Some mysterious Marian verses

[James224]

That’s interesting. I expect Protestants would find it weak, because they would argue (if they believed she is the Ark) that her soul is in Heaven, but not her body, and they would say that this could fulfill Rev. 11:19 and 12:1 as well.

Interesting thoughts. I hadn’t thought about how directly it blends the events of the first Adam and Eve with the events of the Second Adam and Eve. I’ll want to think more on this.

That is a good point. I hadn’t thought of that one, of how the Rev. 12 “woman’s seed” can only refer directly to the Virgin Birth and the Messianic prophecy of Gen. 3:15. I knew this was a reflection on Gen. 3:15, but I didn’t notice the reference to a “woman’s seed,” in Rev. 12. I believe Gen. 3:15 is the only other place in the Bible where it describes a woman’s seed. It is a direct reference to the Virgin Birth, for in this birth is the only place where the seed belongs to the woman and not to a man. Therefore you’re right, Rev. 12’s reference to the “woman’s seed” can only refer to the Virgin Birth.

I’m hoping to write a book on Marian typology. I’ll definitely include this point you made, if I get around to writing it.

Thank-you for enlightening me on this! I very much appreciate it .

Praise God! I’ll give you a couple of other things: Regarding the New Eve, In Gen 3, “Woman” is mentioned 8 times and in Apoc 12 it is mentioned 8 times. At the foot of the cross in John 19, Jesus, while on the cross refers to His mother as “Woman”. Why? Bishop Sheen says at the cross is a wedding? It’s a wedding between the new adam and the new eve and the first offspring in this mystical marriage is the apostle John. There is much more. Maybe I’ll pass it on in the near future.

 

[Mathetes2010]

I apologize for my delay in posting. Hopefully work will permit me to devout more time to this forum.

At any rate, let’s now turn our attention to the concern about the “labor pains” of the woman. However, before looking at this from a Catholic perspective, let’s start from the Protestant view. First off, Protestants in general do not believe in a special birth of Christ although they do believe in a special conception of Christ. In Protestant theology, Mary bore Christ as any ordinary mother bears their ordinary child (i.e. with the issuance of blood, labor pains, etc.). Consequently, from their theological perspective, the “labor pains” is not a reason to invalidate the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12.

As correctly mentioned in previous posts, the Catholic Church has not defined as dogma a miraculous birth of Christ without labor pains. Reflecting on this topic, I could not positively say one way or the other that Mary had or did not have labor pains in fear of teaching error. Notwithstanding, I have decided to summarize below some pro’s and con’s concerning this belief which is not intended to be exhaustive.

With that said, if Mary did suffer some form of labor pains, then this is a non-issue in regards to Revelation 12. If Mary did not suffer these pains, then we must seek to understand what the pains represent.

As mentioned before, I leave the answer with God’s Church as the issue appears to be pretty complex. The only thing I can do is bring to light facts bearing upon this belief. After reviewing this subject, I will provide an answer that should be satisfying both Scripturally and in keeping with Church teaching regarding the labor pains of Revelation 12.

The arguments against labor pains and a special birth can be summarized as follows:

1. Mary is the Immaculate Conception and perpetually sinless [de fide from Ineffabilis Deus and also Council of Trent, Session V, Canon 6; Luke 1:28] and as such she is exempt from the curse of Genesis 3:16.
2. Mary is also perpetually virgin—before, during, and after the birth of Christ [Pope Martin I at the Lateran Synod of 649 A.D.; Isaiah 7:14]. It is difficult to imagine that if Mary gave birth as a virgin as the Church teaches that she suffered through labor pains.
3. As Mary conceived Jesus miraculously she also gave birth to Him in the same way. In other words, the same way He came into her womb he came out (supernatural and without pain). This has support from the majority of Fathers (too numerous to cite), Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Question 35, Article 6), and the Catechism of Trent.
4. Pope Hormisdas taught that “the Son of God became Son of man, born in time in the manner of a man, opening his mother’s womb to birth [cf. Lk 2:23], and through God’s power, not dissolving his mother’s virginity" (DS 368). Although most Father’s taught that Jesus did not open the womb, this Pope believed He did while at the same time holding to Mary’s intact integrity.
5. Pope Leo the Great taught a “miraculous birth” as did Pope Pius XII (Mystici Corporis).
6. “And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God” (Luke 1:35). This literal translation follows the Greek wording closely and is the most natural reading of the text. It implies that the Child would be born in a holy way. Some of the Church Fathers used this verse as evidence for a special birth of Jesus.
7. Although Luke 2:22-30 may imply that Mary’s womb was opened and discusses the presentation of the Child, when compared to Leviticus 12:8, it omits any reference to the Mother’s uncleanness implying that in Mary’s case there was none. Hence no labor pains. This is also the case with our next verse.
8. John 1:12-14: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name; who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.” Although all the Greek MSS of the fourth and fifth centuries read this way, the original Gospel was probably written by John in reference to Jesus (that is in the singular). This is confirmed by the fact that all quotations made in reference to the passage dating before 300 A.D. from the Church Fathers contain the passage as follows: “But as many as received Him, he gave to them authority to become children of God, to those believing in his name, who was not born of human bloods, nor of the urge of the flesh, or the will of man but who was begotten of God.” Another telling sign that the original version was in the singular is because, wherever John refers to Christians being “born” of God, the word is always found in the perfect tense. However, in this instance, “gennasthai” the aorist form is used. In 1 John 5:18, we see this very point. John uses the perfect tense of “born” for believers while using the aorist form for Jesus. When viewed in the singular mode, one can see a clear reference by John to the Virgin Birth of Jesus as well as a possible miraculous birth. The Greek word for “blood” in this passage is plural (literally “bloods”). This may be a reference to Mary’s immaculate, painless, and intact birth of Jesus. The plural form of “blood” in both Hebrew and Greek was commonly used for an issuance of blood after an act of violence. However, in certain cases, such as this one, the plural form was used in reference to menstruation and childbirth which rendered a woman unclean. Leviticus 12:4-7 uses damim (bloods—Hebrew plural) in this way. What John may be revealing here is that Mary did not have a normal birth and did not become unclean in giving birth to Jesus.

continued in the next post…

 

[Mathetes2010]

The arguments in favor of a natural birth with labor pains are:

1. Genesis 3:16 informs us that labor pains will be “greatly multiplied” as a punishment for sin. Implied in this is that labor pains (contractions) where originally intended as a natural course of events during birth yet in a milder form prior to the Fall.
2. Mary, the Theotokos (de fide from the Council of Ephesus), is the Mother of God not only because she carried Jesus in her womb but because she gave birth to Him. Jesus was “born of a woman, born under the Law” which may imply, unlike His conception, that He was born in like manner to all who are born under the Law (Galatians 4:4).
3. Mary was said to give birth with no hint of a supernatural birth (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7).
4. Luke 2:21-23 may imply that Jesus “opened the womb,” which in turn implies a natural birth.

All in all to this complex issue, the Church only requires of us that we uphold both Mary’s perpetual virginity and true motherhood:

1. This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother.(288) This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it….63. By reason of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ.(18*) For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. (19*) By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God’s messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren,(299) namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 57 & 63, Vatican Council II).

On the next post, for those that uphold a special birth with no labor pains of Jesus, I will provide an explanation that hopefully meets the requirement of the Church and is easily understandable.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thanks for your posts, Mathetes!

1. Mary was said to give birth with no hint of a supernatural birth (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7).

Luke 2:7 actually does imply a birth without birth pangs, for the scripture says that after she had given birth, Mary put the child in the manger. If she had just gone through painful labor, Joseph would have been very irresponsible to make his exhausted wife, who had just gone through enormous suffering, get up, stagger over to the manger and put the child in, rather than doing it himself.

In all hospital situations, the doctor or nurse takes the child from the woman directly after the birth. In less developed cultures, the midwife does. The helper doesn’t stand by and let the mother who has just given birth do all the immediately subsequent childcare herself.

Would you care to read my post 36 on page 3? I wrote about the birth pangs of the woman in Rev. 12 in that post, and I think you might find it interesting, whether you agree or not.

An additional argument to the mystical interpretation of this verse that I propose in post 36 is that it would be rather meaningless to present the woman’s birth pangs if they were really nothing more than physical birth pangs. Birth pangs are a far smaller form of suffering than the sword that pierced Mary’s heart was, and if Mary experienced them, they would be far less important in the history of salvation than were her sufferings as New Eve at the foot of the Cross, for the redemption of humanity.

Rev. 12 talks about things of great importance, highlighting big events in salvation history. It doesn’t waste time grabbing insignificant details and throwing them into the drama of its narrative. So for the chapter to mention Mary’s physical birth pangs but not Mary’s suffering at the Cross would seem strange.

Anyway, I talked more on this in post 36.

 

[Mathetes2010]

Thanks for your posts, Mathetes!

Luke 2:7 actually does imply a birth without birth pangs, for the scripture says that after she had given birth, Mary put the child in the manger. If she had just gone through painful labor, Joseph would have been very irresponsible to make his exhausted wife, who had just gone through enormous suffering, get up, stagger over to the manger and put the child in, rather than doing it himself.

In all hospital situations, the doctor or nurse takes the child from the woman directly after the birth. In less developed cultures, the midwife does. The helper doesn’t stand by and let the mother who has just given birth do all the immediately subsequent childcare herself.

Would you care to read my post 36 on page 3? I wrote about the birth pangs of the woman in Rev. 12 in that post, and I think you might find it interesting, whether you agree or not.

An additional argument to the mystical interpretation of this verse that I propose in post 36 is that it would be rather meaningless to present the woman’s birth pangs if they were really nothing more than physical birth pangs. Birth pangs are a far smaller form of suffering than the sword that pierced Mary’s heart was, and if Mary experienced them, they would be far less important in the history of salvation than were her sufferings as New Eve at the foot of the Cross, for the redemption of humanity.

Rev. 12 talks about things of great importance, highlighting big events in salvation history. It doesn’t waste time grabbing insignificant details and throwing them into the drama of its narrative. So for the chapter to mention Mary’s physical birth pangs but not Mary’s suffering at the Cross would seem strange.

Anyway, I talked more on this in post 36.

I actually hold to the belief because it is found in our Catholic Liturgies. Additionally, with such a strong consensus among the Fathers it simply cannot be ignored. In the past posts I was attempting to summarize some points that others use in favor of labor pains. I was not endorsing the view. I did not make the lists exhaustive as there are many other arguments made both pro and con. This would be a seemingly never ending task.

In regards to Luke 2:7, some point out that here Scripture states that “she brought forth” in the normal sense without any explicit remarks of the Gospel writer about a special birth and this would be the place to mention it (see Luke 1:57). However, as you mentioned previously it is Mary that performs the tasks of a midwife although Joseph is present. I agree that there is some implication of a special birth here.

In regards to the Fathers, some Catholics point out that they at times came to the wrong conclusions because they could not reconcile two seemingly opposing truths (as the case with the Immaculate Conception). In this respect, the Fathers would be attesting to a “special birth” of Christ to safeguard the perpetual virginity of Mary (especially in partu). In other words, how could Mary remain a virgin yet give birth in the normal way? The Fathers predominantly used Isaiah 66:7, Ezekiel 44:1-3, Songs 4:12, and Luke 2:7 to explain the special birth of Christ.

I’ll have to give more thought to this but it appears that the construct in Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Revelation 12:5, and 12:13 all have “brought forth” in the aorist, active, indicative form while the rest of the NT uses other forms. I’m not sure if there’s any significance at this point.

At any rate, the lists are not exhaustive, they do not all contain my personal views but I did want everyone to be aware that arguments are made on both sides of the table. And I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts so keep them coming.

In the Pauline Liturgy is found the following prayer used in the Mass for Mary at the foot of the Cross which summarizes quite nicely your thoughts of Revelation 12 and John 19:26:

In your divine wisdom, you planned the redemption of the human race, and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church.

 

[beehumble]

Imho there is another understanding of the birth pains of the Woman in Revelation, which also sheds light on this entire passage.

A problem in understanding Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) is that Jesus, in answering the question ‘when will be the end of the age’, actually interweaves things of the fulfillment of both the Old Covenant (ends and then begins the New Covenant) and the fulfillment of the New (at the end of the present world.)

Likewise, Revelation 12 interweaves things of the birth of the New Covenant and the birth of the next age (the Second Coming of Jesus) – a new heaven and a new earth, thus making it seem confusing.

In Mathew 24:5-8, Jesus says, For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and they will deceive many. You will hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for these things must happen, but it will not yet be the end.
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be famines and earthquakes from place to place. All these are the beginning of the labor pains.

A footnote in the NAB version says this about the labor pains:
The labor pains: the tribulations leading up to the end of the age are compared to the pains of a woman about to give birth. There is much attestation for rabbinic use of the phrase “the woes (or birth pains) of the Messiah” after the New Testament period, but in at least one instance it is attributed to a rabbi who lived in the late first century A.D. In this Jewish usage it meant the distress of the time preceding the coming of the Messiah; here, the labor pains precede the coming of the Son of Man in glory.

In Revelation 12:1-2 we read, * A great sign appeared in the sky, 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 wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. *

While many connect this passage to the first coming of Jesus, it actually fits better with His second coming (which I believe is imminent.) The great sign in the sky fits closely with Our Lady of Fatima (and another, unmentionable, apparition).

In Rev 12:6, it says, “The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.”

And in Rev 12:13-14 it says, “When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a time, times, and a half-time.”

“Twelve hundred and sixty days” and “time, times and a half-time” (which both mean the same length of time) are referenced in other places in Rev and also in Daniel as that “short time” given to Satan immediately preceding the Last Day, after the “thousand-year” (symbolic 1000 years, not literal 1000 years) reign known as the Age of the Church.
So this passage is telling us about the first coming AND the second coming, just as Matthew 24, which also refers to birth pains, does. As St. Louis de Montfort and other holy mystics throughout the ages have said, in the end times Mary will battle Satan on behalf of her children, and this passage refers in large part to that time (which is occurring now, I believe – we are living through this part – the “time, times and a half time” right now – this is talking about our very moment in Salvation history).

That is my interpretation. IMHO.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Part of your interpretation makes perfect sense to me, and I’m really glad you shared it! I’ll need to think more about the rest. I personally don’t think the end of the world is coming all that soon.

But I think that’s very true, what you say about the birth pangs of the woman in Rev. 12 reflecting the birth pangs of the Church as it approaches the end of the world. And these sufferings include all the different kinds of afflictions that strike the Church. I really like how you compare Rev. 12 with Matt. 24, for this really does make a good match for the reading of the woman of Rev. 12 as the Church.

None of this contradicts the interpretation of the woman of Rev. 12 representing the Virgin Mary, and the birth pangs representing her sorrows at the Passion. And the sufferings of the Church prior to the end of the age are also connected with Mary’s sufferings.

I believe you’ve really broadened my understanding, with this analysis! Thank-you!

 

[nordskoven]

Some modern apologist (pardon me for not remembering who) mentioned that St. Maximilian Kolbe’s interpretation of John’s Apocalypse RE: the “birth pangs” referenced the Blessed Virgin Mary’s being pierced with a sword of sorrow upon Christ’s birth into eternal life, His Passion.

And a priest on EWTN noted his confessor asked him to petition the Virgin Mary for her consolation. The priest said he was surprised that HE would not be comforting the Virgin Mary. The confessor said he didn’t have anything to offer the Virgin Mary.

**Virgin Immaculate, perfectly patient in enduring the sorrows willed by God, grant us perfect patience in lovingly obeying God’s will and comfort us in our affliction, all for God’s honor and glory. AMEN **

 

[jchristie5]

A humble response to a long overdue thread:- Having read a book by a catholic author - Steven Paul “Apocalypse letter by Letter”.
His determination based on an earlier book by a different author “Verse by Verse” has a more appropriate and detailed interpretation than any of the above.
But with all issues driven by this scripture - it is best to read the book oneself and hope and pray that it becomes an approved book by the Church.
My assumption is that these issues will be dealt with by the faithful clergy at the appropriate time - whenever that may be.
Kind regards
J

 

[ryanoneil]

Just as the sea beast of ch 13 represents a collective and an individual, so does the woman. It is Mary before Christ’s ascension and the Church after. The literal historical aspect of it, is the Church fleeing Jerusalem before the 3 1/2 year Jewish Roman war. Rome was persecuting the infant Church (under Nero) before Jerusalem rebelled and then the torrent of Rome’s wrath switched to the holy land (earth). Satan intended on catching the Church in Jerusalem but the Lord warned them to flee. After the war, Rome forgot about the Christians for a while but Satan used Rome war against the Church in later persecutions.

 

[mangy_dog]

I have a question for anyone here who might know the answer. This question may be obscure, a bit, so I won’t be surprised if it’s a difficult one.

In Revelation 12:6, we read that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary “fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.” This would be Mary’s flight into the desert between Israel and Egypt, where she escaped the dragon, who was seeking to “devour” the child through Herod’s killers, and remained in hiding for a time with Joseph and the Christ-child.

Thus far, the chapter seems clear enough.

But then, later in the chapter, we read of the woman making another flight into a desert.

Revelation 12

13
When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.
14
But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.
15
The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.
16
But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.
17
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.
18
It took its position on the sand of the sea.

The verses above, I fail to understand. Part of the reason for this, no doubt, is the great sketchiness on the Biblical witness as to Mary’s later life, after Jesus’ infancy. We read about her role in the Miracle at Cana and a little about her role at Golgotha. Then we read that she was present at the Ascension of Jesus and at Pentecost, praying with the believers. All these pieces of information are important, though I don’t see how they fit into the account above, if they do at all.

I’ve heard speculation that the woman being given wings like an eagle to fly into the desert is a reference to her Assumption. Maybe that is a secondary meaning, but the difficulty I have with that being a primary meaning is twofold. One is that a “desert” seems a strange way to refer to Heaven, and the second, more important, reason is that the verse appears to describe this place of protection against the devil as being a temporary respite, followed in verses 15 and 16 by more battle.

Could it be that the passage is repeating pieces of information it has already related? In this case both flights into the desert would be the flight to Egypt, and the flood pouring forth from the dragon’s mouth could be interpreted as his onslaught against her at Golgotha. The earth could be said to have swallowed up the flood by opening its mouth to release Christ (the tombstone was rolled aside), and the power of death was destroyed.

That’s just a theory. I don’t understand these verses, or the organization of the chapter, all that well. Any additional ideas or information would be appreciated!

If anyone knows if the saints have written on this part of the chapter, I’d be curious to see what they say as well.

The Theotokos and the Church here are seen as the same. This is why the passage you refer to in the Apocalypse refers to the future church that may [go into the desert] when the antichrist is manifested and persecutes the church.

To speak of Mary is to speak of the church. Both are united in the same vocation - Divine Maternity.

 

[rcjones]

The story of Judah and Tamar is a shadow of the birth of Christ. Tamar and Mary both wanted an assurance of the promised goat/scape goat.

Tamar got the Rod, Mary was told the power of God…
Tamar got the signet ring, Mary was told he will be called the son…
Tamar got Bracelets, Mary was told that the Holy Ghost would come upon her.

In Numbers we find out that an empty vessel without bracelets is unclean, so Tamar was not unclean. By extension of the shadow, Mary was not unclean either. For Jesus to remain clean in birth, there had to be divine intervention.

When Jesus touched the leprous, he did not become unclean, they became clean. How much more would the presence of Christ in the womb make Mary clean.

 

[rcjones]

I found a prophecy concerning Christ hidden in the sensus plenior:

Eze 16:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.
4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.

Jerusalem is a shadow of Jesus
Cannan - “lowly” His birth was lowly in the incarnation.
Amorite - “sayer” Hos Father “spoke” creation into existence
Hitite - “be afraid” His Mother was afraid Lu 1:30
naval - enemies The enemies of Christ were not cut off. The story of Tamar tells us that God was going to cut off the sheep when he met Mary. We were enemies of Christ who were not cut off at that time.
Washed in water - He needed no purification
Salted - rotten rags (works) He was pure.
Swaddled - mocked. At the time of his birth he was honored. It was later he was mocked.

If you mix the sensus plenior with the literal application to Jerusalem, which shouldn’t be done, one can get a picture of a miraculous birth where there was no umbilical cord at his birth. This may be the source of such rumors. But I think it would be an erroneous application of sensus plenior.

Such mixing would cause a contradiction with Luke since he clearly says that Jesus was literally swaddled. It is this literal contradiction which keeps the shadow hidden from plain view.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

the woman is the state of Israel.

 

[NotWorthy]

the woman is the state of Israel.

Well, you are 1/3 right.

 

[Aunt_Raven]

It is important to remember that the Apocalypse ( Greek meaning: “Things unveiled / to be revealed”) is a book about the future, :doh2: --things which have not yet happened.

“The woman” is the Church–and since Mary is the type / exemplar of the Church, you will notice familiar echoes of the past in the future trials of the Church (near the time of the Anti-christ), which will inevitably somewhat remind us of the persecution which saw the Holy Family flee to Egypt. As Mark Twain once said, “The past doesn’t repeat itself; but it DOES rhyme.”

This is why the Bible cannot be understood except as a self-referential whole; and you cannot understand the prophetic book of the Apocalypse without first studying the prophetic visions of the Book of Daniel :hypno: --too many forget that in the Gospel our Lord made especial mention the Prophet Daniel when asked about understanding the signs of the last days. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament; but you need the Old Testament to fully understand the New; although of course they do make sense read separately.

–The best modern explanation of the future “Woman clothed with the sun” and her anguish and and exile in the wilderness is suggested in the book “Apocalypse Letter by Letter” by Catholic layman Steven Paul, who helps the reader first understand how the language of prophecy works in the Book of Daniel, before tackling the language of the Apocalypse. :coffeeread:

There is a forum elsewhere on this Catholic Answers Website discussing this little-known but important book, and I suggest going to have a look at it. Just type the name of the book in the finder window to locate it.