First Peter - Lorin

what is real and genuine, not the accusations of their enemies nor those of the Devil who both seek to plant
doubts and uncertainty in their thinking about their Christian commitment. Thus the sustaining power of this
authentic grace of God is what they must stand in (εἰς ἣν στῆτε) both during this life and on the final day of
judgment. Every other source of supposed strength is faulty and will fail them in moments of crisis both now
and in eternity. This, Peter says, is what he has sought to not only communicate to them in the letter, but,
more importantly, to validate to them as genuine.
Clearly Peter has had some lofty goals for this letter. But as we have worked our way through its content,
I believe we can say that these goals have been achieved well. His close working with Silas in the composition
of the letter has been successful.
b. Greetings, vv. 13-14a
13 Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. 14
Greet one another with a kiss of love.
13 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου. 14 ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι
ἀγάπης.
Notes:
In a manner found commonly in the greetings of the letters of the New Testament, Peter sends greetings
to the readers from the community of believers where he was at the writing of the letter. The identity of this
group is unusual: ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ, the in Babylon fellow elect.... The spelling of the Greek suggests
that the full expression is ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ ἐκκλησία, the in Babylon chosen congregation. 53 But Peter
has not used the term ἐκκλησία in the letter previously. Still he has not previously alluded to the Christian
community where he was at the writing of the letter, until now. Most likely this assumption about ἐκκλησία is
correct, and follows the pattern found also in 2 John 1 and 13: ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς (to the elect
lady and her children) and τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς (the children of your chosen sister).
The somewhat mysterious aspect is what did Peter mean by ἐν Βαβυλῶνι? Literally, this would place him
in the ancient of Babylon at the writing of the letter. Little possibility of this exists from what we know about
Peter’s travels. Far more likely, is that Babylon is simply a ‘code word’ for Rome. 54 The negative image of
53 “Another option grammatically is to take the feminine ἡ … συνεκλεκτή, ‘chosen with,’ as a reference to a woman, possibly
Peter’s wife (the immediate mention of ‘Mark, my son,’ would complete the authorial family). On this interpretation, συνεκλεκτή
would mean ‘chosen with me,’ rather than ‘chosen with you.’ The difficulty with this is the correspondence between συνεκλεκτή
here and ἐκλεκτοῖς, ‘chosen,’ in 1:1 (cf. 2:9). Brox (247) notes Peter’s fondness for compounds (‘inheritance’ in 1:4 and 3:9, with
‘co-heir’ in 3:7; ‘elder’ and ‘fellow elder’ in 5:1). Peter is affirming common ground between the συνεκλεκτή and his readers,
not himself.” [J. Ramsey Michaels, vol. 49, Word Biblical Commentary : 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word,
Incorporated, 2002), 310.]
54 “‘Babylon’ is undoubtedly Rome, as in Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21 (cf. especially 17:18: ‘the great city that has
dominion over the kings of the earth’; in Jewish sources, cf. Sib. Or. 5.143, 159, and in general, the perspective of the two apocalypses,
4 Ezra and 2 Apoc. Bar., based on the analogy between Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon in 586 B.C. and by Rome in A.D. 70).
This interpretation goes back at least to Papias in the second century, who, according to Eusebius, claimed that Peter ‘composed it
[συντάξαι] in Rome itself, which … he himself indicates, referring to the city metaphorically [τροπικώτερον] as Babylon’ (Eusebius,
HE 2.15.2; how much of this is Papias’s actual language is difficult to say, but συντάξαι, ‘compose,’ is at any rate characteristic of
the few quotations of Papias that we possess).
“At the same time, it is doubtful that all the sinister associations of ‘Babylon the Great, Mother of Prostitutes and of the
Abominations of the Earth’ (Rev 17:5) are present already in 1 Peter. Peter’s earlier admonitions to defer to the Roman emperor and
his appointed representatives (2:13–17) preclude any deep-seated critique of the empire or imperial authority. The only thing wrong
with ‘Babylon’ is that it is not home. ‘Babylon’ at the end of the epistle is simply the counterpart to ‘diaspora’ at the beginning.
It is the place of exile for a community whose natural home is Jerusalem. The author and his readers, wherever they may be, find
themselves in the same predicament. ‘Babylon’ establishes for him credibility and common ground with them; he can give them
advice on how to respond to opposition because he and his congregation face the same threats they do (cf. v 9). The designation
becomes a metaphor both for an actual city (Rome) and for an experience of alienation not necessarily linked to a particular place.
There were literal Babylons in the ancient world, of course, not only the original Babylon on the Euphrates in Mesopotamia,
where Judaism flourished, but a Roman military settlement in Egypt where Cairo now stands (Selwyn, 243, points to ‘the Roman
legionnaires’ custom of naming places after military stations where they had previously been on duty’ to show how easily names
were transferred). Neither of these identifications is very likely, yet a fourth century papyrus from the Egyptian Babylon illustrates
how easily a name with such rich connotations could acquire a double meaning (Horsley, 141–48). A traveler, probably Jewish, is
taken ill after falling from his horse and writes home from Babylon to Oxyrhynchos requesting help. ‘You too, therefore, please send
Bible Study: Page 320