![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/11\/Mary29.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Anti-Catholic polemicist Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White, among many other childish potshots at Catholic apologists and the Catholic Church, mocked the interpretation of Revelation 12 and\u00a0the \u201cwoman clothed with the sun\u201d as the Blessed Virgin Mary, in his post entitled,<\/span> \u201cAnd So They Trudge on in Defense of Mother Church\u201d<\/a> (8-12-09). His words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Revelation 12<\/strong> (complete: RSV)\u00a0<\/span>And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;<\/span>\u00a0[2] she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.\u00a0[3] And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads.\u00a0[4] His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. 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;\u00a0[5]<\/span> she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne<\/span>,\u00a0[6] and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.\u00a0[7]\u00a0Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,\u00a0[8] but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.\u00a0[9] And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world \u2014 he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.\u00a0[10] And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, \u201cNow the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.\u00a0[11] And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.\u00a0[12] Rejoice then, O heaven and you that dwell therein! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!\u201d\u00a0[13]\u00a0And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child.\u00a0[14] But 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.\u00a0[15] The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood.\u00a0[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. [17] Then the dragon 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . the argument is but one of many to be raised against Rome\u2019s abuse of the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation 12. But it is a perfectly valid issue to raise, since it is Rome, not the objector, who is forcing the imagery to \u201cwalk on all fours\u201d and to serve as one of the few texts the Roman Catholics can use as support of its clearly unbiblical complex of Marian dogmas. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There are numerous reasons, biblically and historically, to reject Rome\u2019s later identification of Mary in this text. No one is saying, \u201cOh, I grant all that, but look at this one objection.\u201d It is part of a complex of problems Rome\u2019s eisegesis creates with the apocalyptic text. And if you want another example of the \u201ccontext doesn\u2019t matter, Rome does\u201d method of biblical manhandling (shades of Harold Camping!), the beginning of birth pangs in the destruction of Jerusalem is somehow related to this imagery in Revelation, so that the term \u201cbirth\u201d becomes the valid means of connection? Ah, the glory of Rome\u2019s \u201cinterpretation\u201d of the Bible. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m still waiting for that official list of infallibly interpreted texts. Aren\u2019t you?<\/span><\/p>\n No. I provided this list in<\/span> a paper of mine dated 9-14-03<\/a> (by my math almost six years since White\u2019s paper I am presently refuted). I cited a tract from Catholic Answers which must have been earlier than that. Yet White was still seeking this answer six years later. There are seven passages for sure; possibly two more. That\u2019s it<\/em>. This passage is not among them, so we simply look at it and use our heads and utilize other scriptural knowledge to interpret it (just as Protestants do). There is a<\/span> strong exegetical tradition in Catholicism<\/a>, of course, that it is about Mary, as well as the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n But back to our topic.\u00a0 First of all, as just alluded to, most Catholic exegetes and commentators hold to a<\/span> dual application<\/a> in their interpretation of Revelation 12: i.e., Mary and<\/em> the Church. This is a not-uncommon motif in interpretation of prophecy in Scripture. Thus, we have no problem in someone applying several portions of the passage to the Church; we only object to a denial that it has anything to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary. The following are some of the considerations I would bring forth, in arguing that it does apply at least partially to Mary the Mother of God (Jesus):<\/span><\/p>\n Psalm 2:7-9<\/b>\u00a0I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, \u201cYou are my son, today I have begotten you.[8] Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. [9] You shall\u00a0break them with a rod of iron<\/i>, and dash them in pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel.\u201d (cf. Rev 12:5)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Revelation 19:13-16<\/b>\u00a0He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. [14] And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses. [15] From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will\u00a0rule them with a rod of iron<\/i>; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.\u00a0On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.\u00a0(cf. Rev 12:5)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Psalm 2:7-9 is a messianic passage, which Christians believe refers to Jesus. Revelation 19:13-16 clearly refers to Jesus, from the description of \u201cWord of God\u201d (John 1) and reference to Psalm 2. \u201cRule them with a rod of iron\u201d (19:15) is almost identical to 12: 5. We also know for sure it is Jesus by a comparison with Revelation 17:14: \u201cthey will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, . . .\u201d \u201cLamb\u201d is used many times in the book of Revelation, with clear reference to Jesus, referring to a \u201cslain\u201d Lamb (5:6, 12; 13:8), \u201cblood of the Lamb\u201d (7:14: 12:11), worship of the Lamb (5:8, 12-13), \u201ctwelve apostles of the Lamb\u201d (21:14), etc.<\/span><\/p>\n The next seemingly undeniable clue is the phrase<\/span> \u201ccaught up to God and to his throne\u201d (12:5). The association of the Lamb (Jesus) and His sitting on or being near God\u2019s \u201cthrone\u201d occurs in nine passages in the book of Revelation 12 (5:6, 13; 6:16; 7:9-10, 17 [the latter verse states \u201cthe Lamb in the midst of the\u00a0<\/b>throne\u201d]; 22:1, 3).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Coffman\u2019s Commentaries on the Bible<\/em><\/a>:\u00a0<\/span>\u201cThese two clauses open and close this verse; and the whole biography of the earthy life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God is here compressed into nineteen words! The critics have really had a fit about this. Some have even denied that the birth of Christ is mentioned here. . . .\u00a0Despite such views, the pregnant woman, the travailing in birth, and the delivery of a man child in this passage can mean nothing else except the birth of Christ; and the compression of Jesus\u2019 whole biography into such a short space is perfectly in harmony with what the author did by presenting the entire Old Testament history in a single verse (Revelation 12:4<\/span>). To suppose that the birth is not included here would make the passage mean that the woman brought forth his death and resurrection; because the emphatic statements of her pregnancy and her being delivered clearly makes her the achiever of whatever happened in\u00a0Revelation 12:5<\/span>. This therefore has to be a reference to Jesus\u2019 physical birth in Bethlehem.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Richard Lenski<\/a> also agrees.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/p>\n My book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nIf we\u2019re talking about Jesus\u2019 mother, that has to be Mary, because Jesus wasn\u2019t\u00a0born of\u00a0<\/i>the Church; He\u00a0set up<\/i>\u00a0the Church (Matthew 16).\u00a0Jesus was not a product of the Church, since He preceded it and initiated it. Therefore, that part is specifically talking about Mary. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a \u201cchild\u201d (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is \u201cof Christ\u201d; Christ is not \u201cof the Church\u201d; let alone its \u201cchild.\u201d Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cCaught up to God and to his throne\u201d (12:5) can\u2019t mean \u201cthe twelve thrones\u201d referred to in Matt 19:18 (cf. Lk 22:30; Rev 4:4; 11:16) because it says \u201cHis<\/em>\u00a0[i.e., God\u2019s] throne.\u201d Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God.\u00a0And so we see Jesus (unlike any created men) sitting on God\u2019s throne (Matt 19:28; 25:31; Heb 1:8; Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI can cite many Protestant commentators regarding Revelation 12:5, too. Baptist A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 six volumes), says of Rev. 12:5: \u201cThere is here, of course, direct reference to the birth of Jesus from Mary\u201d.\u00a0Eerdmans Bible Commentary<\/i>\u00a0likewise states: \u201cthe \u2018catching up\u2019 is sufficiently similar to the victorious ascension of Jesus to make plain its real meaning in this context.\u201d\u00a0Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary<\/i>\u00a0states: \u201crod of iron . . . ch. 2:27; Psalm 2:9, which passages prove the Lord Jesus to be meant. Any interpretation which ignores this must be wrong.\u201d It also notes the reference to the ascension.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nEllicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em><\/a> states: \u201cThere can be no doubt that this man child is Christ. The combination of features is too distinct to admit of doubt, it is the one who will feed His flock like a shepherd<\/span> (Isaiah 40:12<\/a>), who is to have, not His own people, but all nations as His inheritance<\/span> (Psalm 2:7-9<\/a>), and whose rule over them is to be supreme and irresistible.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMeyer\u2019s NT Commentary<\/em><\/a>: \u201cThese words taken from\u00a0Psalm 2:9<\/a>\u00a0(LXX.), which are referred also to Christ in\u00a0Revelation 19:15<\/a>, make it indubitable that the child born of the woman is the Messiah; but the designation of Christ by these words of the Messianic Psalm is in this passage the most appropriate and significant, since the fact is made prominent that this child just born is the one who with irresistible power will visit in judgment the antichristian heathen.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nCambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/a><\/em>: \u201cThis designation of the Son proves beyond question who He is, see\u00a0Revelation 2:27<\/a>\u00a0as proving, if there could be any doubt about it, how\u00a0Psalm 2:9<\/a>\u00a0is understood in this book.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPulpit Commentary<\/em><\/a>: \u201cThis reference and\u00a0Psalm 2:9<\/a>\u00a0leave no doubt as to the identification of the man child. It is Christ who is intended. The same expression is used of him in\u00a0Revelation 19<\/a>, where he is definitely called the \u201cWord of God.\u201d\u00a0And her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.<\/span>\u00a0The sentence seems plainly to refer to the ascension of Christ and his subsequent abiding in heaven, from whence he rules all nations.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n\nAll of this (which White will ignore, as he always does), yet the good \u201cDr.\u201d [???] states \u201c<\/span>There are numerous reasons, biblically and historically, to reject Rome\u2019s later identification of Mary in this text.\u201d I got news for Jimbo: it ain\u2019t just Rome<\/em> making the claim . . . And we wait with baited breath for him to overturn and refute all of this Protestant (not just Catholic) exegesis of Revelation 12.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nUnfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:\u00a0<\/span>If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n\n