[B-Greek] Revelation 14:4--PARQENOI GAR EISIN?

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Sep 8 05:16:12 EDT 2008


Comments below by Iver Larsen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Oun Kwon" <kwonbbl at gmail.com>
To: "Leonard Jayawardena" <leonardj at live.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 8. september 2008 00:25
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Revelation 14:4--PARQENOI GAR EISIN?


> 2008/9/7 Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>:
>>
> In my post of this morning, I wrote the following: "So is it possible
> that the use of PARQENOS in Greek literature AFTER the GNT is a later
> development in the language, influenced at least partly by a literal
> interpretation of Rev. 14:4?" I have inadvertently omitted some words
> and the above sentence should correctly read as follows: "So is it
> possible that the use of PARQENOS in the sense of "unmarried man" in
> Greek literature AFTER the GNT is a later development in the language,
> influenced at least partly by a literal interpretation of Rev. 14:4?"
>
>>At the time of writing GFS has already replied to my post. My thanks to him for that. I think
>>there is a further point supporting my position that PARQENOS in Rev. 14:4 is used (of the NT
>>church, represented by the 144,000) in its usual sense of "a woman who has had no sexual
>>intercourse" albeit in a metaphorical cryptic manner. The hEKATON TESSERAKONTA TESSARES CILIADES
>>in 14:1 is followed by the feminine participle ECOUSAI, denoting that the 144,000 are women.
>
>>But at the end of  v. 3 the identical phrase is preceded by the nominative feminine plural article
>>(hAI) BUT followed by a masculine participle!: hAI hEKATON TESSERAKONTA TESSARES CILIADES, hOI
>>HGORASMENOI APO THS GHS. This is followed by hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN,
>>PARQENOI GAR EISIN, hOUTOI hOI AKOULOUQOUNTES TWi ARNIWi.
>
>>Unless John was drunk at the time of writing, he must have meant something by these "solecisms."
>>Since masculine forms would suffice for a mixed group of males and females, the shift from
>>feminine to masculine articles and participles must be significant-- a point that is lost in
>>English translations.

IL: It is a small point of Greek grammar, which, if not understood properly, can lead to wrong
assumptions, like saying that the 144,000 must be women. The reason for the feminine ECOUSAI in v. 1
and the hAI in v. 3 is that CILIAS is grammatically feminine. The reason for the masculine hOI in
the apposition is that ANQRWPOI is understood (see also the masculine ESFRAGISMENOI after CILIADES
in Rev 7:4-8).

LJ:
If we understand hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN in a metaphorical sense to mean that
the 144,000 are spiritually undefiled (cf. Exodus 19:15: "... do not go near a woman"; Lev. 15:18; 1
Sam. 21:4-5) and PARQENOI GAR EISIN in a metaphorical sense to mean "spiritually chaste" (cf.  2
Corinthians 11:2: GAR hUMAS QEOU ZHLW hHRMOSUN HN GAR hUMAS hENI ANDRI PARQENON hAGNHN PARASTHSAI
TWi CRISTWi), then this would provide an explanation for the apparently weird grammar in the verses
in question: The use of both the masculine and the feminine is intended to indicate that the 144,000
are both all men and all women. This is a paradox that can only be resolved by a figurative
interpretation and material for just such an interpretation is given close at hand in the same
> chaper in v. 4. Bear in mind that the figure of 144,000 is itself symbolical.   I would repeat a
> point made in an earlier post. If PARQENOS also bore the sense of "unmarried man" in the Greek of
> John's day, then the use of the word immediately after hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK
> EMOLUNQHSAN would require us to take those referred to by these words as "unmarried men" with the
> implication that sexual relations with a woman per se defiles a man--a notion utterly foreign to
> the Bible.  I don't see how a metaphorical interpretation would be possible. That is why BDAG and
> Liddell and Scott's cite Rev. 14:4 for the meaning "unmarried man" for PARQENOS. I think John used
> this word in v. 4 PRECISELY BECAUSE IT COULD NOT MEAN an "unmarried man" in his day to indicate
> that the preceding words were not to be taken literally. Add also to this the fact that there are
> no known instances of the use of PARQENOS in the sense of "unmarried man" in Greek literature
> predating the GNT.
>
>> Leonard Jayawardena

IL: I certainly agree that this is symbolic language. However, there is not always a clear
borderline between nouns and adjectives in Greek.
Already in Classical Greek the word PARQENOS could function as an adjective with the sense of "not
yet launched, not yet taken into use". It was used of ships and other things. By way of
illustration, the same is the case in English, where we can talk about a "maiden voyage" or "virgin
land". We can therefore not restrict the sense of PARQENOS to a virgin/unmarried lady. The word was
also used with the sense of "pure, undefiled" e.g. of a water source, and this must be the intended
sense in Rev 14:4.
Verse 4 is not a simple verse to exegete, and the grammar doesn't help much. PARQENOI can hardly be
anything than grammatically masculine here, embedded as it is between hOUTOI's:
hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN, PARQENOI GAR EISIN, hOUTOI hOI....
But that doesn't mean that the reference or application is to men only. The illustration of being
"made impure" with women refers to men, but the application is probably to spiritual
uncleanness/immorality like worshiping idols and the like. PARQENOI in this context must refer to
"pure people" or "spiritually chaste" as you also say, and in my opinion it doesn't help to get
bogged down in details of grammar and gender. A masculine illustration does not imply a masculine
application, just as feminine illustration of the "bride of Christ" does not imply that men are
excluded from the application.

I think Mounce has a nice comment on this passage:
"There is a symbolism in the description of the church as virgins that must not be overlooked. On
many occasions throughout the OT, Israel is spoken of as a virgin. She is the "Virgin Daughter of
Zion" (2 Kgs 19:21; Lam 2:13), "Virgin Israel" (Jer 18:13; Amos 5:2). When she lapsed into idolatry,
she is said to have played the harlot (Jer 3:6; Hos 2:5). The figure is carried over into the NT
when Paul writes to the Corinthians, "I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might
present you as a pure virgin to him" (2 Cor 11:2). The 144,000 are here pictured as the promised
bride of Christ (cf. 21:9) who, as they await the day of marriage, have kept themselves pure from
all defiling relationships with the pagan world system. They have resisted the seductions of the
great harlot Rome with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication (17:2).16 The apparent
confusion of the sexes is of no moment since the entire figure is to be understood symbolically."

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list