What did Tim Perry actually say on the Woman of Revelations 12?

Before we proceed, I would like to refresh everyone's memory. Several months ago, I wrote an article about Tim Perry and his book, Mary for Evangelicals. Atty. Llasos has been quoting from this book in support of (or complimentary to) his beliefs. If you are just like any common reader of blogs, you would wonder why such an Evangelical would write such things that are pleasing to Atty. Llasos. He even compared Prof. Perry's credentials to mine in attempt to discredit me. Look how he even boast about Perry's support for his beliefs:

Gerry Soliman is correct in saying that Dr. Perry’s book proves that there are Evangelicals who share my view. This just proves that Mr. Soliman’s views are his alone and I am dealing with him on an individual level.

Unfortunately, Atty. Llasos does not want to emphasize to his readers that Prof. Perry is an Ecumenical Evangelical. To put it simply, being ecumenical means seeking to be united with Roman Catholicism. So what Atty. Llasos thinks to be an "Evangelical" reference turns out to be a compromise of Evangelical beliefs. After we wrote that expose, there was no word of response from Atty. Llasos and no further articles quoting from Perry's book.

Since we have Mr. Tim Perry's book, Mary for Evangelicals (MFE), which Atty. Llasos loves to quote from, we can now examine if Atty. Llasos' quotation from the book about woman of Revelations 12 really checks out. In fairness, the quotations from the book which Atty. Llasos published in his article are word for word. But he left out some important stuffs.

Here is the article where Atty. Llasos responded to my initial questions. Let's lay down how Atty. Llasos quoted from MFE (Atty. Llasos words are in brown while Tim Perry's words are in violet as quoted by Atty. Llasos; those which are not quoted are colored red):

It is correct to say that I don’t discount Marian interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12. In fact, in my argument, I quoted an Evangelical theologian and professor who actually concurs with my view. I stated: “We understand the Woman to be Mary, the Mother of the Savior. We know that for sure because we read the Book of Revelation alongside the Gospel especially the Johannine. In finding a Marian referent to the Woman of Revelation 12, Evangelical Professor Tim Perry argues that “[s]et alongside the Gospels, in others, it is virtually impossible a Christian reader to perform such a radical act of epoche that all thought of Mary is removed .... As a part of the New Testament canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) pp. 112-113].

To continue:

Speaking of the woman of Revelation 12, Prof. Perry categorically affirms that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 112]. Indeed, for Prof. Tim Perry, “There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God’s plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon” [Ibid., p. 112].

Almost all the above quotations in violet belong to the same paragraph. Unfortunately, Atty. Llasos didn't explain what is meant by a fourth secondary referent. In an earlier article, Atty. Llasos cited Perry for identifying the woman as Eve, Israel, and the Church. But what Atty. Llasos didn't tell that these three are primary referents according to Perry. From that same article, look how Atty. Llasos presented the quotation:

Without altogether excluding other interpretations, Catholic and some Protestant) exegetes normally argue for a Mariological interpretation of the woman of Revelation 12. There are, however, Protestants who share this view. Prof. Tim Perry, an Evangelical, affirms that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” (ibid.).

It is presented as if Atty. Llasos and Mr. Perry have a similar understanding. As I mentioned, Atty. Llasos didn't explain why Mr. Perry considered Mary as a secondary referent for Revelations 12 while Eve, Israel, and the Church are primary referents. Here is the sentence that precedes it:

The primary referents for the symbol end here. Nevertheless, the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary.

Atty. Llasos did not elaborate on the meaning of secondary referent in the chapter quoted. The point of all of this is that Atty. Llasos see the woman of Revelations 12 as the individual Mary but it isn't clear if Mr. Perry also sees it just the same as Roman Catholics. If we were to read the previous chapter, we will find Perry stating the following:

I tentatively suggest that there is such a literary purpose for Mary: She is Luke's symbol for God's people, whether defined as Israel or the church. Mary is the specially elected crucible in which the general election of the nation of Israel receive its fullest expression. ( MFE, page 95)

Also:

Mary is now a person. So sharply drawn is she that it is possible to detect within Luke an emerging representative or symbolic role. It remains for the Johannine literature, however, to fully explore her symbolic significance. (MFE, page 96)

With that on hand, it now helps to understand the entire paragraph in pages 112 to 113:

There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God's plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon. There are no indicators in John's text on its own term or in the imagery he uses to suggest that he had Mary in mind. Having said that, "when Revelation was placed in the same canon of Scripture with the Gospel of Luke and the Fourth Gospel [in which Mary and the people of God seem to be symbolically related], the various images of the virgin, the woman at the cross, and the woman who gave birth to the Messiah would reinforce each other." Set along side the Gospels, in other words, it is virtually impossible for a Christian reader to perform such a radical act of epoche that all thought of Mary is removed. It is not surprising therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament canon, Revelation's depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material.

Therefore, a person can read the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary provided that he or she has taken in to consideration of the Mary in the gospel of Luke as symbolizing the church or Israel.

The final quotation made by Atty. Llasos involves identifying Mary as Queen of Heaven:

The Evangelical professor goes on to state, “In Revelation, at least in its canonical context, she retains her corporate referent and is exalted as the Queen of Heaven” [Ibid., p. 113]. Let me put on record, however, that I don’t have an exclusively Marian view of the woman in Revelation 12. I follow what other exegetes say about her.

For this quotation, Atty. Llasos merely quoted Perry and did not make explicit statements that Perry agrees that Mary herself is Queen of Heaven. Since Roman Catholics uses Revelations 12 to prove that Mary, as an individual, is Queen of Heaven, it is implied that Atty. Llasos thinks Perry also has exactly the same view.

What Atty. Llasos does not explain is the term "corporate referent". The word corporate is opposed to the word individual. Here is the next paragraph after the above quoted statement:

There is tension here. One the one hand Mary has been portrayed in the pages of the New Testament in such a way as to become a symbol for the corporate faithful. On the other hand it is not all clear that the exaltation rightly associated with the symbols - the Heavenly Queen, Eve, the faithful of both the Old and New Testaments and so on - may be abstracted from the obviously figurative context of these symbols in order to be applied in a more literalistic fashion to the handmaid of Nazareth. The legitimacy of such a move, which has surely taken place in the history of mariological developments, is not all obvious. The symbolic exaltation, however, cannot be denied. Indeed, the symbol of corporate faith is drawn so sharply that Mary the individual is overwhelmed.

In the succeeding page, we read:

For John she is a symbol of corporate faith that has no role in the ministry of Jesus, but becomes the mother of all believers at the advent of his hour. For the seer, she is the exalted Heavenly Queen who is Eve and the persecuted faithful all at once.

And further away in page 298:

There must also be factored into the equation the more symbolic portrayals of Luke, John and the Revelation. Here, she retains her role as model, but instead of a model of individual discipleship, it is a model of the church both militant and triumphant...

...The church lives, and protects it with the lives of its members. In all these things, the Marian church is the woman pursued by the dragon - seemingly overpowered by the forces of evil and relying only on the protective power of God.

That's the real score.

Now here is the part where we write our disagreement with Tim Perry and other Roman Catholic Mariologists who renders a symbolism of Mary in the gospel of Luke. Does Luke intend a Marian symbolism (e.g. God's people) in his gospel?

If that would be the case one has to honestly ask, why only Mary? Why not make a symbolism for her husband, Joseph, in the book of Matthew? He could be paralleled with Joseph the Dreamer in Genesis. Both had dreams, both went to Egypt. For that matter, let's make symbolism on all people, places, events, and objects in the Bible so that our personal beliefs are satisfied. Of course, doing this would show our personal biases.

In Ecumenism, beliefs are compromised and differences can be set aside so that Ecumenical Evangelicals can be one with Roman Catholics. Concerning the Roman Catholics belief that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary, we can say that Roman tradition prevails over Scriptures.