Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Peter 5:13

"She that is in Babylon, elect together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Mark my son." — 1 Peter 5:13 (ASV)

The church . . . . elected together with you.—In the original, it simply stands as “the co-elect one [feminine singular] in Babylon.” Some, therefore, seeing “Marcus, my son,” immediately after, and knowing that Saint Peter was a married man (Matthew 8:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5), have thought that this “co-elect one” was Saint Peter’s wife.

But:

1. It is highly improbable that Saint Mark was in that sense “son” to Saint Peter.
2. It is 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 1 Peter 1:2, and means “co-elect with you,” not “with me.”

It was becoming a not infrequent way of designating a church to personify it under a female title (see 2 John 1:1; 1 Peter 1:4–5; 1 Peter 1:13); and it therefore seems 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 Song of Solomon 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 Saint 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 Saint Mark with Egypt. No one now, however, maintains this view.
2. The literal Babylon in the East. This has in its favor the simple way in which Saint Peter uses the word without any circumlocution. But it has nothing else to support it against all the overwhelming arguments in favor of the third claimant. Besides this, 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 Saint Peter being in the East, and the idea in itself is improbable, whereas nothing but Protestant prejudice can stand against the historical evidence that Saint Peter sojourned and died at Rome. Whatever theological consequences may flow from it, it is as certain that Saint Peter was at Rome as that Saint John was at Ephesus. Everything in the Letter also points to the kind of conditions that existed in Rome around the date when we believe the Letter was written.

It is objected that Saint 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. Saint Peter has just personified the church of the place from which he writes, which seems just as figurative 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 (Revelation 17:18) is not the only place where Rome is found spoken of under this title.

One of the leading living Hebraists (who will not allow his name to be mentioned) told the present writer that no Hebrew of Saint Peter’s day would have needed to think twice about what city was meant when “Babylon” was mentioned.

And upon the mention of the name, all the prophecies of the vengeance to be taken on the city that had desolated the Holy Land would rush with consolation into the minds of the readers. They would feel that Saint Peter, though supporting Saint Paul, was still in full sympathy with them.

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 Saint Paul wrote in guarded language about the Roman Empire to the Thessalonians (see Excursus on the Man of Sin, after 2 Thessalonians). 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 used here does not occur elsewhere for spiritual relationship, but the other thought is very improbable. We should have heard of it in other places if Saint Mark had been his son in the flesh . Saint Mark was, of course, well known in Asia Minor (Acts 12:25; Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11).