Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Perhaps humans are just angels who haven't got their wings yet.
|
Perhaps. As I wrote earlier, Origen liked to speculate on such things. But if Origen, writing in the third century CE, had to admit his writings weren't truth but speculation, how much more we all!
Yet Lee liked his theology neat. "A equals B" and "This means that" and "This shows us that." The reason I brought up the subject initially was because the categorical statement,
"the messengers in Revelation 1:20 are human, not angelic" seemed too simplistic.
My own take is heavily affected by the notion that behind every physical thing, there was a spiritual one. "As in heaven, so on earth" was Jesus' prayer. So how are we to understand the earth unless we understand "as in heaven"? And
Hebrews copied the dictum "See that you make everything on earth according to the heavenly pattern". The same point applies here. The heavenly pattern is central to understanding.
Therefore, to say that a poetic prophetic reference was merely to an earthly, human judge or prince (or in Revelation 1:20, a messenger to a church elder) is to miss the larger narrative, and dive too shallowly. Paul said, "The things that are seen are temporary; the things not seen are eternal". Behind the temporary human action is a spirit. Behind the human messenger is an angelic one. Behind the earthly ruler is an angelic "power".
But how much can we say? Jesus said concerning the little ones, "their angels in heaven are always beholding the face of My Father". Again and again the NT text seems to reference a common understanding that isn't well explicated. The Reformers were right to go with "sola scriptora" and abandon myth, but with angels that leaves us with precious little in the bare text.
So I'll say 3 things:
1. It's probably not as simplistic as Lee taught us.
2. There's not a lot we can say, definitively, concerning what people believed. Too much is alluded to obliquely, for us to say, "This equals that" or "this means that". But there is some very interesting research going on, regarding the surrounding conversation in 2nd Temple Judaism, on such subjects, as how the earthly was a copy of the heavenly realms, and how it might pertain to NT understanding.
3. Personally, what makes the subject germane is this: I see three falls in the OT: first is the fall of "Lucifer", second the fall of humanity in Genesis 3, and third is the fall of the angels referenced in Genesis 6. And note that each fall was in some manner intrinsically connected to (and even dependent upon?) the one which proceeded it. These are not separate subjects but are part of a larger narrative. Also note that Jesus apparently dealt with the 3 falls in the gospels, and the subject of all three was of intense NT interest right up through John's 'Apocalypse.'
But it's unwise to lean too heavily on slender reeds. The writer of 'Ad Hebreo' (
To the Hebrews) was very concerned with believers being overly influenced by the discussion of angels, which at some point simply has to veer into unfounded speculation. . . so I think about it, but over time have decided to talk about it less, and try to keep focused on Jesus Christ.