Replies

On the basis of the New Testament account, it would have been very possible for Peter to write his epistle from the city or province of Babylon itself. His ministry was to the Jews, and, as writings from subsequent centuries establish, Babylon was a center of Judaism both before and long after Peter.

There is no record of Peter having ever been in Babylon, either.

By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (Wikipedia)

There is strong indication in Revelation that “Babylon” was a reference to Jerusalem, the object of divine wrath.

Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath. (Rev. 16:19)

The phrase “great city” is a reference to Jerusalem, as we see in Rev. 11:8.

Josephus records how during the siege of Jerusalem that the city was divided into three factions.

“it so happened that the sedition at Jerusalem was revived, and parted into three factions, and that one faction fought against the other; which partition in such evil cases may be said to be a good thing, and the effect of divine justice.” (War of the Jews, 5:1:1)

We also see in Revelation a strong correlation between the “great harlot” (old Jerusalem) and the Lamb's bride (new Jerusalem).

>>There is no record of Peter having ever been in Babylon,<<

Other then Peters own words. There is no argument or differing opinion about Peter saying he was in Babylon, only what some try to make us believe was meant by Babylon.

I Pet. 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Instead of theorizing that Peter was at Rome for many long years managing somehow to escape everyone’s attention, why do we not simply accept the testimony of Peter himself that he was at Babylon?

I agree with Johann David Michaelis, a Biblical scholar from the 1700s.

“Commentators do not agree in regard to the meaning of the word Babylon, some taking it in its literal and proper sense, others giving it a figurative and mystical interpretation. Among the advocates for the latter sense, have been men of such learning and abilities, that I was misled by their authority in the younger part of my life to subscribe to it: but at present, as I have more impartially examined the question, it appears to me very extraordinary that, when an Apostle dates his epistle from Babylon, it should even occur to any commentator to ascribe to this work a mystical meaning, instead of taking it in its literal and proper sense.” [Michaelis, as quoted by Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, n.d., Vol. VI, p. 838.] >> The phrase “great city” is a reference to Jerusalem, as we see in Rev. 11:8.<< Only in the preterist attempt to fit scripture into their view. Jerusalem is never referenced as Babylon.

In Rev. 16:19 the reference between Jerusalem and Babylon is split.

19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

It’s like us saying that Cairo has violence and Jordon has violence. Another would be: Cairo has problems which reminds me that Jordon has violence too.