Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Rev. 12:7

Expand Messages
  • ronsnider1
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
    • ronsnider1
      I am looking for insight into the Greek grammar of Rev. 12:7, when the apparent subjects are in the nominative case, when one would expect them to be
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I am looking for insight into the Greek grammar of Rev. 12:7, when the
        apparent subjects are in the nominative case, when one would expect
        them to be accusatives if they function as the subject of the infinitive.

        Does Michael instigate the war (active infin)? I am fairly
        comfortable with the fact that this occurs in Daniel's 70th Week, so
        dont waste my time or yours on chronological issues here.

        Thanks for any insight,

        Ron Snider
      • Timothy P. Jenney
        Revelation s author often ignores the niceties of Greek grammar. Some argue it is the influence of the LXX, others Hebraisms in general, some just that he s
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Revelation's author often ignores the niceties of Greek grammar. Some argue
          it is the influence of the LXX, others Hebraisms in general, some just that
          he's working from memory, a few that he just doesn't care. No one is really
          sure.

          In this case, I suggest the verb "to be" is implied, as is common in Hebrew.
          The aorist tense of the infinitive should not be pressed. Hence, I recommend
          the somewhat terse translation "Michael and his angels wage war w/the
          dragon."

          Here is a list of the verses in which the infinitive for this verb occurs in
          the LXX, if you're interested in checking further: Josh. 11:5; Judg. 1:1,9;
          8:1; 10:18; 11:9,12,27,32; 12:1,3; 20:14,18; 1Sam. 17:9,33; 28:1; 29:8,11;
          2Sam. 2:28; 11:20,22; 1Kings 12:21,24; 22:32; 2Kings 3:21; 8:29; 9:15; 16:5;
          19:9; 1Chr. 7:11,40; 19:7,10; 2Chr. 18:31; 20:17,22; 22:6; 32:2,8; 35:22;
          1Esdr. 1:26; Esth. 11:7; 8:13; Judith 6:2; 1Mac. 3:10,17,58; 4:41; 5:57;
          9:8,30; 11:46; 12:24; Mic. 4:3; Is. 2:4; 7:1; 36:10; Jer. 28:30; 48:12

          Timothy P. Jenney
          Ph.D. UMich, 1993
          Winter Haven, FL

          > From: "ronsnider1" <ronpt@...>
          > Reply-To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:11:05 -0000
          > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [revelation-list] Rev. 12:7
          >
          > I am looking for insight into the Greek grammar of Rev. 12:7, when the
          > apparent subjects are in the nominative case, when one would expect
          > them to be accusatives if they function as the subject of the infinitive.
          >
          > Does Michael instigate the war (active infin)? I am fairly
          > comfortable with the fact that this occurs in Daniel's 70th Week, so
          > dont waste my time or yours on chronological issues here.
          >
          > Thanks for any insight,
          >
          > Ron Snider
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • polycarp66@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/8/2004 10:15:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ronpt@comcast.net writes: I am looking for insight into the Greek grammar of Rev. 12:7, when the
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 4/8/2004 10:15:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ronpt@... writes:
            I am looking for insight into the Greek grammar of Rev. 12:7, when the
            apparent subjects are in the nominative case, when one would expect
            them to be accusatives if they function as the subject of the infinitive.

            Does Michael instigate the war (active infin)?  I am fairly
            comfortable with the fact that this occurs in Daniel's 70th Week, so
            dont waste my time or yours on chronological issues here.
            _________
             
            Robertson in his _Word Pictures_ has this to say
             
             Michael and his angels ( Μιχαηλ και οἱ ἀγγελοι αὐτου [ho Michaēl kai hoi aggeloi autou]). The nominative here may be in apposition with πολεμος [polemos], but it is an abnormal construction with no verb, though ἐγενετο [egeneto] (arose) can be understood as repeated. Michael is the champion of the Jewish people (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1) and is called the archangel in Jude 9. Going forth to war (του πολεμησαι [tou polemēsai]). This genitive articular infinitive is another grammatical problem in this sentence. If ἐγενετο [egeneto] (arose) is repeated as above, then we have the infinitive for purpose, a common enough idiom.
             
            It would appear that he understands that Michael [aka Jesus Christ] instigates the conflict.  This is the casting out of the Accuser on the death of Christ.  As Paul says "There is therefore now no condemnation . . ." (Rom 8.1ff)
             
             
            gfsomsel
          • MORIAH PLASTICS (COATES)
            I see a strong case for Michael initiating the war. Want to hear a Postmillenial Partial Preterist perspective? My point will be that Michael as a symbol of
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I see a strong case for Michael initiating the war. Want to hear a
              Postmillenial Partial Preterist perspective? My point will be that Michael
              as a symbol of Christ (perhaps even Christ Himself) has (underscore) to
              start the war.

              Jason Coate
              Johannesburg, S. Africa

              -----Original Message-----
              From: ronsnider1 [mailto:ronpt@...]
              Sent: 08 April 2004 04:11 PM
              To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [revelation-list] Rev. 12:7


              I am looking for insight into the Greek grammar of Rev. 12:7, when the
              apparent subjects are in the nominative case, when one would expect
              them to be accusatives if they function as the subject of the infinitive.

              Does Michael instigate the war (active infin)? I am fairly
              comfortable with the fact that this occurs in Daniel's 70th Week, so
              dont waste my time or yours on chronological issues here.

              Thanks for any insight,

              Ron Snider





              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Leo R Percer
              ... infinitive. ... Michael ... There is no real evidence from the text that would decisively tell us how the war started. In fact, the first phrase in verse
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 9, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Ron Snider writes:

                >I am looking for insight into the Greek grammar of Rev. 12:7, when the
                >apparent subjects are in the nominative case, when one would expect
                >them to be accusatives if they function as the subject of the
                infinitive.
                >
                >Does Michael instigate the war (active infin)?

                To which Jason Coate adds:

                > I see a strong case for Michael initiating the war. Want to hear a
                >Postmillenial Partial Preterist perspective? My point will be that
                Michael
                >as a symbol of Christ (perhaps even Christ Himself) has (underscore) to
                >start the war.

                There is no real evidence from the text that would decisively tell us how
                the war started. In fact, the first phrase in verse seven simply
                acknowledges "There was war in heaven." However, taking our clues from
                the context of the chapter, I think that Jason may be on to something
                here. In v. 5, the male child of the celestial woman is "caught up to
                God and to his throne." This Messianic sounding child is taken out of
                harm's way just before the dragon would "devour" him (12:4). In my
                dissertation on Revelation 12, I discuss some the view of Adela Collins
                concerning the possible presence of a "combat myth" in this passage.
                Simply stated, Collins sees evidence of the conflict between Apollo and
                Python here in Revelation, but with one decidedly different turn--instead
                of Apollo returned to life, we have Michael as the champion for the
                threatened child. Two options are now available--either Michael is in
                some sense the child himself, or else Michael is simply the champion of
                the child. I argue for the latter. As Michael is the champion of the
                Jewish people (the celestial woman?), and as the child is the progeny of
                those people, Michael is presented (at least, to my view) as defending
                the child. Of course, that doesn't tell us who starts the war, now does
                it? I'll get to the point--in 12:7-12, a war happens in heaven in which
                both the armies of Michael and of the dragon are engaged (some form of
                the word "polemo" is used for both armies). The result of that war is
                that the great dragon and his armies are cast out of heaven resulting in
                this statement--"no longer was a place found for them in heaven." My
                interpretation is that this event represents a retelling of the death,
                resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. When Jesus (the male child)
                arrives in heaven, the dragon/Satan and his armies no longer have a
                place. It seems to me that the author of Revelation is at least hinting
                at the possibility that the child's arrival in heaven necessitates the
                war. Why? I'll respond more to that at a later date. Suffice it to
                say, the context seems to indicate that the Messianic child and the
                dragon cannot occupy the same "place," and one of them had to go.
                Michael made sure it was the dragon.

                Yours, but mostly His,

                Leo Percer
                MCC
                Waco, TX
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.