Winged Thoughts Section Three

Section Three: The nature of angels. We seek the parameters of the angelic constitution. We will find it. We will study it. We will turn it over and over in our hands until we become quite familiar with it. We will discover, I think, that the nature of angels rubs shoulders with the nature of God. Likewise, we will come to understand that the nature of angels rubs shoulders with the nature of man. Man has concluded that certain manifestations of God should fall under the general header of angelic. Such angels are necessary vehicles for the conveyance of an invisible spirit. We will be more picayune in our naming of angels. Without refuting the angelic properties of the vehicles of God, we will create a separate classification for the humanoid angel. Our first task will be to compare angels with God. In order to accomplish such a thing, we must deal with the fundamentals of the nature of God, and we already hold the first piece of this puzzle. Piece one: God is an invisible spirit. Of his basic nature, God has no similitude. Deuteronomy 4:12 And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. The above is an example of God, the invisible spirit, acting through an elemental vehicle. It is obvious in the example that God controls what people see and hear, and yet, what they see is not God. The non-human angelic form is actually a manipulation of the elements. That, in and of itself, is a major indicator of the nature of God. All matter may be included in the composition of God, but for the purposes of our investigation of an invisible, and I might add, intangible God, matter may be viewed as external to him. Men have considered such apparitions as angelic, and despite our present-day state of advancement, we would marvel at such displays no less than our primitive forefathers. We have to admit – talking fire is cool; we would definitely be impressed. Men gave two names to those apparitions. They called them angels, and they called them 'Lord'. Apparitions of fire and smoke did communicate to man through sight and sound, but touching is not noted in those accounts. The writers of those accounts pretty much agreed that God had no similitude, yet, when humanoid entities represented God, they, too, were called Lord. Jeremiah 1:9 Then the Lord put forth his hand, And touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. We are going on the assumption that God has no similitude. God, himself, may not be seen. God is unique – one of a kind. There is no comparison of the whole, but we may compare attributes and constituent members. Jesus told us that God could be seen, that if our eyes beheld the visible son, our eyes beheld the invisible father. In our investigation, it is necessary to clarify our view of the nature of God. We must look past the whole to see the parts. In doing this, we must explore and define the nature of spirit. We have called God a spirit, and the Lord of all spirits. In other words, God is able to manipulate both the tangible corporeal element and the intangible spirit. We may then initially view God as a spirit around which orbit lesser spirits and these spirits may be viewed as vehicles no less than the elements. Read below. Zechariah 6:4-5 And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. It may be that angels revolve around the lesser spirits. It may be that angels are the vehicles, or manifestations of lesser spirits. Or, we might view them as caretakers and guardians. We will leave our minds open to the possibility that there are many orbits around God – spirits, spirits of spirits, angels of spirits, etc. Our main investigation here will center around the humanoid angel. We will examine the various descriptions of them to determine their nature. The pieces to our puzzle will fall into place. We name our new classification the 'Brother Angel'. Angels in this category are like men in that they share with us certain familiar traits. They are also notably different in certain respects. We identify with their more human traits, and we aspire to their superior attributes. Angels are routinely described with the traits that most impress those who see the apparitions. For instance, the following verse describes an angel with impressive attributes. We who study such accounts, accept that the descriptions submitted were filtered through comparison. In other words, an angel is seen. He is basically like a man – so, if there is something more to be said, the angel is thus described by comparing him to a man. Revelation 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice. The angel was strong. Compared to the average man, the angel might have been larger and more muscular. Did the angel bench press? Was the angel so dressed as to bring attention to the physique? How buff was the angel? It might be common that angels are in good physical condition, but the brother angel is sometimes average. I guess, not every one of them can be super-human. See below. Hosea 12:3-4 Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed. The brother angel comes in many shapes and sizes. It would definitely be a mistake to buy into the homogenous view of the statuesque, blond Aryan angel. Since angels can seem like individuals on the outside, it stands to reason that they may also have different temperaments. Some may seem patient and helpful, while others have an attitude. Some can be downright mean and destructive. Read below. Psalms 78:25 & 49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. Here may be clues to evil or fallen angels. Here we may see a reflection of the nature of God in the nature of angels. God is not all sugar like so many people wish him to be. He gets angry. When sending a representative, it seems appropriate that he would send someone to represent his anger. It may be the angel is imbued with the nature of God's current emotion, or it can be that the representative believes in the cause just as intensely as does God. The scenario might be that God calls his princes together, and tells them what's going on. He communicates his disappointment and frustration. His rhetoric whips the crowd into a frenzy. They raise their hands for permission, calling, “I'll go! Choose me!” Read below for one 'worked up' angel. Note his passion for the Lord. Note how important God is to the angel, how high up God is in his estimation. You are not going to dis God and get by this fellow unscathed. Judges 5:23 Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty. We have established thus far that angels can be individuals. They can look different, they can have different strengths and weaknesses, they can have emotions, attitudes, and great passion. That is only a small part of their nature. Previously, we noted that they can change shape. This talent must be viewed as an ability to manipulate matter to some degree. Such a thing speaks of the nature of energy. Do you hear the buzz of high voltage? Just for a charge, read the shocking verses below. Job 4:15-16 Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes. I said earlier that man identifies with the angels. I have classified the humanoid angels as 'Brother angels'. Here, I wish to include a reference that indicates the opposite – that angels identify with men. It points to very telling facts about the ongoing relationship between men and angels. As you read, you should make comparisons. Ask yourself, just who inhabits the Earth, and in what state they may be compared. Revelation 12:7, 9 & 10 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. Both men and fallen angels share a fallen state, yet, the non-fallen angels of heaven claim that we are their brothers. Think about it – if the whole world is deceived, would that not include all the inhabitants? Both men and fallen angels are equally in the dark. And, just what does it mean to be cast into the Earth? What is lost in the transference from spiritual to corporeal? The next time you pass a stranger on the street, ask yourself, could he or she be a fallen angel – and not even know it? For that matter, could you be a fallen angel and not know it? One must put the angels in one hand and the inhabitants of the Earth in the other hand. One must compare the attributes of both. Angels can manipulate matter, just like God. They are above the endless cycle of life and death. The inhabitants of the Earth, some of which do not know that they used to be angels, do not have the talents and abilities of the angels. They are caught in the endless cycle; their only way up and out is through salvation. It could well be that the fallen state is not a thing that is settled. It could be an ongoing state. Anyone may be cursed, and anyone may accrue additional curses. Inhabitants of this world, by certain admissions and changes of direction, may be relieved of their curses. Similarly, even the angels of heaven may accrue curses if they are not careful. See below. Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. It is by no means certain that all the falling is over and done with. Neither is trust of angels, on the part of mankind, a settled matter. In the list of all the things that may come between man and his redemption, angels are present and accounted for. I have to ask: why? Why would an angel even think about doing such a thing? Of course, I am discounting those fallen angels who are just as much in the dark as the rest of us. Perhaps the heavenly angels would never do such a thing, but if they tried, they might only be doomed to fail. Surely, some things are stronger than the angels. Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. As individuals, angels may have as much free will as men. Whether their choices are always right – who can say? But, there is a notion that mankind will ultimately be placed over the angels. That might be purely Biblical and based on an obstruction of needful information. After all, the whole world is deceived. However, if angels in heaven are our brothers, and consider us as brothers, does it stand to reason that either of us would judge the other? Would not Jesus be the only judge? It might be, however, that when our eyes are finally opened to the light, we will recognize and judge the fallen angels of the Earth. The scenario might go like this: I note that the fallen angels shared my fallen state. I note that the fallen were just as stuck in the endless cycle of death and rebirth. My eyes being open, I might finally understand that they were in the dark – that is, they thought they were men. They lived like men, making mistakes, making up for mistakes, hoping, and doing good – even repenting, and living in faith. I would look at an individual whose life seemed so much like my own, and knowing that I was forgiven, I would forgive. Judge for yourself. 1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? Will we become the accusers of the brethren, or will we, like Christ, advocate forgiveness? Mankind has not cornered the market on limited knowledge. Certainly, I do not know everything. I am in the dark, just like you, just like the fallen angels. Even the angels of heaven don't know everything. Jesus told us plainly. Matthew 24:31 & 36 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Angels do know what God wants them to know. We can rightly assume that the angels of heaven have access to knowledge that is currently beyond the limited abilities of men. In many cases, angels know what God knows. It may be communicated per need, it may be a shared thought or a shared mind. Angels speaking for God – we see it often. Genesis 21:17&19 God heard the voice of the lad and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven and said unto her, what aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad to drink. Of course, God may speak directly to man. He is able, after all, to manipulate matter. Quite often, however, it is the angel that speaks. The angel, while considered the voice of God, is an individual representative rather than an elemental manifestation. Angels have been noted, in their communications to men, as speaking in two distinct manners. The first is to precede the message with a qualifying statement such as “thus saith the Lord”. The second is simply to say “I”. There have already been examples of the latter in this study. Following is an example of the former. Genesis 22:10-18 the angel of the Lord called unto him (Abraham) out of heaven, and he (answered the voice), “Here am I.” The angel of the Lord called to Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, “By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord . . .” Since angels of heaven communicate with men on Earth, it takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that sometimes the fallen angels also receive communications. If they are in the dark, if they live the life mortal, what stations might they fill? Are some of them in the service of God? In speaking to an angel on Earth, one associated with the assembly of men, Christ utters a remarkable statement. Read below, read it two or three times. Think about it. Revelation 2:1&5 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write . . . Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. Apparently, the opportunity to repent is also extended to angels. At times I have considered that the angels of the seven churches might be a sort of gestalt of the assembled souls. Now I am of the mind that fallen angels are mostly mortal, mostly in the dark. They live their lives side by side with the humans. They may even look human – mostly. There is a parable that speaks of wheat and tares. Are the fallen angels tares. We know little about such matters, but that only makes me wonder more. What sort of occupations, for instance, would fallen angels be attracted to? If they are in the dark, but still being manipulated by Satan, they might have occupations as taskmasters of the human race. Daniel spoke of such a people, in: Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another. There are people in this world who are not people. We both walk the same road. It could be that not even the angels of heaven can tell us apart. One parable, in describing a harvest in which the enemy had sown tares, depicts the owner as electing to allow them to grow up together, rather than risk harm to the wheat by the uprooting of the tares. In the 'harvest', the truth will come out. Speaking of elect, there appears to be a level of angel that is known as the elect angel. This brings many questions to mind. How does an angel become elect? From which rank is the elect angel taken? When the angel is promoted, is there an automatic 'file right'? When an angel is promoted from the lowest ranks of angeldom, does a human take his place? The suggestion is that there are levels of angels. What I want to know is: how many? 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels. Angels of the 'Brother Angel' classification, to recap, are humanoid, consider man to be his brother, come in all shapes and sizes, can manipulate matter, and speak for God. They have free will, which allows for at least the possibility of continued falling. Some of them speak as if they are God, with a notable omission of 'thus saith the Lord' in their communications. Some seem muscle-bound, some seem spooky and sinister. Among heavenly messengers, that is, not including the fallen, there are 'evil' angels. Angels know a lot, but not everything. Perhaps, as they move up in rank, they receive their knowledge on a 'need-to-know' basis. Exploring the exact nature of angels can lead the seeker almost anywhere. Following is the account of the transfiguration from Matthew. For the apostles, it was an apparition, and in Jesus own words, it was a vision. Assuming the apostles were awake, we would like some solid facts of this matter. Jesus, of course, was solid enough. However, he evinced the ability to manipulate matter in such feats as walking on water, turning water to wine, healing the sick, etc. It should come as no surprise to find him emitting light. Did this vision occur as immediately as the text suggests, or had there been some other part to this, something like meditation? Just what was Jesus' definition of a vision? Matthew 17:3-9 there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. A seeker, naturally, will ask all sorts of questions. Allow me to ask some for the reader. What exactly is a transfiguration? Was matter manipulated? Had Jesus entered some other dimension? What did the vision have to do with the resurrection? Why did Jesus speak to Moses and Elias rather than Michael and Gabriel? Why did Peter interrupt the discourse? What does the appearance of two dead old testament characters say about those who 'sleep' as compared to those who face the end times? And, just how did the apostles recognize the prophets? There were no photos or paintings to go on. Beyond that, however, please note certain angelic aspects of the account. They are intriguingly similar to accounts of encounters with angels. Note the humans falling on their faces. Note someone coming over to touch them, and to offer comfort through encouraging words. Note a voice emitting cloud. But, let's return to the fallen angel for a moment. Here we wish to make some comparisons. We wish to compare the fallen angels to the heavenly angels. We wish to compare two uses of the word 'cast', along with certain other words. First, take a look at these verses from 2 Peter. 2 Peter 2:4 & 11 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment . . . Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. If the sinner angels were locked away in hell (that is, in some other place) how would they trouble us, or ever be an issue? On the other hand, when the angels fought, the losers in that battle were described as being cast into the Earth. Could there be a sort of sliding scale, in which hell for angels is actually Earth? It is certainly something to think about. Our language includes the common thinking that results in such expressions as 'hell on Earth'. Many people believe that life on Earth is hell. Personally, I do not subscribe to that notion, but the comparison between being cast into hell and being cast into the Earth definitely causes my right eyebrow to twitch upward. The same is true for the word darkness. In an earlier reference, we noted that the fallen angels, being in the same 'whole world' as the humans, were deceived by Satan. They, like us, are in the dark. The chains of darkness, in 2 Peter, is described as something into which God delivered the fallen. We normally think of some state like being buried underground. The way I see it is: if we are deceived, we are in chains of darkness. The angels are said to be 'reserved unto judgment' – well, don't we face a judgment? 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Finally, pertaining to 2 Peter, I wish to compare the angels of heaven with the fallen angels. In doing so, we are afforded a glimpse of what the angels may have lost in their fall. In contrast, the heavenly angels are 'greater in power and might'. Therefore, power and might are two possible losses for the fallen angels. These abilities may include talents for manipulation of matter. I think it likely, also, that memory and angelic self-awareness are obscured by the endless cycle. We know that there are different kinds of angels. It has already been seen that there are differing angelic allegiances among the humanoid angels. There was a war in heaven – if everyone is on the same side, there is no likelihood of confrontation. The question to ask is this: who is allowed to have angels, and what are the qualifications? Matthew 25:31 & 41 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. God has angels. He is qualified because he is the creator of angels. God is the master of all angels. God's only begotten son has angels. Is his only qualification that he is God's son? Is he qualified beyond being a son because of his resurrection, and victory over death? Is it possible for an angel to move so far up in the ranks of angeldom, that he is rewarded with angels of his own? What I want to know is this: how did the devil get to have angels? What were his qualifications? Was Satan an angel? Is he an angel now? According to certain scriptures, we are led to believe that Satan is just as bound in chains of darkness as all the other fallen angels. He lost the battle and was cast into either the Earth or hell, depending on which verse you read. In other scriptures, it seems rather unlikely that he is currently sharing the same fate as those who followed him into battle. The ability to deceive the whole world suggests several things. One is the freedom to act. Another is a knowledge of how to deceive both humans and angels. Yet another is a more or less contiguous sense of self that is unaltered by the endless cycle. That is not to say he did not lose his power and might, angelically speaking. The following verse suggests change. If one is transformed into an angel, one must necessarily be transformed from a non-angelic state. Of course, if one is transformed in the estimation of others, that will suffice. A transformation by any other name is still a transformation. If it is not a case of estimation, then we are dealing with realities beyond human experience. Therefore, if Satan can transform into an angel, what is he transforming from? Was he ever an angel? Does his qualification for having angels, as with Jesus, approximate more toward son-ship? 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. The following verse is somewhat perplexing. While it was a bit of local opinion that was established neither in custom nor the ordinances of the church, it may be a valuable insight into the reason angels married women. I personally never thought of female head coverings as a form of power – how would such be power against angels? Hair, on the other hand, makes a woman attractive. Are female angels bald? Call me old school, but I hope they are not. 1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Earlier, I spoke of layers around God. I described revolving spirits, and around them, or as extensions perhaps, angels. Is an angel like a suit of clothing for a spirit? Is an angel only added functionality? Some texts certainly suggest that. Our view of the humanoid angels, despite their man-likeness, is not one of beings who procreate. If I was an angel, and I could get an angel babe – what would be the temptation for going to the Earth in search of a monkey babe? No, we tend to traditionally view angels as created beings. Being a created being suggests the possibility of being uncreated. Does God snatch up an angel, and tell him, hey – I'm going to turn you into an elemental manifestation? Maybe not, but if angels can manipulate matter, they can certainly transform at will. Psalms 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire. Just as when some angels change back and forth in their appearance, sometimes we are not sure of the role that we are to attribute to them. In the following verses of Zechariah, there is a wavering in our view of the angel. First of all, we find the angel tagged as a man riding a red horse. Then he is tagged as an angel speaking with the author of the book. The angel speaks to God, god answers the angel, and the angel speaks with Zechariah. The angel instructs Zechariah, using the expression, 'thus saith the Lord', to speak with the people using the expression 'thus saith the Lord'. Zechariah alternately refers to his contact as a man, an angel, and the Lord. We are tempted to think of the verses as having too much information. Beyond the man-angel-Lord / Zechariah conference call, these verses are chock full of symbolic references. There are either three types of horse: red, speckled, and white – plus the red horse the man rode in on, or there is one type of horse: a reddish horse that is white with red speckles. Are these animals a special class of animal, a symbol of other individuals? Are they symbolic of the functional whole, or are they angels who have manipulated their appearance? There are also the symbols of the horn, the altar, and the carpenter, as well the number four. Zechariah 1:7-21 behold a man riding upon a red horse, and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom; and behind him were there red horses, speckled, and white. And the angel that talked with me said unto me, I will shew thee what these be. And the man that stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, These are they whom the Lord hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth. And they answered the angel of the Lord that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest. Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, . . . And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words. So the angel that communed with me said unto me, affliction. And I said unto the angel that talked with me, What be these? And the Lord shewed me four carpenters. Then said I, What come these to do? And he spake, saying, These are the horns which have scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head: but These are come to fray them, to cast out the horns of the Gentiles, which lifted up their horn over the land of Judah to scatter it. It gets confusing sometimes. What if all the characters, except for Zechariah, are merely manifestations of God, that is, spiritual extrusions into corporeal reality? If Zechariah was in some sort of trance or dream state, the source need only be one. However, if the apparition happened while Zechariah was awake, we have angels as angels, angels as horses, God manipulating matter to create a voice, and one or the other of them causing manifestations in the form of horns and carpenters. Our level of certainty in these matters both rises and falls. One thing is sure: men have been trying to describe their angel encounters for a very, very long time. Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house. Basically, an angel encounter may be one of two types: either vision or dream state, or else a waking encounter. Even when angels present themselves as intangible, they produce sound waves in a physical world. People hear them speak. Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip. It is sometimes a case of 'you see me, but I don't see you'. The wording of the following verses suggests that Hagar heard a voice, looked around to see someone and failed. If she was by a well in the desert, running from someone, it is likely she was hiding. Perhaps there were shrubs or a rocky overhang. Wording also suggests that just because an angel is invisible, that is no guarantee he will simply appear in the right place as if he had a GPS. The angel 'found' the woman: therefore he looked for her. Look for yourself. Genesis 16:7-13 The angel of the Lord found and spoke to Hagar, Sarai's maid. The angel of the Lord said . . . Hagar called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me. I have briefly touched upon the angelic nature of Jesus – that he may have been from one of the higher ranks of princes. Jesus said that seeing his person was equal to seeing God his father. It is also said that he was with God in the beginning, and was God. If we keep in mind our notion of angelic advancement and promotion, I see no hindrance to angels 'dressing right' until they are in the uppermost echelons of angeldom. Such levels may be the levels of a son of God like Jesus. To be there, to be equal to God – that is, to be in the form of an invisible and intangible God, is a truly spiritual and desirable state of being. The issue that I am leading to here is the mechanism of traveling between the spiritual state and the physical state. Jesus moved from the spiritual to the physical and lived a short lifetime in this realm before returning to his former state. Philippians 2:6-8 Who, being in the form of God . . . took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Spiritual beings, at certain levels, may exist almost exclusively on their higher plane. They might only take on a physical body when it is called for. An angel, on some levels, while still an individual, may be considered as a transitional device for God to travel between realities. That is not the same as an elemental manipulation., although it might seem as such. There may be strings attached to the transition between realities. One thought is that certain levels of the angelic order, being spiritually advanced, may only take on a concomitant level of physical manifestation. While the angel may be able to take on enough physical presence to speak, he may himself require an elemental manifestation in which to house himself – say, a cloud. Exodus 19:9 The Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee. The mystery of those higher levels of angeldom may be of great interest to angels of lower levels. It may be said that they are equal to man in that they have not seen God. They serve him, but to their eyes, as to the eyes of man, God is an invisible spirit with no similitude. In speaking of God as Christ, the following verse notes that angels 'saw' God. Had they not seen God until Christ? Perhaps the angels so noted are of the lower, more tangible levels. They had to use Christ to see the part of themselves that remained hidden from them – rather like using a mirror to see the back of one's head. 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Could it be that angels have angels – that is, higher more ethereal levels to which they owe allegiance? If the highest levels owe allegiance to God, there may be a sort of 'trickle down' effect whereby lower orders offer allegiance up through the higher orders. Authorities owe allegiance to angels, and powers owe allegiance to authorities. It makes for a tight network of ownership where none fall through the cracks. 1 Peter 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. Here, I wish to look closely at the word 'into'. I get the sense that this word is used in a common manner – as: 'into the service', or 'into a deep trance', or 'into the house'. Revelation 3:12 indicates such an advanced state that transition between the realities is no longer an issue. 'Into' indicates a total immersion by which the individual is then defined by the state into which he is immersed. Since transition was open to Jesus, I assume he was not totally immersed. That state may lie in his future. Most of the rest of us will dress right, but, some of us will be included in the immersion with Jesus. Nothing says allegiance, or trickle down, like this next reference. Note expressions that speak of rank and advancement. Note the better 'name' or title. Note the possibility that 'son-ship' is defined by way of immersion, or inclusion. After all, a father defines his son as being a part of him. The matter of an angel's allegiance to Christ may place that angel in the image of Christ through certain implied machinery. I speak of machinery as functionality, as cause and effect – as when Jesus said: “your faith has made you whole'. In that regard, the machinery of Christ's allegiance to God fulfilled itself in Christ being begotten in the image of God. Hebrews 1:4-6, 13 & 14 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Let's take a closer look at that machinery. Basically, for humans, to be born again requires nothing more than to believe. That's all it takes, but what does that faith entail? What is the machinery of such a transition? I think it lies within the thinking. One is transformed by the renewing of his mind. This same machinery holds true for angels as well. Faith is a spiritual allegiance. By that, I mean that it is a heightened mental reality. To think and thus act like Christ makes one Christ-like. To study the communications of God: to internalize them and act upon them makes one Godly. In a sense, it makes one an extension of the original. It places one as an image of the original. It stands to reason that the employment of such functional allegiance will always show evidence of transition and transformation. For instance, when an angel subscribes to the stronger aspects of God, that allegiance bears the image of strength in that angel as evidence. Psalms 103:20-21 Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure. Jesus claimed to always do those things that pleased the Lord. What he was saying was that he internalized certain aspects of God, and exercised those aspects within himself. An angel that excels in strength is one who internalizes strength aspects such as commandments and judgments and makes them a regular practice. The machinery is the same for all ranks of angels, authorities, and powers. This is the short of it: if you wish to be born of God, be filled with God. If you were an empty glass that wished to be a glass of water, you would need only to be filled with water. It seems no more than natural cause and effect; it explains transition as a simple matter of content. This machinery suggests that forward advancement is a bit iffy. Men and angels alike may advance, backslide, and redirect. This two-way traffic is easy to spot in Jacob's dream. Genesis 28:12 He dreamed, and saw the angels of God ascending and descending on a ladder that reached heaven. Higher ranks of angels, say – archangels, may be more stable. Greater knowledge does lend itself toward one's self-mastery. The following reference speaks of an angel generally thought to be high up in the ranks. What does it mean, exactly, for an angel to stand in the presence of God? God, as we have seen, is initially surrounded by spirits. When I say spirit, I mean mind or mindset. If entities surround these minds, they may well be guardians or care-takers. They may even be extensions of these mindsets, according to the machinery of immersion, or internalization. Allegedly, it is Gabriel, himself, speaking in the following verse. Note how Gabriel speaks of himself. Luke 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee. He seems to suggest that he is able to be in two places at the same time. To stand in the presence of God, and also appear to man presents us with two possibilities. One is of the power of the angel; the other is of the nature of the location of God. Either Gabriel can be in two places at once, or God is everywhere. The intriguing aspect of this verse is the wording of Gabriel's assertion. This is what he does not say: 'I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God', rather, who is 'that' and stands is 'stand'. When we look closely at the wording, we see the suggestion that Gabriel may not be an individual. What then? Gabriel may be the name of an order, and or rank of angel / care-taker. Now, it may only be that the text I am using is King James – they did speak funny back then, but the fact of the matter is that King James is an interpretation. They did not make anything up – out of the blue. They simply wrote an old text in English. I personally believe that we are given the Bible in such form as God wishes us to receive it. What and how we understand, Biblically, must come from the current wording. In that regard, a 'he' stands in the presence of God, while a 'they' stand in the presence of God. Now, I'm not a literalist – exactly. I recognize that much of what we study must necessarily retain a symbolic content. I recognize that the communication of the Bible is filtered through the medium of mortal mentality. That, in and of itself, is not an impediment, for we have already seen that man shares in common with angels certain aspects of the mind of God – it is simply a matter of degrees. Revelation is notable as a book of vision, and dream state mentality. Most people, I think, are careful not to view the book in too literal a manner. It may indeed come from an altered mental state, that is – not completely from the waking state. That does not mean all of it was dreamed. We must remain open to the possibilities. I look at a verse like the next one and see the greater likelihood of it recounting a vision or dream. However, when I look at it, I also ask myself – under what circumstance might it have been a reality? We have seen that God and angels can manipulate matter. Scores of people, all at the same time, have heard the voice of God. Sound waves can be manipulated without corroborating evidence for the eye. Angels, usually in the form of men, have been seen floating above the Earth. Even Christ, who lived an entire life among other men, was seen rising up from the Earth by many who knew him. If the account in the following verse is real, how did it occur? Most people are smart enough not to look into the sun. The sun, however, is not always blinding. I have viewed it many times through a thin veil of clouds. I think that if a bright floating angel was between the viewer and such an obscured sun, the apparition would be possible. Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God. Apparitions of God to men are traditionally humanoid angels. When something out of the ordinary appears, it is written about. The following account makes no mention of fire, cloud, winged four-faced creatures, or stopping to sleep. That leaves our inquiry with the suggestion of an encounter with a humanoid angel. In reading accounts where it is said that God or the Lord appeared to this or that person, we should consider the encounter to be with an angelic representative of God. I include this account of Isaac's encounter because it is an instance of communication in which we do not find the expression: 'thus saith the Lord'. The angel speaks directly to Isaac in an authoritative manner – he says 'I' this and 'I' that. Genesis 26:2,3&24 The Lord appeared unto him . . . “I will be with thee” . . . and the Lord appeared unto him the same night . . . Now, the last verse in the above reference might suggest to some that Isaac dreamed, but it seems that after the apparition, and before he erected a place to sleep, he labored to build an altar, and then called on the name of the Lord. More importantly, it occurred to me in the reading of this that the way in which an angel addresses a man may indicate the rank of the angel... Some angels say 'thus saith the Lord' while other angels say 'I' this and 'I' that. It may be that the 'I' angels are ranked higher than those who begin their dialogs with 'thus'. So, what makes an angel stand out? What was the common pedestal upon which men placed angels in the old days? We find in accolades to a king, possible attributes of the angelic nature. Read below. 2 Samuel 14:17 & 20 . . . as an angel of God . . . to discern good and bad; according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth. Men thought of angels as wise beyond the common man. Sometimes, rare individuals displayed such wisdom. When they did, they were compared to angels. Two traits of wisdom are pointed out in 2 Samuel. They are the ability to tell the good from the bad, and a broad knowledge of worldly matters. Telling good from bad is a matter of understanding. Understanding is a mental attribute that is built upon the exercise of knowledge – in other words, knowledge put to use. To know all that is in the world indicates that one has information at one's disposal. Angels are out there doing all that angel stuff. Their constant practices make them better at being angels. They become more knowledgeable and use more understanding in their ongoing exercises. The difference between angelic ranks may be due in large part to the difference between levels of knowledge and understanding. These levels of knowledge and understanding are due to immersion and internalization. We ask, what do the highest ranks internalize? Do they internalize the very nature of God? Is the angel God? The following verse might suggest just that, but keep in mind that it may only be due to the ambiguity of the wording. Acts 27:23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve. Paul may only be saying that his allegiance is to God, but according to the word structure, it is just as likely that Paul is speaking about the angel. He may refer to the angel as the presence or apparition of God. Paul may consider there to be no difference between God and God's angel. Was this angel a 'thus' angel, or an 'I' angel? The internalization of God can certainly change things. In the next verse, we initially see the work of God, in that he defends the people of Jerusalem - but how does that play out exactly? What is notable in the verse may be immersion. We note that people are 'one-upped'. The internalization of God can turn a feeble man into a mighty warrior – just like David. Further, this verse provides an inkling of how God may have been commonly accepted. The thing to look at here is the amendment or the qualification that is made in regard to the house of David. It boils down to this: “as God, as the angel of the Lord”. Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. Did they commonly consider an angel to be God? Did they consider the angel to be the body of God? It is clear that the associations in their minds were close. As an aside, I am curious about the augmented 'house of David'. In referring to the House of David, what exactly was conveyed? Did they mean for us to understand the house of David as one: the tribe of Judah, two: the city of Jerusalem, or three: the bloodline of David? There are many accounts of God defending his favorite people. Sometimes there was a physical manifestation, sometimes there was not. Whether there was a non-human angel, a humanoid angel, and regardless of confirmed visibility, we easily note the possessive case in the texts. Exodus 32:34 Behold, mine Angel shall go before thee . . . We may call such instances accounts of 'guardian angels'. Just like many modern accounts of such events, those written in the Bible often omit physical descriptions. In other words, the angel is invisible. Real things happen, but there is no mention of actually seeing the angel. Take note of the account in Daniel Daniel 6:22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. We are left with uncertainties as to whether the account was of an angel or an elemental manipulation. Daniel was trapped in a pit; the entrance was covered with a stone. It is, therefore, likely that the interior was dark. The wording of the story suggests that the den was a hole and that the stone was laid on top. No account is given of a den apparition. Even though we are assured that an angel could have lighted the den up like a sunny day, there is no indication or hint of such. I wonder what the percentages would be – invisible guardian angels, as opposed to visible guardian angels. Some people will naturally ascribe the invisibility of a guardian angel to chance or serendipity. In other words, they believe that things just worked out that way. Some modern accounts of guardian angels are unconvincing. I have a personal account of a guardian angel, and I might as well include it here. In San Francisco, 1974, as I walked along a street, an event perplexed me. I was lifted above the sidewalk and turned completely around. I found myself looking in the direction from which I came, toward a billboard. I turned almost immediately back around to resume my walk; no more than five seconds were involved. As I walked, I thought through the event, wondering if I had merely stopped and turned around. That explanation did not explain the lifting up. I knew the sensation of levitation from my extreme youth. Baling out of swings was a thing I much enjoyed as a small child. The heady sensation of weightlessness that one attains at the apex of such an arc cannot be forgotten. I concluded that I had been physically lifted and turned – but, Why was I lifted and turned. As I stepped down into a small alley, a sports car entered the street traffic at a truly reckless speed. Had I been just a few seconds earlier, I would have been hit. If we choose the option that an angel is only a manifestation of God, not much more than a suit which God throws on before going out, does that not bring God into a more familiar relationship with man? In that regard, a guardian angel becomes a guardian God. We must ask, is there something to the accounts that swing between the identity of God and the identity of an angel? We complain about cameras at intersections, but check out the secret eye in the following verses. Ecclesiastes 5:5-6 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands? Above, we see some strange things. You say something to an angel, and God gets angry. Why? Is the angel a direct circuit to the ear of God? Of course, we are talking about an invisible angel, here, for what man faced with the presence of an angel will not guard his words? What! Now, they're spying on us? I can't get around the similarity to cameras at intersections. A letter just shows up one day, and it says that you have been recorded in the act of wrongdoing. They have the evidence, they have your license number. They have your address and phone number. Out of the blue, you owe them a couple hundred dollars. You can't really argue against video; you really don't remember the incident – but, Jeez! You didn't even get the consideration of a heated chase. It is twice mentioned above that the words a man speaks can have a physical outcome the man will not want. Words cause the flesh to sin, and words can bring all your plans and efforts to naught. My Dad used to have a saying – which I heard quite often – it was: Don't let your mouth overload your ass. Apt words. In the following verses, we turn our thoughts down two new avenues. The first avenue will be summed up in the difference between 'the' angel and 'an' angel. Down the second avenue, we will see that the angelic nature can also be the nature of God. Only three Biblical entities get the appellation of 'Holy'. We already knew that two of them were God, and, the Holy Ghost. I do not mention Jesus here because the reason he was called holy rested entirely in that God lived within. As to the third appellation, read below. Acts 10:3, 7, 22 He saw in a vision . . . an angel of God coming in to him . . . And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually; And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. The communication is still from God, known as Holy and Reverend, the medium is still an angel. How, then is the angel imbued with something that should not belong to a mere manifestation? If an angel is Holy, does that speak of rank? Is that angel the 'glass that became a glass of water'? I open this avenue to the thoughts of fellow seekers. As to the former avenue, why was this angel only 'an' angel? 'An' seems to convey mediocrity, as in 'any old run of the mill' angel. If this angel was Holy, why not call him 'the' angel? The following verse does describe its angel as 'the' angel. Isaiah 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. This take is more or less the physical manifestation of God's presence. The interpretation is that God was actually there. The verse refers to the old days when God led Moses by the right hand when God saved his people. The angel in those days, as we recall, was either fire or cloud; the angel was an elemental manipulation and was recognized as such generations later. Curiously, the wording of this verse in Isaiah suggests certain aspects of God, and his relationship to man, that need further attention. It is said that God was afflicted with the affliction of the people. In other words, he felt what they felt. When man suffered, God suffered. But, how? God is not only invisible, but he is also intangible. He has no flesh and bone; he has no nervous system. Two immediate solutions to that problem are evident to me. Not to say there are only two solutions, but, I present these for consideration. One is that God requires some sort of physical manifestation through which not only to communicate but to receive input. God feels what man feels through the angel of his presence. We, as Christians, are more familiar and at home with the concept of God's suffering son, but who are we to say that God did not suffer? Who are we to say that the first suffering was not a pattern for the second suffering? Innately, we do accept that history repeats. For those of us who accept that Christ is God, we see that God has suffered twice; Christ has suffered twice. We note, in the relationship between God and man, the second solution to the suffering of an intangible God. It is the spirit – that is to say, the mind. God is spirit and has placed within man that same quality. We ask, then, is it man that suffers, or spirit? All the angels that surround, support, present, and minister to God may be seen as surrounding, supporting, and ministering to the spirit in man. Angels may also be seen as presenting God to man – or, as I would like you to see it here, presenting spirit to spirit. The next verse may seem to suggest that angels are only manifestations, and I could have included this reference under 'non-human angelic forms'. I chose to place it here because it suggests human rather than non-human angels. To interpret the verse, one should refrain from viewing the angels as mere chariots. We have already touched on angels as vehicles of God. Here, however, one should rather view the angels as the chariot drivers. Such a view suggests an army. Indeed, God is said to be the Lord of hosts. This verse is actually support for the humanoid view of angels. If you can compare the charioteers to whatever you may know of worldly armies, you should have a clear picture of the hosts of heaven. In our armies, soldiers are not always geared up. They are not always marching, or shooting, or driving tanks. Sometimes they are just hanging out at camp. As an aside, I would like to briefly draw attention to the word 'host'. Traditionally, we view this to mean the angelic soldiers of God – his Minutemen. However, we also are aware that the same word refers to someone possessed. A host houses another identity within itself. In spiritual terms, man is no less a host than the hosts of heaven. I say this because we are possessed by God. There is within man a spiritual identity that is not the same as his physical identity. Psalms 68:17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Again, the next verse is of the fire and cloud angel manifestation. I include it here only to point out the dual nature of an angel of God. To the enemies of God, the angel was darkness, but to the children of Israel, it was light. Functionally, it stopped the advance of the Egyptians. Symbolically, it represents the glory of the Lord being deprived to the enemies of Israel. Even in our modern day, attitudes can be divided from one person to the next. Picture two men on the street in conversation. One is filled with the glory of the Lord, while the other is filled with darkness. This illustration is made in regard to a person's attitude. A person's attitude affects what he does, what he thinks, what he says to the other person, and what he hears the other person say – or, what he thinks he hears the other person say. As with the Egyptians, a person filled with darkness is unable to advance. See the darkened Egyptians stopped cold in their tracks. Exodus 14:19-20 And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night. Two things: first is that we may view the darkness of certain people as a deliberate act of God. Here, I include modern people with darkened attitudes. There can be no real argument against this. Some will contend that it is God's fault for them being the way they are – as if they had been just standing there minding their own business. Not true. An enemy is pummeled for a reason. Second is by way of identification. Briefly, the type to which I refer is the type that wears his heart on his sleeve. According to his nature, he must immediately thrust his argument toward his fellow man. Being thus darkened, he assumes that the things said by those filled with light are as much a thrust toward him. In this regard, those who wear their hearts upon their sleeves are like checker players – they feel compelled to take their jump. As an example of this, I recently shared with my brother that I had begun studying and writing about angels. He immediately felt compelled to tell me he did not believe in angels. I did not argue the point with him, as I consider myself more of a chess player. I think both God and his angels are able and prepared to alter both thoughts and events. To some is dispensed light, to others darkness. Some minds are opened while others are closed, and by such, events are manipulated to the will of God. Note the following account. The angel went before the servant and caused certain events to unfold. Some may argue it was only an opinion associated with good fortune. My answer is that the angel of God's presence need not show himself to be effective. Genesis 24:7&40 The Lord God of heaven . . . which spake unto me . . . He shall send His angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence. The Lord, before whom I walk, will send his angel with thee . . . The use of 'his' before the word angel implies the genitive or possessive case. This always seems to imply ownership, and as such can ascribe a vehicular nature to the angel, but there is another way to view this, and that is in terms of allegiance. There can be an acute difference between a slave and a servant. 'His angel' may, equally, indicate either ownership or devotion to a cause. The Hebrew culture, through which so much was written of angels, had a growing experience with the heavenly hosts. From their earliest history, they received communications from God through angels. When someone wrote something new about angels, they not only recorded an encounter but drew from a deep well of collective experience. When someone had an opinion or wrote a commentary, it was filtered through many layers of a tightly woven tapestry. The following verses begin by indicating the long association with angels that fill the well of common experience. It was an experience that ran from the 'first' right up to their present time. The experience indicates that angels were messengers, that pronouncements of punishment were issued through their agency. These verses from the book of Hebrews speak of the nature of humanoid angels. We get that strong message through comparison. By their vast stores of shared experience, a comparison is made possible; it is made between humanoid angels and a humanoid son of God. Where the comparison connects the two is in the issue of physical death. Now, of course, we immediately realize that physical death and a physical body go hand in hand. One may not experience psychical death without flesh. Two things should pop out at you when you read the verses below: first is that Christ took on a physical body for the express purpose of suffering mortal death, and second is that in the accomplishment of being able to die, Jesus was only a 'little' lower than the angels. Brother angels have bodies that can react with physical human beings, but they do not suffer mortal death. Both angels and men possess humanoid bodies, but the nature of the angelic flesh is different. Different – yes – I've said it before. They can manipulate matter, why not their own bodies? Well, read – and judge for yourself. Hebrews 2:2, 3, 5, 9, 16 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Winged Thoughts: Section Two

Section Two: The ongoing relationship between men and angels. God, men, and angels – the three are intrinsically entwined. Man has, throughout history, considered the role that angels play in the affairs of men. Angels, in that regard, have come to represent a half-way point between man and God. Man has evolved an image of angels that is like man, and through recorded history, there have been numerous accounts of man-shaped messengers from God. God is an invisible spirit. God is the God of spirits, and spirits take many forms. Men, like angels, have spirits. It would be wrong for us to conclude of angels that they are only spirits, or that they are only the extrusion of God's spirit into our world. Rather, we would be correct to think of man-shaped angels as being like us in relation to God. By that I mean, they are beings that possess spirits, as do men. They are different in some respects, but both men and angels are humanoid beings whose spirits are commanded by God. God directs the actions of humanoid angels because God is a spirit and the ruler of all spirits. Like an angel, man has a spirit, and God rules it. See how God is described in the following verse. Numbers 27:16, The Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh. Indeed, man is not that far removed from the angel. Man is described as a member of the species of angels. Just as the domesticated dog is a member of the same species that the wolf belongs to – both belonging to the Canidae family – so man is included in the family of the angel. The following reference declares that relationship quite plainly. Psalms 8:5, For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Historically, man's relationship with God has included humanoid angels. These angels are traditionally depicted as men. These man-shaped angels are normally in the service of God, speaking and acting for the advancement of mankind. The following verse is one example of an angel of God being called a man. Ezekiel 43:5 through 6, So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house. And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. However these apparitions came to men, the humanoid angels appeared to men in the same manner as men. Many times, they were seen as solid entities. They looked upon us with eyes, they spoke to us with mouths, they stood upon two feet and used hands. They wore clothing, had hair and, on the whole, were credible representatives of all the normal human features. See an angel standing on his own two feet in the following verse. Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. Many times, in the accounts of angels, it is not clear whether the angel is real or merely a vision of some sort. I do think, however, that when people qualify what they see as being like something, they are not really sure. A real man standing before me will be reported simply as a man standing before me. If there is some doubt as to the state of my mind at the time, or of the quality of the other individual's constitution, I will qualify my report – maybe not a man, but certainly like a man – at least, that was the appearance of what I think I saw. Whether real, a dream, a vision, or a hologram, angelic encounters warranted writing about. Read the report. Daniel 8:15 through 16, And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. In many of the reported angel encounters, the angel was humanoid, but there was also something about the figure strange enough to include in the report. When Moses was instructed to erect a fiery serpent, the end result was an artifact made from brass. I mention this to illustrate a connection between brass and the color of fire – a general reddish approximation. If a man is described as brass-like, what must we think? Is a good tan important enough to include in the report? Many people were ruddy in appearance in that time and environment. Did the man appear in a light that gave him a brass-like appearance? Was his skin shiny and metallic? Did he wear clothing that seemed metallic? Here is a brass angel. Ezekiel 40:2 through 4, And he brought me thither, and, behold, there was a man, whose appearance was like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed; and he stood in the gate. And the man said unto me . . . The following verse is an example of an angel encounter in which the angel is reported as normal. It may have been a vision or dream, the medium is not the issue; the angel was not described as an 'appearance', or 'like' a man – he was simply called a man. Ezekiel 47:3 through 6, And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ankles. Another account of angels presents us with a more generic view of angels. In other words, the concept of men and angels is interchangeable. Zechariah 2:1 through 5, Behold a man with a measuring line in his hand. Then said I, Whither goest thou? And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, And, behold, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him. The following two verses are from the book of Mark. Chapter sixteen, the final chapter of that gospel, is short and offers a brief account of the resurrection. One might not see much of import on the first reading; in regard to the study of angels, one may only note an angel in the tomb, dressed in a long garment. Something quite marvelous and mind-expanding occurs when one reads the chapter with an eye toward the actual wording. Mark 16:5 and 12, And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. From just these two verses, we get an angel described in his angelic attire speaking to the women, and a description of Jesus as unrecognizable to two men who knew him. The wording is key to this chapter, and subsequently, to our understanding of angels and their ongoing relationship to men. The key to chapter sixteen is repetition. In other words, to understand what is really being said, we must put ourselves in the mind of the writer. The language of that time and era used repetition to drive home its message. Verses one and two provide the format for the entire chapter. Verse one states that the women went to the tomb after the Sabbath ended. Then verse two states the same thing, but in a different way – that they went to the tomb early on the first day of the week. Such repetition is common throughout scripture. These are not two separate accounts, but one. Nothing is amiss; that was simply the way that culture spoke and wrote. In reading the chapter, one should see the repetition. Here is the short of it: Mary saw a young man sitting in the tomb very early on the first day of the week. Add verse nine to this: Jesus rose very early on the first day of the week, and presented himself first to Mary. Now, note the word 'first' and add to it, “after that, he appeared in another form”. Are you hearing what the chapter is saying? Chapter sixteen is about the resurrection and subsequent appearances of Jesus. The wording is critical to a proper understanding. Jesus appeared to the eleven (his third appearance) in the form of Jesus. Jesus appeared to the two men (his second appearance) in another form. Jesus appeared to Mary (his first appearance) in a wholly different form. The fact is that both Jesus and Mary were in the tomb very early on the first day – where Jesus showed himself first to Mary. If you are tempted to think that there are two tomb accounts, think again. Mary ran from the tomb after she saw the young man in a long white garment. Verse nine is a repetition. It is the retelling of the only account. Jesus showed himself first to Mary in the form of an angel. When he spoke of Jesus of Nazareth, he spoke of his old self, for he had ascended. If this was not the case, the wording of verse twelve would not include “after that he appeared in another form”. Note, too, how the angel named the remaining apostles. The angel said, “tell his disciples and Peter”. This was a common classification in the gospels, even up into the book of Acts. It is how they were thought of. It was always 'Peter' and this or that other disciple. It was 'Peter and the rest'. The writers of the gospels thought that way among themselves. They were close-knit, and the group existed on a personal level. Peter was somewhat distinct from the rest of his band and was referred to that way. It is not likely that outsiders would refer to them in such a manner, but it is likely that Jesus would. What is the point of all this? The point I am making is that Jesus was an angel, that angels are on a higher level than their earthbound brothers, that as ascended beings, they are capable of physical actions that we find impossible. Although angels and men have an ongoing relationship, angels are not the main thing, spiritually speaking. Angels guide us in our relationship with God, but we are warned about getting too wrapped up in the whole angel thing. Colossians 2:16 through 18, Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. It would appear, then as now, that not everyone believed just anyone could see angels. Some things that people say, then as now, are based not in spiritual understanding, but rather in the mindset of the world. By that, I mean to include, physical actions and goals, desires and emotions. Nevertheless, communications from God are common knowledge. Mankind has regularly received messengers, ambassadors, and attachés, both solid and invisible. How many people do you suppose left Egypt with Moses? Every one of them daily witnessed the columns of cloud and fire. You might say it was burned into their collective memory. And then – there was that time when (how many thousands of them?) heard God speak directly to them. Check it out. Exodus 20:22 through 25, And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. As to angels, they walk the Earth as men. That, too, is part of the general historical psyche of mankind. It is such a deep-seated part of our collective view, that it has become axiomatic. See the following verse. Hebrews 13:2, Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. If you are tempted to think that such things are inapplicable to our present day, consider this. I knew a man in Texas who relayed to me a story his wife had told him concerning her Dad. Her Dad had been a traveling salesman. His area was the entire west so you can imagine he was on the road a lot. According to the daughter's story, her Dad had once been a church-going man, business slowly leeched that aspect from his life. All he did was travel and sell. He was reported to be a man that never picked up a hitch-hiker, but one day he saw a neatly dressed young man on the side of the road and decided to do what he never did. With the introductions past, the two settled into a long trip through a hot desert. The a/c hummed as driver and passenger each viewed the barren landscape from his respective window. Suddenly, the young man asked, “Are you a church-going man?” The driver turned to answer, but the young man was not there. The door was locked, and the window was up. The young man had asked his question and quietly vanished. After that, the man returned to church as an active member. Angels are sometimes as solid and real as we are; we deal with them in real ways. Interactions between men and angels can seem mundane at times. In the Bible, angels sometimes appeared as men of God. 1 Samuel 2:27 . . . there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord . . . and 2 Kings 1:3 & 15 . . . the angel of the Lord said to Elijah . . . And the angel of the Lord said unto Elijah . . . The following verses give us solid information about angels. As you read them, note that angels can be touched, travel in groups, and are concerned with time. Note also that not all angels exhibit great strength or mighty powers. Genesis 32:1, 2, and 24 through 28 . . . the angels of God met him. And when Jacob saw them, he said, This is God's host: and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. “As a prince”; keep that term in mind. It will play its part in this study. So, angels are seen as men and handled as men. Consider the account of Abraham and the Lord. Genesis 18:1-5 plus 16 and 22, The Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day. And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, so do, as thou hast said. And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom, but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. Consider how the narrative alternates between the singular 'Lord' and the plural 'men'. Consider how the Lord, as three individuals, rested beneath a tree in the shade, how they washed their feet, how they ate bread, spoke to Abraham, listened to Abraham, had visible faces, and all the other attributes of normal men. Yet, Abraham's account is not about a meeting with three men, or three angels, but about a meeting with the Lord. Still – the Lord is described as three men. What was there about the three men that tipped off Abraham about their true nature. Although the three are not described, I wonder if they wore different clothing, or clothing not particularly in keeping with the heat of the day. Did that Prompt Abraham to offer rest and refreshment? Did they walk with no covering for their heads? Was their bearing appreciably prince-like? It is not always so evident that a man dresses or carries himself like a prince, but there may be hints or a certain gut reaction that sets the mind to wondering. We will have to ask: what exactly are the manner and bearing of a prince, how did some people recognize them, and what gave them away? In the following verses from Judges, Manoah did not at first see anything more than a man of God, but his wife, at least, thought that he might be an angel, based on his 'countenance'. We will see in this study that the occasional 'man of God' is also an angel of the Lord. Since the two are linked, we may be equally interested in just how the man of God was recognized. Judges 13:3 through 22 . . . the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman . . . Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible . . . Then Manoah intreated the Lord, and said, O my Lord, let the man of God which thou didst send come again unto us . . . and the angel of God came again . . . the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband . . . And Manoah . . . went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am. And Manoah said unto the angel of the Lord, I pray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for thee. And the angel of the Lord said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the Lord. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the Lord. And Manoah said unto the angel of the Lord, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour? And the angel of the Lord said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret? So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the Lord: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on. For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground. But the angel of the Lord did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the Lord. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. It was commonly accepted that God could take the form of a man. Manoah didn't bat an eye at the notion that the man they had just seen was God. It's quite understandable. The man had just taken the flame to heaven as if it was an elevator. We can understand that this couple was just a little freaked out. Before that, however, Manoah thought he was speaking to a man of God, while his wife suspected there was an angel in their midst. Manoah's subsequent actions would have been the same for any man of God. He asked the man for his name – and that should clue us in on at least part of how a man of God might have been recognized. That whole thing about the name being secret was not necessarily due to the individual being an angel. It may be that a man of God identified himself: gave his name, and or some initial blessing or curse. We cannot begin to guess how men of God dressed. There may have been no set code for godly attire. Loads of people used walking sticks, or, staffs – but, how might that identify a man of God? Unless their staffs were significantly different from other staffs, they may have been mistaken for shepherds. Were men of God the wild-eyed outdoorsy type? Did they sport deep tans, hairy backs, and leather girdles? If an angel dressed as a man of God, his manner might still give him away. They might be a little spookier than the average man of God. They might seem menacing – they might have a more godly glower. Still – throughout the Bible, there seems to be an underlying theme of recognizable godly traits. This can be seen even in cultures other than the early Hebrews. Ask yourself, how would an idol worshiping pagan be able to recognize an angel – much less the son of God? Ask yourself, do angels look like Jesus? Daniel 3:24 through 28, Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellers, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire. And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellers, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. So, the king was knowledgeable about the Hebrew God. Still, his mind was awash with his own religious practices. Safe to say, the angel was no carved piece of rock. In his thinking, as with others from early times, the concepts of an angel, and of the son of God were not distinct. Note this about the son of God – slash – angel: he not only was able to personally overcome the intense fire, but he was able to change the constitution of the fire, and/or the three humans so that not only did they survive, but witnesses noticed no damage – and be sure, they looked closely. Not even the smell of smoke was on their clothing. The ongoing relationship between men and angels began at the beginning of recorded history, at the expulsion of mankind from the garden, and extends to the very end, where the history of mankind culminates with a fusion of human and angelic habitation. Revelation 21:10 through 12 and 17 . . . and he . . . shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: . . . and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. The angels, however, they may have been identified, share a certain quirk of character with the men of God. That quirk rests in the mannerism of message delivery. One need not be particularly well versed in scripture to recognize the phrase: “Thus saith the Lord”. Both men and angels spoke that way, but as to the more terrifying 'countenance' of angels, the mannerism is just a bit more on the personal side. Note what the angel says first to Satan, and then to Joshua; more importantly, note how he says it. Look very closely at the wording. Zechariah 3:1 through 7 . . . Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee . . . And unto him (Joshua) he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee . . . And the angel of the Lord stood by. I think that the more common consensus, spanning Biblical eras and mindsets, was that spirits of God, and angels of God were such high-caliber representatives of God as to constitute God himself. This assertion finds support in the following verses. Acts 23:8 through 9, For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God. The humble mindset of early man placed above his own person the person of an angel. Angels were eagerly received because of their abilities, expertise, and over-all bearing. Men of God (those who were merely men) were just as eagerly received, and usually for similar reasons. See how Paul was received by the Galatians. Galatians 4:13 through 15, Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. As an aside, I wish to point to the clue embedded in the verses listed above. The clue is not about angels, but about Paul. Paul was blinded on the road to Damascus. It could well be, that after that life-changing event, he never enjoyed the full power of his eyes. The infirmity and trial of his flesh are referenced against the Galatians in such a manner as to suggest ailing eyesight. The Galatians were not willing to rip off their arms or legs for Paul's sake but to pluck out their eyes. Paul's reception impressed him, and it seems that for some telling reason, both angels of God, and Jesus Christ are mentioned in what may be considered the same breath. It is evident, in the writing, that man adopted a close mental association with his more advanced brother, the angel. Apostles justified their station thus. In the line-up of spiritually evolved types, apostles felt as though they stood out. 1 Corinthians 4:9, For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. After all, they were men. For that matter, angels were men. It can be argued that even God is a man. Exodus 15:3, The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

Winged thoughts -- the small book of angels

Winged Thoughts Content: Non-human angelic forms The ongoing relationship between men and angels The nature of angels Angelic attire The work of angels What qualifies as angelic Angelic society One may find accounts of angels in every culture and religion, but this study of angels will take for its source material only canonical text, and the occasional reference note. Based on descriptions drawn from the King James Version of the Holy Bible, I will seek answers to questions we have all asked about angels. No doubt, I may stumble on to answers for which questions have yet to be asked. As a back drop to this study, I wish to include a few basic facts about angels as viewed in religions other than Christianity and Judaism. Japanese angels are traditionally viewed as women in bright clothing. Angels of the Baha'i faith are considered maidens of heaven. Hinduism views an angel as a sort of inferior god with no particular message to mankind from the main deity. The bodhisattva, a sort of Buddhist angel, is male in the original Buddhist texts, but is represented as female in many Buddhist schools. Followers of Zoroastrianism believe that each one of us has a guardian angel--a Fravashi--- that protects and guides us. Angels have intrigued man from the beginning. Many books have already been written on the subject of angels. We will not follow them; we will strike out on our own. A common view of angels has already been derived from countless volumes. No, we wish to see not the individual threads, but the whole tapestry. We seek not just the pieces of this puzzle; we wish to put the pieces together. As I have endeavored to show in past studies, the wording of Biblical source material is important. It is the half of the study that other writers have failed to bring forward. So much is missed in common studies; they look at the words, but fail to really see them. I speak of contemporary writers who are so 'slick' they actually drop the ball. As an example, a common angel reference is found in Mark 12:25. “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.” They will view this description of angels, and make a common error in judgment. It goes like this: angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (that is both the masculine and feminine case), therefore, they are sexless beings, and by extension, those who find themselves in heaven will also be sexless. If this was true, the angels would not have come down and married the women of earth. A more realistic view is this: angels are not sexless, they simply do not have marital practices. Heaven may be a livelier place than previously supposed. This study will strive to take all things into account. We will seek even the unpalatable truths about angels. We will seek the exact nature of the angel, and leave nothing out. In the end, there will be no surprises. Angels seem to be intermediary between God and man. I am given the sense that they are a society unto themselves, complete down to a military presence. They have free will, but exhibit shared mentality. By this I mean that at times, an angel will speak as if he is God. Yet, there are angels who have missed the mark, the fallen angels, whose state is not unlike the fallen state of man. Mankind's connection to God must always include a connection to angels, therefore, mankind must understand both the nature and the work of angels. For man, an angel is a manifestation – it appears here to us, but it comes from another realm. So, what is it, exactly? Section One: Non-human angelic forms. Many times, angels are described with human-like attributes; many other times they are described as taking on non-human forms. We will first study these non-human angelic forms. Non-human descriptions abound. We take note of the many instances in which angels take the shape of cloud or fire. Sometimes they can present themselves as disembodied voices, or even as hands floating in mid-air. The point is this: if an angel is an extension of an invisible spiritual God, an angel can be almost anything. Angels may be the halfway point where God, being a spirit, reaches out into this physical world. Consider these verses from the book of Acts. Acts 7:30, 31, 32, 35, 38 & 53 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai an angel ( manifestation ) of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord ( through the angel ) came unto him, Saying, ( alternate: and the angel said ) I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand ( physical agency ) of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Please take special note of the words I have placed in parentheses. Also note the words which I have underscored. I ask this of all readers for this one fundamental reason: the words of scripture, as they are presented, are vitally important to any acquisition of understanding. The spirit presents our generation with the message it wants us to receive. By that I mean, the message is presented to us in the words as they appear in present texts. It is important to derive the correct interpretation from the given wording. What did Moses see in the bush? Not God – God is invisible. Yet, there was a physical manifestation of a spiritual entity. It looked like fire, but it didn't actually destroy the bush. Neither smoke nor ash are mentioned. Moses saw an angel that did not look human. Moses heard an angel speak. It was the angel that said “I am God”. Now, at this juncture, we may choose one of several possible scenarios. One: the angel was a puppet and the strings to its fiery vocal cords were being pulled by a non-corporeal hand. Two: the angel was a volunteer who delivered a message verbatim. It is even possible that the angel is, in some way, God – perhaps a member of an elite angelic group or society in which the Mind-set of God is a shared attribute. What we just read in Acts was taken from an account closer to the fact. It came from the book of Exodus. Note that in the Exodus account, it is also an angel that is in the bush. The part about it being an angel is not an opinion of the writer of Acts; it is not something that was made up, nor was it a matter of interpretation. The writer of Acts called it an angel because it was an angel. In the Exodus account, the angel is also described as a fire that burned without any harm to the bush. Again, it was the angel that said “I am God”. Read it for yourself. Exodus 3:2-6 The angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, Moreover he (the angel) said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. What we need to consider here is the use of the word 'of'. What is actually meant when we say the angel 'of' the Lord? Do we mean manifestation? Do we mean representative? Or, is an angel some kind of puppet or vehicle? These are matters we must keep in our thinking as we continue this study. Fire is a non-human angelic form. Here, two thoughts branch off from the trunk of inquiry. One thought is that an angel is a spirit that is able to take on corporeal identity. The other is that an angel is a corporeal extension of the spiritual, and only exists when the spirit extrudes into the physical plane. It could well be that mankind has traditionally bought into an overly generic view of what is angelic. Along the extrusion branch, please view these verses from Exodus. Take note that the extrusions are basically elemental. Exodus 13:21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: Exodus 40:34 & 38 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory ( fire? )of the Lord filled the tabernacle. For the cloud of the Lord was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys. It is noted in early accounts that men saw angels. Some of them were fiery, some were cloudy. Whatever the form, real flesh and blood eyes beheld them. An interpretive word is introduced in the verse above – it is the word 'glory'. Glory was some aspect of an event that particularly impressed those who witnessed the event. Glory, as we will see in other accounts, is usually bright. So, if the cloud was on the tabernacle during the day, and at the same time there was something bright inside – what was that brightness? Moses has been described as talking to fire, not to cloud. The following verse suggests an angel of the Lord in a fire inside the tabernacle. Leviticus 1:1 And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation. From the verses just cited, we note the alternating of fire and cloud. We wonder if they occur concomitantly. If there is fire inside during the day talking to Moses while the pillar of the cloud is visible over the tabernacle, is there a cloud inside at night while the fire is visible over the tabernacle? For that matter, although it is not noted, I wonder if it was a cloudy day when Moses stood before the burning bush. Now, it could well be that Moses also spoke to the angel of the Lord when he appeared as a cloud. The following verse might suggest such a thing, but it might also suggest only the proximity of the cloud to the fire. The following verse may suggest that the cloud actually covered the door of the tabernacle. We get that from the word 'over'. However, it is equally possible that the word 'over' was used in the sense of the expression 'over against'. The column of cloud could have stood in the court yard of the tabernacle. It could have blocked entrance to the interior parts. Then, there is the simple alternative that 'over' meant 'above'. The fact that it is mentioned in close proximity to the door, coupled with the fact that the bright glory was within, suggests to me that cloud and fire may have belonged together – closer together than we are normally used to thinking of it. Perhaps the angel was not just one or the other, but both at once. Deuteronomy 31:15 The Lord appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle. So, the cloud was both in the tabernacle and over it. The tribes traveled for many years with the tabernacle. They witnessed the cloud and the fire every single day. Their physical eyes saw apparitions of cloud and fire. Yet, God is an invisible spirit. It makes me wonder, in regard to the next reference, just what it was that the eyes of Moses beheld. It also speaks to the view of spiritual extrusion. The following verses describe Moses seeing the hind quarters of God. It was a fly-by mooning of truly spiritual proportions. The question to ask is this: if God is invisible, was the apparition an angel? If it was an angel, then being an angel, at least here, promotes the extrusion view. As to the view of an angel being a volunteer – would an angel volunteer to be the ass of God? There are more questions to be asked of the following verses. For instance, if God provided such an image of Himself that would protect Moses from being fried, how intense must be the glory of God's front side? Still, the glory of the Lord may have been an angel. We note the twofold nature of the passing, in that there is a front and a back. Exodus 33:2, 3, 9-11 & 21-23 I will send an angel before thee; for I will not go up in the midst of thee; lest I consume thee in the way. as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door. And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. This account needs much scrutiny. We must look at everything. First, the passing by of an invisible God is the passing by of the angel of the Lord. God tells Moses that is what it will be, and he tells him why. Secondly, it speaks of God's self awareness. Why do I say that? God does not tell Moses, “I am over here by a rock”, he says, “there is a place by me”. A man would have used the first expression, and that would stem from his corporeal sense of self. Such self awareness is based on exclusion: it is a me vs. everything else world view. The expression used by God does not suggest a world view. It does not suggest an awareness that is based on exclusion, but on inclusion. Such a verse gives us valuable insight into the thinking of a spiritual being. I have already indicated that the extrusions of spirit into this corporeal realm have an elemental quality about them. So far we have only dealt with fire and cloud. The following reference suggests an extrusion through the elemental quality of water. It is noted in the account that the angel is invisible, yet, witnesses have seen the water of the pool move about in an uncommon manner. Now, the apparition of the angel in the bush took on the appearance of fire. It did not burn the bush - it only looked like fire. Perhaps the cloudy pillar was only the image of a cloud. Perhaps the water angel only looked like water. Judge for yourself. John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. Angels which may be only the extrusion of spirit into corporeality, seem enabled to take on the image of certain elements. The element of fire, like those of water and cloud, are free-moving elements, and for that reason may have been the logical choice. Angels, no doubt, may take many different forms. They may appear in many guises. It should not surprise us to find them in more solid forms. How about an extrusion of earth and ore. Ezekiel has an account of angels that seem metallic in nature. Read on. Ezekiel 1:5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 22 & 26 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man. And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings. As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the color of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. Note first that we may only be dealing, here, with the image or likeness of something rather than the actual article. Had Ezekiel been more certain or convinced of what he saw, he might not have called it an image of a living creature, but actually a creature. In his description, he ascribed to creatures a certain man-like quality in that they had the hands of a man under their wings. The man-like quality is then amended – the quality becomes that of a construct in that it has four sides. It is unclear whether each likeness has four sides, or is only one side of the apparition. If the thing was a machine that was basically a box, I can imagine robotic arms being exposed by panels that lift up, rather like a wing. Else, there were two wings to each side, the whole being like a helicopter. Ezekiel went on in his description of these angels by saying that each of the four had their own faces and wings. That last part can mean two different things, depending upon the view. Were the 'four' only sides of a whole, or were they autonomous beings? The description begins to coalesce when Ezekiel ascribes two of the faces as being on the 'right side'. That not only changes the shape of the apparition, it changes certain aspects of the viewing experience. To have been able to see two faces on one 'side' suggests that one corner of the four-sided object was more toward the viewer, which in turn would naturally obscure the two other sides. This further suggests that the object moved in such a manner as to present the viewer with a turning or revolving image. Ezekiel saw two faces, then the object turned and Ezekiel saw the other two faces. The possibility exists that the four-sided object was not exactly square, but more of a diamond shape. Going on the assumption of the object being shaped like a diamond, the suggestion occurs that the faces were grouped in a particular order. The right side afforded a man – lion connection, while the left side afforded an ox – eagle connection. Now we are aware that machines are sometimes emblazoned with illustrations of this or that. I recall the image of a fighter plane upon which had been painted the face of a shark bearing its teeth. The four were further described as a whole in relation to bright objects that flew near them. Ezekiel described the objects as lamps, but the description of burning coals offers us a more three dimensional understanding. Recall that even today, many of the UFO sightings submitted describe round glowing lights. The lights that Ezekiel saw seem to be similar, and connect the four living creatures by their movements. The lights might be thought of as a cloud, or better yet, as a moving garment clothing the creatures and giving them a sense of being a single body. From the cloud of swimming light came lightning discharge that at least suggests a power source for flying machines. Ezekiel then describes four wheels the color of Beryl. Since pure Beryl is colorless and impurities result in tints, a likely color might have been blue-green. The description of the workings of the wheels seems no less than a description of something constructed to function mechanically. Imagine: an angel on wheels! There were actually wheels within wheels. Some modern interpretations of this passage include the image of a gyroscope. I am mindful of popular hubcaps that spin within as a tire turns and continues to spin after it has come to a stop. One impression of the apparition might be that the four living creatures were stacked vertically – that is because Ezekiel describes the burning coals moving up and down. Another impression is that they fly in formation, connected by the lightning producing lamps. Each already has wings, hands, and a face – but wait – there's more. Each creature apparently had a head on top. The head was above all else: the very top of the creature. The top-most part was notable for a particular reason. There was a firmament over the heads – a small slice of heaven that was distinct from the rest of the sky. Its color was described as 'the terrible crystal'. Above that was what seemed to Ezekiel to be a throne with something man-like seated thereon. My guess as to what the terrible crystal was is this: it was a dome through which Ezekiel could see the firmament, but at the same time had shape and definition due to the colors in it that reminded Ezekiel of 'the terrible crystal'. Other sources have described that crystal as a prism, but I cannot speak to that. It is likely that the firmament was a singular event that radiated, prism-like, either to or from the throne-like apparition that flew above. It could also have been the structural support that connected the captain's seat to the machine. Ezekiel expands his description of a non-human angelic form in the following verses. Ezekiel 10:2-4, 7, 8, 14 & 21 And he spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight. Now the cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled the inner court. Then the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory. And one cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubims unto the fire that was between the cherubims, and took thereof, and put it into the hands of him that was clothed with linen: who took it, and went out. And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man's hand under their wings. And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle. Every one had four faces apiece, and every one four wings; and the likeness of the hands of a man was under their wings. I would like to draw attention to three reference points in the verses above. One is the man in linen; two is the singular cherub; and three is the plural cherubim. I wish also to draw attention to the attending actions. What does the man do? He goes between the cherubim, receives the coals of fire, and removes himself from between the cherubim. Later in this study, we will examine angels that are described as men dressed in linen. For now, the non-human cherubim in Ezekiel will conclude this segment. What do the cherubim do collectively? They pretty much just stand in place. Real action on the non-human angelic level takes place with the singular cherub. We may view the cherub as a four-sided construct, basically a vertical column. The action attending the singular cherub is two-fold. It is, at first, a transference of power, energy, and their visible manifestations. The cherubim stood to the right of the temple. When the linen man went inside, the inner courtyard was filled with a cloud. Since this was an open outdoor area of the temple complex, and the cherubim stood in it to the right of the house, the cloud could have been smoke. At that point, brightness was transferred from a vertical column of the cherubim to the door of the house, illuminating the inner court, and the cloud was transferred inside the temple house. Next, we are told one of the singular columns stretched out its hand. The hand was not on the external are, nor reaching outward. It was internal, between the four – possibly in the area where the coals of fire went up and down. It is mentioned, again, that each singular column had its hand under its wings. We are led to believe, then, that the purpose of the repeat was to indicate the hand position of each as being on the inner most side. Now, this was a mechanical action: the action of reaching. The hand did not reach between them so much as down to the ground. It had been earlier indicated that the coals were to be found near the wheels under the cherub. It is so worded as to suggest that each column has only one wheel. A hand is found at the end of an arm. The hand in Ezekiel is qualified as the 'form of' a hand. At any rate, the hand extends from just below the wings down to the wheel. Either it is a long telescoping arm, or the column is not all that tall. As to the proximity of the coal near the wheel, we must compare its stationary position to the earlier description of coals going up and down. Is the linen man accepting power or a physical object? The changed condition whereby the coals are under the column when the cherubim are at rest indicates a hovering stance with heated emissions producing coals. They are described as having four wings per column – one wing per face. As to the hands, it is not clear if there was a hand on every side. That should amend my earlier assessments and assumptions. Did each column spin, thus affording a view of each side? Finally, each column is described as having four faces. The faces are the same, with one notable exception. The ox face has been replaced by the face of a cherub. What exactly would the face of a cherub look like? Ezekiel has so far described cherubs as basically mechanical. Certain reference materials associate the four faces with the four lesser aspects of mankind. Not only that, but, the faces are associated with the four elements, and the four constellations of the winter sky. As to lesser aspects, the ox may represent the beast of burden. Cherubs are thought to be second up in rank. That places them as just above the purely functional realm. Indeed, each part of the column may have symbolic significance. That symbolism may need closer scrutiny, but it will not receive it here. Suffice it to say, in concluding this segment of the study, that the beast of burden aspect of man was taken away and replaced with a higher aspect. Does this symbolize spiritual advancement? I wonder.

Will the Church Survive?

Will the Church Survive? I see the church as an unfinished work; it is a work upon which the chisel of its own membership should move. Yet, it is not the constant hand of its own constituency, but the hand of Christendom's longtime enemy, that shapes the church. I will not address the fact that democracy permits such antagonism beneath the guise of freedom, but, our very society seems to chip away at the church. We are awash in the spirit of anti-church antagonism. People of all walks are swooning before the persistent propaganda of the anti-church spirit. Repeatedly, it chips at the outer facade of the church; it weakens the walls and foundations. Make no mistake, it is an aggression tantamount to war. When the institution has been chiseled away, will the attacks cease? They most certainly will not. The chisel will then be turned upon the individual rights of those within. Is equality really the issue, or is that just another guise for the enemy of the church? Who fights this onslaught? Who is on the front lines? When the enemy took away the strength of public prayer, what did the church take from the enemy? They took nothing in return; they gave the other cheek. The church appears content to sit back and watch. Of course, these things do not fall like an avalanche. Something small is taken, time passes; it all seems commonplace. Then something else is chipped away, more time passes and no one seems to see the bigger picture. I am not only writing about the larger issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance, public prayer, and the Ten Commandments. I also write of the smaller matters such as the airport Christmas tree, and the issue of saying Merry Christmas in stores. I live in Sioux City, Iowa. It is an out of the way mid-sized mid-western town. I see the problem not only at a national level but also here at a local level. Years ago, the local elders banned the playing of church music through loudspeakers that were set up on the outer walls. On the other hand, the city customarily permits rock-n-roll to be played publicly and loudly. Such events are held several times a year in this town and are loud enough to be heard in the suburbs. I ask, then, why was not the matter made equal by the taking away of rock-n-roll music? I can only guess that there are no Christian strongholds in government. If nonreligious people are allowed to lobby for nonreligious causes, then should not the religious lobby in the same government for religious causes? Recently, Sioux City attacked the church again. Now, churches are only permitted one church sign, and that must be ( as I understand it ) on their front, or street-facing wall. Churches retaining signs on their lawns will now be fined fifty dollars. How ridiculous is the concept of property ownership? Why should we pay such high property taxes if we are not allowed complete, true ownership? I cannot imagine what may come, but I assure you that such things will continue until Christians stand up and fight back. Will the church survive? That depends on you the churchgoer.

Where will you find God?

This is a short opinion piece. Consider these questions. Do you know someone who places God fully in the old testament, that is, so far back in history as to be inapplicable to modern issues? Do you know someone who believes God is some white-bearded sky daddy so far up in heaven as to be ineffective? Many people dismiss God from their lives in sweeping generalizations. But, where is God to be found?

We must not be too quick to set ourselves apart from God. God is found neither in the past nor the future, nor again in some inaccessible realm. Where God is found is in the hearts and minds of his children – right here and right now. Jesus told us that God is a spirit. Whether or not God lives in our spirits is up to us.

This opinion piece is drawn from Psalms 22:3 and Romans 10:8. My take on the matter is that God lives in his praises, and both God and Jesus are as close to us as the words we speak. In that God inhabits His praise, each time one of us lifts Him up, He becomes stronger and more alive – not only in our spirits but also in the world we share with other people.

The communication of God to man is His only begotten son. Jesus stood upon this Earth not only as that message, which from the beginning has been that God inhabits man but also as the prime example of living praise. A father never exists apart from his children; the real connection between father and child is that message that has come down to us through the ages. It is a beautiful message.

Each of us has the power. If any of us prays for God's presence in the world, the answer to that prayer may be found in praise. Let us continue the communication of praise. Let us share it between ourselves and abroad. We have it within our own power to take on the mantle of living praise, of spiritual father inhabiting mortal child.

This opinion piece is praise. By this praise, I lift up my heavenly Father – right here and right now. It is my assertion here that God's mighty presence in this world depends on our humble praises. Like Jesus, we have both the power and the choice to stand as living praise: God in man. God lives here. I share myself with you. It is a beautiful communication. Will you share yourself with another?

Bonus Study Three

Bonus Study Three:

I have heard many sermons about the tribulation; heard many differing opinions regarding the number ‘666'; have understood multiple scenarios concerning the suffering of the righteous meek at the hands of those in power who espouse their own, unobstructed, version of the separation of church and state. I must admit that the contemporary church deserves every bit of it, though I would not see it, if they, to the least individual, are too ignorant about, or too unwilling to fight the evil that is apparent all around them. This Bible study began as the notion to study more closely the “number of a man,” but then expanded to include ‘separation of church and state’ - which led me unerringly to the laws of man. This study must, then, necessarily include sources, not from the scriptures.

It is commonly held that our secular laws have their beginnings in spirit-filled Christians who fled Europe’s political tyranny over the Christian way of life. By extension, it is plainly seen that the laws embodied in our Constitution have for their origin the beliefs and hopes of righteous people. So firstly, I point to what the encyclopedia notes about our Constitution.

Constitution of the United States:

A constitution, ratified in 1787, founded upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and

based on the concepts of limited and responsible government . . . I hope that you see as plainly as I do that a ‘limited and responsible government’, created from principles already in existence – principles that came down from spiritual people that fled governmental tyranny over them, would be created to enhance and protect, rather than inhibit or detract from the spiritual lives of those who desired the change. So, let us look closely at the more telling points of the Declaration; let us see what those people fought against, and what those people hoped for.

Notice the spirituality of the Declaration. Our very first legal document not only lifted God above man but set as the true authority of any nation or government, not the government, but the “good people.”

'Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'

Did any of this find its way into our present law (by which I mean the Constitution), or were these isolated and fading sentiments? Remembering that our constitution was founded on the spiritual principles of the Declaration of Independence, let us look keenly into our present law.

Constitutional Amendments:

Article I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or

disparage others retained by the people.

Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to

the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Please read and note that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass any law to separate the exercise of spiritual freedom from any aspect of daily life – which includes not only the schooling of children but also offices of government; which should be filled only with God-fearing men and women that represent and serve the “good people.”

Note also that any power not delegated by the Constitution ultimately reverts back to the true national authority: its people. Read these amendments (our law) very carefully – look at the order and wording. Especially read the 9^th amendment – anything that is not specifically covered in the rest of the law is protected by the 9^th amendment. The rights of the people (even the unspoken rights of the people) shall never be denied or disparaged. Would not this also include the protection and everlasting affirmation of the unspecified privileges and immunities mentioned above?

So then, let us now return to the Declaration and discover the tyrannies that our forefathers fought against. As we understand that they spoke specifically against their King in England, let us also see that King as a precursory image of our general governmental representative of the “good people.” Let us weigh our elected representatives in this light. Do they truly represent us?

let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. invasions on the rights of the people.

erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

pretended offences establishing an Arbitrary government, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

destroyed the lives of our people.

works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy

constrained our fellow Citizens to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren,

A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the

ruler of a Free people.

unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.

Remember where we have come from and think closely on those we have elected to represent us. How hard have we fought to put godly men and women in office? If we want prayer in school, but don’t have it, have our representatives truly represented us? I think not!

And so it is at this day; the unfit are allowed to have their way unopposed; those who do not represent the “good people” hold sway over policy. The unfit march forward relentlessly but the “good people,” with every fearful inaction, tighten their future noose just a little tighter on their collective neck.

all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

That statement is shocking, even frightening. Is there no hope? I must cling all the more, then, to the hope that an informed people will do what is right. How can we look straight at a thing and not see it? There are none so blind as the ignorant and, yet, the blind will take the hand of the one who sees. We, then, though blind, can see by the sight of others. We, then, can understand – and act. What did our forefathers see?

1). Governments are instituted among Men,

2). deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

3). whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

4). laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

5). it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I have belabored the political end of this Bible study in order to more clearly visualize the future plight of a people that had ample opportunity and forewarning enough to act in their own best interest. Who are the people of the saints that will fight the righteous fight against evil?

Daniel 7:25-27:

25. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

26. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

27. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.

Freedom wears no armor. How can it be a shield? In the United States of America, freedom is offered equally to all. The evil have used it for their evil ends; they have marched forward like a swarm of termites, devouring from the foundation up. They have twisted the intent of our founding fathers to limit government. The evil infiltrators within our government would limit the people.

Now, many have considered that the mark of the beast has something to do with computers. While it has a bearing on daily commerce, I contest that the real mark is a spiritual mark – one that spiritual beings can see. The ‘hand’ represents our works; the ‘head’ or ‘forehead’ represents the stand we take, whether of God or of the world.

Christ said, “Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savourest not the things that be of God.”

What is a beast but a soulless, totally disconnected man, whose inner man lifts up only those lesser things of man and worldliness? To whom, then, belongs the greater woe – the beast or the Christian that did not take his Christianity far enough?

According to the book of Revelation, The ‘mark’ is described in several ways. Revelation 13:17, “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Many think of computer chips when they think of the mark, but what if the mark turns out to be a sort of dynastic ‘brand’, that is, affiliation to a ‘ruling family’? Forget parties – the family is in. Why would I suggest a ‘family’ or a ‘family name’? Let us remember that John came from a people with different definitions than our own. What is ‘the number of a man’ in terms of old world definitions? How did they number a man? For one, they numbered a man by his genealogical pedigree or the line of his ancestry. Such thinking was still evident in the New Testament when Matthew numbered Jesus at fourteen generations. For another, men were numbered by their sons and grandsons and the whole long list of men that made up that clan within the tribe.

For a closing point, I will point to one man that was so numbered in the Old Testament. Might his

name be somehow relevant?

Ezra 2:13, “The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty six.”