1 Peter 5:13 - Who/what is Babylon?

[Romans922]

Who/What is Babylon in 1 Pt. 5:13, "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."?

Most modern commentaries say Rome, older say literal Babylon where Peter was ministering at the time (after a church was planted there). What say you, and why?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Who/What is Babylon in 1 Pt. 5:13, "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."?

Most modern commentaries say Rome, older say literal Babylon where Peter was ministering at the time (after a church was planted there). What say you, and why?

Rome.

Peter, Silvanus, and Mark in Babylon at the same time? Which older traditions or commentaries think this is literal Babylon?

Thanks.

 

[Romans922]

Rome.

Peter, Silvanus, and Mark in Babylon at the same time? Which older traditions or commentaries think this is literal Babylon?

Thanks.

Here's a link that summarizes some: https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/babylonrome-some-opinions-on-1-Peter.html
I had already searched Calvin, Henry, Gill all said Babylon (literal).

 

[Dachaser]

Who/What is Babylon in 1 Pt. 5:13, "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."?

Most modern commentaries say Rome, older say literal Babylon where Peter was ministering at the time (after a church was planted there). What say you, and why?

Code word for Rome

 

[Ed Walsh]

I had already searched Calvin, Henry, Gill all said Babylon (literal)

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the link.

OOps. The link didn't work for me for some reason. I did a search on the same site and found some info:
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=church+in+babylon

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My opinion is that metaphorical Babylon is geographical and Jewish-templar Jerusalem, and the seat (by the middle of the 1st c.) of apostate religion. I think this is how the early church and the apostles remaining in Judea began interpreting their experience in the midst of the godlessness. I'm not saying Peter, the "apostle to the circumcision" (Gal.2:7-9) wasn't already traveling widely beyond the borders; but he doesn't have even recently to have been in Jerusalem/Babylon to give such greeting as I.5:13.

My second choice is literal Babylon. I consider most of the effort to find Peter in Rome (in time to be the 1st "pope" and a martyr of Nero) to rest primarily on legend. The NT itself describes the church of Rome's true beginnings as basically pedestrian and humble; and Paul is the apostle who actually "established" (in the technical sense) the church there, fulfilling his desire expressed in Rom.1:11.

So for my part, I find the interpretation that Peter refers to Rome as "Babylon" most unlikely.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jerusalem. Peter is talking about a destruction in his epistles that will soon take place. Fits God's covenantal divorce by means of destroying the Temple.

 

[TylerRay]

It's Western civilization in general, and white dominance in particular. What could be more obvious?

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

I wonder the implications of the answer to this question. I think it would play a role in eschatology. But I wonder to what extent. Any thoughts?

 

[TylerRay]

I wonder the implications of the answer to this question. I think it would play a role in eschatology. But I wonder to what extent. Any thoughts?

It comes into play if one assumes that the Babylon in I Peter is the same as the Babylon in Revelation. Personally, I don't see much of a reason to equate the two.

 

[Pergamum]

Why use a code word at all? If he says Babylon, why wouldn't it be Babylon?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Why use a code word at all?

It's only "code" to those who think Paul could be worried about Roman authority, trying to shield his brethren. I don't see any apostles writing in "code" in the NT. They aren't afraid of men. Besides, I don't think he's referring to Rome at all.

If it is a typical reference, it's not "code," as in hiding information; but the term describes the theological perspective the church (around geographic-Jerusalem) understood her present circumstances. The real Jerusalem is "above," ala Gal.4:26. In this view, it's not just Paul and John (Rev.17-18) who are using this sort of language; but now Paul is also part of the discussion. With three NT authors, it starts to sound more like NT-speak, perhaps like a common apostolic teaching.

But, maybe it's just Mesopotamian Babylon.

 

[TylerRay]

I wonder the implications of the answer to this question. I think it would play a role in eschatology. But I wonder to what extent. Any thoughts?

It comes into play if one assumes that the Babylon in I Peter is the same as the Babylon in Revelation. Personally, I don't see much of a reason to equate the two.

I'll add that preterists tend to use this passage as a proof that when John referred to Babylon in Revelation, Christians of his age would have understood him to mean a political entity they were familiar with (Be it Rome or Jerusalem). This passage, they argue, proves that they were already referring to that entity as "Babylon."

 

[Ed Walsh]

This passage, they argue, proves that they were already referring to that entity as "Babylon."

I always thought Babylon, as it is used in the Revelation, was speaking of the antichristian world system and not just Rome or Jerusalem.
Revelation 14:8; 18:2

 

[richardnz]

Here is Dr Greg Bahnsens view, commenting primarily on Rev 14:6-11:-

"But it is not just this dramatic way of speaking but it is that this Babylon the great has made all the nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. What does it all mean? Well, the introduction of the symbolic reference to Babylon the great without any explanation certainly assumes a knowledge on the reader’s part, the referent, right? I mean, John doesn't even bother to go and say, “ and Babylon is this, that and the other”. He just expects his readers to understand that. Why? Because his readers knew the Old Testament. They knew that Babylon the great was the symbol, the arch-enemy of the people of God and who is the arch-enemy of God's people in John’s own day? It is Rome. John does not want his letter to be intercepted and Christians to suffer further because of an explicit identification of God's enemy. He says rather “Babylon the great” and it is kind of as if you can see John winking. He says, “You know who I am talking about.” Look at first Peter 5:13. Virtually all commentators are agreed that Peter wrote this in Rome, from Rome, at the time of his imprisonment. He knew that the fiery trial was on the horizon, the persecution that Nero was going to break loose upon all the Christian church. At verse 13 at the end of this letter from Rome he says, “She that is in Babylon, elect together with you saluteth you and so doth Mark my son”. Peter says the church that is here salutes you and identifies the church as being where? In Babylon. He says we are imprisoned here in Babylon, the traditional enemy of God's people, in Rome. Alright, in Revelation 14 the angel says, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great”. That language of Babylon the great comes from Daniel 4:30. Let us turn back to that. Daniel 4:30 and we read, “The king spake and said, ”Is not this great Babylon which I have built for the royal dwelling place by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” John knows very well the Old Testament setting and so he doesn't just simply say “Babylon” as Peter does. He reminds you of that phrase from Daniel 4, “Babylon the great”, great in the eyes of God? No great in the eyes of the Babylonians. Here is Nebuchadnezzar saying, ”Isn't this a wonderful place. Look at what I have made, it is just super”. Babylon the great, self-important, you see, and John is saying Rome thinks that it is important too, but what does God say? God says what Isaiah says in Isaiah's prophecy chapter 21 verse nine. Speaking literally now of Babylon on the Euphrates River, Isaiah talked about the traditional enemy of God's people. In Isaiah chapter 21 at verse nine notice these interesting words. “And behold here cometh a troop of men, horsemen in pairs and he answered and said, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon and all the graven images of her gods are broken onto the ground”. John is quoting verbatim the prophecy of Isaiah against Babylon saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great”. He combines in the words of Isaiah and the words of Daniel. John know his Old Testament very well. He certainly knows it better then most of us today I am sure because he also combines with this now the description of Babylon the great when he says,” Babylon the great that hath made all the nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication”. Look at Jeremiah 51 verse 7. “Babylon hath been a golden cup in Jehovah's hand that made all the earth drunken. The nations have drunk of her wine therefore the nations are mad” So you see how he is then combining words from Daniel and words from Isaiah and words from Jeremiah to bring the full weight, you see, of God's judgment and wrath in the Old Testament against Rome now. He says Babylon the great, fallen, fallen is Babylon the great. This one who made the nations drunk with her wine."

 

[TylerRay]

I always thought Babylon, as it is used in the Revelation, was speaking of the antichristian world system and not just Rome or Jerusalem.
Revelation 14:8; 18:2

Right, I was just relaying the view held by many preterists in response to or brother's comment on the relevance of the passage to one's eschatology. I don't hold to the preterist position, personally.

 

[Dachaser]

I always thought Babylon, as it is used in the Revelation, was speaking of the antichristian world system and not just Rome or Jerusalem.
Revelation 14:8; 18:2

Some see it as being literal Babylon rebuilt again, others as you do.

 

[Dachaser]

Why use a code word at all? If he says Babylon, why wouldn't it be Babylon?

Maybe due to him seeing Rome as the mystery Babylon of that time?

 

[Pergamum]

Albert Barnes
"From this it is clear that it was written at Babylon, but still there has been no little difference of opinion as to what place is meant here by Babylon… the apostles, when they sent an epistle to the churches, and mentioned a place as the one where the Epistle was written, were accustomed to mention the real place… It would be hardly consistent with the dignity of an apostle, or any grave writer, to make use of what would be regarded as a nickname, when suggesting the name of a place where he then was… If Rome had been meant, it would have been hardly respectful to the church there which sent the salutation - “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you” - to have given it this name. Peter mentions the church with respect and kindness; and yet it would have been scarcely regarded as kind to mention it as a “Church in Babylon,” if he used the term Babylon, as he must have done on such a supposition, to denote a place of eminent depravity…) The testimony of the Fathers on this subject does not demonstrate that Rome was the place intended…[T]hey do not give this as historical testimony, but as their own interpretation; and, from anything that appears, we are as well qualified to interpret the word as they were.” [Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible, introductory comments on 1 Peter]"

Lorraine Boettner
“…Paul's work was primarily among the Gentiles, while Peter's was primarily among the Jews. Peter ministered to the Jews who were in exile in Asia Minor, "to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (I Peter 1:1), and in his journeys he went as far east as Babylon, from which city his first epistle (and probably his second) was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Asia Minor—She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you” (1 Peter 5:13). As most of Paul’s letters were addressed to churches he had evangelized, so Peter wrote to the Jewish brethren that he had evangelized, who were scattered through those provinces. While there is no Scriptural evidence at all that Peter went west to Rome, here is a plain statement of Scripture that he did go east to Babylon."

A. R. Fausset
“How unlikely that in a friendly salutation the enigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, Re 17:5), should be used! Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived. PHILO [The Embassy to Gaius, 36] and JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 23.12] inform us that Babylon contained a great many Jews in the apostolic age (whereas those at Rome were comparatively few, about eight thousand [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 17.11]); so it would naturally be visited by the apostle of the circumcision. It was the headquarters of those whom he had so successfully addressed on Pentecost, Ac 2:9, Jewish "Parthians . . . dwellers in Mesopotamia" (the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these he ministered to in person."(Commentary on 1st Peter)


This is not apocalyptic literature. Babylon means Babylon. This is an immense cause for praise that the Gospel so soon spread so far east as the Euphrates within the lifetime of Peter and that Peter was able to minister to the dispersed Jews found there.