Revelation 12 and Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter COPLAND_3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

COPLAND_3

Guest
I am in the process of working on a commentary of the book of Revelation, and I just finished chapter 12. I was going to wait until I got finished with the whole commentary completely before I started to give access to it because I still have lots to do, but here is chapter 12 litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Chapter+12
 
COPLAND3:
I am in the process of working on a commentary of the book of Revelation, and I just finished chapter 12. I was going to wait until I got finished with the whole commentary completely before I started to give access to it because I still have lots to do, but here is chapter 12 litteralchristianlibrary.wetp…age/Chapter+12
Click to expand...
I have heard this type of commentary before, and usually it is accompanied with a phrase similar to “this has been the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years”. I doubt that is true. I have searched for the earliest commentary on Rev 12, and found one by a fellow named Victorinus (lived from the end of the third to the beginning of the fourth century). Here’s what he says about Rev 12:1 – “1. And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth. The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.” I don’t see Mary mentioned anywhere in relation to the woman. (BTW – you can find his commentary newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm). If you go back to 11:19, you will still not find any reference to Mary. Just curious, what is your earliest, documentable reference to Mary as the woman of Rev 12?
 
I think you are assuming that I claim that the Church has unanimously taught the Marian interpretation of Rev 12 for the last 2000 years, I never hinted that, and I would be the first to point out that it is not true. I have lots of patristic resources on hand assisting me on this commentary on Revelation, and there are only a couple of Church Fathers who firmly held that it was specifically Mary, that would be Oecumenius 6th Century and Quodvultdeus 430AD while Epiphanius of Salamis 350AD had mixed emotions.

There are 3 approaches that are usually taken when interpreting the woman in Revelation 12, that is, Mary, the Church, or Israel. While chapter 12 accommodates all 3 interpetations, I believe that it is specifically talking about Mary.

Like I said, I am making good use of the Church Fathers, but I am also making good use of Papal Letters, Catechism of the Catholic Church, and some modern day theologians. Plus I am have taken the liberty to privately interpret within the guidelines of Catholic Doctrine.
 
Cachonga said:
I have heard this type of commentary before, and usually it is accompanied with a phrase similar to “this has been the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years”. I doubt that is true. I have searched for the earliest commentary on Rev 12, and found one by a fellow named Victorinus (lived from the end of the third to the beginning of the fourth century). Here’s what he says about Rev 12:1 – “1. And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth. The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.” I don’t see Mary mentioned anywhere in relation to the woman. If you go back to 11:19, you will still not find any reference to Mary. Just curious, what is your earliest, documentable reference to Mary as the woman of Rev 12?
Click to expand...
THE WOMAN OF REVELATION 12
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

“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; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. . . . he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. . . . Then the dragon was angry with the Woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev. 12:1–2, 5, 17).

There is a lot of debate about what the symbol of this Woman represents. Different aspects of the symbol point to different possible meanings for it.

Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.

The vision contains “fusion imagery,” in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).

Similarly, the priest-elders John sees around the throne (4:4) are numbered twenty-four because they are a fusion of the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus, a symbolism which occurs at the end of the book (21:12–14), where New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs.

The beast from the sea in chapter 13 is a fusion of elements from the all four of the beasts the prophet Daniel saw emerge from the sea in chapter 7 of his book.

Polyvalent symbolism, in which symbols have more than one meaning, also is part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).

The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.

Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).
 
Randy Carson:
The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Eve associated with this reference. While I don’t want to stray off topic, I am curious how this verse can be used to “prove” Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven. And since you’ve indicated it also refers to Eve, why wouldn’t it indicate that she was also bodily assumed? As for being in pain when Jesus was born, I can believe that her pain was reduced, even to the point of just being uncomfortable. I do not, however, believe that Jesus “beamed out” of her, leaving her physical virginity intact (as described in the Protevangelium of James).
 
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Eve associated with this reference. While I don’t want to stray off topic, I am curious how this verse can be used to “prove” Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven.
Click to expand...
Not by itself, Cachonga. Chapter numbers were not assigned to the bible until the 13th century, with verse numbers being added a hundred years later. My point is, verse 11:19 and verse 12:1 were one and the same verse when they were enscriptuated, whose phrases are joined by the word “and”.

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 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;

I left out chapter and verse numbers on purpose so everyone gets the idea. What makes these two concepts connect to the same thing?

“…God’s temple in heaven was opened…”
“…a great portent appeared in heaven…”

I would start with the word “in heaven”.]

ark of his covenant was seen within his temple
a woman clothed with the sun

The “ark of his covenant was seen within his temple”. :hmmm:
 
40.png
kepha1:
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 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;
Click to expand...
Sorry, I still don’t see Mary portrayed in this at all (and neither does Victorinus in his commentary). This is just one of many problems I have with the Marian dogmas. I would remind you that the Ark of the Covenant that Moses had built was modeled after the Ark in Heaven. I would suggest that, since these two Arks are related in this way, that the Ark pictured in Rev 11:19 is an actual Ark (which Moses saw and made a copy of), not a person
 
Cachonga said:
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Eve associated with this reference. While I don’t want to stray off topic, I am curious how this verse can be used to “prove” Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven.
Click to expand...
How to Argue for Mary’s Assumption
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp
And since you’ve indicated it also refers to Eve, why wouldn’t it indicate that she was also bodily assumed?
Click to expand...
This is obscure for me, too.
As for being in pain when Jesus was born, I can believe that her pain was reduced, even to the point of just being uncomfortable. I do not, however, believe that Jesus “beamed out” of her, leaving her physical virginity intact (as described in the Protevangelium of James).
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this point for the most part. I would argue that Mary’s virginity was intact since she had never had intercourse.
 
Randy Carson:
How to Argue for Mary’s Assumption
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp
Click to expand...
Fascinating study in human logic and reasoning, but nothing convincing. I will say that I do not deny that Mary could have been assumed into heaven. I am saying that I, personally, do NOT believe it, and I do not believe the “Church” has the authority to tell me I have to believe it.
Randy Carson:
I agree with you on this point for the most part. I would argue that Mary’s virginity was intact since she had never had intercourse.
Click to expand...
I believe that the “official” teaching is that she remained physically intact before, during, and after the birth. I completely deny this! I do believe she was fully virgin before Jesus was born, but her physical integrity was broken when Jesus was born (I believe this was a seal and proof that Jesus was the “seed of the woman” prophesied of in Genesis). I would also assert that there is sufficient evidence within scripture to indicate that Joseph and Mary lived as a normal, married couple. Since this is going beyond the topic of the thread, I’ll end it here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top