Sunday, December 4, 2016

Is Jesus the Archangel? Part 1 (Daniel 8:25; 9:25,26; 10:13,21; Jude 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16)


The name “Michael” is often presented as meaning “[He] who is like God.” If this is the true understanding, then this would indicate that the name would refer to the bearer as be one who is like God, evidently in some special manner that would be greater, say, from the likeness that man was originally given. (Genesis 1:26) Some others believe that the name is interrogative, “Who is like God?” If this is the proper meaning, it would imply that no one, not even the bearer of the name, is completely like God, while at the same time it would indicate the bearer of the name was so much in the likeness of God that the question would need to be raised. Only one has the glory of being the Most High, for only one is the source of all (1 Corinthians 8:6); no one else possesses that glory, not even the firstborn Son of God. Nevertheless, both of these meanings that are often attributed to the name Michael would be true of the archangel.
In the title archangel, we first have the prefix “arch”, which obtained from the Greek word often transliterated as "archo" (Strong's Greek #757). Thayer defines this as meaning: "to be chief, to lead, to rule." An “arch” is that which is above or over whatever is being referred to in relation to the arch. As in the term architect, “arch” in the word “archangel” designates the title as being over or above the class referred to, that is, “angel”. This being so, in the Bible, the word “angel” is never applied to Michael. The conclusion based on spiritual revealings given in the Bible is that Michael is not of the same glory as the angels; he possesses a glory above that of the angels. This agrees with Paul’s statement that there are different levels of glory in the celestial realm. -- 1 Corinthians 15:40,41.
Many who oppose the idea that Jesus is Michael the Archangel may not realize that many of the early Protestant reformers believed that Jesus is the Archangel. Most of these reformers still accepted the apostate doctrine of the trinity, the belief that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is three persons. Due to their trinitarian belief, their acceptance that the archangel is Jesus, then the Archangel, according them, is the third person of God Almighty Himself, and thus, they believed that Michael the Archangel is uncreated.
See:
Trinitarians and the Archangel.
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=674
Spirit Beings
The Bible speaks directly of different kinds of spirit (celestial, heavenly) beings, each having its own bodily glory, likened to the glory of the sun, moon and stars. -- 1 Corinthians 15:40,41.
The Highest glory is that of the Most High Jehovah. The glory of being the Most High only belongs to Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. -- Genesis 14:19; Exodus 3:14,15; Psalm 7:17; 47:2; 83:18; Isaiah 42:8.
The Son of God, before he became human, before he took the name Jesus, had a spiritual bodily glory with the only true God before he (Jesus) became flesh. (John 17:1,3,5) Since the scriptures differentiate the Son of God from the only true God (John 17:13, 1 Corinthians 8:6), and since Jesus is identified as the chief of the angels, then the glory of the Son before becoming flesh was that higher than the angels, but lower than that of the only true God. Thus, before becoming flesh, Jesus "was" THEOS (god, mighty) as the angels are ELOHIM (gods, mighty ones), although his glory was greater than that of the angels. -- Psalm 8:5; John 1:1,2; Hebrews 2:7.
However, Jesus gave up the glory of being the archangel when he became flesh, and, while in the days of his flesh, he had the sinless glory of a man, a little lower than the angels. -- Hebrews 2:9.
We know that, in the Bible, it is the Most High who is described as the “God and Father of Jesus.” (Luke 1:32; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3) Since this describes one individual (not three persons), we believe that we can properly refer to the "God" revealed in the New Testament, God and Father of Jesus, as the unipersonal God.
We know from the scriptures of the Bible that it was Jehovah (Ehyeh - I am), the Most High God of Exodus 3:14,15 who raised Jesus up as a prophet like Moses. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-20; Acts 3:13-26.
It is this unipersonal God and Father of Jesus, who is described in the Bible as “the invisible God”. (Colossians 1:15) This unipersonal God of Jesus is the source of all things, all might, power, etc. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Likewise, it is this unipersonal God of whom John wrote: “No one has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) And Jesus said of his unipersonal God: “God is spirit.” (John 4:24) In saying this, Jesus was saying that his God was a spirit being, a being unseen to physical eyes. Thus, to worship this God, one has to worship in like manner, in spirit and truth, not according to what is seen, felt and touched. Thus, the true worshipper doesn’t “look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” -- 1 Corinthians 4:18.
The word “God”, throughout the New Testament, when it refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, always refers to one individual, not three persons; that one individual is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3.
We believe that is therefore only one individual who holds the exclusive glory of being Most High in the spiritual realm. No one else will ever possess the glory of being the only Most High.
However, we also know that in the spirit realm there are those who are spoken of angels, and these “angels”, unlike man, are able to see the face the God and Father of Jesus.  (Matthew 18:10) Because these “angels” spoken of described in this manner, we can safely assume that they have a glory that is not of the terrestrial glory, but of the heavenly glory. (1 Corinthians 15:39,40,41) The glory of man is described as being “a little lower than the angels”. (Hebrews 2:7) The writer of the book of Hebrews was not directly quoting from Psalm 8:6, for he presents the matter as “one has somewhere testified, saying”. That one who so testified is David, and the “where” is Psalm 8. However, David did not directly refer to these as “angels”, but he speaks of them by use of a form of the Hebrew word often transliterated as ELOHIM. This word is often used to refer to Jehovah as the Most High of all Might. Does David’s use of this word regarding the angels mean that the angels are all persons of the Most High? Obviously not. Are these angels “false gods”? No, they are not. Psalm 8:6 is one of those places where ELOHIM is applied to others than Jehovah or false gods.
See:
The Hebraic Usage of the Words for “God”
Rightfully, however, we should reason that the angels are ELOHIM -- mighty ones -- mighty spirit beings in the spiritual realm. They, however, possess a bodily glory of being lower than that of being the Most High, and a bodily glory of being higher than that of highest bodily glory of fleshly beings, that is, man. -- Psalm 8:5; 1 Corinthians 15:39,40,41; Hebrews 2:7.
Michael, however, being the chief over the angels, would have a bodily glory that is somewhere in between that of the Most High, and that of the angels.
See our studies:
With What Kind of Body Will We Be Raised?
See also the study:
Spiritual and Human Natures Separate and Distinct
(We do not necessarily agree with all details of this latter study)
The Word Archangel
The word “archangel” only appears twice in the Bible, at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and in Jude 1:9.
Jude 1:9 = But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!"

1 Thessalonians 4:16 = For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with God's trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first.
The word archangel is given the meaning: “chief of the angels”. Applying the various celestial bodily glories of 1 Corinthians 15:40,41, we reason that the glory of the Most High could be represented by the Sun, while the glory of an archangel could be represented by the moon, and that the glory of the angels would be included amongst the stars. At any rate, whether this application was intended by Paul or not, the logical conclusion is that the glory of an archangel must lie between the glory of the Most High, and the glory of the angels.
The word “archangel” in both  1 Thessalonians 4:16 and in Jude 1:9 is in the singular; the Bible never uses the word “archangel’ in the plural. From this we reason that there must be only one spirit creature who is the archangel.  Adam Clark agrees with this, as he states in his comments on Jude 1:9, “There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host.”*
=====
*Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Jude 1". "The Adam Clarke Commentary".
<http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=jude&chapter=001>. 1832.
Some claim that in Jude 1:9, Jude was referring to the book that is commonly called “The Book of Enoch”, or as some refer to it as “The First Book of Enoch" or “I Enoch”. It is pointed out that the Book of Enoch mentions seven archangels, and thus the claim is made by some that Jude was simply mentioning Michael as one of those archangels. We have discussed the Book of Enoch elsewhere, but we note here that James Coffman states concerning Jude 1:9:
If Jude had been thinking of the book of Enoch here, he would certainly have written, "Michael, one of the archangels," for that book names seven: "Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Saragaej, Gabriel, and Remiel."
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Jude 1".
"Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament".
http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=jude&chapter=001”.
Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.
At any rate, our point here is that the word “archangel” designates a spirit being that possesses a bodily glory above the class of “angels”. It does not designate the “archangel” as being a member of, on the same bodily glory, as the “angels”.
The Name, Michael
The word, Michael, appears in the Bible 13 times in the Old Testament: Numbers 13:13; 1 Chronicles 5:13-14; 1 Chronicles 6:40; 1 Chronicles 7:3; 1 Chronicles 8:16; 1 Chronicles 12:20; 1 Chronicles 27:18; 2 Chronicles 21:2; Ezra 8:8; Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1. However, only in Daniel does it have any reference to Michael the archangel. In the New Testament the word appears once in Jude 1:9 and twice in Revelation 12:7.
By Protestant tradition, the word "Michael" is given the meaning of "Who is like God" (As a statement, not an interrogative).
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?number=04317
Thus some have referred to the name as meaning “He who is like God.”
Outside of that tradition, we have:
"Who resembles God?"
http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Michael
"Who is like God?" (as a rhetorical question)
http://www.behindthename.com/php/find.php?name=michael
Catholics, however, have historically not taught that Jesus is Michael, and thus in accordance with Catholic belief that Jesus is God and that Michael is not God, the Catholic Encyclopedia does have the question mark, evidently to show that Michael is not God: "Who is like God?".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10275b.htm
Nevertheless, since the word begins with an interrogative pronoun, it seems reasonable that there should be a question mark at the end in our English translation. In other words, it is asking the question: "Who is like God?" or "Who resembles God?", giving the implication that no one is like God, or that no one completely resembles God, since only HE is the Most High, the source of all power and might. -- Psalm 71:19; 1 Corinthians 8:6.
It is probable that those who prepared many of our bible dictionaries, lexicons, etc., were protestant trinitarians who believed that Jesus is Michael the archangel, as an uncreated being, and thus, in the renderings of the meaning of the name Michael, they did not present it as a question, but as a statement, since they would have desired it to mean that Jesus as Michael is Jehovah.  Even after most Protestant leadership rejected the idea that Michael is Jesus, the traditional meaning has remained.
Many of the Bible Students have picked up the traditional Protestant meaning (as a statement, not a question), but have given it the meaning of being in the likeness, or resemblance of God, not as fully and totally God, as some Protestant trinitarians seemed to have given its meaning. If one believes the name to be a statement, it would be similar to Jesus' being in the "likeness" of sinful flesh, but not actually being "sinful flesh". -- Romans 8:3.
We believe that Jesus, before he came to the earth, was like his God in the his complete harmony with his God. Being like his God does not mean that he is his God or that he is the Most High, or that he was uncreated as his God, or that he had an eternal past as his God, or that he would have absolutely all the attributes of his God, his Supreme Being, including being the Supreme Being of himself. The idea that Michael (Jesus) is the Most High has to be added to and read into the phrase "who is like God."
Regardless, today, most Protestant trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is Michael; as best as I can determine, much of this latter trinitarian thought has come about in reaction to various ones who claimed that Jesus as Michael is a created being.
Those trinitarians, however, who have provided the meaning of the word "Michael" as proof that Michael is a person of a triune God should note that in its usage as provided in Numbers 13:13;  Chronicles 5:13-14; 6:40; 7:3; 8:16; 12:20; 27:18; 2 Chronicles 21:2; and Ezra 8:8, certainly no one would claim that the name “Michael” has any reference to being the Most High. On the other hand, the fact that the name is used in Bible of others than the archangel indicates that the name is a question, not a statement, for again, the application of one as being “like God” as applied to the bearer as recorded in the above scriptures would not be appropriate. In other words, if the name “Michael” signifies that the bearer of the name is “like God”, then, to be consistent, it would have mean such regarding all who bear that name in the Bible. We cannot see how anyone could claim that such a meaning would apply to all those who bear that name as recorded in the above scriptures; thus, this indicates that the meaning of the name is a question, “Who is like God?”, rather than a statement: “[He] who is like God”.

The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary thus states:
"Who is like God?" Though an archangel, "one of the chief princes," Michael was not to be compared to God.
Jamieson, Robert, D.D. "Commentary on Daniel 10". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible
". . 1871.
Daniel 10:13
The first instance of the name that applies to the archangel, is in Daniel 10:13:
Daniel 10:13 = And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia. -- Young’s Literal Translation.
Daniel 10:13 = But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but, behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. -- World English Bible version.
Many commentators speak of Michael here as an “angel”. However, the word “angel” is never used in reference to Michael, not in Daniel 10:13, or anywhere else in the Bible.
The words quoted in Daniel 10:13 were spoken by an angel, probably Gabriel, who was mentioned in Daniel 8:16; 9:21.
Head of the Kingdom of Persia
Many claim that the “head” or “prince” (ruler) of the kingdom of Persia was Cyrus himself. We notice, however, that as recorded in Daniel 10:10, when this angel touched Daniel, this caused Daniel to be lowered to his hands and knees. In other words, the touch of this person caused Daniel to fall down to the ground. Surely, this angel had a magnificent power that could humble any human being, such as Cyrus. So one might wonder how the man Cyrus, who would have been puny in comparison to the angel, could have withstood this angel for 21 days. Some have assumed that Cyrus did this by being reluctant to do God’s will, but this is not what the scripture says.
David Guzik states concerning the prince of Persia:
Since this prince is able to oppose the angelic messenger to Daniel, we know this is more than a man. This prince is some kind of angelic being, and we know he is an evil angelic being because he opposed the word of God coming to Daniel and stood against the angelic messenger.
i. The word prince has the idea of a ruler or authority. This fits in well with the New Testament idea that angelic ranks - including demonic forces - are organized and have a hierarchy (Ephesians 1:21, Ephesians 6:12, Colossians 1:16, Colossians 2:15).
ii. Apparently, this was a demon of high rank that opposed the answer to prayer. On three occasions, Jesus referred to Satan as the prince of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11).
Guzik, David. "Commentary on Daniel 10". "David Guzik's Commentaries
on the Bible
".
<http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=010>. 1997-2003.
Some have suggested that this “head” or “prince” of the kingdom of Persia is Satan himself. This is based on the idea of there being two “chief princes”: Satan, who is the prince of the demons -- the angels that sinned, and Michael, who is prince over the angels of God. This would accommodate the reading that is found in most translations, in which Michael is said to be “one of the chief princes.” By this explanation there would be two chief princes: Satan the archdemon, and Michael, the archangel.
The Scribes and the Pharisees acknowledged Satan by the name Beelzebub as the prince of the demons (Matthew 9:12; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15) Jesus identified this prince as Satan. (Matthew 12:26) Thus, we have Satan identified as the chief, or prince, of the demons, the archdemon.
In Hebrews 2:10, we find that Jesus is referred to as the “Archegos” (Strong’s G747) of the believer’s salvation. The primary meaning of this word is “chief prince”, or “chief leader”; thus, this supports Jesus as being one of the chief princes, as spoken of in Daniel 10:13, and at the same supports the conclusion that Jesus is Michael the archangel.
Another way of rendering Daniel 10:13 is as we find it in Young’s Literal Translation. Rather than saying “one of the head princes”, it reads “first of the head princes.” This would give the phrase “chief/head princes” a totally different perspective, and that there is one of these who is the first of such princes. From this perspective, then, by “chief princes”, Daniel would certainly be referring to spirit beings. If Daniel is, by the expression “chief princes”, referring to spirit beings, this would imply that there are a rank of spirit beings who are all “chief princes” and that Michael, the archangel, is the first of those spirit beings. The expression “chief princes”, however, would not necessarily classify all those spirit beings as being the same bodily glory. It would only designate that there are those who have been given a superior authority even though there could be various ranks within those designated as “chief princes’.
The word “first” may also be used to designate “rank”; this is often done in the military structure as well as in corporate structures. For instance, in the United States, we speak of “First Lieutenant”, “First Lady”, “First Vice President of...”, etc. The word “first” in these instances do not designate that they are the “first” to ever be such, but rather it designates a “rank” within that group being spoken of. Likewise, we may speak of the “chief officers” of a corporation, without any thought of claiming that all those being referred to as being of the same rank. Similarly, with the phrase “chief princes”; there is no need to assume that by this term that there is a rank of spirit beings all of equal bodily glory, or the same rank, etc., who are designated “chief princes.” Michael, being the archangel, would certainly be the first in rank among any spirit beings that would be included in the classification, “chief princes.”
John Gill wrote concerning the expression “one/first of the chief princes”:
...called in the New Testament an Archangel, the Prince of angels, the Head of all principality and power; and is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel; who is "one", or "the first of the chief Princes" {x}, superior to angels, in nature, name, and office; he came to "help" Gabriel, not as a fellow creature, but as the Lord of hosts; not as a fellow soldier, but as General of the armies in heaven and earth, as superior to him in wisdom and strength; and he helped him by giving him fresh counsels, orders, and instructions, which he following succeeded.
Gill, John. "Commentary on Daniel 10:13". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible".
<http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=010&verse=013>. 1999.
John Gill, being a trinitarian, expressed that Michael appeared to Daniel as “the Lord of hosts”, that is, as Jehovah of hosts, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Exodus 3:14,15) In this he reflected his belief in the trinity, a doctrine which actually is no where to be found in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15) ever once depicted as being more than one individual or person. He is ALWAYS depicted as being only one individual (or person). Daniel did not say that Michael appeared to him as “Jehovah of Hosts”; the idea that Michael appeared as Jehovah of Hosts has to be formed with human imagination and added to, and read into, what Daniel wrote.
Nevertheless, much of John Gill’s statements support what we have said, that Michael is the first in rank, superior to the angels, in nature, name and office. John Gill, although a trinitarian, does identify Michael in Daniel 10:13 as “no other than Christ the Son of God”, although he is influenced by his belief in the trinity to claim that Michael is “an uncreated angel.” Assuming that Michael is Jesus, since Jesus is the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), being classified as creature, then Michael would indeed be created, not an “uncreated”, being. As to classifying Michael as an “Angel”, although Jesus is called an angel in Malachi 3:1, the designation used there is not as being a spirit being, but as simply being the “messenger” of the covenant. However, Gill’s application of the word “Angel” as applied to Michael does indeed appear to be referring to Jesus/Michael as of the order of spirit beings called “Angel”. Yet he then appears to contradict that by saying that Michael is “superior to angels.” Actually, no where in the Bible is Michael the archangel ever said to be an “angel.”
Theodore Beza, although a trinitarian, also identifies “Michael” in Daniel 10:13 as Jesus:
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.
Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Daniel 10". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible".
<http://www.studylight.org/com/gsb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=010>. 1599-1645.
Some link Daniel 10:13 with Revelation 12:7; we will not discuss this at the present time, but we hope, God willing, to discuss this when we later discuss Revelation 12:7.
Michael Your Prince - Daniel 10:21
But I will tell you that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none who holds with me against these, but Michael your prince [Strong’s H8269, transliterated as SAR]. -- Daniel 10:21, World English
In the above words to Daniel, the angel of Jehovah described Michael as “your prince.” The Hebrew word for “your" in this verse is plural, thus designating Michael as the prince of more than one person; in other words, he is not just the prince of Daniel, he is the prince of a people, evidently, specifically in this case, Daniel’s people Israel, but also additionally, the church of the Gospel Age, since the kingdom was taken away from Israel and given to a new nation. -- Matthew 21:43.
Who is the one given by Jehovah to be the prince, the ruler, of the people of Israel?
John Wesley stated regarding “Michael” in Daniel 10:21: “Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.”
Is there scriptural reason for believing that “Michael” in Daniel 10:21 refers to Jesus?
Prince of Princes - Daniel 8:25
Through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in [their] security shall he destroy many: he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. -- Daniel 8:25, World English.
In Daniel 8:25, we find one who is spoken of as the “prince [SAR] of princes”. This expression is almost universally in Protestant circles claimed to refer to Jesus, the Messiah. The expression “prince of princes” is actually just another way of saying “Lord of lords”; it describes Jesus as one who rules over others who are also princes/lords. (Revelation 17:14) While we believe that Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was already “lord” or “prince” over the angels as the archangel, this is evidently not what is meant that the expression “prince of princes” in Daniel 8:25. The typical prophecy of Psalm 72:11 states that all kings will bow down before the Messiah. Additionally, in Psalm 45:7, it is prophesied of Messiah that his God anoints him above his fellows. While “fellows” could refer to the angels, in view of Hebrews 1:9; 2:17-18, we believe that it refers to the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16), who are such by faith in Jesus, who are made heirs in the Kingdom. (Galatians 3:29) Thus, we have evidence here that Prince Michael of Daniel 10:21 is Jesus, the Messiah.
Additionally the angel had earlier spoken to Daniel using another word that carries practically same meaning as found in Daniel 10:21.
Messiah the Prince - Daniel 9:25,26
Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One, the prince [Strong’s H5057, transliterated as Nagiyd], shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end of it shall be with a flood, and even to the end shall be war; desolations are determined. -- World English
Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. -- New King James Version.
Although there are differences of opinion amongst Protestant teachers as to the how this prophecy is fulfilled, there is almost universal agreement amongst all Protestants that “Messiah the Prince” refers to Jesus. It may have been the expression “Messiah the prince” in Daniel 9:25 that the angel of Jehovah referred to in the expression used of Jesus in Luke 2:11, that is, “Christ the Lord”. Thus, we are given reason from within the book of Daniel itself that Israel’s prince of Daniel 10:21 is Jesus, the promised Messiah Prince of Daniel 9:25,26.
Although the coming of Messiah in Daniel 9:25,26 evidently refers, not to when Jesus was born of Mary, but of when he presented himself for baptism when he reached the age of thirty, the actual anointing of Jesus evidently refers to a much earlier time. Genesis 3:15 tells us that “seed of woman” was to crush the serpent’s head. Of course, this is speaking symbolically, and most will agree that the “seed” here directly refers to Jesus. When Adam sinned, however, Jehovah was not taken off guard; he had already known beforehand (Acts 15:18) that Adam would sin, and thus had also already set apart his son to be the redeemer of mankind, for Jesus “was foreknown [known beforehand] indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for your sake.” (1 Peter 1:20) Thus, the actual anointing had taken place before the foundation of the world (the world into which sin entered through Adam - Romans 5:12-19).
Shiloh
In Genesis 49:10, we read this prophecy:
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh [Strong’s #H7886] come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. -- World English
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. -- Revised Standard.
Strong's Number: 7886
Transliterated Word Shiyloh
Parts of Speech noun?
Definition
1.he whose it is, that which belongs to him, tranquillity
a. meaning uncertain
Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Shiyloh". "The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
<http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=7886>.
Who is this Shiloh, or the one to whom the rulership belongs?
The following is quote from a the Jesus.org website:
That the Messiah is intended by Shiloh in Genesis 49:10 may be collected from the significance of the word. Although learned men, both among Jews and Christians, differ about the derivation and signification of it, in any and all of the senses which they give, it well agrees with the Messiah.
Kimchi says it signifies "his son" and should be rendered "until his son comes," that is Judah’s son. Now, what son of his can be so reasonably supposed to be intended but Messiah, who was to spring from his tribe? This is exactly what the Messiah Jesus did. The word having a feminine form has led some to observe, and not without reason, that this son of Judah was to be the seed of a woman or to be born of a virgin.
Others, such as Onkelos and Jarchi suggest the meaning "until he comes whose is the kingdom" and understand it of the Messiah, as they should. Others have taken it to read "to whom gifts [belong or shall be brought." Now, of the Messiah it is prophesied that presents should be brought and gifts be given to him (Psalm 72:10, 15). This had its literal fulfillment in the Messiah Jesus to whom the wise men presented gifts: gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
Many others derive the word Shiloh from the root, which signifies to be quiet, peaceable, and prosperous, which well agrees with the Messiah, who was to be of a quiet and peaceable disposition. His voice was not to be heard in the streets; he was to be the man, the peace, the author and donor of all peace, with whom all things were to succeed well, as we see in Jesus, who obtained a complete victory over all his enemies and procured eternal salvation for his people.
Adapted from The Prophecies Respecting the Messiah, Chapter III, by John Gill.
And thus, the angel spoke to Mary concerning Jesus:
Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. [Jehovah] God will give to him the throne of his father, David,
Luke 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end of his kingdom. -- World English
The angel’s words of Luke 1:32,33 reflect the words of Isaiah 9:7:
Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, on the throne of David, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even forever. The zeal of Yahweh [Jehovah] of Hosts will perform this. -- World English.
When Jesus did come to his people, he came, not to the Gentiles, but to the Jews. (John 1:11; Matthew 15:24) Micah records Jehovah as stating:
But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. -- Micah 5:2, Revised Standard
Although Jesus came to his own in the first century, his own (Israel) did not receive him as their ruler/prince (Luke 19:14; 20:13-15; John 1:11; Acts 3:26; 5:30; 13:46; ), and thus the Kingdom was taken away of Israel and given to new nation. -- Matthew 21:43; 23:38; 13:35; Romans 9:30-33.
The Prince of Host of Jehovah -- Joshua 5:14.
Many believe that Prince Michael of Daniel 10:21 is the one referred as the “prince of the host of Jehovah.” (Joshua 5:14) who met Joshua by Jericho to give directions for the overthrow of that stronghold. (Joshua 5:13 to 6:2) This seems logical, but we need to note that neither in Joshua 5 nor in Joshua 6 is this prince described as an “angel.” More than likely, this was indeed our Lord Jesus before he was given the name “Jesus”. -- Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:31.
Prince of Peace - Isaiah 9:6
Some point to Isaiah 9:6, in which we find the expression “prince [SAR] of peace”, as it appears in many of our translations. Many apply the expression “prince of peace” to the Messiah; this could be, but we believe the correct translation of the singular name in Isaiah 9:6 should be something like: “Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.” As a singular name, we believe that the name given to Messiah describes the God and Father of the Messiah.
See the study:
Isaiah 9:6 - Not a Series of Names
If, however, the term “Prince of Peace” in Isaiah 9:6 does apply to Jesus, it would provide further evidence that Jesus is Prince Michael.
In the New Testament, we have abundant evidence that God has appointed Jesus as Lord, as ruler, a “prince”, over His people.
Jesus is the shepherd who rules Jehovah’s people -- Matthew 2:6; John 10:11-14,27-29; Hebrews 13:10; 1 Peter 5:4 (see: Jeremiah 23:5; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24; Micah 5:2).
Jesus is “the King of Israel,” “king of the Jews”, King/Ruler over other kings. -- Matthew 2:2; 21:5; John 1:49; 12:13; Revelation 1:5; 17:14; 19:16.
He is the Prince and Redeemer of Israel. -- Acts 5:31.
Jesus is the Head/Ruler of the the church. -- Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23;1 Corinthians 11:3; Colossians 1:18; 2:10,19.
CLICK HERE for Part 2 of this study.

No comments:

Post a Comment