Judaic Hebraisms in the Apocaplypse

[votivesoul]

Too long to share here in full, I present instead a link to the article for your reading enjoyment and consideration:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/2013...he-apocalypse/

[Lafon]

Just finished reading it.... extremely interesting and thought provoking! I thoroughly appreciate the efforts you've expended in studying to learn of the "deeper" meaning of the issues you address, and of your willingness to share your "findings" with others. May I copy for personal reference in my studies? Thanks!

[votivesoul]

Freely I have received, so freely I give. Peace to you, Lafon.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Freely I have received, so freely I give. Peace to you, Lafon.

Thanks, Aaron! And may the richest of God's blessings continue to be upon you.

Might I appeal to your benevolent spirit, seeking to know whether you also have been given any greater insight into the identity of the angels to whom John was commanded to address the seven letters?

Noting it is written in Revelation 1:11 that John the apostle was commanded to "write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia," however, we find that in addressing each of these it appears the Lord, rather than speaking to the "collective corporate body" at each, instead He speaks directly to an angel.

In seeking to determine the identity of these angels (realizing that the very word angel is most likely used metaphorically), this is what I have concluded thus far:

In Malachi 2:7 we find it written ...

"For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts"

In Galatians 4:14, Paul the apostle seems to refer to himself as an "angel of God":

"And in my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus."

To the saints at Philippi, Paul again seems to refer to himself in this same manner (metaphorically speaking, that is):

"For me to live is Christ,..." (Philippians 1:21).

So, when our Lord spoke of "the angel of the church of Ephesus" (Revelation 2:1), or "the angel of the church in Smyrna" (Revelation 2:8), for instance, was He speaking of an invisible "ministering spirits" (Hebrews 1:14), or unto an un-named human to whom the Spirit had appointed/called to function as an apostle, prophet, or some other that exercised a leadership role over a particular church? I tend to lean more toward accepting that it is the latter, rather than the former.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Thanks, Aaron! And may the richest of God's blessings continue to be upon you.

Might I appeal to your benevolent spirit, seeking to know whether you also have been given any greater insight into the identity of the angels to whom John was commanded to address the seven letters?

Noting it is written in Revelation 1:11 that John the apostle was commanded to "write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia," however, we find that in addressing each of these it appears the Lord, rather than speaking to the "collective corporate body" at each, instead He speaks directly to an angel.

In seeking to determine the identity of these angels (realizing that the very word angel is most likely used metaphorically), this is what I have concluded thus far:

In Malachi 2:7 we find it written ...

"For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts"

In Galatians 4:14, Paul the apostle seems to refer to himself as an "angel of God":

"And in my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus."

To the saints at Philippi, Paul again seems to refer to himself in this same manner (metaphorically speaking, that is):

"For me to live is Christ,..." (Philippians 1:21).

So, when our Lord spoke of "the angel of the church of Ephesus" (Revelation 2:1), or "the angel of the church in Smyrna" (Revelation 2:8), for instance, was He speaking of an invisible "ministering spirits" (Hebrews 1:14), or unto an un-named human to whom the Spirit had appointed/called to function as an apostle, prophet, or some other that exercised a leadership role over a particular church? I tend to lean more toward accepting that it is the latter, rather than the former.

I don't think the ministering spirits/flames of fire view of the angels in Revelation 1 & 2 is the right view, either.

But I don't think the "angel" or really messenger implies a leader in the church who was supposed to receive the letter then share it with the rest of the congregation.

The reason I don't believe that is the case is because any given local church should, if it functions properly, have more than one messenger. Prophets are supposed to speak to the church by two or three, then be judged (1 Corinthians 14:29). If this is the case according to Paul, then I find it unlikely that the seven churches in Asia, some of which, when mentioned by name, indicate Paul himself founded them, would somehow not have more than one "messenger" as it were.

Additionally, I subscribe to what I call a parsimonious view of interpretation. Basically, as with other endeavors in which parsimony is called for (for example, Occam's Razor and scientific philosophy) I find that the simpler (i.e. less complex, muddled, or convoluted) interpretation is likely the right one.

So for me, the angels to the various seven churches in Revelation 1 & 2 are literally just that: messengers.

John was incarcerated and exiled on a prison island, was he not? Ships sailed to and from Patmos regularly, bringing new prisoners, supplies, and news from the empire.

If John was ever going to get the Revelation off the island and make sure that the churches the Lord commanded him to write to received their respective epistles, in what way could John do that while imprisoned and in exile unless a messenger delivered the letters for him/on his behalf?

So, who was the angel to the church in Ephesus? Easy. The man who came ashore, met with John, and carried the scroll back to Asia Minor, then to Ephesus, then to the church elders of the city (possibly some of the very same elders that saw Paul off to Rome in Acts 20).

This way, the letter isn't addressed to the "angel", as in the following:

Dear Angel of the Church at Ephesus...

But rather, the letter was written to the church at Ephesus (and etc.), but was given to an angel or messenger for delivery.

I find this understanding works best for the following reasons:

1.) It makes no good sense to have the Lord command John to write letters to heavenly angels when the intended audiences were anything but. Scripture teaches that angels are greater/more powerful than men, including John (2 Peter 2:11). So it's inconceivable that Jesus would pull rank on an angel, and authorize John to have a similar power over them.

Additionally, what good do the letters do if communicated to spirit being angels? The angels aren't church members. They don't need to hear the messages contained (For example: angels can't they repent, as some of the churches were commanded to do).

Look at how the letters read: To the angel of the church at...I know your works...

Is Jesus talking about the works of the angels? NO! He is talking about how the various churches are currently operating. So none of the actual content of the letters actually applies to a spirit being angel, so thinking that the letters are addressed to such makes no sense at all.

2.) Since the correct Biblical model of church polity is a union of elders overseeing in tandem, with a fully functional priesthood of believers all experiencing both the Ascension Gifts and also the Gifts of the Spirit, it is incongruous to say that suddenly, the Lord ignores all of that and determines that each local church He addresses only has ONE angel or messenger which functions as the oracle of God for that church.

That runs completely contrary to Biblical facts. Even the church in Jerusalem had twelve Apostles all of equal standing, who were commanded by the Lord to not dominate one another, but rather, to see each other as brothers in the great family of God.

So if the mother Church had plural eldership and oversight, with no one (not even Peter) being the only "messenger", then how is that the churches in Revelation get a pass from the very structure and format the Head of the Church instituted in the first place?

Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, in which He said that the Gentile nations of the world exercise lordship over one another. But in the Church, what did He say?

"It shall not be so among you".

So these mostly Gentile churches in Asia Minor, if they at any time, really became the Church of the Living God, one of the chief things they had to have done was resist carrying out a church polity that allowed for a monarchial bishopric, since such a governance was and is by default, Gentile, i.e. the very thing the Lord commanded must not be so among His followers.

So what is it, then? If it's not spirit being angels, and it's not single, autocratic messengers to the churches, the only viable option is to believe these angels/messengers are what I've concluded: the men who acted as relay point messengers in the empire between John on Patmos and the seven churches he was commanded to write to.

[Sean]

Aaron, what about this passage, the Freemans in Africa had many strange things help them, like a man bringing a gas can full of gas out of no where and filling their tank. The same "African looking guy" that they would see would show up from time to time and help them when they were in trouble. Her book is called,,,"Then came the glory". I have heard them both of these angel/men helpers over the years.

I personally believe that these messengers were possibly angels sent to the 7 churches.

This is easier for the Lord to do than to summon brethren from wherever to go see John and get these copies for the churches I think.

Hebrews 13:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

[Aquila]

I believe in angels. Satan always copies what God has already established. I believe that "spirit guides" and "familiar spirits" are Satan's efforts to copy the ministry of angels.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Too long to share here in full, I present instead a link to the article for your reading enjoyment and consideration:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/2013...he-apocalypse/

Excellent article.

Have you considered the parallels to Exodus?

Moses saved from Pharaoh
Jesus saved from Herod

Moses fleeing into the wilderness for 40 years
Jesus going into the wilderness for 40 days

the rod of Moses
the rod of iron

the plagues upon the Egyptians
the plagues upon humanity

the Passover lamb
behold a lamb

The woman fleeing to the desert
Israel going into the desert

The apparition to John
The apparition to Moses and the elders in Mount Sinai

the tabernacle in the wilderness
The heavenly tabernacle

and many, many more

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I don't think the ministering spirits/flames of fire view of the angels in Revelation 1 & 2 is the right view, either.

But I don't think the "angel" or really messenger implies a leader in the church who was supposed to receive the letter then share it with the rest of the congregation.

The reason I don't believe that is the case is because any given local church should, if it functions properly, have more than one messenger. Prophets are supposed to speak to the church by two or three, then be judged (1 Corinthians 14:29). If this is the case according to Paul, then I find it unlikely that the seven churches in Asia, some of which, when mentioned by name, indicate Paul himself founded them, would somehow not have more than one "messenger" as it were.

Additionally, I subscribe to what I call a parsimonious view of interpretation. Basically, as with other endeavors in which parsimony is called for (for example, Occam's Razor and scientific philosophy) I find that the simpler (i.e. less complex, muddled, or convoluted) interpretation is likely the right one.

So for me, the angels to the various seven churches in Revelation 1 & 2 are literally just that: messengers.

John was incarcerated and exiled on a prison island, was he not? Ships sailed to and from Patmos regularly, bringing new prisoners, supplies, and news from the empire.

If John was ever going to get the Revelation off the island and make sure that the churches the Lord commanded him to write to received their respective epistles, in what way could John do that while imprisoned and in exile unless a messenger delivered the letters for him/on his behalf?

So, who was the angel to the church in Ephesus? Easy. The man who came ashore, met with John, and carried the scroll back to Asia Minor, then to Ephesus, then to the church elders of the city (possibly some of the very same elders that saw Paul off to Rome in Acts 20).

This way, the letter isn't addressed to the "angel", as in the following:

Dear Angel of the Church at Ephesus...

But rather, the letter was written to the church at Ephesus (and etc.), but was given to an angel or messenger for delivery.

I find this understanding works best for the following reasons:

1.) It makes no good sense to have the Lord command John to write letters to heavenly angels when the intended audiences were anything but. Scripture teaches that angels are greater/more powerful than men, including John (2 Peter 2:11). So it's inconceivable that Jesus would pull rank on an angel, and authorize John to have a similar power over them.

Additionally, what good do the letters do if communicated to spirit being angels? The angels aren't church members. They don't need to hear the messages contained (For example: angels can't they repent, as some of the churches were commanded to do).

Look at how the letters read: To the angel of the church at...I know your works...

Is Jesus talking about the works of the angels? NO! He is talking about how the various churches are currently operating. So none of the actual content of the letters actually applies to a spirit being angel, so thinking that the letters are addressed to such makes no sense at all.

2.) Since the correct Biblical model of church polity is a union of elders overseeing in tandem, with a fully functional priesthood of believers all experiencing both the Ascension Gifts and also the Gifts of the Spirit, it is incongruous to say that suddenly, the Lord ignores all of that and determines that each local church He addresses only has ONE angel or messenger which functions as the oracle of God for that church.

That runs completely contrary to Biblical facts. Even the church in Jerusalem had twelve Apostles all of equal standing, who were commanded by the Lord to not dominate one another, but rather, to see each other as brothers in the great family of God.

So if the mother Church had plural eldership and oversight, with no one (not even Peter) being the only "messenger", then how is that the churches in Revelation get a pass from the very structure and format the Head of the Church instituted in the first place?

Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, in which He said that the Gentile nations of the world exercise lordship over one another. But in the Church, what did He say?

"It shall not be so among you".

So these mostly Gentile churches in Asia Minor, if they at any time, really became the Church of the Living God, one of the chief things they had to have done was resist carrying out a church polity that allowed for a monarchial bishopric, since such a governance was and is by default, Gentile, i.e. the very thing the Lord commanded must not be so among His followers.

So what is it, then? If it's not spirit being angels, and it's not single, autocratic messengers to the churches, the only viable option is to believe these angels/messengers are what I've concluded: the men who acted as relay point messengers in the empire between John on Patmos and the seven churches he was commanded to write to.

Thank you! I've never considered viewing this as you've done here, but, admittedly, your explanation does seem more plausiblle or appropriate. I suppose my attempts to comprehend the identity of the angels has been "tainted" (for lack of a better term to describe it) by the many years of listening to, and reading the things others have published, although I've always had the lingering doubt of whether it be true or not.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Sean

Aaron, what about this passage, the Freemans in Africa had many strange things help them, like a man bringing a gas can full of gas out of no where and filling their tank. The same "African looking guy" that they would see would show up from time to time and help them when they were in trouble. Her book is called,,,"Then came the glory". I have heard them both of these angel/men helpers over the years.

I personally believe that these messengers were possibly angels sent to the 7 churches.

This is easier for the Lord to do than to summon brethren from wherever to go see John and get these copies for the churches I think.

Hebrews 13:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

I've read that book and do not discredit the ability of God to send angelic hosts to the aid of His people. I know it has, does, and will happen again again until the culmination of the age.

But look at the context. While God could have acted supernaturally to aid John in getting the book off of the island, and perhaps the messengers that carried the Revelation to Asia Minor were spirit beings, we have no reason to assume so. All we have to go on is the Greek word aggelos or messenger/angel.

To me, these things are completed just as easily through human agency. It's likely for example, that Phoebe was the one who carried the epistle of Paul to the Roman assembly to Rome. Human agency. God has ever placed His Word in the hands of men. Why would He stop doing so with the Apocalypse?