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

Rev. 12:7

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.