Angels of the Churches of God The structure of the temple tells us a lot about the Hebrew cosmological perceptions of the guardianship of the planet and hence of angelic responsibility and judgment. For example, in Ezekiel 41:18-19, the cherubim are shown to be of two types, i.e. of the man-headed and the lion-headed or Æon. Thus the two sectors controlled by the living creatures around the throne of God, allocated responsibility for assisting in the development of Israel according to Ezekiel, would appear to be the angel or man system, of which Satan was the original covering cherub and also the Æon system, part of which he appears to have subverted. This is dealt with in The Problem of Evil and Mysticism. These covering cherubs are referred to as Elohim but they are also referred to as Angels. The Angel of YHVH was identified as Messiah (see the papers The Angel of YHVH (No. 24) and The God We Worship (No. 2)). Revelation appears to identify Messiah as the Angel also. In Revelation 1:1 an Angel delivers the message or Revelation, which is from God to Christ. In Revelation 1:10-20 it is plain that Christ is the identity who explains the message. The hierarchy is thus that Christ is the Angel or Head of the Churches of God. Each of the subordinate churches, of which there are seven represented by seven candlesticks, is fed by the oil of the spirit (Zech. 4:2). The seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea are governed by a subordinate Angel to whom the letters of Revelation 2 and 3 are addressed. 1Timothy 5:21 appears also to allude to the Angels of the Churches where Paul says: In the presence of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favour doing nothing from partiality. It is certain that Paul here includes the loyal angels as part of the elect and thus the promise extends to a structure of both humans and angels. The early patristic writers hold that there were angels in charge of the churches. These included Origen (Hom. on Luke 13:23), Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 42), Basil (Comm. on Isa. 1:46), Gregory of Elvira (Tract.16), Hyppolytus (De Antichr. 59), and Eusebius (Comm. on Ps. 47:50). For details see also Jean Danielou, The Angels and their Mission, (Westminster, Md, Newman Press, 1953) and Wink, T, The Powers, Vol. 2: ‘Unmasking The Powers’ (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1987 p. 192). Unfortunately, patristic theology had become so interlinked with the Mysteries that by the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, the cosmology had extended to include the soul doctrine with a heavenly New Jerusalem (Or. 32 and also Basil Ep. 2.238). The concept of having an angel as governing entity over the created structure is well established and logically sound. A fuller exposition of the distribution of angelic powers is given in Wink, The Powers, Vols. 1 and 2 (esp. Vol. 2); Wagner et. al., Territorial Spirits (Sovereign World Limited, UK, 1991); and Dickason, Angels Elect and Evil (Moody Press, Chicago, 1975). The concept of the distribution of the earthly realms under angelic powers was widely held not only by Israel and the Testaments but by the Gentile nations as well. Wink notes (n. 11 on p. 196) that: The emperor Julian (d. 363) is typical of his age in holding that all peoples possess a distinct character, language, and laws, determined by its presiding spirits. If some presiding national god, and under him an angel and a demon and a hero and a special class of spirits as subordinates and agents to greater powers, had not established the differences in laws and nations, tell me, whatever else has produced these? (Against the Galileans 143 B). The Demiurge has divided the peoples among various gods, whose business it is to watch over the different nations and cities. Each of these gods rules over the portion that has fallen to him in accordance with his nature... Every nation reproduces the national characteristics of the deity ruling it (ibid., 115D). This concept of the heavenly Host as watchers is ancient. The Watchers (îyr) was the term given to the celestial Host as angels or guardians by the Chaldeans (Dan. 4:13,23), and who issue decrees for the regulation of activities (Dan. 4:17; not to be confused with Jer. 4:16). Christ is identified as the Being who created the power and authority of these Beings. The Archangel Michael is identified as the Angel or Great Prince (sar) that stands for Israel (Dan. 12:1). The understanding was that Israel had been selected and stood alone among the nations. Test. Levi 5:6 says (of the Angel of YHVH, which some groups have identified as Michael): I am the angel who intercedeth for the nation of Israel that they may not be smitten utterly, for every evil spirit attacketh it (APOT) (noted also by Wink, p. 197). The entire spiritual structure of the earth was arrayed against the chosen nation, as the god (theos) of this world, Satan or Azazel, and his entire rebellious Host, were confined to the earth and in control of the nations, which were allowed to place themselves under the fallen Host from the creation of Adam. This was the significance meant in the term knowledge of good and evil. It was not just knowledge but a choice of direction. Origen understood this point. Origen believed that the angels of the nations could be converted. If human beings can repent and pass from unbelief to faith, why should we hesitate to say the same of the Powers? For my part, I think that it has sometimes happened...some of the Powers were converted when Christ came, and that is why some towns and even whole nations accepted Christ more readily than others (Wink, p. 197 cf. Comm. on John 18:59). Origen considers that the man of Macedonia who appeared to Paul in a vision asking his help in Acts 16:9 was the Angel of Macedonia responsible for their collective well being (Hom. on Luke, 12). Origen here holds that: Before the birth of Christ these angels could be of little use to those entrusted to them and their attempts were not followed by success. Daniélou has written comprehensively on the subject (The Angels and Their Mission, Westminster, Md, Newman Press, 1953, pp. 15ff., 232: and idem, Les sources juives de la doctrine des anges des nationes chez Origène, Recherches de Science Religieuse 38 (1951, pp. 132-137). The repentance of the fallen Host is of great moment for the question of the Omnipotence of God. Origens position on the capacity for the fallen Host to repent and be converted is considered essentially correct within the philosophy developed by the Bible. The position is central to The Problem of Evil. The biblical position is that only Satan has been judged (Jn. 16:11). The angels are yet to be judged (1Cor. 6:3). The symbolism of the story of the fall of Adam particularly that found in Genesis 3:15 where the serpent is placed in enmity with mankind, stems from the rebel Host leading the woman astray. The text continues in the masculine singular (here considered to be referring to Messiah) such that the heel of mankind and the head of the serpent are bruised from shoof (SHD 7779) meaning, to gape or snap at and hence fig. to overwhelm:- break, bruise or cover. The heel of man is damaged, and only the head of the serpent is bruised. Thus mankind is not permanently injured. The term used does not indicate the annihilation of the one by the other. Thus the division is reconcilable and the Host (other than perhaps Satan) can repent.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 13:45:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015