# I have not found a verse that says angels have wings



## DonP (Jun 22, 2009)

There is one angel fly by in a vision in Rev but no wings mentioned. 

Also the 4 living creatures, cherubs and seraphs are not referred to as angels though one does give a message to a prophet. 

So are they angels or not. 

And why do we assume the angels who usually appear as men, have wings? 

Just wondering what your thoughts on this are.


----------



## brianeschen (Jun 22, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> There is one angel fly by in a vision in Rev but no wings mentioned.
> 
> Also the 4 living creatures, cherubs and seraphs are not referred to as angels though one does give a message to a prophet.
> 
> ...


Didn't you have one of those picture Bibles when you were young?


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 22, 2009)

Ex 25:20 might provoke this thought


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 22, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Also the 4 living creatures, cherubs and seraphs are not referred to as angels though one does give a message to a prophet.



Are you saying that seraphim and cherubim are not angels? It not, what are they?


----------



## historyb (Jun 22, 2009)

The few times that angels interacted with me there were no wings


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 22, 2009)

Isaiah 6:



> 1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 _Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. _3 And they were calling to one another:
> "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
> the whole earth is full of his glory."
> 
> 4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.





> Also the 4 living creatures, cherubs and seraphs are not referred to as angels though one does give a message to a prophet.
> 
> So are they angels or not.



A good question. I never really thought about it.


----------



## kalawine (Jun 22, 2009)

Whether or not they have wings is irrelevant. The real dilemma is how many of them can fit on the head of a pin.


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 22, 2009)

> Whether or not they have wings is irrelevant. The real dilemma is how many of them can fit on the head of a pin.



I tried one time to think about this question. 

Then I suddenly found myself lost in the question, and inadvertently driving faster than my guardian angel could fly. My mama always told me not to do that. So I stopped.


----------



## kalawine (Jun 22, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > Whether or not they have wings is irrelevant. The real dilemma is how many of them can fit on the head of a pin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The answer is "one." Didn't you look at the picture?


----------



## Gloria (Jun 22, 2009)

From Stephen the Levite's _DNA_:



> One more thing I gotta get off my chest/ before I get off of the topic of this spiritual mess// yo, the word the Bible translates as 'angel'/ means "a messenger", not "a winged baby with a halo"/ the word 'angel' is used in reference to/ apostles, Jesus himself and other disciples too// and when the angel isn't from earth, they usually think that he’s just a man, when his message is served/ they’re never female, always fully grown, never children/ never seen with the wings but usually in some white linen// the halos are prob'ly the dumbest part/ the only logical explanation for their origin is Catholic art/ totally mythical never known to be scriptural/ however it's still accepted in the church of the biblical// just another fourteen I'm almost done/ let me tell you 'bout the cherubim and where the wings come from// the cherubim got wings, it's not strange though/ they never deliver messages so they're not angels/ the seraphim got six/ and in Isaiah one speaks to him the only time they’re seen in the scripts/ so to me it’s totally obvious/ in heaven the cherubim are the priests and the angels are the prophets/ the seraphim may be that rare breed that can be both/ like Jesus Jeremiah and Ezekiel// but demons and angels ain’t the point of the song/ if it was, it’d be silly for it to be this long// I thought somebody had to say something/ if not the populous would continue to walk in silly assumptions/ so I wrote this in the hopes of provokin’/ kids to study the scripts before the word is spoken//


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 22, 2009)

Ah, I didn't realize this was a humor and entertainment thread. 

Foolish me, I thought it as a serious question for serious discussion.


----------



## Gloria (Jun 22, 2009)

From Stephen the Levite's _DnA (Demons and Angels) _:



> One more thing I gotta get off my chest/ before I get off of the topic of this spiritual mess// yo, the word the Bible translates as 'angel'/ means "a messenger", not "a winged baby with a halo"/ the word 'angel' is used in reference to/ apostles, Jesus himself and other disciples too// and when the angel isn't from earth, they usually think that he’s just a man, when his message is served/ they’re never female, always fully grown, never children/ never seen with the wings but usually in some white linen// the halos are prob'ly the dumbest part/ the only logical explanation for their origin is Catholic art/ totally mythical never known to be scriptural/ however it's still accepted in the church of the biblical// just another fourteen I'm almost done/ let me tell you 'bout the cherubim and where the wings come from// the cherubim got wings, it's not strange though/ they never deliver messages so they're not angels/ the seraphim got six/ and in Isaiah one speaks to him the only time they’re seen in the scripts/ so to me it’s totally obvious/ in heaven the cherubim are the priests and the angels are the prophets/ the seraphim may be that rare breed that can be both/ like Jesus Jeremiah and Ezekiel// but demons and angels ain’t the point of the song/ if it was, it’d be silly for it to be this long// I thought somebody had to say something/ if not the populous would continue to walk in silly assumptions/ so I wrote this in the hopes of provokin’/ kids to study the scripts before the word is spoken//


----------



## kalawine (Jun 22, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Ah, I didn't realize this was a humor and entertainment thread.
> 
> Foolish me, I thought it as a serious question for serious discussion.



Many pardons pastor.


----------



## historyb (Jun 22, 2009)

historyb said:


> The few times that angels interacted with me there were no wings





Whitefield said:


> Ah, I didn't realize this was a humor and entertainment thread.
> 
> Foolish me, I thought it as a serious question for serious discussion.



I was dead serious meself


----------



## kalawine (Jun 22, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Ah, I didn't realize this was a humor and entertainment thread.
> 
> Foolish me, I thought it as a serious question for serious discussion.



Seriously, I don't believe the Bible tells us an awful lot about angels. But it seems to me that some are mentioned as having wings (if these are to be taken literally as they are descriptions from visions except for the Ark of course) and others without. So my unprofessional answer would be... more than likely there are angels with wings and angels without wings. 

I do believe however that the Lord is pleased (for now) to leave angels as somewhat of a mystery to us. He throws out tid bits but I don't see a whole lot in the Bible to give us a very plain description of them overall.


----------



## DonP (Jun 23, 2009)

kalawine said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I didn't realize this was a humor and entertainment thread.
> ...




Yes it was meant as serious. So many people hold to an unscriptural position or one that we cannot support from scripture as if it was true and taught in scripture. 

If we are to be Biblically sound we need to be clear on things that may even seem to be less essential and not allow false notions to enter in. 

The question is: since scripture never refers to a Cherubim or Seraphim or the 4 living creatures as an angel, are they angels? 
Can we deduce this simply because one gave a message in a vision?

And secondly : since when the scriptures do tell us an angel popped in, they never mention wings, is it an error to speak of angels and their wings? 

We may even entertain one and be unaware of it. And how do the messengers of God like Paul etc who are referred to as angels relate to this?

Or is this really too insignificant a matter to require clarity on as some have suggested with their sarcasm about this doctrine and the relative scriptures? 

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
NKJV

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 
NKJV


----------



## OPC'n (Jun 23, 2009)

Isaiah 6:In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim. Each had *six wings*: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3And one called to another and said:

How's that for wings? 

-----Added 6/23/2009 at 01:18:59 EST-----

oops someone already cite Is.6. well a seraphim is the highest order of angles from what I was always taught.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jun 23, 2009)

kalawine said:


> Whether or not they have wings is irrelevant. The real dilemma is how many of them can fit on the head of a pin.



 

Oh how I wish I'd thought of that first!


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 23, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not they have wings is irrelevant. The real dilemma is how many of them can fit on the head of a pin.
> ...



Wasn't that established in a monastery in England around A.D.1256?


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 23, 2009)

I believe that it could be incorrect to refer to seraphim and cherubim as angels. We never see them delivering messages or acting as messengers in Scripture. We see seraphim, firey ones, around the throne. We see cherubim around the throne or used as symbols to protect the holy presence of God.

Frankly we don't have a lot of information about angels. And, it is very easy for us to read folklore into the text. What ever the case angels can appear to look just like men and go unnoticed. And at times their appearance can scare the bejeebers out of someone.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 23, 2009)

Okay then, what's a "bejeeber"? Does it have wings?


----------



## DonP (Jun 23, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> Isaiah 6:In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim. Each had *six wings*: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3And one called to another and said:
> 
> How's that for wings?
> 
> ...



This is my point. Where does the Bible say a seraph is an angel? 

We are not told it is an angel as far as I can tell so it is not Biblical but a made up false teaching and perhaps we should not speak what is not Biblical in reference to them. 

These may be completely different orders of creatures not to be confused.


----------



## kalawine (Jun 23, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not they have wings is irrelevant. The real dilemma is how many of them can fit on the head of a pin.
> ...



Thanks Brian. I'm glad someone around here has a sense of humor. 

-----Added 6/23/2009 at 10:21:30 EST-----



PeaceMaker said:


> Or is this really too insignificant a matter to require clarity on as some have suggested with their sarcasm about this doctrine and the relative scriptures?



No offence intended... just having a little fun.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 24, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> > Isaiah 6:In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim. Each had *six wings*: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3And one called to another and said:
> ...



I think you might be thinking too hard about this. Historically, "angels" has been used in a general sense to classify those rational spiritual beings who live in the heavenly realms. This classification was followed because whenever Scripture speaks in general terms about the heavenly beings, it says "angels", yet when we get specific scenes in heaven, there are more detailed descriptions of seraphim, cherubim, etc. Some are good, some are bad (Mt. 25:41). There is more than one type of "angel" but as to what actually distinguishes them, either by breed, or nature, or class, or function, no one really knows with certainty. And all too often, the information we get about angels is included in the apocylyptic texts like Revelation and Daniel, so we don't know how much of their descriptions can be taken literally or symbolically. We simply don't know what else to call them because we don't have enough information from Scripture to assert more than that. But Scripture does seem to set apart the rational worshipping creatures of the universe generally as men and "the angels", and that seems to be the way Jesus talked about them in the Gospels, when he does mention them at all (i.e. Mt 24:36, 25:31, Mk 8:38, 12:25, 13:32, see also 1 Cor 4:9, 13:1, Heb 12:22). 

Berkhof has a few sections in his Systematic Theology which may prove helpful for you on the Creation of the Spiritual World. There he discusses the historical views on angels and then reviews what we can know from Scripture. He avoids the speculative stuff.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 24, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> There is one angel fly by in a vision in Rev but no wings mentioned.
> 
> Also the 4 living creatures, cherubs and seraphs are not referred to as angels though one does give a message to a prophet.
> 
> ...



My thoughts are that "angel" is a generic term for a non-corporeal(but temporal) being--i.e., a spirit. Since it is non-corporeal, it cannot properly be said to have any physical features. When they appear before men, they take on various forms, some of which have wings(the seraphs in Isaiah) and some of which apparently do not(the "men" at the tomb, etc.) I don't think there is any law which dictates that angels must have wings, especially in light of verses like "many have entertained angels unawares".


----------



## DonP (Jun 24, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think you might be thinking too hard about this. Historically, "angels" has been used in a general sense to classify those rational spiritual beings who live in the heavenly realms. This classification was followed because whenever Scripture speaks in general terms about the heavenly beings, it says "angels", yet when we get specific scenes in heaven, there are more detailed descriptions of seraphim, cherubim, etc. Some are good, some are bad (Mt. 25:41). There is more than one type of "angel" but as to what actually distinguishes them, either by breed, or nature, or class, or function, no one really knows with certainty. And all too often, the information we get about angels is included in the apocylyptic texts like Revelation and Daniel, so we don't know how much of their descriptions can be taken literally or symbolically. We simply don't know what else to call them because we don't have enough information from Scripture to assert more than that. But Scripture does seem to set apart the rational worshipping creatures of the universe generally as men and "the angels", and that seems to be the way Jesus talked about them in the Gospels, when he does mention them at all (i.e. Mt 24:36, 25:31, Mk 8:38, 12:25, 13:32, see also 1 Cor 4:9, 13:1, Heb 12:22).
> 
> Berkhof has a few sections in his Systematic Theology which may prove helpful for you on the Creation of the Spiritual World. There he discusses the historical views on angels and then reviews what we can know from Scripture. He avoids the speculative stuff.



To me this represents a very loose handling of the world and is speculation. 

This speculates that all are angels. When if we go no farther than what scripture tells us, and it doesn't say they are. They could be different orders of spiritual creatures not all of them angels. 

Angels seem to come to men and do work here on earth whereas the other creatures do not seem to do this. 

As to what else would we call them, well why not call them exactly what scripture does? Seraphim, cherubim, 4 living creatures, and angels. 

These are each a distinct type of being. 

Why not just call all 4 legged creatures dogs? 
These beings are as diverse as our 4 legged animals. 

We have no warrant to go beyond scripture and speculate that a cherub is an angel. 
This does not make it right just because, "Historically, "angels" has been used in a general sense to classify those rational spiritual beings who live in the heavenly realms." 

And how do you know this is true? I do not see a generic general classification ever used. I see angels spoken of and I see cherubs and seraphs and 4 living beings. IT seems speculative and going beyond scripture to just assume it is including all of them in some places. Is there any hermeneutic principle you can show me that would allow for this generalization assumption rather than just using the Biblical terms or as you said, "spiritual beings who live in the heavenly realms"?

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. NKJV

Thanks. 


This classification was followed because whenever Scripture speaks in general terms about the heavenly beings, it says "angels"


----------



## Skyler (Jun 24, 2009)

Peacemaker,

If God doesn't specifically assign a "particular" meaning to a word which means something other than what He intends(like ekklesia, for instance), I think the logical assumption would be that it was intended as understood by the general use of the day, right?

So, was the Greek word translated "angel" commonly understood to mean a specific form of heavenly being, or a general reference to any kind of heavenly being?


----------



## DonP (Jun 24, 2009)

Skyler said:


> Peacemaker,
> 
> If God doesn't specifically assign a "particular" meaning to a word which means something other than what He intends(like ekklesia, for instance), I think the logical assumption would be that it was intended as understood by the general use of the day, right?
> 
> So, was the Greek word translated "angel" commonly understood to mean a specific form of heavenly being, or a general reference to any kind of heavenly being?



Or Baptism would be another example. 

So does anyone have any info on what the Jews thought of the word angels? *Did it include cherubs and seraphs or only the beings who appeared to men? *

Or conversely did they ever refer to cherubim and seraphim specifically as angels?

Or even the early NT church?


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 24, 2009)

Honestly, I find this kind of a strange thread. We know that angels have frequently appeared to humanity under the semblance of men; but other than this, scripture is not designed to be a guide to understanding the anatomy of angels (or other spiritual beings). It is somewhat akin to asking whether pictures of Moses raising his staff accurately depict his right-handedness or left-handedness accurately. The fact that something is circumstantially referred to in scripture does not indicate we are intended to know any more than what is thereby revealed. Whether Cherubim are the same "species" as Gabriel-style spiritual beings is something probably beyond our knowledge, and curiosity into unrevealed truths is never a healthy thing.


----------



## Josiah (Jun 24, 2009)

There was a post by a fellow at the Confessional Outhouse that might be particularly helpful to folks dealing with these kinds of questions. 

I believe that there are two dangers in this: 1) Allowing folktales to inform our understanding of things where the bible is silent And 2) On the flipside, trying to know things that only God can know and not acknowledging that there is a certain mystery to the things that we just will not know. This is my  I am going back to work now!


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 24, 2009)

Not many wings, but plenty of flaming swords and appearances that scared the behookus out of anyone who saw them. I'd love to see a Christmas card with the kind of angels that scared shepherds who were accustomed to protecting their sheep from wild beasts!


----------



## DonP (Jun 24, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Honestly, I find this kind of a strange thread. We know that angels have frequently appeared to humanity under the semblance of men; but other than this, scripture is not designed to be a guide to understanding the anatomy of angels (or other spiritual beings). It is somewhat akin to asking whether pictures of Moses raising his staff accurately depict his right-handedness or left-handedness accurately. The fact that something is circumstantially referred to in scripture does not indicate we are intended to know any more than what is thereby revealed. Whether Cherubim are the same "species" as Gabriel-style spiritual beings is something probably beyond our knowledge, and curiosity into unrevealed truths is never a healthy thing.



Hmmm... I am not seeking to peer into the unknowable or the anatomy of angels. 
I am asking us to stick to the knowable truth of scripture and only that. 
Your illustration of a picture is totally off since I am asking to look at what scripture does tell us and not at something of human creation. 

I am asking if it is important for us to use care and not go beyond what the word says and give into the worldly idea that angels have wings unless we have Biblical warrant for it that I missed, and not to call Cherubs angels if they are not called so by Scripture. 

To consider these things if you are unaware of them, maybe check out a concordance for a while to proof this and decide if it is acceptable to continue as most christians do today saying angles have wings etc. 

2 Tim 3:16 *All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable* for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 
NKJV


----------



## jandrusk (Jun 24, 2009)

I have found this thread very entertaining although of very little spirutual value for the reasons below:

1. The physical attributes of angels(remember how Paul said to regards no one according to the flesh) is irrelevant to them being servants to the Most High.

2. There cannot be any improvement to our overall holiness, sanctification, or spiritual bread if we could determine if they had wings or not. 

3. Need to focus more on redeeming the time.

My .02.


----------

