“The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son” (1 Peter 5:13).

This rather obscure scripture of greetings holds within it three enigmas.

(1) Who is it that is in Babylon?
(2) To which Babylon does the apostle refer?
(3) What was the relationship between Peter and Marcus?

It is the search for answers to these three questions that instigates our consideration of this text.

WHO IS IN BABYLON?

The three words “church that is” are italicized in the King James Version, showing they are supplied by the translators and lack a Greek equivalent in the manuscripts. The article is in the feminine and thus many translators render this phrase, “she who is in Babylon.” The debate focuses on whether a specific sister is referenced or whether it is the collective church that sends their greetings.

Peter, who wrote to those at Babylon, being freed from Prison.

Proponents of the reference being to a single sister note the similar construction in 2 John 1:1, “The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth.”

As we learn from 1 Corinthians 9:5 and Mark 1:30, Peter was married and apparently his wife often traveled with him. The general thought among those who believe the greeting comes from an individual is that this female individual refers to Peter’s wife. However, such evidence is highly conjectural and the weight of authority seems to favor the thought suggested in the Authorized Version, “the church that is in Babylon.”

WHERE IS BABYLON?

Three possibilities exist as to the identification of this Babylon:

(1) The city of “Babylon” in Egypt founded by Babylonians and laying south of Heliopolis, on the east bank of the Nile River.
(2) The actual famed city and district of “Babylon” on the Euphrates River in Chaldea.
(3) “Babylon” was a symbolic name amongst the Jews for Rome.

There is little to suggest that the Babylon referred to was the one in Egypt. The only possible supporting evidence is the fact that John Mark (the Marcus of our verse) was said to have died in Alexandria in Egypt in the fourth year of Nero and was supposedly the founder of the church there. Alexandria is not far distant from the Egyptian Babylon and it is possible that Peter ministered with him there.

Bible scholars are about equally divided between the other two Babylons. There appears to be a slight tilt toward the Chaldean Babylon. Although there is no biblical record of Peter venturing there, neither is their scriptural evidence against it; as likewise there is no account of him being either in Rome or in Egypt.

Since Peter’s ministry was primarily to the Jews, as Paul’s was particularly to the Gentiles, the existence of a sizeable community of Jews remaining in the Chaldaic Babylon makes such a journey plausible. This visit would minister to the large Jewish population who did not return to Israel, but settled permanently in Babylon and the Persian Gulf regions after the captivity of Nebuchadnezzar. Although this community lay within the Parthian Empire hostile to Rome, the Jewish community in the Roman empire maintained ties with it in Peter’s day. The great commentary on the Law is called the Babylonian Talmud. Josephus considered the community of Jews in Babylon so important that he published a special edition of his histories for them. It must be noted, however, that this community never adopted the Greek language in which this epistle is authored. The Babylonian Talmud, is composed in a dialect neither Chaldaic nor Hebrew, but a mixture of both of these and of other dialects, “jumbled together in defiance of all the rules of composition or of grammar” (John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature , “Talmud”).

IS ROME “BABYLON?”

The strong dislike of the Jews for their subjugation to Rome had given them ample reason to compare Rome to ancient Babylon. And indeed, various writings of the time show that they applied this name to the Italian capitol. Catholic tradition favors this identification with the city of Rome because it supports their contention that Peter served as the first bishop of Rome. Of itself, this tradition is not adequate reason to reject the identification of Babylon with Rome. In fact, if this term does refer to Rome, it identifies that city with the hated Babylon of old. There is some scriptural support for this since 2 Timothy 4:11 implies that Mark spent some time in Rome with the Apostle Paul. It is not unreasonable that Peter may have made a trip there also.

If the Babylon to which Peter refers, however, is Rome, the question may reasonably be asked, “Why does not Paul also refer to it under this sobriquet?” The answer may lie in the religio-political situation of the times. If this letter is contemporaneous with Paul’s imprisonment there, it may have been reckless for Peter to boldly state his whereabouts when the term “Babylon” may have been well understood by his readers to refer to Rome.

MARK AND PETER

Peter refers to his companion as “Marcus my son.” This is almost certainly the John Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark. In the account of Peter’s imprisonment (Acts 12:6-12), Peter immediately proceeds to the house of Mark’s mother. Though he may have been aware of the prayer meeting going on there, it is more likely that he considered her home his home while in Jerusalem. This is suggestive of a close relationship between the two followers of the Lord.

As Luke’s gospel is widely considered to be inspired by Paul, so Mark’s account is usually felt to be based on Peter’s recollections. After the separation of Paul and Barnabas over John Mark (Acts 15:39), it is assumed that Mark identified more with Peter than with Paul and served as his secretary.

Papias, a Christian of the late second century and historian of the early church, writes: “Mark, who was Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately though not in order, all that he collected of what Christ had said or done. For he was not a hearer of the Lord or a follower of his; he followed Peter, as I have said, at a later date, and Peter adapted his instructions to practical needs, without any attempt to give the Lord’s words systematically. So Mark was not wrong in writing down some things in this way from memory, for his one concern was neither to omit or to falsify anything he had heard.”

Mark may well have been more learned than Peter since he, as a Levite, would have had more formal schooling. His Levitical background is attested to by his being a nephew of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10).

While the term “my son” may only be an appellation of affection, it probably connotes a deeper spiritual relationship. As Paul’s similar relationship with Timothy (1 Timothy 1:18) denoted a mentorship and, possibly, a role in the conversion of that disciple, so Peter may have had a hand in Mark becoming a disciple or, at the least, of being his spiritual mentor. It was in a similar vein that Paul had a relationship with the mother of Rufus (Romans 16:13), very likely the wife of Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Jesus (Mark 15:21). Thus it is, that from even a simple account of greetings, there are hidden beauties of the truth to be learned.

— Carl Hagensick

 

---

Download PDF