Woman in Revelation

[NotWorthy]

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.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, I see. Thanks!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

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.

Thanks - Joe K.

It just occurred to me that Mary is also referred to as “woman” twice in John’s Gospel:

At the Wedding Feast at Cana

4* And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.

John 2:4

And in giving her to John at the Cross

26* When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

John 19:26

I have read that in Church at Ephesus John was referred to as “The Beloved Diciple” and Mary as “The Woman”. [Not sure how accurate that is.}

 

[Evan]

Thanks - Joe K.

It just occurred to me that Mary is also referred to as “woman” twice in John’s Gospel:

At the Wedding Feast at Cana John 2:4

And in giving her to John at the Cross John 19:26

I have read that in Church at Ephesus John was referred to as “The Beloved Diciple” and Mary as “The Woman”. [Not sure how accurate that is.}

Interesting observation: Note how the “woman” bookends the ministry of Christ. First public act, the last public act. Thus enclosing the message of Christ in the Theotokus… the God bearer, as the womb once enclosed the newly incarnate, but private, Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

Interesting observation: Note how the “woman” bookends the ministry of Christ. First public act, the last public act. Thus enclosing the message of Christ in the Theotokus… the God bearer, as the womb once enclosed the newly incarnate, but private, Christ.

The “bookends” is an interesting tool that St. John seems to use in his Gospel. And come to think of it, his Revelation as well.

I heard someone mention the other day that John’s Gospel begins with a doubting Apostle who comes to the revelation about Jesus. In Chapter 1, after wondering, “Can anything good come from Nazareth” to “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” Just as in chapter 20, Thomas questions Jesus’ Resurrection only to finish up with, “My Lord and my God”.

Another interesting “bookend” that John takes place is in:

Genesis 1: the first scene that involves humans is, “Adam, Eve, and Satan”. The last scene in Revelation that involves humans is, “Jesus (the New Adam), Mary (the New Eve), and Satan”.

 

[ERose]

Nope. Try again.

You are stating as fact only what is truly speculation on the part of modern biblical scholars. To be honest no one can prove one way or the other that there where two different Johns or the same John. If it was a different John, he was definitly a disciple of John since the Gospel and Revelations uses many of the same symbols i.e. referring to Jesus as the Lamb of God.

Early Church Fathers taught that it was generally believed that John wrote both and until indisputable facts are given to show the opposite, which there has not been given, that is the route I am going and you cannot ridicule someone else for believing otherwise since they have one more proof over the modern scholars and that is tradition’s position.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Interesting observation: Note how the “woman” bookends the ministry of Christ. First public act, the last public act. Thus enclosing the message of Christ in the Theotokus… the God bearer, as the womb once enclosed the newly incarnate, but private, Christ.

Thanks for adding that- I missed the bookends factor.

 

[sedonaman]

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!

According to Rev. Herman Kramer, a Jesuit, in The Book Of Destiny, the woman in the vision is not the BVM. One reason for this is that her giving birth to Jesus has already happened, and Revelation is a foretelling of the future. The woman is the Church trying to “give birth” to a new pope. The dragon is indeed the devil waiting to devour him. The one-third of the “stars in the sky” are fallen bishops. The “woman” flees to the “desert” means that the church will go into exile in a safe place.

 

[John_Calvin]

It must first be remembered that the section from the beginning of the opening of the seven seals in Re 6 everything is a part of the contents of the scroll. The scroll is the Scroll of Destiny on which the fate of the universe is inscribed. The heavenly woman is therefore a prototype of that which is to occur on earth (and much of which already has happened at the time of the vision). The woman cannot be Mary. The depiction of the woman as clothed with the sun and with the moon under her feet and with twelve stars recalls Joseph’s dream where there are only 11 stars since Joseph himself is not included in the count. It speaks of her giving birth to a manchild who is snatched up into heaven and thus saved from destruction by the Dragon. It then speaks of the Dragon’s persecution of the woman AND OF THE REST OF HER CHILDREN. The rest of her children refer to both the Jews and the Church so the woman is the prototype of God’s people.

 

[joylazarus]

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-

Well stated Tim, it is very clear from the scripture, especially those terms like child, male, etc. Why people want to make interpretations when things are obvious and straight in front of our eyes? Basically it is only to logicalize their arguments. Again, when we refer the Church we refer as ‘She’. So, the child cannot be the Church due to the fact that it was a male child which is a ‘He’. If the woman is interpreted as the Church then it is very confusing as who gave birth to who? The Church gave birth to Jesus??? The interpretations are very confusing, on the other hand going with the straight and obvious meaning it makes very clear that Mary is the woman referenced here.
Ave Maria!

 

[nordskoven]

We are a royal priesthood, and so able to view the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant without being slain; unlike the men of Bethshamesh, 50k+ of whom were killed for viewing the Ark of the Covenant on its return from the Philistines. The living tabernacle, the Woman of Genesis 3:15, is clothed with the Sun. In her appearances at Fatima, Portugal in 1917, the Virgin Mary was described by then-Sister Lucia to Father McGlynn, sculptor who recreated the image under her direction, as robed in light brighter than the Sun. To portray this, Father McGlynn made the pleats of her robe with wavy lines to depict the shimmering brilliance. Her mantle was hemmed in a brilliant yellow border, not gold as usually depicted. Our Lady of the Rosary’s appearances at Fatima, Portugal under her title “Our Lady of the Rosary” fulfill Apocalypse 12.

Her Child is persecuted, and John later notes her “other children” are also persecuted. That’s the Church. May we come to a conclusion and not temporize; and in doing so, obey her request to pray the daily Rosary for peace; and urge the bishops, led by Peter, to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart as the “only” means to a period of peace. Otherwise, Russia will spread her errors leading to the “annihilation” of nations. So Russia continues today, spreading nuclear capabilities to the dictators of Iran and Venezuela, the latter ready to build missile silos to shoot, as Jimmy Carter’s friend, Hugo Chavez, said, Washington, D.C. We pray for the peace of Jerusalem and our peace through the intercession of Our Lady of the Rosary; and await the triumph of her Immaculate Heart.

 

[PJM]

=CivisRomanusSum;7936584]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!

Actually it’s BOTH!

It is MARY on behalf of Her Sons One Faith, One Church:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

First, it has been explained before that Revelation was written before the Gospel, so S. John could have learned Greek better by the time we wrote his Gospel.
The fathers say Our Lady experienced no pain giving birth, so the woman can’t be Our Lady. The woman is Israel, giving birth to the new Israel, the Catholic Church.

 

[TimothyH]

First, it has been explained before that Revelation was written before the Gospel, so S. John could have learned Greek better by the time we wrote his Gospel.
The fathers say Our Lady experienced no pain giving birth, so the woman can’t be Our Lady. The woman is Israel, giving birth to the new Israel, the Catholic Church.

Why does everyone have to analyze the text like its a transmission repiar manual, as if it is a textbook or something?

Some of the father’s stated that Mary had no pain. Some were silent and that was never a magesterial teaching of the Church. Is it possible that the text has several simultaneous meanings?

I can’t believe that it absolutely, ipso facto, without a shadow of a doubt, definatively and without question, cannot possibly have even the slightest meaning at all to do with Mary.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

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).

Ther is one child, Jesus, and his body is the Church.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Why does everyone have to analyze the text like its a transmission repiar manual, as if it is a textbook or something?

Some of the father’s stated that Mary had no pain. Some were silent and that was never a magesterial teaching of the Church. Is it possible that the text has several simultaneous meanings?

I can’t believe that it absolutely, ipso facto, without a shadow of a doubt, definatively and without question, cannot possibly have even the slightest meaning at all to do with Mary.

-Tim-

The fathers are where we get our faith. So thus, I feel the opposite of what you do: that the text has few to nothing to do with Our Lady.

I also feel the book of Apocalypse is about the triumph of Catholicism over Judaism. So that would justify my theory even more.

 

[Byzman]

In the Jerome Biblical Commentary it says, after trying to make the case that the woman symbolizes the Church, that the author could have intended the woman to have a double representation. This representation would be that of an individual as well as a collective. The collective would be the Church’s representation…which Mary, the daughter of Israel, individually represents by her giving birth to the male child destined to rule with an iron rod, Jesus.

I think this is a pretty good understanding.

 

[joylazarus]

Why does everyone have to analyze the text like its a transmission repiar manual, as if it is a textbook or something?

Some of the father’s stated that Mary had no pain. Some were silent and that was never a magesterial teaching of the Church. Is it possible that the text has several simultaneous meanings?

I can’t believe that it absolutely, ipso facto, without a shadow of a doubt, definatively and without question, cannot possibly have even the slightest meaning at all to do with Mary.

-Tim-

Mary’s labor pain is not the issue here. The child with the iron rode is Jesus and the woman gave birth to this male child is Mary. Why so much confusion when it is so clear in the scripture? Complicating things won’t help anyone to understand the meaning. When something is mentioned in simple terms it is better to go with it, I mean, go with the direct sense. We can argue for the sake of argument, but the conclusion would be absurd. When the woman is mentioned as pregnant and people say that the woman is the Church then the foetus needs to be interpreted as the members of the Church. Well, we can go on discussing like this, but we won’t end this debate because we are not ready to accept what is clearly mentioned in the scripture.

 

[ryanoneil]

The fathers say Our Lady experienced no pain giving birth, so the woman can’t be Our Lady. The woman is Israel, giving birth to the new Israel, the Catholic Church.

Some of the father’s stated that Mary had no pain. Some were silent and that was never a magesterial teaching of the Church. Is it possible that the text has several simultaneous meanings?

I agree with Timothy H and multiple meanings. The woman represents, the faithful of Israel, Mary, and the Church. The part about the pangs and aguish of child birth (one of the meanings anyway) recalls Isaiah’s description of Daughter Zion, a maternal figure that represents the holy remnant of Israel, groaning for redemption.

**As a woman about to give birth writhes and cries out in her pains, so were we in your presence, O LORD. (Isa 26:17)

Now why do you cry out so? Are you without a king? Or has your counselor perished, That you are seized with pains like a woman in travail? Writhe in pain, grow faint, O daughter Zion, like a woman in travail; For now shall you go forth from the city and dwell in the fields; To Babylon shall you go, there shall you be rescued. There shall the LORD redeem you from the hand of your enemies. (Mic 4:9-10)**

Concerning the pangs of birth and Mary, it is probably related to the Passion of Jesus, which pierced the heart of his mother.

and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” (Lk 2:34-35)

The Passion also seized the disciples (the rest of the Church) with the distress of a woman in labor.

Amen, amen, I say to you, you will weep and mourn, while the world rejoices; you will grieve, but your grief will become joy. When a woman is in labor, she is in anguish because her hour has arrived; but when she has given birth to a child, she no longer remembers the pain because of her joy that a child has been born into the world. So you also are now in anguish. But I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you. (Jn 16:20-22)

The male child’s coming forth symbolizes both the birth and rebirth (Resurrection) of Jesus as the Messiah.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Mary’s labor pain is not the issue here.

But it is! It can’t be her, because she didn’t have labor pains. It’s like saying the serpent in the Garden of Eden wasn’t Satan and then trying to go backwards to vindicate that opinion. It doesn’t make logical sense to me.

 

[NotWorthy]

But it is! It can’t be her, because she didn’t have labor pains. It’s like saying the serpent in the Garden of Eden wasn’t Satan and then trying to go backwards to vindicate that opinion. It doesn’t make logical sense to me.

Except that as a model for Israel, who suffered under foreign occupation(s), Mary would have suffered labor pains… 800 years of labor pains.

Remember… Revelation is like ogres - its got layers.