Do angels have wings?

[Gail]

To moderator and creator of this forum- You see what happens when you dare us to have our own thoughts? LOL

Great stuff!

[Taylor]

ROFL...just having a bit of fun. (Hopefully my guardian angel has a sense of humor and is able to laugh about his "detachable" wings which could to up in smoke if lightening torches them...or disentegrated if they get too soggy with rain.)

[BobRyan]

Indeed it appears that as Ellen White said - angels have the power to "appear in human form".

So the only choice is between angels that do have wings (with the number of wings being one form of differentiation between various types of angels) -- where they have the "ability" to appear in human form as needed.

OR angels that look for all the world like humans -- but have the ability to appear as Angels with wings -

However that second option does not really make sense.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

I think as humans we get biased by our 'too, too solid flesh' (thanx Mr Shakespeare). What if angels are creatures whose physical forms are endlessly mutable, and they adapt their form to their purpose? Humans with wings would be appropriate to the purpose of showing other-worldliness and creating awe in appearances to humans, wings to cover faces and feet for showing reverence, four different faces for showing 'we're not in Kansas any more' and so on. I think the category systems of different kinds of angels (the Scholastics had it down to a fine art) are castles built on sand: fish's taxonomies of land creatures based on what they can see from under water.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yep, it is amazing what happens when we climb out of the box to start thinking...

(To all - but when we seek to do some out of the box thinking here, please leave those quote boxes at home...)

[Lineman]

I too have wondered at times about what a fish might think of his world verses what it must be like out of the water. lol

(Me thinks humans trying to understand God and angels is much like that.) Thanks Bravus.

We envision angels as having flesh because we cannot understand how anything can live without a "material" body. Even the Father has a "body" of some kind according to EGW.

[BobRyan]

We invision the bible being the accurate trustworthy inspired word of God - so we invision the description of Seraphim and Cherabim as being "accurate" and trustworthy accounts in Ezekiel for example. Just as we invision the description of Christ in Rev 1 as being accurate and trustworthy. Just as we invision the description that God gives of "origins" in Gen 1-2:3 (and the summary of that given in Ex 20:11) as a trustworthy account far superior to the debunked hoaxes and confirmed frauds used to promote atheist darwinist doctrine.

We also invision the Bible account in Genesis 18 of God and 2 angels appearing in the form of 3 men as being a trustworthy account of how they appeared in that form to Abraham -- with no "description" of the men given -- since this is merely an assumed form.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually Bob, we also tend to assume Cherubim and Seraphim are angels. However, the original Biblical languages uses quite different words reflecting the translated difference. The role and function of Cherubim and Seraphim also seem to be quite distinct from the heavenly beings identified in Scripture as angels. The Biblical evidence supports that Cherubim and Seraphim are not angels but other heavenly creatures that attend the throne of God. The Bible does identify them as having wings, as it also describes God as having wings. The point is that no Scripture describes angels as having wings. (See the earlier posts.)

[Parade Orange]

I am still thinking about an angel appearing as a talking banana to Ellen White.

[Lineman]

There must be an awful lot of metaphoric language going on when the Bible speaks of God having wings. A God who is everywhere sure doesn't need wings.

[BobRyan]

In John 10 Christ said "I am the door".

In Rev 1 Christ in heaven - is actually being described.

So... that is an example of a difference in context that is helpfuul when doing exegesis of the text.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, I agree that wings on heavenly beings is perhaps a metaphor. What would that metaphor mean?

[Aliensanctuary]

Angels, I suspect, are very much like us, except for our genetic de-evolution. They tend to wear simple, linen clothing. Their jobs, of course, are to deliver messages to us. Angel translates as Messenger.

Cherubim function in the transportation of the Throne of God. When their wings touch, the Throne moves. When their wings drop, the Throne stops. Among them are coals of fire, lightning, swift movement, a thunderous roar, and huge, glittering, whirling wheels.

Instead of every surface covered with human-like eyeballs, we should consider the possibility of facets, maybe circular, something like the silicon cells in some solar panels. We may be looking at technology far beyond our comprehension.

The Seraphim, we can picture, as fiery, flying serpents, [red dragons], as a number of scriptures describe Satan. Satan may very well be a sapient, fiery, flying serpent with powerful, telepathic abilities, able to posess nearly defenseless human beings.

[BobRyan]

I think the Bible is right when it describes angels as having wings, hands, feet, faces and robes of light.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

As was pointed out at the very beginning of this topic and what has prompted this whole topic is that the Bible does not ever actually describe angels as having wings. Seraphim and Cherubim are different heavenly beings that are described as having wings. God is described as having wings. But not angels.

One might assume wings where angels are described as moving through the air or appearing in the sky or hovering above the earth. But we do not picture Jesus as having sprouted wings at his Ascension doing that very thing. The Bible just says he went up. And we know that things can move through the air or hover in the air without wings. And if we believe angels have any supernatural abilities, defeating gravity would not require actual wings as would natural earthly creatures like birds. It is only in extra-Biblical sources, art and church tradition that actually puts wings on angels.

Tom

[BobRyan]

Where is the "Cherubim" or "Seraphim" are not angels text?

Lucifer is an angel -- he is also Cherubim - so it will be interesting to see where the text is for "Cherubim are not angels".

in Christ,

Bob

[SivartM]

Unless:

1. There is a demon lookalike for every person who ever died,

2. Satan looks exactly like people think Jesus does, and

3. Angels naturally look like ordinary humans,

I'd say that angels have the power to change their appearance at God's will. What their natural appearance is, I have no idea, and for all we know they have no "natural" appearance but are always changing according to their tasks.

[Tom Wetmore]

Bob, I think one might find that verse at the same place as the text that says Cherubim and Seraphim are the same thing as angels. And perhaps one might find in the same place the text that says Lucifer was a Cherubim or a Seraphim.

Isaiah uses the term Seraphs/Seraphim for certain creatures around God's throne. The more frequently used word Cherub/Cherubim is used by Ezekiel and that same word is also used for the guardian posted at the gate to the Garden of Eden after the fall. But in neither case is the word used that we translate as angel which literally means messenger.

The original language used in the Scripture for these various heavenly beings are distinctly different words with quite different meanings, the descriptions given by the prophets of their appearance is vastly different and the described functions and activities are very different.

It seems only church tradition and extra-Biblical sources or perhaps commonly held assumption that concludes that they are all the same type of heavenly being.

Tom

[SivartM]

I was pretty sure Ezekiel said somewhere that Lucifer was a cherub...

[Gail]

Ezekiel 28:14

[Tom Wetmore]

This is part of a prophecy/lament against the King of Tyre that starts in chapter 26 and the preamble in 28:2 and 28:12 repeats that the object of Ezekiel's message was the King of Tyre. While clearly directed at him,the mixed allusions seem a blend of imagery bringing to mind, among other things, a fall from perfection, glory and favor like either Adam and/or Lucifer. Not entire free of ambiguity, but I think it suffices for the context of this discussion. For the sake of discussion I think it reasonable to assume that Lucifer was one of the guardian cherubs before being cast out of heaven. I don't think there is any dispute that he was a high order of heavenly being, higher than the angels that he took out of heaven with him.

As for the point of discussion of whether cherubim and angels are the same thing, does anyone have a reference that says they are actually the same thing or that Satan was also identified as being an angel?

I would note that the closest text of which I am aware is 2 Corinthians 11:14 that says that Satan can transform himself into an angel of light. But that isn't saying he is an angel. It just says he can deceive us by looking like an angel, just as he might deceive us by appearing to us as our dead grandmother.

There are also a number of references that I recall about Satan and his angels. This would seem to suggest a distinction between him and them, at least to a degree, as being somewhat different. But how different and in what way? This could be a distinction between different types or variations of the same kind or a distinction between different very dissimilar things. Was Lucifer simply an angel of higher rank or status, or was he a higher order and different type of heavenly being distinct and apart from other heavenly beings?

Tom

[SivartM]

I think that most people use "angel" as more of a general reference to heavenly beings, regardless of "species" or rank. When you think about it, "angel" just means "messenger", so does the word really describe a particular kind of being or is it just used for all heavenly messengers, Satan and Gabriel alike?

[Aliensanctuary]

I agree. Any one of these extraterrestrial beings could function as a Messenger, or Angel, to us. Scripture describes several different types of these beings. God directs them to travel through time and/or space to deliver important messages to us poor, ignorant human beings.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, I think that's the way I tend to see it too. It does raise an interesting thought of what new spiritual symbolism would hit home for this generation. Eugene Peterson has taken some of the Biblical metaphors in his paraphrase and translated them to modern equivalents. For example, how many of us can really identify with the idea of being like straying sheep? How many of us are shepherds? Even maybe know a shepherd? Or even been close to a sheep? What might work better for the modern urban dweller with no knowledge of ancient agrarian culture?

The idea is to take something common and familiar to help us better understand the sacred. Each time we see the common item we are reminded of the sacred.

It's interesting how we tend to make the symbol sacred to the point it's original purpose and meaning is lost, putting us further away from the sacred to which it was intended to bring us closer. But we cling to the sacred symbol as if to tamper with it is to somehow profane the sacred that it symbolizes. Sometimes a fresh symbol might help get us back on track.

Coming at this from a different direction, maybe the reason heavenly beings are represented as having wings is that we might be reminded of them whenever we see a winged creature. They are everywhere. I think I have a lot of angels in my back yard. I can hear them singing. They outnumber the snakes in the grass.

[John317]

I agree. The "wings" of angels wouldn't help them fly the vast, unimaginable distances they must travel between heaven and earth. But for the people of ancient times who knew nothing about those distances, the wings were an appropriate symbol of travel. After all they saw how birds flew with flapping wings. They could not have understood any other form of travel through space.

However, we know that God and the angels are in a different dimension, and that there are other possible ways of travel through space besides bird-like wings. How useful would flapping wings be for traveling faster than the speed of light? Obviously none at all. If anything, they would be a hinderance.