Rev 12: 1-5


#1

A great and wondrous 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. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven; an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His 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 he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. (Rev 12:1-5)

I have seen this as a argument that mary is indeed the Queen of heaven since she is wearing a crown. And if I am correct the dragon is supposed to be Satan, no? So why does the dragon also wear a crown on his seven heads? BTW I am Catholic so dont think I am a Protestant trying to disprove the Queen of Heaven idea.


#2

He is prince of this world.


#3

The reason I asked is because I showed this to a friend who said the bible never even hints to the fact that mary is the queen of heaven. I said since the women must be Mary why is she wearing a crown and wouldnt this atleast hint that she is queen of heaven?

After seeing this passage he said that by my logic the dragon could also be considered a king of heaven since he is deplicted as wearing a crown as well.


#4

I have seen this as a argument that mary is indeed the Queen of heaven since she is wearing a crown. And if I am correct the dragon is supposed to be Satan, no? So why does the dragon also wear a crown on his seven heads? BTW I am Catholic so dont think I am a Protestant trying to disprove the Queen of Heaven idea.

The Dragon is Satan, the stars swept from the sky are fallen angels, Rev 12:9. The 7 represents Satans full force coming to bear against the woman and later the church “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” Gen 3:15. Satan concentrates all his efforts on destroying Christ or drawing him away from His mission.

Jesus is victorius on the cross and Satan is defeated, however he still has influence over the world and continues to attack the womans children, that would be us. As we are adopted into Jesus family God becomes our Father and Mary our Mother just as if we had actually been born of blood into the family. We are the womans seed through adoption into the family.

Hope that helps

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


YOGA...ooer!
#5

After seeing this passage he said that by my logic the dragon could also be considered a king of heaven since he is deplicted as wearing a crown as well.

He is isolating passages then, and doesn’t know what 7 represents biblically. 7 is a perfect number biblically. In this case it represents Satan pulling out all the plugs. If he tries to tell you they are only heavenly things tell him to read some of the OT. God allows the Isrealites to be overcome numerous times for adultery, idolatry etc. The forces which defeat them are typically 7000 etc, and they are pretty evil SoB’s. Mary Magdeline had 7 demons Jesus cast out. The 7 heads of the beast aren’t exactly heavely, they represent the Emperors: Nero, Nerva, Domician (Emperor of Johns time), Caligula, Claudius, Vespasian and Titus who made themselves Gods to be worshiped. Biblically they represent the number 6, man declaring himself God or greater than God.

Overall though 7 does represent those things of God, rested on the 7th day, forgive a brother 70 times 7 and so on. Actually if you look up 7 in Revelation it happens quite often, as a guess, probably around 100 times or more; 7 churches, lampstands, seals, bowls, crowns and so on, each symbolizing different things. John borrows some imagery heavily from Daniel and Ezekial.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#6

Mary isn’t Queen because she wears a crown. She is Queen because she is the Mother of the King.


#7

[quote=porthos11]Mary isn’t Queen because she wears a crown. She is Queen because she is the Mother of the King.
[/quote]

I knew that, but he wanted a passage in the bible that indicated her queenship. He didnt accept the whole, because she is Jesus’ mother concept so I thought a passage where she wore a crown would suffice.


#8

It is possible there are even further meanings of the number 7 as connected with the seven days of Creation and the seven headed beast as explained in Rev. 17:9-11. The seven days of Creation are *extended *to eight (read the CCC on the section of “keep holy the sabbath day”), just as the seven kings of the beast are also extended to eight. This doesn’t seem inconsequential. I’ve seen quotes of several Early Fathers who associate both the days of Creation and the kings of the beast with the whole course of salvation history. Hence, just as the aforementioned text of Revelation above asserts, “Five [kings of the beast] have fallen…”, so a particular Early Father asserts “Five days have passed [with the first coming of Christ]…”. This leaves three days, or kings of the beast, for the Church age. In this analysis, we appear to be currently in the seventh head of the beast, the minor apostasy of the mystics, from which follows the Sabbath rest, or, as the mystics put it, “the Age of Peace.”

On that vein, the dragon probably also has seven heads like the beast because, prior to his fall, he saw these inevitable seven (or rather eight) major stages of sin that would arise in history, and hence his refusal to serve God is total and complete, seeing as his rejection and that of the rest of his angels is essentially so complete and radical that it is, in essence, unforgivable, as the CCC suggests (see the section, the fall of the angels). In that sense, then, the devil “pulls all the plugs” in the sense that he is the instigator of each of the seven [eight] stages of sin in salvation history.

Anyway, that’s just my tidbit, and so you can surmise I am an apocalyptic nut. If you require further or deeper analysis, the following article on my blog goes into a little more detail: Historicism and the Seven Days/ Heads.

GB,
scott
:nerd:


#9

spauline,

I could use your help. We have talked again today and he came saying that as a Catholic I was committing “theological suicide” by interpreting the passage like I did because if the women in this passage was marry then I would have to abandon the idea of the immaculate conception since the women in this passage is in pain while giving birth to Jesus and pain while giving birth is the result of original sin. (this is what he said) He then later went on to say that the women represented here in in fact the people of God and isreal, I knew what to say there but didnt know what to say about the ‘pain’ part of his argument.

Any thoughts?


#10

Actually all three have been proposed however none fit exactly, Mary, Isreal, nor the people of God. Personally I suspect, as with much of scripture, it has multiple levels of meaning, both/and, not either/or and all are somehow correct. The church leaves it open to interpretation.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#11

[quote=Nicene]Actually all three have been proposed however none fit exactly, Mary, Isreal, nor the people of God. Personally I suspect, as with much of scripture, it has multiple levels of meaning, both/and, not either/or and all are somehow correct. The church leaves it open to interpretation.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
[/quote]

What about the womens ‘pain’ while given birth to Jesus and his argument that if I accept the women as Marry then I have to abandon the idea of the immaculate conception?


#12

[quote=Roman_Catholic]spauline,

I could use your help. We have talked again today and he came saying that as a Catholic I was committing “theological suicide” by interpreting the passage like I did because if the women in this passage was marry then I would have to abandon the idea of the immaculate conception since the women in this passage is in pain while giving birth to Jesus and pain while giving birth is the result of original sin. (this is what he said) He then later went on to say that the women represented here in in fact the people of God and isreal, I knew what to say there but didnt know what to say about the ‘pain’ part of his argument.

Any thoughts?
[/quote]

Dear RC,

Well, I’m not an expert, but I can at least help to solve this current dilemma you have with a simple Catholic principle: POLYVALENCE: that is, any particular Scripture verse, passage, etc. can have *multiple layers of meaning. *Hence, the woman of Rev. 12 need not be ONLY Our Lady, and nothing else, or ONLY the Church, or ONLY Israel, and nothing else. It can be all of these at the same time in certain places. Also, if there are multiple layers of meaning, certain details may be applicable to only certain layers and not others.

Hence, the “pain” of the woman in bringing forth Christ might only apply to Israel, who had to walk the way of the pilgrim (see the painful stages of the lives of the saints on my blog here, which is perhaps based on Israel’s own painful experience) to come to the fulfillment of Christ’s first Coming, and not, in this case, implying that Mary, as another level, brought forth child in ‘pain’.

Hence, ask your attackers if they accept polyvalence, or something analogous to that. If they don’t, you might get into a hard spot, but, of course, persons like this are their own pope. Honestly, the Catholic Church, from I have learned, does not at all tell us that Revelation has only one meaning. For crying out loud, I believe the Catechism even discusses the various types of genre or meaning in any given Biblical text: the literal sense, and the allegorical senses: which include (my memory is foggy) the moral sense, the anagogical sense,…

Here’s another example: the Two Witnesses can have several layers of meaning, as I suggested to a friend. Here’s a quote:

I think that many of your problems could be cleared up by realizing, first, that Revelation is MULTILAYERED, and MULTIDIMENSIONAL, that is, it is not necessarily to be understood completely from a chronological standpoint. For example, the respective sections of the seals, trumpets, and bowls could have layers of meaning that apply in several different occasions in Church history. For example, the Two Witnesses might have a fulfillment in

  1. The beginning with Sts. Peter and Paul, murdered by Nero, who was, on one level, the “beast,”

  2. At the end of Church history with Enoch and Elijah who will be murdered literally under THE Antichrist, and

  3. Figuratively in the intermediate Church history through the Reunion of Christians to occur following the current Minor Apostasy (a type of the “beast”).

Similarly, the sections with the beast apply at least three times in Church history (pagan Rome, the Minor Apostasy, and the Great Apostasy), as well as the OT epochs of sin (remember the beast has seven [eight] “kings”, five of which had fallen before Christ (see Rev. 17:9-11))

Also, I have a certain way to interpret Rev. 12 and associated parts of the Apocalypse where the woman is primarily the RCC and which vindicate Catholicism historically. I can send it to you if you wish.

Anyway, hope this at least helps.

GB,
scott

ps, and yes, GO SEAHAWKS! i live in Portland, so i’m somewhat your neighbor, although my native home is Michigan, hence, I pray for the day when the Lions make it to the SB!


#13

spauline,

yea that helps. I guess I really wont go into the whole thing that scriptures can have multiple layers and the ‘pain’ may not be solely associated with Mary, because he would just come back with, “well then the crown may not be associated with Mary either” which we would go around in cirlces. Anyways I am very knew the this whole thing, and probably shouldnt have gotten started with this discussion in the first place. I usually just leave confrontations like this with, “I will believe what I want and you can believe what you want” but I got duped into it, hook line and sinker :smiley: I held out pretty good though I just couldnt answer why the women was in pain if it was Mary.

Thanks and God bless


#14

[quote=Roman_Catholic]spauline,

yea that helps. I guess I really wont go into the whole thing that scriptures can have multiple layers and the ‘pain’ may not be solely associated with Mary, because he would just come back with, “well then the crown may not be associated with Mary either” which we would go around in cirlces. Anyways I am very knew the this whole thing, and probably shouldnt have gotten started with this discussion in the first place. I usually just leave confrontations like this with, “I will believe what I want and you can believe what you want” but I got duped into it, hook line and sinker :smiley: I held out pretty good though I just couldnt answer why the women was in pain if it was Mary.

Thanks and God bless
[/quote]

Dear RC,

yes, you are right: the polyvalence at least gets you out of the bind of committing “theological suicide,” but then, as you say, you are left with the possibility that the woman is not necessarily Mary at all. And, I think you are right in that you will get nowhere, since as the text of Revelation of symbolic, arguing different viewpoints is largely useless between individuals who have already opposing views of doctrine, since each person can shape the text to their view, when the other can do the same thing.

But, anyway, you are quite welcome and God Bless you as well!

scott


#15

If the woman is the church and the church gives birth to Christ is Christ in fact real or an invention of the church? This says Christ was born from the church. Theological suicide.

If Isreal is the woman and they flee into the desert, and we know that they did not accept Jesus yet Jesus says you must believe in him to be saved, the New covenant is void. Theological suicide.

Was Jesus snatched up into heaven when he was born? If he is going to hold you to a particular passage as literal then do the same from this viewpoint, he is going to have problems explaning those.

When was Jesus taken into heaven? Paul in Acts describes Christ as being “begotten” at his death. He uses the theme of enthronement from Psalms. So the birth pangs in this context is the crusifixion death and resurrection.

So you see all three fit, yet none fit exactly. John is representing quite a few themes in a short period.

I wouldn’t let your friend pigeonhole you into his theology so quickly. Like I said I personally think it represents all 3 in various ways. He is trying to get you to give into his interpretation by making you doubt, without showing the holes in his own. That is also why the church sees it as all three as well. Each isolated has it’s own flaws.

Sorry this an abreviated explanation but it should suffice. It’s late and have to hit the hay for work tomarrow. If you want to get some more insight I would pick up Sacra Pagina and the Navarre Revelation commentaries. They go into much greater depth.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#16

Oops almost forgot, as the crusifixtion, death and resurrection represent Christs birth into Glory in His heavenly kingdom, the pangs of childbirth by Mary at that event were already prophesied by Simeon “And a sword too shall pierce your heart” I would say Mary went through quite a bit of pain at that birth.

Your friend is looking at Christs birth incorrectly in that passage. It isn’t his Birth into the world but his birth into his heavenly Kingdom.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#17

Alright I will bring all this up to him. I will let you know what he says… By the way we are doing this by email thankfully. Gives me time to research his claims.

God Bless


#18

RC,

Here’s something else for your friend to digest: the dragon is defeated in heaven and cast to earth. I believe I read that some ancient scholars see this as a symbol of the Church’s triumph over paganism, especially Rome, which was indeed purchased by those martyrs who “overcame him [the devil] by the blood of the Lamb, and they loved not their lives unto death…” Also compare the associated victory speech of the angel in Rev. 12 there with the words of victory in the latter parts of Daniel 2 and 7, both of which suggest, on one level, the triumph of the Church over Rome.

Then, the dragon spews a flood at the woman, but the earth rescues her by “swallowing” the flood. Well, as Christ suggests the firm foundation of rock for building one’s house (i.e., NOT on the sand), and as St. Paul says in that famed Catholic apologetic verse, 1 Tim. 3:15, the Church of the living God is the “pillar and ground of the truth,” so then the* earth* becomes a suitable metaphor for the Magisterium, which, as the devil assaults the church with the foundationless “water” of lies (total heresies), in order that she might be “carried away,” so the solid foundation of the earth, the Magisterium, swallows the lies of heresy and associatedly protects the woman from being “carried away” by the flood of errors.

Enraged at his inability to destroy the woman, the dragon runs off and takes his position on the “sands of the sea,” that is, with ideologies that are partly true and partly false (like Fundamentalism and Liberalism), in between the full foundation of the earth and the total lack of foundation of the sea (from which also the beast arises).

I realize this is speculation, but it sure fits with a Catholic understanding of things. Maybe you could throw it at him to see how he deals with it.

GB,
scott


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.