The question, Is it possible that the prophet Ezekiel was witnessing angels in Ezekiel 1:4-16? was posted to the Quora site and led to this discussion when a certain Kenny Payton commented
Good question. I believe that the prophet Ezekiel was witnessing angels in the Book of Ezekiel. The scripture in my understanding gives clear descriptions of three types of angelic beings that are part of, or make up , a choir.
The first type that I took note of were Cherubim. The cherub are described as having four wings, like the living creatures described in the above noted verses.
The next angel that I recognized from the given description, “like coals of fire”. These are Seraphim. Seraph, or “the burning ones,” are always described as being made of fire. The words “seraph” and “serpent” are interchangable. There are two types of Seraphim that I am aware of; water seraph and copper seraph. The Seraphim are given the charge of guarding the throne room of the LORD. It’s been suggested that the tongues of fire above the heads of believers who were speaking in languages unknown by them, but recognized instantly by foreigners in Jerusalem to recognize Pentecost were actually Seraphim. Angels are messengers of God.
The third group of angelic beings are not described with as much detail as the other two, but are there rounding out the top angelic choir which is made up of three groups. These are, once again, Cherubim, Seraphim, and last but not least, Thrones. Thrones represent the unmovabke, steadfast nature of the Lord Almighty, of whom there is not so much as a shadow of turning in Him. Throne are described just a few verses later in scripture than the scripture in the above question. They’re mostly overlooked and I felt led to point out their presence in the opening vision found in the Book of Ezekiel.
Thank you and may God bless you greatly.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Biblically, Ezekiel was witnessing Cherubim, not Angels and no, there’s no such thing as “three types of angelic beings” that’s just based on a common misconception that violates the law of identify via a category error. Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim have different job titles, different job functions and look different from one another thus, they’re different categories of being.
Seraph is not interchangeable with serpent but with fiery. There’s no indication of “water seraph and copper seraph.” Unsure who “suggested that the tongues of fire…were actually Seraphim” but there’s no reason to even think that.
See my books on Angelology and the one on paranormology which covers Cherubim and Seraphim.
Mark Hamric chimed in with
According to the BDB and Strong’s lexicons the seraphim are serpents. But I agree that though they are spiritual beings it doesn’t mean they are Angels. That is like calling a reptile a mammal.
H8314
Original: שׂרף
Transliteration: śârâph
Phonetic: saw-rawf’
BDB Definition:
serpent, fiery serpentpoisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)
seraph, seraphimmajestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God
Origin: from H8313
TWOT entry: 2292a,2292b
Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine
Strong’s Definition: From H8313; burning, that is, (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color): – fiery (serpent), seraph.
Kenny Payton
Hey, it’s as much knowledge that I have. If I knew more I’d type more. But what I’ve written, I accept as truth because Ive done my researche I didn’t read the whole message, when you started pushing your book I realized you had an angle. But concerning seraph, I got word from God to go and look at the difference between the two words. That’s what I came up with in my study. I appreciate your input greatly, but I disagree with what you presented. And like it or not, agree or not , I’m right. And likewise with the burnt offering, the original name given to the burnt offering.
Ken Ammi
Friend, I’m empathetic as to why you would say that but I literally wrote the book(s) on sources/resources: see “The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon” and “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010,” etc.
Those sources may say that the root word seraph refers to serpents but not that “the seraphim” of Isa 6, “are serpents” especially when they have hands, feet, wings, etc. so we can’t fall for the word-concept fallacy. What I mean is that even if seraph does or can refer to serpents, the context still determines meaning and the one and only physical description we have a Isa 6’s Seraphim does not even hint at any serpentine features/characteristics at all—as you quoted it, “wings, human hands or voices.”
Moreover, I wouldn’t say that seraph even means serpent. For example, Moses made a serpent and put it on a pole because “seraph nachash” were biting and killing people, poisonous serpents.
The serpent part is “nachash,” the poisonous part is “seraph.”
Thus, selectively, brining what you quoted into it, they were “fiery…poisonous…fiery from burning effect of poison…burning, that is, (figuratively) poisonous…fiery” serpents.
One thing we’re told about Seraphim is that one of them interacts with an altar of burning, fiery, coals, etc.
I features a section about them in my book “What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities?: A Styled Paranormology” wherein I call them “keepers of the eternal flame” and I think that they are called Seraphim not due to serpentine features, for which we have no evidence, but due to them having something to do with heavenly fire (or, whatever we’d call it), for which we do have evidence.
Kenny Payton
Hey, it’s as much knowledge that I have. If I knew more I’d type more. But what I’ve written, I accept as truth because Ive done my researche I didn’t read the whole message, when you started pushing your book I realized you had an angle. But concerning seraph, I got word from God to go and look at the difference between the two words. That’s what I came up with in my study. I appreciate your input greatly, but I disagree with what you presented. And like it or not, agree or not , I’m right. And likewise with the burnt offering, the original name given to the burnt offering.
Ken Ammi
So then, you admit pushing your angle and especially by ignoring conter-points—interesting.
You say “If I knew more I’d type more” and I’ve typed more, I typed it into a book so if you’re going to reject my views because I make you aware of that then that’s anti-intellectual.
I can also assure you that if you decide to ignore the Biblical evidence and appeal to some sort of gnostic private personal revelation to argue your points, “I got word from God” and so conclude, “like it or not, agree or not , I’m right” then you’re sure to go wrong: please do as the Bereans did and judge what you take you be enlightened insight revealed only to you by God’s written word.
And that ended it as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.