1 Peter 5:13

‘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 (Galatians 2:11) and possibly for a short time at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12), and we know from this letter that he had at least some ministry in north west Asia Minor (1 Peter 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 1 Peter 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.