tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post6329760540832185359..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Revelation 12:1-The WomanEdgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-81831675319957507112016-11-01T09:03:15.215-07:002016-11-01T09:03:15.215-07:00Hello again Edgar,
I agree with you that, "s...Hello again Edgar,<br /><br />I agree with you that, "some proposals for Rev. 12:1 cannot be taken seriously", and that, "[s]ome must also be ruled out by virtue of grammar, syntax, and problems of coherence".<br /><br />I think the same can be said for a good portion of the book of Revelation too. But with that said, there remains a number of viable interpretations that are consistent with the paradigms which produce them.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-35010431302051090562016-10-31T13:44:18.134-07:002016-10-31T13:44:18.134-07:00Hi David,
Thanks for your input. I wrote this pie...Hi David,<br /><br />Thanks for your input. I wrote this piece years ago, and I'm now doing edits to this writing. I am familiar with the Israel understanding, but chose not to discuss that approach since I wanted to include our understanding of the text. You likely know about Hippolytus' remarks on this verse too, and his suggestions for understanding Rev. 12:1. They are interesting. <br /><br />Good to know you love reading the Apocalypse and commentaries that deal with John's revelation. My focus is chiefly on how commentators of the church have interpreted Revelation, and with all due respect, I can't help but reckon that some proposals for Rev. 12:1 cannot be taken seriously. Some must also be ruled out by virtue of grammar, syntax, and problems of coherence.<br /><br />I'm not trying to be cantankerous. Yes, theology often (always?) influences one's exegesis of Revelation. But some interpretation just appear to be objectively wrong.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Edgar<br /><br />Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-68429323201401361962016-10-31T10:23:34.832-07:002016-10-31T10:23:34.832-07:00Hi Edgar,
In your opening paragraph, you wrote:
...Hi Edgar,<br /><br />In your opening paragraph, you wrote:<br /><br />==I am immediately aware of at least four contemporary interpretations for this text. (Actually, I know of more than four, but I personally do not take certain proposals seriously.) ==<br /><br />Two of the interpretations that you chose not to include are quite popular within the Evangelical community. One is the dispensational understanding which interprets the "woman" as Israel—i.e. Jehovah's 'wife' who gives birth to the promised Messiah. The other is Reformed covenantal view which interprets the "woman" as Jehovah's covenantal people—both the OT and NT 'church'.<br /><br />Now, I own, and have read, more than three dozen commentaries on the book of Revelation (including the four published by the WTBTS), and have come to realize that the highly symbolic nature of the book lends itself to a good number of viable interpretations (including the somewhat unique understanding/s by the Baha'i faith). As such, it seems to me that one's interpretation of the book will ultimately be determined by one's overall theology; perhaps suggesting that it is almost impossible to interpret the book in a truly objective sense.<br /><br />Anyway, just wanted to share some musings that came to mind after reading your post...<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David <br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com