Michael the Archangel, a characterization of Jesus in heaven?

[Eloi]

We, Jehovah's Witnesses, consider that Jesus is also the Archangel Michael. It is not just our belief, as many biblical scholars of other religious denominations have considered the matter in the same way.

Can this idea be demonstrated with the Bible? If that is not the case, the idea will not even be part of the Jehovah's Witness body of doctrines. In no way would we consider as belief something that did not have sufficient biblical support.

I would like to talk about that matter on this topic, as there is a lot of information that I would like to share about it. The subject of debate is: can it be demonstrated with the Bible that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? My answer is that you can do that, and in passing the topic I will try to prove it.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to tam in post #7]
I have already commented on "one of the foremost princes." I compared many versions, and I believe that "one" is translated sloppily in most versions. I believe that "one" sets forth the idea of the first of the princes, which would describe Michael/Jesus. I think that is what the writer was trying to convey.

one = top of the list, the first

[Eloi]

There are two questions from where to start:

1) What does the Bible specify about Michael?

2) And what is said in the Bible about the title "archangel"?

In the Scriptures Michael (the archangel) is mentioned four times, and three of them are in the book of Daniel; the last time is in the letter of Jude, the half-brother of Jesus. The tittle "Archangel" is mentioned twice only in the NT, and one of them, in Jude (mentioned before), is associated directly with Michael.

Dan. 10:13 calls Michael "one of the foremost princes".

Boy, the Bible I'm reading doesn't call him a prince at all, but a leader.

First thing first: do not call me "boy". You do not know me ... Do not call names to me. Thanks.

Dan. 10:13
For twenty-one days the leader of the Persian kingdom blocked my way. But then Michael, one of the highest leaders, came to help me. I left Michael there with the leader of the Persian kingdom.

Dan. 10:21 calls Michael "your prince", meaning the prince of the people of Daniel, Jehovah's worshippers at that time: israelites.

Again, not a "your prince," but a "your leader."

Dan. 10:21
But I will tell you what is written in the Scroll of Truth. No one stands strong with me against these leaders except your leader Michael.

Dan. 12:1 calls Michael "the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people", again about the people Daniel belong to.

And again, not "great prince," but great leader."

Dan. 12:1
“At that time, Michael the great leader who guards your people will take his stand. It will be a difficult time—nothing like it has ever happened since nations first appeared. But at that time every one of your people who is found written in the scroll will be rescued.

And within these verses other Bibles call him a "guardian angel," "highest leader," "chief officer," "chief commander," "top officer," and "chief head."

This is not about translations ... This is about the idea in the text. Anyone could derail the topic talking about how any other Bible version translate a word or an expression. In this case, whatever translation you use, the idea will be the same: Michael had a similar title to that one the other "princes" of the different empires of the times had.

Dan. 10:13 But the prince of the royal realm of Persia stood in opposition to me for 21 days. But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there beside the kings of Persia. 14 I have come to make you understand what will befall your people in the final part of the days, because it is a vision yet for the days to come.” (...) 20 Then he said: “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I leave, the prince of Greece will come. 21 However, I will tell you the things recorded in the writings of truth. There is no one strongly supporting me in these things but Miʹcha·el, your prince.

Do you notice the point? Michael was the Prince of the people of Israel, a different people out of the control of Satan and his princes in the world.

Luke 4:5 So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time. 6 Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.

Even if Michael was a prince in the name of Jehovah, he was just "another" prince among others in the world: "one of the foremost princes" (Dan. 12:13). Here you can read Jude talking about "authority":

Jude 8 Despite this, these men too are indulging in dreams, defiling the flesh, despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones.
9  But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”

Jude 9 calls Michael "the Archangel" and he takes us to an event related to the archangel Michael at the time when Moses died and only the spirits could decide on his corpse. ... while in Thess. 4:16 Paul says that Jesus, in his coming "will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice", associating the voice of Jesus on that future event with the Archangel's voice or sound.

Actually, in Thess. 4:16 Paul makes a distinction between Jesus and the caller/shouter

Thess. 4:16
16 This is because the Lord himself will come down from heaven with the signal of a shout by the head angel and a blast on God’s trumpet. First, those who are dead in Christ will rise.

If it was Jesus who did all this calling/shouting the writer of Thessalonians wouldn't have bothered with identifying it as "a shout by the head angel." The phrase would have been superfluous.

Here you are, again ... talking about translations. This is what the inspired Paul says to Thessalonians:

οτι αυτος ο κυριος __ because the Lord himself
εν κελευσματς __ with a commanding call
εν φωνη αρχαγγελου __ with an archangel’s voice
και εν σαλπιγγι θεος __ and with God’s trumpet
καταβησεται απ ουρανος __ will descend from heaven

It is about the use as WITH of that greek preposition. There IS NOT any "with a sygnal of", more than in the mind of that translator, his version ... and the people who follow him.

This is roughly all the factual information that Scripture contains about Michael, the archangel. However, from those few texts we can deduce several things that are implied in their content. If we must decide whether Michael identifies as Jesus himself, we should compare everything said about one and the other on the same issues, like:

Just to note, Michael doesn't identify himself with anyone. Daniel and Paul make the identifications. .

You are right this time, and this is my weakness when using Google translator ... in the Spanish language the reflexive forms are expressed in the same way as the passive forms ... and Google translator does not recognize the difference.

What I meant was: using the Bible itself Jesus can be identified as Michael the Archangel.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Eloi in post #12]

Is my point above not worth consideration?

[Eloi]

[Replying to Eloi in post #12]

Is my point above not worth consideration?

It is an interesting idea ... But the Hebrew text says literally: "one (in quantity) of ... the first ones".

Heb. 1:4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

What that text says happened after the death of Jesus. The same happened with Michael: as in the retouched photos: a "before" and an "after". Although Michael in Moses' time did not disavow Satan from his reign, thousands of years later he banished him from heaven (Rev. 12:7-10), because he was a more authoritative Michael, as described in Scripture ALSO about Jesus.

[Miles]

There are two questions from where to start:

1) What does the Bible specify about Michael?

2) And what is said in the Bible about the title "archangel"?

In the Scriptures Michael (the archangel) is mentioned four times, and three of them are in the book of Daniel; the last time is in the letter of Jude, the half-brother of Jesus. The tittle "Archangel" is mentioned twice only in the NT, and one of them, in Jude (mentioned before), is associated directly with Michael.

Dan. 10:13 calls Michael "one of the foremost princes".

Boy, the Bible I'm reading doesn't call him a prince at all, but a leader.

First thing first: do not call me "boy". You do not know me ... Do not call names to me. Thanks.

Wasn't calling you "boy." I used "boy" as a small exclamation, such as "wow," or "hey," or "gosh," or "gee."

Dan. 10:13
For twenty-one days the leader of the Persian kingdom blocked my way. But then Michael, one of the highest leaders, came to help me. I left Michael there with the leader of the Persian kingdom.

Dan. 10:21 calls Michael "your prince", meaning the prince of the people of Daniel, Jehovah's worshippers at that time: israelites.

Again, not a "your prince," but a "your leader."

Dan. 10:21
But I will tell you what is written in the Scroll of Truth. No one stands strong with me against these leaders except your leader Michael.

Dan. 12:1 calls Michael "the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people", again about the people Daniel belong to.

And again, not "great prince," but great leader."

Dan. 12:1
“At that time, Michael the great leader who guards your people will take his stand. It will be a difficult time—nothing like it has ever happened since nations first appeared. But at that time every one of your people who is found written in the scroll will be rescued.

And within these verses other Bibles call him a "guardian angel," "highest leader," "chief officer," "chief commander," "top officer," and "chief head."

This is not about translations ... This is about the idea in the text. Anyone could derail the topic talking about how any other Bible version translate a word or an expression. In this case, whatever translation you use, the idea will be the same: Michael had a similar title to that one the other "princes" of the different empires of the times had.

Then stop implying that "prince" is thee one-and-only translation, and that everyone must abide by your choice.

Jude 9 calls Michael "the Archangel" and he takes us to an event related to the archangel Michael at the time when Moses died and only the spirits could decide on his corpse. ... while in Thess. 4:16 Paul says that Jesus, in his coming "will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice", associating the voice of Jesus on that future event with the Archangel's voice or sound.

Actually, in Thess. 4:16 Paul makes a distinction between Jesus and the caller/shouter

Thess. 4:16
16 This is because the Lord himself will come down from heaven with the signal of a shout by the head angel and a blast on God’s trumpet. First, those who are dead in Christ will rise.

If it was Jesus who did all this calling/shouting the writer of Thessalonians wouldn't have bothered with identifying it as "a shout by the head angel." The phrase would have been superfluous.

Here you are, again ... talking about translations.

Yup, because that's what you're relying on here: YOUR translation, "prince," but until you can show that YOUR translation is thee only translation worth considering, the others are just as valid.

This is what the inspired Paul says to Thessalonians

οτι αυτος ο κυριος __ because the Lord himself
εν κελευσματς __ with a commanding call
εν φωνη αρχαγγελου __ with an archangel’s voice
και εν σαλπιγγι θεος __ and with God’s trumpet
καταβησεται απ ουρανος __ will descend from heaven

This may be what your translation says, but not the one I'm reading, which says:

1 Thessalonians 4:16
"The Lord himself will come down from heaven. We will hear a loud command. We will hear the voice of the leader of the angels. We will hear a blast from God’s trumpet. Many who believe in Christ will have died already. They will rise first."

It is about the use as WITH of that greek preposition. There IS NOT any "with a sygnal of", more than in the mind of that translator, his version ... and the people who follow him.

Maybe not in your translation, but obviously in mine. And even where "with" is used it need not imply it applies to Jesus

1 Thessalonians 4:16
The Lord himself will come down from heaven. There will be a loud command with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God. And those who have died and were in Christ will rise first.

.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]
On Guidelines for the TD&D subforum :

In this subforum (...)
No single translation trumps another, and when differences of opinion arise regarding various translations, Hebrew and Greek sources will have a greater authority. Sticking to a single translation to prove your point, when the majority of translations disagree, is not allowed, and your point must then be proven by deferring to the original language in which it was written.

I just brought the Greek text. I have nothing else to debate with you about it. Period.

[Eloi]

We can understand in the book of Daniel that when the angel mentions the "prince" of the kingdoms of Persia and then that of Greece, the angel is talking about two spiritual beings that control the royal region of those empires or domains ... It's not about humans.

First of all, in Dan. 10:13 the angel who speaks with Daniel tells him that one of those beings, the "Prince" of the kingdom of Persia, was opposing him and was not letting him advance to fulfill a certain mission that he had to do next to the human kings of that empire.

Dan. 10:13 But the prince of the royal realm of Persia stood in opposition to me for 21 days. But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there beside the kings of Persia.

So, there are two rulers in that empire: the spiritual one, and the humans. Obviously, the one who was opposing the angel of Jehovah was the spiritual ruler of that region, not its human kings ... When the archangel Michael came to his aid, it was not to confront the Persian kings, but to confront that ruling spirit of the region.

Similarly, in Dan. 10:20 the angel mentions another of those spiritual rulers, the one of Greece.

Dan. 10:20 Then he said: “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I leave, the prince of Greece will come. ..."

Since it is the Devil who controls this world separated from God as the Bible says, those spiritual rulers are supposedly under his control and supervision.

Luke 4:5 So he [the Devil] brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time. 6 Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish."

The Hebrew word translated "prince" in these texts is used in other biblical passages to refer to other classes of human leaders. But no matter what the translation is given to the word, the idea remains the same: in this case it is about spiritual leaders or rulers over the different world empires.

The issue now becomes: how is it that Michael is also considered (at this time when the angel speaks to Daniel) one of the princes who rule over a part of humanity? And more important: Who in our time make up "the people of Daniel" who are under the spiritual rule of Michael and who will be saved from "the great tribulation" at the end of these times of ours?

Dan. 12:1 “During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.

[onewithhim]

We can understand in the book of Daniel that when the angel mentions the "prince" of the kingdoms of Persia and then that of Greece, the angel is talking about two spiritual beings that control the royal region of those empires or domains ... It's not about humans.

First of all, in Dan. 10:13 the angel who speaks with Daniel tells him that one of those beings, the "Prince" of the kingdom of Persia, was opposing him and was not letting him advance to fulfill a certain mission that he had to do next to the human kings of that empire.

Dan. 10:13 But the prince of the royal realm of Persia stood in opposition to me for 21 days. But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there beside the kings of Persia.

So, there are two rulers in that empire: the spiritual one, and the humans. Obviously, the one who was opposing the angel of Jehovah was the spiritual ruler of that region, not its human kings ... When the archangel Michael came to his aid, it was not to confront the Persian kings, but to confront that ruling spirit of the region.

Similarly, in Dan. 10:20 the angel mentions another of those spiritual rulers, the one of Greece.

Dan. 10:20 Then he said: “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I leave, the prince of Greece will come. ..."

Since it is the Devil who controls this world separated from God as the Bible says, those spiritual rulers are supposedly under his control and supervision.

Luke 4:5 So he [the Devil] brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time. 6 Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish."

The Hebrew word translated "prince" in these texts is used in other biblical passages to refer to other classes of human leaders. But no matter what the translation is given to the word, the idea remains the same: in this case it is about spiritual leaders or rulers over the different world empires.

The issue now becomes: how is it that Michael is also considered (at this time when the angel speaks to Daniel) one of the princes who rule over a part of humanity? And more important: Who in our time make up "the people of Daniel" who are under the spiritual rule of Michael and who will be saved from "the great tribulation" at the end of these times of ours?

Dan. 12:1 “During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.

Yes, and who else has this position besides Jesus? He is the only one who is mediating between God and people. No one else is mentioned in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, etc. So that surely means that Jesus is in the position of Michael at Daniel 12, and vice versa for the account in Matthew. They are the same Person.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Yes, and who else has this position besides Jesus? He is the only one who is mediating between God and people. No one else is mentioned in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, etc. So that surely means that Jesus is in the position of Michael at Daniel 12, and vice versa for the account in Matthew. They are the same Person.

Not so, not even close.

Michael's position was not as a mediator but as a representative.

There is no vice-versa.

[Difflugia]

I just brought the Greek text. I have nothing else to debate with you about it. Period.

And the Greek text supports the ambiguity that you deny is there. The Greek preposition ἐν is too general to say for certain that the Lord is the one doing the shouting, voicing, or trumping. Grammatically, the Lord may just be in the midst of those things and not their source. That's not how I would personally read it, but even if nothing else, I've learned from apologists that many doctrinal points hinge on very slippery interpretations of grammar that are far more dubious than this one. Despite your assertion to the contrary, the Greek supports that the translation Miles is quoting might be right.