Hunting the Whore of Babylon
Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is
the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave
Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments
to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly
used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t
work.
#1: Seven Hills
Hunt argues that the Whore "is a city built on
seven hills," which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This
argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits
on seven mountains.
The Greek word in this passage is horos.
Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three
are rendered "hill" by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two
are translated as "mountain" or "mount." Modern Bibles have similar ratios.
If the passage states that the Whore sits on "seven mountains," it could
refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing
whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The
Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven
kingdoms with which she has something in common.
The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often
represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains
might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.
Even if we accept that the word horos should
be translated literally as "hill" in this passage, it still does not narrow
us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven
hills as well.
Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome,
which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will
see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better,
than Rome during the Christian centuries.
Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican
City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim
becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only
one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient
Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican
Hill is on the west.
#2: "Babylon"—What’s in a Name?
Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city "known
as Babylon." This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name
is "Babylon the Great."
The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek: Babulon
a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,
and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon
is referred to as "the great city" seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18,
18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to
"the great city." That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of
God’s two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city, which
is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."
"The great city" is symbolically called Sodom,
a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called "Sodom" in the Old Testament
(cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the "the
great city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was "where [the]
Lord was crucified."
Revelation consistently speaks as if there were
only one "great city" ("the great city"), suggesting that the great
city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven
texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact
that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the
faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.
This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem,
not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation.
On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as "Babylon,"
but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.
#3: Commits Fornication
Hunt tells us, "The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse
1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against
only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome."
Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred
to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate
Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through
the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with
"the kings of the earth" (those nations it conquered).
To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets
the fornication as alleged "unholy alliances" forged between Vatican City
and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic
relations with other nations are "unholy."
He also confuses Vatican City with the city of
Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with
the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and
emperor worship).
#4: Clothed in Purple and Red
Hunt states, "She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple
and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites
the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple
vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.
Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the
colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead,
he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough
that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something
other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal,
earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.
Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic
clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops
and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.
The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted
with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This
is a problem for Hunt for three reasons: (a) we have already noted that
the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would
identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the
clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous
acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should
also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride
as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may
be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture
(Gal. 4:25–26).
Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and
red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors
the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.
It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear
purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical
colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.
Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded
that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4,
6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’
vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33,
39:1–8, 24, 29).
#5: Possesses Great Wealth
Hunt states, "[The Whore’s] incredible wealth next
caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls
. . . ’ [Rev. 17:4]." The problem is that, regardless of what it had in
the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it
has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget
only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore,
wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem,
both key economic centers.
#6: A Golden Cup
Hunt states that the Whore "has ‘a golden cup [chalice]
in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’"
This is another reference to Revelation 17:4. Then he states that the "Church
is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world."
To make the Whore’s gold cup suggestive of the
Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word "chalice" in square brackets,
though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion),
which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated
"cup."
He ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is
used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—a ritual commanded by Christ
(Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25); he ignores the fact that the majority
of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other
materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware; he ignores
the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the
true religion ever since ancient Israel—again at the command of God (Ex.
25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chr. 24:14); and he again uses a literal
interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol
applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used
in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup
of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6).
This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.
#7: The Mother of Harlots
Now for Hunt’s most hilarious argument: "John’s
attention is next drawn to the inscription on the woman’s forehead: ‘THE
MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’ (verse 5, [Hunt’s emphasis]).
Sadly enough, the Roman Catholic Church fits that description as precisely
as she fits the others. Much of the cause is due to the unbiblical doctrine
of priestly celibacy," which has "made sinners of the clergy and harlots
out of those with whom they secretly cohabit."
Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline—a
discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church—and even this rite has not always
been mandatory. This discipline can scarcely be unbiblical, since Hunt
himself says, "The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that
life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ."
Hunt has again lurched to an absurdly literal interpretation.
He should interpret the harlotry of the Whore’s daughters as the same as
their mother’s, which is why she is called their mother in the first place.
This would make it spiritual or political fornication or the persecution
of Christian martyrs (cf. 17:2, 6, 18:6). Instead, Hunt gives the interpretation
of the daughters as literal, earthly prostitutes committing literal, earthly
fornication.
If Hunt did not have a fixation on the King James
Version, he would notice another point that identifies the daughters’ harlotries
with that of their mother: The same Greek word (porna) is used for
both mother and daughters. The King James Version translates this word
as "whore" whenever it refers to the mother, but as "harlot" when it refers
to the daughters. Modern translations render it consistently. John sees
the "great harlot" (17:1, 15, 16, 19:2) who is "the mother of harlots"
(17:5). The harlotries of the daughters must be the same as the mother’s,
which Hunt admits is not literal sex!
#8: Sheds the Blood of Saints
Hunt states, "John next notices that the woman
is drunk—not with alcohol but with the blood of the saints, and with the
blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . [cf. verse 6]." He then advances charges
of brutality and killing by the Inquisitions, supposed forced conversions
of nations, and even the Nazi holocaust!
This section of the book abounds with historical
errors, not the least of which is his implication that the Church endorses
the forced conversion of nations. The Church emphatically does not do so.
It has condemned forced conversions as early as the third century (before
then they were scarcely even possible), and has formally condemned them
on repeated occasions, as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(CCC 160, 1738, 1782, 2106–7).
But pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem do fit the
description of a city drunk with the blood of saints and the martyrs of
Jesus. And since they were notorious persecutors of Christians, the original
audience would have automatically thought of one of these two as the city
that persecutes Christians, not an undreamed-of Christian Rome that was
centuries in the future.
#9: Reigns over Kings
For his last argument, Hunt states, "Finally, the
angel reveals that the woman ‘is that great city, which reigneth over the
kings of the earth’ (verse 18). Is there such a city? Yes, and again only
one: Vatican City."
This is a joke. Vatican City has no power over
other nations; it certainly does not reign over them. In fact, the Vatican’s
very existence has been threatened in the past two centuries by Italian
nationalism.
Hunt appeals to power the popes once had over Christian
political rulers (neglecting the fact that this was always a limited authority,
by the popes’ own admission), but at that time there was no Vatican City.
The Vatican only became a separate city in 1929, when the Holy See and
Italy signed the Lateran Treaty.
Hunt seems to understand this passage to be talking
about Vatican City, since the modern city of Rome is only a very minor
political force. If the reign is a literal, political one, then pagan Rome
fulfills the requirement far better than Christian Rome ever did.
NIHIL OBSTAT:
I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR:
In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
|
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
