REV. 12:1 For My protestant friends

[Will_Pick]

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: KJB1611

What is the protestant interpreatation of this verse and who is the woman ?

 

[BrianH]

There are quite a few threads on this already.
The woman symbolizes Israel.
Brian

 

[Della]

BrianH:

There are quite a few threads on this already.

So why respond? :bounce:

The woman symbolizes Israel.
Brian

Certainly it can be interpreted that way, and has been. But, it is much more likely that it symbolizes the Christians of the time who were undergoing persecution from Rome throughout the Roman Empire, which is the primary interpretation when we take into consideration the overall theme of Revelation.

However, secondary interpretations are also valid, and seeing the woman of 12:1 as Mary may not be the primary interpretation, but it does match the requirements for secondary interpretations because it describes much that Mary represents (the Church, as well as her place as the unique Mother of God (Theotokos).

That some people don’t want to see Mary in this passage out of bias or some need to negate Catholic teaching about her, really has no bearing on proper interpretation at all.

 

[BrianH]

So why respond? :bounce:

Because I am a nice person and it would rude not to of course

 

[sadie2723]

Will Pick:

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: KJB1611

What is the protestant interpreatation of this verse and who is the woman ?

I think it is Mary. Makes sense to me.

 

[Jennifer123]

Will Pick:

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: KJB1611

What is the protestant interpreatation of this verse and who is the woman ?

Just FYI from my “library”: In CAtholic Scripture Study, CSS, the authors note that this chapter makes use of “typology”, where John sees OT images like the Ark of the Covenant pointing to NT realities like Mary.

Rev 11:19"Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the** ark of his covenant ** was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail."

Rev 12:1-2"And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
2: **she was with child ** and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery."

Mary is seen as the Ark since she contains inside her the male child who is to rule all the nations. This child is Christ, the Word, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest, all things contained in the OT Ark.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Most Christinans and even many Catholics think of Mary LIKE the Ark of the Covenant…but I would venture to say that Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant just as The Holy Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Passover Meal of the Jews. For the incarnate flesh of Christ is worth more than the tablets, jar of manna and the staff of Aaron.

in XT.

 

[Della]

BrianH:

Because I am a nice person and it would rude not to of course

Of course!

And for Jennifer, yes, typology is one of the ways that such images in the Bible can be interpreted. There are many, many such examples, especially throughout the OT and in writings such as Revelation, which is filled with symbols.

 

[Jennifer123]

AquinasXVI:

Most Christinans and even many Catholics think of Mary LIKE the Ark of the Covenant…but I would venture to say that Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant just as The Holy Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Passover Meal of the Jews. For the incarnate flesh of Christ is worth more than the tablets, jar of manna and the staff of Aaron.

in XT.

Absolutely.

 

[Jennifer123]

Della:

BrianH:

Of course!

And for Jennifer, yes, typology is one of the ways that such images in the Bible can be interpreted. There are many, many such examples, especially throughout the OT and in writings such as Revelation, which is filled with symbols.

Yeah - that’s my understanding too. I love how the Church puts it - The New is hidden in the Old, the Old revealed in the New. Or something like that.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Can I ask everybody one question. Why did God give us the Bible? Was it supposed to be a unifying book or a divisive book? All I see Protestants using it for is to prove their split from the Catholic church is justified. And let me add that there are 30,000 different splits. Does any Protestant really think this is okay?

I am getting to the point where I could really care less what anyone thought of any passage of the bible. I am starting to think that the bible is flawed - not in its content but in the way people think it should be used for.

From the 3rd century to around the 16th century, the Church more or less was unified (withstanding the Eastern split which is still pretty close to the Catholic Church). During these years, the bible was not readily available to most Christians. From the 16th century on, as the Bible became more available, we became more divisive. 30,000 different doctrines, etc.

 

[Jennifer123]

Pjs2ejs:

I am getting to the point where I could really care less what anyone thought of any passage of the bible. I am starting to think that the bible is flawed - not in its content but in the way people think it should be used for.

I think you are giving humans too much credit. THe bible is infalliable but people aren’t. That being said, Truth does exist. God wouldn’t leave us with no way to interpret His Truth. IMHO the question is - where does Truth lie? With your local pastor or with the Chair of Peter?

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Pjs2ejs:

Can I ask everybody one question. Why did God give us the Bible? Was it supposed to be a unifying book or a divisive book? All I see Protestants using it for is to prove their split from the Catholic church is justified. And let me add that there are 30,000 different splits. Does any Protestant really think this is okay?

I am getting to the point where I could really care less what anyone thought of any passage of the bible. I am starting to think that the bible is flawed - not in its content but in the way people think it should be used for.

From the 3rd century to around the 16th century, the Church more or less was unified (withstanding the Eastern split which is still pretty close to the Catholic Church). During these years, the bible was not readily available to most Christians. From the 16th century on, as the Bible became more available, we became more divisive. 30,000 different doctrines, etc.

Because the bible was not available to most is why christians are so happy to have one today. It wasnt available because it was not able to be mass produced. Even then only the “rich” got one or the learned. So the poor were left out. The wealthy could afford to learn to read, the poor left out. No wonder this bias of a person being too stupid to read the bible, no it was lack of opportunity.

I think if one reads through Acts you will find arguements arising from differences of interpertation. So please dont say its because we suddenly got bibles its been that way since the beggining. We are HUMAN argueing is what we do sinners all.

As a note there is alot of christians who do not have the privilage of a bible today. They just sit in the basement and share one amoung them. Perhaps they sing quietly so they are not found, but all will die or suffer if found because they believe in Jesus. Once again they have no privialge of such conversations, we must strive to remember them in the midst of our arguements.