Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 5:13 - 5:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_5:13. Salutation.
The notion that ἡ … συνεκλεκτή denotes the apostle’s wife (Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, etc.) finds no support from 1Co_9:5; it is contradicted by the ἐν βαβυλῶνι [287] inserted between. By far the greater number of commentators rightly consider it to mean: “the church in Babylon” ( à has the word ἐκκλησίᾳ after Βαβυλῶνι ; Oec. u. Vulg. ecclesia). According to Hofmann, ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ is not to be supplied to ΣΥΝΕΚΛΕΚΤΉ , “but the churches to which the apostle writes are, as such, ἘΚΛΕΚΤΑΊ , and the church from which he sends greetings is, as such, a ΣΥΝΕΚΛΕΚΤΉ , as she from whom the Apostle John sends salutations is an ἈΔΕΛΦῊ ἘΚΛΕΚΤΉ ” (2Jn_1:13). But in John’s Epistle, 1Pe_5:1, ΚΥΡΊΑ , and 1Pe_5:13, ἈΔΕΛΦΉ , are put along with ἘΚΛΕΚΤΉ ; accordingly, it does not follow that ΣΥΝΕΚΛΕΚΤΉ , without the additional idea ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ , would of itself mean a church. The ΣΥΝ refers to the churches to which Peter sends the salutation of the former, cf. chap. 1Pe_1:1.[288] According to Eusebius (H. E. c. 15), Papias already was of opinion that the name Babylon is here used figuratively, and that by it Rome is to be understood. The same view is adopted by Clemens Alex., Hieronymus, Oecumenius, Beda, Luther, and by most of the Catholic interpreters;[289] in more recent times by Thiersch, Ewald, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Schott, etc. The principal reasons brought forward in support of this view are—(1) The tradition of the primitive church, which speaks of the apostle’s stay in Rome, but makes no mention of his having lived in Babylon; (2) The designation of Rome as Babylon in Revelation, chap. Rev_14:8, Rev_18:2; Rev_18:10; (3) The banishment of the Jews from Babylon in the time of the Emperor Claudius, according to Joseph. Ant. i. 18, c. 12. But these reasons are not conclusive, for—(1) The tradition has preserved altogether very imperfect and uncertain notices of the apostles; (2) In Revelation this designation is very naturally explained from the reference to O. T. prophecy; (3) The account of Josephus does not lead us to understand that all the Jews were banished from Babylon and its vicinity (see Mayerhoff, p. 128 ff., and Wieseler, p. 557 f.).[290] Although de Wette’s rejoinder, that “the allegorical designation is unnatural in a letter, especially in the salutation,” may be going too far, still it is improbable that Peter, in simply conveying a greeting, would have made use of an allegorical name of a place, without ever hinting that the designation was not to be taken literally. This could admit of explanation only if, at the time the epistle was written, it had been customary among the Christians to speak of Rome as Babylon; and that it was so, we have no evidence. Accordingly, Erasmus, Calvin, Gerhard, Neander, de Wette-Brückner, Wieseler, Weiss, Bleek, Reuss, Fronmüller, etc., have justly declared themselves opposed to the allegorical interpretation. The view that by Babylon is meant the Babylon in Egypt mentioned by Strabo, i. 17 (Pearson, Calov, Vitringa, Wolf), has nothing to commend it, the less so that this Babylon was simply a military garrison.[291]
καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱὸς μου ] The correct interpretation of υἱός μου is given already by Oecumenius: Μάρκον υἱόν , κατὰ πνεῦμα καλεῖ , ἀλλʼ οὐ κατὰ σάρκα . It is undoubtedly the well-known companion of Paul who is meant. Since, according to Acts, Peter was acquainted with his mother, it is probable that Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter. The idea that Peter here speaks of a son of his own after the flesh, named Mark (Bengel, Hottinger, Jachmann, etc.), could receive support only if συνεκλεκτή were used to designate the apostle’s wife.
[287] According to several commentators, συνεκλ ., though not meaning definitely Peter’s wife, yet refers to some other excellent woman of the church. Wolf even thinks it may be understood as a proper name.
[288] It is far-fetched when Schott says that ἡ συνεκλ . ἡ ἐν Βαβ . is not written here, but ἡ ἐν Βαβ . συνεκλ ., because the very fact of her being in Babylon (i.e. Rome) makes the church a συνεκλεκτή , i.e. the real associate of the churches who read the epistle; namely, in as far as thus reference is made to a like condition of suffering.
[289] Lorinus remarks: Omnes quotquot legerim interpretes catholici romanam intelligunt ecclesiam. Calvin says of this interpretation: hoc commentum Papistae libenter arripiunt, ut videatur Petrus romanae ecclesiae praefuisse.
[290] Hofmann maintains that it is “indiscoverable how Peter had come to know the two Pauline Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians,” if he wrote his epistle in Babylon. But the composition of the epistle in Rome is not by any means proved by so uncertain an assertion.
[291] It is clearly quite arbitrary when some scholars, like Capellus, Spanheim, and Semler, understand Babylon here as a name for Jerusalem, or even for the house where the apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost.