1 Peter 5:13

The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you ; literally, the co-elect in Babylon ἡ ἐν βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή . The word "Church" is given in no manuscripts with the remarkable exception of the Sinaitic; the rest have simply "the co-elect." We ask—What word is to be supplied, "Church" or "sister"? Some think that St, Peter's wife (comp. Matthew 8:14 ; 1 Corinthians 9:5 ) is intended, or some other well-known Christian woman. In favor of this view is the following salutation from Marcus. It is more natural to join together the names of two persons than to couple a Church with an individual. Also it scorns exceedingly improbable that such a word as "Church" should be omitted, and the ellipse left to be filled up by the readers. On the other hand, it is said to be unlikely that a humble Galilaean woman should be described as "the co-elect in Babylon." This argument would have considerable weight if the apostle were writing from large and well-known Church, like that at Rome; but it is quite possible that "the co-elect" might be the only Christian woman, or the one best known among a very small number in Babylon. On the whole, it seems most probable to us that by "the co-elect" (whether we supply "together with you" or "with me") is meant a Christian woman known at least by name to the Churches of Asia Miner, and therefore very possibly St. Peter's wife, who, St. Paul tells us, was his companion in travel. The question now meets us—Is "Babylon" to be taken in a mystic sense, as a cryptograph for Rome, or literally? Eusebius, and ancient writers generally, understand it of Rome. Eusebius is commonly understood to claim for this view the authority of Papias and Clement of Alexandria. But the historian's words ('Hist. Eccl.,' 1. 15. 2) seem to claim that authority only for the connection of St. Peter with St. Mark's Gospel; the identification of Babylon with Rome seems to be mentioned only as a common opinion in the time of Eusebius. It is said that there is n o trace o f the existence of a Christian Church at the Chaldean Babylon, and no proof, apart from this passage, that St. Peter was ever there. There had been a great Jewish colony at Babylon, but it had been destroyed in the time of Caligula. In answer to these arguments, it may be urged that the cryptograph of Babylon for Rome would probably not be understood; even if we assume the earliest date assigned to the Apocalypse, that book could scarcely be known very generally in Asia Minor when this Epistle was written. St. Peter at Babylon, like St. Paul at Athens, may have met with little success; the infant Church may have been quickly crushed. There may have been a second settlement of Jews at Babylon between A.D. 40 and the date of this Epistle. But it is quite possible that St. Peter may have been working as a missionary among the Babylonian Gentiles, for we cannot believe that he confined his ministrations to the Jews. On the whole, it seems much more probable that St. Peter was writing at the famous city on the Euphrates, though no traces of his work there remain, than that he should have used this one word in a mystical sense at the end of an Epistle where all else is plain and simple. And so doth Marcus my son . τέκνον is the word used by St. Paul of spiritual relationship (see 1 Timothy 1:2 ; 2 Timothy 1:2 ; Titus 1:4 ). St. Peter has υἱός here. Still, it seems most probable that Marcus, mentioned as he is without any further description, is not a son of the apostle after the flesh, but the well-known John Mark of the Acts.