Woman in Revelation

[CivisRomanusSum]

Hi, I was wondering about the different interpretations about the woman in the book of Revelation. Most of us Catholics point to it as proof of Mary’s coronation as Queen of Heaven and Earth, Mother of God, and having a special part in our salvation through Jesus Christ. Others, however, mostly protestants, claim that the woman was a symbol for the Church. Even my Catholic bible (Jerusalem Bible) footnotes that it is unlikely that the author intended it to be Mary, but instead, the Church.

So if there is any, what is the official Catholic interpretation? Are there any other interpretations? What is your interpretation?

Thanks.

Ave Maria!

 

[Byzman]

Both are completely acceptable interpretations. In fact…I would strongly argue that it must be both and not one or the other. Mary is the perfect symbol of the Church. When we Catholics look at Mary, we are really looking at the way the Church should model and follow and be under her bosom, for she is our Mother, just as the Church becomes our Mother.

Now, again, I would argue that the person(John) who wrote the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John intended for both interpretations to be possible. Lets take a second to examine this…

John 19:26-27 ESV
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Certainly, she, the woman, became the disciple’s mother at this moment…I think John means this literally and spiritually.

Revelation 12:17 ESV
Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Certainly, she, the woman, is the mother of her offspring who are essentially Jesus’ disciples. I think John is referring us back to his own Gospel he wrote.

For any commentary to say that Mary propably was not it the mind of the author of Revelation…I find this to be a bunch of hogwash…because I think in the Gospel of John, the author is elevating Mary to this level of motherhood. So, yes, it would have been in the minds of Christians at this time.

 

[Barbkw]

John would have seen the connection between the Church and Mary.

John was given the BVM at the foot of the cross and he was Bishop of Ephesus.

In addition, it’s said that he lived past 90 years of age.

His lifelong connection to Christ, Mary and to the Church are all considerations in Revelation.

 

[runningdude]

Both are completely acceptable interpretations. In fact…I would strongly argue that it must be both and not one or the other. Mary is the perfect symbol of the Church. When we Catholics look at Mary, we are really looking at the way the Church should model and follow and be under her bosom, for she is our Mother, just as the Church becomes our Mother.

Now, again, I would argue that the person(John) who wrote the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John intended for both interpretations to be possible. Lets take a second to examine this…

Certainly, she, the woman, became the disciple’s mother at this moment…I think John means this literally and spiritually.

Certainly, she, the woman, is the mother of her offspring who are essentially Jesus’ disciples. I think John is referring us back to his own Gospel he wrote.

For any commentary to say that Mary propably was not it the mind of the author of Revelation…I find this to be a bunch of hogwash…because I think in the Gospel of John, the author is elevating Mary to this level of motherhood. So, yes, it would have been in the minds of Christians at this time.

Two different John’s

Saint John the Evangelist, wrote the Gospel and the Epistles of John.

Sain John of Patmos, wrote the Book of Revelation.

 

[Barbkw]

usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm

The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony.

Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus.

This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom.

Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel.

Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books.

The tone of the letters to the seven churches (Rev 1:4-3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia.

It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world.

The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.

 

[Byzman]

Two different John’s

Saint John the Evangelist, wrote the Gospel and the Epistles of John.

Sain John of Patmos, wrote the Book of Revelation.

Tradition has it as it is the same man, John the Theologian, the Apostle.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, first there is the literal.

What woman in history do we know that gave birth to a child destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod? And who could this child be that “was caught up to God and His throne”?

I only know of one child who could fit this bill and that would be Jesus. Hence, the woman, first and foremost, is Mary.

OK, then there is the allegorical.

I’ve heard references that the woman represents Israel (who labored to give birth to the Messiah), as well as the Church. I’d look first to Israel, for the woman’s “children, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” can only be the Church.

Although I don’t deny Mary represents the Church (which is revealed elsewhere in patristic thinking), I think this passage more accurately portrays the “woman” as Mary and Israel.

 

[NotWorthy]

Two different John’s

Saint John the Evangelist, wrote the Gospel and the Epistles of John.

Sain John of Patmos, wrote the Book of Revelation.

Nope. Try again.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The original text had no chapters and verses so the text is continuous from 11:19 to 12:1

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. 1 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;

The original ark of the covenant was buried before the Jews went into exile in Babylon and never recovered. There is no reason to believe that it is in Heaven. One might conclude then that it is the ark of the New Covenant which is referred to here.

The original ark “contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant”. [Hebrews 9:4] That is, it contained the bread from heaven, the power of the priesthood, and the word of God. One may note that Mary contained Jesus, the substance of the Eucharist, the power of the new priesthood, and the Word of God. Thus, John maybe referring to Mary as the ark of the New Covenant in verse 11:19. [This might also imply her Assumption]

In the Old Testament, the ark led Israel’s armies into battle. Here, Mary comes forth to lead Christians in their battle.

I don’t think there is any authoritative Church teaching on these verses, and I don’t think my speculation goes against any Church teaching. I got these ideas from some good sources, but will not blame them for any misinterpretation I have added.

One should also note that visions such as this often contain several meanings. It is not a case in which to accept one interpretation necessarily means that one denies the others. She may be Mary, or Israel, or the Church or any combination of these.

 

[NotWorthy]

The original text had no chapters and verses so the text is continuous from 11:19 to 12:1 The original ark of the covenant was buried before the Jews went into exile in Babylon and never recovered. There is no reason to believe that it is in Heaven. One might conclude then that it is the ark of the New Covenant which is referred to here.

The original ark “contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant”. [Hebrews 9:4] That is, it contained the bread from heaven, the power of the priesthood, and the word of God. One may note that Mary contained Jesus, the substance of the Eucharist, the power of the new priesthood, and the Word of God. Thus, John maybe referring to Mary as the ark of the New Covenant in verse 11:19. [This might also imply her Assumption]

In the Old Testament, the ark led Israel’s armies into battle. Here, Mary comes forth to lead Christians in their battle.

I don’t think there is any authoritative Church teaching on these verses, and I don’t think my speculation goes against any Church teaching. I got these ideas from some good sources, but will not blame them for any misinterpretation I have added.

One should also note that visions such as this often contain several meanings. It is not a case in which to accept one interpretation necessarily means that one denies the others. She may be Mary, or Israel, or the Church or any combination of these.

Yes, if you compare Elizabeth’s greeting to Mary in Luke 2 (?) with the scene in which David leads the Ark to Jerusalem (I’m referring to the scene where the ark falls off the cart) and combine this with this scene in Revelation, and one can make a very strong case for Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant.

Don’t forget the imagery created in the original Greek word for “overshadowed” when considering the Shekina (Glory Cloud) overshadowing the Ark in the Old Testament (Numbers?) and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary in Luke.

 

[Nita]

… Even my Catholic bible (Jerusalem Bible) footnotes that it is unlikely that the author intended it to be Mary, but instead, the Church.

…!

I don’t think John “intended it to be” anything other than what it was – a vision he was seeing. He merely recorded what he was seeing and what he heard. He does not include in the book what he thought all the various things represented.

 

[TimothyH]

Two different John’s

Saint John the Evangelist, wrote the Gospel and the Epistles of John.

Sain John of Patmos, wrote the Book of Revelation.

Having a different author doesn’t diminish the fact that the words are there.

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm. 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. … She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. (Revelation 11:19-12:2, 12:5))

Remember that there were no chapter and verse divisions when Revelation was written. This would have been one long narrative.

It’s a more natural fit to interpret this as the birth of Jesus rather than the birth of the Church or the Gospels. I’m not saying that it doesn’t mean the Church or the Gospels but to claim that the passage refers exclusively to the birth of the Church while denying any connection to Mary and Jesus just doesn’t make sense. To deny any connection to Mary requires some level of interpretive gynastics while a marian interpretation seems like it fits naturally, withoug having to do mental gyrations or contortions.

Seriously… woman, birth, child, male, rule, God, throne… the words are right there. And the Church does have an official intepretation to the text. The Holy Church agrees with a marian interpretation.

Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is “the dwelling of God . . . with men.” (CCC 2676*)*

The Church teaches not that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant but that the Ark of the Covenant forshadows Mary. The Old Testament Ark is a hint of the realities to come while Mary is their fulfillment. Anyone who claims that the passage is exclusively about Israel, the Church, the Gospels, or a cheesburger for that matter is really working too hard when the read the Bible; they really need to just relax and read the words on the page.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t think John “intended it to be” anything other than what it was – a vision he was seeing. He merely recorded what he was seeing and what he heard. He does not include in the book what he thought all the various things represented.

To say that St. John or any other human author of scripture was simply writing down a bunch of facts or what they saw or heard ignores twenty centuries of Catholic spirituality of which St. John is preeminent.

I’m afraid Nita, that you might be a little lonely on this one. Reading the Bible with a purely analytical mindset is not the way the Early Church Father’s read the Bible, nor is it in any way, shape or form the way that it was written. They authors let the Holy Spirit Guide them, unlike some of us who are so smart with all of our iPads and such.

-Tim-

 

[Nita]

To say that St. John or any other human author of scripture was simply writing down a bunch of facts or what they saw or heard ignores twenty centuries of Catholic spirituality of which St. John is preeminent.

I’m afraid Nita, that you might be a little lonely on this one. Reading the Bible with a purely analytical mindset is not the way the Early Church Father’s read the Bible, nor is it in any way, shape or form the way that it was written. They authors let the Holy Spirit Guide them, unlike some of us who are so smart with all of our iPads and such.

-Tim-

The footnote cited by the opening poster spoke about what St. John “intended the woman to be”. I don’t know about you, but I think the Book of Revelation is St. John’s description of what he was seeing and hearing. I don’t think he intended/created/designed it’s content. (eg. “I think the Church should be included in what I’m writing, so I’ll do it symbolically, using a woman crowned with 12 stars to represent her.”)
Do you think St. John’s Revelation vision is actual - or do you think it’s just a literary device John used to present a particular message he wanted to send to the Churches?

I’m not saying St. John didn’t have thoughts about what the vision meant; I’m saying that he didn’t record his thoughts/interpretations as part of what he wrote in Revelations - or in any of his other writings.

So, can you explain to me then how anyone can know what he “intended” the meaning of the woman to be?
And how would saying Revelations is a record of what St. John heard and saw in the vision be an ignoring of 20 centuries of Catholic spirituality which resulted from this record?

 

[TimothyH]

The footnote cited by the opening poster spoke about what St. John "intended the woman to be". I don’t know about you, but I think the Book of Revelation is St. John’s description of what he was seeing and hearing. I don’t think he intended/created it’s content. eg. “I think the Church should be included in what I’m writing, so I’ll do it symbolically, using a woman crowned with 12 stars to represent her.”

I’m not saying St. John didn’t have thoughts about what the vision meant; I’m saying that he didn’t record his thoughts/interpretations as part of what he wrote in Revelations - or in any of his other writings.

So, can you explain to me then how anyone can know what he “intended” the meaning of the woman to be?
And how would saying Revelations is a record of what St. John heard and saw in the vision be an ignoring of 20 centuries of Catholic spirituality which resulted from this record?

I think it is wrong to believe that any of John’s writings are just his literal records of things he saw, heard and were shown, and that they are devoid of any spiritual insights he might have had, that’s all. At least that’s not what I get when I read it.

How many times have we been able to accurately describe dreams?

John said, “I saw a woman” but does not say “I saw Mary”. Yet Mary is clearly who he saw. He says that the woman’s son was caught up to God but does not come out and say that it is Jesus. It clearly was Jesus but why does he not come out and say it? Because dreams and visions are difficult to interpret and even more difficult to communicate. Anyone who has ever tried to discribe a dream they have had knows what I mean. Noone ever fully grasps the importance and impact the images had for the one who actually saw them.

And this is exactly the case with John. He describes what he sees but in a way which leads the reader to draw the same conclusions he has. John had to discern that the woman and her son were Jesus and Mary and he communicates that to us in a very real way, allowing us to draw those same conclusions.

Saying that John’s writing is just a literal description of what he saw is like stating that Genesis 1 and 2 are literalistic records of the creation of the universe. They are not. They are deep spiritual works full of alegory and metaphor, containing factual truth but meant to be interpreted spiritually, metaphorically and allegorically as well.

-Tim-

 

[catholic1seeks]

I love how the woman seen in Revelation ~12 reflects ALL 3 Old Testament types of Mary (It’s so coool):

Mary as the ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT
Mary as the WOMAN, the NEW EVE
Mary as the QUEEN MOTHER (denoted by the 12 stars above her head).


Her assumption is reflected in the Revelation passage, as is her Motherhood of all Christians (“the rest of her offspring…”).

Some non-Catholics say we read to much in this passage; but I really see all of this in there!

 

[Evan]

I love how the woman seen in Revelation ~12 reflects ALL 3 Old Testament types of Mary (It’s so coool):

Mary as the ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT
Mary as the WOMAN, the NEW EVE
Mary as the QUEEN MOTHER (denoted by the 12 stars above her head).


Her assumption is reflected in the Revelation passage, as is her Motherhood of all Christians (“the rest of her offspring…”).

Some non-Catholics say we read to much in this passage; but I really see all of this in there!

I haven’t seen anyone mention the other allegorical reading:

The woman is Israel and the child is the Church.

There are many depths as you can find when interpreting scripture. There is rarely only 1 interpretation (or 2). And many times, all of them are ‘right’

 

[NotWorthy]

I haven’t seen anyone mention the other allegorical reading:

The woman is Israel and the child is the Church.

There are many depths as you can find when interpreting scripture. There is rarely only 1 interpretation (or 2). And many times, all of them are ‘right’

I still have trouble with the “child is the Church” allegory.

To me, it is clear that the woman’s children are the Church. “The dragon went off to make war against the woman’s offspring - those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ…” (paraphrasing)

And there is only one Child I’ve heard of that will rule the nations with an iron rod and was caught up to God in Heaven… tht Child is Jesus.

So, the woman could be the Church, but not the Child (IMO).

 

[Evan]

I still have trouble with the “child is the Church” allegory.

To me, it is clear that the woman’s children are the Church. “The dragon went off to make war against the woman’s offspring - those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ…” (paraphrasing)

So, the woman could be the Church, but not the Child (IMO).

12 Stars: 12 patriarchs of Israel (after whom the tribes are names)
Woman is the people of Abraham … Israel
Dragon - secular world=Ancient Rome was at war against
The Woman’s offspring: the Church - those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Fidelis]

I always go back to the fact that each of the characters in that passage is clearly meant to be understood as an individual: the dragon is Satan, the child is Jesus and Michael is Michael.

It only makes sense that-- even considering the woman can also stand for something else (Israel, the Church, etc), –she must also be an individual. And the only individual she could be is Mary.