Greg Kiser: Here is why I believe… Peter was referring to Jerusalem as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 (2001)

Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul again returns to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. Peter is there again and even named as a “pillar” in the church at Jerusalem


Here is why I believe… Peter was referring to Jerusalem as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13

By Greg Kiser

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

1 – In the days of the apostle Peter, according to Pliny and Josephus, the CITY of Babylon was a wilderness.

2 – According to Josephus, all Jews had been expelled from the COUNTRY of Babylonia in Peter’s day.

3 – Peter’s residence can not be established in a literal Babylon, nor can it be established in Rome (which some commentaries say is the meaning of “Babylon” in this passage.) But in my studies of Peter’s residence I can firmly establish him living in Jerusalem:

3a – After the great persecution the church was scattered, but the apostles (i.e. Peter) stayed in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1).

3b – When Philip preached in Samaria, the apostles at Jerusalem sent Peter and John to them. Thus Peter must have been living there (Acts 8:14).

3c – When Herod Agrippa imprisoned Peter, he was in Jerusalem (Acts 12:1-4).

3d – Three years after his conversion, Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter and even abides with him there. Therefore, Peter must have lived there (Galatians 1:18).

3e – Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul again returns to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. Peter is there again and even named as a “pillar” in the church at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:19).

3f – Paul tells us that Peter was intimidated by “Jews from James (i.e. Jerusalem)”. Surely this would be because Peter’s residence was there and he had to live with these people (Galatians 2:11,12).

3g – In the scripture in question (1 Peter 5:13), who is Marcus?  If it is a reference to John Mark then we presumably know that his original residence was in Jerusalem in the house of his mother. So if Marcus is John Mark, then the “church” would also be at Jerusalem (Acts

I do know, however, that Peter did some evangelical traveling with his wife as is stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 and therefore could have visited Babylon, although I don’t know why. Continuing . . .

4 – Peter was the “apostle to the circumcision” (Galatians 2:7-9), and if there were no Jews in Babylon, why would he take up residence

5 – The most prominent population of Jews in Peter’s day was at Jerusalem, so this is the most logical place for the “apostle to the circumcision” to reside.

6 – If 1 Peter 5:13 references John Mark, then his residence is also established at Jerusalem.

What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here

Date: 29 Mar 2005
Time: 16:54:14


That just about sums it up.  Thank you for the good, yet brief thoughts.  I learned more on this topic from this brief list than from other volumes I’ve seen elsewhere, even on this site.  Goes to show how plain and simple and to the point the truth really is.

Date: 18 Feb 2006
Time: 23:31:04

Interesting perspective. I will keep studying

Date: 12 Jan 2007
Time: 18:01:19

Yes the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but that was early in church history where as 1 and II Peter are written later on down the road so to say that Peter is isolated in Jerusalem to me violates their purpose, which was to go into all the world and teach the gospel. I believe they stayed there, but not all their lives. Thjey started with the center point of the nation of Israel and eventually would have spread out. I believe that Rome is represented by Babylon. When you look at the vision of the statue in Daniel ch 2 it is seen as standing until Rome falls. In that sense Rome was the last representative of the statue which had babylon as it’s head. Also they would have been desiring to hide the locations of churches from Nero whom I believe was emperor at the time of I Peter. Hope this helps you.

Date: 01 Aug 2010
Time: 19:53:53

“The Preterists are coming! The Preterists are coming!” (by Kenneth Dahl)

Listen up, people…

Whatever you do, don’t encourage them, because they could uncover some truths that we really do NOT want to have to try and explain to our people right now. Or, perhaps more appropriate: “We don’t have to think about what we don’t study… Take our word for it, they are way off base, so don’t listen to them, and just ignore them, and I’m sure in time they’ll go away. One can only hope…

If you start getting into dialog with these zealots you will only inspire them to study their Bibles even harder, and that could lead to YOU getting tricked into studying YOUR Bibles on the things they are talking about… and without a learned Bible scholar or qualified theologian to host that study – you could easily get led astray… If you don’t want your Bible saying something different than what your Pastor has already said, then stay away from this gang of revolutionaries.”

YES, that sounds RIDICULOUS, doesn’t it?

I have not actually HEARD anyone SAYING that about the Preterists, but many Christian’s reactions towards Preterists and their message IS “saying” that…
I can only think of one person who had a similar (“let’s-sit-down-and-discuss theology”) “open” invitation by the organized church and that’s Martin Luther…

My response?

In the early 70’s a gentle revolution called the “Jesus People” saw Jesus as BIGGER than the church saw Him. They saw His work as more inclusive and further reaching, and they saw His gospel in the same way…
With the preterists it’s the SAME STORY all over again TIMES TEN (X 10).

Many theologians have branded the preterists as just a bunch of wrong-spirited dissension-causers. Nothing could be FURTHER from the truth…

Does their theology divide?
Truth always divides people. Always has, and always will.
I’m trying to remember the Name of the New Testament Bible character Who did a lot of that sort of thing… It’s on the tip of my tongue… starts with a “J”…

The TRUTH will set you free, but sometimes it will actually make you angry first. The anger often has something to do with forcing people to question their own stuff… People don’t like that, Sam-I-am… Consequently, “your own stuff” isn’t always “your” stuff, especially when it came from other people… teachers… preachers…

I once thought that TRUTH required my permission to be true, or at least the Pastor’s permission… but I know better than that now.

Could we have missed something FUNDAMENTAL about the gospel?

“Not US… Impossible”!
That COULDN’T happen to US… could it???
Do we even question ourselves like that any more?
No… We don’t.

When people say “We’ve got enough truth.” expect a theological revolution brewing on the horizon… It will grow and grow, until finally it is too big and too loud to ignore.
At that time the church will adopt it (or at least part of it), package it, and claim to be the founders of it.

And that’s perfectly okay with me.
Definition of Preterism:
Preterism is a Christian eschatology which holds that most or all of the biblical prophecies concerning (what many have called) “the end times” having been events that already happened and were fulfilled in the first century, particularly during the time period of the Roman-Jewish war of 66 to 73 AD.

For a more thorough and VERY THEOLOGICALLY-OBJECTIVE definition of Preterism please go to…

Date: 21 Oct 2012
Time: 22:30:47

I am grieved at the way you and other replacement theologians have boasted against the branches,Rom. 11:18. If the first century Jewish believers in Yeshua were as callous and unfaithful to the Gentiles concerning the gospel as you are the lost sheep of the House of Israel today, you would still be in your sins. Romans 1:16-17 is as true today as it was when Paul first wrote it. Is this how you are presenting the good news to Jewish people? How successful have you been in reaching them with the gospel? Just curious as well as grieved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *