|
F e a t u r e A r t i c l e
HUNT- ING THE WHORE OF BABYLON: Part 1
By JAMES AKIN
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 9
 September 1994 
|
|
|
ANTI-CATHOLIC writer Dave Hunt is at it again.
Large portions of his previous books have been devoted to attacking
the Catholic Church. Now he has written an entire book doing so.
In his advance publicity for A Woman Rides the Beast: The Catholic
Church in the Last Days, Hunt proclaims that this book "is
not one man's wild-eyed speculation. . . . This important book will
eclipse The Seduction of Christianity [Hunt's previously most
popular book] in its impact on the church."
Yet in the same issue of his newsletter that carried this publicity,
T. A. McMahon, the executive director of Hunt's organization, conceded
that there have been problems getting Evangelical book distributors
to carry it. He states, "Dave's new book (to be published in
August) is already meeting resistance from Christian bookstore buyers."
Hunt's thesis is that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon
mentioned in Revelation 17-18. Readers of his newsletter, The
Berean Call, were given a preview of why he says this. The July
1994 issue carried an article titled "A City on Seven Hills,"
a condensation of one of the book's key chapters. Hunt advanced nine
arguments to show that the Catholic Church is the great whore.
Hills or mountains?
Hunt's first argument is that the whore "is
a city built on seven hills." He identifies these as the seven
hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9,
which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.
To get the passage to say that the woman sits on seven hills, Hunt
inserts the words "or hills" into the King James Version
(KJV) text from which he quotes. He cites Revelation 17:9 as follows:
"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are
seven mountains [or hills], on which the woman sitteth."
Hunt suggests that the Greek word oros, translated by the
KJV as "mountain," should instead be translated "hill."
Though this is a possible translation, it is unlikely on lexical grounds.
Of the 65 occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three
are rendered "hill" by the KJV. The remaining 62 are translated
as "mountain" or "mount." Modern Protestant Bible
translations have similar ratios. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates oros as "hill" only twice, with
the remainder as "mountain" or "mount." Given
these numbers, the lexical evidence indicates an overwhelming probability
that oros in Revelation 17:9 should be translated "mountain,"
just as the KJV has it.
This blows Hunt's interpretation of the passage wide open. He would
have us believe that the "seven hills" refer to the seven
hills on which the ancient city of Rome was built, but if the passage
states that the whore sits on "seven mountains," the reference
could be to anything.
The mountains do not even need to be literal, since mountains are
common symbols in the Bible. A mountain may symbolize a kingdom. In
Daniel 2:35 Christ's kingdom is seen as a mountain. In Psalm 68:15
the kingdom of Bashan is pictured as a mountain. In Obadiah 8-21 the
kingdom of Edom is likened to a mountain. In Amos 4:1 and 6:1 the
kingdom of Samaria is pictured as a mountain. The "seven mountains"
of the whore might be seven kingdoms she reigns over or seven kingdoms
with which she has something in common.
The number seven may be symbolic, since it often represents completeness
in the Bible. If it is symbolic in Revelation 17:9, the seven mountains
might symbolize that the whore reigns over all the kingdoms of the
earth or (what amounts to the same thing) that she reigns over all
the literal mountains of the earth.
Even if we grant that oros should be translated "hill"
in this passage and that these are seven literal hills, this still
does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities have been built on seven
hills, which Hunt admits, stating, "Some other cities are [built
on seven hills], but only Rome meets all the criteria, including being
known as Babylon." He concedes his argument based on seven hills
is inconclusive, even given his unlikely translation.
There are further problems with Hunt's argument. 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, pagan Rome fits Hunt's criteria
better than does Christian Rome.
When we bring in the distinction between Vatican City--the city
where the Catholic Church is headquartered--and the city of Rome,
Hunt's postulate is even more unlikely, since Vatican City is not
built on seven hills, but on only one: Vatican Hill. This hill is
not one of the seven Rome was constructed upon. Those seven
(the Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, Caelian, Aventine, Palatine, and
Capitoline hills) are located on the east side of the Tiber River.
Vatican Hill is located on the west side.
Known as Babylon
Hunt introduces his second argument in an off-hand
manner even as he concedes that his first argument is inconclusive.
He appeals to a second criterion to prop up his first, stating that
the whore will be a city "known as Babylon." This is based
on Revelation 17:5, which says the whore's name is "Babylon the
Great."
(The city's name is not "Mystery Babylon," as some Fundamentalists
claim. The word "mystery" indicates that the ascription
"Babylon the Great" is a symbolic name, so it can't refer
to the city of Babylon rebuilt in Iraq, as some Fundamentalists claimed
it must during the Gulf War. The RSV renders the passage better: "and
on her forehead was written a name of mystery: 'Babylon the great,
mother of harlots and of earth's abominations.'"
The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek, Babulon a megala)
occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:9, 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,&quo;t (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."
This verse tells us that "the great city" is symbolically
called Sodom. This refers to Jerusalem, which is called "Sodom"
in Isaiah 1:10 and Ezekiel 16:1-3, 46-56. (Jerusalem is compared
to Sodom in other verses). We know Jerusalem is the "the great
city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says that city was
"where [the] Lord was crucified." Jesus, of course, was
crucified at Jerusalem.
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 (= Jerusalem). This suggests that Babylon
the Great may not be Rome, but Jerusalem. In fact, Hunt admits that
Jerusalem fits one of his other criteria (see below). There have been
commentators, both Protestant and Catholic, who have adopted this
interpretation. One school of Protestant Bible interpreters (the followers
of David Chilton) has made this crucial to its interpretation of Revelation,
which is viewed as a covenant lawsuit against apostate Jerusalem for
its persecution of Christians.
Among the Church Fathers it was common to refer to Rome as "Babylon,"
but even here Hunt has problems because all those references were
to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians, rather than to Christian
Rome. There also would be the problem that Vatican City did not exist
in the days of the Fathers.
The whore's fornications
In his third argument Hunt states, "The woman
is called a 'whore' (v. 1), with whom earthly kings 'have committed
fornication' (v. 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be
made: Jerusalem and Rome. Jerusalem was indicted for spiritual fornication
by numerous prophets (Is. 1:21, etc.), but does not meet the other
criteria." Hunt admits that the prophets frequently referred
to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore. This suggests that the whore of
Babylon might be apostate Jerusalem. Because of this Hunt again concedes
that his argument is not conclusive; he appeals to "the other
criteria&quo;t to prop it up.
To identify the whore with Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication
as "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." (The United States
has diplomatic relations with those same countries--does that
mean those relations are "unholy"?) Hunt neglects the fact
that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with the kingdoms
it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor
worship).
Now in Technicolor
For his fourth argument, Hunt states, "She [the
whore] is clothed in 'purple and scarlet' (v. 4), the colors of the
Catholic clergy." He cites the Catholic Encyclopedia
to show that bishops wear purple and cardinals wear scarlet (red).
This line of reasoning has problems.
Rather than assigning the whore's colors their symbolic meaning (purple
for royalty, red for the blood of martyrs), Hunt is suddenly, joltingly
literal in his interpretation. He caught on well enough that the woman
symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes
something other than a sexual act, but now he wants to assign colors
a purely literal fulfillment in the clothing of Catholic ecclesiastics.
Besides, purple and red are not the dominant colors of clerical clothing.
Black and white are. Consider the average priest's "clericals"
(black suit with white Roman collar); priests' clerical garb is never
purple or red, and for only a short time during the liturgical year
do they wear chasubles with purple or red. But every priest wears
a white alb at Mass. Even bishops and cardinals usually wear black
(look at the bishop or cardinal who heads your diocese). And the pope,
of course, always wears white.
The purple and scarlet of the whore are contrasts to the white worn
by the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This makes
two more problems for Hunt: 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 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).
Another problem for Hunt is that he ignores the liturgical meaning
of the colors purple and red. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red
honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs--both of
these things being noble, whereas in Revelation these colors reveal
how ignoble the whore is.
It is entirely appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and
scarlet because these have been liturgical colors ever since ancient
Israel. In fact, together with blue and white, they were the dominant
colors of the Israelite liturgy. God commanded that the curtains which
formed the walls of the Tabernacle be made with purple and scarlet
yarn (Ex. 25:4, 26:1, 31, 36, 27:16, 36:8, 35, 37, 38:18, 39:34).
He commanded the tabernacle to have a ceiling made of ram skins dyed
red (Ex. 26:14, 36:19, 39:34). He commanded that when they were being
moved the table of the bread of the presence be covered with a scarlet
cloth (Num. 4:8) and the bronze altar with a purple cloth (Num. 4:13).
He commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies
(Lev. 14:4, 6, 49-52, Num. 19:6). He commanded that the vestments
for priests be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4-8, 15,
33, 39:1-8, 24, 29). If there was nothing sinister about the Israelites
using these God-commanded colors then, there is nothing sinister about
the Catholic clergy using them now.
At the risk of making the same point too often, it should be noted
that the colors purple and scarlet, taken literally or symbolically,
may stand for pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem. Both were capital
royal) cities, and both shed the blood of Christian martyrs.
Gold and precious stones
Next Hunt states, "[The whore's] incredible
wealth next caught John's eye. She was `decked with gold and precious
stones and pearls . ..'[7:4]." He cites the Catholic
Encyclopedia, which states that the pectoral cross worn by bishops
should be made of gold and decorated with gems.
Again Hunt shifts to an absurdly literal interpretation. He does not
take the gold and jewels the whore was wearing to be symbols of the
city's wealth, but actual articles of clothing worn by Catholic clergy
(and only certain clergy; priests and deacons--the vast majority
of Catholic clergy--do not wear a pectoral cross).
Nevertheless, it is appropriate for high-ranking clergy to wear such
ornaments because such things have been part of the true religion's
liturgical practice since ancient times. God commanded that the ephod
and breastpiece worn by the high priest be made with gold, precious
stones, and gems, including the ruby, sapphire, emerald, and amethyst
(Ex. 25:7, 28:6-29, 35:9, 27, 39:3-21). He commanded that the high
priest's turban have a sacred diadem (crown plate) made of pure gold
(Ex. 29:6, 39:30, Lev. 8:9). Gold was to be used in the priestly garments
in general (Ex. 28:4-5). The purpose of these vestments and decorations
was to give the high priest and the priests "dignity and honor"
or "glory and beauty" (Ex. 28:40). Catholic clergy conform
to the Bible in using these materials to honor God and his holy ministry.
Still, Hunt's problem remains his naive literalism on this point.
The gold and gems which the whore is wearing do not symbolize actual
articles of clothing but the great wealth of the city--a wealth
more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem than with
the modern Vatican, which actually runs a budget deficit each
year and which has a total budget about the size of that of the Archdiocese
of Chicago.
A golden cup
Hunt notes 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.
Hunt again cites the Catholic Encyclopedia, this passage describing
the Eucharistic chalice as "the most important of the sacred
vessels." He says that the "Church is known for its many
thousands of gold chalices around the world," and he gives a
long quotation about a church in Lourdes, France having a valuable
collection of gold chalices. But Hunt's argument is riddled with holes.
To make the whore's gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice,
he inserts the word "chalice" in square brackets, though
the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (poterion),
which appears 33 times in the New Testament and is always translated
"cup."
Hunt ignores that the chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord's
Supper--a ritual commanded by Christ himself (Luke 22:19-20, 1Cor.
11:24-25)--and he ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority
of the Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out
of gold, but of other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and
even earthenware (though the interior of the chalice is usually finished
with a thin layer of gold--but so, perhaps, is the wristwatch
that Hunt wears).
Hunt seems unaware that in the Old Testament it was commanded that
gold liturgical vessels and utensils be used (Ex. 25:38-40, 37:23-24,
Num. 31:50-51, 2 Chron. 24:14), and he again uses an absurdly literal
interpretation, according to which the cup of the whore is not a symbol
applying to the single city of Rome, but a collection of thousands
of actual cups used in thousands of cities throughout the world.
Not surprisingly, Hunt does not attempt to interpret the cup's contents
("abominations and filthiness of her fornication"). The
abominations and fornications the whore committed are either spiritual
adultery (to which Hunt has already alluded), unholy political alliances
(ditto), or the persecution of Christian martyrs (see 17:6, 18:6).
They have nothing to do with the wine (and later the blood of Christ)
found in Catholic chalices.
Finally, Hunt does not even use the rest of the book of Revelation
to help him interpret the whore's cup. Elsewhere we are told that
it is the cup of God's wrath (Rev. 14:10, 16:9). God mixes his wrath
in the whore's cup, "mix[ing] a double draught for her in the
cup she mixed" (Rev. 18:6). Again, this has nothing to do with
Eucharistic chalices, and when interpreted in context fits either
pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem.
Perhaps for good measure, Hunt devotes a few words to the Church's
supposed wealth, which he claims to have been "acquired by confiscating
property of the Inquisitions' pitiful victims . . . the sale of salvation
. . . [t]he wealthy often leav[ing] a fortune for Masses to be said
for their salvation after their death . . . corrupt banking practices,
laundering of drug money, trading in counterfeit securities, and dealings
with the Mafia." This is not even good ad hominem reasoning,
since it displays an appalling lack of understanding of Catholic theology--salvation
cannot be sold, and Masses for the dead do not save them--as well
as laughably inaccurate historical claims.
This examination of Dave Hunt's arguments concludes next month.
James Akin is a contributing editor to This Rock.
|
