In another thread the question was raised, “Can angels be saved?” But I’d like to ask, “Do some angels even need to be saved?” What if the doctrine of “fallen angels” is just as erroneous as the doctrine of endless torment?
For those who may be interested in discussing this topic: I am in agreement with firstborn888 that the story of “Lucifer” is indeed a myth, and that there never was an angelic rebellion. However, I would go even further and say that the Bible does not sanction the view that any evil, supernatural beings have any real existence (which, of course, would mean that we are the only sinful beings involved in the story of redemptive history).
To further clarify my position: I believe that the only created, supernatural beings whose existence the Bible teaches are the holy members of God’s heavenly court.
Aaron, I would be interested should you care to define “angels.”
My understanding is that “angel” means “messenger,” “minister” or “agent,” and is a word used to describe both human and supernatural beings. It does not describe a nature, but an office or function, and refers to human beings in at least the following places in the NT: Matt 3:1; 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24, 27; 9:52; Phil 2:25; 2 Cor 8:23; James 2:25; Rev 2:1, 18; 3:1, 7, 14. When I speak of “fallen angels,” however, I’m referring to the commonly-held view among Christians that there exist some supernatural beings which are in rebellion against God and hostile toward humanity.
Was that helpful?
Thanks Aaron, I align myself pretty much with all you share. Once, a number of years ago, I was praying about the subject of angels. Holding to the principle, that with God things are simpler rather than more complex, I knew angels were probably not another genre of created beings. As clear as anything I heard “angels are men.”
In what regards angels are aligned with mankind I don’t understand completely, but each year it seems I glean a little more light on the subject.
Be blessed my friend,
I’m not so sure we’re on the same page here…is it your view that the supernatural beings spoken of in the Bible (such as the angel Gabriel) are men who used to live on earth?
It is an erroneous as the doctrine of endless torment, should it be believed that these angels were Celestial in nature and not human. The word “angel” means “Messenger” which puts in perspective what a fallen angel would be: “Fallen Messengers.” Now, I have a long list of messengers of God who failed to enter the promises, and the apostle Paul speaks of one specific group of fallen messengers.
Romans 11:11 “Again I ask: Did they [Isreal] stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!”
Jude speaks of many instances of fallen messengers:
Jude 5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe, and those messengers who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with aionios chains for judgment on the great Day.
How the Lord has covered the Daughter of Zion with the cloud of his anger! He has hurled down the splendor of Israel from heaven to earth; he has not remembered his footstool in the day of his anger. Without pity the Lord has swallowed up all the dwellings of Jacob; in his wrath he has torn down the strongholds of the Daughter of Judah. He has brought her kingdom and its princes down to the ground in dishonor. In fierce anger he has cut off every horn of Israel. He has withdrawn his right hand at the approach of the enemy. He has burned in Jacob like a flaming fire that consumes everything around it.
In all instances of Fallen Angels, the Scriptures are speaking of men, not Celestial beings.
Perhaps the definition of Gabriel will answer this query. Gabriel in Hebrew means, “a man of God”.
The messenger answered, "I am a man of God [Gabriel]. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.
I understand for many, this is a difficult premise to understand let alone accept, but the traditions of men have clouded our thinking and the doctrines we hold may find no foundation to support it and it is very discomforting experience but one that needs to be recognized. Gabriel means, “a man of God”, and you too may be called, “Gabriel” in the presence of those whom God has sent you to.
“while I was still speaking in prayer, then [size=150]**the man **[/size]Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering” Dan 9;21
As I said, I don’t have it all worked out, Aaron, but do believe angels are men is some form. You have the “elohim” also to consider. It is an interestring subject.
Daniel 9:21, “While I was still in prayer, a man of God [Gabriel], the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.”
Angels are not men. The NT (including Christ) talks about angels 20 times as much as the old testament. ie A great deal more is revealed.
‘But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’
Whatever angels are - they are NOT men.
Do you think it’s possible that some heavenly beings are referred to as “men” simply because of the fact that they appear in the form of men? Or do you understand Gabriel and other heavenly messengers who are referred to as “men” to be descendents of Adam?
The Scripture also can be read in this light:
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the messengers [humiliated and crucified; a servant of servants], now crowned with glory because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
In any case, the issue is fallen angels, and all fallen angels are men as there has not been one member of the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven who has ever rebelled or rebelled against this spiritual realm for if there has, God is defeated and your hope is nullified by your belief.
Mark 3:24.25 “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
Until the time this revelation is revealed, your argument concerning what angels are has no support to your belief concerning what angels are.
I have gone extensively into the subject in the past and have made grand arguments in favor and against angels being celestial or human, the most logical and reasonable conclusion is that there the word, “ANGEL” refers to an office which befits a thing or being who fills this office, whether supernatural or natural, Celestial or Earthly, spirit or man.
As a result of this understanding, not all angels are celestial but all fallen angels are men.
Thanks for the question,
Scripture isn’t read in that light. Christ never said angels were human beings. They’re angels! And they are not God/men.
And ANGEL does not refer to an office - it refers to their BEING - to what they are. They are not men.
Thanks for the reply RanRan and I can see you are passionate in your personal conclusion. In this case, whether or not you say it does or does not, does not dictate whether it does or does not.
It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.
Angel means messenger: a position or office of one who brings messages, a bearer of news, a forerunner, etc.
It does not refer, nor has ever referred to their being.
All things can hold the position of messenger and therefore it cannot refer to their being.
As for fallen messengers, only fallible things can fail at being a messenger.
Should Celestial Messengers exist in heaven, they would be infallible, they cannot sin nor have ever sinned in the past.
The stories you heard concerning Lucifer and a Celestial Rebellion, is a Roman myth perpetrated by the Roman Empire Cult, starting with Constantine through to Justinian during the Nicene wars, and was falsely added in the Latin Jerome and picked up by a Empire backed Augustine.
You should know that Christ’s Kingdom started with John the Baptist and began advancing from that point. His Kingdom was created by fiat - the right of any king to do so.
What ever the pecking order was - it is no longer. Though as man, Christ was made less than the angels - and now, as that same man, He is above them - and they are not His brothers and sisters as we are. Not a drop of His blood was spilled on the angels behalf - they were not redeemed from death - they are not resurrected beings - they are not men. The fact that Christ could have called on legends of angels to help spare Him from the cross (before redemption) - should tell you clearly that they cannot be men.
You have yet to supply any evidence to support such a conclusion that does not rely on circular reasoning or the traditions of men.
As for Jesus not dying for the messengers, on what premise do you come up with this conclusion.
By the way, once again, we are not talking about angels, we are talking about fallen angels.
These are two different things.
Mark 2:17 Jesus said, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
I agree with you that the word “angel” refers to office and function, and not to nature. So do you think the angel who referred to himself as “Gabriel” is a descendent of Adam? I don’t, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on this.
I agree with you that it’s a myth, but I would say it started long before the time of Constantine. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Book of Enoch. This well-known work of fiction had a powerful influence on first-century Jewish (and later Christian) thought concerning fallen angels and demons.