I would like to demonstrate that 1 Peter 5:13 cannot mean what the WTS says it means! This has enormous implications for the interpretation of prophecy.
First, let's look at the passage in context. It is the end of Peter's 1st letter:
There are three main lines of thought on the identity of "Babylon" here.
The WTS argues that Peter is not being cryptic, but is actually referring to the physical location of Babylon, which they claim had "a large Jewish population". ("All Scripture Is Insipred Of God And Beneficial, p252) I will demonstrate that the WTS is wrong in its claims - that in fact, the Jews had fled Babylon by the time Peter wrote 1 Peter!
Two other schools of thought are that Peter was writing cryptically of either Rome, or Jerusalem. According to the WTS: "Some claim that he wrote from Rome, saying that 'Babylon' was a cryptic name for Rome. The evidence, however, does not support such a view. Nowhere does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome. Since Peter addressed his letter to those in literal Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, it logically follows that his reference to Babylon was to the literal place of that name." (p252)
The problem with this is that, the historian Josephus demonstrates that, according to the time period the WTS claim that 1 Peter was written (i.e. about 62-64CE), the Jews had already fled Babylon! So there were no Jews in Babylon at this time!
Josephus' account of this can be found in The Antiquities Of The Jews, Book 18, Chapter 9, entitled "What Befell The Jews That Were In Babylon On Ocassion Of Asineus And Anileus, Two Brothers".
Josephus' account of this is sandwiched in-between an account the death of emperor Caius [Caligula], which took place in January 41AD. He starts his account about the Jews in Mesopatamia by saying, "A very sad calamity now befell the Jews that were in Mesopotamia, and especially those that dwelt in Babylonia..."
Josephus then recounts the history of two brothers, Asineus and Anileus, two brothers who become great in the kingdom of Mesopotamia, and "flourished in this happy condition of his for fifteen years".
Now, whether this 15 years should be tacked on to January 41AD, or whether Josephus is giving us the history up until 41AD, I am not sure... either way, the 15 years can't really be later than 56AD, upon which Josephus now recounts the calamity that caused the Jews to flee.
Basically, a kind of civil war broke out over Anileus, a Jew, taking a Parthian wife. The civil war eventually stirred the Babylonians against the Jews:
"The Babylonians were now freed from Anileus's heavy incursions, which had been a great restraint to the effects of that hatred they bore to the Jews: for they were almost always at variance, by reason of the contrariety of their laws; and which party soever grew boldest before the other, they assaulted the other: and at this time in particular it was, that upon the ruin of Anileus's party, the Babylonians attacked the Jews, which made those Jews so vehemently to resent the injuries they received from the Babylonians that, being neither able to fight them, nor bearing to live with them, they went to Seleucia, the principal city of those parts, which was built by Seleucus Nicator. It was inhabited by many of the Macedonians, but by more of the Grecians; not a few of the Syrians also dwelt there; and thither did the Jews fly and lived there five years, without any misfortunes. But, on the sixth year, a pestilence came upon these at Babylon, which occasioned new removals of men's habitations out of that city." (Antiquites, Book 18, Chapter 9)
So by 56AD at the latest, the Jews in Babylon fled to Seleucia because they were being attacked by the Babylonians, and lived there for 5 years before a great slaughter broke out, and 50,000 Jews were slain in Seleucia, the few remaining fleeing to Neerda and Nisibis, while a plague came upon Babylon itself.
Really then, in light of Josephus' account, the WTS' claim that there was "a large Jewish population" is misleading - there was a large Jewish population there, true enough - but they fled from Babylon likely before 1 Peter was even written!
This means it is highly unlikely that Peter is writing from literal Babylon as the WTS claims, at least during 62-64AD.
Incidentally, I should point out that their reasoning for a 62-64AD date is quite reasonable, but also quite telling. In the All Scripture Inspired book they say:
"When was the letter written? Its tone indicates that the Christians were experiencing trials, either from the pagans or from unconverted Jews, but that Nero's campaign of persecution, launched in 64 C.E., had not yet begun. It is evident that Peter wrote the letter just prior to this, probably between 62 and 64 C.E. Mark's still being with Peter strengthens this conclusion. During Paul's first imprisonment at Rome (c. 59-61 C.E), Mark was with Paul but was due to travel to Asia Minor; and at the time of Paul's second imprisonment (c. 65 C.E), Mark was about to join Paul again in Rome. (1 Peter 5:13; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11) In the interval he would have had the opportunity to be with Peter in Babylon."
Yes, except that Josephus shows there were barely, if any, Jews left in Babylon at that time! So it is highly unlikely that Peter and Mark would have gone to Babylon at this time!
So since it seems unlikely that Peter was referring to literal Babylon (since the Jews had fled from there some time before), we are left with a cryptic interpretation after all - that Peter was referring cryptically to either Rome, or Jerusalem!
But do we have any other clues? Yes, the mention of Mark and Silvanus may help us.
As the WTS points out, Mark (along with Luke) was with Paul in Rome when Colossians was written, around 60-61AD according to the WTS. (Colossians 4:10, 14)
On the other hand, Mark was due to come to Rome to see Paul in prison: "Luke alone is with me. Take Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministering." (2 Timothy 4:11, which the WTS argues was written around 65AD to Timothy).
And Mark sends greetings to Philemon, through Paul: "Sending you greetings is Epaphras my fellow captive in union with Christ, [also] Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers." (Philemon 23,24, written 60-61AD)
So either side of the time the WTS claim 1 Peter was written (62-64AD), Mark was spending a lot of time either in Rome, or going to Rome to be with Paul, as one of Paul's "fellow workers".
So could it be then, that Peter was with Mark because Peter himself was in Rome at this point? It's certainly a possibility.
What about Silvanus, who seems to have been Peter's secretary for writing 1 Peter? "Through Silvanus, a faithful brother, as I account him, I have written you in few words..."
Silvanus was involved in writing 1 and 2 Thessalonians along with Paul and Timothy. This also seems to be the Silas who was sent by the apostles and older men to deliver the decision on circumsion to the congregation of Antioch, in Acts 15. Paul later went off on a missionary trip with Silas.
So the evidence indicates that, if Silas and Silvanus were the same person, which the WTS certainly thinks, then he was a close associate of Paul, accompanying him in his second missionary journey.
And Mark also spent some time as a "fellow worker" with Paul, and spent some time with him in Rome, and travelled to Rome to come to Paul.
So from where was Peter writing? It is quite possible that Peter was using cryptic language after all, because he describes a woman, "She who in Babylon, a chosen one like you, sends you her greetings..." This is likely to refer to the collective congregation, since the specific woman is not named.
Similarly, Peter refers to Mark as "my son". This is likely a spiritual relationship. It is well known that Mark's gospel was considered to be based on experiences related especially by Peter, so Peter and Mark had a close relationship.
The WTS asserts: "Nowhere does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome."
Of course, they do that because they claim that Babylon the Great in Revelation is not a city (even though the angel tells us it is!). And yet multitudes of Biblical scholars equate the "seven mountains" where the woman sits on top with Rome, which has from early times up until today, is known as "the city of the seven hills".
In other words, their own interpretations do not indicate that Babylon refers to Rome. But many people do see Rome in the description of Babylon the Great, including Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Watchtower!
So I would suggest that Peter wasn't referring to literal Babylon, but was cryptically referring to Rome, based on the following lines of evidence:
1. According to Josephus, there were no Jews left in Babylon by the time they claim Peter wrote 1 Peter (62-64AD), so it is highly unlikely that Peter and Mark were there!
2. Peter's associate in the letter, Mark, was also closely associated with Paul in Rome around that time.
3. Silvanus, Peter's secretary for the letter, was also a close associate of Paul, having co-written 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and accompanied Paul on his second missionary trip.
4. Many Biblical commentators associate Revelation's "Babylon the Great" with Rome, so the WTS' claim that "nowhere does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome" is misleading. Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Watchtower, clearly recognized Babylon the Great as Rome.
5. There is lots of external evidence to suggest that the Jews of the 1st century referred to Rome as "Babylon".