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

Rev. 12:7

Expand Messages
  • ronsnider1
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
    • 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 2 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
        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 3 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
          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 4 of 6 , Apr 8, 2004
            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 5 of 6 , Apr 9, 2004
              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.