Harlot (πόρνη, masc. πόρνος)
The RV [Note: V Revised Version.] has dropped the words whore and whoremonger which the AV [Note: V Authorized Version.] used interchangeably with ‘harlot’ and ‘fornicator’ to translate the Gr. words πόρνη and πόρνος.
1. The word πόρνη is used in two passages (Hebrews 11:31, James 2:25) to describe Rahab. This Rahab is mentioned (Matthew 1:5) in the genealogy of Jesus; and although, as Calvin says (on Hebrews 11:31), the term ‘harlot’ is applied only to her former life (‘ad anteactam vitam referri certum est’), yet difficulty was early felt as to the propriety of giving her such an honoured position as she has in the NT.
Theophylact in the 12th cent. expressed doubt as to the correctness of identifying her with the Rahab of Joshua 2:1 (‘There are some who think that Rachab was that Rahab the harlot who received the spies of Joshua the son of Nave’ [ Enarratio in Matthew 1:5). He has been followed in this by others, notably the Dutch professor, G. Outhov (‘Dissertatio de Raab et Rachab,’ in Bibl. hist. -phil. -theol. Bremensis, Bremen and Amsterdam, 1719-25, class iii. p. 438), C. T. Kuinoel (Nov. Test. lib. hist., Grœce, London, 1835, i. 2), and H. Olshausen (Com. on Gospels and Acts 2, Eng. tr. [Note: r. translated, translation.], Edinburgh, 1852-54, in loc.). Valpy also contends that the two cannot he the same (Greek Testament, London, 1836, i. 4). There is no reason, however, for doubting that the two are identical. Jewish tradition makes the identification, although her entrance into the Israelitish community is variously related (See John Lightfoot, Horœ Hebraicœ, ed. Gandell, Oxford, 1859, ii. 11, for details).
Various reasons have been suggested for Rahab’s inclusion among the Saviour’s forbears (cf. also Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba). Grotius suggests that it is a proludium of the gospel of Him who saved idolaters and criminals; Wetstein, that it might meet Jewish objections to Mary’s position-and this seems most likely.
There have been attempts also to weaken the force of πόρνη as applied to her. Josephus (Ant. v. i. 2) speaks of her house as a καταγώγιον. She is described as an inn keeper in the Targum on Joshua 2:1 - פונרקיתא (πανδοκεύτρια). In the NT also in some texts of Heb. (א 1) she is so described, and in Clem. Rom. (Ep. ad Cor . i. 12) various readings show a tendency towards softening down πόρνη (See J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ‘Clem. Rom.,’ ii. [1890] 46ff.). The term, however, is really used in the ordinary sense, and has to be so understood.
In Hebrews 11:31 Rahab has a place in the catalogue of the heroes of faith; while in James 2:25 she is referred to, beside Abraham, as an example of good works. In the description given of her by Clem. Rom. she is praised for both faith and works: ‘For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved’ (i. 12). The scarlet thread which she hung out from her house became typical, ‘showing beforehand that through the blood of the Lord there shall be redemption unto all them that believe and hope on God.’
Zahn thus describes the reason why James adopted her ease beside that of Abraham: ‘The lesson from Abraham’s example is developed to its completion and finally stated in James 2:24; then follows the example of the heathen woman Rahab, which neither substantiates what has been said before nor develops a new phase of the truth, and appears to be dragged in without purpose. It does have point, however, if referring to a number of Gentiles who had been received into the Jewish Christian Churches, and if designed to say: the example of Rahab has the same lesson for them that the history of Abraham has for his descendants’ (Introd. to the NT, Eng. tr. [Note: r. translated, translation.], 1909, i. 91). J. B. Lightfoot (loc. cit.) thinks that Clement is trying by her example to reconcile the Judaistic and Gentile parties in Corinth. The truth is that Rahab’s case was well known and might easily suggest itself to any one (along with Sarah, Abigail, and Esther, she was considered a historic beauty). To try to fix the date of James’s Epistle from this incident is precarious.
The term is not applied to any other person in the NT unless, with some, we interpret Hebrews 12:16 in such a way as to make the πόρνος descriptive of Esau. Wetstein (in loc.) gives citations to show that later Jewish tradition regarded Esau as a fornicator. The text is not decisive (See Alford, ad loc.). It is probable, however, that Damaris (‘heifer’) belonged to the class of educated Hetairai (See W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895, p. 252).
2. The attitude of the Christian Church in the Apostolic Age towards fornication is given in art. [Note: rt. article.] Fornication. In Hermas we find stress laid on the sinful thoughts, while from the few references to overt fornication it is thought that Christian morality had succeeded in showing in practice its victory over this sin. Hermas is concerned with the question of divorce, from the point of view of fornication; and his teaching is that the husband whose wife has been divorced for adultery should not re-marry, so as to give to the repentant wife an opportunity of returning, and vice versa, (Mand . IV. i. 4-8); See K. Lake in Expositor, 7th ser. x. [1910] 416ff., for an attempt to reconcile Hermas and the Gospels on divorce, and C. W. Emmet in reply (Expositor, 8th ser. i. [1911] 68ff.).
In the Apocalypse (chs. 17-19) we have the description and the doom of ‘the great harlot’-Babylon. There can be no reasonable doubt that this Babylon is Imperial Rome. That the term is allegorical is proved by 17:5, ‘On the forehead of the woman was written a mystery-Babylon the Great.’ In the OT, Tyro and Nineveh have this title of ‘harlot’ (Isaiah 23:15, Isaiah 23:17, Nahum 3:4); and even Jerusalem is so called (Isaiah 1:21). How and when the title was first applied to Rome we cannot say, but the OT would easily supply the analogy; and very likely this mysterious title would save the readers of the book from persecution, because the term would be intelligible only to the initiated (See A. Souter in Expositor, 7th ser. x. [1910] 373ff.). The term is used in the Sibylline Oracles, bk. v. lines 137-143 and 158-160 (ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902), the date of which is disputed.
The harlot of the Apocalypse has, like a highborn Roman dame, a band round her forehead. Her dress is royal purple-emblem of luxurious pride (Juv. Sat. iii. 283). Like the harlot, she has her name exhibited (See quotations in Wetstein, who refers to Juv. Sat. vi. 123 and Seneca, Controv. i. 2). She has a cup in her hand to intoxicate her paramours. J. Moffatt (in EGT [Note: GT Expositor’s Greek Testament.], ‘Revelation’) quotes a parallel from Cebes’ Tabula : ‘Do you See a woman sitting there with an inviting look, and in her hand a cup? She is called Deceit; by her power she beguiles all who enter life and makes them drink. And what is the draught? Deceit and ignorance.’ Her dress is luxurious, with gold and pearls (cf. Test. Jud. xiii. 5, where the harlot once more has pearls and gold). She rides on a wild beast, like a Bacchante; and kings are her paramours. but the harlot’s doom awaits her (17:16). The wild beast on which she rides has seven heads (the seven hills of Rome [See Wetstein, in loc. ]) and ten horns. We cannot enter here on the vexed question of the seven kings, on which the date of the book depends. The harlot is doomed. Rome shall perish in the blood that she has spilt. Her fall will cause lamentation among her allies, but jubilation among saints on earth and angels in heaven.
The language in which the harlot’s doom is described by the seer has been criticized as un-christian. ‘He that takes delight in such fancies is no whit better than he that first invented them’ (P. Wernle, The Beginnings of Christianity, Eng. tr. [Note: r. translated, translation.], i. [1903] 370). but the downfall of ὕ βρις in a State or individual eased the conscience in the ancient world, and here it vindicated the existence of a righteous God who avenged the slaughter of His saints. The language must not be interpreted apart from the situation.
Literature.-For Commentaries on the Apocalypse See J. Moffatt in EGT [Note: GT Expositor’s Greek Testament.], ‘Revelation,’ 1910; A. B. Swete (2 1907); H. J. Holtzmann (in Hand-Commentar, Tübingen, 1908); W. Bousset (6 Göttingen, 1906). For Rahab See J. B. Mayor, Epistle of James 3, 1910; A. Martin, Winning the Soul, 1897, p. 47.
Donald Mackenzie.
HAR-MAGEDON (RV [Note: V Revised Version.]; Armageddon AV [Note: V Authorized Version.])
According to Revelation 16:16 this is the name in Heb. of the scene of ‘the war of the great day of God, the Almighty’ (v. 14), against whom the three unclean spirits (v. 13) have gathered together ‘the kings of the whole world’ (v. 14). There are variations in the form of the name in the Gr. texts and very different interpretations of its meaning, but if Ἅ ρ Μαγεδών is accepted as the correct form, the most satisfactory explanation is that which takes it to mean ‘the mount of Megiddo’ (Ἅ ρ = Heb. הַר ‘a mountain’). by its geographical conformation and strategical situation the plain of Megiddo was better suited than any other place in the Holy Land to be the arena of a great battle, and the historical memories that gathered round it would fill the name with suggestion for the readers of the Apocalypse. The primary reference, no doubt, would be to Israel’s victory ‘by the waters of Megiddo’ over the kings of Canaan (Judges 5:19), which might be taken as typical of the triumph of God and His Kingdom over the hostile world-powers; but the defeat and death of Saul and Jonathan at the eastern extremity of the plain (1 S 31:1), the disastrous struggle of Josiah on the same field against Pharaohnecoh (2 K 23:29, 2 Chronicles 35:22), and Zechariah’s reference to ‘the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon’ (Zechariah 12:11), would heighten the suggestion of a great day of overthrow and destruction. The chief objections offered to this interpretation are that a mountain is an unsuitable battlefield, and that the historical battles are described as taking place ‘by the waters of Megiddo’ (Judges 5:19) or ‘in the valley of Megiddo’ (2 Chronicles 35:22). Against this, however, must be set the statements that Barak with his 10,000 men ‘went down from mount Tabor’ to meet Sisera (Judges 4:14), that Zebulun and Naphtali ‘jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field’ (5:18), and that Saul and Jonathan fell ‘in mount Gilboa’ (1 S 31:1, 8; cf. 2 S 1:21). And the place given to ‘the mountains of Israel’ in Ezekiel’s prophecy of the destruction of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38:8, Ezekiel 38:21; Ezekiel 39:2, Ezekiel 39:4, Ezekiel 39:17), to which the Apocalyptist subsequently refers in his description of the final overthrow of Satan and his hosts (Revelation 20:8), may have served to confirm the idea that a mountain would be the scene of ‘the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.’
Of recent years considerable support has been given to the view, first propounded by Gunkel (Schöpfung und Chaos, 268), that ‘Har-Magedon’ preserves the name of the place where in the Babylonian creation-myth the dragon Tiämat was overthrown by Marduk, the passage Revelation 16:13-16 being presumably a fragment from some Jewish apocalypse in which the Babylonian mythology had been adapted to an eschatological interest. This theory, however, rests upon grounds that are very speculative, and even its supporters admit that the author of the Apocalypse would be ignorant of the mythological origin of the name, and would probably understand it to mean ‘the mountain of Megiddo.’
Literature.-The artt. [Note: rtt. articles.] ‘Har-Magedon’ in HDB [Note: DB Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible (5 vols.).] and ‘Armageddon’ in EBi [Note: Bi EncyclopAEdia Biblica.]; J. Moffatt, EGT [Note: GT Expositor’s Greek Testament.], ‘Ravelation,’ 1910; H. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, 1895.
J. C. Lambert.