Many interpreters have argued over the Book of Revelation over the years and more than a few are quick to read Marian doctrines into its twelfth chapter. As for myself, I believe the chapter serves a recapitulation of all redemption history. While what follows by no means serves as a definitive exegesis of the chapter, it leads me to believe that the woman clothed with the sun is a reference to the Church and not the Theotokos.
The Exegesis. Let’s open our Bibles and read along with the exegesis.
The chapter begins with “a woman clothed with the sun,” (Rev 12:1) which is Old Testament Israel (i.e. the Church) who before the coming of Christ may be described as follows: “[T]he path of the just is like the shining sun, that shines ever brighter unto the perfect day” (Prov 4:8) and “the righteous will shine forth as the sun” (Matt 13:43). “[T]he moon” is “under her feet,” “and on her head a garland of twelve stars” is a description of the woman being Israel, made up of twelve tribes. She (that is, Old Testament Israel) is less than the Church, because “the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold” (Is 30:26). This is a reference to how the fullness of revelation has been given to only Christians. The woman, standing on the moon, is brilliant but not as grand as the New Testament Church. She is “like the shining sun” or “as the light of the sun,” but not the seven-fold light of the Church.
Rev 12:2 is clearly not about the Virgin Mary, as “being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.” We know by the authoritative tradition of the Church, and the correct understanding of the Scriptures such as Ezek 44:1-3, that when the Virgin gave birth she had no pain and she remained a virgin. The coming of the sinless one cannot defile anyone nor bring to the woman pain in childbearing, which is the curse of Eve’s sin. So, Rev 12:2 is clearly about Israel, who “having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise” (Heb 11:39) but endured painful persecution waiting for the coming of the Lord. In short, verse 2 is a reference to persecutions before the time of Christ.
In short, the first two verses of the chapter teach that it is through the suffering of Israelite prophets and martyrs Christ was foretold and they are His descendants.
Afterward, the chapter recapitulates all of salvation history. Rev 12:3-4 speaks of “another sign [that] appeared in heaven,” which in fact chronologically precedes Israel’s history: a fiery dragon who “drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.” This is none other than Satan’s rebellion which caused the fall of angels and man. The Devil “stood before the woman” as he has done many times in Israel’s history. One example is when “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel” (1 Chron 21:1) in the hope that Israel’s punishment would lead to complete annihilation. Likewise, through Herod, Satan attempted to destroy all the innocents, thereby “devour[ing] her Child as soon as it was born.” After all, Herod was aware due to the star the Magi followed that the Messiah was born. His plan was to wait until after the Magi were in Bethlehem to allegedly “worship” the Child–a ruse to destroy Him once ascertaining His exact location. How clear is it that while God is omniscient, that Satan is in darkness and ignorance–he did not even know the exact location of the Messiah’s birth?
Rev 12:5 speaks of a “She.” This would be the Theotokos, but the significance of this is not to expound upon Marian doctrines, but to speak of her role in history. She is the daughter of Israel who conceived the Messiah by the Holy Spirit (i.e. “bore a male Child,” that is Jesus Christ. ) “[W]ho was to rule all nations with a rod of iron,” is an obvious reference to Ps 2:9 which is Messianic. “And her Child was caught up to God and His throne,” speaks of Christ’s Ascension to the Father’s right hand (Acts 2:33).
Rev 12:6 speaks of “the woman,” but “the woman” is no longer the Theotokos, but rather the New Testament Church, because Christ has ascended. Her fleeing “into the wilderness” pertains to the persecutions the Church endures after the Ascension, the first being that of the stoning of the Protomartyr Stephen and the fleeing of Christians in Acts 8. “[S]he has a place prepared by God,” is a reference to God preserving His people through persecution (as Saint Bede observes). The Church being fed “one thousand two hundred and sixty days” is an indeterminate period of time (akin to those given in Dan 12:11-12) where God’s people are fed by the Eucharist to spiritually prepare for the Last Judgement.
The episode of Satan’s defeat at the hands of Michael the Archangel in Rev 12:7-12 is another account of Rev 12:1-2 and Rev 12:3-6. It also is an account of Rev 20, where Satan is bound “1,000 years” and then he is released for “a time.” It is easy to take this 1,000 years literally, but it appears that both Rev 12:7-9 and Rev 20 are simply a recounting of the episode given in Rev 12:1-6–the entirety of Christian history. New Martyr Daniel Sysoev concurs, locating the time of the events in verse 7 “immediately after creation” (Explanation of the Apocalypse, p. 166). Rev 12:10-12 speak of how the Church has victory over Satan, “by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony,” which is the preaching of the Gospel in both words and the testimony of Christians’ martyrdom.
It is within the preceding context we must understand Rev 12:13, that Satan “persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child.” Clearly this is in reference to the Church, not specifically the Theotokos, as the Theotokos was not martyred nor overtly persecuted so that she would be considered a confessor. So, when “the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place,” this again is a reference to the Church being preserved through trial, a promise given to Israel in Is 40:31, “[T]he Lord Shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles.” “[S]he is nourished” is, like Rev 12:6, a reference to the sacraments in the Church. “[F]or a time and times and half a time” is the period of time God’s people experience persecutions in Dan 7:25 and 12:7. Hence, we Christians should expect to be nourished and preserved, but experience crippling persecution all at the same time: “the holy people has been completely shattered” (Dan 12:7). So God both reassures us, but warns us, as He promises us many fold “houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions” (Mark 10:30).
The true Church of God has always been persecuted: by the Romans, Persians, Arabs, Turks, western schismatics, and Communist atheists. Christians were often persecuted “by their own” such as the Byzantine and Imperial Russian authorities. Persecution is the telltale sign that God is both preserving and sanctifying His Church. Only the Orthodox Catholic Church, popularly called the “Eastern Orthodox,” can boast of living up to this promise consistently over centuries. Demographers concur with such an analysis. One estimate puts it that there were 14 million martyrs up to the year 1900. The 20th century saw approximately 26 million more Christians die for their faith, 20 million of which were Orthodox Christians killed by the USSR and approximately another one million Greeks were killed by the Turks. All things told, by any measure Orthodox Christians have made up half of Christendom’s martyrs, when outnumbered by the rest of Christendom several fold.
When Satan spews “water out of his mouth” (Rev 12:15), Saint Victorinus concludes this is another reference to persecutions from his hand. The earth swallowing the floodwaters in Rev 12:16 is, according to Father Daniel Sysoev, a reference to the collapse of temporal authorities which upheld persecutions (Explanation of the Apocalypse, p. 172). I’d add that it may also be a reference to temporal authorities for periods of time being somewhat positive influences on the Church. The conversion of the Roman Empire, the policies of tolerance in Venice’s empire, and the reversion of governments to pro-Orthodox or religiously neutral policies (such as modern Greece, Russia, and etcetera) are notable examples.
The last passage of the chapter is perhaps the most difficult. “[T]he dragon was enraged with the woman and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring.” Who is the woman and who are “her offspring?” Father Sysoev views the woman as the Church’s faithful and her offspring as nominal Christians, those “who attempt to remain on good terms with the world” (Ibid., p. 173). It is probably not a reference to the Theotokos and her offspring (that being, the Church at large), as such a reading is inconsistent with the point of the whole chapter. It is best to emphasize the former interpretation. Nominal Christians who when called to task “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ,” like the lukewarm who stiffen their resolve when persecuted, no longer remain nominal. The nominals who take the mark of the beast (Rev 14:11), or in other words, capitulate to pressure and take the mark, are let go and no longer suffer persecution. They are not made war against anymore, as Rev 12 would put it. Yet, those who “have the testimony,” or martyrdom, of Christ are warred against until their demise.
This seems like a negative note to end the chapter, but it in fact it is a promise. According to Father Sysoev:
Hence, when people say that at the end of time salvation will be impossible, this is a lie. Remember one can always be saved in the city [i.e. a life of worldliness] and in the villages likewise [i.e. the “wilderness” pious Christians flee to]–salvation depends not on one’s location, but on the condition of one’s heart (Ibid.).
So, if we repent before the end, we should expect to be saved from destruction. “Having torn up the handwriting of their sins” (Kontakian 12, Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos, c.f. Col 2:14), Jesus Christ takes into no account our previous wrongdoing, but rather is pleased by the “broken and contrite spirit” of us who repent (Ps 50:17 LXX). May God grant us this repentance.
Conclusion. While I am aware that some Orthodox observers interpret the woman in Rev 12 as the Theotokos, I find this very difficult to do in light of verse 2. Further, when interpreting the rest of the chapter, it does not really seem to be talking about her at all. Lastly, the chapter appears to repeat the same stories and themes again and again, something the book itself does such as with the trumpets/bowls of wrath. So, I conclude, the chapter exists to teach us one main point: that we are to expect persecutions because the true Israel of God has always been persecuted. However, through it all, we should be assured of spiritual perseverance (particularly through the sacraments) and ultimately salvation.
Typical (Protestant) dichotomy of either/or. It is not either or but both/and.
Besides, the church does not give birth to Christ, but Christ to the church.
This does not really address the exegesis though. The chapter is not about the Theotokos. And Christ came into the world from the nation of Israel, from the tribe of Judah according to the flesh, as St Paul writes, so it would be quite Biblical to speak of Christ’s coming in such a context in Rev 12.
Uh , basically anyone with passing familiarity with early Christian writings knows Mary was a type of the Church in that context, especially in the Johannine writings, Syriac fathers, etc. I suggest Fr. John Behr’s Mystery of Christ and Addison Harts’s The Woman, the Hour, and the Garden: A Study of Imagery in the Gospel of John for starters.
I’d like to think I have “passing familiarity.” St Victorinus and St Bede do not mention the Theotokos in their exegesis. While I am aware that there are broader allegories of the Theotokos of her being representative of the Church (“rejoice O unwedded Bride,” i.e. Bride being representative of the Church), I personally do not take that reading and I would challenge anyone to offer an exegesis which actually addresses what the chapter is about.
Plus, Rev 12:2 would be hard to square with her being the Theotokos.
The Church certainly gave birth to the “Man-Child”, ( this is symbol speak for “God-Man” from God’s perspective) through the testimony of the Ecumenical Councils. There is a similar vision of the Male Child being “caught up to the throne” in Daniel 7 when the Son of Man ascends to the throne of the Ancient of Days, i.e. the Divine and Human Natures of Christ… “of one essence with the father”.
Craig,
Just as Israel/the Church cannot have actual birth pangs, one doesn’t have to interpret Rev 12:2 to pertain to literal birth contractions suffered by the Theotokos. Those pains can pertain to the travails she suffered through as being the Mother of the Messiah and the “sword that pierced her soul”.
Even Israel itself is said to deliver painlessly in the Holy Prophet Isaiah:
““Before she travailed, she brought forth; Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons.”
Isaiah 66:7-8 NASB
So if one is read Rev 12:2 in a literal way, the woman can’t be Israel or the Church either according to Isaiah the Prophet. Often, Scripture speaks corporately and in the singular: Christ is Israel, the Church can be represented by Mary. And images can pertain to various things, for instance, in the Fathers the Ark of the Covenant has been the flesh of Christ, the Virgin and the Church.
https://classicalchristianity.com/2012/03/23/the-ark-of-the-new-covenant/
Just something to ponder, brother.
The clue to Mary being the woman “clothed with the sun” in Revelation 12 is to be found in Rev 11:19 “19 Then the sanctuary of God in heaven opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen inside it.”
There are many parallels between Mary and the ark of the covenant.
1. Mary and the Ark of the Covenant are “overshadowed” by the Spirit of God.
Luke 1:35 “35 The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow.”
When Luke says ‘the power of the most high will “overshadow” you’ he is using the same word used in the old testament for the glory of God “overshadowing” the tabernacle where the Ark of the Covenant was.
When Moses had finished making the Ark and the tabernacle, the glory cloud of the Lord (the Shekinah Glory) covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.
Ex 40:34-35 “34 The cloud then covered the Tent of Meeting and the glory of Yahweh filled the Dwelling.
35 Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, since the cloud stayed over it and the glory of Yahweh filled the Dwelling.”
The verb “to cover” or “overshadow” and the “cloud” in the old testament represents the presence and glory of God. God’s presence “overshadowed” the Ark and the tabernacle.
The Greek word for “overshadow” (ἐπισκιάζω or episkiazein) in Exodus 40 is used of the presence of God overshadowing the Ark. The same Shekinah glory cloud also filled the Temple of Solomon (2 Chron 7:1-3).
The very same Greek word for “overshadow” is used by Gabriel when he tells Mary that the Holy Spirit will overshadow her.
2. Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant – “Anaphoneo”.
Luke 1:41-42 “41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the child leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42* and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”
exclaimed with a loud cry = “anaphoneo” “ἀναφωνέω ”
Elizabeth ‘cried out with a loud voice’. The Greek word used here is ‘Anaphoneo’. This is the only time this Greek word is used in the New Testament. This same Greek word appears five times in the Septuagint or LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament where it describes Levitical priests praising God before the Ark of the Covenant.
1Chronicles 15:28 “And all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of a horn, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, playing loudly (anaphoneo) on lutes and harps.”
1Chronicles 16:4-5″And he appointed before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, Levites to minister and lift up the voice (anaphoneo), and to give thanks and praise the Lord God of Israel: (5) Asaph was the chief, and next to him Zacharias, Jeiel, Semiramoth, and Jeiel, Mattathias, Eliab, and Banaeas, and Abdedom: and Jeiel sounding (anaphoneo) with musical instruments, lutes and harps, and Asaph with cymbals: ”
1 Chronicles 16:37, 42 “37 There before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh David left Asaph and his kinsmen to maintain a permanent ministry before the ark as each day’s ritual required,
42 And with them there were trumpets and cymbals to sound aloud (anaphoneo), and musical instruments for the songs of God: and the sons of Idithun were at the gate.”
2 Chronicles 5:10, 13 “10 There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets which Moses had placed in it at Horeb, when Yahweh made a covenant with the Israelites when they came out of Egypt.
13 And there was one voice in the trumpeting and in the psalm-singing, and in the loud utterance (anaphoneo) with one voice to give thanks and praise the Lord; and when they raised their voice together with trumpets and cymbals, and instruments of music, and said, Give thanks to the Lord, for it is good, for his mercy endures for ever: then the house was filled with the cloud of the glory of the Lord.”
Praise is given to God in front of the old wooden Ark of the Covenant by the Levite priests in the old testament, and the same praise is given to Jesus (God) -the fruit of Mary’s womb – by Elizabeth, a Levite, before the New Ark of the Covenant, the Blessed Virgin Mary, who holds Jesus, God himself, in her womb.
3. Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant – 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1 (Acknowledgements to Steve Ray.)
Strong support for the Virgin Mary as the Ark of the
New Covenant is evident by comparing 2 Samuel 6 with St. Luke 1:
“In St. Luke’s account of the Visitation (Lk. 1:39-56), it is clear that
Mary is the new ark of the covenant. Mary, like David, heads to the
hill country of Judah. As Mary, bearing Christ in her womb,
approaches the home of Elizabeth, St. John ‘leaps’ in Elizabeth’s
womb as she exclaims with a ‘loud cry,’ reminding us of David’s
leaping before the ark of the covenant and the shouts of the people of
Israel. Elizabeth greets Mary with words similar to those of David,
‘[W]hy is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord [who is the
new ark of the covenant] should come to me? (v. 43).”
The following is an outline of 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1, matching the
corresponding verses:
2 Samuel 6 Luke 1
“David rose and returned to “Mary rose and journeyed
Judah” (v. 2). to the hill country of Judah”
(v. 39).
How can the ark of the Lord “And why is this granted me,
come to me?” (v. 9). that the Mother of my Lord
should come to me?” (v.43)
The house of Obededom the House of Zechariah (v. 40).
Gittite (v. 10).
“The ark of the Lord remained “And Mary remained with
in the house of Obededom the her about three months”
Gittite three months” (v. 12). (v. 56).
“David went and brought up “Mary said, ‘My soul
the ark of God from the house magnifies the Lord, and
of Obededom to the City of David my spirit rejoices in God
with rejoicing” (v. 12). my Savior’” (vv. 46-47).
“So David and all the house of “Elizabeth was filled with
Israel brought up the ark of the the Holy Spirit and she
Lord with shouting, and with exclaimed with a loud cry,
the sound of the horn” (v. 15). ‘Blessed are you among
women, and Blessed is the
fruit of your womb!’”
(v. 42).
King David leaping and dancing “And when Elizabeth heard
before the Lord (v. 16). the greeting of Mary, the
child leapt in her womb;
and Elizabeth was filled
with the Holy Spirit”
(v.41).
The original Ark of the Covenant was covered completely in gold and
contained within itself a pot of manna, the priestly rod of Aaron, and the
tables of the Ten Commandments (Heb. 9:4). It was overshadowed by a
propitiatory––or mercy seat––upon which God Himself dwelt (the
Shekinah Kabod) between two statues of Cherubim (Exod. 25).
So the Ark in the old testament contained three symbols of Jesus: Manna, the bread from heaven, Jesus, the bread of life, the priestly rod of Aaron, prefiguring Jesus our high priest, and the ten commandments, the Word of God, Jesus himself
Mary, in her womb, holds Jesus, the fulfilment of those three symbols: Jesus, the Bread of Life, Jesus, the High Priest in the line of Melchizedek, and Jesus, the Word of God himself.
4. Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant – Revelation
Rev: 11:19 “19 Then the sanctuary of God in heaven opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen inside it. Then came flashes of lightning, peals of thunder and an earthquake and violent hail.”
Immediately following this verse we read of the “woman, robed with the sun, standing on the moon, and on her head a crown of twelve stars”. The Ark of the Covenant as we have seen above, is none other than Mary, Jesus’ mother, so Mary is the woman spoken of here. (Remember that chapter numbers were only added to the bible in the twelth century, and verse numbers in the sixteenth century.)
Rev: 12:1 “1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman, robed with the sun, standing on the moon, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Rev 12: 4-5 “4 Its tail swept a third of the stars from the sky and hurled them to the ground, and the dragon stopped in front of the woman as she was at the point of giving birth, so that it could eat the child as soon as it was born.
5 The woman was delivered of a boy, the son who was to rule all the nations with an iron sceptre, and the child was taken straight up to God and to his throne,”
The boy is Jesus, who is “to rule all the nations with an iron sceptre” according to the prophecy of Psalm 2 .
Psalm 2: 8-9 “8 Ask of me, and I shall give you the nations as your birthright, the whole wide world as your possession.
9 With an iron sceptre you will break them, shatter them like so many pots.’ )
The boy’s mother is Mary.
Rev: 12:17 “17 Then the dragon was enraged with the woman and went away to make war on the rest of her children, who obey God’s commandments and have in themselves the witness of Jesus.”
And in verse 17 Mary’s children are those “who obey God’s commandments and have in themselves the witness of Jesus”, that is all of us Christians.
Ps 132:8 “Go up, Yahweh, to your resting-place, you and the ark of your strength.”
Sorry but there is formatting problem in the above comment. Here is the relevant section again:
1. Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant – 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1 (Acknowledgements to Steve Ray.)
Strong support for the Virgin Mary as the Ark of the
New Covenant is evident by comparing 2 Samuel 6 with St. Luke 1:
“In St. Luke’s account of the Visitation (Lk. 1:39-56), it is clear that
Mary is the new ark of the covenant. Mary, like David, heads to the
hill country of Judah. As Mary, bearing Christ in her womb,
approaches the home of Elizabeth, St. John ‘leaps’ in Elizabeth’s
womb as she exclaims with a ‘loud cry,’ reminding us of David’s
leaping before the ark of the covenant and the shouts of the people of
Israel. Elizabeth greets Mary with words similar to those of David,
‘[W]hy is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord [who is the
new ark of the covenant] should come to me? (v. 43).”
The following is an outline of 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1, matching the
corresponding verses:
2 Samuel 6 “David rose and returned to Judah” (v. 2).
Luke 1 “Mary rose and journeyed to the hill country of Judah” (v. 39).
2 Samuel 6 “ How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (v. 9).
Luke 1 “And why is this granted me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” (v.43)
2 Samuel 6 “The house of Obededom the Gittite (v. 10).
Luke 1 “the House of Zechariah” (v. 40).
2 Samuel 6 “The ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months” (v. 12).
Luke 1 “And Mary remained with her about three months” (v. 56).
2 Samuel 6 “David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obededom to the City of David with rejoicing” (v. 12).
“Luke 1 Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior’” (vv. 46-47).
2 Samuel 6 “So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the horn” (v. 15).
Luke 1 “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and Blessed is the fruit of your womb!’”(v. 42).
2 Samuel 6 “King David leaping and dancing before the Lord (v. 16).
Luke 1 “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the child leapt in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (v.41).
The original Ark of the Covenant was covered completely in gold and
contained within itself a pot of manna, the priestly rod of Aaron, and the
tables of the Ten Commandments (Heb. 9:4). It was overshadowed by a
propitiatory––or mercy seat––upon which God Himself dwelt (the
Shekinah Kabod) between two statues of Cherubim (Exod. 25).
So the Ark in the old testament contained three symbols of Jesus: Manna, the bread from heaven, Jesus, the bread of life, the priestly rod of Aaron, prefiguring Jesus our high priest, and the ten commandments, the Word of God, Jesus himself
Mary, in her womb, holds Jesus, the fulfilment of those three symbols: Jesus, the Bread of Life, Jesus, the High Priest in the line of Melchizedek, and Jesus, the Word of God himself.
Mary, in her womb, holds Jesus, the fulfilment of those three symbols: Jesus, the Bread of Life, Jesus, the High Priest in the line of Melchizedek, and Jesus, the Word of God himself.
It would seem to make sense that rev 11:21 serves as the intro to rev 12, but nothing in rev 12 really seems to be about Marian dogma. There are saints that agree. Just giving my opinion,
Plenty in my view. And not dogma only, but giving a better undersanding of who the Theotokos is. Mary as queen of heaven, as the mother of the church, the mother of Christians, the new Eve, the adversary of the devil to name a few.
That’s not what the chapter is about Though, it’s about persecution.
?. Not only persecution. This is reductionism for you.
The Ark of the Covenant in OT contained the two tablets of law, known as the Ten Commandments, which GOD gave to Moses, Aaron’s rod which budded, and a jar of manna… When the two Tablets and manna removed from the Ark, The empty Ark is of no use..!
Is it the same with NT when it is claimed Mother Mary is NT Ark? Then Why To build churches and worship Mary the EMPTY ARK??
Xavier,
Catholics do not worship Mary.
If as you say the Ark is of no use, why did John see the Ark in the sanctuary of God in Heaven?
You seem to forget the words of Mary in Luke 1:48 “Yes, from now onwards all generations will call me blessed,”.
So we Catholics honour Mary, in all generations, as scripture urges us to do.
And build churches? Seriously? With all due respect, my dear Mr. Pereira, the church is the house of God. No Catholic nor Orthodox would ever sacrifice to Mary.
To my knowledge, the early Church did not interpret this passage as referring to Mary. People like Hippolytus of Rome, Victorinus of Pettau (whom you mentioned), Methodius of Olympus, Ticonius, Augustine, Jerome (who used Victorinus’ commentary), Caesarius of Arles, Primasius of Hadrumetum, Gregory the Great, Andreas of Caesarea, Bede the Venerable, Beatus of Liébana could talk about the woman of Revelation and never even mention Mary. They all interpreted it as referring to the people of God, the Chruch. The first one to speculate about the possibility of applying it to Mary was Epiphanius, who still emphatically stated that no one knows her end (Panarion 78.23.9, PG42: 737; GCS 37:477). Quodvultdeus was the first known person to apply it to Mary and at the same time, he applied it to the Church. Then we have Oecumenius, who interpreted Revelation in a purely historical, and not eschatological sense, and that’s why he interpreted the woman in a purely Marian way. Cassiodorus thought that the image was more flexible and he applied it both to Mary and to the Chruch.
So, basically, unit the fifth century we have no one who interpreted it as referring to Mary. Beginning with the V century, we are starting to see first interpreters as Quodvultdeus and then in the VI century Oecumenius and Cassiodorus applying the woman from Revelation to Mary. Still, in comparison with the rest, it was a minority view in the early Church. Apologists try to make the case by saying that the woman could have multiple meanings- it could be- but from a historical viewpoint, the early Chruch interpreters did view this woman in only one way (Quodvultdeus and Cassiodorus, to my knowledge, are the only exceptions).
When it comes to gnostic and other heterodox writings, I am not familiar with the topic, but it would be interesting to see how they view the woman because most of the Marian doctrines (you would probably disagree with it) have their origin in such sources 🙂
There would be no gnostic commentary on revelation. Also we do have Syriac hymns from the 4th century that have the Marian interpretation of rev 12. Otherwise good post.
I was not thinking about gnostic commentaries on Revelation but simply comments, references, allusions to a woman clothed with the sun. I didn’t know about any Syrian hymns on this topic. Could you give some examples, please?
This is not a hill i am willing to die on, but here’s one assertion its ephrem the syrian’s 4th hymn on the nativity: https://books.google.com/books?id=wx1xDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=ephrem+the+syrian+hymns+on+the+nativity+woman+in+revelation+12&source=bl&ots=Gy3uw3d3qK&sig=ACfU3U3xc6BvvL3uCIeaAJgt-O71MWk-rA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC9cumxabkAhVhuVkKHY7tDnUQ6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=ephrem%20the%20syrian%20hymns%20on%20the%20nativity%20woman%20in%20revelation%2012&f=false
I don’t see it in the hymns though http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3703.htm
Me neither. His reference is to Hymns on the Nativity 4 (Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary, Crown Publishing Group, 2018, page 206, note 36), but I could find nothing even resembling Rev 12. It could simply be a typo and he had in mind something else. Who knows. Maybe when the second corrected edition comes out, we will find out what the author had in mind.
The note itself is not totally accurate, because he gives Epiphanius as an example of a Marian interpretation of the woman of Revelation 12, but as I pointed out he speculated about it and after quoting Luke 2:35 and Rev 12:13–14, he said: “Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died. For scripture went beyond man’s understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she died, I don’t know; and [even] if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought!” (Panarion 78.11.4-5, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, Volume: 79, Brill 2013, page 624-625).
Thanks for the replay 🙂
Craig,
The Ark was definitely compelling for me. Yet another reason that I think Rev 12 can signify the Theotokos is because of the biblical links between the Woman, the Child and the “sign in heaven”:
“”Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven… Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:11, 14 ESV
“And a great sign 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 pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.” Revelation 12:1-2 ESV
I think your interpretation is the primary one (or a primary one). But please consider the Theotokos’ place in the Johannine tradition, also consider that the Church started to see her in the Scriptures more as She reflected upon the Virgin and her veneration grew. There are a few OT verses that commentators viewed as the Church, but other ones saw the Virgin, without discounting the earlier interpretation (Ps. 45:9).
St. Maximus the Confessor sums up the matter very nicely:
“…the divine Word could never be circumscribed by a single individual interpretation, nor does it suffer confinement in a single meaning, on account of its natural infinity.” (Questions to Thalassius, Prologue)
I think that even in my own exegesis makes some room for the Theotokos, but her importance to the passage IMHO would only be tangential–though the sign from heaven and the “then” is front of Rev 11:21 do suggest some sort of question. However, when I think of “the point” of the passage, I just cannot see her in there–and I don’t think the explaining away of Rev 12:2 is quite satisfying, at least not to me anyway. Nevertheless, the point of my exegesis is not really to “disprove” the Theotokos thesis, but rather to get people to think beyond Rev 12 as a Marian prooftext and to appreciate its application to the Christian life. I will admit that any framing of the issue otherwise in the intro is simply to elicit reader attention all around, from EOs, RCs, and Protestants.
Oh. I never realized people used this Scripture merely as a prooftext for “Marian dogmas” as you put it. All of Scripture is primarily for application, actually.
I really don’t understand why one must interpret Rev. 12:2 as literal birth contractions to avoid “explaining it away”; especially in a book full of vivid imagery.
In our Church, where the Theotokos is so cherished, highly venerated and central, and we have a text authored by her adopted son the Apostle John wherein a glorious (grace-filled) woman gives birth to Christ and is pursued by the dragon it’s going to point to the Virgin after 2000 years of reflection.