[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