Harlot City--Rome or Jerusalem?

[Journeyman]

I am currently reading Scott Hahn’s book, The Lamb’s Supper . In the book, Dr. Hahn says that the “great city” and the “harlot city” in Revelation is Jerusalem. But when I look at the footnotes for the NAB edition that I am using, the footnotes consistently refer to this city as being Rome.

In your opinion, is Rome or Jerusalem the harlot city? Why?

 

[ralphinal]

Jerusalem.

First, John would have seen Jerusalem as the city that killed the prophets and killed Jesus. Second, it sits on seven hills. Third, if Rome is Babylon in the New Testament, then the Whore of Babylon would be the city that sold out to Rome: Jerusalem. Jerusalem had long since lost its independence and its own “virtue” so to speak.

The problem is that with so many things in Revelation, more than one answer is possible. If you looked hard enough, a modern city, like San Francisco, might fit the decription as well. That is an example, I do not know if it does.

 

[Charles]

I read The Lamb’s Supper a couple years ago but I must have forgotten he had said that. I had always been under the impression that the city referred to was Rome, however, journeyman makes a good point that Jerusalem would have been seen as the city where the prophets were killed.

Guess I’ll be reading Hahn’s book again!

 

[Journeyman]

I found this written by Jimmy Akin at catholic.com/library/false_profit.asp —“”It strikes me as more likely, however, that it isn’t Rome at all. The fact that the harlot is seated on the Beast does not tell us how the city that the harlot represents is physically situated. It depicts her alliance with Rome. The Beast is indeed pagan Rome, but the city allied with it in the persecution of Christians is none other than Jerusalem. Thus Revelation elsewhere identifies “the great city” as one “allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord * was crucified” (Rev. 11:8). Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, which has a history of persecuting the prophets. Thus, in prophetic passages, it receives symbolic names of evil places such as Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon. It is even called a harlot (cf. Is. 1:1, 21). Revelation notes that “in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth” (Rev. 18:24). Jerusalem—unlike Rome—was famous for slaying the prophets (cf. Matt. 23:37).”

Now, not that Dr. Hahn and Jimmy Akin know everything (although I think Jimmy knows almost everything about everything ) but it seems odd that the NAB would say that the city was Rome.*

 

[bengal_fan]

ralphinal:

Jerusalem.

First, John would have seen Jerusalem as the city that killed the prophets and killed Jesus. Second, it sits on seven hills.

actually, rome sits on 7 hills (i’m not sure about jerusalem but i’ll take your word for it). cincinnati, oh sits on 7 hills also could this mean that cincinnati could some day be the beast and rule the world? it’s tempting to hope that it could be a prophecy that the bengals will win the super bowl. a bengal tiger is a “beast” in a city on 7 hills…

 

[ralphinal]

bengal_fan:

actually, rome sits on 7 hills (i’m not sure about jerusalem but i’ll take your word for it). cincinnati, oh sits on 7 hills also could this mean that cincinnati could some day be the beast and rule the world? it’s tempting to hope that it could be a prophecy that the bengals will win the super bowl. a bengal tiger is a “beast” in a city on 7 hills…

Sorry. my brain was in defend faith mode. Rome does sit on seven hills, but the Vatican is on an eighth hill on the other side of the river. Your point about Cincinnati is exactly right. Perhaps Jerry Springer is the antichrist?

 

[Fidelis]

Journeyman:

I am currently reading Scott Hahn’s book, The Lamb’s Supper . In the book, Dr. Hahn says that the “great city” and the “harlot city” in Revelation is Jerusalem. But when I look at the footnotes for the NAB edition that I am using, the footnotes consistently refer to this city as being Rome.

Scholars that tend to be modernist (like the editors of the NAB) start with the assumption that the writers of the Bible did not prophesy the fall of Jerusalem which figures prominently in the Book of Revelation. They assume that they wrote about it after the fact to seem like it was prophesied. Thus, they give the book a dating well after Jerusalem’s fall in 70 AD. In this context, they surmise, the book would be describing the persecutions of Christians by Rome at the end of the 1st century, thus the designation of Rome as the harlot, which makes sense.

If you take the prophecies for what they are, the way the Church has always understood them, it was written before Jerusalem’s fall and the persecutions are from the Jewish leaders in cahoots with the Romans. The Book of Revelation thus predicts the evil of that city and it’s destruction. Makes better sense, IMHO.

Again, modernist view: Post-70 AD Rome is the harlot.
Tradtional view: Pre- 70 AD Jerusalem is the harlot.

In addition to his book, Scott Hahn has a great series of tapes on the Book of Revelation where he goes much more in depth. Highly recommended.