Who Is the Harlot in Revelation?
Is she really the Roman Catholic Church?
The harlot and Babylon in Revelation 17–18 unite covenant infidelity, political power, luxury commerce and persecution; they first evoke imperial Rome and warn every later system that displaces Christ.
Is she really the Roman Catholic Church?
- 01Imperial Rome is a common first-century referent, alongside idealist and futurist readings.
- 02Reformation identification of the papacy had historical reasons but cannot exhaust the symbol or condemn all Catholics.
- 03Xiaoyang proposes a cross-denominational official church that trades fidelity to Christ for power, wealth and security.
- 04Its leading marks are alliance with rulers, great luxury and persecution of Christ’s faithful witnesses.
- 05His distinctions among the harlot, scarlet beast, sea beast and great city—and America as a possible prototype—are inferences, not explicit text.
- 06The warning should provoke self-examination, not merely labels: does the Church place institutions or safety above Jesus Christ?
Read the in-depth version
A religious, political, economic and persecuting image
Revelation 17 portrays a woman clothed in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold and jewels, allied with kings and drunk with the blood of Jesus’ witnesses. Chapter 18 connects Babylon with merchants, shipping, luxury and global trade. This is a system, not merely a private sinner.
Major interpretations
Many scholars see first-century Rome as the primary historical referent: an imperial order that ruled nations, demanded civic-religious loyalty and persecuted Christians. Idealist readings extend Babylon to every anti-God world system; futurists expect a fuller end-time religious-political order; a minority have proposed ancient Jerusalem or other referents.
Why Protestants identified the Catholic Church
After the Reformation, many historicist Protestants identified the papacy with the harlot because church structures had accumulated wealth, political influence and coercive power. The historical resemblance deserves examination, but it cannot prove that the entire symbol is exhausted by Roman Catholicism or condemn all Catholics.
A historical form rather than the whole fulfilment?
Xiaoyang thinks early Protestants noticed real Babylonian traits but saw them too early and too narrowly. He speculates that an end-time harlot could be an integrated official system spanning Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox institutions. This concerns power structures, not every believer, and is not a mainstream conclusion.
The inverse image of the Bride
The Bride belongs faithfully to the Lamb; the harlot trades covenant loyalty for kings, wealth and power. Like prophetic accusations of Israel’s spiritual adultery, the image is frightening precisely because she may retain the appearance of belonging to God while relying on the world.
First trait: alliance with power
Political rulers seek religious legitimacy and constituencies; religious institutions seek protection, law, funding and influence. Cooperation is not automatically adultery. The issue is whether the Church sacrifices truth and allegiance to Christ for power and security.
Second trait: luxury and wealth
Purple, scarlet, gold, jewels and global commerce depict enormous resources. Money, scale and technology are not sins by themselves. They become Babylonian when institutional survival, status and brand matter more than fidelity to Jesus.
Third trait: persecution of the saints
The harlot is drunk with the saints’ blood. She may still speak of Jesus, Scripture, love, unity and revival while calling dissenters extremist, divisive or dangerous. The hardest deception may be a Christian-looking system suppressing those who remain loyal to Christ.
She may not look like a cult
Christian unity can be good. The decisive question is its centre. If maintaining institutional unity requires silence about Christ, sin, repentance and non-negotiable truth, unity becomes a Babel-like uniformity rather than unity in Christ.
Are the sea beast and scarlet beast identical?
Many interpreters see the same seven-headed, ten-horned beast in different scenes. Xiaoyang distinguishes related variants: Revelation 13’s sea beast as a false-messianic religious empire, and Revelation 17’s scarlet beast as a secular political alliance. This is his disputed model. The later destruction of the harlot by the horns depicts political power consuming religion after using it.
The harlot and the great city
Revelation 17 identifies the woman with the great city, while chapter 18 expands its commercial and urban reach. Xiaoyang calls the harlot Babylon’s religious form and the city its urban form. This is an explanatory distinction, not Scripture’s formal terminology.
Babylon as a human-made civilisation
From Cain’s city to Babel, Babylon can signify systems built through cities, finance, technology, politics, religion and culture to create security without God. The tools are not evil in themselves; the danger is an order that no longer needs Jesus as its centre.
Could America be a modern prototype?
Xiaoyang notes America’s Christian history, global politics, military reach, finance, culture and urban networks and therefore treats it as one possible prototype. Scripture does not name the United States as Babylon, and no nation or people may be collectively condemned on this inference.
Two harvests and Babylon
Revelation 14 announces Babylon’s fall before chapters 17–18 and depicts grain harvested before grapes enter the winepress. Xiaoyang relates the grain to mature overcomers, resurrection, rapture and the glass sea, and the grapes to corruption matured for judgment. This linkage is his eschatological synthesis.
Denominational names cannot guarantee direction
Evangelical, Charismatic, Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox and independent labels do not immunise a church. The question is whether it matures as a Bride faithful to the Lamb or lets politics, wealth, organisation and acceptance displace Christ.
Do not only ask, “Who is the harlot?”
Guessing Catholicism, America or a global church body can keep the warning pointed at others. Churches should ask whether political influence outranks Christ, platforms secure their existence, organisational loyalty precedes truth, or leaders imply that leaving their institution means leaving God.
Avoid simplistic labels
Government cooperation, wealth, size, technology and ecumenical dialogue do not automatically identify the harlot. Revelation asks whom the institution serves. Discernment follows enduring allegiance and fruit, not a single outward feature.
The test of “normal Christianity”
If the final harlot is wealthy, official, international and fluent in Jesus-language, the difficult test may be standing with Christ when the world calls her system normal Christianity. She need not demand denial of Jesus—only that he be subordinated to institution, security, peace or unity.
Leaving Babylon begins inwardly
Revelation 18 calls God’s people out. Xiaoyang first applies this inwardly: do not make church systems, state power, wealth, technology or approval one’s final security. He speculates that concrete end-time control may later require physical departure, but this is not a present command for every Christian to abandon cities.
Matthew 24 and concrete departure
Jesus’ instruction to flee in Judea has a specific local context and cannot become a universal retreat formula. Xiaoyang draws a principle: leave Babylon inwardly now and be willing to bear practical costs if a system later demands betrayal of Christ. Real decisions still require attention to circumstances, safety and responsibility.
Institution or Jesus?
The warning is not permission for denominational hatred or political guessing. It exposes religion that preserves Jesus’ name while placing him beneath the system. The practical question is whether, if institution, security and wealth conflict with Jesus, the believer will choose the Lamb.
Frequently asked questions
Is the harlot simply the Roman Catholic Church?
No conclusion that narrow is required. The identification has Reformation history, while many scholars first see imperial Rome and a wider imperial system. Revelation does not condemn all Catholics.
What are the harlot’s clearest traits?
Alliance with rulers, extravagant wealth and persecution of faithful witnesses. No single trait is enough to condemn a present group.
What does Xiaoyang mean by an official church?
A speculative future cross-denominational power structure, not all existing Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox believers and not an explicit biblical identification.
Is America Babylon the Great?
Scripture does not say so. Xiaoyang treats it only as a possible prototype with several matching global features.
Does wealth, technology or government cooperation make a church the harlot?
No. The question is whether resources become masters and whether fidelity to Christ is sacrificed for power, security or image.
Should Christians leave cities and institutions now?
No general command follows. The author first calls for inward freedom from dependence; any future concrete departure would require real circumstances and responsible discernment.