by jimwalton » Mon May 02, 2022 1:07 pm
> we have to define our terms.
Yes, let's.
> "Angel" is a broad term that can denote heavenly creatures, humans, or God himself (i.e. the angel of Yahweh) depending on context. It simply means "messenger."
"Angel" in the Bible is never used as a broad term to denote all classes of heavenly creatures. "Angel" means messenger. They are particularly and specifically defined for us as messengers, nothing more. Sometimes in Revelation they act as messengers from God who are agents of judgments. "Angel" is not used in the Bible to describe any other heavenly creature. It is not that broad a term.
> can denote ... humans
Textual evidence?
> God himself (i.e. the angel of Yahweh)
You know as well as I that it is unknown there these references are to an angel or to God. Some are of the opinion, as I'm sure you know, that the "angel of the Lord" may refer to Jesus. I'm not so sure, and no one can be.
> In this discussion, we're talking about heavenly angels, not human or divine.
Correct. Agreed.
> We know we're dealing with heavenly angels when they appear in dazzling white clothing, cause blindness, fly, etc. -- those are not mere humans.
Agreed. Only once is an angel said to fly (Dan. 9.21), and that reference is questionable. Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, regarding Daniel 9.21 write, "In Isaiah 6 the creatures called seraphim fly, and in Zechariah 5 there is a vision of women with wings who fly, but in this verse is the only occasion where a being identified as an angel flies. Though other supernatural creatures (the ones listed earlier, as well as cherubim) are portrayed with wings, angels (= messengers) are not, despite the artistic renditions of the past 1500 years. In Mesopotamian art, protective genii are portrayed with wings, as are a variety of demons. In Intertestamental literature the earliest reference to flying angels is in I Enoch 61:1 (though cherubim and seraphim are by then included in the category). The Hebrew construction used is a complex one and many commentators have concluded (with good cause) that the text expresses weariness (yup) rather than flight (uwp)."
> Here's where some logical speculation comes in: I do not believe that God would make heavenly creatures look identical to human beings when they aren't human beings and not made in the image of God.
I would consider it illogical speculation. Let's stick to what the Bible says. Our image of God is not our appearance. God doesn't have human form, and so being in the image of God is not our human form.
> They can appear to be human but this would be a shape-shifting phenomenon, similar to how God can appear as fire and cloud and a dove.
The Bible knows nothing of shape-shifting and never teaches shape-shifting. Theophanic references are not shape-shifting.
> The only descriptions we have are of the cherubim and seraphim, and they certainly have wings.
Cherubim and seraphim have wings, but they are not angels. Cherubim are composite creatures whose role and function is to guard the presence of God. They are not angels. Seraphim are multi-winged creatures who surround the throne. They are not angels. Angels are God's messengers who most often appear in human form whose role and function is to bring a message, to protect (Ps. 91.11-12), and to do God's work in the world (Heb. 1.14).
> Therefore, I believe that the cherubim and seraphim are heavenly angels.
There's no warrant to regard cherubim and seraphim as angels. They are spirit beings, obviously, but different from angels in appearance, role, and function. They aren't angels, they are cherubim and seraphim. The Bible never confuses the categories, and neither should we.
> When angels appear as men, we don't know if they are cherubs or seraphs, but I think they must be one or both.
No. Angels are angels; cherubim are cherubim; seraphim are seraphim.
> There is only one archangel, Michael, and there is strong biblical evidence that this was the preincarnate Jesus (aka the angel of Yahweh).
The Bible speaks of only one archangel, as you have said, but there is no biblical evidence, let alone strong evidence, that he is the preincarnate Jesus. The angel of YHWH is never confused with Michael.
> Fyi, Zechariah's vision has two winged women, which would also be heavenly angels, so there is evidence of female angels with wings.
It is unwarranted to read "angels" into the two women. The angel speaking is clearly identified. There's a woman in the basket, two woman who lift the basket, and it's all very symbolic. I stand on Scripture that the angel is identified in the text, and the two winged women are not identified as angels. Since angels in the Bible are never described as having wings, that's not the go-to explanation here. In the OT, angels are not female and are not portrayed with wings.