Teacher (72:29)
Okay, the word angel itself is a Greek word, okay, Angelos. It literally means messenger. And sometimes in the Bible, as a result of them putting an angel that. See, a lot of times, messengers are just simply even a Human being that's a messenger. But because the translator uses the word angel, they think of it as a heavenly being. And the context will have to tell you whether we're talking about a specific heavenly being or just a messenger from God. And like, remember in Revelation, he writes to the angel of such and such church. He's just the messenger of that church. So I'm saying that first of all, always when you read angel, just think of. It's not another one of those words they didn't translate. It should be just messenger of God. And it's Angelos. The context will have to tell you whether we're speaking of a spiritual being or just simply a messenger of God that may even be another human being. The spirit could be a messenger. The messenger of God in another parallel is in the Old Testament when you read about God speaking to Moses through the burning bush and then you read about the angel speaking. Well, again, they're used synonymous. And see what I believe there is that the messenger of God is speaking, but he's representing God. And so it's synonymous to say, and then Moses later on, the other writers will sometimes, sometimes say God, sometimes say the angel, and sometimes say Moses. But it's all the same message. Well, I believe it's from God through the messenger and then to Moses and out. And in the context you mentioned that there's a possibility that the actual messenger itself is the spirit. It's just a synonymous type thing, because from his standpoint, as he writes, he's really writing a Greek word, angelus, that means messenger. But the reason, again, that's just a possible interpretation, because there are spiritual messengers of God. And this is like the ministering spirits that would aid us that are inheriting salvation. Hebrews 1, 13, 14. And we had all the way through in the Old Testament, they had the Holy Spirit revealing in the Old Testament, like David spoke with the Spirit, but at the same time you have the spirit revealing. And Moses had the spirit and he passed it on to the 70, and he passed on to Joshua. But then by the same token, it specifically speaks of individual messengers. And then you have, like Daniel is an inspired prophet, but then he has a vision and angels or messengers of God speak to him. And so there is a possibility that he was just a specific messenger or he could be referring to the Spirit. And personally, I don't know how anybody could be dogmatic on that. You know, and I think like Peter, he definitely saw a vision and it was an angel or a messenger of God that actually talk with him. But I don't think there's anything there to define the inspiration. And this word inspiration, like when we talk about the Spirit, when the angel spoke, you have. The angel is actually using words and they're hearing those actual words. But when the Spirit is speaking this. This word borne along by the Holy Spirit, like he said holy men spoke, is a removed by the Holy Spirit. And no prophecy of Scripture is given except by this. That word borne along or carried by the Holy Spirit is exactly the same word like you'd have in Acts 27:17, where it spoke of the ship in Paul's wreck being borne or carried along by the sea. And so we know when we read from these inspired writers that we're reading their personality, we're reading their syntax, and so much so that we know the difference between Paul's writings and Peter's writings. And all of them have their own distinctive personality. So obvious that's the case. The Holy Spirit is not dictating individual words there. It's like they are being borne along and they're carried their own mind, their vocabulary is being used. And then the process. I just don't believe that. I don't believe they fully understood it. And the best example I know of that is. Let me get this big brat out over here. In Galatians, we know that Paul was inspired and turned over to Galatians, and he's been preaching the Gospel and he's been teaching that you didn't have to be circumcised, that the law of Moses has been nailed to the cross. And all of this. And beginning the second chapter, he says, fourteen years later, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas, and I took Titus. I went up in response to a revelation and set before them the Gospel. But I did notice now, but I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised. Okay, so here's Paul, who's been preaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and confirming the message with me. But obviously from Paul's standpoint, he's speaking out of his mind and out of his understanding and out of his study. And remember, Paul says he got the message directly from Jesus, but yet he's being carried along by the Holy Spirit. But I think what shows here, Paul himself was having difficulty trying to comprehend all this. And so he says he goes up in fear that he had preached. In other words, even though he was teaching that you didn't have to be circumcised and keep the law. And that was his understanding. He obviously has an element of doubt in his mind. And there's the possibility I'm wrong here, because what he's doing, he's teaching something that he's never believed before, and he doesn't know anybody else that teaches it. And so even though the miracles are there and he feels compelled to teach and that's what his understanding is saying, he still has this element of doubt. You see, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit. And yet when Jesus didn't start doing what John thought he ought to do, as soon he began to have doubt. And he said, are you really the one or not? Well, Paul, it seems to me, has some doubt there. And it's just like he. He goes. And then Titus doesn't have to be circumcised. He just feels relieved. And then he went ahead and mentioned that he realized now that Peter was giving the Gospel for the Jew and him the Gentile. So my own feeling on that is that when I look at how even the gospel writers can take the same statement of truth by Jesus and use different words, and you can have something like even the destruction of Jerusalem, where Luke and Matthew will rearrange, Matthew will have a different arrangement of the same materials. And that sometimes when they record a miracle or an instance or something, they will say it in different words in a different way. And when I read Paul's instructions to Timothy to pick elders, and his instructions, instructions to Titus, he says one thinks to one, he doesn't says to the other. He says the same thing in different words. The indication to my mind is not of someone who's dictating every word, but in some way these guys are studying the Scriptures and they've been taught by Jesus. And in some way they're being borne along by the Holy Spirit. And so the what is inspired is the message. And the end result is this inspired scripture. And the miracles are constantly there. And then from our standpoint, we're looking at it. I don't have that miracle other than the record of it, but people that were willing to die for what they believe, but what I can see is the same thing they experienced in that meeting. Here are Peter and Paul coming from two totally different backgrounds. One of them has been with Jesus, the other one hasn't. And they're preaching exactly the same message. And the question is, how can that be? And so then I have to say I don't understand the Mechanics involved because I'm dealing with the Creator. But I know that they're inspired of God because there's no way to explain that. And so when I see Peter and Paul and all those guys preaching the same harmonious, complementary message, and yet no one of them understood it before, it's contrary to what every one of them believed. My mind looks for that in all honesty, with as much amazement as if I saw a blind man given his sight. Only this is better. Because if I saw a blind man given his sight, I couldn't show that to somebody else out there that I'd have to duplicate, duplicated, duplicated. But this I can actually take what we're talking about and with this completed volume we have, and I can show it to any thinking person that will sit down and reason.