Revelation 14:4

[Ahwatukee]

Revelation 14: KJV
4"These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."

The KJV clearly identifies them as virgins.. The Book of Revelation also declares that there will be 12,000 from each tribe of Israel.. So these innocents will be decendants of Abraham.. God saving these innocents does not undermine salvation by the atonement of the LORD Jesus Christ.. Because only Sinners need the atonement of the LORD Jesus Christ.. But innocent ones who have no knowledge of sin are acceptable before the LORD..

I believe the 144,000 will be toddlers..

Hello Adstar,

If they were toddlers, there would be reason to make the claim that they did not defile themselves with women. This in fact would infer that they will be adult males, in contrast to those who have and do defile themselves with women. In addition, there is nothing in the context that would suggest that they are children.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

I am having a difficult time wit the inclusion of the very descriptive word, "defiled", when 'virgin' is used all over the Bible without ever having it connected to "defiled." I think there is something very important in that description that we cannot so easily dismiss.

lol if only i clicked send a few seconds sooner

 

[Ezekiel8]

Because the verse is speaking of sexual immorality, promiscuous sex, which is prevalent in the world. They did not defile themselves with women. The verse is not speaking in regards to sexual intimacy between a married man and woman.

Well it is actually speaking of the intimacy between a man and woman, both lawful and unlawful. In the archaic sense of the word, defile means to end chastity, to literally de-virginize. In the Bible there is a certain sense that women are ritually impure. So when a man is married, when he has sex, he has defiled himself. In fact if you go the real old school parts of the Bible there is the sense that even just touching a woman say during her period, that a man is impure and must cleanse himself with water to regain his purity.

 

[tourist]

While symbolism is used a lot in Revelation, so are certain facts stated.
I believe that they are virgin males and there are 144,000.
NOW, anything else that is stated as fact by some posters should be taken with a grain of salt.
Lot of opinions and speculations expressed by some.

It is clear to me that the actual number is 144,000 and these are Jewish men who are virgins. I agree with your estimation.

 

[Magenta]

Well it is actually speaking of the intimacy between a man and woman, both lawful and unlawful. In the archaic sense of the word, defile means to end chastity, to literally de-virginize. In the Bible there is a certain sense that women are ritually impure. So when a man is married, when he has sex, he has defiled himself. In fact if you go the real old school parts of the Bible there is the sense that even just touching a woman say during her period, that a man is impure and must cleanse himself with water to regain his purity.

Deuteronomy 23:10 "If there is among you any man who is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he must go outside the camp; he may not reenter the camp."

 

[Ezekiel8]

Deuteronomy 23:10 "If there is among you any man who is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he must go outside the camp; he may not reenter the camp."

Yes that is a good verse to show the idea of ritual purity, how it is lost, and how it is regained, if it can be regained. Typically the laws around this involve washing with water, being put outside the camp or congregation for either a night, or a week, and then re-entering as ritually pure.

 

[tourist]

Revelation 14: KJV
4"These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."

The KJV clearly identifies them as virgins.. The Book of Revelation also declares that there will be 12,000 from each tribe of Israel.. So these innocents will be decendants of Abraham.. God saving these innocents does not undermine salvation by the atonement of the LORD Jesus Christ.. Because only Sinners need the atonement of the LORD Jesus Christ.. But innocent ones who have no knowledge of sin are acceptable before the LORD..

I believe the 144,000 will be toddlers..

Most versions of the bible state that the 144,000 are virgins. Hopefully, you were being facetious about the toddler remark.

 

[Willie-T]

Well it is actually speaking of the intimacy between a man and woman, both lawful and unlawful. In the archaic sense of the word, defile means to end chastity, to literally de-virginize. In the Bible there is a certain sense that women are ritually impure. So when a man is married, when he has sex, he has defiled himself. In fact if you go the real old school parts of the Bible there is the sense that even just touching a woman say during her period, that a man is impure and must cleanse himself with water to regain his purity.

Nah, I can't go with that one. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible.

 

[Ezekiel8]

Nah, I can't go with that one. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible.

Lol, well, it is actually quite thematic throughout the Bible whether you accept it or not. Consider Leviticus 12 and Exodus 13:2 and then consider Gospel of Luke 2:22-24

 

[Adstar]

I am having a difficult time wit the inclusion of the very descriptive word, "defiled", when 'virgin' is used all over the Bible without ever having it connected to "defiled." I think there is something very important in that description that we cannot so easily dismiss.

What is your difficulty with the word defiled used in this context?

 

[Adstar]

Most versions of the bible state that the 144,000 are virgins. Hopefully, you were being facetious about the toddler remark.

Why do you hope i am being facetious with the toddler remark?

It was a serious remark..

 

[Willie-T]

What is your difficulty with the word defiled used in this context?

The difficulty is the question as to why it would even be used, at all........ since it is never used this way anywhere else. If "defiled" doesn't mean a whole lot more than simply being a virgin, why use it at all?

 

[Ezekiel8]

The difficulty is the question as to why it would even be used, at all........ since it is never used this way anywhere else. If "defiled" doesn't mean a whole lot more than simply being a virgin, why use it at all?

It is used elsewhere in the Bible in the sense of sex. The idea is when you defile something you make it dirty. Lol not to be totally facetious, but is it not even a modern euphemism for sex to be referred to as "doing the dirty"?

Genesis 34:2

[SUP]2 [/SUP]And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

Leviticus 18:20

[SUP]20 [/SUP]Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Deuteronomy 24:4

[SUP]4 [/SUP]Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance

Ezekiel 22:11

[SUP]11 [/SUP]And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter.

Hosea 5:3

[SUP]3 [/SUP]I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hid from me: for now, O Ephraim, thou committest whoredom, and Israel is defiled.

1 Timothy 1:8-10

[SUP]8 [/SUP]But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 

[Willie-T]

It is used elsewhere in the Bible in the sense of sex. The idea is when you defile something you make it dirty. Lol not to be totally facetious, but is it not even a modern euphemism for sex to be referred to as "doing the dirty"?

Genesis 34:2

[SUP]2 [/SUP]And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

Leviticus 18:20

[SUP]20 [/SUP]Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Deuteronomy 24:4

[SUP]4 [/SUP]Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance

Ezekiel 22:11

[SUP]11 [/SUP]And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter.

Hosea 5:3

[SUP]3 [/SUP]I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hid from me: for now, O Ephraim, thou committest whoredom, and Israel is defiled.

1 Timothy 1:8-10

[SUP]8 [/SUP]But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

You've demonstrated just what I mean. "Defiled" is used to depict illicit sex.... not marital sex. If defiled meant just sex, even the Apostle Peter (and probably other Apostles and disciples) couldn't qualify as righteous Christians.

 

[Ezekiel8]

You've demonstrated just what I mean. "Defiled" is used to depict illicit sex.... not marital sex. If defiled meant just sex, even the Apostle Peter (and probably other Apostles and disciples) couldn't qualify as righteous Christians.

Well consider Shechem, that wasn't illicit, and Jacob even accepted him, but of course as we know Levi and Simeon did slay them for which they were pretty much cursed by their father.

Well just because Peter and others had sex doesn't make them unrighteous. It just makes them more earthly. Sex makes one worldly. What's the world made out of? The world is made out of dirt! So one can see the logic in Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7.

 

[posthuman]

I'm sure hoping for comments from more people. This takes me right back to my clinical days.

there is an alternative position, that the 144,000 are the great multitude that no man can number.
because John looks and sees the things in chapter 14 ((see v. 1)) we know it's a vision, and because what he sees is the Lamb, that is evidence that what he is seeing is symbolic. Jesus Christ is not an actual lamb.
what he hears is a voice from heaven that is both like the sound of many waters and the sound of many harpists - also symbolic, where Christ's voice is also referred to as like many rushing waters ((re: Rev. 1:15)) and those who are 'victorious' over the beast are given harps by God ((re: Rev. 15:2)). combined, this is symbolic of union between the Lamb and the ones who follow Him everywhere He goes ((said of the 144k of course in 14:4)), which, union with Him is the hope of the gospel and eternity.. anyway the sound has symbolism and the figure of the Lamb has symbolism, so IMO it's not quite genuine to say there's 'no evidence of symbolic nature' here in chapter 14. it's really all over the place, and saying that 12*12*1,000 has no symbolism? well.

not trying to disparage, just offering Willy an alternative view, as he had hoped to hear.

so you can establish that the mention of the 144k in chapter 14 is in the midst of symbolic vision. to connect it to the great multitude, look at their first mention in ch. 7 -- John first hears an instruction in heaven not to harm those having the seal of God. then he hears a list of 12,000 from each of twelve tribes - he doesn't see any of this, it is just what he hears from the heavens - after he hears these things, he immediately sees the great multitude that no one can number. what he hears and what he sees are obviously connected, and there is a pattern in Revelation of John hearing something, then seeing something, and both what he hears and what he sees being the same thing seen understood in different ways. the interpretation is that he hears '144k' and he sees an uncountably great multitude, and that these are the same group understood in two ways.

there's evidence to support that in the list of the 144k itself, too. the list of tribes as the 144k are being counted off, tribe by tribe, is wholly singular in scripture. no where else are the tribes of Israel listed this way - with these particular names and in this particular order. the view is that this is very much a purposefully given list, not a haphazard one. elsewhere in scripture when the tribes are listed, they are given in a particular order, by birthright. the names included on the list of tribes elsewhere in scripture either include or do not include Levi depending on the context & reason they are being listed - if we are talking about land inheritance, we don't include Levi, for example. John is certainly not ignorant of the 'correct' way the tribes are named, and if he had simply been reciting the list as he, a Jew, would have given it, it would not be these tribes and this order: so it must be that he is listing them just as he heard them in the vision, and if they are being given to him in a vision from God in a particular order that is not like the order that God has ever listed the tribes previously, there must be a reason for it. which makes this list extraordinary! the view is that understanding the tribes in type, in this order, tells the story of Christ redeeming gentiles and grafting them into the tree, fulfilling the promise to Abraham, reinforcing the view that the multitude John sees immediately after hearing the extraordinary list of tribes and the 144k from them, from every tribe and nation and tongue, is all the redeemed from all the nations.

this is by far not a majority view, but it's the only view i've ever heard that acknowledges that the list of tribes is both unique and purposefully unique. the majority view is to treat the strange list of tribes that make up the description of the 144k as though it's random & insignificant; in general to just pay it no mind at all.

if one takes this view, then obviously your question about the meaning of the virginity of the 144k becomes also a symbolic one, because if the 144k are actually one and the same with the great multitude from all peoples, all the saved believers, then all those are obviously not physically virgins. so in that case, symbolically the general view that goes along with this one is that virginity refers to not having participated in what is symbolic adultery: having other Gods. the 144k are what John hears in ch. 7 right after he hears that those having the seal of God are not to be harmed, so it's natural to associate them as being those with the seal of God ((here we go back to Ephesians and the sealing by the indwelling of the Spirit)) -- and those who do not have the seal of God are associated with 'the other group' - who have bowed the knee to the antichrist, and fornicated with the woman on the beast, etc. you can probably see where that is all going. more or less, not having engaged in idolatry.

not disparaging other views, not trying to 'preach' this one. just offering Willy a ((somewhat poor, am sure)) description of an alternative position, and showing a little bit how it is not out of thin air at all, but drawn from scripture just as much as the literal 144k virgin Israelite view. no need to write a bunch of arguing books on Willy's nice clean thread

 

[Ezekiel8]

there is an alternative position, that the 144,000 are the great multitude that no man can number.
because John looks and sees the things in chapter 14 ((see v. 1)) we know it's a vision, and because what he sees is the Lamb, that is evidence that what he is seeing is symbolic. Jesus Christ is not an actual lamb.
what he hears is a voice from heaven that is both like the sound of many waters and the sound of many harpists - also symbolic, where Christ's voice is also referred to as like many rushing waters ((re: Rev. 1:15)) and those who are 'victorious' over the beast are given harps by God ((re: Rev. 15:2)). combined, this is symbolic of union between the Lamb and the ones who follow Him everywhere He goes ((said of the 144k of course in 14:4)), which, union with Him is the hope of the gospel and eternity.. anyway the sound has symbolism and the figure of the Lamb has symbolism, so IMO it's not quite genuine to say there's 'no evidence of symbolic nature' here in chapter 14. it's really all over the place, and saying that 12*12*1,000 has no symbolism? well.

not trying to disparage, just offering Willy an alternative view, as he had hoped to hear.

so you can establish that the mention of the 144k in chapter 14 is in the midst of symbolic vision. to connect it to the great multitude, look at their first mention in ch. 7 -- John first hears an instruction in heaven not to harm those having the seal of God. then he hears a list of 12,000 from each of twelve tribes - he doesn't see any of this, it is just what he hears from the heavens - after he hears these things, he immediately sees the great multitude that no one can number. what he hears and what he sees are obviously connected, and there is a pattern in Revelation of John hearing something, then seeing something, and both what he hears and what he sees being the same thing seen understood in different ways. the interpretation is that he hears '144k' and he sees an uncountably great multitude, and that these are the same group understood in two ways.

there's evidence to support that in the list of the 144k itself, too. the list of tribes as the 144k are being counted off, tribe by tribe, is wholly singular in scripture. no where else are the tribes of Israel listed this way - with these particular names and in this particular order. the view is that this is very much a purposefully given list, not a haphazard one. elsewhere in scripture when the tribes are listed, they are given in a particular order, by birthright. the names included on the list of tribes elsewhere in scripture either include or do not include Levi depending on the context & reason they are being listed - if we are talking about land inheritance, we don't include Levi, for example. John is certainly not ignorant of the 'correct' way the tribes are named, and if he had simply been reciting the list as he, a Jew, would have given it, it would not be these tribes and this order: so it must be that he is listing them just as he heard them in the vision, and if they are being given to him in a vision from God in a particular order that is not like the order that God has ever listed the tribes previously, there must be a reason for it. which makes this list extraordinary! the view is that understanding the tribes in type, in this order, tells the story of Christ redeeming gentiles and grafting them into the tree, fulfilling the promise to Abraham, reinforcing the view that the multitude John sees immediately after hearing the extraordinary list of tribes and the 144k from them, from every tribe and nation and tongue, is all the redeemed from all the nations.

this is by far not a majority view, but it's the only view i've ever heard that acknowledges that the list of tribes is both unique and purposefully unique. the majority view is to treat the strange list of tribes that make up the description of the 144k as though it's random & insignificant; in general to just pay it no mind at all.

if one takes this view, then obviously your question about the meaning of the virginity of the 144k becomes also a symbolic one, because if the 144k are actually one and the same with the great multitude from all peoples, all the saved believers, then all those are obviously not physically virgins. so in that case, symbolically the general view that goes along with this one is that virginity refers to not having participated in what is symbolic adultery: having other Gods. the 144k are what John hears in ch. 7 right after he hears that those having the seal of God are not to be harmed, so it's natural to associate them as being those with the seal of God ((here we go back to Ephesians and the sealing by the indwelling of the Spirit)) -- and those who do not have the seal of God are associated with 'the other group' - who have bowed the knee to the antichrist, and fornicated with the woman on the beast, etc. you can probably see where that is all going. more or less, not having engaged in idolatry.

not disparaging other views, not trying to 'preach' this one. just offering Willy a ((somewhat poor, am sure)) description of an alternative position, and showing a little bit how it is not out of thin air at all, but drawn from scripture just as much as the literal 144k virgin Israelite view. no need to write a bunch of arguing books on Willy's nice clean thread

Lol that's a funny attempt, except that the first five words of verse one of that chapter seems to nullify that theory.

Fun though to think about.

 

[Lynx]

As I was reading this thread to date, I was wondering why are we quibbling over "defiled" when the word "chaste" is also in that verse? "Chaste" doesn't have an awful lot of meanings...

 

[Ezekiel8]

As I was reading this thread to date, I was wondering why are we quibbling over "defiled" when the word "chaste" is also in that verse? "Chaste" doesn't have an awful lot of meanings...

That's a pretty great point. I would note also in the KJV instead of "chaste" it says "virgins", obviously a synonym which pretty much upholds both your point and the point even about that quibblesome word defile.

 

[Willie-T]

Along these same lines, I think it was just yesterday someone here was saying that a Jewish male wasn't considered much of a man it he didn't marry and become the head of a house.

A lot of interesting side things in that one little verse.