If Revelation 12 is speaking of Mary, then how do you get around the part that speaks of her in verse 2 "She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth."? Remember in Genesis 3:16 when God told Eve because of sin, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children."? So, if this Revelation verse is speaking of Mary, then she cried out in pain while giving birth and it meant she had the sin nature passed on from Eve. Yet, Roman Catholic teaching says Mary did not have a sin nature nor any pain birthing Jesus and she remarkably even remained a virgin. So which is it? Revelation 12 CANNOT be speaking about Mary. It can ONLY be Israel, who is persecuted during the last half of the Tribulation. No other way fits.
Wow! Great catch boatbums! I hadn’t caught that little tidbit but it is so true and telling.
So, if this Revelation verse is speaking of Mary, then she cried out in pain while giving birth and it meant she had the sin nature passed on from Eve. Yet, Roman Catholic teaching says Mary did not have a sin nature nor any pain birthing Jesus and she remarkably even remained a virgin. So which is it? Revelation 12 CANNOT be speaking about Mary. It can ONLY be Israel, who is persecuted during the last half of the Tribulation. No other way fits.
Oooops......
While I’m certainly not infallible and never would I have the hubris to claim otherwise, it appears that certain passages of scripture have meaning in a variety of ways, with one not contradicting another. This passage from Revelation 12 is a prime example.
A virgin with child clearly references the birth of Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary. Regardless of the peculiar beliefs that have been spun off of this by the Catholic Church, it is undeniable in my opinion. However, it is also Israel. That is easily deduced and fairly straightforward, unless of course one presumes one’s own church to have supplanted Israel, which has led to all sorts of ugliness, and will again.
But, it is also a sign, a literal sign. Old Testament and Jewish prophecy is replete with such things. It’s what had the Magi trekking a very long distance to find the king of the Jews. This sign heralds His return in the same way. Note, however, that this is the earthly king ruling with a rod of iron, the expectation of the Jews, borne of prophecy, that led to their rejection of Him in the first instance.
Second occurences that address the first are not foreign to the Bible. The first Adam who sinned, the second Adam, Jesus Christ, who was victorious over death and sin.
So, it’s Mary with child. It’s Israel. It’s a sign that heralds His return. It fulfills Jewish prophecy completely. There is no reason it cannot be all these things, and I believe that it is all these things.
You do point out an obvious and interesting difficulty for those who have intellectualized the virgin birth and the sinlessness of Jesus Christ into believing that this necessitates a sinless Mary. She cried out in pain, a consequence of sin.
I don’t think you’ll encounter the term “sin nature” very often in Catholic thought.
I don’t see that the curse on childbirth is necessarily confined to women who sin. Further, it is not settled teaching that Mary’s delivery was without pain. I am reading the hymns of Ephrem of Syria (4th century Mesopotamia — awesomely great hymns), and he says it was a birth with pangs.
Further, in giving birth to Jesus, Mary, we hold, gives birth to the Church, and in being the mother of Christ she shares, off course in a lesser way, his sufferings as he sheds the blood which grows the Church. As the mother of Christ, she shares in his suffering. as the mother of the Church (for the Church is the body of him whom she bore), she shares in the sufferings of the Church and,indeed, of the whole creation which groaneth together in travail until now.
They insist on their quasi-literal understanding of the birth pangs, but raise no fuss about standing on the moon or the crown of twelve stars.
But more foolishly still, they seem to think that centuries of study and of reference to this very passage — even by those who hold the Immaculate Conception, would somehow overlook the birth pangs argument and they bring forth this battered tin can as though it were some precious hereto unseen and devastating argument. Then they all grin at each other as if they’d done something of unprecedented craftiness.
Yeah. Well. Whatever.
Merry Christmas.
Finally a response from someone who isn’t simply flaming!
Yes, you are very correct in discerning that the Blessed Virgin Mary, according to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, based on her sinlessness and the doctrine of Original sin, did not experience the pangs of labor. At least, several Church Fathers asserted so, using precisely your logic.
But try and grasp this: like other biblical prophecy, Revelation uses a prophetic sign in the present as a foreshadowing for events yet to come. Mary is that sign, but she is a sign for the church. So the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, but she is a symbol, or archetype, for the Church. I was trying to explain to Quix that all that the Church achieves by bringing Christ to us, Mary shares in by bringing Christ into the world, so that the Church may bring him to us.
Did Mary experience labor pains as a result of her own original sin? Many church fathers speculated that she must not have.
Did Mary experience suffering as a result of dwelling in a fallen world? Absolutely. Mary was told “A sword shall pierce your heart” — Luke 2.
And in Catholic iconography, she is often pictured with a bleeding heart. Hence, the phrase.
Finally a response from someone who isn’t simply flaming!
Yes, you are very correct in discerning that the Blessed Virgin Mary, according to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, based on her sinlessness and the doctrine of Original sin, did not experience the pangs of labor. At least, several Church Fathers asserted so, using precisely your logic.
But try and grasp this: like other biblical prophecy, Revelation uses a prophetic sign in the present as a foreshadowing for events yet to come. Mary is that sign, but she is a sign for the church. So the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, but she is a symbol, or archetype, for the Church. I was trying to explain to Quix that all that the Church achieves by bringing Christ to us, Mary shares in by bringing Christ into the world, so that the Church may bring him to us.
Did Mary experience labor pains as a result of her own original sin? Many church fathers speculated that she must not have.
Did Mary experience suffering as a result of dwelling in a fallen world? Absolutely. Mary was told “A sword shall pierce your heart” — Luke 2.
And in Catholic iconography, she is often pictured with a bleeding heart. Hence, the phrase.
For Mary, Christ’s birth was complete when he died on the cross, and was resurrected.