the highest degree unlikely that Peter should have made the Assyrian Babylon his residence or missionary centre, especially in view of a statement by Josephus indicating that the Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from that city and neighbourhood; and that tradition connects Peter with Rome, but not with Babylon. The fact, however, that the word is mystically used in a mystical book like the Apocalypse, a book, too, which is steeped in the spirit and terminology of the Old Testament, is no argument for the mystical use of the word in writings of a different type. The allegorical interpretation becomes still less likely when it is observed that other geographical designations in this Epistle (chap. 1 Peter 1:1) have undoubtedly the literal meaning. The tradition itself, too, is uncertain. The statement in Josephus does not bear all that it is made to bear. There is no reason to suppose that, at the time when this Epistle was written, the city of Rome was currently known among Christians as Babylon. On the contrary, wherever it is mentioned in the N. T., with the single exception of the Apocalypse (and even there it is distinguished as ‘Babylon the great '), it gets its usual name, Rome. So far, too, from the Assyrian Babylon being practically in a deserted state at this date, there is very good ground for believing that the Jewish population (not to speak of the heathen) of the city and vicinity was very considerable. For these and other reasons a succession of distinguished interpreters and historians, from Erasmus and Calvin on to Neander, Weiss, Reuss, Huther, etc., have rightly held by the literal sense.

and so doth Mark my son. Bengel and a few others think that this Mark was Peter's own son according to the flesh. But in all probability he is affectionately designated in this way because he was Peter's spiritual son in the faith. The Mark referred to, therefore, appears to be the well-known John Mark, the writer of the Second Gospel, of whom we read in Acts 12:12; Acts 12:25; Acts 13:5; Acts 13:13; Acts 15:37; Acts 15:39; Colossians 4:10, Philemon 1:24, 2 Timothy 4:11, and who has been connected by tradition with Peter as his companion and interpreter. It was to the house of Mary, the mother of this Mark, that Peter repaired on his deliverance from prison (Acts 12:12). The old friendship, therefore, is found still alive after a long and changeful interval. It was this Mark who was the occasion of the sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas, which is noticed in Acts 15. When these two set out on their second missionary tour, Barnabas desired to take his kinsman (Colossians 4:10) Mark along with them, as had been the case when they started on their first missionary journey. Paul resolutely refused, however, to accede to this in consequence of Mark's having left them during the former tour (it may be under the influence of Peter's vacillation, Galatians 2:13) at the Pamphylian Perga (Acts 13:13), and gone back to his mother's house at Jerusalem. The result was that Paul and Barnabas separated, the latter taking Mark with him and proceeding again to Cyprus, the former associating Silas with him and journeying through Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:39-41). Here, however, in Babylon, the scene of so much decayed greatness, Silvanus and Mark are found together once more, acting along with Peter, the friend of Paul. Near the end of his career Paul bears witness to Timothy that Mark was ‘profitable to him for the ministry' (2 Timothy 4:11). ‘Peter here,' says Wordsworth, ‘joins Mark with Silas, who had once been preferred in his room. So may all wounds be healed, and all differences cease in the Church of Christ. So may all falterers be recovered, and Christian charity prevail, and God's glory be magnified in all persons and in all things, through Jesus Christ'