Sunday, December 4, 2016

Jesus is Michael

We conclude that Jesus is Michael the archangel from the fact that it is Jesus who, preparatory to the his Millennial reign, takes his Millennial power which results in the time of trouble upon the nations. -- 2 Thessalonians 1:7,8; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 11:15-18; 19:11- 21.
Thus these scriptures are related to Daniel's statement that Michael would stand up. -- Daniel 12:1, compared with Matthew 24:21.
Michael is called the Archangel, that is, the chief of the Messengers (Jude 9) which is what the Logos would be. But there is only one chief of the messengers of God, that is, Jesus. Hence, in the Bible the word archangel is never presented in the plural, archangels. We believe that Jesus is meant by the archangel of 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
We note that it is the voice of Jesus that, in the second advent, shakes the heavens and earth and makes them disappear, and awakens the dead. -- Hebrews 12:26; John 5:29.
It is before Jesus' face in his second advent that the heavens and earth flee away. -- Revelation 20:11.
It is in his day, the second advent period, that they will be dissolved. -- 2 Peter 3:7,10,12.
While we believe that there is great evidence that Jesus is Michael the archangel, we do not believe that God is making acceptance of this conclusion to be a requirement to be a Christian.
Even many of our trinitarian neighbors believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Nevertheless, while we not wish to be understood as being dogmatic that Jesus is Michael the archangel, we do tend to agree with these trinitarians that Jesus is Michael, but we do not agree with those who claim that he was not created. Many trinitarians also believe that Jesus was the angel of Jehovah spoken of several times in the OT. We have discussed this in our study:
The Angel of Jehovah
Although the above gives a brief summary of why we believe that Jesus is the Archangel, we hope, God willing, to present a more detailed study of why we believe that Jesus is the Archangel. For now, we will be mostly addressing many of the objections many present to the belief that Jesus is the Archangel.
Voice of the Archangel
We will first consider 1 Thessalonians 4:16:
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with [Greek, *en*, Strong's #1722] a shout, with [en] the voice of the archangel, and with [en] God's trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first.
The argument is often given that Jesus is accompanied by the voice of the archangel, and thus Jesus is not the archangel. However, the Greek word *en* does not mean in company of, but rather "instrument" or "locality". As meaning "with", it used in the Bible in the sense like: I am writing this "with" my pen; I am talking with my mouth.
a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between (1519) and (1537))
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for En". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon".
As far as we have been able to ascertain, the koine Greek word en is never used in the NT to mean "accompanied by" or "alongside of". Nor have we found any lexicon or Koine Greek dictionary that gives it such a meaning. At the same time, we should also note that its basic meaning is that of location: among, amid, through, inside of, etc. As such, it can locate two or more persons or objects together in the same location (whether place or time), but this is not exactly the same as meaning "alongside of" or "accompanied by".
http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm
Jesus comes with a shout - a sudden loud cry. It was said of a popular blues singer: "He sang with a shout, a tear, a laugh, with love and with the blues." The word "with" does not mean "accompanied by", but it expresses the mode used. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not speak of a literal shout, but "shout" is used as expression of a signal given, especially to the watchers, that Jesus had arrived. The shout, however, is Jesus' shout -- it is his shout, not a shout that simply accompanies Jesus.
Jesus comes with the "voice" of the archangel. Again, using "with" in the sense an instrument used, Jesus comes *with* the voice, in a sense that one would say that I am writing *with* this pen. Jesus is not being accompanied by the voice; he is the provider of the voice. One might say, "John spoke with his voice". This does not mean that John spoke in accompaniment with his voice, but rather that John spoke by means of his voice. Likewise Jesus, comes with the voice of the archangel. His voice as the archangel is used a means to convey his coming. Again, it is, of course, not speaking of literal speaking and making sounds with a voice, but "voice" is used to designate that a signal is given to the watchers that he comes.
Jesus comes with the trumpet of God. Jesus is the one who uses the trumpet of God as a means to make known to the watchers of his return. Again, *en* can be seen to be used in the sense of instrumentality, not being accompanied with.
The basic meaning of "en", however, is that of position. If one should think that location in this verse should mean "in" as "inside of", then we have Jesus coming "in" a shout, "in" the voice of the archangel, and "in" the trumpet of God. This could only be applied as meaning in the authority of, as far as "in the voice of the archangel", and "in" the trumpet of God. Thus Jesus would come, not with a man's voice as he did while on earth, but with all the power of "the voice of the archangel." If the title "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to a lesser being, then the reference to "the voice of the archangel" would not be appropriate, but would be describing a voice of lesser authority.
One has commented: "Saying that because Jesus comes with the voice of an Archangel that he is michael (sic), does that mean he is the Trumpet too and the shout?"
This has evidently also misread what he have presented. The voice of the Archangel is surely not the Archangel, even as my voice is not me. Jesus, however, uses his voice as the archangel, along with his shout and the trumpet of God.

Archangel Above Angels
Many claim that we are saying that we are depicting Jesus as nothing more than an "angel". It is claimed that Hebrews 1 proves that Jesus is not archangel, based on this claim. Since, in reality, we do not claim that the archangel is an ordinary angel, this line of argument is actually a strawman argument.
Jesus is not, nor ever has been, one of the class being referred to as "angels" in Hebrews 1. The word "angel" is never even used of Michael anywhere in the Bible. Nothing in Hebrews 1 excludes Jesus from being the archangel. His being the archangel places him outside and above the ordinary class of angels. The word "archangel" (chief of the angels) is similar to the word "architect" -- first, chief builder. Although the architect is the "chief of the builders", he is still not of the ordinary class of construction workers who carry out the plans of the "chief". It is the same with Jesus as the archangel. Although this title makes him the "chief of the angels", it excludes him of the being of the ordinary class commonly referred to as "angels".
We know that Jesus is called an angel in Malachi 3:1 (the Hebrew word for angel is often rendered "messenger" in this verse). The usage of angel here does not mean that Jesus is of the ordinary class of angels, nor does the usage of the term "archangel" mean so.
Indeed, Jesus was above these angels before he came to the earth, but became lower than the angels when he came to earth. (Hebrews 2:9) Hebrews 1:4 tells of Jesus' exaltation above the angels. Jesus' exaltation is also spoken of in Hebrews 1:3; 12:2, as well as Ephesians 1:21,22; Philippians 2:9. It was not to an angel that this exaltation came, but Jesus, who, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), was lower than angels,  was exalted from his lowly estate as a human being, to a state higher than the angels, even "far higher" than he had enjoyed before his debasement to the earth. See:
The claim has been made that we are placing Christ as an angel and denying his deity. No, we are not saying either. Jesus is not, nor has he ever been, of the order of spirit beings that are usually referred to as “angels”. The word “angel”, however, is not just used of this order of spirit beings, but it also used in its general common meaning of messenger. Jesus is indeed an “angel” — messenger, and he is called such in Malachi 3:1. However, We have already shown above that the archangel is above the level of those generally called angels.
Belief that Jesus is the archangel, however, does not deny his deity, anymore than we would deny the deity of the angels. — Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7.
See:
The Deity of Christ
We have been asked: Why would God send an angel to die for mankind that would be unjust?
As already discussed, we do not make any such claim that an angel died for mankind. To satisfy justice, Jesus had to be a sinless man, nothing more, nothing less. It was the man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself as the ransom for all. (1 Timothy 2:5,6) God condemned all of Adam’s descendants by means of Adam’s disobedience, so that only one sinless man is needed to satisfy justice for the whole world now dying in Adam. — Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.
See:
http://reslight.net
The claim has been made that Hebrews 1:5 refutes our study above by saying that unto which angel did God say you are my son, today I have begotten you?
Again, when Jesus was begotten in his resurrection, Jesus was not raised to the glory of an angel, but to the glory above the angels, as opposed the terrestrial crown (1 Corinthians 15:39-41) of glory a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9) that he had while he was in the days of his flesh. -- Hebrews 5:7.
One states: "Jesus is the Son of God, not a mere angel or an archangel but the only begotten better than Angels or seraphims (sic)." As we have already pointed out, the archangel is not of the glory of an angel, nor of that often attributed to the seraphs. While in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), Jesus had a glory that was not better than the angels, but rather he had a sinless glory that was a little lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9) In being raised in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18), Jesus was not raised to the glory of angel, but to a glory that is above, better than, the angels. — Hebrews 1:4; 1 Peter 3:22.
Brother Russell’s discussion on the various orders may be found in the study:
Our own study:
Jude 1:9
We now will address Jude 1:9 (Jude 9):
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling [Greek, Blasphemia, blasphemy] judgment [Greek, krisis] upon him, but said, " [Jehovah] rebuke you." -- Revised Standard Version.
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 [Jehovah] rebuke you!" -- World English Bible translation
But Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses; he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, "Let [Jehovah] rebuke you!" -- Literal Translation of the Bible, Jay Green.
The claim seems to be that Michael did not rebuke Satan here, and therefore Michael does not have authority to rebuke Satan. Jesus, of course, did rebuke Satan. (Matthew 17:18; Luke 4:18; John 8:44) However, the thought that Michael cannot rebuke Satan has to be assumed from Jude 1:9. Jesus did, in effect, rebuke Satan by saying, "May Jehovah rebuke you." However, Jesus recognized his authority to rebuke Satan comes from his God, Jehovah (Yahweh), in whose name he came. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.
We need to realize the context of Jude 1:9. It is speaking of reviling or railing against authority, of taking matters into one's own hands.
Jude 1:8 - Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile [Greek, Blasphemeo] the glorious ones.
Jude 1:10 - But these men revile [Blasphemeo] whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.
In the Old Testament times, however, before he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), Michael did not seek a judgment against Satan or anyone else aside from his God and Father. (John 5:30) The blasphemy spoken of, had Michael pursued such a course on his own, would have been, in effect, a rebellion against his God. Had Jesus as Michael taken upon himself to bring a railing -- blasphemous - - judgment against Satan, it would have been without God's authority. Jesus did not revile, not even against his enemies (1 Peter 2:23), nor did he blaspheme by taking matters in his own hands, but he did, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), rebuke in the name of -- in the authority of -- his God and Father. (Matthew 9:8; 28:18; Mark 11:10; John 5:43; 10:25) The authority that Jesus had when he was on earth, he had received from his God and Father, and the words that he spoke were the words that he had received from his God and Father. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 9:6,8; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24; John 14:10,24; 17:8.
There is nothing in Jude 1:9 that says that Michael could not rebuke Satan, but rather that he refused to revile by taking matters into his own hands. There is nothing in Jude 1:9 that excludes Jesus from being Michael the archangel.
We have been asked: "Michael couldn’t rebuke Satan but said the Lord rebukes you, who is that Lord who rebukes?"
It should be evident “the Lord” is being used to replace God’s Holy Name, which is expressed in the Old Testament of the World English as “Yahweh”. We also need to note that it is possible that Michael, not yet having received the authority that he later received, called upon his God and Father, Jehovah, to rebuke Satan.
One has submitted the following to us:
note the scriptures says that the second Adam is the Lord of Heaven, Jesus Christ is always referred to as Lord,Michael is not referred to as Lord.
This is evidently referring to 1 Corinthians 15:47, where the “second man (person)” is referred to, not as the Lord of heaven, but the Lord from heaven. It would seem to be attempting to say that “the Lord” in Jude 9 (as it appears in many translations) and “the Lord” (as it appears in many translations) in 1 Corinthians 15:47 is the same being.
Jude 9
ho de michaeel ho archaggelos hote tw diabolw
THE BUT MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL, WHEN TO THE DEVIL
3588 1161 3413 3588 0743 3753 3588 1228
diakrinomenos dielegeto peri
HAVING JUDGED FOR SELF DIVIDEDLY HE WAS SAYING IN DISAGREEMENT ABOUT
1252 1256 4012
tou mwusews swmatos ouk etolmeesen krisin
OF THE MOSES OF BODY, NOT HE DARED JUDGMENT
3588 3475 4983 3756 5111 2920
epenegkein blaspheemias alla eipen epitimeesai
TO BEAR UPON OF BLASPHEMY, BUT HE SAID MAY HE GIVE REBUKE
2018 0988 0235 1511_7 2008
soi kurios
TO YOU LORD.
4771_2 2962
Westcott & Hort Interlinear.
The Textus Receptus Version of this may be seen at:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/jud1.pdf
If you notice above, the Greek word kurios is anarthrous, without the definite article, which further provides evidence that the word is being used as a name, and not just as a title, and thus that it is being used to replace God’s Holy Name, which name appears in the World English of the Old Testament as “Yahweh”.
1 Corinthians 15:47
ho prwtos anthrwpos ek gees choikos ho deuteros
THE FIRST MAN OUT OF EARTH DUSTY, THE SECOND
3588 4413 0444 1537 1093 5517 3588 1208
anthrwpos ex ouranou
MAN OUT OF HEAVEN.
0444 1537 3772
Westcott & Hort Interlinear
The Textus Receptus of this verse may seen at:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co15.pdf
In 1 Corinthians 15:47, Kurios does not appear in the Westcott & Hort text, but it does appear in the Textus Receptus, where it is not anarthrous — it has a definite article, “the Lord”. This refers to the lordship that the God and Father of Jesus has given to Jesus. (John 5:22,27; Acts 2:36; Romans 14:9, 2 Timothy 4:1), especially as in his role in the last day of being the “life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthian 15:45) who calls both the just and the unjust out of their tombs. (Daniel 12:1,2; John 5:28,29; 6:39,40,44.65; 12:47,48; Acts 24:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) In (during) that last day that Jehovah has appointed, Jehovah comes to judge the world by means of the person whom he has ordained. — Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Acts 17:31.
See:
Mankind’s Course to the Day of Judgment
http://rlbible.com/life/?p=152
The Day of Judgment
http://rlbible.com/life/?p=200
Charles Taze Russell and Michael
The claim has been made that Charles Taze Russell taught that Jesus was not Michael the Archangel. The Watch Tower, 1879, page 4, is cited as proof of this. Of course, our concern should be relevant to what is revealed in the scriptures, not necessarily what Russell may have thought. Russell, or any other servant of God, should be viewed only as an instrument to lead us to God's Word. Nevertheless, the reference is to an article entitled, "God is Love", in which we read: "He of whom it was said, "Let all the angels of God worship him," [that must include Michael]." The problem is, this article was not written by Russell, but rather by John H. Paton. The entire article may be seen online at:
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r9b.htm.
On the reverse side, some have claimed that no one thought that Jesus is Michael until Russell came up with this teaching. This is not true, as we have already noted that the teaching that Jesus is Michael the archangel had been around for a long time before Russell. See:
Jesus Did Not Take the Nature of Angels
Hebrews 2:16 is often quoted as showing that Jesus could not be the archangel, Michael. One has commented: "Hebrews further goes to say that Jesus Christ did not take on the nature of Angels, well if he was Michael the archangel he must have been an angel before." This, of course, classifies the archangel as being of the same class of any ordinary angel. As we have already pointed out before, the word "angel" is never applied to Michael.
While some translations insert the word "form" or "nature" into Hebrews 2:16, there is no matching word for this in any Greek text that we know of, nor in any other ancient text.
Of course, when Jesus became a human he did not take the nature of angels -- why should he? It was only as with the glory of a sinless human that he could suffer and die for our sins. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:3,21,22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9; 10:10,12; 1 Peter 3:18) Jesus had the heavenly glory (or, nature) that Jesus had before he became flesh (1 Corinthians 15:40), he did not have that glory (or, nature) while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), as can be seen by his request recorded in John 17:5.
Hebrews 2:16 - For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. -- New King James Version.
For, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold, -- Young's Literal Translation.
Yes, Jesus came for the benefit of the seed of Abraham, who will rule with him to bless all the families of the earth. -- Galatians 3:16,26-29.
Hebrews 2:16 reads in the KJV as: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
The word translated "verily" is "Depou". This word is only used once in the Bible; it is not used in the Septuagint. "It is used when something is affirmed in a slightly ironical manner, as if with a pretence of uncertainty; perhaps; doubtless; verily; truly." -- Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Depou". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi? number=1222&version=kjv
Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/dkpsa
However, other scholars believe the word means that the statement made is a well-known, universally admitted truth; Dean Alford renders it "For, as we all know"; Moffatt translates it "Of course."
As we have shown, there is no word in the Hebrew to match the word "nature" that appears in the KJV. Nevertheless, if Jesus had become an angel, he would not have been able to pay the price for Adam's sin.
Most translators, however, render this with the thought of taking hold, in the sense of taking the promises the promises of Abraham as the seed of Abraham, or to help assist, not directly about his taking upon himself some form of being, and can only be related to the plane of being as associated to the promises, and since Jesus did not come to die for angels, the promises are not related directly to the angels. The promises are related to the seed of Abraham. Thus, while the idea of the plane of existence is related to what is being spoken of, that is not the point of what was being stated.
Regardless, however, of which rendering one might accept of the verse, they all still fit the context, which is speaking about how Jesus had become like his brothers. He did not take a plane of life as an angel, but as a human, as his brothers with him as the seed of Abraham, first-fruits of God's new creation. (Galatians 3:16,26-28; James 1:18) He did not take a plane of life as an angel, but as a human, as his brothers with him as the seed of Abraham.
Jesus was higher than the angelic plane before coming to the earth and passed by it to take the human plane of existence that he might be man's Redeemer. Also, his becoming as his brothers was not to aid the angels who were never under condemnation, but his brothers, as the seed of Abraham, who are released from condemnation through faith in Jesus. -- Galatians 3:29.
Philippians 2:8 speaks of Jesus' taking on the form [appearance] of a bond-servant. While a human he was in the likeness of man, of sinful flesh. (Philippians 2:8; Romans 7:5) He was, however, not a bond- servant to sin, although he suffered as though he were a bond-servant to sin, in order to pay for the sin of the world.
Jesus is not, nor ever has been, one of the class being referred to as "angels" in Hebrews. Nothing in Hebrews excludes Jesus from being the archangel. His being the archangel places him outside and above the ordinary class of angels. The word "archangel" (chief, or first angel) is similar to the word "architect" -- first, chief builder. Although the architect is the "chief builder", he is still not of he ordinary class of construction workers who carry out the "chief builder"'s plans. It is the same with Jesus as the archangel. Although this title makes him the "chief angel", it excludes him of the being of the ordinary class commonly referred to as "angels".
We know that Jesus is called an angel in Malachi 3:1 (the Hebrew word for angel is often rendered "messenger" in this verse). The usage of angel here does not mean that Jesus is of the ordinary class of angels, nor does the usage of the term "archangel" mean so.
Indeed, Jesus was above the angels referred to in Hebrews before he came to the earth, but he became lower than they when he came to earth. (Hebrews 2:9) Hebrews 1:4 tells of Jesus' exaltation above the angels. Jesus' exaltation is also spoken of in Hebrews 1:3; 12:2, as well as Ephesians 1:21,22; Philippians 2:9. It was not to an angel that this exaltation came, but the man Jesus was exalted from his lowly estate, lower than the angels, to a state higher than the angels, even "far higher" than he had enjoyed before his debasement to the earth.
Hebrews 1: What Does Hebrews 1 Say About “God”?
Some point to the Jewish tradition that there are several archangels as proof that there is more than one archangel, and that Michael is equal to these other archangels, and thus it is claimed Jesus is not Michael. Some have claimed that the angels Raphael and Uriel are also archangels. Some encyclopedias and other references can be given to document this idea. These same reference works also often point out that the Jewish leaders sometime before Christ came had adopted many different philosophies and mythologies from the Greeks and other heathen cultures.
However, we should not base our views on what the disobedient Jews may have believed. Indeed, the Jewish leaders had turned away from truth, so much so that Jesus said that their father was the devil, the father of the lie. -- John 8:44.
Some claim that there is more than one archangel, because Raphael is an also an archangel. Raphael is never mentioned in scripture. Although the apocryphal book Tobit mentions Raphael, Raphael is not called an archangel. Likewise, the apostate book of Enoch mentions Raphael, but still does not call him an archangel. Raphael, in the book of Enoch especially, if there ever was such an appearance of such an angel, probably is one of the fallen angels, as he did not come in the name of Jehovah (Yahweh). Raphael appears to be a Jewish adaptation of Mercury-Hermes, the heathen God of Air, the messenger of the Gods, the wanderer between the Spheres, the Lord of the function of inspiration and intuition. The Book of Enoch very plainly has adopted and blended Hellenistic mythology concerning hades and tartarus with Biblical allusions.
Daniel 10:13
Another argument given is that Daniel 10:13 excludes Jesus from being Michael, since Michael is said to be "one of the chief princes."
Daniel 10:13 - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one(1) of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (1) Margin: or "the first", King James Version.
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.
Again, there is nothing in this scripture that proves that Jesus is not Michael, the chief messenger. His being one of the chief princes, only shows that there are chief princes (rulers, leaders, Captains, Generals, Commanders*), and that here Michael is classified as one of these "chief princes" -- Commanders-in-Chief, as we might say today. It is a military classification, not a classification of rank of being. Nothing is said about these "chief princes" all being equal in being. Nor is there anything in the scripture that would make all the angels "chief princes". What brings the classification together, however, is that these are chief rulers -- Commanders, Generals, not that they are angels.
========
Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius Lexicon, "Ri'shown"
Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius Lexicon. "Sar".
The Gentiles have their rulers, princes, who rule over them. Thus we read that the prince, ruler, of the kingdom of Persia withstood the angel speaking to Daniel fror for 21 days. (Daniel 10:13) Michael, however, is not the prince or ruler of one of the Gentile Kingdoms, but Michael is said to be "Michael your prince [ruler]," (Daniel 10:21) "the prince of the covenant", (Daniel 11:22) "the great prince who stands for the children of your people." (Daniel 12:1) These expressions are prophetic. Michael, in other words, in prophecy, is the chief prince who is ruler over Daniel's people, that is, Israel, God's people, and by extension, the Israel of faith. (Galatians 3:7,9,26-29; 6:16) This ruler is identified in the NT as Jesus, who is King of Israel. (John 1:49; 12:13) Jesus is the promised "prince" of Israel. Jesus is the "Commander-in-Chief" -- Read Ephesians 1:20- 23 and Revelation 19:11-16.
The princes -- rulers -- over the Gentile Kingdoms are not identified by name in Daniel, and only two are mentioned in Daniel, that is, the prince of Persia, and the prince of Greece. -- Daniel 10:20.
Jesus is also called "prince of princes". (Daniel 8:25) In the kingdom age to come, Jesus will have associate kings and princes -- the saints -- who will rule with him, and yet will under him. (Daniel 7:22,27; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 1:9; Revelation 5:10) Some will be joint-heirs with him (Romans 8:17), while others will be princes in all the earth. -- Psalm 45:16; Isaiah 32:1.
Some claim that by use of the word "one", this would place Michael as a an ordinary angel. The Hebrew word for one is usually transliterated as "echad". However, simply placing Michael as "one of" these chief princes, does not designate that all of these chief princes have the name exact rank of glory. (1 Corinthians 15:40,41) However, the Hebrew word echad can also mean "first", and thus could be rendered "first of the chief princes", as seen in Young's Translation. As such, then, Jesus would be the "first" of the chief princes, which would again agree with the title of archangel, if the chief princes spoken are a class amongst the angels. Jesus is first of all the chief princes, not necessarily in time, but in that his rulership, as well as his glory, is greater than all those others spoken of as the chief princes. However, Jesus, being the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), did exist before any others who might be called "Chief Prince", whether this prince be angelic or human. And being the archangel before coming to the earth, he did exercise a rulership over the angels before his exaltation.
A quote from R.E. Streeter:
Michael is represented as coming to the assistance of this one that Daniel saw. The name Michael signifies, "He who is like God." In Jude we have Michael spoken of as the archangel. The term archangel signifies "head or chief angel"; and the angel of the vision under consideration speaks of Michael as the first of the chief princes (See marginal reading on verse 13.) We sometimes hear of archangels as though there were many; but the Scriptures do not so speak. According to the Scriptures there is but one archangel. In I Thess. 4:16, St. Paul states that when Christ shall raise dead, it will be in connection with the voice of the Archangel. Connecting this utterance with Christ's own words concerning that event, "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God," we can but identify Michael with our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Daniel 12, Michael is called the "great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people." It is not probable that such expressions can have reference to any other personage than the Lord Jesus Christ.
========
Daniel, the Beloved of Jehovah, by R.E. Streeter, page 174.
At any rate, there is nothing in Daniel 10:13 that excludes Jesus from being Michael. The idea that there is something in what is said that would exclude Jesus from being Michael has to be added to and read into what is said there.
See Also:
One has submitted that "Jesus Christ is never referred to as one of the chief princes as if he had peers, but Jesus is always in the superlative, the Prince of Peace, the fairest of ten thousand, the Rose of sharon."
As we have already pointed out, we believe that the word translated “one” in Daniel 10:13 should be understood as “first”, as it appears in the margin of the King James Version, and as Young so renders in his Literal Translation.
Michael as a Manifestation of Christ
It is argued that while Michael the archangel may be a manifestation of Christ as opposed to Jesus christ himself, no scriptures in the Bible states explicitly that Jesus was literally michael the archangel. We reply that it is by harmonizing the scriptural testimony, as has already been given in the study, that we reach the conclusion that Jesus is indeed Michael the Archangel. We hope to later present a more detailed study of this harmonization that reveals Jesus as the Archangel.
Michael is Never Called the "Son of God
One is evidently claiming that since Michael the archangel is not said to be “the son of God”, then this means that Michael the Archangel is not Jesus. We are sure the Michael the archangel is included in the “sons of God” spoken of Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. However, even the promised Messiah is not directly spoken of as “the son of God” in the Old Testmanent prophecies that are generally accepted as pertaining to Jesus. In Psalm 2:7, David is addressed, although the application is to the Messiah. Hosea 11:1 directly speaks of Israel, and Israel is used as a type of the Messiah. (Matthew 2:15) Does this lack of clear identification of the Messiah as “the son of God” mean that those prophecies are not actually speaking of the Messiah, since they do not say that the Messiah would be “the son of God”? The fact that in context Michael is not ever given the title “Son of God” does not mean that he wasn’t the firstborn son, the first living creature to be brought forth to life. — Colossians 1:15.
See:
Psalm 2:7 – An “Eternal” Today?
http://rlbible.com/jesus/?p=719
This is basically examining the thought many claim that “today” is an eternal “day”, but it also contains some information relevant to this conversation.
The challenge is put before us to show a scripture where Jesus referred to himself as Michael. This challenge simply places the matter on producing a scripture in which Jesus himself refers to him as Michael, evidently with the knowledge that this cannot be done, since Jesus never directly referred to himself as Michael. The fact that scriptures pertaining to Michael are fullfilled by Jesus, however, does offer evidence that Jesus is Michael. If, however, anyone has another conclusion, we would certainly not be dogmatic so as to claim that a Christian HAS TO BELIEVE that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
Jesus Received Worship And Is Prayed To
One has commented: "As far as I know no Angel, Arch or otherwise can receive worship except for God, and yet Jesus Christ was worshipped in the bible several times and even prayed to." Our reply is that the Bible records many as having receiving worship, not just Jesus. This we have shown from the Scriptures in other studies:
See:
Jesus Received Worship
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=279
The Worship Due to Jesus
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=190
In the Bible, no formal prayer is ever addressed to Jesus; Jesus instructed us to pray to his God, not to him. However, since prayer of the Christian goes through Jesus to his God and Father, I do no objection to prayers addressed to Jesus. The danger in such prayers is if, by such prayer, one exalts Jesus as the Most High, thereby attributing to Jesus the glory that only belongs to Jehovah.
See:
Jesus as the Object of Prayer
http://rjesus-rlbible.com/?p=1926
God Does Not Share His Glory
The question has been asked: "You say he is not God, I say well who is this then seeing the scriptures say that God will not share his Glory with another?" Our reply is that the Most High — Jehovah — does not share the glory of being the Most High with anyone else, not even his firstborn creature. As Paul wrote, however, there are different "glories" within the general heavenly glory. -- 1 Corinthians 15:40,41.
See:
Does God Share His Glory as Most High With Jesus?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=1282
It is being claimed that our arguments seem to be based on the fact that because the scriptures do not pre-clude Jesus from being Michael then he must be Michael the archangel. Our study does include a brief summation of why we believe that the scriptures lead us to believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same. It is not just based on arguments that “because the scriptures do not pre-clude Jesus from being Michael then he must be Michael.” It appears that, however, the summary given is too brief and that many are not getting the points raised; thus, we are working a more detailed study. There are some trinitarians who have produced very good scriptural arguments to show that Jesus is Michael, although they end up claiming that Michael was uncreated. At any rate, the scriptural reasoning that Jesus is Michael is based on scriptures that lead to that conclusion, not on any idea that because the scriptures do not pre-clude Jesus from being Michael then he must be Michael the archangel.
It is being claimed that "Jesus was a dual person God and man or God incarnate." Evidently by "was" this is referring to after the Logos became flesh. The scriptures no where say that Jesus was or is a dual person — God and man at the same time, nor do we find any scripture that says that when Jesus became flesh that he became “God incarnate”.
Links to studies of scriptures that are often used to claim support for this idea:
http://rlbible.com/jesus/?cat=88
http://rlbible.com/jesus/?cat=88&paged=2
We have been asked the question:
How can an archangel die?
It is not our thought that the archangel died. Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:70, no more longer had the glory of the archangel. Jesus, in obedience to his God and Father, willingly gave up the celestial glory (1 Corinthians 15:40) that he had with his God and Father when he became flesh. The glory that John and the other disciples saw was his terrestrial glory, a little lower than the angels, not his celestial glory. (John 1:14; Hebrews 2:9) Jesus’ words in John 17:5 show that he did not possess his former celestial glory while he was in the days of his flesh.- Hebrews 5:7.
Although it would not be correct to say that the archangel died, the sentiency of the archangel was changed when Jesus became flesh, so that he “was made a little inferior to the angels in order that through God’s grace He might taste death for every human being.” (Hebrews 2:9, Weymouth) It was “the man Christ Jesus” — not the archangel — who died in the flesh for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24), and who gave himself as a ransom for all. — 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Links to studies regarding the atonement:
http://rlbible.com/atonement/
One has stated:
God left Jesus the son of God at Gethsemane to allow Jesus Christ to die, because God cannot be killed, Jesus had to be obedient unto death,
We are in basic agreement with this as it is stated, although the intent appears to be that the alleged Jesus the Most High left Jesus the man, which we do not believe, nor does the scripture anywhere gives us any such thought. Jesus' question was not to himself as an alleged person of God, but it was addressed to only one person as God, that is, his God and Father: "My father, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34) As God, in effect, had forsaken the first man when he sinned, so, in order to suffer the fullness of what it would be to be condemned as a sinner, Jesus had to suffer the same thing. Not that Jesus was a sinner, or that he had ever sinned, but that Jesus suffered in the likeness of sinful flesh, as though he was sinner, in order to pay the price of sin for the whole human race.
However, “God” was not the price needed for redemption; it was a man that sinned and plunged the world that was made through Jesus into sin. (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21) It is a sinless man, nothing more, nothing less, that is required to be sacrificed as a symbolic “lamb” to God to cover the sins of the whole world. — John 1:10,29; Romans 5:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 10:10,12; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:2.
See:
Price of Redemption – God or Man?
http://rlbible.com/atonement/?p=242
One has offered the following argument:
went [sic, evident a typo for When] the demons confessed who Christ was they said he was the the Son of God not an Angel or Michael. Peter likewise said that he was the Son of God.
Why would they say that he was Michael? As has been shown, however, the archangel is not of the class of spirit being that are usually referred to as "angels".
Furthermore, Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), was not the archangel, the chief of the angels, for he was made a little lower than the angels. — Hebrews 2:9.
The demons, however, recognized who he was while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7) as the Son of God. In this they spoke the truth. They had known him as such before the world of mankind had been made. (John 17:6; Job 38:4-7) They did not say that he was the God of Abraham, etc. “God” in the expression “Son of God” refers to only one person, the God and Father of Jesus. “God” in the expression “Son of God” does not refer to Jesus.
Peter, likewise, had no reason to say "You are Michael the archangel", since Jesus had been made a little lower than the angels, and no longer has his former glory as the archangel. — Hebrews 2:9.
Jesus is indeed the Son of God. He is not “God” of whom he the Son.
A commenter states:
Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus was better than the Angels.
This evidently assumes that we believe that Jesus' being the Archangel means that we believe that Jesus is an angel; we have already shown above that this is not our belief. We agree that Jesus is now made better than the angels. Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), was lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9) After being raised and exalted, he was made better than the angels, sitting at the right hand of his God and Father. — Psalm 110:1; Daniel 7:27; Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; 16:19; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33,34; 5:31; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:17-21; Hebrews 1:3,4,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22.
See:
What Does Hebrews 1 Say About God?
http://rlbible.com/jesus/?p=1895
The following claim is made:
Archangel is not a category outside of angels where is the scripture to attest to this assumption,
In the Bible, Michael is never once referred to as an "angel". The word archangel itself designates, at least, that there is something different about the archangel that is not common to other spirit beings that are called “angels” in general. There is no reason to assume that the archangel is of the same level of glory as an angel. -- 1 Corinthians 15:40,41
It is stated Regarding Jude 1:9 (Jude 9)
Many scholars believe that Jude 9 seems to give the impression that Satan held a higher rank than Michael, I do not agree with this however it should be noted that he (satan) was the anointed cherubim who are the Guards to the throne of God.
See the discussion on Jude 9:
http://rlbible.com/jesus/?p=730#jude9
The claim has been presented:
In Revelation Jesus refers to himself as the Almighty please read revelation 1
We find in Revelation 1:8 that the One whom Jesus speaks of as “my God” (Revelation 3:12 – KJV; see other translations at: Revelation 2:7; 3:2) is being quoted. Jesus does not refer to himself as the Almighty in Revelation; it is the God and Father of Jesus who refers to Himself as the Almighty in Revelation.
Jesus Created All Things?
It is being claimed that the Bible says that Jesus created all things.
No where in the Bible do we find any scripture that says Jesus created all things. We do find scriptures that say that “all” (using forms of the Greek word transliterated as “pas” — Strong’s #3956) was created through [using forms of the word "dia" -- Strong's #1223], or by means of [instrumental "en", Strong's 1722] him. Both the Greek and Hebrew word for all, however, takes into consideration the context, as well as what should be self-evident, for what is included or excluded from the “all” that is being referred to. “All things” in Psalm 8:6 (of which it stated in Hebrews 2:8 that nothing was left that was subjected), for instance, does not mean absolutely everything in the universe, but rather what is described in the context. Because man sinned, however, we do not yet see all things in subjection to man. (Psalm 8:7-8) While we do not yet see all things subjected to man, we do see Jesus as having been made a little lower than the angels so that he could taste death for all. — Hebrews 2:9.
See:
Trinitarians and Michael the Archangel - Related to trinitarians who believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel
Is Jesus the Archangel Part 1
Is Jesus the Archangel? Part 2


No comments:

Post a Comment