"Babylon" may refer to Babylon on the Euphrates River. [1] However this seems more likely to be a veiled, metaphorical reference to Rome where Peter spent the last years of his life. [2] The technical name for this figure of speech (i.e, a code name) is atbash. We know that John "Mark" was in Rome ( Colossians 4:10). But why would Peter have called Rome Babylon? Probably he did so because Rome was the capitol of the pagan world. The Christians had come to think of Rome as Babylon. Babylon on the Euphrates was then in decline, but it was formerly the world center of godlessness. The Bible uses Babylon as a symbol of ungodliness as well as the name of a real town (cf. Revelation 17-18). Similarly the name Hollywood is both a literal town name and the symbol of the industry for which the town is famous. [source][source][source]
". . . Babylon [3] becomes a beautiful symbol for the capital of the place of exile away from the true inheritance in heaven." [4][source]
John Mark was Peter"s protg. Many scholars believe Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome and that Peter"s influence is apparent in what he included in that record of Jesus" life and ministry. There is considerable evidence for this in the second Gospel. [source][source][source]
Context Summary
1 Peter 5:8-14 - Resisting The Devil
We hear of the adversary in Zechariah 3:1. The enemy of Christ desires to hurt the Shepherd by injuring His flock. The hunger of a lion for his prey is an emblem of the insatiable desire of our spiritual foes for our undoing. Walketh about-temptation never assails us long from the same quarter. Perhaps the figure of a roaring lion suggests an outburst of persecution, which made timid people tremble. See 2 Timothy 4:17.
All grace is in God for every hour and need, 1 Peter 5:10. We too are called to His eternal glory through Christ. The path of suffering, and that path alone, leads to the world where suffering is unknown. The suffering is only for a little while. Perfect, that nothing be lacking; stablish, that we may not waver; strengthen, that we may stand and withstand.
Silvanus is Silas, 1 Peter 5:12. He was a man to be trusted. Peter's theme was grace. So he began, so he finishes; and from the church in the literal Babylon, or in Rome, Revelation 14:8, where he and Mark were living and working, he sends this message of grace, and love and peace [source]
Chapter Summary: 1 Peter 5
1He exhorts the elders to feed their flocks; 5the younger to obey; 8and all to be sober, watchful, and constant in the faith; 9and to resist the cruel adversary the devil
Greek Commentary for 1 Peter 5:13
She that is in Babylon, elect together with you [η εν αβυλωνι συνεκλεκτη] Either actual Babylon or, as most likely, mystical Babylon (Rome) as in the Apocalypse. If Peter is in Rome about a.d. 65, there is every reason why he should not make that fact plain to the world at large and least of all to Nero. It is also uncertain whether η συνεκλεκτη hē suneklektē (found here alone), “the co-elect woman,” means Peter‘s wife (1 Corinthians 9:5) or the church in “Babylon.” The natural way to take it is for Peter‘s wife. Cf. εκλεκτηι κυριαι eklektēi kuriāi in 2 John 1:1 (also verse 2 John 1:13). [source]
Mark my son [Μαρκος ο υιος μου] So this fact agrees with the numerous statements by the early Christian writers that Mark, after leaving Barnabas, became Peter‘s “interpreter” and under his influence wrote his Gospel. We know that Mark was with Paul in Rome some years before this time (Colossians 4:10). [source]
The church [] The word is not in the Greek, but is supplied with the feminine definite article ἡ . There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the meaning of this feminine article. Some suppose a reference to Peter's own wife; others, to some prominent Christian woman in the church. Compare 2 John 1:1. The majority of interpreters, however, refer it to the church. [source]
Babylon [] Some understand in a figurative sense, as meaning Rome; others, literally, of Babylon on the Euphrates. In favor of the former view are the drift of ancient opinion and the Roman Catholic interpreters, with Luther and several noted modern expositors, as Ewald and Hoffmann. This, too, is the view of Canon Cook in the “Speaker's Commentary.” In favor of the literal interpretation are the weighty names of Alford, Huther, Calvin, Neander, Weiss, and Reuss. Professor Salmond, in his admirable commentary on this epistle, has so forcibly summed up the testimony that we cannot do better than to give his comment entire: “In favor of this allegorical interpretation it is urged that there are other occurrences of Babylon in the New Testament as a mystical name for Rome (Revelation 14:8; Revelation 18:2,Revelation 18:10); that it is in the highest degree unlikely that Peter should have made the Assyrian Babylon his residence or missionary centre, especially in view of a statement by Josephus indicating that the Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from that city and neighborhood; and that tradition connects Peter with Rome, but not with Babylon. The fact, however, that the word is mystically used in a mystical book like the Apocalypse - a book, too, which is steeped in the spirit and terminology of the Old Testament - is no argument for the mystical use of the word in writings of a different type. The allegorical interpretation becomes still less likely when it is observed that other geographical designations in this epistle (1 Peter 1:1) have undoubtedly the literal meaning. The tradition itself, too, is uncertain. The statement in Josephus does not bear all that it is made to bear. There is no reason to suppose that, at the time when this epistle was written, the city of Rome was currently known among Christians as Babylon. On the contrary, wherever it is mentioned in the New Testament, with the single exception of the Apocalypse (and even there it is distinguished as 'Babylon, the great ')it gets its usual name, Rome. So far, too, from the Assyrian Babylon being practically in a deserted state at this date, there is very good ground for believing that the Jewish population (not to speak of the heathen) of the city and vicinity was very considerable. For these and other reasons a succession of distinguished interpreters and historians, from Erasmus and Calvin, on to Neander, Weiss, Reuss, Huther, etc., have rightly held by the literal sense.” [source]
Marcus [] Rev., Mark. John Mark, the author of the gospel. See Introduction to Mark, on his relations to Peter. [source]
My son [] Probably in a spiritual sense, though some, as Bengel, think that Peter's own son is referred to. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for 1 Peter 5:13
Acts 12:12To the house of Mary [επι την οικιαν της Μαριας] Another Mary (the others were Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, Mary wife of Cleopas, Mary the mother of James and Joses). She may have been a widow and was possessed of some means since her house was large enough to hold the large group of disciples there. Barnabas, cousin of John Mark her son (Colossians 4:10), was also a man of property or had been (Acts 4:36.). It is probable that the disciples had been in the habit of meeting in her house, a fact known to Peter and he was evidently fond of John Mark whom he afterwards calls “my son” (1 Peter 5:13) and whom he had met here. The upper room of Acts 1:13 may have been in Mary‘s house and Mark may have been the man bearing a pitcher of water (Luke 22:10) and the young man who fled in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:51.). There was a gate and portress here as in the house of the highpriest (John 18:16). Peter knew where to go and even at this early hour hoped to find some of the disciples. Mary is one of the many mothers who have become famous by reason of their sons, though she was undoubtedly a woman of high character herself. Were gathered together and were praying (ησαν συνητροισμενοι και προσευχομενοι ēsan sunēthroisōmenoi kai proseuchomenoi). Note difference in the tenses, one periphrastic past perfect passive (συνατροιζω sunathroizō old verb, in the N.T. here only and Acts 19:25 and the uncompounded τροιζω throizō in Luke 24:33) and the periphrastic imperfect. The praying apparently had been going on all night and a large number (many, ικανοι hikanoi) of the disciples were there. One recalls the time when they had gathered to pray (Acts 4:31) after Peter had told the disciples of the threats of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:23). God had rescued Peter then. Would he let him be put to death now as James had been? [source]
Acts 12:16When they had opened [ανοιχαντες] First aorist active participle of ανοιγω anoigō or νυμι ̇numi The whole group rushed out to the courtyard this time to make sure. They were amazed (εχεστησαν exestēsan). The frequent second aorist active (intransitive) indicative of εχιστημι existēmi Acts 12:17 There were probably loud exclamations of astonishment and joy. Beckoning with the hand First aorist active participle of kataseiō old verb to signal or shake down with the hand (instrumental case cheiri). In the N.T. only in Acts 12:17; Acts 13:16; Acts 19:33; Acts 21:40. The speaker indicates by a downward movement of the hand his desire for silence (to hold their peace, sigāin present active infinitive, to keep silent). Peter was anxious for every precaution and he wanted their instant attention. Declared (diēgēsato). First aorist middle of diēgeomai old verb to carry through a narrative, give a full story. See also Acts 9:27 of Barnabas in his defence of Saul. Peter told them the wonderful story. Unto James and the brethren Dative case after apaggeilate (first aorist active imperative). Evidently “James and the brethren” were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord‘s brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (Acts 11:30; Acts 21:18). Paul even terms him apostle (Galatians 1:19), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts 12:2) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:13). To another place (eis heteron topon). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts 15:7) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:1) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:16 it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man‘s foundation (Romans 15:20). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter Acts 15). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1 Corinthians 9:5). [source]
Acts 12:16Beckoning with the hand [kataseisas tēi cheiri)] First aorist active participle of kataseiō old verb to signal or shake down with the hand (instrumental case cheiri). In the N.T. only in Acts 12:17; Acts 13:16; Acts 19:33; Acts 21:40. The speaker indicates by a downward movement of the hand his desire for silence (to hold their peace, sigāin present active infinitive, to keep silent). Peter was anxious for every precaution and he wanted their instant attention. Declared (diēgēsato). First aorist middle of diēgeomai old verb to carry through a narrative, give a full story. See also Acts 9:27 of Barnabas in his defence of Saul. Peter told them the wonderful story. Unto James and the brethren Dative case after apaggeilate (first aorist active imperative). Evidently “James and the brethren” were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord‘s brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (Acts 11:30; Acts 21:18). Paul even terms him apostle (Galatians 1:19), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts 12:2) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:13). To another place (eis heteron topon). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts 15:7) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:1) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:16 it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man‘s foundation (Romans 15:20). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter Acts 15). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1 Corinthians 9:5). [source]
Acts 12:16Unto James and the brethren [Iakōbōi kai tois adelphois)] Dative case after apaggeilate (first aorist active imperative). Evidently “James and the brethren” were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord‘s brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (Acts 11:30; Acts 21:18). Paul even terms him apostle (Galatians 1:19), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts 12:2) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:13). To another place (eis heteron topon). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts 15:7) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:1) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:16 it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man‘s foundation (Romans 15:20). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter Acts 15). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1 Corinthians 9:5). [source]
Acts 12:16To another place [eis heteron topon)] Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts 15:7) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:1) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:16 it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man‘s foundation (Romans 15:20). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter Acts 15). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1 Corinthians 9:5). [source]
Acts 15:39So that they parted asunder from one another [ωστε] Actual result here stated by αποχωριζω hōste and the first aorist passive infinitive of αυτους apochōrizō old verb to sever, to separate, here only and Revelation 6:4 in the N.T. The accusative of general reference Second infinitival clause ωστε ekpleusai after τε hōste connected by συν παραλαβοντα te The same participle is used here minus εκπλευσαι sunεκπλεω paralabonta (second aorist active). Barnabas and Mark sailed out (ekpleusai from ekpleō) from the harbour of Antioch. This is the last glimpse that Luke gives us of Barnabas, one of the noblest figures in the New Testament. Paul has a kindly reference to him in 1 Corinthians 9:6. No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One‘s judgment may go with Paul, but one‘s heart goes with Barnabas. And Mark made good with Barnabas, with Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and finally with Paul (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11). See my little book on John Mark (Making Good in the Ministry). Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times. [source]
2 Timothy 4:11Mark [] Mentioned Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 1 Peter 5:13. Probably John Mark (Acts 12:12,Acts 12:25; Acts 15:37), called the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). The first mention of him since the separation from Paul (Acts 15:39) occurs in Colossians and Philemon. He is commended to the church at Colossae. In 1st Peter he sends salutations to Asia. In both Colossians and Philemon his name appears along with that of Demas. In Colossians he is named shortly before Luke and along with Aristarchus who does not appear here. He (Mark) is about to come to Asia where 2nd Timothy finds him. The appearance in Colossians of Aristarchus with Mark and of Demas with Luke is probably the point of connection with the representation in 2nd Timothy. [source]
1 Peter 1:2Grace and peace [χάρις - εἰρήνη] Pauline terms. See Romans 1:7. The salutation is peculiar by the addition of be multiplied, which occurs 2 Peter 1:2; Judges 1:2, and nowhere else in the salutations of the epistles. It is found, however, in the Septuagint, Daniel 4:1(Sept. 3:31), and Daniel 6:25. Professor Salmond observes: “If the Babylon from which Peter writes can be taken to be the literal Babylon (see on 1 Peter 5:13), it might be interesting to recall the epistles introduced by salutations so similar to Peter's, which were written from the same capital by two kings, Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, of two great dynasties, and addressed to all their provinces.” [source]
Revelation 17:5Babylon [] See on 1 Peter 5:13. Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Jerome use Babylon as representing the Roman Empire. In the Middle Ages Rome is frequently styled the Western Babylon. The sect of the Fraticelli, an eremitical organization from the Franciscans in the fourteenth century, who carried the vow of poverty to the extreme and taught that they were possessed of the Holy Spirit and exempt from sin - first familiarized the common mind with the notion that Rome was the Babylon, the great harlot of the Apocalypse (see Milligan, “Latin Christianity,” Book xii., ch. vi.). On the passage cited from Dante (v. i.), Dean Plumptre remarks: “The words have the interest of being a medieval interpretation of Revelation 17:1-15, in which, however, the harlot and the beast seem somewhat strangely blended. The harlot is the corrupted Church of Rome; the seven heads are the seven hills on which the city is built; or perhaps, with an entirely different exegesis, the seven gifts of the Spirit, or the seven sacraments with which that Church had, in its outset, been endowed: the ten horns are the ten commandments. As long as the Church was faithful to her spouse, she had the moral strength which came from those gifts, and the divine law which she represented. When that failed, she became as a harlot, and her whoredom with kings was the symbol of her alliance with secular powers for the oppression of the nations” (On “Inferno,” xix., 110). [source]
Revelation 14:8Fallen, fallen [επεσεν επεσεν] Prophetic aorist active indicative of πεπτωκεν πεπτωκεν piptō repeated as a solemn dirge announcing the certainty of the fall. The English participle “fallen, fallen” is more musical and rhythmical than the literal rendering “fell, fell.” The language is an echo of Isaiah 21:9, though B in the lxx has αβυλων η μαγαλη peptōkenμεγαλη peptōken (perfect).Babylon the great (αβυλων Babulōn hē magalē). The adjective πεποτικεν megalē occurs with ποτιζω Babulōn each time in the Apocalypse (Revelation 14:8; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 17:5; Revelation 18:2,Revelation 18:10,Revelation 18:21) as a reminder of Nebuchadrezzar. There is no doubt that Rome is meant by Babylon, as is probably seen already in 1 Peter 5:13. As a prisoner in Patmos John can speak his mind by this symbolism.Hath made to drink Perfect active indicative of potizō old causative verb (from potos drinking, 1 Peter 4:3), as in Matthew 25:35. The remarkable phrase that follows seems based on Jeremiah 51:8 (Jeremiah 25:15). It is a combination also of Revelation 14:10 (the wine of God‘s wrath, also in Revelation 16:19; Revelation 19:15) and Revelation 17:2. There is no doubt of the dissoluteness of the old Babylon of Jeremiah‘s day as of the Rome of John‘s time. Rome is pictured as the great courtesan who intoxicates and beguiles the nations to fornication (Revelation 17:2,Revelation 17:4,Revelation 17:6), but the cup of God‘s wrath for her and her paramours is full (Revelation 14:10; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 18:2). [source]
What do the individual words in 1 Peter 5:13 mean?
GreetsyousheinBabylonelected with [you]andMarkthesonof me
Parse: Noun, Dative Feminine Singular
Root: Βαβυλών
Sense: a very large and famous city, the residence of the Babylonian kings, situated on both banks of the Euphrates.
Greek Commentary for 1 Peter 5:13
Either actual Babylon or, as most likely, mystical Babylon (Rome) as in the Apocalypse. If Peter is in Rome about a.d. 65, there is every reason why he should not make that fact plain to the world at large and least of all to Nero. It is also uncertain whether η συνεκλεκτη hē suneklektē (found here alone), “the co-elect woman,” means Peter‘s wife (1 Corinthians 9:5) or the church in “Babylon.” The natural way to take it is for Peter‘s wife. Cf. εκλεκτηι κυριαι eklektēi kuriāi in 2 John 1:1 (also verse 2 John 1:13). [source]
So this fact agrees with the numerous statements by the early Christian writers that Mark, after leaving Barnabas, became Peter‘s “interpreter” and under his influence wrote his Gospel. We know that Mark was with Paul in Rome some years before this time (Colossians 4:10). [source]
The word is not in the Greek, but is supplied with the feminine definite article ἡ . There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the meaning of this feminine article. Some suppose a reference to Peter's own wife; others, to some prominent Christian woman in the church. Compare 2 John 1:1. The majority of interpreters, however, refer it to the church. [source]
Some understand in a figurative sense, as meaning Rome; others, literally, of Babylon on the Euphrates. In favor of the former view are the drift of ancient opinion and the Roman Catholic interpreters, with Luther and several noted modern expositors, as Ewald and Hoffmann. This, too, is the view of Canon Cook in the “Speaker's Commentary.” In favor of the literal interpretation are the weighty names of Alford, Huther, Calvin, Neander, Weiss, and Reuss. Professor Salmond, in his admirable commentary on this epistle, has so forcibly summed up the testimony that we cannot do better than to give his comment entire: “In favor of this allegorical interpretation it is urged that there are other occurrences of Babylon in the New Testament as a mystical name for Rome (Revelation 14:8; Revelation 18:2, Revelation 18:10); that it is in the highest degree unlikely that Peter should have made the Assyrian Babylon his residence or missionary centre, especially in view of a statement by Josephus indicating that the Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from that city and neighborhood; and that tradition connects Peter with Rome, but not with Babylon. The fact, however, that the word is mystically used in a mystical book like the Apocalypse - a book, too, which is steeped in the spirit and terminology of the Old Testament - is no argument for the mystical use of the word in writings of a different type. The allegorical interpretation becomes still less likely when it is observed that other geographical designations in this epistle (1 Peter 1:1) have undoubtedly the literal meaning. The tradition itself, too, is uncertain. The statement in Josephus does not bear all that it is made to bear. There is no reason to suppose that, at the time when this epistle was written, the city of Rome was currently known among Christians as Babylon. On the contrary, wherever it is mentioned in the New Testament, with the single exception of the Apocalypse (and even there it is distinguished as 'Babylon, the great ')it gets its usual name, Rome. So far, too, from the Assyrian Babylon being practically in a deserted state at this date, there is very good ground for believing that the Jewish population (not to speak of the heathen) of the city and vicinity was very considerable. For these and other reasons a succession of distinguished interpreters and historians, from Erasmus and Calvin, on to Neander, Weiss, Reuss, Huther, etc., have rightly held by the literal sense.” [source]
Rev., Mark. John Mark, the author of the gospel. See Introduction to Mark, on his relations to Peter. [source]
Probably in a spiritual sense, though some, as Bengel, think that Peter's own son is referred to. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for 1 Peter 5:13
Another Mary (the others were Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, Mary wife of Cleopas, Mary the mother of James and Joses). She may have been a widow and was possessed of some means since her house was large enough to hold the large group of disciples there. Barnabas, cousin of John Mark her son (Colossians 4:10), was also a man of property or had been (Acts 4:36.). It is probable that the disciples had been in the habit of meeting in her house, a fact known to Peter and he was evidently fond of John Mark whom he afterwards calls “my son” (1 Peter 5:13) and whom he had met here. The upper room of Acts 1:13 may have been in Mary‘s house and Mark may have been the man bearing a pitcher of water (Luke 22:10) and the young man who fled in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:51.). There was a gate and portress here as in the house of the highpriest (John 18:16). Peter knew where to go and even at this early hour hoped to find some of the disciples. Mary is one of the many mothers who have become famous by reason of their sons, though she was undoubtedly a woman of high character herself. Were gathered together and were praying (ησαν συνητροισμενοι και προσευχομενοι ēsan sunēthroisōmenoi kai proseuchomenoi). Note difference in the tenses, one periphrastic past perfect passive (συνατροιζω sunathroizō old verb, in the N.T. here only and Acts 19:25 and the uncompounded τροιζω throizō in Luke 24:33) and the periphrastic imperfect. The praying apparently had been going on all night and a large number (many, ικανοι hikanoi) of the disciples were there. One recalls the time when they had gathered to pray (Acts 4:31) after Peter had told the disciples of the threats of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:23). God had rescued Peter then. Would he let him be put to death now as James had been? [source]
First aorist active participle of ανοιγω anoigō or νυμι ̇numi The whole group rushed out to the courtyard this time to make sure. They were amazed (εχεστησαν exestēsan). The frequent second aorist active (intransitive) indicative of εχιστημι existēmi Acts 12:17 There were probably loud exclamations of astonishment and joy. Beckoning with the hand First aorist active participle of kataseiō old verb to signal or shake down with the hand (instrumental case cheiri). In the N.T. only in Acts 12:17; Acts 13:16; Acts 19:33; Acts 21:40. The speaker indicates by a downward movement of the hand his desire for silence (to hold their peace, sigāin present active infinitive, to keep silent). Peter was anxious for every precaution and he wanted their instant attention. Declared (diēgēsato). First aorist middle of diēgeomai old verb to carry through a narrative, give a full story. See also Acts 9:27 of Barnabas in his defence of Saul. Peter told them the wonderful story. Unto James and the brethren Dative case after apaggeilate (first aorist active imperative). Evidently “James and the brethren” were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord‘s brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (Acts 11:30; Acts 21:18). Paul even terms him apostle (Galatians 1:19), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts 12:2) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:13). To another place (eis heteron topon). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts 15:7) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:1) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:16 it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man‘s foundation (Romans 15:20). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter Acts 15). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1 Corinthians 9:5). [source]
First aorist active participle of kataseiō old verb to signal or shake down with the hand (instrumental case cheiri). In the N.T. only in Acts 12:17; Acts 13:16; Acts 19:33; Acts 21:40. The speaker indicates by a downward movement of the hand his desire for silence (to hold their peace, sigāin present active infinitive, to keep silent). Peter was anxious for every precaution and he wanted their instant attention. Declared (diēgēsato). First aorist middle of diēgeomai old verb to carry through a narrative, give a full story. See also Acts 9:27 of Barnabas in his defence of Saul. Peter told them the wonderful story. Unto James and the brethren Dative case after apaggeilate (first aorist active imperative). Evidently “James and the brethren” were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord‘s brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (Acts 11:30; Acts 21:18). Paul even terms him apostle (Galatians 1:19), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts 12:2) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:13). To another place (eis heteron topon). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts 15:7) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:1) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:16 it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man‘s foundation (Romans 15:20). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter Acts 15). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1 Corinthians 9:5). [source]
Dative case after apaggeilate (first aorist active imperative). Evidently “James and the brethren” were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord‘s brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (Acts 11:30; Acts 21:18). Paul even terms him apostle (Galatians 1:19), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts 12:2) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:13). To another place (eis heteron topon). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts 15:7) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:1) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:16 it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man‘s foundation (Romans 15:20). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter Acts 15). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1 Corinthians 9:5). [source]
Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts 15:7) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:1) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:16 it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man‘s foundation (Romans 15:20). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter Acts 15). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1 Corinthians 9:5). [source]
Actual result here stated by αποχωριζω hōste and the first aorist passive infinitive of αυτους apochōrizō old verb to sever, to separate, here only and Revelation 6:4 in the N.T. The accusative of general reference Second infinitival clause ωστε ekpleusai after τε hōste connected by συν παραλαβοντα te The same participle is used here minus εκπλευσαι sunεκπλεω paralabonta (second aorist active). Barnabas and Mark sailed out (ekpleusai from ekpleō) from the harbour of Antioch. This is the last glimpse that Luke gives us of Barnabas, one of the noblest figures in the New Testament. Paul has a kindly reference to him in 1 Corinthians 9:6. No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One‘s judgment may go with Paul, but one‘s heart goes with Barnabas. And Mark made good with Barnabas, with Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and finally with Paul (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11). See my little book on John Mark (Making Good in the Ministry). Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times. [source]
Mentioned Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 1 Peter 5:13. Probably John Mark (Acts 12:12, Acts 12:25; Acts 15:37), called the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). The first mention of him since the separation from Paul (Acts 15:39) occurs in Colossians and Philemon. He is commended to the church at Colossae. In 1st Peter he sends salutations to Asia. In both Colossians and Philemon his name appears along with that of Demas. In Colossians he is named shortly before Luke and along with Aristarchus who does not appear here. He (Mark) is about to come to Asia where 2nd Timothy finds him. The appearance in Colossians of Aristarchus with Mark and of Demas with Luke is probably the point of connection with the representation in 2nd Timothy. [source]
Pauline terms. See Romans 1:7. The salutation is peculiar by the addition of be multiplied, which occurs 2 Peter 1:2; Judges 1:2, and nowhere else in the salutations of the epistles. It is found, however, in the Septuagint, Daniel 4:1(Sept. 3:31), and Daniel 6:25. Professor Salmond observes: “If the Babylon from which Peter writes can be taken to be the literal Babylon (see on 1 Peter 5:13), it might be interesting to recall the epistles introduced by salutations so similar to Peter's, which were written from the same capital by two kings, Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, of two great dynasties, and addressed to all their provinces.” [source]
See on 1 Peter 5:13. Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Jerome use Babylon as representing the Roman Empire. In the Middle Ages Rome is frequently styled the Western Babylon. The sect of the Fraticelli, an eremitical organization from the Franciscans in the fourteenth century, who carried the vow of poverty to the extreme and taught that they were possessed of the Holy Spirit and exempt from sin - first familiarized the common mind with the notion that Rome was the Babylon, the great harlot of the Apocalypse (see Milligan, “Latin Christianity,” Book xii., ch. vi.). On the passage cited from Dante (v. i.), Dean Plumptre remarks: “The words have the interest of being a medieval interpretation of Revelation 17:1-15, in which, however, the harlot and the beast seem somewhat strangely blended. The harlot is the corrupted Church of Rome; the seven heads are the seven hills on which the city is built; or perhaps, with an entirely different exegesis, the seven gifts of the Spirit, or the seven sacraments with which that Church had, in its outset, been endowed: the ten horns are the ten commandments. As long as the Church was faithful to her spouse, she had the moral strength which came from those gifts, and the divine law which she represented. When that failed, she became as a harlot, and her whoredom with kings was the symbol of her alliance with secular powers for the oppression of the nations” (On “Inferno,” xix., 110). [source]
The adjective πεποτικεν megalē occurs with ποτιζω Babulōn each time in the Apocalypse (Revelation 14:8; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 17:5; Revelation 18:2, Revelation 18:10, Revelation 18:21) as a reminder of Nebuchadrezzar. There is no doubt that Rome is meant by Babylon, as is probably seen already in 1 Peter 5:13. As a prisoner in Patmos John can speak his mind by this symbolism. [source]
Prophetic aorist active indicative of πεπτωκεν πεπτωκεν piptō repeated as a solemn dirge announcing the certainty of the fall. The English participle “fallen, fallen” is more musical and rhythmical than the literal rendering “fell, fell.” The language is an echo of Isaiah 21:9, though B in the lxx has αβυλων η μαγαλη peptōkenμεγαλη peptōken (perfect).Babylon the great (αβυλων Babulōn hē magalē). The adjective πεποτικεν megalē occurs with ποτιζω Babulōn each time in the Apocalypse (Revelation 14:8; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 17:5; Revelation 18:2, Revelation 18:10, Revelation 18:21) as a reminder of Nebuchadrezzar. There is no doubt that Rome is meant by Babylon, as is probably seen already in 1 Peter 5:13. As a prisoner in Patmos John can speak his mind by this symbolism.Hath made to drink Perfect active indicative of potizō old causative verb (from potos drinking, 1 Peter 4:3), as in Matthew 25:35. The remarkable phrase that follows seems based on Jeremiah 51:8 (Jeremiah 25:15). It is a combination also of Revelation 14:10 (the wine of God‘s wrath, also in Revelation 16:19; Revelation 19:15) and Revelation 17:2. There is no doubt of the dissoluteness of the old Babylon of Jeremiah‘s day as of the Rome of John‘s time. Rome is pictured as the great courtesan who intoxicates and beguiles the nations to fornication (Revelation 17:2, Revelation 17:4, Revelation 17:6), but the cup of God‘s wrath for her and her paramours is full (Revelation 14:10; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 18:2). [source]