Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Problem of the Archangel Michael
As you may know, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father. Instead of God incarnate, they see Jesus as the archangel Michael. One of the first problems that they have to deal with is that the first couple of chapters of Hebrews make it very clear that Jesus is not an angel but is in fact much greater than angels. Jehovah’s Witnesses respond by saying that Jesus is not an angel, he is the archangel, that is he is the head of the angels without actually belonging to the category of angel. This is quite bizarre in its logic. The way that arch prefix was used was most often the first among a group, such as the archierios or high priest, who also was a priest. But here is another problem. The earliest Christians saw Michael as an angel and not a superior being who happened to be in charge of the angels. For example Shepherd of Hermas 69:3 (a Christian text so early it was almost included in the canon) says “And the great and glorious angel is Michael.” This is just one example of many Jewish and Christian texts that saw Michael as an angel. If Jehovah’s Witnesses want Jesus to Michael, they will have to ignore Hebrews and accept Jesus as an angel.
14. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord [Jesus], shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep.
16. For the Lord [Jesus] himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; American Standard
What part of that scripture do you have a problem with?
Sorry for the delay in responding, your post got picked up as spam. In answer to your question, I do not have any problem with this scripture. I believe that Jesus will return and that his return will be accompanied by an archangel’s voice and a trump of God. I just do not see this as identification of Jesus with Michael or any other archangel.
Regarding Shepherd of Hermas we read:
Parable 9
1[78]:1 After I had written down the commandments and parables of the shepherd, the angel of repentance, he came to me and saith to me; “I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God.
So here it is plain that this account tells us: “For that [Holy] Spirit is the Son of God.” So do you believe this as well? If so, this is Sabelism, or Modalism, NOT Trinitarianism.
Note what one scholar comments on “The Shepherd of Hermas:”
In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd century: “In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God’s inner council, and who is regularly described as ‘most venerable’, ‘holy’ and ‘glorious’. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael…Christ’s pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role in creation as well as redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism…There is evidence also…of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel … Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church’s triadic formula left its mark everywhere.”—pp. 94-5.(see also Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture. ”
Also, how does calling Michael an angel (clearly what the Bible teaches, even an ARCHangel (Dan 12:1) somehow negate Jesus from being Michael?
Hebrews 1:6 does NOT state Jesus is NOT an angel! It simply asks:
“To WHICH of the angles did God ever say…”
not
“TO NONE of the angels God ever said….”
The actual word angel means “messenger.” Are you denying Jesus was a “messenger? (John 7:16,17,29; 16:27; 8:28) Jesus himself said he was an angel at Rev 22:16 when he referred to himself as “the bright morning star.” What do “stars” refer to in the Bible? Here are some comparison verses for you to do some research on, to help answer this question:
Rev 1:2o: “In the book of Revelation, what do the stars represent?
Then Compare Rev 12:4 to Rev 9:1.
What is Jesus referred to as in Numbers 24:17?
Finally who cried out in Job 38:7?
How do other scholars (including some TRINITARIAN) feel about Jesus being Michael? Note:
******************************************************
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible Daniel Chapter 12
12:1 And at that a time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ’s coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.
***************************************************
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible Daniel Chapter 10
Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father’s absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. (i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.
****************************************************
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible Revelation Chapter 12 vs 7
“The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, ‘in this case it is impossible to imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God.’ But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where we said, ‘if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is mentioned here instead of Christ’. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like God?, that is, ‘Who dares to claim that they are like God?’] contains in itself an intimation that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).’ The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who are capable of examining for themselves.”
***************************************************
John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible 1 Thessalonians 4:16
“with the voice of the archangel; so Michael is called, in (Jude 1:9) with which compare (Revelation 12:7) and who perhaps is no other than Christ himself, who is the head of all principality and power; and the sense be, that Christ shall descend from heaven with a voice, or shall then utter such a voice, as will show him to be the archangel; or as the Syriac version renders it, “the head”, or “prince of angels”; and which whether, it will be an articulate voice, such as was expressed at the grave of Lazarus; or a violent clap of thunder, which is the voice of God; or the exertion of the power of Christ, is not certain: it is added,”
**************************************************
Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible
“Daniel Chapter 12 After the prediction of the troubles of the Jews under Antiochus, prefiguring the troubles of the Christian church under the anti-christian power, we have here, I. Comforts, and very precious ones, prescribed as cordials for the support of God’s people in those times of trouble; and they are such as may indifferently serve both for those former times of trouble under Antiochus and those latter which were prefigured by them (v. 1-4). II. A conference between Christ and an angel concerning the time of the continuance of these events, designed for Daniel’s satisfaction (v. 5-7). III. Daniel’s enquiry for his own satisfaction (v. 8). And the answer he received to that enquiry (v. 9–12).
Verses 1-4 It is usual with the prophets, when they foretell the grievances of the church, to furnish it at the same time with proper antidotes, a remedy for every malady. And no relief is so sovereign, of such general application, so easily accommodated to every case, and of such powerful efficacy, as those that are fetched from Christ and the future state; thence the comforts here are fetched. I. Jesus Christ shall appear his church’s patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, v. 1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, ch. 10:21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deu. 32:3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. 1:5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it? But this is not all: At that time (that is, soon after) Michael shall stand up for the working out of our eternal salvation; the Son of God shall be incarnate, shall be manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Christ stood for the children of our people when he was made sin and a curse for them, stood in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the cure for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in the intercession he ever lives to make within the veil, stands up for them, and stands their friend. ”
Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries.
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.
Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments.
Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary, we read:
Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5
***********************************************
John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
The Book of Daniel Chapter 12:
“For the children – The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble – A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.”
Wesley on Daniel 10:21:
“Michael – Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it”
**************************************
John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048 states:
“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel”
***************************************************
Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding “Michael” in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:
“I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people.” J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369. http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/vii.htm
*********************************************
WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated:
“There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews…. With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called “the Prince of Israel” (Dan. x. 21)–William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158
************************************************
From Brittanica.com:
“Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century–namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim–i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism.”
*********************************************************
A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical Protestant outfit, says:
“Michael … in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant.” — INTERNATIONAL BIBLE DICTIONARY — ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1977), p. 35
********************************************
Regarding the occurence of “Michael” in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked:
“By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.” (his multi-volume commentary — not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle—-published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).
**********************************************************
LANGE”S COMMENTARY calls the figure here (Rev 12:7-10)
“the warlike form of Christ.”
J.P. Lange’s COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7
**************************************************
AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of Michael:
“It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself…. Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point.” — publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882
*****************************************
Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication):
“Paul says, ‘For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God” and the dead Christ will rise first.’ I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his voice. He says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John v. 26, 28, 29.
********************************************
Brown’s dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says:
“that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.”
Wood’s Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown’s does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist.
**************************************************
Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that” “Christ is in scripture frequently called an Angel.[1]”
****************************************
Butterworth, Cruden, & Taylor in their concordances, assert that:
“Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.”
**********************************************
Doctor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his “Notes on the Bible,” acknowledges:
“that Christ is sometimes called an Angel.” See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim.
****************************************
Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ.
********************************************************
Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages where the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ.
**************************************************
Bunyan makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, “Blessed Michael helped me.” Pilgrim’s Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54.
****************************************
Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
*******************************************
Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page[s] 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God’s presence Christ’s human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human family was created.
**********************************
E.W. Hengstenberg, in his Christologie des Alten Testaments und Kommentar uber die messianischen Weissagungen, Bd. iii. 2 Aufl. 1857 identifies the archangel Michael with the Logos-Christ.
*******************************************
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.
*********************************************
“the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the ‘Antichrist’. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo’s speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an archangel’s, and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael. Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the Post Apostolic Logos-Christology appear in a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common presupposition.” Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133
*************************************
Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains:
Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.
*************************************************
Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.:
“And lo, Michael.” and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says to Moses. “I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare, Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 816, paragraph 9.)
************************************************
Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition): He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever.—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (8), pp. 756-7.
********************************************
“For Justin the Logos-Christ was, therefore, the archistrategos, the highest angel-prince and leader of the angelic host.” Werner, ibid. 135
********************************************
“THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA” —” A descriptive record of” “THE HISTORY, RELIGION, LITERATURE, AND THE CUSTOMS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES”—volume VIII, pages 535-538—–KTAV PUBLISHING HOUSE. “He (Jesus) was the angel in the burning bush (and) the angel that wrestled with Jacob, as well as Israel’s High Priest.”
*********************************************************
Daniel and Revelation, Uriah Smith:
“Michael is called the “archangel” in Jude 9.This means the chief angel or the head over the angels. There is but one. Who is he? He is the one whose voice is heard from heaven when the dead are raised. (1 Thessalonians 4: 16.) Whose voice is heard in connection with that event? The voice of our Lord Jesus Christ. (John 5: 28.)”
**************************************************************
Godbey Commentary on the NT volume 1 page 85
“Christ was the Michael who then led the embattled host to victory in the ejectment of Satan and all of his followers out of the celestial worlds.”
*********************************************************
So as we can see, there are plenty of scholars over the years who agree, Michael The Archangel is none other than Jesus Christ, the Son Of God! 1John 4:15
Here is the problem. Hebrews does contrast Jesus with the angels, making it very clear that Jesus is much different than an angel. The author of Hebrews possibly was confronting angel worship. Regarding the Daniel passage, notice that Michael is called “on of the chief princes”, hardly the unique position that JWs give him. In our previous conversations, we agreed on the Jewish context of the early church. The Jews (not just in later rabbinic traditions but even before the time of Jesus), saw Michael as one of the archangels and not unique.
No one ever stated Jesus was not superior to the angels! The point is he was MADE superior to the angels! Notice Heb 1:4:
“So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.”
Question: How can the second person of a triune God “become” better than the angels? Would he not ALREADY ontologically be better than the angles? The greek word for “become” is geno’menos, Literally: “to bring forth, produce, cause.” How could Jesus be “brought forth,” or “caused” to be BETTER than the angels? The greek word for “BETTER” is “kreitton.” It means: “more prominent, higher in rank.” Again how can Jesus be MADE HIGHER IN RANK, more PROMINENT than the angels if he ALREADY WAS THE MOST HIGH GOD????
Answer he CANT if he already WAS the MOST HIGH GOD!
Next he “INHERITS a name more excellent than theirs.” What name can Jesus inherit if he already has the name JEHOVAH YHWH the highest name in the universe? Who can God “inherit” anything from let alone a name?? If you want to say onoma (name) means power or authority, again, how can Jesus receive power or authority more excellent than that of the angels if he ALREADY WAS THE MOST HIGH GOD? He CANT!
Regarding Michael being “one of the chief princes,” how does this negate the FACT that Michael is called the ARCHANGEL in Jude 9?
There is only ONE ARCHANGEL, and yes he is one of the chief princes. Isaiah 9:6 already tells us that Jesus is a prince. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for “chief” means FIRST, FOREMOST. And yes Jesus is one of the FIRST FOREMOST PRINCES… “not” one of the FIRST FOREMOST ARCHANGELS!!
Regarding your thought about the Jews understanding there to be many archangels….. where does the Bible use the term archangel in the plural?
Answer: It doesn’t. So your point is not salient. The term Archangel appears only twice in the Bible 1Thess4:16 and Jude 9 where Michael is called the archangel. So sorry, no multiple archangels in the Bible.
Also, the Jews hardly saw Michael as ONE OF the Archangels, as the term Archangel was never used in the Hebrew Aramaic text! So I think you need to rethink your position, as it has no basis in the Hebrew Aramaic scripture!
So, again Steve, kindly do some research. I have provided you a plethora of commentaries from your Trinitarian brothers who saw Jesus as Michael!
But you seem quite quiet on this.
So sorry, no problem on my part, only problems galore for the trinitarian position.
Late in this conversation, very late indeed, but why do you speak of the Jewish view on Jesus when, “Jews have traditionally seen Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history…”
The Jews of that time saw Jesus as a False Messenger and warned against people like him….
The Archangel Michael is the closest to the Lord in the Jewish scriptures, for his very name means “Like Unto God.” Same as Jw’s believing that Michael ( Jesus) was the closest Angel to God, as his first creation and with this all angels were created.
Michael was no longer an Angel when he was on earth but a man , a perfect man who had to die for our sins. On earth he was not an angel in FORM but a man. Only a perfect man could undo what Adam and Eve ruined.. not an Angel. Adam was a perfect man, and a perfect man was sacrificed. Jesus will no longer have a human body ever again, he sacrificed this.
Sounds weird how I write but that’s my beliefs 🙂 Adam was a dummy yo listen to that woman 🙁
Never too late to join the conversation. We better be carful of generalizing the Jewish view, since Jesus, the apostles and most of the early church were Jewish. There is absolutely no reason to suspect Jesus was Michael or any other angel since Hebrews specifically denies this. And by the way, Jesus still has a human body. That was what happened at the resurrection.
I am again stunned at the ignorance of history on this blog. Stephen Bedard, NONE of the Bible writers could have POSSIBLY quoted the MT (Masoretic Text) as the writing of the Bible was completed in 98CE and the MT was STARTED in the 7th century CE and finished by the 10 Century! I mean, come on!
You wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to suspect Jesus was Michael or any other angel since Hebrews specifically denies this.
I respond: Care to quote Hebrews chapter one where it says: “To NONE of the angels” did the Father say such and such to…..” Seems like you are just making it up as you type……
And by the way, Jesus still has a human body. That was what happened at the resurrection.
I respond: Jesus said at John 6:51: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” And Paul wrote at Heb. 10:10 reads: “By the said “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.”
The Bible tells us that Jesus body of flesh was offered as a sacrifice to God in behalf of all mankind. Your theology makes Jesus and Paul liars as you teach Jesus took his body of flesh BACK!!!! and even took it with him to heaven and is NOW a man of flesh!!! how silly is this? Paul said at 1Cor. 15:50, Flesh… cannot inherit God’s kingdom! Care to show me one single time in Jewish history where the high priest offered up a burnt offering to Jehovah in behalf of the nation of Israel and then took it back and everything was okay with Jehovah and the sacrifice was still accepted?
Offerings to Jehovah were completely consumed during the offering. Jesus’ body was given to Jehovah in behalf of mankind. Your theology makes Jesus’ ransom null and void as you teach Jesus TOOK BACK WHAT HE GAVE! Show me THAT in the Bible sir!
Question: If your trinity doctrine is correct, then Jesus the Father and the holy spirit all share the same NATURE in heaven correct? So is the Father and holy spirit also FLESH by nature, EQUAL to the Son in nature? Or does just the Son possess Flesh in heaven? If so, the Son possesses a nature that only he, the Son has, and thus, your trinity God is a hoax!
But then again, what else is new?
So Jesus does not have flesh? Interesting since the Bible says post-resurrection:
“As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!”But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”They gave him a piece of broiled fish,and he took it and ate before them.” (Luke 24:36–43 ESV)
Regarding Jesus not being an angel, see: “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” (Hebrews 1:3–4 ESV)
As for the Trinity and the nature of God, you obviously misunderstand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
You wrote: As for the Trinity and the nature of God, you obviously misunderstand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Really? How have I demonstrated a lack of understanding as to the doctrine of Trinity: Does not the doctrine teach ONE ESSENCE……3 persons? Does the doctrine teach Jesus the Father and the holy spirit share the same ESSENCE or NATURE? Of course if does! So I understand your non-Biblical doctrine perfectly. Problem Stephen is: YOU made the statement that Jesus has his BODY OF FLESH IN HEAVEN now!
So then I ask: Being as you teach Jesus is a man of flesh in heaven RIGHT NOW by nature… Does the Father and holy spirit share the same NATURE as the Son or not? Trinity teaches the Father Son and holy spirit are all the same ESSENCE. So if you tell us on this blog, that Jesus by NATURE or ESSENCE is FLESH in heaven, then in order for the trinity to be correct, the Essence of one is the Essence of all.
So do tell us Stephen, does the Father and holy spirit possess an ESSENCE of Flesh or is this a nature unique to the Son? Trinity says: One (and the same) ESSENCE of One God, who is 3 persons!
Pretty obvious huh? But I somehow imagine the darkness will override you once again…..Paul mentioned your mindset at 2Thess 2:11-12 when he wrote: “So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.”
The Father and the Son do not have flesh as Jesus did? Why? Because the Father and the Son and the Spirit share in the divine essence. The incarnation is not the mixing of divine and human essences. In fact that is a heresy within the early church. Christians believe that Jesus’ divine essence is intact and that it was placed within a human body at the incarnation. The incarnation would not make any change to the Father and Spirit, since the essence of the Son had not been changed.
I am quiet on the commentaries because, first of all because I do not have access to check the context, secondly because my faith is not based on their opinions. I read all kind of strange ideas that seem to have no biblical basis.
Regarding Hebrews, the point of Jesus being superior to the angels is that he is not an angel. The author is contrasting Jesus with angels.
As for the number of archangels, that is not something that the Bible touches on. However, as you often remind me, Jesus was a Jew. Do you really believe that first century Judaism was based purely on the Old Testament? Intertestamental literature had a rich angelology, including numerous lists of archangels. Before you are too quick to dismiss the Pseudepigrapha, that passage in Jude is a citation from the Pseudipigrapha. Jesus would have held many of the beliefs held by his commentaries that were developed in this intertestamental literature. Notice that Jesus celebrates Hanukkah in John, despite the fact that it is not a biblical festival.
You wrote:
secondly because my faith is not based on their opinions. I read all kind of strange ideas that seem to have no biblical basis.
So then, who cares what anyone writes then huh? You presented some unfounded argument that Jesus cannot be Michael, yet I proved to you many many persons disagree with you, even your Trinitarian brothers. You did so with the reference to The Shepherd of Hermas who taught modalism.
Then you made up the notion that the Pre-Jesus Jews, had a notion of multiple archangels, which has zero evidence from the Bible.
Then you wrote:
“Regarding Hebrews, the point of Jesus being superior to the angels is that he is not an angel. The author is contrasting Jesus with angels.”
Where does Hebrews SAY Jesus is not an angel? I see you again failed to comment on Rev 22:16 where Jesus SAID he was an angel. Are you now arguing with Jesus?
I also wrote: No one ever stated Jesus was not superior to the angels! The point is he was MADE superior to the angels! Notice Heb 1:4:
“So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.”
Question: How can the second person of a triune God “become” better than the angels? Would he not ALREADY ontologically be better than the angles? The greek word for “become” is geno’menos, Literally: “to bring forth, produce, cause.” How could Jesus be “brought forth,” or “caused” to be BETTER than the angels? The greek word for “BETTER” is “kreitton.” It means: “more prominent, higher in rank.” Again how can Jesus be MADE HIGHER IN RANK, more PROMINENT than the angels if he ALREADY WAS THE MOST HIGH GOD????
Did you respond. Nope.
Then you said:
“As for the number of archangels, that is not something that the Bible touches on.”
Sorry Steve, the Bible DOES tell us how many archangels there are. ONE. And it is Michael, who is Jesus! The prefix “ARCH” means chief or principle. This implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. These are the FACTS.
Then you wrote:
“However, as you often remind me, Jesus was a Jew. Do you really believe that first century Judaism was based purely on the Old Testament?”
You are kidding right? PURE 1st Century Judaism as followed by Jesus was
based purely on the Old Testament. You bet. 1st Century Judaism as followed by the PHARISEES and SADDUCEES of which Jesus said were of their Father the Devil (John 8:44) was based on demonic mans’ interpretation OF the Law. You want to make a case for Satan’s twisted interpretation of the law by his henchmen? Be my guest. Go ahead and defend em. Fine: Ill defend the Jesus of the Bible, you can defend Satan.
You wrote:
Intertestamental literature had a rich angelology, including numerous lists of archangels. Before you are too quick to dismiss the Pseudepigrapha, that passage in Jude is a citation from the Pseudipigrapha.
Again you are kidding me right?
“The pseudepigrapha (meaning “false writings”), include such books as “The Assumption of Moses,” “The Apocalypse of Ezra” and the “Book of Jubilees.” Some 47 works in all. These books reportedly were written between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E. “Among the more striking teachings [in the pseudepigrapha] are a pronounced belief in astrology and a luxuriant angel worship which, in the view of some scholars, borders on polytheism.”
True Christianity was not a normal development of Jewish religious thought. And the fact that these uncanonical writings reveal “a pronounced belief in astrology and a luxuriant angel worship” clearly excludes them from “all Scripture [that] is inspired of God.” (2 Tim. 3:16) This is so because the Sacred Scriptures condemn astrology. (Isa. 47:12-15)
However, lets investigate this a little closer. It was claimed by early church writers- Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus that Jude 9 is a quotation from the book of The Assumption of Moses, yet interestingly enough, there is apparently no surviving portion of that “pseudepigraphical” book containing the passage, that exists today from which to validate or even investigate that claim. Did you know that? Did you know also, that the text in Jude 9 is ACCUALLY more probably taken from Zech. 3:2?
Then you went on to state:
Jesus would have held many of the beliefs held by his commentaries that were developed in this intertestamental literature.
So then Jesus was into Angel worship and astrology? Are you really thinking these things thru our before you type them? Jesus held the beliefs his FATHER TAUGHT HIM! Not the teaching of MEN.
You wrote:
Notice that Jesus celebrates Hanukkah in John, despite the fact that it is not a biblical festival.
Actually John 10:22,23 merely states that the Festival of Dedication took place, and Jesus was walking about in the temple in the colonade of Solomon. Nothing about him partaking in any celebration. Besides, the nation as a whole at that time had left pure worship. So again your point is moot.
Steve, I’m sorry to say but again, you do nothing to bolster a belief in trinitarianism, and have exposed a vast lack of serious Biblical study. I look forward to our phone discussion this week.
All the best.
Regarding Jude as relying on Zechariah, let us take a look.
“But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.””
(Jude 1:9 ESV)
“And the LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?””
(Zechariah 3:2 ESV)
Surely you are not saying that Jehovah is Michael?
Regarding Jude and the Pseudepigrapha:
“It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.””
(Jude 1:14–15 ESV)
“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (1 Enoch 1:9)
As for the number of archangels, the intertestamental texts spoke of numerous archangels before the New Testament was written. The first readers would have assumed multiple archangels, based on what they ever knew. And the New Testament never specifies one archangel. You are correct that the New Testament mentions archangel only twice and only once is it specified that it is Michael. For all we know, the mention of the voice of archangel could refer to any other archangel. Just because the word archangel is used in the singular in its only two appearances does not mean it is a corrective of the earlier belief in archangels.
You wrote:
Regarding Jude as relying on Zechariah, let us take a look….
Surely you are not saying that Jehovah is Michael?
Wow Steve. The text in its context has the Angel speaking (Chap2:3 & vs1)
I thought you knew that. And yes, Jude 9 is a quote from this text, not the book of Enoch. As you prove next in your reply.
You wrote
Regarding Jude and the Pseudepigrapha:
“It was also about these that Enoch……………….”
Steve, we are discussing Jude 9, not Jude 14,15. This is nothing more than attempted slight of hand. Look over here…pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…
However: Regarding Jude 14-15: How Jude knew of Enoch’s prophecy is not revealed in the Scriptures. He may simply have quoted a common source, a reliable historical fact handed down from remote antiquity. Paul evidently did something similar when he named Jannes and Jambres as the otherwise anonymous magicians of Pharaoh’s court who opposed Moses. If the writer of the Book of Enoch had access to an ancient historical source of this kind, why should we deny it to Jude?—Exodus 7:11, 22; 2 Timothy 3:8. How Jude received the information about Enoch’s message to the ungodly is a minor matter. Its reliability is attested to by the fact that Jude wrote under divine inspiration. (2 Timothy 3:16) God’s holy spirit guarded him from stating anything that was not true.
Again: Regardless we are discussing Jude 9 not 14-15, and again there is no mention of Michael being one of many archangels in this text. But again, it is Pseudepigrapha, which is not inspired. Just because something is mentioned in a book outside the Bible does not make that book inspired.
You wrote:
As for the number of archangels, the intertestamental texts spoke of numerous archangels before the New Testament was written. The first readers would have assumed multiple archangels, based on what they ever knew.
Why do you people always side with the teachings of MEN. Steve we are discussing the BIBLE and what the BIBLE teaches. NO ONE would ever “assume” multiple archangels if the Bible only mentions ONE! You know what happens when you “assume” don’t you?
You wrote:
And the New Testament never specifies one archangel. You are correct that the New Testament mentions archangel only twice and only once is it specified that it is Michael.
Steve, again what does the prefix “arch” mean. I am not going to repeat myself. This is getting silly.
You went on to write:
For all we know, the mention of the voice of archangel could refer to any other archangel. Just because the word archangel is used in the singular in its only two appearances does not mean it is a corrective of the earlier belief in archangels.
Stunned again.
Lets see, 1Thess 4:16 reads:
“because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
Here we see Jesus descending with a “commanding call.” Got a problem with that? I dont. Next Paul relates: “with an archangel’s voice”
So Jesus is here said to descend “with an archangel’s voice.” Now due to some preconceived theological bias, we are to somehow imagine that Jesus is not the archangel right? I know.. when it says Jesus descends with a commanding call, an archangels voice.. that means Jesus had the voice of the archangel in like a little box or jar that he was carrying with him right?
Then it states he has God’s trumpet. I guess he really doesn’t have this either. I guess there is no trumpet like in Matt. 24:31. Yep Paul certainly is some fibber huh?
But what happens when Jesus descends with the call, the archangels voice, and with God’s trumpet? THE DEAD ARISE!! Humm.. does this remind you of any verse?
1Cor. 15:52 reads: “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”
and again: Whos VOICE do the dead hear and rise ?
John 5:28-29:
Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment
Who is the “HIS,” it is none other than Jesus himself!
So, when Jesus descends from heaven with an archangels voice, the dead rise! Thus Jesus is none other than Michael, the archangel! Jude 9.
And again, you failed to deal with Heb 1:4, or anything else I said above.
So I tire of this “selected” banter on your part.
I asked kindly before, either respond to EVERYTHING I write, or don’t respond to any of it. It is really disrespectful sir.
The reason for the selection of comments is that I like to focus on one issues, while you like to fire off everything at once. I would like to deal with the Hebrews passage and the trumpet passages is a separate blog post as I think others will be interested in it and do not want it buried in the comments. My main point in pointing out the citing of Pseudepigrapha is that the New Testament did not suddenly pop out directly from the Old Testament. There were centuries of developing Judaism that influenced the New Testament. One of greatest examples of this is the fact that the NT writers often quote the LXX rather than the MT. The LXX was a post-OT development, that often diverges from the Hebrew text. Obviously the NT writers were not concerned about it and neither should we. Jesus was a first century Jew and was part of that culture, he was not an OT Israelite.
” We better be carful of generalizing the Jewish view”
Sorry but that is not a generalization on Jews. THIS is FACT when it comes to Jewish not believing that the person Christians saw as the savior, Jews did not. There is no argument about that. Are you saying The Jesus that Christians view and read about in the Bible was only Jew? he never spoke Hebrew, but Aramaic and he was a Palestinian 🙂 no state of Israel existed- but yes he was Jewish
As for Angels. We can argue until Christ returns, But he said it better that all love one another ….
Jewish and Christians in their doctrine DO NOT have the same messiah.
Nice website 🙂
Looks like I am not the only one who believe that the Archangel discussed here is Jesus. <3
The only people who would take offense is a person who is Jewish.
There is nothing wrong with being Jewish.
Christian-Zionists also take offense to someone speaking about Jews.
When writing , stop and understand both sides of an argument. you seem to be ignoring everything ever written about Jesus or spoken about, from the Jewish perspective.
If Jewish people say in their text he is a "False Messiah".. I wont argue about it and just accept what their Doctrine teaches.
The world would know if Jews believed in the same messiah, or they would not be concentrated in Israel waiting for a deliverer when Christians are waiting for a judgement. Seems like 2 different Messiah's.
Just because Jews say, "this isn't so…" doesn't make it TRUTH for the world.
Just thought I would end my comments on this post and say,
We all have one God and he sent one son. Both love us Christians and Jews 🙂