[B-Greek] Revelation 14:4--PARQENOI GAR EISIN
Leonard Jayawardena
leonardj at live.com
Thu Sep 11 06:51:50 EDT 2008
(I have indicated paragraph division by two forward slashes (//) as some of my e-mails are delivered all scrunched up.)
LJ: My thanks to Iver Larsen (IL hereafter) for having adequately explained the matter of the gender of the articles and participles in Rev. 14:1 and 3 (last part)-- pl. see his comments below on my post. It was stupid of me to have overlooked the simple fact that CILIA is feminine in gender! //
However, the main issue I raised still remains: How is Revelation 14:4 to be understood, especially PARQENOI? Indeed, I think the clarification of the use of both genders in the above verses by IL has paradoxically further strengthened-as explained below--my hypothesis concerning the meaning of PARQENOS, which consists of the following elements:
(1) A literal interpretation of the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN, PARQENOI GAR EISIN is unavoidable if the word PARQENOS could have the meaning "adult male virgin" at the time Revelation was written. Literally interpreted, these words say that the 144,000 are virgins because they have not had sexual relations with women and for that reason undefiled. IL thinks--this is dealt with below--that PARQENOI is used adjectivally in 14:4. Even so, I am not sure that we would still be able to avoid the literal interpretation, because PARQENOS used adjectivally in 14:4 would still refer to the sexual virginity of the 144,000, as I have shown below.
(2) A literal meaning would result in the implication that sexual relations with women per se defiles a man, a notion that is not only foreign to the rest of the Scriptures but is also inconsistent with the book of Revelation itself. For example, only PORNOI are condemned Rev. 21:8, not those who use sex in a lawful manner. Further, the description of the relationship between Christ and the church in terms of bride and bridegroom, and husband and wife throughout the book precludes any negative views on sex in the book.
(3) Since it is well nigh impossible that John could have intended these words to be understood in the literal sense set out in (1) above, he must have intended a figurative interpretation. But a legitimate figurative interpretation is possible only if PARQENOS CANNOT mean "adult male virgin" in 14:4.
(4) A figurative interpretation of 14:4 with PARQENOS understood in its usual sense of "a girl or woman who has not had sexual intercourse"--and then applied in a figurative sense to the 144,000--does yield, I think, a very satisfactory interpretation of the words in question, which I have presented in some detail toward the end of this post.
(4) From the above reasons, I conclude that the word PARQENOS cannot have included the meaning "adult male virgin" for John--not necessarily the apostle of that name--and his readers.
(5) Further support for my position is derived from the fact that extant Greek literature predating the GNT and secular Greek literature of the first century published to date do not attest to the use of PARQENOS in the sense of "adult male virgin." PARQENOS appears in that sense for the first time only in some post-GNT Christian literature. The following has been copied from a post by Carl W. Conrad: //
BDAG s.v. PARQENOS notes several instances of usage of the noun for men:======b. male virgin ὁ παρθένος [hO PARAQENOS] virgin, chaste man (CIG IV, 8784b; JosAs 8:1 uses π. of Joseph; Pel.-Leg. 27, 1 uses it of Abel; Suda of Abel and Melchizedek; Nonnus of the apostle John, who is also called ‘virgo’ in the Monarchian Prologues [Kl. T. 12 1908, p. 13, 13]) Rev 14:4 (on topical relation to 1 En 15:2–7 al., s. DOlson, CBQ 59, ’97, 492–510).—JFord, The Mng. of ‘Virgin’, NTS 12, ’66, 293–99.—B. 90. New Docs 4, 224–27. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv. //
With regard to Joseph and Asenath, there is no consensus about when this apocryphal work was written. Some have dated it in the fourth to fifth centuries AD. Our first evidence of it is from a Syriac version in the mid sixth century A.D. The scholarly consensus is that it was originally written in Greek.
(6) For all of the above reasons, I propose that the extension of PARQENOS to include the meaning "adult male virgin" is a later lexical development, possibly at least partly influenced by a literal interpretation of Rev. 14:4. //
IL writes:
Quote
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.
Unquote
LJ: We certainly use the word "maiden" in such phrases as "maiden voyage" or "maiden over," but we would not say anything like "Those men are maidenly" except perhaps in a jocular or pejorative sense, and that is exactly the way, I think, the ancient Greeks would have viewed the use of PARQENOS of men adjectivally! The word "virgin" is used in such phrases as "virgin forest" (meaning a pristine forest), "virgin land," etc., but "virgin woman" or "virgin man" (adjectival use of "virgin") would still refer to a female virgin and a male virgin respectively. Even the adjective "virginal," from "virgin," when used of people would always refers to their sexual virginity. If we took PARQENOI as a predicative adjective in Rev. 14:4, the text would say, "These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virginal"--the last clause sounds awkward and I hope the predicative use of "virginal" is acceptable in English--and the meaning would be same as PARQENOI taken as a noun. The word "virgin" in the sense of "pure, undefiled" without involving sexual virginity can only be used of inanimate things like forests. The two instances mentioned by IL of the use of PARQENOS in ancient Greek literature as an adjective in the sense of "pure, undefiled" both involve inanimate things and this is entirely in line with the way "virgin" behaves in English. Therefore the examples that IL has mentioned rather than supporting his view on the meaning of PARQENOI in Rev. 14:4 actually argue against it. When the church is likened to a virgin in the NT--I have more to say on this below--it is first compared to a woman who is sexually a virgin and THEN that figure is applied to the church in a spiritual sense. You cannnot bypass the idea of sexual virginity inherent in the word PARQENOS and use it of men or women just to mean "pure, undefiled" in some spiritual sense, as IL seems to think. //
Any way, there are no attested cases of the use of PARQENOS of men or women in the sense that IL advocates for PARQENOI in Rev. 14:4 in ancient Greek literature (or even modern Greek writings?)--at least IL didn't cite any instances. Even if PARQENOS had that sense in Rev. 14:4, the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN, PARQENOI GAR EISIN would just mean something like "The purity of these men kept them from defiling themselves by having sex with women (or behaving in a sexually immoral manner with women)." How else could we understand these words?
IL says that, because of the positioning of PARQENOI between hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN and hOUTOI hOI AKOLOUQOUNTES, the word "can hardly be anything [other] than grammatically masculine here." If therefore (a) the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN taken in their ordinary literal sense indicate that the 144,000 are a group of males and the language of the rest of this chapter and chapter 7, where the 144,000 are mentioned for the first time, does not say anything to the contrary--IL himself pointed out that the use of a feminine participle in Rev. 14:1 and a feminine article in v. 3 did not imply that the 144,000 are women--and (b) PARQENOS could have the meaning "male virgin" in John's day, then the natural interpretation would be that the 144,000 are a group of men who are virgins because they have not had sexual intercourse and for that reason they are undefiled. Isn't that the reason why BDAG and Liddel and Scott's cite Rev. 14:4 for the meaning "male virgin"? After all, there were religious cults in ancient times--and there still are--which believed that sex defiled a person and practised celibacy. Resorting to a figurative interpretation of v. 4 purely to avoid a conflict with the teaching on sex elsewhere in the Scriptures is not acceptable. Any departure from the literal meaning should be adequately justfied and the hermeneutical principle employed should be stated. //
Though stating that "PARQENOI can hardly be anything [other] than grammatically masculine here," IL nevetheless says, "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...." The words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN taken by themselves can refer to men who have not defiled themselves by behaving in a sexually immoral manner with women and nothing more. There is nothing in these words or their context to justify reading non-sexual sins such as idol worship into them. In the OT, countries and cities are personified as women (e.g., "the daughter of Zion," "virgin Israel") and are compared to harlots when they committed idolatry. And these symbolical women represent both men and women. But no corresponding figure is found in the Scriptures involving men, so IL's extension of the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN to include defilement with idol worship or other non-sexual sins has no support from elsewhere. It is purely an arbitray meaning that has been imposed on these words. In any case we are talking about a group of persons who by all indications appear to be men, not a single symbolical figure like "the daughter of Zion." We can all agree with IL's statement that "A masculine illustration does not imply a masculine application, just as [the] feminine illustration of the 'bride of Christ' does not imply that men are excluded from the application" except that one is hard put to construe the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN in such a manner as to provide an analogue to something like "the bride of Christ," a concept well established in the rest of the Scriptures and found in Revelation itself (Rev. 21:9). //
Therefore the interpretation of Rev. 14:4 calls for a different hermeneutical principle--one that could be justified by the book of Revelation itself--coupled with the recognition that PARQENOS may not have included the meaning "male virgin" at the time Revelation was written. This principle I would call, for want of a better description, "the principle of the impossibility of a literal application." //
By this principle I mean this: The Scriptures, especially the book of Revelation, not uncommonly intentionally uses expressions and descriptions which compel the reader to seek a non-literal meaning while providing information at the same time (dual purpose), e.g., the swarm of locusts in Rev. 9 have "a king over them" (v. 11) in contradiction of Proverbs 30:27 and a well-established biological fact. This clue, along with others, tells us that the swarm of locusts should not be taken literally. Again, we are told in Revelation 7:14 that the great multitude, who, as I understand, are represented by the 144,000, "have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb." Normally, clothes washed in blood would be stained red, but these robes have become white! Obviously neither the lamb nor the clothes nor the blood nor the washing--and I would add, nor the 144,000--is literal. The meaning is of course that "the death of Christ has cleansed the people described as the 'great crowd' of their sins." (Even THAT statement requires further explanation but that is not our concern now.) An OT example is the impossible river in Ezekiel 47, which becomes deeper as it flows down though not receiving water from any tributaries! Since no natural river behaves this way, we are forced to seek a non-literal interpretation. The book of Revelation interprets it allegorically as "the river of living water" in 22:1. Countless examples can be given to illustrate my "hermeneutical principle" but I believe the above three will suffice. //
Similarly, PARQENOI is used in just such a manner in Rev. 14:4. Before I explain its application in v. 4 we need to know who the 144,000 are. I identify the 144,000 with the NT church, which identification is absolutely crucial to my hypothesis. I will give the exegetical proof for this in another post but let us assume for argument's sake that I am right about that. Immediately after the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN, PARQENOI GAR EISIN, which apparently refer to a group of men, we are told that they are "virgins." Now if we understand "virgins" here to mean "women who have not known men" yet in a metaphorical way then we have something that we can relate not only to the rest of the Bible but also to the book of Revelation itself. The church is compared to a virgin in the New Testament. 2 Corinthians 11:2: GAR hUMAS QEOU ZHLW hHRMOSUNHN GAR hUMAS hENI ANDRI PARQENON hAGNHN PARASTHSAI TWi CRISTWi). But why the plural PARQENOI in Rev. 14:4? This is because every individual member of the church is also a virgin-- and the wife of Christ at the same time! Paul writes, "Do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, 'The two will become one flesh.' But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him" (1 Cor. 6:16-17). This teaches that the believer who is united spiritually with Christ is spiritually his "wife." So in the church there are many "virgins" as well as many "wives" of Christ. Both are true when viewed in different ways. An individual member is a virgin because he or she keeps himself or herself spiritually pure so that he or she can give himself or herself to Christ alone. When considered collectively, the church is one virgin awaiting marriage to Christ and becomes his wife at the consummation (see also Rev. 19:7ff; 21:9). Compare THN NUMFHN THN GUNAIKA TOU ARNIOU in 21:9 with PARQENOI GAR EISIN, hOUTOI hOI AKOLOUQOUNTES TWi ARNIWi hOPOU AN hUPAGH... (Rev. 14:4). The parties referred to are both one and the same--the NT church. //
Thus it can be seen that by the impossibility of men being (female) virgins Rev. 14:4 forces us to seek a figurative interpretation for PARQENOI and I have given one above that is supported by both Revelation and the rest of the Scriptures and is therefore very satisfactory. The figurative interpretation of PARQENOI in turn leads to and justifies a figurative interpretation of the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN. Exodus 19:15; Lev. 15:18; and 1 Sam. 21:4-5 provide a basis for a metaphorical interpretation of these words. Bodily secretions made people ceremonially unclean under the Old Covenant and so the emission of semen during sex resulted in both the man and the woman being unclean or "defiled" until the evening according Lev. 15:18. This is the reason why the people of Israel were commanded to abstain from sexual relations when they approached Mt Sinai to meet God in Exodus 19:15 ("do not go near a woman"). Particular care was taken to preserve ceremonial cleanliness when the people of Israel prosecuted holy war, which is why David's men "kept themselves from women" (1 Sam. 21:4). It is this ceremonial defilement which is alluded to by the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN in Rev. 14:4 and is taken as a type of spiritual defilement resulting from the pollutions of the world. Understood that way, this metaphorical meaning of these words will seen to be similar to and complemented by the metaphorical meaning intended by the words PARQENOI GAR EISIN. It is this figurative meaning that links the two expressions which otherwise have no logical connection to each other but that shouldn't surprise us because we are talking about a book in which a swarm of locusts has a king, clothes washed in blood become white, etc. Therefore a group of apparently all males being suddenly called PARQENOI in the sense of "(female) virgins" would be nothing unusual. //
Note again that it is the interpretation of the words PARQENOI GAR EISIN in a metaphorical sense that leads to AND JUSTIFIES a figurative interpretation of the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN. And this figurative interpretation is possible only if PARQENOS in 14:4 could not have the sense "male virgin" in the Greek language of John's day, as explained above. //
The book of Revelation unveils its message basically by making a series of often interconnected allusions to historical events and prophetic passages of the rest of the Scriptures, esp. the OT, and showing their fulfillment--in the case of historical events their antitypical fulfillment--in Christ and the NT church. It is a coded book that can be uncoded by the rest of the Bible. The Exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea by the people of Israel, the scene at Mt. Sinai, the conquest of the land of Canaan by Israel's army et al figure in the book in the form of allusions. The 144,000, sealed from "every tribe of the sons of Israel," represent the members of the NT church (drawn from "every nation, tribe, people and language") as God's warriors (Rev. 7, cf. passages such as Ephesians 6:11-17, where the Christian is compared to a fully-equipped soldier going out to war). They stand on the "sea of glass" having conquered the world (Rev. 15:2). The word used is NIKAW, a term referring to conquest in military battles. This word is used 15 times in Revelation in relation to the church. As God's warriors going out to war, the followers of Christ have "kept themselves from women"--in a spiritual sense of course--and, like the people of Israel going out to meet God at Mt. Sinai, they have not "gone near a woman" to prevent defilement--again, in a spiritual sense--to appear undefiled before God.
IL quotes Mounces comment on the passage under discussion, with which I completely agree except that I believe that a figurative intepretation of PARQENOI in Rev. 14:4 is possible only if it did not have the sense "male virgin" in John's day.
Leonard Jayawardena
Sri Lanka
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:16:12 +0300
From: "Iver Larsen"
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Revelation 14:4--PARQENOI GAR EISIN?
To: "BG"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Comments below by Iver Larsen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oun Kwon"
To: "Leonard Jayawardena"
Cc:
Sent: 8. september 2008 00:25
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Revelation 14:4--PARQENOI GAR EISIN?
?> 2008/9/7 Leonard Jayawardena :
>>
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list