In Revelation 12.1-2 it reads:
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; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.
In vv. 3-4 this woman is chased by a “red dragon” who is “the devil” according to v. 12. In vv. 5-6 the woman gives birth to a male child who is Christ.
Who is this woman in Revelation 12.1-2 who gives birth to Messiah, fights the devil, and appears as a cosmic queen dressed in the sun with the moon under her feet? Is she Mary? Is she the nation of Israel/people of God? Is she Mary embodying Israel? Is she someone else?
What do you think?
the archives near Emmaus 
I think, since I’ve written about this in some detail, that I’ll post a link to that here and let anyone who wishes give it a look: http://jmichaelrios.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/compressed-sight-revelation-12-and-federalism/
In short, I think that passage presents us with some compelling insights into how the bible sees our participation in cosmic events–that is, Federalism.
I share my reading of the passage in: “The Woman & the Dragon: Christmas in the Book of Revelation” http://daviddflowers.com/2010/12/20/the-woman-the-dragon/
@J Michael and @David: Thank you for the links!
My Presuppositions:
I. The bible interprets the bible.
II. Prophetic types and symbols are generally consistent (or complimentary) throughout the entire bible beginning to end.
The twelve stars represents the twelve tribes of Israel [Gen 37:9][Gen 15:5][Gen 22:17][Gen 26:4][Num 24:17][1 Chron 27:23] etc. Additionally, [Isaiah 26:17] (and also [Isa 66:7-8]) shows the pregnant woman to be another symbol of Israel [Isa 26:17]. Notice too, that [Isa 26:19] is messianic!
Accordingly to Daniel, the the House of Israel would be captive to 4 empires (Assyria, Persia, Greece and Rome; says [Dan 2:37-40][Dan 7:3]) then flee this captivity from her captors into the wilderness when the last empire fell. The 1260 is not three and a half actual years, but because it is punishment matches God’s timing of each year is for a day ([Num 14:34][Eze 4:5-6][Dan 9:24-27]). Thus, it is three and a half prophetic years, also known as three and a half times (from ‘time, times and half a time’).
The Hebrew year is 360 days and since and each year is for a day, the 3.5 prophetic years would be 1260 actual years starting at 745 BC (when the House of Israel was first taken by Assyria [2 Kings 17:6][2 Kings 18:11][1 Chron 5:26]) and then the fourth empire (Rome) would have to end sometime before 515 AD so Israel could flee suggests [Isaiah 43:19-20] and [Jeremiah 31:2].
We know the Roman Empire did end before 515 AD and we know it’s decline began with the death of Christ. Notice the connection between [Isa 43:2] and [Rev 12:15]. The clearest reference (IMO) to the fleeing of this beast (Babylon) towards the wilderness is [Jeremiah 50:12] speaking WRT to the House of Israel (from [Jer 50:6-8] with Israel fleeing from her captors). Thus [Jer 50:6-12] amplifies [Rev 12:6]).
It is also worthy to note that the meaning of “Israel” is to ‘to have power with God’ [Gen 32:28] (again from the Hebrew שרה (sarah, H8280)). Only Christ (the baby) could perfectly make this claim to ‘have power with God’ (as an Israelite) from the name of his mother (Israel).
The other symbols, others have explained well.
She represents Capitalism and the Dragon dude is the Occupy Movement or Keith Olbermann…still working on it.
@Andrew : I think you make some great connections here. Your comments flows like Jeremy’s post linked above. I recommend reading that as well if you get a chance.
@Sean: Ha! Nice.
@Brian – I did after I posted. Nice work Jeremy.
jmichaelrios, I liked your take a lot until the Federalism part. I believe that Revelation was a book with a fairly simple message almost certainly written in code to avoid retribution from the Roman government.
The message was, “hey, it’s hard to follow Jesus, but the time is coming in the not-too-distant future when God is gonna put the bad guys in their place and we’re gonna rule just like he promised.”
I think the author clearly intended to convey a soon apocalypse because it is what Jesus and Paul taught and because why would anybody under persecution care about something 2000+ years in the future?
Imagine you were about to get roasted on a spit and someone said to you, “hey, don’t worry, Jesus gonna make it all might in the year 4200! Would that comfort you? I don’t think so.
I tend to think that people (examples: when we start interpreting through any —ism, or whatever david flowers wrote) far overthink these things. The more complicated the interpretation, the more likely we are to miss the central point.
Hey bondboy,
First off, I’m glad you appreciated it. But let me see if I understand you–it seems you object to the link to Federalism because you argue that John’s Apocalypse is meant to communicate a simple message (at least, that’s what you say above). But what impact does that have on my linking this to Federalism?
Maybe some clarification is in order. First off, I tried to make it clear that I didn’t think John was making an argument for federalism in Revelation. Rather, I think that federalism is a nice, and appropriate, way for us to think about how we participate in Adam’s sin, Christ’s atonement, and that the same, federalist metric of participation is curiously present here in Revelation 12. In other words, I think John’s use of images reveals something important about the prophetic imagination–namely, that a prophetic image invites a kind of participation. The dragon is Satan, and he is Herod, and he is Rome, but he is also the spiritual/political powers of today that oppose the Church. This kind of compression is so pervasive in John’s book that now (having finished my church’s bible study of the book), I can’t imagine making sense of it otherwise.
Either way, John’s theology is clearly (and fittingly) complex. I don’t think John’s book is simple at all–although I think his purpose (to encourage) is simple.
Let me know if that clears things up a little, or if things are still unclear.
Re: understanding the book –
The words, expressions, phrases and idioms in Revelation cannot be called “Greek”, and indeed are called by many “Bad Greek”. Revelation is absolutely saturated with Aramaic expressions, words, phrases and idioms as Frederic Louis Godet points out in ‘Studies of the New Testament’ (p 351). Thoughts in the book are absolutely and completely Hebrew in nature and intended for a Hebrew audience (says Moses Stuart in his ‘A Commentary on the Apocalypse’). It’s imagery referencing the Temple, the Tabernacle, the Arc of the Covenant, the Altar, the incense, the heads of the 24 courses of priests (which David divinely copied to provide a template – [1 Chron 28:19][1 Chron 25][Heb 9:23]), are all specifically to, and for Israel.
About it’s literary quality, Ethelbert William Bullinger points out:
“If we count up the number of OT passages quoted or alluded to in the NT we find that the Gospel of Matthew has a very large number, amounting in all, to 92. The Epistle to the Hebrews is higher still at 102. Both of these books are connected in a special manner to Israel. (Matthew is recognized to have been written to an Israelite audience, while Hebrews was written to the Hebrews and was addressed as such). Now when we turn to the Apocalypse what do we find? The result to our mind is overwhelming. No less than 285 references to the OT. More than 3 times as many {references} as Matthew, and nearly 3 times as many {references} as Hebrews.”
The Church was never the subject of OT prophecy, and is not the subject of Revelation, says Ethelbert William Bullinger, ‘Commentary on Revelation, Or, the Apocalypse’ (p.7). I believe he’s correct.
If we start with the presupposition that the Church is the subject of Revelation, even if we admit the Hebrew character of the book, and acknowledge its use of the OT, we still set up a tension in our reading that can never be resolved. We make the text (violently) fit our notion of ‘church’, rather than read it plainly from its foundation up. From the OT prophecy it cites, is a Revelation about the restoration of Israel by Christ, and a completion of the history pre-told by Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and the others.
For example, many recognize the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb” [Rev 19:7-9] theme in Revelation, and assume that this marriage is new (between God and His ‘church’ (whatever that means)). Except that this theme is first found in an OT theme [Jer 2:2] about God’s (failed) marriage to His bride Israel ([Isa 54:5-6][Jer 2:32]) put on hold because Israel pursued Babylonian adulteries [Eze 16:32]. The OT marriage is first stopped, silenced and the bride sent away ([Isa 49:18-21][Jer 7:34][Jer 16:9][Jer 25:10][Joel 1:8-9]) before eventually being permitted to be continue (awaiting redemption) [Isa 61:10-11][Isa 62:4-5][Jer 31:31-33][Joel 2:16-17]. Notice from the previous [Isa 62:4-5] the bride was first termed “Forsaken” and “Desolate” because of her conduct as bride ([Eze 16:11-13][Eze 23:40][Hos 2:13]), and later restored as a bride known as “My Delight Is in Her” (as in [Isa 54:6-8]). This reversal of Israel and Judah’s fortunes are also seen in Jeremiah’s description of the “new covenant” [Jer 31:31-33][Jer 33:11].
if we resist the temptation to stray from OT meaning imparting ‘church’ meaning everywhere, and armed with an OT perspective, we can recognize the same OT theme are also present in Revelation (for example [Rev 18:23] quoting the Jeremiah verses above about Israel’s punishment and deliverance from whoredoms). In looking as the millstone is cast into the sea (being the Dragon’s great flood [Rev 12:15]) we witness the futility the dragon feels in [Rev 15:17] with the restrictions God places on the Dragon in [Jer 51:63-64]. Like the OT, Revelation references the failed marriage before revealing how a renewed marriage will continue, and replace the original marriage ([Rev 21:2] restating [Isa 61:10-11]). How many pastors teach such a thing?! Yet it’s true; and only one example of many.
This book does have a simple message but it is still difficult to read because we recognize its OT basis in Israelite prophecy and detach all meaning from its foundation, looking instead to something that was never prophesied about. We don’t understand the point of OT prophecy so we don’t understand the foundation the message was build upon. If we don’t understand the foundation, how can we possible understand that which is built up from it?
Jim, don’t read too much into what I said about federalism. Suffice to say I liked the thrust of your post. Andrewt, that was good as well.