A journey out and then back in again

[AndrewK788]

the question is what do angels represent in prophetic language..... when are they literal and when are they symbolic? In all the prophecy I have ever seen interpreted, angels always mean literal angels... except for adventists in Rev 14 the 1st part.... every where else angels are viewed as literal..... everywhere.... except Rev 14..... that makes no sense....

Hmm, I'll need to look into that now. I never really noticed.

 

[mva1985]

Rev 14:15-20 And another angel came out of the temple, crying in a great voice to Him sitting on the cloud, Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth was dried. (16) And He sitting on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped. (17) And another angel came out of the temple in Heaven, also having a sharp sickle. (18) And another angel came out from the altar, who had authority over fire. And he spoke with a great cry to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in your sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe. (19) And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the anger of God. (20) And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even to the bridles of the horses, for the space of a thousand, six hundred stadia.


In the passage above there are 3 more angels... why are they ignored? In essence some have suggested that humans do the work of the angels found in the first part of Rev 14. What method of interpretation allows one set of angels to be symbolic of humans and the 2nd set of angels in the same chapter to be interpreted as literal? Makes no sense...

So you literally think that there is an angel in heaven that is going to literally thrust a sharp sickle to gather grapes from the earth? Sounds symbolic to me.

 

[StormyOne]

So you literally think that there is an angel in heaven that is going to literally thrust a sharp sickle to gather grapes from the earth? Sounds symbolic to me.

tell me then,(I am not trying to be a pain, but notice you have yet to answer the question), what do angels represent in prophetic language? How should the 6 angels in Rev 14 be interpreted? If you suggest that the first 3 angels are humans, on what basis did you arrive at that conclusion? If the 2nd set of 3 angels are symbolic, what are they symbolic of? Why are two different methods of interpretation used in this chapter?

 

[mva1985]

tell me then,(I am not trying to be a pain, but notice you have yet to answer the question), what to angels represent in prophetic language? How should the 6 angels in Rev 14 be interpreted? If you suggest that the first 3 angels are humans, on what basis did you arrive at that conclusion? If the 2nd set of 3 angels are symbolic, what are they symbolic of? Why are two different methods of interpretation used in this chapter?

The first three show the gospel being spread to the earth, and a warning being given.

The second three show the reaping of the earth (i.e. Second Coming).

I answered this before but angels are messengers.

 

[StormyOne]

The first three show the gospel being spread to the earth, and a warning being given.

The second three show the reaping of the earth (i.e. Second Coming).

I answered this before but angels are messengers.

that is a partial answer.... adventist interpretation suggests that the 1st 3 angels are humans..... yes? So why wouldn't the 2nd set of 3 angels also be human? Are you saying that in prophetic language angels represent "messengers?" That they do not represent literal angels? So when the angels pour out the 7 plagues, those aren't literal angels they are simply messengers? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[Xenon]

that is a partial answer.... adventist interpretation suggests that the 1st 3 angels are humans..... yes? So why wouldn't the 2nd set of 3 angels also be human? Are you saying that in prophetic language angels represent "messengers?" That they do not represent literal angels? So when the angels pour out the 7 plagues, those aren't literal angels they are simply messengers? Is that what you are suggesting?

Angles also can represent action. In Rev 7:1 4, angels hold back the 4 winds of the earth so that the servants of God can be sealed. There's no way that it could be interpreted literally and still make sense. What good would 4 angels holding back moving air do for prophecy? But we interpret it as God allowing a time of peace so that the servants of God can be sealed. Likewise, the angels represent action for the 7 plagues, as they are pouring out the wrath of God. When the plagues come, is this how God will deliver them? Who knows. But we do know that God promises to deliver these plagues, "for in them the wrath of God is complete." Rev 15:1.

The first 3 angels in Rev 14 are "saying with a loud voice" their messages, and nothing more. The first one is different from the first two because it has "the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth", and then gives its message. The second angel follows the first and gives its message, and the third follows them to give its message as well. But there's no given subject for any of these messages. It's not a stretch to think that these messages were intended for the reader.

The second 3 angels are different though as they do not follow the first 3. Rev 14:15 says that "another angel came out of the temple" and then commands "One like the Son of Man" to reap. The other 2 angels come out of the temple (altar for the third one, but the temple has an altar) and the second commands the third to reap.

The big difference that I see between the 2 sets is that one set is only speaking, and the other set is (mostly) acting. Given that angels can both be messengers and doers of god's will, it seems pretty clearly defined. Not to say that the Second Coming is something that shouldn't be preached, of course. But this passage highlights a specific message that pertains to our current time and the times to come.

 

[StormyOne]

Angles also can represent action. In Rev 7:1 4, angels hold back the 4 winds of the earth so that the servants of God can be sealed. There's no way that it could be interpreted literally and still make sense. What good would 4 angels holding back moving air do for prophecy? But we interpret it as God allowing a time of peace so that the servants of God can be sealed. Likewise, the angels represent action for the 7 plagues, as they are pouring out the wrath of God. When the plagues come, is this how God will deliver them? Who knows. But we do know that God promises to deliver these plagues, "for in them the wrath of God is complete." Rev 15:1.

The first 3 angels in Rev 14 are "saying with a loud voice" their messages, and nothing more. The first one is different from the first two because it has "the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth", and then gives its message. The second angel follows the first and gives its message, and the third follows them to give its message as well. But there's no given subject for any of these messages. It's not a stretch to think that these messages were intended for the reader.

The second 3 angels are different though as they do not follow the first 3. Rev 14:15 says that "another angel came out of the temple" and then commands "One like the Son of Man" to reap. The other 2 angels come out of the temple (altar for the third one, but the temple has an altar) and the second commands the third to reap.

The big difference that I see between the 2 sets is that one set is only speaking, and the other set is (mostly) acting. Given that angels can both be messengers and doers of god's will, it seems pretty clearly defined. Not to say that the Second Coming is something that shouldn't be preached, of course. But this passage highlights a specific message that pertains to our current time and the times to come.

so basically then you are suggesting that angels can be symbolic of anything in prophetic language and what they are symbolic of will depend on how the passage in question is going to be interpreted....

The 7 angels that pour out the 7 last plagues.... literal or symbolic?

 

[Xenon]

so basically then you are suggesting that angels can be symbolic of anything in prophetic language and what they are symbolic of will depend on how the passage in question is going to be interpreted....

No, I'm saying that there is biblical precedent that angels can be both messengers (giving a message) and doers (representing an action) of God's will. I'm also saying that Rev 14 is pretty clear on how each set of angels are to be interpreted.

The 7 angels that pour out the 7 last plagues.... literal or symbolic?

When the plagues come, is this how God will deliver them? Who knows. But we do know that God promises to deliver these plagues, "for in them the wrath of God is complete." Rev 15:1.

 

[StormyOne]

No, I'm saying that there is biblical precedent that angels can be both messengers (giving a message) and doers (representing an action) of God's will. I'm also saying that Rev 14 is pretty clear on how each set of angels are to be interpreted.

so then in Rev 14 if the 1st set of 3 angels are to be interpreted as "someone" giving a message, and historically that has meant that people are to preach that message, and if as you say the 2nd set of 3 angels represent "action", then are there really angels?

 

[Xenon]

so then in Rev 14 if the 1st set of 3 angels are to be interpreted as "someone" giving a message, and historically that has meant that people are to preach that message, and if as you say the 2nd set of 3 angels represent "action", then are there really angels?

Yes, because earlier, non-prophetic parts of the bible tells us that there are angels, and the things that they did.

Besides, why would we not tell people that they're about to be judged, to turn away from prophetic Babylon, and to avoid the mark of the beast?

 

[StormyOne]

Yes, because earlier, non-prophetic parts of the bible tells us that there are angels, and the things that they did.

Besides, why would we not tell people that they're about to be judged, to turn away from prophetic Babylon, and to avoid the mark of the beast?

perhaps... except you have the incident at the birth of Christ where angels (literal angels) appeared to shepherds watching their sheep.... so if literal angels pronounced the birth of Christ, why can't literal angels pronounce the everlasting gospel and impending judgment? After all we don't know what Babylon is neither do we know what the Mark of the Beast is.... The angels in the presence of God would.....

 

[Xenon]

perhaps... except you have the incident at the birth of Christ where angels (literal angels) appeared to shepherds watching their sheep.... so if literal angels pronounced the birth of Christ, why can't literal angels pronounce the everlasting gospel and impending judgment?

They already did.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God game Him to show His servants-things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John." Rev 1:1

"Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." Rev 1:3

John had it delivered by an angel, and then wrote Revelation so we may hear it. An angel delivered the message, and a human proclaimed it. Why not continue to do so?

After all we don't know what Babylon is

Read up on Rev 17 for Babylon, among other places which I can't remember at this moment. Perhaps someone else could help us here.

...neither do we know what the Mark of the Beast is....

"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Rev 13:16-17

Seems pretty clear to me. I don't think we've seen it yet though, but as long as we follow the guidelines, it won't be hard to identify when we do.

The angels in the presence of God would.....

I have no doubt about that

 

[mva1985]

They already did.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God game Him to show His servants-things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John." Rev 1:1

"Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." Rev 1:3

John had it delivered by an angel, and then wrote Revelation so we may hear it. An angel delivered the message, and a human proclaimed it. Why not continue to do so?



Read up on Rev 17 for Babylon, among other places which I can't remember at this moment. Perhaps someone else could help us here.



"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Rev 13:16-17

Seems pretty clear to me. I don't think we've seen it yet though, but as long as we follow the guidelines, it won't be hard to identify when we do.



I have no doubt about that

Xenon,

Excellent points.

 

[Eila]

Yes, because earlier, non-prophetic parts of the bible tells us that there are angels, and the things that they did.

Besides, why would we not tell people that they're about to be judged, to turn away from prophetic Babylon, and to avoid the mark of the beast?

Because telling Christians that they are to come out of Babylon and telling them of their impending judgment do not go together.

In John 3 Jesus said believers are not judged "17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

And what we are instructed to preach is not the 3 angel's messages, but the gospel. The instructions to preach the angel's messages are assumed.

 

[Xenon]

Because telling Christians that they are to come out of Babylon and telling them of their impending judgment do not go together.

In John 3 Jesus said believers are not judged "17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Forgive me, I paraphrased the verse poorly.

"...saying with a loud voice, 'Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.'" Rev 14:7

It only says that judgment is at hand, so it syncs up nicely with John 3.

And what we are instructed to preach is not the 3 angel's messages, but the gospel. The instructions to preach the angel's messages are assumed.

Definitely. Stormy's contention was why it was focused on by 3ABN and the SDA church. I'm offering the reason that the 3 angel's message is pertinent to our time, much like the church of Laodecia in Rev 3:14-22. It's a way of saying "Head's up!" to the world. Sorry if I was unclear about that, as it is definitely our mission to spread all of the gospel.

 

[Eila]

Forgive me, I paraphrased the verse poorly.

"...saying with a loud voice, 'Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.'" Rev 14:7

It only says that judgment is at hand, so it syncs up nicely with John 3.

Not if the judgment preached is the investigative judgment or do you believe only those who are lost will go through the investigative judgment?

Personally, I've never heard it preached in Adventism that Christians will not come into judgment.

Definitely. Stormy's contention was why it was focused on by 3ABN and the SDA church. I'm offering the reason that the 3 angel's message is pertinent to our time, much like the church of Laodecia in Rev 3:14-22. It's a way of saying "Head's up!" to the world.

Just wondering why the SDA church or 3ABN would take the direction of straying from the focus to preach the good news and go around giving head's up to those in churches they consider Babylon?

 

[Xenon]

Not if the judgment preached is the investigative judgment or do you believe only those who are lost will go through the investigative judgment?

Personally, I've never heard it preached in Adventism that Christians will not come into judgment.

Honestly, I don't know enough about the IJ to answer what I believe about it. I'm still studying both the bible and Ellen White's writings. However, the bible makes clear that there will definitely be an end to any kind of judgment by the time the plagues come, so there will be an "hour of judgment" where what's decided is final. Otherwise, how else would God spare those who he sealed?

Just wondering why the SDA church or 3ABN would take the direction of straying from the focus to preach the good news and go around giving head's up to those in churches they consider Babylon?

I speak for neither of them, so there's no way I could answer. Every SDA church and 3ABN program that I've seen talks about more than the 3 angel's message. Other people would have a better perspective than I do though.

 

[Sophia7]

Honestly, I don't know enough about the IJ to answer what I believe about it. I'm still studying both the bible and Ellen White's writings.

You should study the Bible without Ellen White's writings if you're not sure what to believe about some things.

 

[freeindeed2]

You should study the Bible without Ellen White's writings if you're not sure what to believe about some things.

Whatever happened to sola scriptura? Using a claimed modern-day prophet to interpret Scripture is not sola scriptura.

 

[StormyOne]

thanks Xenon for your feedback, the basic questions remain, and your answers have shown that there is no consistent manner to explain what angels mean in prophetic language which gives some permission to some interesting views... as for Babylon and the Mark of the Beast, I stand by my statement that we have no clue as to what Babylon or mark of the beast is.....