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

Rev. 12:7

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