Revelation 12 and Mary Orthodox view

[eastcoast_bsc]

I would like to hear from my Orthodox brothers and sisters regarding the interpretation of Revelation 12.

The Woman and the Dragon

1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. 7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11 They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”
13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

The Catholic apologist view is that the Woman is Mary, non-Catholics tend to believe the woman represents Israel.

I can see both points of view. What do the Orthodox say ?

 

[ProScribe]

I think that would be Theoria or vision of God.

I would not take the Apocrypha or Revelation out of context when compared to the rest of the books of the Christian Bible.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Catholic apologist view is that the Woman is Mary, non-Catholics tend to believe the woman represents Israel.

I can see both points of view. What do the Orthodox say ?

well you can see both, if you connect it to Mary. Mary serves as a type of the Church because she is the first person who becomes divine by grace, and she is the first living Temple in whom God dwelt (literally for 9 months). and because she functions as the Church, Israel is in there as well, because the Church is Israel (the people of God).

 

[Dorothea]

Either Mary or the Church, but Mary is supposed referred to as the Church too...kinda like what Matt said.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

So I guess we are not quite sure. LOL

I can see both sides, but where it says.

She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.

It says that in the book of psalms:

He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron[b];
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

So I think one can extrapolate in both the writer was speaking of Jesus, so this would probably support the Catholic view. The Catholic view is that the Woman is Mary and that the son is Jesus, where the Protestants state the Woman is Israel and the son is Jesus.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So I guess we are not quite sure. LOL

I can see both sides, but where it says. It says that in the book of psalms:



So I think one can extrapolate in both the writer was speaking of Jesus, so this would probably support the Catholic view. The Catholic view is that the Woman is Mary and that the son is Jesus, where the Protestants state the Woman is Israel and the son is Jesus.

Orthodox do not have a problem with seeing both interpretations/understandings (Mary or the Church, the Church being a fulfillment of Israel). Often we see scripture as having multiple understandings or meanings.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Orthodox do not have a problem with seeing both interpretations/understandings (Mary or the Church, the Church being a fulfillment of Israel). Often we see scripture as having multiple understandings or meanings.

Couldn't that be a slippery slope ? If we can start assigning dual meanings to scripture ? i.e. the Resurrection and other foundations.

 

[truefiction1]

Couldn't that be a slippery slope ? If we can start assigning dual meanings to scripture ? i.e. the Resurrection and other foundations.

I don't believe so. Scripture can often be found to have different meanings. As long as these meanings are in accordance with the Spirit and wisdom imparted by Him, then the meanings in no way contradict one another, but rather, they complement each other and lead to wholeness of understanding.

 

[Lukaris]

Couldn't that be a slippery slope ? If we can start assigning dual meanings to scripture ? i.e. the Resurrection and other foundations.

Chiming in with True Fiction. I even read re The Woman of the Apocalypse in "Hail Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn that scripture like in Revelation can have more than one meaning. I think this part of RCC explanation given by Hahn is square with our understanding here. His book is rather good & yes, I knew where to break off in faith difference when he started discussing the immaculate conception etc. I think another good analogy with the woman of the apocalypse can be found in a virtual typology in the splendor of praise given to the martyred mother (& her 7 sons & Eleazar) of 2 Maccabees towards the conclusion of the book of 4th Maccabees.

 

[Blonde]

Couldn't that be a slippery slope ? If we can start assigning dual meanings to scripture ? i.e. the Resurrection and other foundations.

Only a slippery slope if you are relying on yourself and your own understanding but in Orthodoxy that is not the case.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Couldn't that be a slippery slope ? If we can start assigning dual meanings to scripture ? i.e. the Resurrection and other foundations.

"We" are not "assigning" dual meanings to scripture. Rather, the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Church that some things have deeper meanings than we might first understand.

 

[isshinwhat]

well you can see both, if you connect it to Mary. Mary serves as a type of the Church because she is the first person who becomes divine by grace, and she is the first living Temple in whom God dwelt (literally for 9 months). and because she functions as the Church, Israel is in there as well, because the Church is Israel (the people of God).

Our priest has his Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum in Rome and this is what he taught in a Mariology series at Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Our priest has his Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum in Rome and this is what he taught in a Mariology series at Church.

yeah, it seems to be the traditional view. I know that when the early Christians looked at Scripture, they looked at how it pointed to Christ and that was how the interpretations were revealed.

 

[buzuxi02]

The connection of the Theotokos with the vision of Rev 12, tends to be a later development, post Ephesus. In the 5th century after the Virgin Mary was officially granted the dogmatic title of Theotokos more people began pondering the role of Mary in the Church, this coincided with the book of Revelation being more and more accepted in the east.

The biggest problem with viewing Rev 12 with the Theotokos is verse 2:
'Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.'

This verse goes against Orthodox teaching where we are taught that Christ spared her from the curse of old. The early Fathers interpreted the woman to be the church.

St Hippolytus commenting:

By the woman then clothed with the sun,” he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, “upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. “And she brought forth,” he says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;” by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, “her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly... “And the dragon,” he says, “saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks concealment in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: “And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings.”

St Methodius actually devotes a number of chapters on Rev12, they can be found on ccel.org

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

The connection of the Theotokos with the vision of Rev 12, tends to be a later development, post Ephesus. In the 5th century after the Virgin Mary was officially granted the dogmatic title of Theotokos more people began pondering the role of Mary in the Church, this coincided with the book of Revelation being more and more accepted in the east.

The biggest problem with viewing Rev 12 with the Theotokos is verse 2:
'Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.'

This verse goes against Orthodox teaching where we are taught that Christ spared her from the curse of old. The early Fathers interpreted the woman to be the church.

St Hippolytus commenting:

By the woman then clothed with the sun,” he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, “upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. “And she brought forth,” he says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;” by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, “her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly... “And the dragon,” he says, “saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks concealment in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: “And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings.”

St Methodius actually devotes a number of chapters on Rev12, they can be found on ccel.org

Exactly my point, this is what a protestant blogger states:

But then Madrid appeals to the early church fathers as proof Revelation 12 is about the assumption. Fortunately for Madrid, very few actually read the early church fathers! If they did, they would discover the same thing Giovanni Miegge did. The earliest reference to Mary in Revelation 12 does not appear until the fourth century:

"The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation" [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)].​

So, the earliest church fathers see "the woman" as "the Church," yet somehow, this earlier interpretation must be wrong, and the post-fourth century interpretation must be correct. Why? Because Mary's assumption needs to be in the Bible. Or, perhaps, it is both Mary and the Church. Without Rome telling us, anything goes. For instance, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin says the woman is "a four-way symbol": Mary, the Church, Israel, and Eve. That covers all bases!

So did the modern church try to fit the scripture to their narrative ? Revelation 12 seems to be a very contentious area.

 

[buzuxi02]

I dont think the (modern) church' dwells to much on Revelation 12. If the Latins saw a veiled reference to the Assumption, then verse 2 challenges their belief in the Immaculate Conception.

The Orthodox tend to interpret the verses about the Woman's flight into the wilderness through a historical lens, basically its a veiled reference to when the Jerusalem Church fled to Pella in 66a.d. at the outbreak of the roman seige.

For what its worth Dennis Engleman in his book about the Orthodox perspective on the end times, 'Ultimate Things' dismisses the interpretation that the Woman is referencing the Theotokos.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I dont think the (modern) church' dwells to much on Revelation 12. If the Latins saw a veiled reference to the Assumption, then verse 2 challenges their belief in the Immaculate Conception.

The Orthodox tend to interpret the verses about the Woman's flight into the wilderness through a historical lens, basically its a veiled reference to when the Jerusalem Church fled to Pella in 66a.d. at the outbreak of the roman seige.

For what its worth Dennis Engleman in his book about the Orthodox perspective on the end times, 'Ultimate Things' dismisses the interpretation that the Woman is referencing the Theotokos.

I guess this supports why I started the post, it was designed to stimulate conversation regarding interpretation of scripture and in particular Rev. 12. Your response supports that. The Orthodox interpretation would seem to reflect that of the greater church at large, that being that their are various interpretations. Interesting. Thanks for all the good responses.

 

[jckstraw72]

In the book of Revelation, St. John beheld a vision of the temple of God containing the Ark of the Covenant and immediately begins to describe a woman in the heavens who bore a child against whom the red dragon fought[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT], and who would rule all nations and was caught up to God (11:19-12:5). If read literally this can only apply to the Theotokos for she alone gave birth to a Child Who would rule all nations. Archbishop Averky of Syracuse writes that the woman in Revelation 12 represents rather the Church, because the Theotokos did not experience birth pains as did the woman in St. John’s vision[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT]. However, it is a common Patristic teaching that Christ’s entrusting of His mother to the beloved disciple from the Cross indicates that she is the mother of all Christians and thus of the Church, [FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] and that the sword of St. Symeon’s prophecy pierced her soul as she stood at the foot of the Cross.[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] The Church also proclaims this in Her hymnography: “’A sword hath gone through my heart, O Son,’ said the Virgin in her grief, as she beheld Christ her Son and Master hanging on the Tree.”[FONT=&quot][5][/FONT] As it is Christ’s passion, and Resurrection, which gives birth to the Church then the “birth pains” of Revelation 12:2 can refer to her pain of soul at the Cross which births her spiritual children. And although many Church Fathers do identify the woman in Revelation as the Church,[FONT=&quot][6][/FONT] it is also common to see in the Theotokos a figure of the Church. St. Ephraim of Syria writes, “The Virgin Mary is a symbol of the Church, when she receives the first announcement of the gospel … We call the Church by the name of Mary, for she deserves a double name.”[FONT=&quot][7][/FONT] Furthermore, according to the Painter’s Manual or Hermeneia of Dionysius of Fourna, the twelfth chapter of Revelation is to be illustrated with the Theotokos as the woman of St. John’s vision, and the Akathist for the Dormition, as celebrated on the Holy Mountain, identifies the vision as a type of the glory of the Mother of God: “The heavenly sign was a type of thy glory, O Mother, which I beheld in the Revelation; for thou didst then appear unto me as a woman clad with the intellectual Sun …”[FONT=&quot][8][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Thus referring to the enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed in Genesis 3:15

[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] Taushev, Abp. Averky. The Apocalypse in the Teaching of Ancient Christianity: an Orthodox Commentary. Trans. Fr. Seraphim Rose. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995, p. 178.

[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] For example: St. George of Nicomedia, Homily 8, PG 100, 1477B; St. Epiphanios, Panarion 78; St. Nilos the Abbot, PG 79, 179D; St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 37 on the August Dormition of Our Most Immaculate Lady Theotokos, PG 151, 465A; St. John of Kronstadt. My Life in Christ, Or, Moments of Spiritual Serenity and Contemplation, of Reverent Feeling, of Earnest Self-amendment, and of Peace in God: Extracts from the Diary. Trans. Ernest Evgenʹevich. Gulia︡ev. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1984, p. 305

[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] See Origen, On Luke Homily 18, PG 13, 1845; St. Basil, Letter 250, PG 32, 965; St. Cyril of Alexandria, On John 19.25, PG 74, 661-664; St. Hesychios, Sermon on the Presentation, PG 93, 1478; St. Romanos the Melodist, On the Presentation 13; The Venerable Bede, Hom. in Purif. 18, in Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout (1953), 122, 132; St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.14; St. Theodore the Studite, 2nd Canon of Matins on Monday in the Third Week of Lent, Stavrotheotokion of Ode 8

[FONT=&quot][5][/FONT] Tuesday Vepers, 1st Tone, Theotokion

[FONT=&quot][6][/FONT] St. Hippolytus, Christ and Antichrist; St. Methodios, The Symposium: A Treatise on Chastity

[FONT=&quot][7][/FONT] Sermo ad noct. Resurr., ed. Lamy, 1:534, quoted in Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: the Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. Trans. Thomas Buffer. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999, p. 115. See also St. Ambrose, Exposito in Lucam 2.7, PL 15, 1635-36; St. Isidore of Seville, Quaestiones in Genesim 2.18, PL 83, 216 and Allegoriae 139, PL 83, 117. Virginity represents faithfulness on behalf of the people of God in the Old Testament, and conversely unfaithfulness is presented as impurity (see Jeremiah 18:13-15 and Ezekiel 23). This imagery is continued in the New Testament era. St. Paul writes to the Corinthians that it is his duty to preserve the “virginity” of the Church (2 Cor. 11:2-3), and in the Shepherd of Hermas the Church is presented as a virgin (4th Vision, chapter 2).

[FONT=&quot][8][/FONT] Charitos, Minas. The Repose of Our Most Holy and Glorious Lady the Theotokos And Ever-virgin Mary and Her Translation to Heaven. Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1963, p. 10, quoted in The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos, p. 501.

 

[Knee V]

well you can see both, if you connect it to Mary. Mary serves as a type of the Church because she is the first person who becomes divine by grace, and she is the first living Temple in whom God dwelt (literally for 9 months). and because she functions as the Church, Israel is in there as well, because the Church is Israel (the people of God).

I concur.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I would like to hear from my Orthodox brothers and sisters regarding the interpretation of Revelation 12.




The Catholic apologist view is that the Woman is Mary, non-Catholics tend to believe the woman represents Israel.

I can see both points of view. What do the Orthodox say ?

Actually, the Catholic Church officially accepts both views as simultaneously valid.