Is Mary the Woman in Revelation 12?

[Michie]

Even many Protestant scholars believe she is an image of the mother of Jesus​

When Protestants say “Catholics believe in doctrines that aren’t found in the Bible,” they often appeal to the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in order to justify the claim. In response, some Catholics say the Assumption is in the Bible because Mary is the woman John sees in heaven that is described in Revelation 12. Protestants often counter this claim by accusing Catholics of shoehorning Mary into a text that is actually talking about the Church or the people of Israel.

So who is right?

In one sense, both. But before I explain how that could be, I need to remind Catholics that we are not Protestant.

Challenges that we must “prove” all Catholic doctrine from scripture shouldn’t worry us because we reject the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura. When Cardinal Newman preached on the Mary’s Assumption and Immaculate Conception he gave evidence for those doctrines but he also said “I am not proving these doctrines to you, my brethren; the evidence of them lies in the declaration of the Church. The Church is the oracle of religious truth, and dispenses what the apostles committed to her in every time and place.”

A plausible case can be made, however, that the Bible “reflects” the doctrine of the Assumption and that evidence for this dogma is implicitly found in John’s description of the woman in Revelation 12:1-6. This isn’t enough to prove Mary was assumed into heaven, but it does cohere with prior belief in Mary’s assumption and provides additional support for that claim. So let’s examine what John says about this woman and consider the possible Marian symbolism:

Continued below.

Is Mary the Woman in Revelation 12?

When Protestants say “Catholics believe in doctrines that aren’t found in the Bible,” they often appeal to the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in order to justify th...

www.catholic.com

 

[FaithT]

Even many Protestant scholars believe she is an image of the mother of Jesus​

When Protestants say “Catholics believe in doctrines that aren’t found in the Bible,” they often appeal to the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in order to justify the claim. In response, some Catholics say the Assumption is in the Bible because Mary is the woman John sees in heaven that is described in Revelation 12. Protestants often counter this claim by accusing Catholics of shoehorning Mary into a text that is actually talking about the Church or the people of Israel.

So who is right?

In one sense, both. But before I explain how that could be, I need to remind Catholics that we are not Protestant.

Challenges that we must “prove” all Catholic doctrine from scripture shouldn’t worry us because we reject the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura. When Cardinal Newman preached on the Mary’s Assumption and Immaculate Conception he gave evidence for those doctrines but he also said “I am not proving these doctrines to you, my brethren; the evidence of them lies in the declaration of the Church. The Church is the oracle of religious truth, and dispenses what the apostles committed to her in every time and place.”

A plausible case can be made, however, that the Bible “reflects” the doctrine of the Assumption and that evidence for this dogma is implicitly found in John’s description of the woman in Revelation 12:1-6. This isn’t enough to prove Mary was assumed into heaven, but it does cohere with prior belief in Mary’s assumption and provides additional support for that claim. So let’s examine what John says about this woman and consider the possible Marian symbolism:

Continued below.

Is Mary the Woman in Revelation 12?

When Protestants say “Catholics believe in doctrines that aren’t found in the Bible,” they often appeal to the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in order to justify th...

www.catholic.com

Again, when I was Lutheran, I read the entire Bible for the first time (it possibly will be the only time I‘ll read it all the way through). I’ve always avoided reading Revelation because I have a fear about the end of the world, but this time I did read it and when I got to Rev. 12: 1-6 I too was struck by the thought that they were writing about the Blessed Mother. I mentioned that to my pastor, too, but I cant remember what his answer to that was.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Even many Protestant scholars believe she is an image of the mother of Jesus​

When Protestants say “Catholics believe in doctrines that aren’t found in the Bible,”

Ok, the correct answer to this charge is "Yes, we do". Catholic Theology and doctrine is based on Sacred Tradition, Documentation of which the Bible is only a part, and Natural Law.

That's basic Catechism.

Which this guy goes on to say:

Challenges that we must “prove” all Catholic doctrine from scripture shouldn’t worry us because we reject the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

A plausible case can be made, however, that the Bible “reflects” the doctrine of the Assumption and that evidence for this dogma is implicitly found in John’s description of the woman in Revelation 12:1-6. This isn’t enough to prove Mary was assumed into heaven, but it does cohere with prior belief in Mary’s assumption and provides additional support for that claim. So let’s examine what John says about this woman and consider the possible Marian symbolism:

Well, maybe, but I think using Revelation as anything other than a parable written is an excellent example of Apocalyptic style is problematic.

Rev 12:1-6:

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.

This seems way more applicable to Apocalyptic imagery than to theologically underpinning Mary's Assumption.
It's a stretch and then some to try to make this a supporting argument for the Assumption of Mary.

 

[epostle]

Even many Protestant scholars believe she is an image of the mother of Jesus​

Ok, the correct answer to this charge is "Yes, we do". Catholic Theology and doctrine is based on Sacred Tradition, Documentation of which the Bible is only a part, and Natural Law.

That's basic Catechism.

Which this guy goes on to say:


Well, maybe, but I think using Revelation as anything other than a parable written is an excellent example of Apocalyptic style is problematic.

Rev 12:1-6:


This seems way more applicable to Apocalyptic imagery than to theologically underpinning Mary's Assumption.
It's a stretch and then some to try to make this a supporting argument for the Assumption of Mary.

Oh, those conniving lying Apostles hid Mary's dead body so they could invent the doctrine of the Assumption...
...I don't think so.

 

[Carl Emerson]

For the record I have always seen it as a reference to Israel with 12 tribes and the Son is Jesus. verse 13 refers to the authority given to the church in which Satan was seen falling like lightning and following persecution of the early church. 15 refers to the persecution of the Jews and then Christians globally. That is a familiar theme in our age.

I guess just balancing the record regarding what some scholars believe.

 

[epostle]

For the record I have always seen it as a reference to Israel with 12 tribes and the Son is Jesus. verse 13 refers to the authority given to the church in which Satan was seen falling like lightning and following persecution of the early church. 15 refers to the persecution of the Jews and then Christians globally. That is a familiar theme in our age.

I guess just balancing the record regarding what some scholars believe

Keep in mind there were no chapter divisions in the Bible until the 13th century, and verse numbers were added some 200 years later. So Rev. 11:19 cannot be separated from Rev. 12:1. This begs the question: what or who is the "Ark of His covenant" in Rev. 11:19??? A woman or a box?

 

[chevyontheriver]

For the record I have always seen it as a reference to Israel with 12 tribes and the Son is Jesus. verse 13 refers to the authority given to the church in which Satan was seen falling like lightning and following persecution of the early church. 15 refers to the persecution of the Jews and then Christians globally. That is a familiar theme in our age.

I guess just balancing the record regarding what some scholars believe.

As with so many Johannine things a double meaning is not only possible but expected.

 

[epostle]

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ok, so they are good with Henoch, Elijah and Moses all rising to Heaven but the Lord's own Mother is not good enough or has done enough?

Yes the concept of physical rising to Heaven fully is in scriptures, the Old Testament.
Plus the oral tradition of the Church since the beginning.

WHICH BTW the writings of the Old Testament are all oral tradition for up to 200 years until written.
Well, the tradition was written regarding our Lady.

It is that the POPE did not add it to canon.

SMH.

I try to get folks to understand the Bible - canon is our Tradition. They cannot borrow it to try to prove against the rest of tradition.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Even many Protestant scholars believe she is an image of the mother of Jesus​

Ok, the correct answer to this charge is "Yes, we do". Catholic Theology and doctrine is based on Sacred Tradition, Documentation of which the Bible is only a part, and Natural Law.

That's basic Catechism.

Which this guy goes on to say:




Well, maybe, but I think using Revelation as anything other than a parable written is an excellent example of Apocalyptic style is problematic.

Rev 12:1-6:


This seems way more applicable to Apocalyptic imagery than to theologically underpinning Mary's Assumption.
It's a stretch and then some to try to make this a supporting argument for the Assumption of Mary.

I see you are on the right track, but I want to add this in for you....

Yet it also alludes to her being protected from evil.

So what is evil?

Why does our body become dust, corrupted?
Because original sin.

In the Old Testament St Michael does not allow the body of Moses to become corrupted by evil.
His body disappeared.

Our lady is protected from the dragon - aka decomposing corruption.
Therefore; she rose to Heaven.


Revelation 12:

4 cHis tail drew a third dof the stars of heaven eand threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood fbefore the woman who was ready to give birth, gto devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child hwho was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was icaught up to God and His throne. 6 Then jthe woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there kone thousand two hundred and sixty days.


In fact, if we divide the number of days by 365 it could be quite telling how long after Jesus went to Heaven His Mother joined Him Bodily.
Because Heaven is prepared by God.

 

[Jan001]

View attachment 344577

Revelation 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

There were no chapters or verses in the original Book of Revelation. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is definitely the Ark of the New Covenant!

 

[Carl Emerson]

Can someone explain why in the extensive writings of Paul there is no mention of Mary mother of Jesus if she indeed has the status some claim ?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Can someone explain why in the extensive writings of Paul there is no mention of Mary mother of Jesus if she indeed has the status some claim ?

St Paul who wore the marks in Latin - stigmata - who deemed himself unworthy for persecuting the Lord via His Church, may have failed to mention her whom he deemed himself unworthy to mention. He may have not known her, and if he did he wasn't going to be like paparazzi and discuss her to allow her live in peace.

Her humility would not withstand praise even among the laity, while she was alive.

Imagine if the people heard widespread, how unrestful her life would be.

She was hidden. Humility scorns fame.

She called herself the lowly handmaid... and she would be called blessed [venerable] every generation.
But while alive, the Apostles also avoided telling the name of the woman with demons, the harlot, the one about to be stoned etc.

Paparazzi is not a modern day thing, crowds looking for famous folks are not a modern thing.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Wherever Jesus went crowds were sure to follow.
He even escaped a few times from crowds.

He kept His Mother hidden for this cause. Her life on earth was one of mildness, humility, hidden, grace filled, avoiding fame. In fact, refusal of fame in any manner while alive.
THAT SAID: she was prophesied in the OT of her utter importance.

An importance the Apostles respected and understood and Tradition carried on even in the 1st centuries catacombs of sinners buried beseeching her prayers on the writings of their tombs.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Rev 12: 6 , 14 seem to suggest God was more than able to hide and protect. He also did this with Jesus several times.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Rev 12: 6 , 14 seem to suggest God was more than able to hide and protect. He also did this with Jesus several times.

And yes He did.

So much so, the Apostles regarded her chastely, holy and unworthy of discussing her.

Except by Tradition. The understanding of her importance was carried down through the ages and in early writings her role foreshadowed in the OT.
She was highly highly regarded and as such, the Lord in His infinite wisdom left it in HIS tradition of HIS Church.

 

[chevyontheriver]

St Paul who wore the marks in Latin - stigmata - who deemed himself unworthy for persecuting the Lord via His Church, may have failed to mention her whom he deemed himself unworthy to mention. He may have not known her, and if he did he wasn't going to be like paparazzi and discuss her to allow her live in peace.

Her humility would not withstand praise even among the laity, while she was alive.

Imagine if the people heard widespread, how unrestful her life would be.

She was hidden. Humility scorns fame.

She called herself the lowly handmaid... and she would be called blessed [venerable] every generation.
But while alive, the Apostles also avoided telling the name of the woman with demons, the harlot, the one about to be stoned etc.

Paparazzi is not a modern day thing, crowds looking for famous folks are not a modern thing.

I think there is something to this. Her humility would be a factor. John protecting her would also be a factor. A bigger one perhaps. I suspect that Paul was probably geographically isolated from her. Pauline and Johannine theology read very differently. I honestly don't think the two theologies are at all incompatible. I just don't think Paul met Mary. And that Paul and John didn't have much contact either.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Rev 17: 18 The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Is this also a reference to Mary ?

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think there is something to this. Her humility would be a factor. John protecting her would also be a factor. A bigger one perhaps. I suspect that Paul was probably geographically isolated from her. Pauline and Johannine theology read very differently. I honestly don't think the two theologies are at all incompatible. I just don't think Paul met Mary. And that Paul and John didn't have much contact either.

Didn't John receive a charge from Jesus to look after Mary ? I note John made no mention of Mary in his epistles.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Rev 17: 18 The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Is this also a reference to Mary ?

No, this is secular authority. A country, and or trade in money.