Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Peter 5:13

The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you,] saluteth you; and [so doth] Mark my son.

13. The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you ] The Greek MSS. (with the notable exception, however, of the Sinaitic), as the italics shew, have no noun corresponding to “church,” and it is, at least, a question whether it ought to be inserted, and the same holds good of the pronoun “you.” On the one hand there is the consent of many of the early Fathers in favour of the insertion (see next note) and, perhaps, the improbability that a salutation would be sent to the Asiatic Churches from any individual convert in the Church of Babylon. On the other there is the fact (1) that there is no parallel use of the adjective without the noun in this sense in any other passage of the New Testament; (2) that in 2Jn 1:1, which presents the nearest parallel, it is almost certain that the “elect lady,” or the “elect Kyria,” or the “lady Eclecta” is a person and not a Church; and (3) that if a salutation was sent from “Marcus my son” to the Churches of Asia, there is nothing surprising in a like salutation being sent from another individual disciple. If we adopt, as on the whole, in spite of the weight due to the Sinaitic MS., seems preferable, the latter view, the question who the person was remains open to conjecture. It may have been St Peter’s wife who was, as we learn from 1Co 9:5, the companion of his labours, and in this case there would be a special appropriateness in her sending her greeting in an Epistle which had dwelt so fully on the duties of the female members of the Church (chap. 1Pe 3:1-6). It may have been some conspicuous member of the Church of Babylon otherwise unknown to us. The former view seems to have most in its favour.

The further question, what place is meant by Babylon, remains for discussion, and here also we have to note a wide diversity of opinion. On the one hand, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and Clement of Alexandria, as reported by Eusebius ( Hist. ii. 15), take the words figuratively, as interpreted by the symbolism of the Apocalypse (Rev 14:8; Rev 18:2; Rev 18:10), for Rome, and this view has naturally been taken by most Romish commentators, who find in this passage a proof, otherwise wanting, as far as the New Testament is concerned, of St Peter’s connexion with that Church. Against this it has been urged chiefly, as might be expected, by Protestant interpreters, that there would be something unnatural in the use of a symbolic term belonging to an apocalyptic vision in the simple words of a salutation, and that it was not likely to be intelligible to those who read the Epistle unless they had previously become acquainted with the book in which the symbolism occurs. The order in which the names of the Asiatic provinces are given in chap. 1Pe 1:1, from East to West, is, though not decisive, yet as far as it goes in favour of the Epistle having been written from the Euphrates rather than the Tiber. There was from the days of the Captivity a large Jewish population residing in the new Babylon which had risen on or near the ruins of the old (Joseph. Ant. xv. 2, 2), and although there had been a massacre of many of these (Josephus, Ant. xviii. 9, gives the number as 50,000) in the reign of Claudius, and others had taken refuge first in Ctesiphon and afterwards in Neerda and Nisibis, there may well have been a remnant sufficiently numerous to call for St Peter’s attention as the Apostle of the Circumcision. Another Babylon, it should be added, is named by Strabo (B. xvii.) as a military fortress in Egypt, which has been identified by some writers with the modern Cairo, but there are no adequate grounds for assuming that this is the city which St Peter refers to. There is, indeed, no evidence, such as there is in regard to the Euphrates Babylon, that there was either a Jewish population or a Christian Church there.

and so doth Marcus my son ] It is natural, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to assume that the Marcus so named is identical with the “John whose surname was Mark,” the son of the Mary to whose house St Peter went on his release from imprisonment (Act 12:12), the cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10), the companion of St Paul on his first missionary journey (Act 13:5). On this assumption the term “son” might be used of him either as implying the spiritual parentage of conversion, or as the expression of an affection like that which St Paul cherished for Timotheus (1Ti 1:2) and Titus (Tit 1:4). His presence with St Peter at Babylon when this letter was written, as compared with Col 4:10 and 2Ti 4:11, indicates that having gone to Rome during St Paul’s first imprisonment, he had then returned to Asia, and had made his way, probably with messages and copies of the later Pauline Epistles, to the Apostle of the Circumcision. When St Paul wrote shortly before his execution, he believed the disciple to be again in Asia. In the traditions of Ecclesiastical history he appears as the “interpreter” of St Peter, writing his Gospel to perpetuate the Apostle’s oral teaching, and as the founder of the Church of Alexandria (Euseb. Hist. iii. 39, Jerome De Vir. Illust. c. 8). The view taken by some commentators that the Mark here mentioned was a “son” of the Apostle by natural parentage cannot, of course, be disproved, but it has absolutely nothing in its favour.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you – It will be seen at once that much of this is supplied by our translators; the words church that is not being in the original. The Greek is, he en Babuloni suneklekte; and might refer to a church, or to a female. Wall, Mill, and some others, suppose that the reference is to a Christian woman, perhaps the wife of Peter himself. Compare 2Jo 1:1. But the Arabic, Syriac, and Vulgate, as well as the English versions, supply the word church. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the word rendered elected together with – suneklekte. This word would be properly used in reference to one individual if writing to another individual, but would hardly be appropriate as applied to an individual addressing a church. It could not readily be supposed, moreover, that any one female in Babylon could have such a prominence, or be so well known, that nothing more would be necessary to designate her than merely to say, the elect female. On the word Babylon here, and the place denoted by it, see the introduction, section 2.

And so doth Marcus my son – Probably John Mark. See the notes at Act 12:12; Act 15:37. Why he was now with Peter is unknown. If this was the Mark referred to, then the word son is a title of affection, and is used by Peter with reference to his own superior age. It is possible, however, that some other Mark may be referred to, in whose conversion Peter had been instrumental.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Pe 5:13

The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you.

The Church in Babylon

The Revised Version omits the Church, and substitutes she; explaining in a marginal note that there is a difference of opinion as to whether the sender of the letter is a community or an individual. All the old MSS., with one weighty exception, follow the reading, she that is at Babylon. That the sender of the letter is a church, symbolically designated as a lady, seems the natural meaning. Then there is another question-Where was Babylon? An equal diversity of opinion has arisen. In my own opinion Babylon means Rome. We have here the same symbolical name as in the Book of Revelation, where it is intended primarily as an appellation for the imperial city, which has taken the place filled in the Old Testament by Babylon, as the concentration of antagonism to the kingdom of God.

I. We have here an object lesson as to the uniting power of the gospel. Just think of the relations which, in the civil world, subsisted between Rome and its subject provinces: the latter, with bitter hatred in their hearts to everything belonging to the oppressing city, having had their freedom crushed down and their aspirations ruthlessly trampled upon; the former, with the contempt natural to metropolitans in dealing with far off provincials. The same kind of relationship subsisted between Rome and the outlying provinces of its unwieldy empire as between England, for instance, and its Indian possessions. And the same uniting bond came in which binds the Christian converts of these Eastern lands of ours to England by a far firmer bond than any other. The separating walls were high, but, according to the old saying, you cannot build walls high enough to keep out the birds; and spirits, winged by the common faith, soared above all earthly made distinctions and met in the higher regions of Christian communion. Now our temptation is not so much to let barriers of race and language and distance weaken our sense of Christian community, as it is to let even smaller things than these do the same tragical office for us. And we, as Christian people, are bound to try and look over the fences of our denominations and churches, and recognise the wider fellowship and larger company in which all these are merged.

II. We note, further, the clear recognition here of what is the strong bond uniting all Christians. Peter would probably have been very much astonished if he had been told of the theological controversies that were to be waged round that word elect. The emphasis here lies, not on elect, but on together. It is not the thing so much as the common possession of the thing which bulks largely before the apostle. In effect he says, The reason why these Roman Christians that have never looked you Bithynians in the face do yet feel their hearts going out to you, and send you their loving messages, is because they, in common with you, have been recipients of precisely the same Divine act of grace. By the side of these transcendent blessings which they possessed in common, how pitiably insignificant all the causes which kept them apart looked and were! And so here we have a partial parallel to the present state of Christendom, in which are seen at work, on one hand, superficial separation; on the other, underlying unity. The splintered peaks may stand, or seem to stand, apart from their sister summits, or may frown at each other across impassable gorges, but they all belong to one geological formation, and in the depths their bases blend indistinguishably into a continuous whole. Their tops are miles apart, but beneath the surface they are one.

III. Then, lastly, we may find here a hint as to the pressing need for such a realisation of unity. The Church that is in Babylon was in a vary uncongenial place. Thank God, no Babylon is so Babylonish but that a Church of God may be found planted in it. No circumstances are so unfavourable to the creation and development of the religious life but that the religious life may grow there. An orchid will find footing upon a bit of stick, because it draws nourishment from the atmosphere; and they who are fed by the influx of the Divine Spirit may be planted anywhere, and yet flourish in the courts of our God. But it also gives a hint as to the obligation springing from the circumstances in which Christian people are set, to cultivate the sense of belonging to a great brotherhood. Howsoever solitary, and surrounded by uncongenial associations any Christian man may be, he may feel that he is not alone, not only because his Master is with him, but because there are many others whose hearts throb with the same love, whose lives are surrounded by the same difficulties. If thus you and I, Christian men, are pressed upon on all sides by such worldly associations, the more need that we should let our hearts go out to the innumerable multitude of our fellows, companions in the tribulation and patience and kingdom of Jesus Christ. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Marcus my son.–

Marcus my son

I. The working of Christian sympathy. Mark was a full-blooded Jew when he began his career. John, whose surname was Mark, like a great many other Jews at that time, bore a double name, one Jewish, John, and one Gentile, Marcus. But as time goes on we do not hear anything more about John, nor even about John Mark, which are the two forms of his name when he is first introduced to us in the Acts of the Apostles, but he finally appears to have cast aside his Hebrew, and to have been only known by his Roman name. And that change of appellation coincides with the fact that so many of the allusions which we have to him represent him as sending messages of Christian greeting across the sea to his Gentile brethren. And it further coincides with the fact that his gospel is obviously intended for the use of Gentile Christians, and, according to an old and reliable tradition, was written in Rome for Roman Christians. All of which facts just indicate two things, that the more a man has real operative love to Jesus Christ in his heart the more he will rise above all limitations of his interests, his sympathy, and his efforts, and the more surely will let himself out, as far as he can, in affection towards and toils for all men. This change of name, though it is a mere trifle, and may have been adopted as a matter of convenience, may also be taken as reminding us of a very important truth, and that is, that if we wish to help people, the first condition is that we go down and stand on their level, and make ourselves one with them, as far as we can. And so Mark may have said, I have put away the name that parts me from these Gentiles, for whom I desire to work, and whom I love; and I take the name that binds me to them. You must become like the people that you want to help.

II. The history of Mark suggests the possibility of overcoming early faults. We do not know why he refused to bear the burden of the work that he had so cheerily begun. When he started he did not bargain for going into unknown lands, in which there were many toils to be encountered. He was willing to go where he knew the ground. At all events, whatever his reason, his return was a fault, or Paul would not have been so hard upon him as he was. And the best way to treat him was as the apostle did; and to say to Barnabas indulgent proposal, No! he would not do the work before, and now he shall not do it. That is often Gods way with us. It brings us to our senses, as it brought Mark to his. We do not know how long it took to cure Mark of his early fault, but he was thoroughly cured. The man that was afraid of dangers and hypothetical risks in Asia Minor became brave enough to stand by the apostle when he was a prisoner, and was not ashamed of his chain. And afterwards, so much had he won his way into the apostles confidence, and made himself needful for him by his services, that the lonely prisoner, with the gibbet or headsmans sword in prospect, feels that he would like to have Mark with him once more, and bids Timothy bring him with himself, for he is profitable to me for the ministry. Let no man set limits to the possibilities of his own restoration, and of his curing faults which are most deeply rooted within himself. Hope and effort should be boundless. So we may win victories on the very soil where formerly we were shamefully put to the rout.

III. Take another lesson-the greatness of little service. We do not hear that this John Mark ever tried to do any work in the way of preaching the gospel. His business was a very much humbler one. He had to attend to Pauls comfort. That needed some self-suppression. It would have been so natural for Mark to have said, Paul sends Timothy to be bishop in Crete, and Titus to look after other churches; Epaphroditus is an official here, and Apollos is a great preacher there. And here am I, grinding away at the secularities yet. I think Ill strike, and try and get more conspicuous work. Or, he might perhaps deceive himself and say, more directly religious work, like a great many of us that often mask a very carnal desire for prominence under a very saintly guise of desire to do spiritual service. That was self-suppression. But it was a clear recognition of what we all ought to have very clearly before us, and that is, that all sorts of work which contribute to one end are one sort of work; and that at bottom the man that carried Pauls books and parchments, and saw that he was not left without clothes, though he was so negligent of cloaks and other necessaries, was just as much helping on the cause of Christ as the apostle when he preached.

IV. Take as the last lesson the enlarged sphere that follows faithfulness in small matters. What a singular change! The man that began with being a servant of Paul and of Barnabas ends by being the evangelist, and it is to him, under Peters direction, that we owe what is possibly the oldest, and, at all events in some aspects, an entirely unique, narrative of our Lords life. For quite certainly, in Gods providence, the tools do come to the hand that can wield them, and the best reward that we can get for doing well our little work is to have larger work to do. The little tapers are tempted, if I may use so incongruous a figure, to wish themselves set up on loftier stands. Shine your brightest in your corner, and you will be exalted in due time. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 13. The Church that is at Babylon] After considering all that has been said by learned men and critics on this place, I am quite of opinion that the apostle does not mean Babylon in Egypt, nor Jerusalem, nor Rome as figurative Babylon, but the ancient celebrated Babylon in Assyria, which was, as Dr. Benson observes, the metropolis of the eastern dispersion of the Jews; but as I have said so much on this subject in the preface, I beg leave to refer the reader to that place.

Instead of Babylon, some MSS. mentioned by Syncellus in his Chronicon have , Joppa; and one has , Rome, in the margin, probably as the meaning, according to the writer, of the word Babylon.

Elected together with you] . Fellow elect, or elected jointly with you. Probably meaning that they, and the believers at Babylon, received the Gospel about the same time. On the election of those to whom St. Peter wrote, 1Pet 1:2.

And-Marcus my son.] This is supposed to be the same person who is mentioned Ac 12:12, and who is known by the name of John Mark; he was sister’s son to Barnabas, Col 4:10, his mother’s name was Mary, and he is the same who wrote the gospel that goes under his name. He is called here Peter’s son, i.e. according to the faith, Peter having been probably the means of his conversion. This is very likely, as Peter seems to have been intimate at his mother’s house. See the account, Ac 12:6-17.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The church that is at Babylon; Babylon in Chaldea, where it is most probable the apostle was at the writing of this Epistle; the Jews being very numerous in those parts, as having settled themselves there ever since the captivity, and Peter being an apostle of the circumcision, his work lay much thereabout. The papists would have Babylon here to be Rome, as Rev 17:1-18, and that

Peter gives it that name rather than its own, because, being escaped out of prison at Jerusalem, Act 12:12,25, he would not have it known where he was. But how comes he, that had been so bold before, to be so timorous now? Did this become the head of the church, the vicar of Christ, and prince of the apostles? And is it probable he should live twenty-five years at Rome, (as they pretend he did), and yet not be known to be there? Wherever he was, he had Mark now with him, who is said to have died at Alexandria the eighth year of Nero, and Peter not till six years after. If Mark then did first constitute the church of Alexandria, and govern it (as they say he did) for many years, it will be hard to find him and Peter at Rome together. But if they will needs have Rome be meant by Babylon, let them enjoy their zeal, who rather than not find Peters chair, would go to hell to seek it; and are more concerned to have Rome be the seat of Peter than the church of Christ.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

13. The . . . at BabylonALFORD,BENGEL, and otherstranslate, “She that is elected together with you in Babylon,”namely, Peter’s wife, whom he led about with him in hismissionary journeys. Compare 1Pe3:7, “heirs together of the grace of life.” Butwhy she should be called “elected together with you inBabylon,” as if there had been no Christian woman in Babylonbesides, is inexplicable on this view. In English Version thesense is clear: “That portion of the whole dispersion(1Pe 1:1, Greek), orChurch of Christianized Jews, with Gentile converts, which resides inBabylon.” As Peter and John were closely associated, Peteraddresses the Church in John’s peculiar province, Asia, and closeswith “your co-elect sister Church at Babylonsaluteth you”; and John similarly addresses the “electlady,” that is, the Church in Babylon, and closes with”the children of thine elect sister (the Asiatic Church) greetthee”; (compare Introduction toSecond John). ERASMUSexplains, “Mark who is in the place of a son to me”:compare Ac 12:12, implyingPeter’s connection with Mark; whence the mention of him in connectionwith the Church at Babylon, in which he labored under Peterbefore he went to Alexandria is not unnatural. PAPIASreports from the presbyter John [EUSEBIUS,Ecclesiastical History, 3.39], that Mark was interpreter ofPeter, recording in his Gospel the facts related to him by Peter.Silvanus or Silas had been substituted for John Mark, as Paul’scompanion, because of Mark’s temporary unfaithfulness. But now Markrestored is associated with Silvanus, Paul’s companion, in Peter’sesteem, as Mark was already reinstated in Paul’s esteem. That Markhad a spiritual connection with the Asiatic’ churches which Peteraddresses, and so naturally salutes them, appears from 2Ti 4:11;Col 4:10.

BabylonThe ChaldeanBabylon on the Euphrates. See Introduction,ON THE PLACE OF WRITINGthis Epistle, in proof that Rome is not meant as Papistsassert; compare LIGHTFOOTsermon. How unlikely that in a friendly salutation theenigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, Re17:5), should be used! Babylon was the center from which theAsiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived. PHILO[The Embassy to Gaius, 36] and JOSEPHUS[Antiquities, 15.2.2; 23.12] inform us that Babylon containeda great many Jews in the apostolic age (whereas those at Rome werecomparatively few, about eight thousand [JOSEPHUS,Antiquities, 17.11]); so it would naturally be visited by theapostle of the circumcision. It was the headquarters of those whom hehad so successfully addressed on Pentecost, Ac2:9, Jewish “Parthians . . . dwellers in Mesopotamia”(the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these heministered 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 forPeter’s martyrdom at Rome is DIONYSIUS,bishop of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century. Thedesirableness of representing Peter and Paul, the two leadingapostles, as together founding the Church of the metropolis, seems tohave originated the tradition. CLEMENTOF ROME [FirstEpistle to the Corinthians, 4.5], often quoted for, is reallyagainst it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it as adistinguishing circumstance of Paul, that he preached both inthe East and West, implying that Peter never was in the West. In 2Pe1:14, he says, “I must shortly put off thistabernacle,” implying his martyrdom was near, yet he makes noallusion to Rome, or any intention of his visiting it.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

The church that is at Babylon,…. The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, supply the word “church”, as we do. Some, by “Babylon”, understand Rome, which is so called, in a figurative sense, in the book of the Revelations: this is an ancient opinion; so Papias understood it, as e Eusebius relates; but that Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed. It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon in Assyria, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the centre of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in Ps 87:4 perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle’s being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and these are said by the Jews f to be of the purest blood: many of the Jewish doctors lived here; they had three famous universities in this country, and here their Talmud was written, called from hence g Babylonian. The church in this place is said to be

elected together with you; that is, were chosen together with them in Christ, before the foundation of the world, to grace here, and glory hereafter; or were equally the elect of God as they were, for as such he writes to them, 1Pe 1:2 and this the apostle said in a judgment of charity of the whole church, and all the members of it, being under a profession of faith in Christ; and nothing appearing to the contrary, but that their faith was unfeigned, and their profession right and sincere. This Church, he says,

saluteth you; wishes all peace, happiness, and prosperity of every kind,

and so doth Marcus, my son; either, in a natural sense, his son according to the flesh; since it is certain Peter had a wife, and might have a son, and one of this name: or rather in a spiritual sense, being one that he was either an instrument of converting him, or of instructing him, or was one that was as dear to him as a son; in like manner as the Apostle Paul calls Timothy, and also Titus, his own son. This seems to be Mark the evangelist, who was called John Mark, was Barnabas’s sister’s son, and his mother’s name was Mary; see Col 4:10. He is said h to be the interpreter of Peter, and to have wrote his Gospel from what he heard from him; and who approved of it, and confirmed it, and indeed it is said to be his.

e Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 15. f T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 69. 2. & 71. 2. & Gloss. in ib. g T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 24. 1. h Papias apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 39. Tertullian. adv. Marcion, l. 4. c. 5. Hieron. Catalog. Script. Eccl. sect. 2. 18.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

She that is in Babylon, elect together with you ( ). 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 (found here alone), “the co-elect woman,” means Peter’s wife (1Co 9:5) or the church in “Babylon.” The natural way to take it is for Peter’s wife. Cf. in 2Jo 1:1 (also verse 2Jo 1:13).

Mark my son ( ). 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 before this time (Col 4:10).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The church. The word is not in the Greek, but is supplied with the feminine definite article hJ. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the meaning of this feminine article. Some suppose a reference to Peter’s own wife; others, to some prominent Christian woman in the church. Compare 2 John 1. The majority of interpreters, however, refer it to the church.

Babylon. Some understand in a figurative sense, as meaning Rome; others, literally, of Babylon on the Euphrates. In favor of the former view are the drift of ancient opinion and the Roman Catholic interpreters, with Luther and several noted modern expositors, as Ewald and Hoffmann. This, too, is the view of Canon Cook in the “Speaker’s Commentary.” In favor of the literal interpretation are the weighty names of Alford, Huther, Calvin, Neander, Weiss, and Reuss. Professor Salmond, in his admirable commentary on this epistle, has so forcibly summed up the testimony that we cannot do better than to give his comment entire : “In favor of this allegorical interpretation it is urged that there are other occurrences of Babylon in the New Testament as a mystical name for Rome (Rev 4:8; Rev 18:2, 10); that it is in the highest degree unlikely that Peter should have made the Assyrian Babylon his residence or missionary center, especially in view of a statement by Josephus indicating that the Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from that city and neighborhood; 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 (ch. 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 New Testament, with the single exception of Revelation (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.” Marcus. Rev., Mark. John Mark, the author of the gospel. See Introduction to Mark, on his relations to Peter.

My son. Probably in a spiritual sense, though some, as Bengel, think that Peter’s own son is referred to.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “The church that is at Babylon.” The (Greek su neklekte) (co-chosen assembly) in Babylon, indefinite locality from which Peter wrote.

2) “Elected together with you, saluteth you.” This affinity fellowship “Elected together” in Babylon sent (Greek apazetai) greetings to sister churches in five Asia Minor countries.

3) “And so does Marcus, my son.” “and (so does) Mark, my son” — evidently in the ministry.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

13 That is at Babylon Many of the ancients thought that Rome is here enigmatically denoted. This comment the Papists gladly lay hold on, that Peter may appear to have presided over the Church of Rome: nor does the infamy of the name deter them, provided they can pretend to the title of an apostolic seat; nor do they care for Christ, provided Peter be left to them. Moreover, let them only retain the name of Peter’s chair, and they will not refuse to set Rome in the infernal regions. But this old comment has no color of truth in its favor; nor do I see why it was approved by Eusebius and others, except that they were already led astray by that error, that Peter had been at Rome. Besides, they are inconsistent with themselves. They say that Mark died at Alexandria, in the eighth year of Nero; but they imagine that Peter, six years after this, was put to death at Rome by Nero. If Mark formed, as they say, the Alexandrian Church, and had been long a bishop there, he could never have been at Rome with Peter. For Eusebius and Jerome extend the time of Peter’s presidency at Rome to twenty-five years; but this may be easily disproved by what is said in Gal 1:0 and Gal 2:0 chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians.

Since, then, Peter had Mark as his companion when he wrote this Epistle, it is very probable that he was at Babylon: and this was in accordance with his calling; for we know that he was appointed an apostle especially to the Jews. He therefore visited chiefly those parts where there was the greatest number of that nation.

In saying that the Church there was a partaker of the same election, his object was to confirm others more and more in the faith; for it was a great matter that the Jews were gathered into the Church, in so remote a part of the world.

My son So he calls Mark for honor’s sake; the reason, however, is, because he had begotten him in the faith, as Paul did Timothy.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(13) The church. . . . elected together with you.In the original it simply stands the co-elect one [fern. sing.] in Babylon. Some, therefore, seeing immediately after, Marcus, my son, and knowing that St. Peter was a married man (Mat. 8:14, 1Co. 9:5), have thought that this co-elect one was St. Peters wife. But (1) it is highly improbable that St. Mark was in that sense son to St. Peter; (2) quite as improbable that she would have been put so prominently forward in such an Epistle; (3) the word co-elect evidently refers back to 1Pe. 1:2, and means co-elect with you, not with me. It was becoming a not infrequent mode of designating a church, to personify it under a female title (see 2Jn. 1:1; 1Pe. 1:4-5; 1Pe. 1:13); and it seems therefore much more natural to suppose that the salutation is from this church of Babylon to her sister churches in the provinces of Asia Minor. The modesty with which this church at Babylon is spoken of, as being only one of many co-elect ones is noteworthy. She does not claim such a position among churches as (e.g.) in Son. 6:8-9.

That is at Babylon.Three places have claimed to be understood under this name: (1) A little place called Babylon in Egypt, which has nothing to plead for itself except the unlikelihood of St. Peter ever being at the Oriental Babylon, coupled with the difficulty of supposing that the name is used quite figuratively. Perhaps, also, we should mention the traditional connection of St. Mark with Egypt. No one now, however, maintains this view. (2) The literal Babylon in the East. This has for itself the simple way in which St. Peter uses the word without any circumlocution. But it has nothing else for it, to set against all the overwhelming arguments in favour of the third claimant; besides which we learn from Josephus of a great expulsion of Jews from the Oriental Babylon a few years before this date: these Jews might of course, however, have gathered there again, as they did at Rome, in spite of frequent expulsions. (3) It may be called the established interpretation that the place meant is Rome. We never hear of St. Peter being in the East, and the thing in itself is improbable, whereas nothing but Protestant prejudice can stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter sojourned and died at Rome. Whatever theological consequences may flow from it, it is as certain that St. Peter was at Rome as that St. John was at Ephesus. Everything in the Letter also points to such a state of things as was to be found at Rome about the date when we believe the Letter to have been written. It is objected that St. Peter would not gravely speak of Rome under a fanciful name when dating a letter; but the symbolism in the name is quite in keeping with the context. St. Peter has just personified the church of the place from which he writes, which seems quite as unprosaic a use of language as to call Rome Babylon. And it seems pretty clear that the name was quite intelligible to Jewish readers, for whom it was intended. The Apocalypse (Rev. 17:18) is not the only place where Rome is found spoken of under this title. One of the first of living Hebraists (who will not allow his name to be mentioned) told the present writer that no Hebrew of St. Peters day would have had need to think twice what city was meant when Babylon was mentioned. And on the mention of the name, all the prophecies of the vengeance to be taken on the city which had desolated the Holy Land would rush with consolation into the mind of the readers, and they would feel that St. Peter, though supporting St. Paul, was still in full sympathy with themselves. Finally, as M. Renan suggests, there were reasons of prudence for not speaking too plainly about the presence of a large Christian society in Rome. The police were still more vigilant now than when St. Paul wrote in guarded language about the Roman empire to the Thessalonians. (See Excursus on the Man of Sin, after 2 Thess.) It might provoke hostilities if the Epistle fell into the hands of a delator, with names and places too clearly given.

Marcus, my son.The particular word here used does not occur elsewhere of spiritual relationship, but the other thought is very improbable. We should have heard of it in other places had St. Mark been his son in the flesh. (See Act. 12:12.) St. Mark was. of course, well known in Asia Minor (Act. 12:25; Col. 4:10; 2Ti. 4:11).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

13. The Church with you Literally, The co-elect at Babylon. Some, as Alford, understand Peter’s wife. 1Co 9:5. Most expositors understand the Church, which, indeed, the Sinaitic MS. inserts. Wordsworth would read the co-elect dispersion at Babylon, as the epistle is addressed to the elect dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia. This seems the most reasonable.

Babylon See Introduction.

Marcus my son Literally so, if the previous clause refers to the apostle’s wife. Otherwise, John Mark the evangelist, the follower and disciple of St. Peter.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you; and so does Mark my son.’

‘She who is in Babylon’ is almost certainly referring to the church from which he writes (ekklesia is feminine, and if he had meant his wife he would probably have said ‘she who is with me’ or some such personal phrase) . We know so little of Peter’s later activities that there is no reason why we should not take this as literally meaning Babylon in Mesopotamia. Indeed that might partly explain the lack of information about his later ministry. We know that initially he ministered in Jerusalem and the surrounding area (Acts 1-12), that later he was found at Syrian Antioch (Gal 2:11) and possibly for a short time at Corinth (1Co 1:12), and we know from this letter that he had at least some ministry in north west Asia Minor (1Pe 1:1). It is certainly not therefore against the balance of probability that he then ministered in Mesopotamia, and wrote from there.

The majority, however, see ‘Babylon’ as symbolic of Rome (compare Revelation 17-18, although there the context is very different), and used in case the letter was seen by representatives of the authorities. But there was in fact at this time no reason why Peter should see Rome as an enemy (depending on when we date the letter), and there is nothing incriminating in the letter. Furthermore ‘she who is in Rome’ would hardly have been incriminating. It would more likely have raised sniggering laughs. Nor is there any suggestion elsewhere in the letter of such apocalyptic imagery (it might have been seen as more significant in 2 Peter). Thus it is difficult to see why he should take up such imagery at this point.

Partly in favour of it signifying Rome are later Syriac traditions of a ministry by Peter in Rome, but that does not exclude the possibility of a prior ministry in Mesopotamia, even though there are no traditions of such a ministry. He may not have ministered there for very long. Furthermore, we must remember that the identification of Babylon with Rome came about only after a series of persecutions by Rome, and after John had written Revelation. There is no early evidence of it (Eusebius mentions Papias as holding the view, but Papias was very interested in apocalyptic and would tend to think that way).

The issue is not, however, of great importance, apart from for those who try to make a big thing of Peter having been in Rome for some years. The later tradition that Peter was in the end martyred in Rome is not affected by this and must be seen as very probable, although any long sojourn as not.

(Indeed we could argue that if he is speaking of Rome he clearly sees the Roman church as having little authority, writing of it as though it were merely a refugee church in the lascivious and corrupt world of ‘Babylon’. He certainly does not give it any pre-eminence).

‘Elect together with you.’ Compare 1Pe 1:1. They share together in the gracious working of God on equal terms.

‘Mark, my son.’ Here we have confirmation that Mark at some stage accompanied Peter. It was probably as a result of this that he gathered material for his Gospel.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Pe 5:13. The churchat Babylon, See the Preface to this epistle. Bishop Cumberland and Mr. Cradock argue from hence, that probably St. Peter wrote from the neighbourhood of Babylon, and found many Jews remaining there ever since the Babylonish captivity, among whom he had preached the gospel with considerable success. “Upon comparing all the solutions together, (says Benson,) it seems most probable, that by Babylon we are to understand the ancient and most famous city of that name. It was in a manner the metropolis of the eastern dispersion of the Jews, and from thence the Jews in Asia Minor had been transplanted. St. Peter as an apostle of the circumcision, would be very likely, when he left Judea, to go amongst the Jews, and where he might find the greatest numbers: and finally, it is most natural to date a letter, or send salutations from a place by its real, and not by a figurative name.” Instead of elected together with you, Doddridge reads, chosen with you; that is, to be the people of God, and to partake of the privileges of the gospel. Marcus was, very likely, converted to Christianity by St. Peter, and afterwards served him in the gospel, as a child serves his father; and therefore he calls him his son. See 1Ti 1:12. Perhaps Mark had travelled through Asia Minor, and might be known among those churches. Some suppose him to have been a different person from him who was the companion of Barnabas and Paul, and to have been the author of the gospel which bears his name. See the introductory note to the Gospel of St. Mark, and Act 12:12.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Pe 5:13 . Salutation.

The notion that denotes the apostle’s wife (Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, etc.) finds no support from 1Co 9:5 ; it is contradicted by the [287] inserted between. By far the greater number of commentators rightly consider it to mean: “ the church in Babylon ” ( has the word after ; Oec. u. Vulg. ecclesia ). According to Hofmann, is not to be supplied to , “but the churches to which the apostle writes are, as such, , and the church from which he sends greetings is, as such, a , as she from whom the Apostle John sends salutations is an ” (2Jn 1:13 ). But in John’s Epistle, 1Pe 5:1 , , and 1Pe 5:13 , , are put along with ; accordingly, it does not follow that , without the additional idea , would of itself mean a church. The refers to the churches to which Peter sends the salutation of the former, cf. chap. 1Pe 1:1 . [288] According to Eusebius ( H. E . c. 15), Papias already was of opinion that the name Babylon is here used figuratively, and that by it Rome is to be understood. The same view is adopted by Clemens Alex., Hieronymus, Oecumenius, Beda, Luther, and by most of the Catholic interpreters; [289] in more recent times by Thiersch, Ewald, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Schott, etc. The principal reasons brought forward in support of this view are (1) The tradition of the primitive church, which speaks of the apostle’s stay in Rome, but makes no mention of his having lived in Babylon; (2) The designation of Rome as Babylon in Revelation, chap. Rev 14:8 , Rev 18:2 ; Rev 18:10 ; (3) The banishment of the Jews from Babylon in the time of the Emperor Claudius, according to Joseph. Ant . i. 18, c. 12. But these reasons are not conclusive, for (1) The tradition has preserved altogether very imperfect and uncertain notices of the apostles; (2) In Revelation this designation is very naturally explained from the reference to O. T. prophecy; (3) The account of Josephus does not lead us to understand that all the Jews were banished from Babylon and its vicinity (see Mayerhoff, p. 128 ff., and Wieseler, p. 557 f.). [290] Although de Wette’s rejoinder, that “the allegorical designation is unnatural in a letter, especially in the salutation,” may be going too far, still it is improbable that Peter, in simply conveying a greeting, would have made use of an allegorical name of a place, without ever hinting that the designation was not to be taken literally. This could admit of explanation only if, at the time the epistle was written, it had been customary among the Christians to speak of Rome as Babylon; and that it was so, we have no evidence. Accordingly, Erasmus, Calvin, Gerhard, Neander, de Wette-Brckner, Wieseler, Weiss, Bleek, Reuss, Fronmller, etc., have justly declared themselves opposed to the allegorical interpretation. The view that by Babylon is meant the Babylon in Egypt mentioned by Strabo, i. 17 (Pearson, Calov, Vitringa, Wolf), has nothing to commend it, the less so that this Babylon was simply a military garrison. [291]

] The correct interpretation of is given already by Oecumenius: , , . It is undoubtedly the well-known companion of Paul who is meant. Since, according to Acts, Peter was acquainted with his mother, it is probable that Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter. The idea that Peter here speaks of a son of his own after the flesh, named Mark (Bengel, Hottinger, Jachmann, etc.), could receive support only if were used to designate the apostle’s wife.

[287] According to several commentators, ., though not meaning definitely Peter’s wife, yet refers to some other excellent woman of the church. Wolf even thinks it may be understood as a proper name.

[288] It is far-fetched when Schott says that . . is not written here, but . ., because the very fact of her being in Babylon ( i.e. Rome) makes the church a , i.e. the real associate of the churches who read the epistle; namely, in as far as thus reference is made to a like condition of suffering.

[289] Lorinus remarks: Omnes quotquot legerim interpretes catholici romanam intelligunt ecclesiam. Calvin says of this interpretation: hoc commentum Papistae libenter arripiunt, ut videatur Petrus romanae ecclesiae praefuisse.

[290] Hofmann maintains that it is “indiscoverable how Peter had come to know the two Pauline Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians,” if he wrote his epistle in Babylon. But the composition of the epistle in Rome is not by any means proved by so uncertain an assertion.

[291] It is clearly quite arbitrary when some scholars, like Capellus, Spanheim, and Semler, understand Babylon here as a name for Jerusalem, or even for the house where the apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you , saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Ver. 13. The Church that is at Babylon ] At Rome, say the Papists, that they may prove Peter to have been bishop of Rome. But though this be far fetched, yet here they grant us that mystical Babylon mentioned in the Revelation. It is probable that St Peter meant no other Babylon than the metropolis of Chaldaea, where he, being the apostle of the circumcision, preached to those dispersed Jews, and other Gentiles that he had converted.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

13 .] She that is elected together with you in Babylon salutes you ( who , or what is this? The great majority of Commentators understand it to mean a sister congregation , elect like yourselves, ch. 1Pe 1:1 . So [34] al. in digest, E. V., Luth., Calv., Gerhard, Steiger, &c., and the more recent interpreters, De Wette, Huther, Wiesinger. And this perhaps may be a legitimate interpretation. Still it seems hardly probable, that there should be joined together in the same sending of salutation, an abstraction , spoken of thus enigmatically, and a man , , by name. No mention has occurred in the Epistle of the word , to which reference might be made: if such reference be sought for, , in ch. 1Pe 1:1 , is the only word suitable, and that could hardly be used of the congregation in any particular place. Finally, it seems to be required by the rules of analogy, that in an Epistle addressed to , individually, not gregatim, must be an individual person also. These considerations induce me to accede to the opinion of those, who recognize here the whom St. Peter , 1Co 9:5 ; and to find, in the somewhat unusual periphrastic way of speaking of her, a confirmation of this view. Bengel, who defends it, adduces ch. 1Pe 3:7 , where the wives are called . Still, I own, the words a little stagger me in this view. But it seems less forced than the other. On the question, what Babylon is intended, whether Rome, or the Chaldan capital, or some village in Egypt, see Prolegomena, iv. 10 ff.), and Marcus my son (perhaps, and so most have thought, the well-known Evangelist (see Eus. H. E. ii. 15: Orig [35] in Eus. vi. 25: c. al.): perhaps the actual son of St. Peter, bearing this name (c.-altern., Bengel, al.). The fact of Peter taking refuge in the house of Mary the mother of John Mark ( Act 12:2 ), casts hardly any weight on the side of the former interpretation: but it derives some probability from the circumstance that St. Mark is reported by Eus. l. c., and iii. 39, 1Pe 5:8 , vi. 14, 25, to have been the and and , on the authority of Papias and Clement of Alexandria: and that Irenus (Hr. iii. 11, p. 174, Eus. 1Pe 5:8 ) reports the same. The is understood either spiritually or literally, according as one or other of the above views is taken).

[34] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .

[35] Origen, b. 185, d. 254

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1 Peter

THE CHURCH IN BABYLON

1Pe 5:13 .

We have drawn lessons in previous addresses from the former parts of the closing salutations of this letter. And now I turn to this one to see what it may yield us. The Revised Version omits ‘the church,’ and substitutes ‘she’; explaining in a marginal note that there is a difference of opinion as to whether the sender of the letter is a community or an individual. All the old MSS., with one weighty exception, follow the reading ‘she that is in Babylon.’ But it seems so extremely unlikely that a single individual, with no special function, should be bracketed along with the communities to whom the letter was addressed, as ‘elected together with’ them, that the conclusion that the sender of the letter is a church, symbolically designated as a ‘lady,’ seems the natural one.

Then there is another question–where was Babylon? An equal diversity of opinion has arisen about that. I do not venture to trouble you with the arguments pro and con, but only express my own opinion that ‘Babylon’ means Rome.

We have here the same symbolical name as in the Book of Revelation, where, whatever further meanings are attached to the designation, it is intended primarily as an appellation for the imperial city, which has taken the place filled in the Old Testament by Babylon, as the concentration of antagonism to the Kingdom of God.

If these views of the significance of the expression are adopted we have here the Church in Rome, the proud stronghold of worldly power and hostility, sending its greetings to the scattered Christian communities in the provinces of what is now called Asia Minor. The fact of such cordial communications between communities separated by so many contrarieties as well as by race and distance, familiar though it is, may suggest several profitable considerations, to which I ask your attention.

I. We have here an object lesson as to the uniting power of the gospel.

Just think of the relations which, in the civil world, subsisted between Rome and its subject provinces; the latter, with bitter hatred in their hearts to everything belonging to the oppressing city, having had their freedom crushed down and their aspirations ruthlessly trampled upon; the former, with the contempt natural to metropolitans in dealing with far-off provincials. The same kind of relationship subsisted between Rome and the outlying provinces of its unwieldly empire as between England, for instance, and its Indian possessions. And the same uniting bond came in which binds the Christian converts of these Eastern lands of ours to England by a far firmer bond than any other. There was springing up amidst all the alienation and hatred and smothered rebellion a still incipient, but increasing, and even then strong bond that held together Roman Christians and Cappadocian believers. They were both ‘one in Christ Jesus.’ The separating walls were high, but, according to the old saying, you cannot build walls high enough to keep out the birds; and spirits, winged by the common faith, soared above all earthly-made distinctions and met in the higher regions of Christian communion. When the tide rises it fills and unifies the scattered pools on the beach. So the uniting power of Christian faith was manifest in these early days, when it bound such discordant elements together, and made ‘the church that was in Babylon’ forget that they were to a large extent Romans by birth, and stretch out their hands, with their hearts in them, to the churches to whom this letter was sent.

Now, brethren, our temptation is not so much to let barriers of race and language and distance weaken our sense of Christian community, as it is to let even smaller things than these do the same tragical office for us. And we, as Christian people, are bound to try and look over the fences of our ‘denominations’ and churches, and recognise the wider fellowship and larger company in which all these are merged. God be thanked! there are manifest tokens all round us to-day that the age of separation and division is about coming to an end. Yearnings for unity, which must not be forced into acts too soon, but which will fulfil themselves in ways not yet clear to any of us, are beginning to rise in Christian hearts. Let us see to it, dear friends, that we do our parts to cherish and to increase these, and to yield ourselves to the uniting power of the common faith.

II. We note, further, the clear recognition here of what is the strong bond uniting all Christians.

Peter would probably have been very much astonished if he had been told of the theological controversies that were to be waged round that word ‘elect.’ The emphasis here lies, not on ‘elect,’ but on ‘together.’ It is not the thing so much as the common possession of the thing which bulks largely before the Apostle. In effect he says, ‘The reason why these Roman Christians that have never looked you Bithynians in the face do yet feel their hearts going out to you, and send you their loving messages, is because they, in common with you, have been recipients of precisely the same Divine act of grace.’ We do not now need to discuss the respective parts of man and God in it, nor any of the interminable controversies that have sprung up around the word. God had, as the fact of their possession of salvation showed, chosen Romans and Asiatics together to be heirs of eternal life. By the side of these transcendent blessings which they possessed in common, how pitiably small and insignificant all the causes which kept them apart looked and were!

And so here we have a partial parallel to the present state of Christendom, in which are seen at work, on one hand, superficial separation; on the other, underlying unity. The splintered peaks may stand, or seem to stand, apart from their sister summits, or may frown at each other across impassable gorges, but they all belong to one geological formation, and in their depths their bases blend indistinguishably into a continuous whole. Their tops are miles apart, but beneath the surface they are one. And so the things that bind Christian men together are the great things and the deepest things; and the things that part them are the small and superficial ones. Therefore it is our wisdom–not only for the sake of the fact of our unity and for the sake of our consciousness of unity, but because the truths which unite are the most important ones–that they shall bulk largest in our hearts and minds. And if they do, we shall know our brother in every man that is like-minded with us towards them, whatever shibboleth may separate us. I spoke a moment ago about the separate pools on the beach, and the tide rising. When the tide goes down, and the spiritual life ebbs, the pools are parted again. And so ages of feeble spiritual vitality have been ages of theological controversy about secondary matters; and ages of profound realisation by the Church of the great fundamentals of gospel truth have been those when its members were drawn together, they knew not how. Hence they can say of and to each other, ‘Elect together with you.’

Brethren, for the sake of the strength of our own religious life, do not let us fix our attention on the peculiarities of our sects, but upon the catholic truths believed everywhere, always, by all. Then we shall ‘walk in a large place,’ and feel how many there are that are possessors of ‘like precious faith’ with ourselves.

III. Then, lastly, we may find here a hint as to the pressing need for such a realisation of unity.

‘The church that is in Babylon’ was in a very uncongenial place. Thank God, no Babylon is so Babylonish but that a Church of God may be found planted in it. No circumstances are so unfavourable to the creation and development of the religious life but that the religious life may grow there. An orchid will find footing upon a bit of stick, because it draws nourishment from the atmosphere; and they who are fed by influx of the Divine Spirit may be planted anywhere, and yet flourish in the courts of our God. So ‘the church that is in Babylon’ gives encouragement as to the possibility of Christian faith being triumphant over adverse conditions.

But it also gives a hint as to the obligation springing from the circumstances in which Christian people are set, to cultivate the sense of belonging to a great brotherhood. Howsoever solitary and surrounded by uncongenial associations any Christian man may be, he may feel that he is not alone, not only because his Master is with him, but because there are many others whose hearts throb with the same love, whose lives are surrounded by the same difficulties. It is by no means a mere piece of selfish consolation which this same Apostle gives in another part of his letter, when he bids the troubled so be of good cheer, as remembering that the ‘same afflictions were accomplished in the brotherhood which is in the world.’ He did not mean to say, ‘Take comfort, for other people are as badly off as you are,’ but he meant to call to the remembrance of the solitary sufferer the thousands of his brethren who were ‘dreeing the same weird’ in the same uncongenial world.

If thus you and I, Christian men, are pressed upon on all sides by such worldly associations, the more need that we should let our hearts go out to the innumerable multitude of our fellows, companions in the tribulation, and patience, and kingdom of Jesus Christ. Precisely because the Roman believers were in Babylon, they were glad to think of their brethren in Asia. Isolated amidst Rome’s splendours and sins, it was like a breath of cool air stealing into some banqueting house heavy with the fumes of wine, or some slaughter-house reeking with the smell of blood, to remember these far-off partakers of a purer life.

But if I might for a moment diverge, I would venture to say that in the conditions of thought, and the tendencies of things in our own and other lands, it is more than ever needful that Christian people should close their ranks, and stand shoulder to shoulder. For men who believe in a supernatural revelation, in the Divine Christ, in an atoning Sacrifice, in an indwelling Spirit, are guilty of suicidal folly if they let the comparative trivialities that part them, separate God’s army into isolated groups, in the face of the ordered battalions that are assaulting these great truths.

Because persecution was beginning to threaten and rumble on the horizon, like a rising thundercloud, it was the more needful, in Peter’s time, that Christians parted by seas, by race, language, and customs, should draw together. And for us, fidelity to our testimony and loyalty to our Master, to say nothing of common sense and the instinct of self-preservation, command Christian men in this day to think more, and to speak more, and to make more, of the great verities which they all possess in common.

Thus, brethren, living in Babylon, we should open our windows to Jerusalem; and though we dwell here as aliens, we may say, ‘We are come unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem; to an innumerable company of angels; to the spirits of just men made perfect; and to the Church of the first-born whose names are written in Heaven.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

1 Peter

MARCUS, MY SON

1Pe 5:13 .

The outlines of Mark’s life, so far as recorded in Scripture, are familiar. He was the son of Mary, a woman of some wealth and position, as is implied by the fact that her house was large enough to accommodate the ‘many’ who were gathered together to pray for Peter’s release. He was a relative, probably a cousin Col 4:10 , Revised Version, of Barnabas, and possibly, like him, a native of Cyprus. The designation of him by Peter as ‘my son’ naturally implies that the Apostle had been the instrument of his conversion. An old tradition tells us that he was the ‘young man’ mentioned in his Gospel who saw Christ arrested, and fled, leaving his only covering in the captor’s hands. However that may be, he and his relatives were early and prominent disciples, and closely connected with Peter, as is evident from the fact that it was to Mary’s house that he went after his deliverance. Mark’s relationship to Barnabas made it natural that he should be chosen to accompany him and Paul on their first missionary journey, and his connection with Cyprus helps to account for his willingness to go thither, and his unwillingness to go further into less known ground. We know how he left the Apostles, when they crossed from Cyprus to the mainland, and retreated to his mother’s house at Jerusalem. We have no details of the inglorious inactivity in which he spent the time until the proposal of a second journey by Paul and Barnabas. In the preparations for it, the foolish indulgence of his cousin, far less kind than Paul’s wholesome severity, led to a rupture between the Apostles, and to Barnabas setting off on an evangelistic tour on his own account, which received no sympathy from the church at Antioch, and has been deemed unworthy of record in the Acts.

Then followed some twelve years or more, during which Mark seems to have remained quiescent; or, at all events, he does not appear to have had any work in connection with the great Apostle. Then we find him reappearing amongst Paul’s company when he was in prison for the first time in Rome; and in the letters to Coloss he is mentioned as being a comfort to the Apostle then. He sends salutations to the Colossians, and is named also in the nearly contemporaneous letter to Philemon. According to the reference in Colossians, he was contemplating a journey amongst the Asiatic churches, for that in Coloss is bidden to welcome him. Then comes this mention of him in the text. The fact that Mark was beside Peter when he wrote seems to confirm the view that Babylon here is a mystical name for Rome; and that this letter falls somewhere about the same date as the letters to Coloss and Philemon. Here again he is sending salutations to Asiatic churches. We know nothing more about him, except that some considerable time after, in Paul’s last letter, he asks Timothy, who was then at Ephesus, the headquarters of the Asiatic churches, to ‘take Mark,’ who, therefore, was apparently also in Asia, ‘and bring him’ with him to Rome; ‘for,’ says the Apostle, beautifully referring to the man’s former failure, ‘he is profitable to me for’–the very office that he had formerly flung up–’the ministry.’

So, possibly, he was with Paul in his last days. And then, after that, tradition tells us that he attached himself more closely to the Apostle Peter; and, finally, at his direction and dictation, became the evangelist who wrote the ‘Gospel according to Mark.’

Now that is his story; and from the figure of this ‘Marcus, my son,’ and from his appearance here in this letter, I wish to gather two or three very plain and familiar lessons.

I. The first of them is the working of Christian sympathy.

Mark was a full-blooded Jew when he began his career. ‘John, whose surname was Mark,’ like a great many other Jews at that time, bore a double name–one Jewish, ‘John,’ and one Gentile, ‘Marcus.’ But as time goes on we do not hear anything more about ‘John,’ nor even about ‘John Mark,’ which are the two forms of his name when he is first introduced to us in the Acts of the Apostles, but he finally appears to have cast aside his Hebrew and to have been only known by his Roman name. And that change of appellation coincides with the fact that so many of the allusions which we have to him represent him as sending messages of Christian greeting across the sea to his Gentile brethren. And it further coincides with the fact that his gospel is obviously intended for the use of Gentile Christians, and, according to an old and reliable tradition, was written in Rome for Roman Christians. All of which facts just indicate two things, that the more a man has real operative love to Jesus Christ in his heart, the more he will rise above all limitations of his interests, his sympathy, and his efforts, and the more surely will he let himself out, as far as he can, in affection towards and toils for all men.

This change of name, though it is a mere trifle, and may have been adopted as a matter of convenience, may also be taken as reminding us of a very important truth, and that is, that if we wish to help people, the first condition is that we go down and stand on their level, and make ourselves one with them, as far as we can. And so Mark may have said, ‘I have put away the name that parts me from these Gentiles, for whom I desire to work, and whom I love; and I take the name that binds me to them.’ Why, it is the very same principle, in a small instance–just as a raindrop that hangs on the thorn of a rose-bush is moulded by the same laws that shape the great sphere of the central sun–it is a small instance of the great principle which brought Jesus Christ down into the world to die for us. You must become like the people that you want to help. ‘Forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same, that He might deliver them.’ And so, not only the duty of widening our sympathies, but one of the supreme conditions of being of use to anybody, are set forth in the comparatively trifling incident, which we pass by without noticing it, that this man, a Jew to his finger-tips, finally found himself–or, rather, finally was carried, for it was no case of unconscious drifting–into the position of a messenger of the Cross to the Gentiles; and for the sake of efficiency in his work, and of getting close by the side of people whom he wanted to influence, flung away deliberately that which parted him from them. It is a small matter, but a little window may show a very wide prospect.

II. The history of Mark suggests the possibility of overcoming early faults.

We do not know why he refused to bear the burden of the work that he had so cheerily begun. Probably the reason that I have suggested may have had something to do with it. When he started he did not bargain for going into unknown lands, in which there were many toils to be encountered. He was willing to go where he knew the ground, and where there were people that would make things easy for him; but when Paul went further afield, Mark’s courage ebbed out at his finger ends, and he slunk back to the comfort of his mother’s house in Jerusalem. At all events, whatever his reason, his return was a fault; or Paul would not have been so hard upon him as he was. The writer of the Acts puts Paul’s view of the case strongly by the arrangement of clauses in the sentence in which he tells us that the Apostle ‘thought not good to take him with them who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.’ If he thus threw down his tools whenever he came to a little difficulty, and said, ‘As long as it is easy work, and close to the base of operations, I am your man, but if there is any sacrifice wanted you must look out for somebody else,’ he was not precisely a worker after Paul’s own heart. And the best way to treat him was as the Apostle did; and to say to Barnabas’ indulgent proposal, ‘No! he would not do the work before, and now he shall not do it.’ That is often God’s way with us. It brings us to our senses, as it brought Mark to his.

We do not know how long it took to cure Mark of his early fault, but he was thoroughly cured. The man that was afraid of dangers and difficulties and hypothetical risks in Asia Minor became brave enough to stand by the Apostle when he was a prisoner, and was not ashamed of his chain. And afterwards, so much had he won his way into the Apostle’s confidence, and made himself needful for him by his services and his sweetness, that the lonely prisoner, with the gibbet or headsman’s sword in prospect, feels that he would like to have Mark with him once more, and bids Timothy bring him with himself, for ‘he is profitable to me for the ministry.’ ‘He can do a thousand things that a man like me cannot do for himself, and he does them all for love and nothing for reward.’ So he wants Mark once more. And thus not only Paul’s generosity, but Mark’s own patient effort had pasted a clean sheet over the one that was inscribed with the black story of his desertion, and he became ‘profitable for’ the task that he had once in so petulant and cowardly a way, flung up.

Well, translate that from the particular into the general and it comes to this. Let no man set limits to the possibilities of his own restoration, and of his curing faults which are most deeply rooted within himself. Hope and effort should be boundless. There is nothing that a Christian man may not reach, in the way of victory over his worse self, and ejection of his most deeply-rooted faults, if only he will be true to Jesus, and use the gifts that are given to him. There are many of us whose daily life is pitched in a minor key; whose whole landscape is grey and monotonous and sunless; who feel as if yesterday must set the tune for to-day, and as if, because we have been beaten and baffled so often, it is useless to try again. But remember that the field on which the Stone of Help was erected, to commemorate the great and decisive victory that Israel won, was the very field on which the same foes had before contended, and then Israel had been defeated.

So, brethren, we may win victories on the very soil where formerly we were shamefully put to the rout; and our Christ with us will make anything possible for us, in the way of restoration, of cure of old faults, of ceasing to repeat former sins. I suppose that when a spar is snapped on board a vessel, and lashed together with spun yarn and lanyards, as a sailor knows how to do, it is stronger at the point of fracture than it was before. I suppose that it is possible for a man to be most impregnable at the point where he is naturally weakest, if he chooses to use the defences that Jesus Christ has given.

III. Take another lesson–the greatness of little service.

We do not hear that this John Mark ever tried to do any work in the way of preaching the gospel. His business was a very much humbler one. He had to attend to Paul’s comfort. He had to be his factotum, man of all work; looking after material things, the commissariat, the thousand and one trifles that some one had to see to if the Apostle’s great work was to get done. And he did it all his life long. It was enough for him to do thoroughly the entirely ‘secular’ work, as some people would think it, which it was in his power to do. That needed some self-suppression. It would have been so natural for Mark to have said, ‘Paul sends Timothy to be bishop in Crete; and Titus to look after other churches; Epaphroditus is an official here; and Apollos is a great preacher there. And here am I, grinding away at the secularities yet. I think I’ll “strike,” and try and get more conspicuous work.’ Or he might perhaps deceive himself, and say, ‘more directly religious work,’ like a great many of us that often mask a very carnal desire for prominence under a very saintly guise of desire to do spiritual service. Let us take care of that. This ‘minister,’ who was not a minister at all, in our sense of the word, but only in the sense of being a servant, a private attendant and valet of the Apostle, was glad to do that work all his days.

That was self-suppression. But it was something more. It was a plain recognition of what we all ought to have very clearly before us, and that is, that all sorts of work which contribute to one end are one sort of work; and that at bottom the man who carried Paul’s books and parchments, and saw that he was not left without clothes, though he was so negligent of cloaks and other necessaries, was just as much helping on the cause of Christ as the Apostle when he preached.

I wonder if any of you remember the old story about an organist and his blower. The blower was asked who it was that played that great sonata of Beethoven’s, or somebody’s. And he answered, ‘I do not know who played, but I blew it.’ There is a great truth there. If it had not been for the unknown man at the bellows, the artist at the keys would not have done much. So Mark helped Paul. And as Jesus Christ said, ‘He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward.’

IV. Take as the last lesson the enlarged sphere that follows faithfulness in small matters.

What a singular change! The man who began with being a servant of Paul and of Barnabas ends by being the evangelist, and it is to him, under Peter’s direction, that we owe what is possibly the oldest, and, at all events, in some aspects, an entirely unique, narrative of our Lord’s life. Do you think that Peter would ever have said to him: ‘Mark! come here and sit down and write what I tell you,’ if there had not been beforehand these long years of faithful service? So is it always, dear friends, ‘He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much.’ That is not only a declaration that faithfulness is one in kind, whatever be the diameter of the circle in which it is exercised, but it may also be taken as a promise, though that was not the original intention of the saying.

For quite certainly, in God’s providence, the tools do come to the hand that can wield them, and the best reward that we can get for doing well our little work is to have larger work to do. The little tapers are tempted, if I may use so incongruous a figure, to wish themselves set up on loftier stands. Shine your brightest in your corner, and you will be ‘exalted’ in due time. It is so, as a rule, in this world; sometimes too much so, for, as they say is the case at the English bar, so it is sometimes in God’s Church, ‘There is no medium between having nothing to do and being killed with work.’ Still the reward for work is more work. And the law will be exemplified most blessedly when Christ shall say, ‘Well done! good and faithful servant. Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things.’

So this far-away figure of the minister-evangelist salutes us too, and bids us be of good cheer, notwithstanding all faults and failures, because it is possible for us, as he has proved, to recover ourselves after them all. God will not be less generous in forgiveness than Paul was; and even you and I may hear from Christ’s lips, ‘Thou art profitable to Me for the ministry.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

church. The adjective “elected together with” is feminine, singular, and the ellipsis must be supplied by some noun of that gender. Hence, some have thought that the reference is to Peter’s wife (1Co 9:5.) This would accord with the inclusion of an individual (Marcus) in the same salutation, and would agree with Paul’s custom of sending salutations from individuals; but he also sends salutations from churches (Rom 16:16, Rom 16:23; 1Co 16:19), and from all the saints, or brethren, i.e. in the place where he was writing (2Co 13:13. Gal 1:1, Gal 1:2. Php 1:4, Php 1:22. 2Ti 4:21. Tit 3:15). So Peter may be uniting all the brethren with him here, and the ellipsis should be supplied, not with ekklesia, which occurs nowhere in either of his epistles, but with diaspora, the dispersion, whom he addresses as elect (1Pe 1:1). Those in Babylon were elect with them.

at = in. App-104.

Babylon. A great many sojourners of the dispersion were in Babylon. See Josephus , Ant., XV. ii. 2.

elected together with. Greek. suneklektos. Only here.

Marcus = Mark. See Act 12:12.

son. App-108. This must be in the same sense as in 1Ti 1:2. Tit 1:4, where Paul uses gnesios. If Mark be the same as in Act 12:12, he could not be Peter’s literal son.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

13.] She that is elected together with you in Babylon salutes you (who, or what is this? The great majority of Commentators understand it to mean a sister congregation, elect like yourselves, ch. 1Pe 1:1. So [34] al. in digest, E. V., Luth., Calv., Gerhard, Steiger, &c., and the more recent interpreters, De Wette, Huther, Wiesinger. And this perhaps may be a legitimate interpretation. Still it seems hardly probable, that there should be joined together in the same sending of salutation, an abstraction, spoken of thus enigmatically, and a man, , by name. No mention has occurred in the Epistle of the word , to which reference might be made: if such reference be sought for, , in ch. 1Pe 1:1, is the only word suitable, and that could hardly be used of the congregation in any particular place. Finally, it seems to be required by the rules of analogy, that in an Epistle addressed to , individually, not gregatim, must be an individual person also. These considerations induce me to accede to the opinion of those, who recognize here the whom St. Peter , 1Co 9:5; and to find, in the somewhat unusual periphrastic way of speaking of her, a confirmation of this view. Bengel, who defends it, adduces ch. 1Pe 3:7, where the wives are called . Still, I own, the words a little stagger me in this view. But it seems less forced than the other. On the question, what Babylon is intended, whether Rome, or the Chaldan capital, or some village in Egypt, see Prolegomena, iv. 10 ff.), and Marcus my son (perhaps, and so most have thought, the well-known Evangelist (see Eus. H. E. ii. 15: Orig[35] in Eus. vi. 25: c. al.): perhaps the actual son of St. Peter, bearing this name (c.-altern., Bengel, al.). The fact of Peter taking refuge in the house of Mary the mother of John Mark (Act 12:2), casts hardly any weight on the side of the former interpretation: but it derives some probability from the circumstance that St. Mark is reported by Eus. l. c., and iii. 39, 1Pe 5:8, vi. 14, 25, to have been the and and , on the authority of Papias and Clement of Alexandria: and that Irenus (Hr. iii. 11, p. 174, Eus. 1Pe 5:8) reports the same. The is understood either spiritually or literally, according as one or other of the above views is taken).

[34] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.

[35] Origen, b. 185, d. 254

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Pe 5:13. , in Babylon) This was Babylon of the Chaldeans, which abounded with Jews. See Lightfoot, Hor. on 1 Cor., p. 269. From the prospect (point of view) afforded by this Babylon there follows the series of countries:[43] ch. 1Pe 1:1, note.-, elect together with) Thus he appears to speak of his wife; comp. ch. 1Pe 3:7; for she was a sister, 1Co 9:5; and the mention of his son Mark agrees with this.

[43] The particular order in which the five provinces are enumerated by Peter, proves that it was from this Babylon he looked at them.-E.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Pe 5:13-14

3. CLOSING SALUTATIONS

1Pe 5:13-14

13 She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.For “She that is in Babylon,” the King James translation has “The church that is in Babylon. . .” The American Standard version adds the marginal reading, “That is, The church, or The sister.” There is, however, no noun in the Greek text corresponding to the word “church,” and it is therefore not properly inserted in this passage. The words, “she . . . elect together with you,” are from he suneklekte, nominative feminine form of sunekiklektos, elect with others, thus, actually, “the coelect woman.” What woman? Some expositors regard the word woman as figurative, and understand the reference to be the church in Babylon, supporting such a view by citing 2Jn 1:1. The “elect lady” there, however, does not refer to a church, but to an individual; and in the light of the fact that Markan indi-vidual–is joined with the “co-elect woman,” it is unaccountable that a figure of speech and a person would be joined in the salu-tation in such fashion; and we therefore conclude that the reference is to a sister in the church in Babylon. To what sister? She was then in Babylon; she had traveled among the saints in Asia Minor ; and she was known to the people to whom the epistle was ad-dressed. What sister could so well meet these conditions as Peter’s wife? She was a “sister-wife” (adelphe gune, a wife who was also a sister in Christ), and she accompanied Peter on his travels at least a portion of the time. (1Co 9:5.) There was an especial appropriateness in sending a greeting from her to saints with whom she had been formerly associated and whom she well knew, in an epistle that had dealt so specifically with the duties and responsibilities of women. (1Pe 3:1-7.)

Mark, styled the “son” of Peter, was John Mark, the disciple who incurred the extreme displeasure of Paul because of his de-fection at Perga on the first missionary journey (Act 13:5; Act 13:13; Act 15:36-41), but who was later restored to the good graces of that apostle by subsequent faithfulness and fidelity to duty (Col 4:10 ; 2Ti 4:11). He was the “son” of Peter, as Timothy was the “child” of Paul (Php 2:22; 1Ti 1:1-2), a spiritual relation-ship, and not a fleshly one. Mark composed one of the biographies of Jesus, “The Gospel According to Mark,” and was, traditionally, “the interpreter of Peter.” His mother’s name was Mary; and he was a cousin of Barnabas. (Act 12:2; Col. 4 10.)

The reference to “Babylon” as the place from which these salutations were sent raises again the question, already considered in the Introduction, From what place did Peter write the epistle? Because Rome is referred to as “Babylon” in the Revelation (Rev 14:8; Rev 17:6; Rev 17:18; Rev 18:2; Rev 18:10), all Catholic theologians and many Protestant commentators maintain that reference thereto is to be regarded as mystical and figurative; and that Peter was in Rome when the letter was penned. Opposed to this view, however, are the following weighty considerations: (1) Internal evidence leads irresistibly to the conclusion that First Peter was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. (According to eminent Talmudic authorities, the Jews did not begin to designate Rome by the figurative term “Babylon” until after that event. (2) In the foregoing references in the Revelation Rome is never referred to as “Babylon” by this designation alone, but always as “Babylon, the great,” “Babylon, the strong city,” etc. (3) The fact that the word “Babylon” is used thus mystically in a highly symbolic and figurative book such as the Revelation does not argue that reference thereto is the same in a book of an entirely different character such as First Peter. (4) Other geographical references in First Peter are admittedly literal. Why, then, should it be concluded that “Babylon” is the sole exception? (5) Peter wrote long before John penned the Revelation, and thus could not have been following John’s use of the term. (6) The name “Babylon,” when figuratively used, is the symbol of confusion, corruption, apostasy. What possible reason could Peter have had in using the term in this fashion in an epistle designed to protect the ones addressed from just such a manner of life which it typified? A candid consideration of all the facts leads to the conclusion that the word “Babylon” is to be taken in its ordinary, geographical sense; and that Peter was in the well-known city by that name on the Euphrates when he wrote the epistle which bears his name.

14 Salute one another with a kiss of love.–Greeting, by means of a kiss, appears to have been a common practice in the early church, and to have been followed for some centuries after the beginning of the Christian era. The custom is mentioned by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, and numerous other early writers; and references thereto are frequent in the New Testament. (Rom 16:16; 1Co 16:20; 2Co 13:12 1Th 5:26.) According to the historians of the early church, the abuses to which the practice would ordinarily lead Were avoided , by the separation of the sexes when the church assembled for worship–an arrangement inherited from the synagogue. The “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” believed to have been written be-tween A.D. 300 and 400, contain the following injunction: “Then let the men give the men, and the women give the women, the Lord’s kiss. But let no one do it with deceit, as Judas betrayed the Lord with a kiss.” (Book 2, 57, page 422, Vol. 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers.) Clement of Alexandria, who died about A.D. 220, wrote, under the heading, “Love and the Kiss of Charity,” these words: “And if we are called to the kingdom of God, let us walk worthy of the kingdom, loving God and our neighbor. But love is not proved by a kiss, but by kindly feeling. But there are those that do nothing but make the churches resound with a kiss, not having love itself within. For this very thing, the shameless use of a kiss, which ought to be mystic, occasions foul suspicions and evil reports. The apostle calls the kiss holy.” (“The Instructor,” Ch. 12, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, page 291.)

It should be noted that the apostle did not enjoin kissing as a method of greeting; the custom already prevailed. His words were designed to insure that the custom would be observed in keeping with the morality and chastity characteristic of the high calling of Christianity. Kissing, as a mode of salutation, was no more sanctioned than the handshake is today, both methods being customs of the times. But, as Christianity requires complete sin-cerity in this manner of greeting today, so it enjoined it in the kiss of that day. The kiss was to be one “of love,” i.e., prompted by love, and in exhibition of it.

Peace be unto you all that are in Christ.–It is significant that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, chose to use as his benediction the Greek word of greeting, chards (“Grace be with you all, 1Co 16:23; Rom 16:24), while Peter, the apostle to the Circumcism, followed the Hebrew greeting, shalom, peace. (Mat 10:13. This blessing is available only in Christ, who is “our peace.” (Eph 2:14.) Thus, only those who have been “baptized into Christ” (Gal 3:27) have entered the sphere where this peace is enjoyed.

Commentary on 1Pe 5:13-14 by N.T. Caton

1Pe 5:13-The church at Babylon, elected together with you.

The brethren forming the church at Babylon, becoming members of the body of Christ as you also did, salute you. And so does Mark. This is the same Mark who wrote the Gospel bearing that name. I see no good reason for thinking that spiritual Babylon-that is, Rome-is here meant. The thought is therefore rejected. In passing I desire to say, I hesitate not to use the word “church,” notwithstanding it does not appear in the Revised Version. It appears in the Syriac and Vulgate Versions which I have, and, besides, I can hardly believe that Peter refers to his wife, as some suppose, when I consider that the Scriptures fail even to give her name. She would therefore be almost wholly unknown to the brotherhood anywhere, and hence her salutation would be out of place.

1Pe 5:14-Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.

This was a testimony of affection common in those countries and those times.

1Pe 5:14-Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Serenity and happiness to all you brethren, members of the body of Christ Jesus, and, in testimony that I sincerely mean this, I say amen to the utterance.

Commentary on 1Pe 5:13-14 by Burton Coffman

1Pe 5:13 –She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.

She that is in Babylon … Although questioned by some who would see in this a reference to Peter’s wife, the best view is almost certainly that the church in Babylon is meant. But where was Babylon? If these words are a mystical reference to Rome, as there seems every reason to believe, then the reference is to the great capital of the Caesars which was the center of the persecutions. See introduction for discussion of this. The figurative language throughout 1Peter; the fact that ancient Babylon was destroyed never to be rebuilt; the total absence in the New Testament, as well as in history, of any reference to Peter’s ever having been in Babylon, literally; and the very early traditions that Peter did indeed preach in Rome and that he was martyred there (the same tradition having arisen much too early to be accredited to later claims of the apostate church); the pressing need, at the very time Peter wrote, to have spoken very guardedly concerning Nero and his city; the current usage of that very expression “Babylon” to mean Rome, as in Hebrew poetry; and the similar usage of it in Revelation – all these considerations taken together have great weight in indicating that the meaning here is Rome on the Tiber.

What are some of the spiritual implications of such a designation? (1) Just as ancient Babylon was a center of enmity and oppression of God’s people, so Rome had become in the times of the apostles. (2) As Babylon was destroyed, so shall Rome also be destroyed. (3) Peter reminds his readers afresh that they, as the Israel of God, are “exiles in a foreign land,”[37] as were the ancient Jews in Babylon. (4) “The point of the allegory is that Rome was becoming the oppressor of the new Israel, not that it was the center of the world.”[38]

And so doth Mark my son … Peter was Mark’s mentor, not his actual father; and he is called “my son” in the sense that Paul thus referred to Timothy. It is almost universally agreed that this is the John Mark of Acts, who is the author of the second Gospel. See the introduction to Mark in my Commentary on Mark for a full discussion.

[37] G. J. Polkinghorne, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 598.

[38] J. H. A. Hart, op. cit., p. 80.

1Pe 5:14 –Salute one another with a kiss of love. Peace be unto you all that are in Christ.

Kiss of love … Paul similarly commanded this greeting (Rom 16:16; 1Co 16:20; 2Co 13:12; 1Th 5:26). Comment on this was made under all those references. “The practice seems to have been universal in those times.”[39]

Peace be unto you all … “This is the same blessing Peter had heard the Lord use, the old Hebrew blessing (Mat 10:12 f; Mar 5:34; Luk 2:14 Luk 2:29; Joh 20:19 Joh 20:21 Joh 20:26).”[40] The peace in view is primarily the well-being of the soul, the harmony of the recipients with the Father in heaven.

In Christ … This incredibly important expression carries the thought that: (1) all blessings are exclusively for those in Christ, his baptized followers; (2) perfection and holiness without which no one may see God are achieved by the Christian’s identity as Christ; (3) the ultimate grounds of all justification for human beings is the perfect faith and perfect obedience of the Son of God; etc., etc. For full discussion of this principal theme of the New Testament, see in my Commentary on Romans, especially in Romans 3, pp. 94-154. Peter’s significant mention of this doctrine in this chapter fully establishes it as having been derived “from Christ himself.”[41]

[39] B. C. Caffin, op. cit., p. 211.

[40] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1048.

[41] Ibid., p. 1039.

“THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER”

Chapter Five

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) To examine the duties of elders, in their role as shepherds (pastors)

and overseers (bishops)

2) To note the importance of submission and humility in our relation to

elders, one another, and God

3) To consider how we might best counter our adversary, the devil

4) To glean how Peter sought to encourage his brethren in their

suffering

SUMMARY

The final chapter contains charges to elders and their respective

flocks. As a fellow elder, Peter commands elders to shepherd the flock

of God among them, serving as overseers. Doing so willingly and

eagerly, they were to serve as examples to the flock. The younger

members of the flock are then commanded to submit to their elders and to

one another, with humility (1Pe 5:1-5).

They were to also humble themselves under the mighty hand of God and

cast their cares upon Him, trusting that He would exalt them in due time

because He cares for them. Since their adversary the devil walks about

like a lion seeking to devour them, they are to be sober and vigilant,

resisting him steadfast in the faith. They can take courage in knowing

that other brethren are likewise suffering (1Pe 5:6-9).

The epistle draws to a close, first with a prayer that God will

eventually perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle them. Mention is

made of Silvanus, and Peter’s purpose in writing. Greetings are sent by

“she who is in Babylon” and “Mark, my son”. Finally, a command to greet

one another with a kiss of love is given, along with a prayer for peace

to all who are in Christ Jesus (1Pe 5:10-14).

OUTLINE

I. THE DUTIES OF SHEPHERDS AND THE FLOCK (1Pe 5:1-5)

A. THE ELDERS’ DUTIES AS SHEPHERDS (1Pe 5:1-4)

1. As exhorted by a fellow elder

a. A witness of the sufferings of Christ

b. A partaker of the glory that will be revealed

2. To shepherd the flock of God among them

a. Serving as overseers

1) Not be compulsion but willingly

2) Not for dishonest gain but eagerly

3) Not as lords but as examples

b. So when the Chief Shepherd appears, they will receive the

unfading crown of glory

B. THE YOUNGERS’ DUTIES AS THE FLOCK (1Pe 5:5)

1. Submit yourselves

a. To your elders

b. To one another

3. Clothe yourselves with humility

a. For God resists the proud

b. For God gives grace to the humble

II. THE DUTIES TO GOD AND SATAN (1Pe 5:6-9)

A. DUTIES REGARDING GOD (1Pe 5:6-7)

1. Humble yourselves under His mighty hand, that He may exalt you

in due time

2. Cast all your care upon Him, for He cares for you

B. DUTIES REGARDING SATAN (1Pe 5:8-9)

1. Be sober and vigilant of your adversary

a. The devil walks about like a roaring lion

b. The devil seeks whom he may devour

2. Resist your adversary

a. Remaining steadfast in the faith

b. Knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by brethren

in the world

III. CONCLUDING REMARKS (1Pe 5:10-14)

A. CLOSING PRAYER (1Pe 5:10-11)

1. May the God of all grace perfect, establish, strengthen, and

settle you

a. Who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus

b. After you have suffered a while

2. To Him be the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen

B. CLOSING GREETINGS (1Pe 5:12-14)

1. Peter has written to them briefly

a. By Silvanus, a faithful brother

b. Exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God

in which they stand

2. Greetings from:

a. She who is in Babylon, elect together with you

b. Mark, his son

3. Greet one another with a kiss of love

4. Peace to you all who are in Christ Jesus. Amen

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) What are the main points of this chapter?

– The duties of shepherds and the flock (1Pe 5:1-5)

– The duties to God and Satan (1Pe 5:6-9)

– Concluding remarks (1Pe 5:10-14)

2) How does Peter identify himself as he exhorts the elders? (1Pe 5:1)

– As a fellow elder

– As a witness of the sufferings of Christ

– As a partaker of the glory that will be revealed

3) What is the duty of the elders? (1Pe 5:2)

– To shepherd the flock of God among them

4) How were they to serve as elders? (1Pe 5:3-4)

– As overseers

– Not by compulsion, but willingly

– Not for dishonest gain, but eagerly

– Not as lords, but as examples to the flock

5) What reward can elders look forward to when the Chief Shepherd

appears? (1Pe 5:5)

– The crown of glory that does not fade away

6) What twofold duty is enjoined upon those who are younger? (1Pe 5:5)

– To submit to the elders and to one another

– To be clothed with humility

7) What were they commanded to do in relation to God? (1Pe 5:6-7)

– Humble themselves under the mighty hand of God

– Cast all their care upon Him

8) Why were they to do this? (1Pe 5:6-7)

– That God might exalt them in due time

– Because He cares for them

9) Who is their adversary? What is he doing? (1Pe 5:8)

– The devil; walking about like a lion, seeking whom he may devour

10) What should they do in regards to their adversary? (1Pe 5:8-9)

– Be sober, be vigilant

– Resist him, steadfast in the faith

11) What should encourage them in their suffering? (1Pe 5:9-10)

– Knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by their brethren

in the world

– That after they have suffered a while, God will perfect, establish,

strengthen and settle them

12) By whom has Peter penned this epistle? (1Pe 5:12)

– Silvanus, a faithful brother

13) What has been Peter’s purpose in writing this epistle? (1Pe 5:12)

– To exhort and testify that this is the true grace of God in which

they stand

14) Who sends them greetings? (1Pe 5:13)

– She who is in Babylon, elect together with them

– Mark, his son

15) What final charge does Peter give? What final prayer? (1Pe 5:14)

– Greet one another with a kiss of love

– Peace to all who are in Christ Jesus

SUFFERING FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST

1Pe 4:1 to 1Pe 5:14.

1. With what should the people of God arm themselves? Ans. 1Pe 4:1.

2. How should they live? Ans. 1Pe 4:2.

3. Describe the unholy conduct of the Gentiles. Ans. 1Pe 4:3.

4. What seems strange to the outside world? Ans. 1Pe 4:4.

5. To whom must they give account? Ans. 1Pe 4:5.

6. Why was the gospel preached to “them that are dead”, or lived before us? Ans. 1Pe 4:6.

7. Why should all be prayerful and sober in mind? Ans. 1Pe 4:7.

8. What should be done above all things? Why? Ans. 1Pe 4:8.

9. What should be freely used for others? Ans. 1Pe 4:9-10.

10. How must all speak and act? Ans. 1Pe 4:11.

11. What may the faithful expect? Ans. 1Pe 4:12.

12. In what should we rejoice? Ans. 1Pe 4:13-14.

13. Of what should the Lord’s people never be guilty? Ans. 1Pe 4:15.

14. In what name should we be willing to suffer and to glorify God? Ans. 1Pe 4:16.

15. Contrast the judgment of the righteous and the judgment of the wicked. Ans. 1Pe 4:17-18.

16. How and unto whom should those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls? Ans. 1Pe 4:19.

17. What are elders exhorted to do? Ans. 1Pe 5:1-3.

18. How will their faithfulness to duty be rewarded? Ans. 1Pe 5:4.

19. Why should all be clothed in humility? Ans. 1Pe 5:5-6.

20. What should be done with all cares and anxieties? Ans. 1Pe 5:7.

21. Why should all be sober and watchful? Ans. 1Pe 5:8-9.

22. How will God bless his people after they have suffered here for a little while? Ans. 1Pe 5:10-11.

23. What is said of Silvanus and “she that is in Babylon”, and Mark? Ans. 1Pe 5:12-14.

Questions by E.M. Zerr On 1st Peter 5

1. What officials does Peter exhort?

2. State his own official position.

3. What was he besides this?

4. Of what is he partaker?

5. What must the Elders do for the flock?

6. In what spirit must they do this?

7. Must not be what?

8. Instead what must they be to the flock?

9. Who is to appear some time?

10. What will the faithful Elder receive then?

11. State the command to younger ones.

12. By what should all be clothed 1

13. Give the motive for this.

14. How can all submit in view of verse 2?

15. Should our humility be voluntary 1

16. If it is what will be the reward 1

17. Where cast our care 1

18. What reMon is given for this privilcge 1

19. Explain how to be sober.

20. What is meaning of vigilance 1

21. Against what person must we be on guard?

22. In what form is he here represented 1

23. Is he always in this form 1

24. What is the object of his search 1

25. How may we know him 1

26. In what manner does he devour his prey 1

27. How may we prevent his destroying us 1

28. With what weapon should we attack him 1

29. Cite an instance where this plan worked 1

30. Does Satan know anything about this weapon 1

31. How may we be able to use it better than he 1

32. What advantage may we have 1 Eph. 6: 11.

33. Have any brethren ever defeated him 1

34. To whom are we referred here for help?

35. He will do this after what 1

36. By what means may we be stablished 1

37. Distinguish between “strengthen” and “settle.”

38. Who did this writing for Peter?

39. Give the other form of his name.

40. What other apostle did he lahor with?

41. How does Peter describe him 1

42. Distinguish between “exhort” and “testify.”

43. To what does “this” refer in verse 12?

44. What like relation did church at Babylon have?

45. Were various places called by this name?

46. Who was Marcus 1

47. Was he the natural son of the apostle 1

48. What is a kiss of charity 1

49. Was Peter starling a custom 1

50. To what clMs does the apostle grant peace?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

at: Psa 87:4, Rev 17:5, Rev 18:2

elected: 2Jo 1:13

Marcus: Act 12:12, Act 12:25

Reciprocal: 2Co 13:13 – General Phi 4:22 – the Col 4:10 – and Marcus 2Ti 4:11 – Mark

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

MARK

Marcus my son.

1Pe 5:13

I. That St. Mark possessed a missionary spirit is clear.At first he was the devoted companion of St. Paul and St. Barnabas in some of their long journeys to propagate Christianity (Act 12:25; Act 13:5); but he withdrew himself in Pamphylia, because St. Paul contended with St. Barnabas about his going further with them, and he, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem. Soon after this, he joined himself to St. Peter, for he loved him as Timothy loved St. Paul. We next read of him as being with St. Peter in Babylon (1Pe 5:13). Subsequently he visited Rome, at the express wish of St. Paul, in company with Timothy (2Ti 4:11); but how long he remained in this famous city we cannot ascertain. Tradition says that he left it for Alexandria, where he planted a Church, and died and was buried. If all these things are true of him, and we can scarcely doubt them, then St. Mark loved not only his spiritual father, but the souls of men, and especially Him Who died to save them from perishing.

II. We think of him also as the writer of the second Gospel.This he did between the years fifty-six and sixty-three. As he was for a long time the intimate acquaintance of St. Peter, he heard from his lips the chief events of the life of Christ, and also the substance of His wonderful discourses. The unbroken testimony of the Fathers isthat St. Mark was the interpreter of St. Peter, and that he wrote under his eye and with his help. Another fact is equally certainthe right of his Gospel among the inspired books has never been questioned, nor that he was the writer of it. He loved the truth as the truth was in Jesus, and therefore gladly penned it for the everlasting welfare of mankind.

III. The acts and memories of such a man are fragrant as Eden, and wholesome in their influences, albeit over such a man there hangs the thick veil of mystery, and consequently he will never be fully known, either in bodily presence or saintly virtue, until he is seen face to face in heaven, and all mysteries are cleared away for ever.

Illustration

The exact time when a religious festival was instituted in honour of St. Mark cannot now be positively determined; it is nevertheless generally thought to have occurred about the ninth century, for it has been annually observed since then by the Greek, Latin, and other Churches with profound reverence, and finally on April 25, because then, according to tradition, St. Mark suffered martyrdom at Alexandria in Egypt, where he fixed his chief residence. But doubt does not end here: it attaches even to the Evangelist himself. Three other Marks are mentioned in Holy Scripture, while St. Mark changes his Hebrew nameJohnto that by which he is now familiarly known in the Church. This was a common practice when Evangelists and Apostles were desirous of visiting the Gentile world on embassies of mercy; but it has generally added to the perplexity of deciding satisfactorily concerning some persons who have taken a leading part in sacred affairs. It is so in this instance. There are, however, some particulars respecting St. Mark which leave no room for doubt. His mothers name was Mary; and it was at her house the Apostles and other Christian brethren were hospitably received, and to which St. Peter repaired after his deliverance from prison by the angel of the Lord (Act 12:5-17). St. Peter makes special and interesting allusions to him as Marcus in his earlier Epistle. He was a good man. St. Peter calls him his son, just as St. Paul calls Timothy his sona phrase of Christian endearment which means that as St. Paul was the spiritual father of Timothy, so St. Peter was the spiritual father of Mark.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

1Pe 5:13. Church that is at Babylon. There is so much uncertainty in the discussions to be found in the histories, lexicons and commentaries on this phrase, that I shall be careful to avoid speculation. The word church is not the original at all but has been supplied by the translators. The Greek words at this place are as follows in the composition; HE EN BABULONI, and the literal rendering of them by the Englishman’s Greek New Testament is, “she in Babylon.” A number of other translations render it in the same way, which seems reasonable since the other salutations are from individuals also. As to what person is meant the matter is equally indefinite, except that it is some Christian woman who had been elected or chosen by the Lord the same as the ones to whom the epistle is written. (See the word explained at chapter 1:1.) We know that ancient Babylon was completely destroyed never to be rebuilt, according to both prophecy and history, hence the term is used figuratively and that also is subject to some uncertainty. Marcus my son refers to John Mark, and Peter calls him his son because he had converted him, hence he was his “son in the faith” as Paul called the evangelist (1Ti 1:2).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Pe 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 1Co 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 (Rev 14:8; Rev 18:2; Rev 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. 1Pe 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 Peters own son according to the flesh. But in all probability he is affectionately designated in this way because he was Peters 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 Act 12:12; Act 12:25; Act 13:5; Act 13:13; Act 15:37; Act 15:39, Col 4:10, Phm 1:24, 2Ti 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 (Act 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 (Col 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 Marks having left them during the former tour (it may be under the influence of Peters vacillation, Gal 2:13) at the Pamphylian Perga (Act 13:13), and gone back to his mothers 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 (Act 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 (2Ti 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 Gods glory be magnified in all persons and in all things, through Jesus Christ

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

At the foot of this epistle he sends them salutations from the Christians at Babylon, who were chosen out of the world, to partake in the faith and fellowship of the gospel. Some, by Babylon, figuratively understand Rome, but others understand it of Babylon in Assyria, where many Jews did tarry, and continue after the expiration of the seventy years’ captivity, whom St. Peter, being a minister of the circumcision, went to visit, having probably planted a church there. Wheresoever they were, God had called them to the knowledge of his gospel, and they send salutations to all their brethern and fellow- members in Christ, wheresoever dispersed, or howsoever distressed.

As also doth Mark, whom St. Peter calls his son, because instructed by him in the gospel, and begotten by him to Christianity.

Lastly, he exhorts them to express their fervent affection to each other by a kiss of charity, used in the primitive times as a token of love amongst Christians; but afterwards, for just reasons, laid aside; so wishing peace, that is, all manner of prosperity, to all in Christ Jesus, he shuts up his epistle.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

1Pe 5:13-14. The church that is at Babylon saluteth you See the preface. The word church is not in the original, but it is supplied in the Syriac, Vulgate, and other ancient versions, and by cumenius. Probably, as Beza observes, Peter omitted it as being a word of common use, which, in such a connection, would be easily supplied in the readers mind. There being many Jews remaining in Babylon, and in the country adjacent, ever since the captivity, and Peter being the apostle of the Jews, it is likely he went thither to preach the gospel to them, and so planted a church among them. Elected together with you , co-elect, that is, a branch of Gods chosen people, as all true believers are. See on 1Pe 1:2. And Marcus my son So he calls him, because he had been converted by his ministry. With the family, of which he was a member, Peter was well acquainted, as may be gathered from his going immediately to the house of Mary, Marks mother, after he was miraculously brought out of prison by the angel, Act 12:12. See more concerning him, Act 13:5; Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11. It is believed by many that he was the author of the gospel called by his name; this, however, is not certain. See the preface to that gospel.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 13

Babylon. The ancient city of Babylon was desolate and uninhabited in the days of the apostles. Hence some have supposed that Peter was at Rome when he wrote this Epistle, and that he calls that city by the name Babylon, as a mystical designation.–Marcus; perhaps the individual mentioned in Acts 12:12 , whom Peter may have considered as his son, in a spiritual sense.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

5:13 {15} The [church that is] at {d} Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

(15) Familiar salutations.

(d) In that famous city of Assyria, where Peter the apostle of circumcision then was.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

"She" probably refers to the church in the town where Peter was when he wrote this letter (cf. 2Jn 1:1; 2Jn 1:4). The Greek word for "church" (ekklesia) is feminine, though the word ekklesia does not appear in 1 Peter. Some commentators have suggested that Peter referred to his wife. [Note: E.g., Robertson, 6:135.] But this seems unlikely to me since none of the other epistle writers in the New Testament referred to their wives. God chose the church together with the believers to whom Peter sent this epistle.

"Election is . . .: (1) the sovereign act of God in grace whereby certain persons are chosen from among mankind for Himself (Joh 15:19); and (2) the sovereign act of God whereby certain elect persons are chosen for distinctive service for Him (Luk 6:13; Act 9:15; 1Co 1:27-28)." [Note: The New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1337.]

"Babylon" may refer to Babylon on the Euphrates River. [Note: McGee, 5:714; E. Schuyler English, "Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?" Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):317.] However this seems more likely to be a veiled, metaphorical reference to Rome where Peter spent the last years of his life. [Note: Kelly, pp. 218-19; Blum, p. 212; Goppelt, pp. 373-75; Michaels, p. 311; Robertson, 6:135; et al.] The technical name for this figure of speech (i.e., a code name) is atbash. We know that John "Mark" was in Rome (Col 4:10). But why would Peter have called Rome Babylon? Probably he did so because Rome was the capitol of the pagan world. The Christians had come to think of Rome as Babylon. Babylon on the Euphrates was then in decline, but it was formerly the world center of godlessness. The Bible uses Babylon as a symbol of ungodliness as well as the name of a real town (cf. Revelation 17-18). Similarly the name Hollywood is both a literal town name and the symbol of the industry for which the town is famous.

". . . Babylon [in 1 Peter] becomes a beautiful symbol for the capital of the place of exile away from the true inheritance in heaven." [Note: Davids, p. 203. Cf. 1:1, 17; 2:11.]

John Mark was Peter’s protégé. Many scholars believe Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome and that Peter’s influence is apparent in what he included in that record of Jesus’ life and ministry. There is considerable evidence for this in the second Gospel.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)