Mary in Revelation and my bible's interpretation?

[Josh316]

I realize that the Catholic interpretation of revelation 12 is that the woman is Mary. I believe it is also the Church's position that Mary did not go through labor pains due to not being stained by original sin? Because of this I have a few questions. I have an NAB (New American Bible) Catholic companion edition bible. In this bible on the side of the page are footnotes explaining what most of these verses mean. When it gets to the verse describing the woman with the crown with the moon under her feet etc. my bible says the woman is Israel? Is this the Church's teaching as well? And my last question is one that really bothers me. When my bible gets to the part about the woman being in labor pains the footnote on the side of the page says "this is because of Eve's original sin." But I'm confused. This is, after all, a Catholic bible, so if Mary didn't experience labor pain and is the woman in revelation, why would my Catholic bible make no mention of the woman being Mary and, even if the Church teaches that the woman is both Mary and Israel why the labor pains?

[Robbinson]

Originally Posted by Josh316

I realize that the Catholic interpretation of revelation 12 is that the woman is Mary. I believe it is also the Church's position that Mary did not go through labor pains due to not being stained by original sin? Because of this I have a few questions. I have an NAB (New American Bible) Catholic companion edition bible. In this bible on the side of the page are footnotes explaining what most of these verses mean. When it gets to the verse describing the woman with the crown with the moon under her feet etc. my bible says the woman is Israel? Is this the Church's teaching as well? And my last question is one that really bothers me. When my bible gets to the part about the woman being in labor pains the footnote on the side of the page says "this is because of Eve's original sin." But I'm confused. This is, after all, a Catholic bible, so if Mary didn't experience labor pain and is the woman in revelation, why would my Catholic bible make no mention of the woman being Mary and, even if the Church teaches that the woman is both Mary and Israel why the labor pains?

Metephorical pain - prefiguring the piercing of her own heart at the crucifiction of her son, perhaps.

As to the "woman" - I think its both Israel and Mary - though Mary is a better fit as the dragon is a person - Satin; the son is a person, Jesus, the Mother who gave birth to the son is "Mary" a "person" (not Israel) and later the "offspring of the woman" is described as
"those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" (which describes the "offspring" of Mary (made "mother of John and the disciples of Christ") but not the offspring of Israel, who for the most part, rejected Christ.

[CalCatholic]

This is a partial portion of the commentary notes from the 'Ignatius Catholic Study Bible';
12:1-6 The woman of Revelation 12 is both an idividual person and a collective symbol. She is Mary, the Mother of the Messiah and the spiritual mother of his disciples (Jn 19:26-27). But she also represents the faithful of Israel, crying out for the Messiah (Rev 12:2), as well as the Church, attacked by the devil for witnessing to Jesus (12:17)...

The commentary then lists four points of biblical sybolism, and point 3 mentions the pangs of childbirth; (3) The pangs and anguish of childbirth recall Isaiah's description of Daughter Zion, a maternal figure that represents the holy remnant of Israel groaning for redemption (Is 26:17; Mic 4:9-10)...

There is also an additional point of commentary;

12:2 pangs of birth: This is probably related to the Passion of Jesus, which pierced the heart of his Mother (Lk 2:35) and seized his disciples with the distress of a woman in labor (Jn 16:20-22).

[NHInsider]

Just a couple of additional observations-

1) the footnotes of the NAB are not "official church teaching" - nor are the footnotes of any other version of the Bible. One would hope that they would be consistent with Church teaching, but that's not necessarily true.

2) the tradition that Mary gave birth without labor pains, like the tradition that the Infant Jesus did not cry, are pious beliefs but not Church teaching.

[Luke65]

This is my favorite article on the topic, from Jimmy Akin here at CA.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

The key:

"The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary."

It's a very good starting point. God bless.

[Mintaka]

Actually... that's what I thought too... but it turns out that Mary not having labor pains is an official Church teaching. Pretty high up in the hierarchy of teachings, too. (All sorts of theological points tie into it; and it's very old as a narrative tradition, also.) There were a good many threads about this at the time that Nativity movie came out.

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by Mintaka

Actually... that's what I thought too... but it turns out that Mary not having labor pains is an official Church teaching. Pretty high up in the hierarchy of teachings, too. (All sorts of theological points tie into it; and it's very old as a narrative tradition, also.) There were a good many threads about this at the time that Nativity movie came out.

I think its tradition (little "t"), but not doctrine.

[roveau]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

I think its tradition (little "t"), but not doctrine.

As a Catholic I've never heard of Mary not having birth pangs and it's not mentioned among all the important things for our salvation in the New Testament either. Oops, off topic.

I used to have two views, it (the woman of Rev. 12) represents the Church at some stage in its development and secondly it represents Mary. Looking into it now it's pretty convincing that the woman also represents Israel (the twelve stars representing the twelve tribes of Israel)... both Mary and Israel gave birth to Jesus. The only problem with scene is that the woman is taken to a place of safety, some fundamental churches make a lot of that - some saying that Israel will be taken there, others saying the church will be taken there during a time of persecution.

[Axion]

Originally Posted by roveau

As a Catholic I've never heard of Mary not having birth pangs and it's not mentioned among all the important things for our salvation in the New Testament either. Oops, off topic.

I used to have two views, it (the woman of Rev. 12) represents the Church at some stage in its development and secondly it represents Mary. Looking into it now it's pretty convincing that the woman also represents Israel (the twelve stars representing the twelve tribes of Israel)... both Mary and Israel gave birth to Jesus. The only problem with scene is that the woman is taken to a place of safety, some fundamental churches make a lot of that - some saying that Israel will be taken there, others saying the church will be taken there during a time of persecution.

The "birth pangs" thing is just a non-official tradition wich is bigged up by some anti-Catholics to try to invent a so-called "contradiction."

As for the NAB notes, they are notoriously liberal, and (like some in the NJB) seem to take pride in going against Church Teaching on many points.

The "Israel" interpretation is by far the most reent of the three - and the one most favoured by protestants. The twelve stars COULD represent the 12 tribes of Israel, they could also represent the 12 Apostles - increasing the emphasis on the Church. However the 12 stars are NOT the Woman. They simply adorn the woman. So the stars only LINK the Woman with Israel and tthe Church.And in fact neither Israel or the Church are physically represented by a Woman in Revelation symbolism.

The Church did not give birth to Jesus, and the chidren of Israel were not all faithful followers of Jesus. As far as being taken to a place of safety is concerned, that can apply to both the fligh from Herod and the flight of Christians from Jerusalem during the post-Stephen persecution. The eagle could represent John, and a possible journey with Mary to Ephesus or elsewhere.

[COPLAND 3]

I've written a commentary on Revelation and I am also putting together an abridgment to it where I put the book of Revelation into chronological order. Here are is a quote from my abridgment

In Revelation 12 John sees a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and Queen of Heaven. And while describing that he recalls some details about the Blessed Mother and the time when she was to give birth the Lord.

First, John says, 12:2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. Some Catholic theologians have avoided interpreting this as Mary because according to Catholic Tradition Mary was preserved from original sin (CCC 491) and did not suffer the pain of child birth, which became a curse at the Fall in Genesis (Gen 3:16). But Mary was not suffering from physical pain here, but emotional pain. Why was she in such emotional stress and pain? Two verses down is the answer, "And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth (v.4)." It is understandable why Mary was in anguish because she had all the powers of evil waiting to kill her Son. (John Paul II MULIERIS DIGNITATEM 30) For Scripture also says, "And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child." (v13) Satan being thrown down to earth is figurative of him falling from heavenly rank to an earthly rank, no longer having his great angelic status. (Oecumenius) The Incarnation of the Lord was just the beginning of Satan's great fall, but the Crucifixtion brought it more fully as we will see below. The Lord mentions the fall of Satan's rank when He said, “I was watching as Satan fell like lightning from heaven." (Lk 10:18)



So, at the birth of Christ, Satan is in the midst waiting to kill the baby Jesus, and Mary knows that the presence of evil is near, and that the Devil is going to make a great effort to prevent the Savior of the world from making it past childhood. The Devil, though close enough to have Mary very stressed in the stable where the Lord was born, he is not able to harm the Lord himself. The presence of so many heavenly angels in around Bethlahem was likely a deterent to Satan, so Satan plots to have the Lord killed by the hands of Herod. He stirs up Herod so that he would be "in a furious rage" (Mt. 2:16) in order to try to kill the child Jesus.

As Satan plots to have the Lord killed by laying upon the heart of Herod to do so, "an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." (Mt. 2:13) This is what St. John was talking about when he said, "The woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time." (Rev. 12:14) Mary was given two wings, that is reference to the angel or his message that led her and the Holy Family's flee to Egypt for three and a half years, as they "remained there until the death of Herod." (Mt. 2:15)

As they were safe in Egypt, Herod "sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi." (Mt. 2:16) This is what St. John meant in Revelation 12:15-16, "The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth." The serpent, that is Satan, through the hands of Herod poured forth water, which is symbolic language for danger (see Ps 18:16). The earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river means that those who suffered the great loss from the slaying of the children took that trial instead of Mary and Jesus, "Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: 18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more (Matt. 2:17-18)."

The Devil was not successful in killing the child Jesus, so he "was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea." (Rev. 12:17) In other words, the Devil has set out to attack all those who follow Jesus. People who follow Jesus are considered to be the offspring of the Blessed Mother Mary because Jesus gave us his Mother when he said while on the cross to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother! (John 19:26-27)" The Devil has been behind all the persecution that Christians have suffered, and that war will continue until the Lord comes again.

[NHInsider]

The problem with the assertion that "Mary could not have suffered labor pains, because that was part of the punishment for sin, and she was sinless" is that the natural corrolation to that would be that death is the ultimate punishment for sin, and Jesus died - so - what?

[KShaft]

Im still wondering how the POS NAB became translation of the Liturgy in the US. I will have my RSV-CE or Jerusalem at mass, and when they start to read from the Missal, it sounds so awkward and how it adds in words for no reason... it ends up distracting me and all I think about is how screwed up the NAB is instead of focusing on the wonderful words being spoken.

I dont think the Jerusalem is all that, but compared to the NAB, its outstanding. I have a problem with its being a dynamic translation, but if they are going to use a dynamic translation, isnt the whole point of it is so its easier to read and follow? The NAB is worse than the original DR I have. So its inaccurate AND hard to read, AND has heretical footnotes! So....whats the point!?!?! The Jerusalem has some good and some bad footnotes, but at least you can read it.

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by NHInsider

The problem with the assertion that "Mary could not have suffered labor pains, because that was part of the punishment for sin, and she was sinless" is that the natural corrolation to that would be that death is the ultimate punishment for sin, and Jesus died - so - what?

The punishment for Original Sin was to "increase the pain of child-birth"; not "introduce pain into childbirth".
Hence, that would imply that if Eve would have remained sinless, then her childbirth would have been painful, but to a lesser degree.

[Nita]

The Church teaching that Mary remained a virgin even while giving birth implies that the birth of Jesus was not an ordinary, natural birth.
There are a couple of Scripture passages that have meaning for me in this regard:

Isaiah 66:7 Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?

Psalm 22:9-10 Yet thou art he who took me from the womb; thou didst keep me safe upon my mother's breasts.
Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God.

[NHInsider]

Originally Posted by Nita

The Church teaching that Mary remained a virgin even while giving birth implies that the birth of Jesus was not an ordinary, natural birth.
There are a couple of Scripture passages that have meaning for me in this regard:

Isaiah 66:7 Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?

Psalm 22:9-10 Yet thou art he who took me from the womb; thou didst keep me safe upon my mother's breasts.
Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God.

Nita - I am not arguing that the tradition is incorrect or unfitting. I am arguing that it is a "small t" tradition and not, in fact, "Church teaching." Ott mentions the concept in passing in his discussion of Mary's Perpetual Virginity but does not treat it as a doctrine.

I've certainly been wrong before, and if someone can show me a doctrinal statement, I will of course affirm it.