Jesus Is Michael

Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

Moderator: Moderators

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Jesus Is Michael

Post #1

Post by DavidLeon »

For some reason, which I could never quite understand, it seems extremely difficult for some people, especially skeptics, to understand that Jesus and Michael are the same. Lets look at the facts regarding Jesus and Michael.

1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1,3, 14; 3:13; 8:23, 58; 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus’ existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus’ position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah’s creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.

3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.

4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.

5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.

Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."

W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64.

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.

John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.

The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985

Smith's Bible Dictionary (says of Michael) - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40"

Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39.
I no longer post here

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #21

Post by WebersHome »

.
The Watchtower Society argues that the account of the metemorphe (transfiguration) found at Matt 17:1-9 showed Jesus' true angelic form, proving his ability to materialize a human form at will. Oh?

According to the Society's own doctrines, it is impossible to exist as a spirit being and a human being simultaneously. Now this is important to note because in order for Jesus to exist in human form, his angel form had to be terminated. So at the time of the transfiguration, Jesus' human form was his true form, viz: if anything, the transfiguration would prove not his ability to materialize himself as a human, rather, as an angel.

Had Jesus Christ undergone a change of nature in the transfiguration scene, he would have also undergone a change of name, but at no time during the event was he ever referred to as Michael; instead, throughout the event continued to be referred to as Jesus; which is his human name.

During the event, a voice from heaven identified Jesus as "my beloved son". According to the first chapter of the letter to Hebrews, God has never taken an angel as either His son or His heir.

All three of the synoptic gospels report the transfiguration event as a preview of the future kingdom; which, according to Heb 2:5-8 will be ruled, managed, and supervised by human beings rather than by angel beings.

Ergo: in order for Jesus to rule the kingdom as a human being, his human body would have to be restored to life because a materialized human body is not human; it's an avatar.

This presents a knotty problem for the Society because according to its teachings, Jesus' body cannot be restored to life. It has to stay dead and cached away somewhere on the earth in order to remain an effective sacrifice for the sins of the world. The Watchtower Society's rather curious claim is located on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; which reads:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God's altar."


NOTE: All the first covenant's sacrifices were removed from the altar, none were allowed to remain, not even their ashes. And besides, "God's altar" wasn't the earth; it was the cross, from which Jesus' body was removed the very afternoon of his death.

I'm a fan of a very bright woman named Marilyn vos Savant. She pens a weekly column in the Sunday paper's Parade Magazine. Her tested IQ is somewhere in the 200 range. Marilyn received a question that goes like this:


FAQ: Our family has been arguing about this: If a person makes a statement, and another person challenges it; who has the burden of proof?

A: Usually the person who makes an affirmative statement (defined as a statement that asserts a fact, makes an allegation, or favors an action; etc) has the burden of proof. America's justice system is an example. The prosecution (or the plaintiff, as the case may be) rather than the defense, must prove its case to the jury. Failure to prove its case, requires that the defense be exonerated.

In other words: when the Society makes a claim like the one on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; it has a moral obligation to substantiate it because the Society's opponents are not required to prove that the Society's claims are false.

No, it is incumbent upon the Society to prove its claims are true; and they should never be given a green light to do it by rationalizing, nor by humanistic reasoning, semantic double speak, and/or clever sophistry; no, they have to show it not only from scripture, but also in scripture. They claim that Jesus' crucified body is still deceased. If that claim cannot be shown from scripture, and in scripture, then sensible jurisprudence demands their claim be thrown out of court as spurious fiction.

The fact of the matter is that had Jesus morphed into an angel; the sacred text would say so; but it doesn't; indicating that the Society has gone and done something very common with cultists like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Herbert W. Armstrong, David Koresh, and Jim Jones: it has forced the Bible to mean things that it does not say in writing. According to 2Pet 3:15, people might just as well put a gun to their heads when they do that.
_

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #22

Post by WebersHome »

.
1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

I'm going to revise a portion of that passage slightly in order to bring out a point.

"with the archangel's voice"

No, it doesn't say the archangel's voice, rather, it says "an" archangel's voice-- viz: a nondescript arch angel --so I think it would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to a specific arch angel when according to Dan 10:13, there's more than one. Identifying the arch angel in 1Thess 4:16-17 as the angel spoken of in Jude 1:9 would be an arbitrary designation.

The title "Son of Man" in Matt 24:30-31 alerts us to the fact that the Lord himself, spoken of in 1Thess 4:16-17, will be the progeny of a human being rather than the progeny of an angel being; primarily because the Greek word translated "Man" is anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) which is a common word for humans throughout the New Testament rather than angels and/or humanistic avatars.


NOTE: The expression "in union with Christ" refers to an elite class of Christians identified in 1John 2:26-27 as anointed. In other words: 1Thess 4:16-17 doesn't apply to rank and file Witnesses; i.e. the great crowd, a.k.a. the hewers of wood and the haulers of water.
_

User avatar
tigger 2
Student
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 3:02 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #23

Post by tigger 2 »

By WebersHome: "1Thess 4:16-17. 'The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.'

"I'm going to revise a portion of that passage slightly in order to bring out a point.

"'with the archangel's voice'

"No, it doesn't say the archangel's voice, rather, it says 'an' archangel's voice -- viz: a nondescript arch angel --so I think it would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to a specific arch angel when according to Dan 10:13, there's more than one. Identifying the arch angel in 1Thess 4:16-17 as the angel spoken of in Jude 1:9 would be an arbitrary designation."

.............................................................

1 Thess. 4:16 "An Archangel's Voice"?


Yes, some Bible translations, including the NWT, render it "an archangel's voice." However many of the most-respected (by trinitarians) Bibles render it as follows.

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" - KJV.

"No, the Lord himself will come down from heaven at the word of command, at the sound of the archangel's voice and God's trumpet" - NAB (1970).

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." - NIV.

"For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first." - NRSV.

"With a shout of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of God’s trumpet, the Lord himself will come down from heaven, and the dead who belong to the Messiah will rise first." - ISV.

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." - HCSB.

Also see ASV and NASB.

The problem is that "archangel" is without the article (anarthrous) in the Greek, and it is also a genitive noun. This allows it to be understood as either definite or indefinite.

I believe it should probably be rendered "the archangel" because the Greek phrase is "in voice of archangel" (ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου). The governing noun "voice" is more likely to be understood in context as "the voice." And since the governing noun is without the article, but understood as definite ("the voice"), it is usual for the following anarthrous genitive to be understood the same: "the archangel."

Moulton's Grammar of New Testament Greek uses this example: "Thus aggelos kuriou is not 'an angel' but 'the angel,' [and the following genitive kuriou is 'of the Lord'] .... It usually happens that the second noun is also anarthrous". - p. 180, Vol. 3

"APOLLONIUS' CANON: "Apollonius of Dyscolus was a second century A.D. Greek grammarian who stated that, usually when a noun is modified by another noun in the genitive case, both nouns will have the article prefixed to them or neither will have the article. When both nouns are anarthrous, usually they are both mutually definite or both indefinite" - http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 55383.html

"Hedges thesis proposes what is known as Apollonius’ Corollary: “when both nouns are anarthrous, both will usually have the same semantic force. That is, both will be, for example, definite (D-D), the most commonly shared semantic force." - f.n. 3 - Apollonius’ Canon in Mark, Rodney J. Decker, Th.D., 1995, rev. 1999.

"[Apollonius' Canon] is usually handled in the grammars under a discussion of the genitive since the construction includes a head noun and a genitive noun. This rule holds true more than eighty percent of the time. ....

"The corollary to this rule (Apollonius' Corollary), developed by David Hedges, is that when both nouns are anarthrous, both will usually have the same semantic force. That is, both will be, for example, definite (D-D), the most commonly shared semantic force." - http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Apollonius'_Corollary.

Therefore, "the voice of the archangel."

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #24

Post by WebersHome »

.
John 1:1 . . In the beginning was the Word

The Greek translated "Word" refers to spoken words rather than cogitated words, viz: speech vs thoughts.

So then, if we must insist that the Word is an archangel named Michael, then in the beginning when God said "Let there be light" Michael flew out of God's mouth; and flew out of His mouth each and every time after that whenever "God said"


tigger 2 wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:06 pm Therefore, "the voice of the archangel."
Well; there's some difficulty associated with that interpretation because according to Daniel 10:13, there's more than one archangel. Who's to say which of them is "the" archangel?
_

birdie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:38 am

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #25

Post by birdie »

I think the problem lies in people's preconceived notions about what angels are. In my opinion, a strong sense of what society thinks angels are comes from the familiar Psalm 104:4 verse: "Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:" Thus, most Bible readers throughout many years have assumed that this means that angels are spirits without flesh bodies, and could be thought of as flames of fire in aspect. I maintain that this is a verse describing true believers instead. I think this scripture emphasizes that the true believers are God's messengers who have his Spirit to share his message. Further, as in other verses in the Bible, fire is used to emphasize that the gospel has a judgment component for those who will not listen. Thus, he makes his messengers (the true believers, the saved persons) possessing the spirit of God and they have the gospel, which is salvation to those who believe, and judgment (fire) to those who reject it. Certainly, the day of Pentecost shows fire associated with the spirit for saved persons, and Revelation 11 shows the two witnesses, a picture of true believers, with fire coming out of their mouths (to emphasize in parable form the judgment of the gospel if any should reject it). When Hebrews 1:5 speaks of God calling Jesus his son and places him in greater position than the angels it means he is in greater position than the true believers. Let the messengers of God worship him. Hebrews 1:4 says that Jesus has obtained a more excellent name than angels, which to me means more excellent than the true believers, the saved persons.

Some of you may be aware of the fact that Jesus is called an angel in Genesis 48: "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads". To my mind, Jesus is the only redeemer in the Bible, and the one who redeems true believers from all evil, just as this verse shows.

Although I am not a fan or member of the JW organization, and never have been, I do see the logic when it comes to Michael. I could care less where an idea comes from but I care only whether it is true and makes sense. Since the name Michael means "who is like God", that seems to me to fit with Jesus. Since the Michael defeats Satan by the blood of the lamb, that seems to fit with Jesus to my mind. Since Michael is Daniel's prince, that seems to fit with Jesus as well. Jesus is the chief messenger in my opinion, he is the archangel. That's why he descends from heaven with the voice of the archangel. That fits with Jesus.

The disciples are called angels in Luke 7:24: "And when the messengers of John were departed" The term messengers here is the word 'angelos'. In fact, the word translated angels in the Bible just means messengers. That is what the true believers, saved persons, are. They are God's messengers once they become saved.

Gabriel is an angel. His name means 'man of God', not disembodied spirit of God. Perhaps angels are men. Mmmm. We see this in Rev 21 as well: "according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel."Mmmm.

Post Reply