Page 1 of 12 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 170

Thread: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,166

    Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    I don't think so.

    2 Cor 11.2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

    Rev 14.3 No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins.

    My thought is that under the Law of Moses a marriage normally required that a man marry a virgin. This is an indication of purity. It is also representative of the abandonment of the Old Covenant Law for an entirely new relationship, not based on works.

    I think that Paul meant, in 2 Corinthians, to convey that Christians have entered into a relationship with God based on the New Covenant, and not on the Law, which would've viewed them as idolatrous pagans. The Law would also have branded Jewish believers as idolatrous and spiritually contaminated as well.

    So to be viewed as "virgins" the 144,000 from all tribes of Israel would've properly represented Jewish believers in the time that the Revelation was given. Those Jews would properly be viewed as being under an entirely new covenant, and unspoiled by the findings of the Law.

    I think that it is *critical* that we view this symbolism in the light of a recently-abandoned legal system, the system of Law. But what is your view?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    4,695
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't think so.

    2 Cor 11.2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

    Rev 14.3 No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins.

    My thought is that under the Law of Moses a marriage normally required that a man marry a virgin. This is an indication of purity. It is also representative of the abandonment of the Old Covenant Law for an entirely new relationship, not based on works.

    I think that Paul meant, in 2 Corinthians, to convey that Christians have entered into a relationship with God based on the New Covenant, and not on the Law, which would've viewed them as idolatrous pagans. The Law would also have branded Jewish believers as idolatrous and spiritually contaminated as well.

    So to be viewed as "virgins" the 144,000 from all tribes of Israel would've properly represented Jewish believers in the time that the Revelation was given. Those Jews would properly be viewed as being under an entirely new covenant, and unspoiled by the findings of the Law.

    I think that it is *critical* that we view this symbolism in the light of a recently-abandoned legal system, the system of Law. But what is your view?
    Without going into other aspects of the 144,000 I will just address the question of their virginity. I recall participating in an OP on this topic years ago. Their virginity doesn't mean they are literally virgins, rather it's symbolic of their purity. I'll see if I can dig out my posts on this topic in the past.

  3. #3

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    My first thought is, I wouldn't say that the 144,000 (of Israel [and I see this as "future"]) are the same ones being addressed in 2Cor11:2 (the Church), and then I'd probably ask, what do you believe the following verse means: "By so much also, Jesus has become the guarantee [some versions say 'guarantor'] of a better covenant." Hebrews 7:22 http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/7-22.htm

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,173

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't think so.

    2 Cor 11.2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

    Rev 14.3 No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins.

    My thought is that under the Law of Moses a marriage normally required that a man marry a virgin. This is an indication of purity. It is also representative of the abandonment of the Old Covenant Law for an entirely new relationship, not based on works.

    I think that Paul meant, in 2 Corinthians, to convey that Christians have entered into a relationship with God based on the New Covenant, and not on the Law, which would've viewed them as idolatrous pagans. The Law would also have branded Jewish believers as idolatrous and spiritually contaminated as well.

    So to be viewed as "virgins" the 144,000 from all tribes of Israel would've properly represented Jewish believers in the time that the Revelation was given. Those Jews would properly be viewed as being under an entirely new covenant, and unspoiled by the findings of the Law.

    I think that it is *critical* that we view this symbolism in the light of a recently-abandoned legal system, the system of Law. But what is your view?
    Well, I wouldn't go way out on a figurative limb to demean the law, but I would ask if it possible for a man to be a virgin according to the Bible. Today, it would seem so, but in the Bible I don't recall a single time when a man is called a virgin in the sense of not having had sex. So first, is it even possible for a man to be a virgin by not having sex? There are eunuchs, but I don't recall them ever being called virgins. Therefore, I think the concept here is about 144k that never worshiped any false gods, and not about the lack of sex. But, it is my understanding that all of them are young children at the time of their sealing. So, perhaps they remain virgins in the sexual sense. I cannot say with absolute certainty. It could mean both things here.

    I would also add that Ezekiel 40-48 describes the setting up of Jesus' Millennial kingdom and it talks about the priests marrying virgins only. Or widows of other priests I think. If the priests are expected to marry, why not the 144k also? But again, this huge choir might be set aside for a reason. We'll find out one day.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,158

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Revelation 14:4 is a clear statement: These are men who have kept themselves chaste and have not defiled themselves with women.....

    Of course most here would say: Impossible for there to be 144,000 Jewish virgin men! You make two serious errors:
    1/ the 144,000 are not just Jewish, but are from all twelve tribes of Israel; who are now people from every race, nation and language, every faithful Christian person now alive. The 144,000 are selected by Jesus out of the vast multitude, Rev 14:1, who are all those Christians who kept strong in their faith during the recently happened Day of the Lord's wrath. Revelation 6:12-17 His true Overcomers, the Victorious ones, the real Israelites of God.

    2/ You choose to allegorize plainly stated scripture. Just because you can't see how what scripture says can be possible, in no way means that God can't do it.
    In my country and in America, I see many godly young men, example; the footballer who had John 3:16 on his shirt, and many thousands who pledge chastity before marriage.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    3,680
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't think so.

    2 Cor 11.2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

    Rev 14.3 No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins.

    My thought is that under the Law of Moses a marriage normally required that a man marry a virgin. This is an indication of purity. It is also representative of the abandonment of the Old Covenant Law for an entirely new relationship, not based on works.

    I think that Paul meant, in 2 Corinthians, to convey that Christians have entered into a relationship with God based on the New Covenant, and not on the Law, which would've viewed them as idolatrous pagans. The Law would also have branded Jewish believers as idolatrous and spiritually contaminated as well.

    So to be viewed as "virgins" the 144,000 from all tribes of Israel would've properly represented Jewish believers in the time that the Revelation was given. Those Jews would properly be viewed as being under an entirely new covenant, and unspoiled by the findings of the Law.

    I think that it is *critical* that we view this symbolism in the light of a recently-abandoned legal system, the system of Law. But what is your view?
    No I don't believe that they are literal virgins the bible doesn't even tell us that they are men and they are not even the actual 12 tribes of Israel.

    I believe that the 144 000 are symbolic for the church made up of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 disciples as in 12x12=144 and the 1000 meaning many.

    Just like John hears of the lion of the tribe of Judah he then turns and sees the lamb that was slain John also hears of the 144 000 of the tribes of Israel and then he sees the great multitude that no one could count from every nation' people tribe and language. Some might say that they must be men because they didn't defile themselves with women but women can defile themselves with women I believe that it just means purity and the church is called to be pure.

    Most people believe that the church is the bride of Christ but that doesn't mean that the church is all women.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,300

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    No I don't believe that they are literal virgins the bible doesn't even tell us that they are men and they are not even the actual 12 tribes of Israel.

    I believe that the 144 000 are symbolic for the church made up of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 disciples as in 12x12=144 and the 1000 meaning many.

    Just like John hears of the lion of the tribe of Judah he then turns and sees the lamb that was slain John also hears of the 144 000 of the tribes of Israel and then he sees the great multitude that no one could count from every nation' people tribe and language. Some might say that they must be men because they didn't defile themselves with women but women can defile themselves with women I believe that it just means purity and the church is called to be pure.

    Most people believe that the church is the bride of Christ but that doesn't mean that the church is all women.
    Very well said. I wouldn't be surprised if the Women outnumber the Men.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  8. #8

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    I believe they are virgins.

    Further in scripture it states:

    These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.

    Which makes it clear, they are men and they have no faults.

    By being the firstfruits it means they are literally the first sinless humans being the first fruits of the Lamb and God.

    This absolutely does not mean they do not require salvation as scripture is clear all men require the Lords salvation.

    It just means before God they have no fault other then being born among men.

    They are sealed (and it doesn’t say when or what age) by God so it’s not really surprising that they are without fault before Him.

    Look at Elijah and Enoch for example.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    3,680
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Very well said. I wouldn't be surprised if the Women outnumber the Men.

    Oh I'm sure they will my wife helps keep me accountable

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,166

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Without going into other aspects of the 144,000 I will just address the question of their virginity. I recall participating in an OP on this topic years ago. Their virginity doesn't mean they are literally virgins, rather it's symbolic of their purity. I'll see if I can dig out my posts on this topic in the past.
    Yes, what struck me is how much in the early Apostolic Period was taught with the Law as a backdrop. The idea of "virginity" is clearly in the Law. And the idea of a brand New Covenant would indicate a fresh new start for Israel, after having been condemned as apostates (as a nation).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,166

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsAllLinked View Post
    I believe they are virgins.

    Further in scripture it states:

    These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.

    Which makes it clear, they are men and they have no faults.

    By being the firstfruits it means they are literally the first sinless humans being the first fruits of the Lamb and God.

    This absolutely does not mean they do not require salvation as scripture is clear all men require the Lords salvation.

    It just means before God they have no fault other then being born among men.

    They are sealed (and it doesn’t say when or what age) by God so it’s not really surprising that they are without fault before Him.

    Look at Elijah and Enoch for example.
    Yes, I did view the possibility that the 144,000 "virgins" could represent Israel in the Millennium, in either a glorified or mortal, but Christian, sense. If they are glorified, then certainly they could be viewed as "virgins." But if they are glorified, they would be gender-neutral, right?

    So you must be talking about mortal Israelis who are both sinless and virgin?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,166

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    No I don't believe that they are literal virgins the bible doesn't even tell us that they are men and they are not even the actual 12 tribes of Israel.

    I believe that the 144 000 are symbolic for the church made up of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 disciples as in 12x12=144 and the 1000 meaning many.

    Just like John hears of the lion of the tribe of Judah he then turns and sees the lamb that was slain John also hears of the 144 000 of the tribes of Israel and then he sees the great multitude that no one could count from every nation' people tribe and language. Some might say that they must be men because they didn't defile themselves with women but women can defile themselves with women I believe that it just means purity and the church is called to be pure.

    Most people believe that the church is the bride of Christ but that doesn't mean that the church is all women.
    Yes, I've held this position before too, that the 144,000 sort of symbolizes the Great Multitude. In that case their "virginity" would be symbolic of Christian redemption. It's a plausible theory.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,166

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz View Post
    Revelation 14:4 is a clear statement: These are men who have kept themselves chaste and have not defiled themselves with women.....

    Of course most here would say: Impossible for there to be 144,000 Jewish virgin men! You make two serious errors:
    1/ the 144,000 are not just Jewish, but are from all twelve tribes of Israel; who are now people from every race, nation and language, every faithful Christian person now alive. The 144,000 are selected by Jesus out of the vast multitude, Rev 14:1, who are all those Christians who kept strong in their faith during the recently happened Day of the Lord's wrath. Revelation 6:12-17 His true Overcomers, the Victorious ones, the real Israelites of God.

    2/ You choose to allegorize plainly stated scripture. Just because you can't see how what scripture says can be possible, in no way means that God can't do it.
    In my country and in America, I see many godly young men, example; the footballer who had John 3:16 on his shirt, and many thousands who pledge chastity before marriage.
    I think it's very possible that the 144,000 are literal Jews from within the international Church. Nothing crazy about that! I may hold to that myself. I just don't think these Jews are literal virgins. Nor do I think they come from the literal tribes of Israel, since they have long since disappeared.

    This may represent the 12 tribes as a inter-tribal land inheritance, with equal inheritance of the total land area. It is an expansion upon the original tribal inheritance to encompass an equal inheritance of the entire territory of Israel.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,166

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P View Post
    Well, I wouldn't go way out on a figurative limb to demean the law, but I would ask if it possible for a man to be a virgin according to the Bible. Today, it would seem so, but in the Bible I don't recall a single time when a man is called a virgin in the sense of not having had sex. So first, is it even possible for a man to be a virgin by not having sex? There are eunuchs, but I don't recall them ever being called virgins. Therefore, I think the concept here is about 144k that never worshiped any false gods, and not about the lack of sex. But, it is my understanding that all of them are young children at the time of their sealing. So, perhaps they remain virgins in the sexual sense. I cannot say with absolute certainty. It could mean both things here.

    I would also add that Ezekiel 40-48 describes the setting up of Jesus' Millennial kingdom and it talks about the priests marrying virgins only. Or widows of other priests I think. If the priests are expected to marry, why not the 144k also? But again, this huge choir might be set aside for a reason. We'll find out one day.
    Interesting comments here. Yes, I'm reminded that the Jews considered it the 1st command of God to marry and to have children. It is the opposite as it was with Christian monasticism, where it was considered a virtue to give up marriage to serve God freely.

    So yes, I think you're probably right, that these are adult men--not young virgin children. And since they are men, they would not be literal virgins! I really don't know if the word denotes female virginity alone?

    But I do think you're right that this is probably symbolic of being free of idolatry. Thanks!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,166

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    My first thought is, I wouldn't say that the 144,000 (of Israel [and I see this as "future"]) are the same ones being addressed in 2Cor11:2 (the Church), and then I'd probably ask, what do you believe the following verse means: "By so much also, Jesus has become the guarantee [some versions say 'guarantor'] of a better covenant." Hebrews 7:22 http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/7-22.htm
    I think it means that Jesus initiated the New Covenant, and that it guarantees something, namely eternal life. Perhaps you are drawing a different conclusion?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 138
    Last Post: Jun 13th 2015, 08:55 PM
  2. Replies: 68
    Last Post: Sep 6th 2013, 05:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •