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.”

Bonus Study Two: Part Two

Part Two

Now I must turn my attention to the ‘unprofitable servant’; the mediocre servant who only does what he is supposed to do but does not take it any further than that. I want to note, in this next reference: Luke 12:46, that the unprofitable servant is mentioned in contrast to another type of person: the unbeliever. I want to note that the unprofitable servant, while cast in with the unbeliever, is nevertheless referred to as a servant.

“The Lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for Him, (the servant is not waiting and watching) and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.”

That ‘portion’ may be a reference to ‘hell’. Someday there may be enough of these studies to fill a book. If I should get published, and be read, I hope that the reader, as he or she follows this particular part where I look into the ‘hypocrite’, will constantly drape this tapestry on the framework of the church as well as the individual. The hypocrite is a member of the current religious structure. That was, in Jesus’ day, the Scribes and Pharisees and experts in the letter of the law. They were the upper echelons; they dressed and acted accordingly. In our day and age, we must look at the contemporary Christian church; we must look for similarities to those that Jesus cut down. I turn first to the nature of the hypocrite.

Read Matthew 16:2 and 3, “He answered and said unto them, when it is evening, ye say, it will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, it will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?”

Note that Jesus called them hypocrites, rather than ignorant. They could have, in fact, discerned the signs of the times – had they ever bothered to investigate. Scripture tells us that if we seek, we will find. This passage shows that the hypocrite has a set way of doing; a limit to his knowing. In Jesus day there were men who looked into the Holy word and saw Jesus. The hypocrite had access to those same scrolls but they closed their eyes to anything which they had not ‘set’ for themselves. This puts me in mind of those that jailed Leonardo De Vinci. Narrow-mindedness can help a man stay focused but closed-mindedness simply puts one out of the loop. In the modern contemporary Christian church, there are many book-smart scholars. They wear their suits and jewelry; they jet with the scholarly crowd; they proudly display their credentials in ornate frames on the walls of their offices. Their speeches are long-winded and are usually structured to support ‘things as they are’: such as tithing, winning souls, and preaching deliverance from sin.

Of course, that is pretty much a closed circuit; the preaching of deliverance garners souls, which keep the church buildings full and the tithes flowing. They have treated faith like a hermit crab treats old seashells on the ocean floor, for the hermit crab will encase itself until it is forced to seek a larger shell.

But Jesus said, in Matthew 15:7 through 9, “Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophecy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

I see this occur in the contemporary Christian church every time they observe Easter, lading upon the souls of children the fertility symbols of Ishtar. I think the nature of the hypocrite is self-exaltation; they fit rather snugly in the shell of anything that spotlights their involvement in an event that lifts them up above others.

Matthew 7:5, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

Even in acts of benevolence, lifting oneself up only exposes one’s error. Hypocrites really got our Lord worked up. He never had a good word for them. He told His followers not to be like them. And, too, there is one thing in the equation of being a hypocrite which the hypocrite has not ‘set’ for himself, that is the reward of a hypocrite.

In Matthew 6:2, 5, and 16, Jesus describes the hypocrite for the edification of His followers.

1. They ‘sound a trumpet’ before them (a lot of fanfare) both in their congregational meetings and out in the streets.

2. They seek praises from other men.

3. They pray in a fashion that is intended for the hearing of other men.

4. They put on airs so that others will notice them.

Jesus said that is all they will get out of it. What is the difference in making broad their phylacteries;

enlarging the borders of their garments; (Matt. 23:5) and wearing a fancy suit, Florshiems, and a

Rolex? Honestly, I can’t see a difference.

Jesus did not try to hide His dislike of hypocrites. He was not one to pull His punches. In Jesus’ day, it seemed never to be the little man, but always the Scribe and Pharisee (I should also note: never the Sadducee). Today’s equivalent might be the Doctor of Divinities or any other such pompous title. The Scribes and Pharisees were always the ones trying to catch Jesus in some slip or omission. They must have thought of themselves as word specialists. We have our share of those, too. They drop this or that word; they harp on imagined subtleties; they publish book after book. They pick things to pieces to better build their own constructs.

Matthew 22:18, “But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?”

In Matthew 23:13 through 29, and in Luke 11:44 and 13:15, Jesus floored the reigning champ with these blows: “Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!”

1. They close the kingdom of Heaven to men. They won’t go in themselves, and those who desire to enter, they block.

2. They eat up widow’s houses, & make long prayers (a pretense for which they shall receive the greater damnation).

3. They search the world to make converts, and when they do, those souls are the more likely to be damned.

4. They tithe of their best, but for show only; in their customs, they omit the more important matters of law, judgment, mercy, and faith.

5. They place much effort into projecting a good image, but that is only a cover for their crimes against others, self-abuses, murders, and unclean things.

6. They build monuments, lay wreaths, and hang garlands for the prophets, and righteous slain, but they prove themselves aligned to the ones who killed the prophets and all else who belong to God.

7. They hide their own pollution so that others are unknowingly tainted.

8. They know what good is; they do it for themselves, but they use the law against others to maintain power and control.

So then, I return to the main theme of this study: ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’. There shall be a particular group of people who shall ‘weep & gnash their teeth’ – so says Jesus. Just on face value, we may surmise that the reference is toward very intense suffering. These lamentable souls are those who are placed in ‘hell’. Now, there are many uses of the word ‘hell’. I want to point out some of the common inferences.

1. Hell is a place, state, or condition where the “whole body” may be cast. (Matthew 5:29 and 30)

2. Hell is a place, state, or condition where “both soul and body” may be cast for their destruction. (Matthew 10:28)

3. Hell is a place, state, or condition that is on a lower level than our current place, state, or condition. (Matthew 11:23)

4. Hell is a place, state, or condition where there is a form of consumption. (Matthew 5:22 and 18:9)

5. Hell is a place, state, or condition that is reserved for the most despicable. (Matthew 23:33)

6. Hell is a place, state, or condition that comes after death. (Luke 12:5 and Revelation 6:8)

7. Hell is a place, state, or condition that Christ controls. (Revelation 1:18)

8. Hell is a place, state, or condition where the individual remains conscious. (Luke 16:23)

9. Hell is a place, state, or condition that already exists; where the fallen angels are bound in “chains of darkness”; a keep for those “reserved unto judgement”. (II Peter 2:4)

Hell has been, and still is, used to refer to the grave: a place where dead bodies may be found. It is a place of corruption and decay.

1. Dead bodies are returned from the “sea” and “death and hell”. (Revelation 20:13)

2. Dead bodies arise from “graves” where they were held in a reserved state. (Matthew 27:52)

3. Dead bodies are able to hear Christ calling to them from their “graves”. (John 5:28)

4. Dead bodies are sealed into caves. (John 11:17, 38, 44, and John 12:17)

5. Dead bodies are withheld from the grave as a punishment in the course of revenge. (Revelation 11:9)

Hell, or the grave has been seen as the delineation, or gate, between the corruptible and incorruption, between the mortal and immortality, which can be clearly understood in the reading of I Corinthians 15:54 and 55. Hell is seen, in Acts 2:27, as a force that may even corrupt the soul, and in Matthew 16:18, as a force that is in opposition to Christ’s church, but it is a force that, ultimately, will itself be cast into the final destruction that is the lake of fire, Revelation 20:14.

In Mark 9:43 through 48, our Lord speaks of hell, using a set phrase three times within His discourse. The words are graphic and, while they may be symbolic to a point, I can’t help but read them literally.

There is a singular expression: “the fire”, and there is a plural expression: “their worm”. In speaking

of graves and dead bodies in relation to the expanse of eternity, such ongoing states can be downright

scary. However, I wish to recall that the grave is a temporary keep (II Peter 2:4) between death and

judgment. The lake of fire: now, that’s eternal.

We must not jump to the conclusion that just because normal worms do die, this statement from our Lord is symbolic. A spiritual worm may actually not die for all we know – and we know so very little about the spiritual realm. But, in a sense, ‘worm’ is symbolic of corruption or decay, in general. Having already determined that consciousness is retained in the grave, the perpetual gnawing of that worm is a horribly unthinkable thought. As for the fire of hell or the fire of the grave, consider this: fire is a consumption. I read once in an encyclopedia that ‘rotting’ or decay, (since heat is a by-product) is considered to be a very slow form of combustion.

Bible scholars have the following things to say about hell and the grave. Hell is derived from the Saxon word: ‘helan’, which meant ‘to cover’ and so was used for ‘the covered’ or ‘the invisible place’. The word: ‘sheol’ occurs in the Old Testament 65 times, and basically means ‘insatiable’ and is rendered as ‘grave’ 31 times. It is rendered in the Authorized Version 31 times as ‘hell’ or the ‘place of disembodied spirits’.

The citizens of sheol, according to Proverbs 21:16, are “the congregation of the dead”. Various scriptures have sheol both as the abode of the wicked, and of the good. Sheol is described variously in scripture as “deep”, “dark”, having “bars”, and in a position where the dead must “go down”. In the New Testament, the Greek word: ‘hades’ means much the same thing. It is a prison with gates, bars, and locks. The word: ‘gehenna’ designates ‘the place of the lost’. The Greek contraction of the Hinnom, Gehenna was not used except to denote the future place of punishment. All the associations are Jewish. Hinnom was a deep, narrow ravine separating Mount Zion from the ‘Hill of evil counsel’. It took its name from the son of Hinnom, an ancient hero.

In Joshua 15:8, it was the place where idolatrous Jews burned their children alive to Moloch and Baal. A particular part of the valley was called ‘Tophet’, or ‘fire-stove’, where the children were burned. After the exile, to show their abhorrence of the locality, Jews made that valley the receptacle for the offal of the city, which was kept constantly burning. There are two basic associations (ideas) about that valley: (1) the suffering of the victims sacrificed there, and (2) filth and corruption: which in turn engendered the popular symbolism of ‘the abode of the wicked hereafter’. These facts were culled from a Bible dictionary.

Now, there is an erroneous Catholic belief, on a par with ‘purgatory’ and ‘limbo’, that hell is divided between the good and bad. They believe that the parable about Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom places both Lazarus and Abraham in a sort of West Wing of hell. They cite scripture in defense of their stand. Let me just show what that scripture says. That scripture is Matthew 16:19 through 26. The short of it is this: the rich man died and was buried; in contrast to the fate of the rich man, Lazarus died and was transported by Heavenly beings into the bosom of Abraham. The rich man called out to Abraham, who was “afar off”; whereupon, Abraham answered that between him and the rich man was a “great gulf fixed”. That could have been equally rendered as between ‘us’ and ‘you’ (two separate entities), or, between us and you in torments (two separate states), or, between us, and you in hell (two separate places). The word: ‘gulf’, if taken something like the gulf that divides Texas from Florida, could conceivably be considered, at least in a sense, as a great gulf fixed. And yet, one must consider that if it is the gulf itself that separates, then of necessity, there must be absolutely no access by following the coast.

The Bible presents the reader with ‘either-or’ situations: light and dark, good and evil, Heaven and hell. We may be looking at a singular position (the grave) with two separate and distinct forms of consciousness, one wide awake, one sleeping (Matthew 27:52). Awakening someone who would rather be asleep gives rise to ire, for example, when Saul had the spirit of Samuel raised from the earth, Samuel responded something like: ‘why troublest thou me, to bring me up?’. That is not to say the reward of the righteous, or the position of Heaven, per se, is to be found in the earth. And yet, there is the paradox of Christ’s location after His crucifixion. Christ, for the sins of man, was slated to die on the cross, descend into the realm of Satan for three days and wrestle from the enemy the keys to death and hell. Like Jonah in the big fish, Jesus was supposed to be held in the bowels of the earth for three days.

On the cross, Christ calls out: “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me” as if God had turned His back on His son as if Christ already felt the searing torments of hell as it insatiably licked at His feet. When Christ said to the repentant thief that he would join Christ, that very day, in ‘paradise’, could He have possibly meant that paradise had anything to do with torment? I think not. But then, Christ is the beginning and the end; He is both before and after; in our beginning, and also in the promise of our forever. He once said that where He ‘Is’, there is His servant also.

I believe that our Lord has never been bound by linear time but may be anywhere and everywhere all at once. Therefore, the thief’s translation to paradise may well have been to that glorious future we have yet to taste. In none of our Lord’s discourses about hell did He ever mention it as a paradise but, rather, as a terrible place. It is a place where dues are collected, where stripes are dispensed. The servant, not the outsider, is judged according to preset standards.

Read Luke 12:47 and 48, “And that servant, which knew his Lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to His will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.”

Here’s the kicker: the preset standard, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

God has given much to His servant the church; He has given considerably less to the unbeliever. Be very clear on that one point: it is the servant that has the most to lose; it is the servant who will weep and gnash his teeth.

Hell is associated with darkness; fallen angels are bound in chains of darkness but Christ named hell not merely darkness – He called it “outer darkness”. Christ experienced outer darkness, Himself when He was forsaken of God the Father for three days. Here, Christ is speaking of the worst kind of hell: separation from God. I began this study with five scripture references to ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’, or in other words, writhing in abject torment. Of whom, then, does our Lord speak? Is it the outsider, the atheist or believer in other gods? Is it the hypocrite within the body of the church, the ones who deliberately do wrong, or is it the servant, the one who thinks he or she is on the straight and narrow, but really is not?

It is the latter, the unprofitable servant, the one who did what he was supposed to do – but failed to take his or her spiritual connection seriously enough to ask, seek, or knock. They preached salvation to the saved and they thought that was all they had to do; they never took anything new out of the treasure chest of God’s word. Like the Jews who thought that obedience to the law was an end in itself and, thus, rejected change, so the modern contemporary church has viewed itself through rose-colored glasses and, thus, rejected growth.

Those with the most to lose and those who will cry the loudest are the self-deceived, both Jewish and

Christian. The Christian will awake some morning and discover that he was not ‘raptured’; he will

cry to the Lord, “we healed and prophesied in your name,” and Christ will answer, “I know not

whence you are.”

To the Jew Christ says, “When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and He shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: then shall ye begin to say, we have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets. But He shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; depart from Me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the Kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.” (Luke 13:25 - 28)

Again, to the Jew Christ says, “And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of Heaven. But the children of the Kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:11 – 12)

To the contemporary Christian, as well as to the church, Christ says, in Matthew 22:12 through 14, 25:30 and 24:50 and 51, “And He saith unto him, friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the King to the servants, bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The Lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for Him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

In regard to this message to the modern church, Christ told his disciples in John 15:15, “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”

What exactly is the failure on the part of the unprofitable servant? It is a failure of friendship with God. Having been let in on the closest thoughts and intents of the Highest and having been brought into such confidence, the profitable friend is without excuse and condemns himself with evidence of unprofitability.