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.