But where is the church and why use the term “Babylon”? Three
locations have been proposed. First, some argue that Babylon is in Egypt, for
Strabo (Geog. 17.1 and 30) and
Josephus (Ant. 2.15.1) mention a
Roman garrison by that name in Egypt near Old Cairo and church tradition
connects John Mark to the founding of the Egyptian church (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.16 and 24). But tradition
does not connect Peter to Egypt (in fact, Eusebius in the same section places
Peter in Rome), and Mark is linked to Alexandria, not to places further south.
Furthermore, it would seem unlikely that an author would use without further
explanation the name given by a military garrison to a place, so we can safely
dismiss this possibility.
Naturally it is possible that “Babylon” might mean the city by that
name in Mesopotamia. Had Peter been traveling earlier in the century, that
would have been possible, but during the reign of Claudius the Jewish community
left Babylon for Seleucia (Josephus, Ant.
18.9.8–9), and that was about the same time that Peter had to leave Jerusalem
due to the persecution of Herod Agrippa I. Furthermore, Babylon was in decline
generally during the first century so that by 115 Trajan would find it a ghost
town (Dio Cassius, Hist. 68.30).
Finally, there is no Syrian tradition of Peter’s having traveled in the
Mesopotamian area. Thus it is highly unlikely that Peter would ever have been
in Babylon at the same time as Silvanus (who, we know, traveled in Asia Minor
and Greece with Paul).
That leaves Rome as the only viable option. That Rome was referred to
as Babylon in both Jewish and Christian sources is known. In the Christian
tradition “Babylon” in Rev. 14:8; 17:5, 18; 18:2 refers to Rome. In the Jewish
tradition Sib. Or. 5:143, 159 (both with references to Nero) and 2 Bar. 11:1;
67:7 (with a reference to Vespasian), as well as later rabbinic writings (far
too late for our purposes), refer to Rome under the name Babylon. While 1 Peter
is likely earlier than any of these references (unless one connects Revelation
to the Neronian persecution), they all build on OT imagery. Babylon is the
place of exile (Ps. 137; Isa. 43:14 in context with 5–6) and it is a wicked and
haughty city (Isa. 13; Jer. 50–51; Dan. 5:17–31). In Revelation it is also the
place of persecution (Rev. 17:5–6, although this is also implied in the images
of slaughter in the OT passages). All these meanings would be appropriate for 1
Peter. Our author is concerned with holiness (1:15–16), so Rome would surely
impress him as the center of the evil in the world (cf. Rev. 18). He is also
concerned with persecution, and the Neronian persecution came from and centered
on Rome (the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius may also have been
viewed by Christians as persecution). Finally, the theme of exile runs
throughout the book (1:1, 17; 2:11; implied in passages that refer to their
cultural estrangement), so Rome equals Babylon becomes a beautiful symbol for
the capital of the place of exile away from the true inheritance in heaven.
Peter can say some positive things about government (2:13–17), but they are
restrained and balanced by the view that that same government is the capital of
evil. By referring to this reality, he again underlines his solidarity with the
suffering Christians of Asia Minor. (Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle
of Peter [The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990], 202-3)
