INC's ANGEL DOCTRINE - PART 1

Disclaimer: I'm willing to retract what I said here should it be proven to be wrong. I have INC friends and I respect them.

The word "angel" means one who is sent. Yet, many find it hard to accept that a human being can be an angel. They believe that "angel" refers only to spiritual beings such as the angel Gabriel. Such understanding of the word "angel", however, is not an accurate definition. Jesus Christ, by citing a prophecy that was fulfilled in John the Baptist, proved that a human being can be called" angel"

Gods Message, May 2000, pp.11, 28

Alinsunod sa pagtuturo ng Santong Sulat. Ang kahulugán ng salitáng anghel ay “sinugo” o utusan (Luc. 1:19)... Samakatuwid, ang salitang anghel ay hindi tumütukoy sa isáng tanging kalágayan sa pagkákalikha kundi nagsasaád ng pangalan ng tungkuling tinátagláy.

p.28 Pasugo Hulyo 1956

Angg apat na anghel na pumipigil sa hangin ay mga Pinuno ng bansa, na ito'y mga sugo rin o anghel ayon sa 1 Ped 2: 13-14

Pg. 33 Pasugo Hulyo 1964

Apostle Peter stated that even kings and governors or representatives of nations are sent by God (cf. I Pt. 2:13-14). They are also called angels in the category of messengers of nations according to Prophet Isaiah: "What will one then answer the messengers of the nation?" (Is. 14:32, NKJV)

God's Message, Nov. 1997, pp.12-13

Above were the claims of INCM. And again let us if such claims will stand to reasons. We have nothing against INCM and we will let correct reasoning examine their beliefs.

Let us now study their definition of the word "Angel". From the quotes above, it is clear that, according to INC, an "Angel" is sent , and is qualified as "not referring to the nature of the created being but to the assumed office. "

The Greek word use for the word "Angel" is "aggelos" (pronounced as ang'-el-os). It can be translated in English as either messenger or angel. In English language, the word messenger or angel is not interchangeable. In other words, while all angels can be messenger not all messenger can be an angel. The fact of this is so obvious in our ordinary daily lives that we cannot call our mail man as an angel without clarification. If we are to insist that all messengers are angels, we'll end up strange and suspect.

The definition of INC of the word Angel will not stand to modern language. The translation of AGGELOS in English is at least two, namely Messenger and Angel. These two words in English language do not have an identical meaning in English language. Of these two translation, the definition given by INC is more applicable to a Messenger rather than an angel. Hence the conclusion that there is a human angel is a misunderstanding of the translation of the Greek word Aggelos.

To illustrate, lets us take for example the Greek word γυνη pronounced as goo-nay'. This word is translated as either wife or woman in English language. As Aggelos, these translation of the same Greek word do not have identical definition in English language. While all wives are woman, not all woman are wives. The same can se said at the Greek words, ὥρα (hōra), translated as hour and time, ἀδελφός (adelphos) that can be understood as blood relatives or a simply a call of affection.

INC, by basing the definition of the word Angel on etymology of the Greek word aggelos committed an etymological fallacy. Wikipedia.com has the following to say about Etymological Fallacy:

"An etymological fallacy is a linguistical misconception based on the idea that the etymology of a word or phrase is its actual meaning.[1] For example, the meaning of the word prevent may be thought to signify "to go before" based on its etymology: from the Latin prae + venire. This falsely deduced meaning is a fallacy due to the fact that it fails to take into account semantic changes over time.

Native and non-native speakers pick up the meaning from reflecting on contextual usage. In day-to-day usage, most speakers of a language will rely on the context of a word or phrase and deduce the meaning from it rather than an etymology which may, in any case, not be at all clear, particularly if it is based in a foreign or archaic language."


Let us now turn our attention to the logic used by INCM:

Angels are Sent.
But Felix Y. Manalo is sent.
Therefore Felix Y. Manalo is an Angel.

The "Big Four" is sent.
But an angel is sent.
Therefore, the Big Four are four angels.

Again, any good student of logic can immediately spot the error of this reasoning. While all angels are sent, not all that is being sent are called angels, that is, while all angels can be messengers, not all messengers can not be angels. In logic, this known as the fallacy of undistributed middle.

But it is precisely thru this kind of reasoning INCM proves their belief that their Felix Y. Manalo, the "Big four" and Martin Luther are called "angels." And sad to say, not few are convinced by such argument.

Why, according to INC, that the Big four are called Angels? "Because they are sent" INC answered and "They are also called angels in the category of messengers of nations according to Prophet Isaiah: "What will one then answer the messengers of the nation?" (Is. 14:32, NKJV)".

As in the case of the Greek word aggelos, the Hebrew word used in this verse is "Malak". Again, the Hebrew word Malak has at least two translation in English, a messenger or an angel. To conclude that they are angels simply because they are sent is illogical. Let me illustrate:

1. The Three Kings of the Bible will be Angels because King Herod sent them. They will be angels of King Herod (Mat 2:8)
2. Some of the devils will be angels because Our Lord Jesus send them to pigs. They will be Angel Devils of Jesus. (Mar 5:12 )

We need not to compound the examples given above. The logical implications are two obvious and too absurd to be accepted.

INC insist that the " Big Four" can be called angels be cause they are sent. St. Paul, Martin Luther can be called Angels because they are sent.

Biblically, all of the apostle are sent by our Lord Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20). Using INC logic, it can be expected that all or even one of them will be called angel. But the fact is none of them was called as such. We know Angel Gabriel -Aggelos Gabriel (Luk 1:16) and Michael the ArcAngel - Michael Archaggelos, but we know not of Angel Peter nor Angel John nor Angel Thomas.

Let us now focus our attention on the verses employed by INC namely I Pt. 2:13-14 and Is. 14:32, NKJV. Do these verses really support their claims? Interestingly, in I Pt. 2:13-14 in Greek original and in Is. 14:32, NKJV, in Septuagint version (LXX) the word Aggelos on which their interpretation of identifying the Big Four as angels is missing. That is, one cannot find in any Greek Version of Old and New Testament the word aggelos in the verses cited.

Notice also, that the claims that Felix Y. Manalo is a human angel or the Big Four, St. Paul and Martin Luther can be called angels are mere assertion of INC with no Biblical, logical or historical basis. It purely thru the use of fallacious logic coupled with a misunderstanding of the Greek word Aggelos (as shown above) that they arrive at this conclusion.

They have yet to find serious scholars that will support their conclusion but sad to say, after almost a hundred years of existence, none has come and it seems to me, no one would come.