[B-Greek] Revelation 14:4--PARQENOI GAR EISIN
Revdougpickrel at aol.com
Revdougpickrel at aol.com
Sat Sep 13 21:42:09 EDT 2008
In a message dated 9/13/2008 5:08:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
leonardj at live.com writes:
_______________________________
> From: Revdougpickrel at aol.com
> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:14:11 -0400
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Revelation 14:4--PARQENOI GAR EISIN
> To: leonardj at live.com; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> Heres a thought, suppose these 144,000 were both men and women from all
twelve tribes who have not worshipped Idols of any type, therefore considered
to by virgins. If you would notice that none from the tribes of Dan and
Ephraim were sealed and set apart?
>
> Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
> Tejas Valley
> San Antonio, Texas
LJ: I am not sure I understand exactly how you interpret this passage from
the little you have written, but I'll try to respond to your question as best
as I understand it.
The issue is how exactly we are to understand PARQENOI in Rev. 14:4. The
clause PARQENOI GAR EISIN following immediately on the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI
META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN at least prima facie suggests that the reference
is to a group of men who have preserved their virginity and so kept
themselves from being defiled by having sex with women, with the implication that
having sex with a woman per se defiles a man. This obvious natural meaning is
the reason why Rev. 14:4 is listed in BDAG as an instance of the use of
PARQENOS in the sense of "male virgin." All the other documents listed in BDAG for
this sense of PARQENOS are all post-GNT Christian literature. An Intermediate
Greek-English Lexicon based on the seventh edition of Liddell and Scott's
Greek-English Lexicon has the following under PARQENOS: "... as masc.,
[PARQENOS, hO], an unmarried man, N.T. (Deriv. unknown.)." In my previous posts I
have argued, based mainly on the way PARQENOS is used in Rev. 14:4, that
PARQENOS could not have included the meaning "male virgin" for John and his readers
(in the last half of the first century). Therefore the meaning of "male
virgin" for PARQENOS seems to be a later lexical development.
In the OT Jews who went after idols were considered to be adulterous. May
be it applies the same in the NT; PARQENON meaning they never had idolatry
relationships, they were still virgins.
As you noted correctly, the tribe of Dan is missing from the list of tribes
in Rev. 7 though it purports to list "every tribe of the sons of Israel" (v.
4). The twelve tribes are made up by the inclusion of the tribe of Manasseh
in addition to the tribe of Joseph (!), though the tribe of Joseph consisted
of both Ephraim and Manasseh. The fact that the tribe of Dan is omitted
despite the fact that it is included in every enumeration of the twelve tribes in
the OT is a huge problem for those who would interpret the list of tribes in
Rev. 7 literally. But it is not a problem for those students of Revelation who
have understood that the impossibility of a literal application is commonly
used in the book to point the reader towards a figurative interpretation, the
list of "twelve" tribes in Rev. 7 being a case in point. (I have coined this
hermeneutical principle "the principle of the impossibility of a literal
application" in my last post, in which I have given further illustrations of
this principle both from the book of Revelation and the OT.) This clue along
with many others in the book indicate that the 144,000 represent the NT church.
Israel adopted Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, bringing the number
of tribes to fourteen: both Dan (a son of Israel) and Ephraim (an adopted son)
introduced idols into Israel, and both are subject to the tribulation yet
not to a full end. Manasseh is sealed keeping the total at twelve. You must
keep them as the tribes of Israel and not substitute them as the church,
that's spiritual robbery. Israel is the wife of God and He is their husband,
while Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. My leaders have
made the claim to be the 144,000 in the past but this claim doesn't make it so.
With regard to your idea that these 144,000 are both men and women from all
"twelve" tribes, who are considered virgins because they have not worshipped
Idols,
(a) How did you conclude that the 144,000 consist of both men and women? The
clause PARQENOI GAR EISIN sandwiched as it is between the words hOUTOI
EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN and hOUTOI hOI AKOLOUQOUNTES TWi ARNIWi
... imply that the 144,000 are a group of men--though, of course, they are not
as we learn from other clues in the book. Therefore to understand the words
hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN as including women also you
have to show what hermeneutical principle you apply and what scriptures you
appeal to for such a non-literal interpretation. You cannot just interpret these
words in a figurative sense arbitrarily just because you do not like the
implications of a literal interpretation.
God is not parcel, they're from the tribes of Israel, and they were redeemed
from ANQRWPWN which means all mankind, or all people, human beings. These
passages also mean the tribes of Dan and Ephraim were left without being
sealed.
(b) In what sense do you understand "virgins" in your interpretation?
Spiritual virgins? The figure of a female virgin is used of the church in 2
Corinthians 11:2, GAR hUMAS QEOU ZHLW hHRMOSUNHN GAR hUMAS hENI ANDRI PARQENON
hAGNHN PARASTHSAI TWi CRISTWi, which is based on the relationship between God and
Israel of the OT, and this is exactly how I think PARQENOI is used in Rev.
14:4. But a male virgin is never used in the Scriptures anywhere as a symbol
of spiritual purity. My position is that a figurative intepretation of
PARQENOI in Rev. 14:4 becomes available only if that word PARQENOS could not have
the sense "male virgin" at the time Revelation was written. In the previous
post I have replied to the suggestion by another lister that PARQENOI in Rev.
14:4 is a predicative adjective (q.v.). I have shown that even as an adjective
the word would refer to sexual virginity in Rev. 14:4.
In the sense it is used in Rev. 14, I understand it to mean folks of the
twelve tribes of Israel (except the tribes of Dan and Ephraim) who have not
worshipped idols of any type, in their heart or otherwise, Jews who have not
kneeled to Baal if that helps. In the OT idolatry was considered to be adultery.
God was a husband to Israel and Israel committed adultery went they turned
to idols.
(c) How did you arrive at the conclusion that the 144,000 are called virgins
because they have not worshipped any idols? What is your basis for it? I too
interpret the words hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN in a
figurative way but I have given the justification for it in the previous post, in
which you will see my interpretation of Rev. 14:4 in some detail.
I think I answered this already, but I find it easier to accept than to
believe God will only seal a man and leave the woman, besides God ordained man
and woman to be one flesh, so He would never disavow man because he knew his
wife.
Doug.
Leonard Jayawardena
Sri Lanka
Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
Tejas Valley
San Antonio, Texas
____________________________________
Psssst...Have you heard the news? _There's a new fashion blog, plus the
latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com_
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014) .
Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
Tejas Valley
San Antonio, Texas
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list