You are hereIs Michael Christ? (Part 1)

Is Michael Christ? (Part 1)

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Islamaphobe - Posted on 30 May 2007

by John Evans
During the three years that have elapsed since I finished writing The Four Kingdoms of Daniel, I have had ample time to rethink a few positions that I took in that book about which I entertained some doubt at the time that I wrote. When I submitted my manuscript to the publisher, I knew that I could be (and probably was) wrong on a few points, but I felt that someone needed to be putting out a book that refutes the general thrust of the interpretations of Daniel that have for far too long been dominant—the liberal or critical approach (dominant in academia), which treats it as “a pious fraud,” and the futurist approach, which insists that its “end-time” prophecies have yet to be fulfilled. During the three years that have elapsed since I finished writing The Four Kingdoms of Daniel, I have had ample time to rethink a few positions that I took in that book about which I entertained some doubt at the time that I wrote. When I submitted my manuscript to the publisher, I knew that I could be (and probably was) wrong on a few points, but I felt that someone needed to be putting out a book that refutes the general thrust of the interpretations of Daniel that have for far too long been dominant—the liberal or critical approach (dominant in academia), which treats it as “a pious fraud,” and the futurist approach, which insists that its “end-time” prophecies have yet to be fulfilled. My understanding of Daniel has deepened considerably during the past three years. On a number of occasions, I have posted articles here that reflect this deepening. In the present article and the one that will follow it, I shall address the problem of the identity of Michael, whom the Book of Daniel mentions three times, all of them being in the last vision (chapters 10-12). In my book, I offered an ambiguous analysis of Daniel’s Michael in which I called attention to the possibility that he symbolizes Christ, but I stopped short of endorsing that position and opined that it is probably better to regard him as an angel. I have subsequently examined this issue with a good deal more care, and I hereby proclaim that I now am firmly of the view that the Michael of the Book of Daniel is the pre-incarnate Christ and is not an angel.

The first reference to Michael in the Book of Daniel is found in 10:13, which reads as follows (NASB): “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.” Note here that the narrator refers to Michael as “one of the chief princes” (emphasis added). It was this identification that, more than anything else, persuaded me three years ago that it was probably correct to classify Michael as an angel. I could accept that the Book of Daniel refers to Christ as a “prince” in 10:13 because I was sure that it does so in 9:25 and also because I was aware of other biblical passages in which messianic references could be translated as “prince.”[1] What I could not accept was allowing Christ to belong to a group of princes whose status was approximately equal to His own. To do so would be to deny His uniqueness and divinity. Moreover, the Bible’s supernatural beings called “angels” are created, but Christ “was in the beginning with God” (John 1:2, emphasis added).

The possibility that Michael is Christ first came to my attention when I looked at David Chilton’s masterful commentary on Revelation. Although Chilton did not address the issue arising from the language of Daniel 10:13, he briefly noted some evidence supporting the Michael as Christ thesis and concluded: “Even at first glance, therefore, there is much to commend the view that Michael is a symbolic representation of Christ.”[2] In reaching this conclusion, Chilton drew upon the authority of Milton Terry (1840-1914), whose work was totally unfamiliar to me three years ago. Terry observed that Revelation presents Christ “under various names and symbols” and that in Revelation 12, Michael and his angels are to be understood as “a symbolic designation of Christ and his apostles, together will all the angelic forces in sympathy and cooperation with them.”[3] Terry did not suggest, as Chilton did, that Michael symbolizes Christ in Daniel as well as in Revelation, and neither Terry nor Chilton addressed the problem posed by the language of Daniel 10:13.

Another prominent commentator on Revelation who has endorsed the idea that Michael is Christ is Kurt Simmons. Simmons makes what I find to be a highly persuasive case for believing that this is what Revelation 12 indicates, and he offers a brief analysis of supporting biblical passages elsewhere than in Revelation to arrive at the conclusion that “it seems clear that Michael is a divine manifestation identified with Christ.”[4] Unfortunately, Simmons does not address the obstacle posed by Daniel 10:13.

If the Michael of Revelation 12 is Christ, and if both Revelation and Daniel are divinely inspired works that are genuinely prophetic, it would seem to follow that the Michael of Daniel must also be Christ. How, then, is one to reconcile the apparent conflict between Revelation 12, which portrays Michael as the being who leads the angels in their struggle against Satan and his angels, with Daniel 10:13, which refers to Michael as “one of the chief princes”? One possibility is to surmise that the original text of Daniel 10:13 was altered before being finalized as we have it today. Another is that we are not correctly translating it. I lean toward the second explanation.

Although its applicability in this particular instance is debatable, a fact that one should keep in mind in considering questions about the accuracy of Daniel’s text is that the Septuagint’s translation of Daniel from Hebrew and Aramaic has been substantially altered from the original. This explains why translations of Daniel from Greek are generally made from Theodotion. Writing in the 1920s, Charles Boutflower carefully demonstrated that the Septuagint’s rendering of the seventy “weeks” prophecy of Daniel 9 had been doctored so as to try to force a second-century BC fulfillment.[5] Boutflower also argued that most of the text of Daniel 11 has been altered by targumic additions that could have been made as early as 164 BC.[6]

Weighing against the possibility that the text of 10:13 has been altered is the fact that translations of Daniel that are based primarily upon the Masoretic Text (MT) also have 10:13 referring to Michael as one of the chief princes. It should be kept in mind, however, that the MT dates from the eighth to tenth centuries AD and that the rabbinical theology that it reflects looked on Michael as the guardian angel of the Jewish people rather than a part of God Himself. Because of this late-date rabbinical influence, I trust translations of Daniel based on Theodotion more than those that follow the MT.

Sensing that the standard translation “one of the chief princes” in 10:13 might be subject to question, I recently searched the Internet and was rewarded by the discovery of an article by Bryan T. Huie that suggests that this translation is indeed debatable. Huie points out that Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), published in 1898, renders 10:13 as follows: “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.” Huie argues, and I agree, that the language “first of the chief heads” differs significantly from “one of the chief princes” because it makes Michael superior to the other “princes.” This difference in translation arises, he writes, from the fact that Young translated the Hebrew word 'echad as “first” whereas most translators have taken it to mean being one of a group of equivalent rank.[7] I suggest that a presumption on the part of translators that Michael is an angel probably accounts for this preference.

Even if the YLT offers the more accurate translation of 10:13, one can still argue that it does not necessarily indicate that Michael is a divine being. If he is viewed as the most important of the leading angels, this still evidently makes him an angel. Indeed, the term “archangel” is often applied to Michael in this very sense. Interestingly, although this term has come to mean a high-ranking angel in common usage, its biblical meaning is that it refers to the leader of God’s angels. And who is this leader? I suggest that He is God, as embodied in the person of Christ.

The term “archangel” appears only twice in the Bible, both times in the NT. Here are the relevant verses, as translated in the NASB.

1 Thessalonians 4:16. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead

in Christ will rise first.

Jude 9. But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment,

but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

According to Huie, “archangel” comes from the Greek word archaggelos, a compound word that literally means “chief messenger.” Christ was indeed God’s chief messenger to mankind, he observes, as well as the “voice” that would raise “the dead in Christ.” That Christ is this “voice,” he adds, is confirmed by John 5:25: “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”[8] I find this analysis to be convincing.

While the reconciliation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 with the Michael is Christ thesis is easily accomplished, the reconciliation of Jude 9 with this thesis is an entirely different matter. I have not read Thomas Hardy’s novel Jude the Obscure, but I have no doubt that Hardy’s choice of this title was motivated by the difficulty of understanding the epistle attributed to Jude, “a bond-servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (NASB, v.1). Jude’s obscurity has caused me considerable anguish in recent weeks, but after having exhausted quite a few of my remaining neurons trying to understand its context, I have arrived at the conclusion that although I am not at all confident that Jude identified Michael with Christ, this does not undermine the case for believing that in both Daniel and Revelation, Michael is—again quoting Simmons—“a divine manifestation identified with Christ.” In fact, Jude’s treatment of Michael may have contributed to John’s mention of him in Revelation.

Opponents of the Michael is Christ thesis have used Jude 9 to claim that Michael clearly cannot be Christ there because he lacks the power to pronounce judgment against the devil and has to call on God to rebuke him. After all, the argument goes, since Jesus rebukes demons on various occasions in the NT, then, if Michael is Christ, why isn’t he able to rebuke the devil in Jude 9 as well? On the surface, this argument seems persuasive, but when you carefully examine the factors that appear to have influenced the author of Jude, it loses its force.

I concede that it is possible that the author of Jude—let’s assume he was Jude—actually believed that Michael was an angel. After all, as the popularity of the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch makes clear, angelology was highly developed among the Jews by the first century AD, and many of the Jews regarded Michael as first among the angels. Given this, it is not surprising that Jude mentions Michael, but does this mean that we should understand Jude 9 as indicating that the power of the devil exceeds that of Michael? I don’t think so, but given the space that I have already consumed in this article, I shall have to defer a good part of my analysis of Jude 9 until the companion article that will follow this one in the very near future.

Revelation contains numerous points of contact with the Book of Daniel, one of which is the presence of Michael in Revelation 12. I believe that Michael’s appearance there helps us to better understand just who Michael is in Daniel, and I also believe that it is quite possible that the insertion of Michael into Revelation 12 was motivated, in part, by the desire to counter the notion that the devil (or Satan) wields greater power than he does. Revelation 12 records the struggle of Michael and his angels against Satan and his angels when the latter attempt to destroy the male child born to the woman who escapes with the child by fleeing into the wilderness. Michael and his angels defeat their foes, with the result that “there was no longer a place for them in heaven” (v.8).

According to Kurt Simmons—whose analysis of Revelation 12 is superb—Satan and his angels are not to be understood as demonic beings with supernatural powers. In Revelation 12, he insists, these beings are symbolic of sin and death “and express themselves through the agency of Imperial Rome and the Jews.”[9] They are thus to be viewed as human agents of evil, not supernatural demons. Satan—also called “the dragon”—symbolizes Rome, while “his angels are those opposing the gospel from the Jews, including men like Herod, Ananus, and Joseph Caiaphas.” Simmons also points out that “the Greek term angelos simply means a messenger.”[10]

Does this mean that Jude 9 is bad theology because it contradicts Revelation 12 and has Michael’s power being inferior to the devil’s? I am convinced that the answer to this question is no. In the first place, one could argue that the wording “did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment” simply means that Michael did not choose to engage in harangues against a prominent evildoer because to do so would be out of character. This argument is especially appealing if you take the position that Michael is Christ even in Jude 9 because “The Lord rebuke you” can then be interpreted to mean that Michael/Christ simply chose to rebuke the “devil” rather than argue with him. This would be equivalent to saying “You had your chance, be gone.” There is, however, a better argument, one that involves taking a careful look at the scriptural context of Jude 9 and the religious situation existing among the Jewish people before AD 66, the year in which the ill-fated war with Rome began.

The epistle of Jude is, of course, closely related to 2 Peter, and it particularly parallels 2 Peter 2, which deals with the “false prophets” who were circulating “destructive heresies” among the Jews, thereby condemning themselves before God. These “destructive heresies” included “cleverly disguised tales” (1:16) that contradicted the authentic teachings of those who spoke for God. Among these tales was the collection of stories known as the Book of Enoch, in which “fallen angels” cause mankind much torment. Specifically, in the earliest part of Enoch, which is commonly called the Book of The Watchers, the fallen angels take human wives and father a race of giants who unleash much evil upon the world. God sends Michael, Gabriel, and other archangels to deal with the fallen angels and their progeny. The giants are destroyed, and under the leadership of Michael, the fallen angels are bound and thrown into Tartarus to await their judgment after seventy generations.

Religious scholars consider The Book of the Watchers to be among the earliest of the pseudeipigraphal writings that are commonly dated from about 200 BC to about AD 200, and some critical scholars maintain that portions of it probably precede the writing of the Book of Daniel, which, they believe, reached its final form ca. 164 BC. That it was well-known among the Jews by the time of Christ is certain, and one can plausibly surmise that when Christ said to the Sadducees that “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (NIV; Mark 12:25),[11] His mention of angels was motivated, in part, by a desire to dispose of the common but mistaken notion propagated by the Book of Enoch that angels can be sexual beings. One can also plausibly surmise that both 2 Peter and Jude are much concerned with refuting commonly held notions associated with the Book of Enoch.

Following the warnings about “cleverly devised tales” and “false prophets,” 2 Peter presents several verses about God’s actions against evildoers and on behalf of the righteous that begin with verse 4, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;” and reaches this conclusion in verse 9: “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment” (NASB). Verse 10 then condemns those who indulge the corruptions of the flesh, despise authorities, and “revile angelic majesties,” and verse 11 again refers to angels: “whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them [those who are corrupt] before the Lord.”

Jude was undoubtedly written somewhat later than 2 Peter, and it is reasonable to assume that the passages in Jude that parallel passages in 2 Peter were written with 2 Peter literally in view. Jude 9 parallels 2 Peter 11. For comparison, here, again, is Jude 9: “But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’” Obviously, Jude 9 substantially modifies 2 Peter 11. It does so, I am confident, in reaction to the angelology that was circulating among the Jews during the first century, particularly that found in the Book of Enoch. I am also confident that while Jude may or may not have believed that Michael is Christ, his insertion of Michael into verse 9 does not undercut this idea.

But I have now exhausted the space limit for this particular article and must bring it to a close. As soon as I can recharge the neurons sufficiently to finish the job, I shall submit Part 2. In that installment, I shall finish my analysis of Jude 9 and offer a detailed explanation of why I have become confident that the Michael of the Book of Daniel is the pre-incarnate Christ.

Notes

[1]Isa, 9:6, Acts 5:31, Rev. 1:5.

[2]David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Tyler, Tex.: Dominion Press, 1987,

[3]Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ, 386 (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1898; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House), 386.

[4]Kurt M. Simmons, The Consummation of the Ages: A.D. 70 and the Second Coming in the Book of Revelation (Bimillennial Preterist Association, 2003), 244-48. The quotation is found in the footnote on p. 244.

[5]Charles Boutflower, In and Around The Book of Daniel (New York: Macmillan, 1923; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1977), 170-75.

[6]Ibid.,

[7]Bryan T. Huie, “Christ in the Old Testament,” http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:PhIx8fV_-jOJ.www. aristotle.net/bhuie/christot.htm+%22Mi.

[8]Ibid.

[9]Simmons, Consummation, 246.

[10]Ibid., 244, 244n6.

[11]See also Matt. 22:30, Luke 20:35-36.

Seeker's picture

Well, I've just downloaded both parts in PDF to read (which I haven't done yet), but I think Hebrews would preclude a pre-incarnate Jesus from appearing in the OT. It basically says that in times past God spoke to us by his Prophets, but in these last days has spoken to us by his Son.

Seeker

Seeker

OSTRALOA's picture

TH.s & John,

M. Terry was right on in identifying the "seperate" Median empire as the second kingdom. I will at some point go into the details I have been given to share more evidence in the right format and time. I appreciate your kind comments John. Regarding the Book of Enoch, I'll also deal with the "Sethite view" of Gen. 6 more in my own book for it's rejection by the later church fathers. Blessings!

For Christ & Kingdom,

Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil

ThomasS's picture

Dear Paul Anderson,

Are you familiar with the interpretation advocated by Moses Stuart?

Best regards

Th. S.

OSTRALOA's picture

Jesus as Michael in Daniel & the Book of Enoch

John,

I found it strange you were citing Brian Huie on the YLT translation of Daniel 10:6 and criticized the Book of Enoch without proof. The following comments show why.

First, the YLT translation of this passage is not conclusive on your side. This is an old SDA argument I have been around for some time now, my family being among SDAs for generations. It has no foundation what so ever. Michael is not Jesus in Daniel or anywhere else for that matter in Scripture. Contact J. Mark Martin of Calvary-Phoenix at Exadventist.com for more on this. Are you willing to critized the Massoretic text for the complete O.T., or only when you are attempting to prove a point?

You stated attempting to prove your points on Jesus as Michael in Daniel that the Book of Enoch had false teaching Jude and Peter attempted to dissuade the Jews from? Where is your evidence of this? All Church fathers prior to Sextus Julius Africanus saw the Book of Enoch in a favorable light. Tertullian called it Holy Scripture. So where did the opposition begin? With Julius Africanus coming up with the unscriptural argument of the Sethite doctrine regarding Genesis chapter 6. Following his lead in opposition for the same reasons were: Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine, John Chrysostom, John Calvin, and Martin Luther who all stated that the sons of God in Gen. 6 were Sethites and not offspring of fallen angels. After Julius Africanus originated this view, later Philastrius said Enoch was heresy due to teaching the truth regarding Genesis 6 and the fallen angels. Augustine in his "City of God" 15:23 denied that the sons of God were angels. You might want to see Brian Huie’s article on Genesis 6 since you quoted him regarding Jesus as Michael. He pretty much shut the door on the “Sethite view” of Gen. 6 so I won’t repeat it. Just to say that it was an excellent article and covered the proofs linguistically and historically in favor of the Book of Enoch on subject. By the way the Pharisees condemned the Book of Enoch while the Christians then upheld it. Why? over the truth that the fallen angels from Jared’s days had fathered offspring with Adamic kind.

Regarding Jesus as Michael, the Massoretic text is clear enough on this to show Jesus was not Michael. Even the Theodotian LXX is not as clear in favor of Jesus being Michael as you may like. Dan. 10:13 in the LXX still calls Michael “one of the princes” plural tense “των αρχοντων”. Is that what Jesus Christ is, just one of the archangels? The “man” i.e. Jesus is present in verses 5-21 speaking, Michael the archangel only is referred as coming to aid Jesus to withhold the kings of Persia. I don’t see Jesus as Michael in either of these passages, or in Daniel 12:1. Michael is called the archangel in Jude 9 and in Rev. 12:7 is qualified with the “other angels”. Jesus Christ is not just a messenger as evidenced in Daniel 10:6, Jesus is clearly represented as a man when he appears to Daniel as also to Abraham in Genesis and not as an angel. Michael the archangel is mentioned in the Enoch chapter 20 as “one of the holy angels set over the best part of mankind and over chaos” . Is this not exactly the scene described between Michael, Daniel and the chaos between Greece and Persia in Daniel 10?

You also stated concerning the Book of Enoch that the Section I chapters 1-XXVI the so called “Book of Watchers” was authored in the 1st century B.C. so I take it your assuming the “higher critical view of Enoch”. In so doing, you must then conclude the Book of Enoch was not originally inspired and had late authorship. I again couldn’t disagree more on this either with you. I know of some Christian African scholars that would take to task over this including the ancient Abyssinian Church. I will address this further in my own book upcoming on the Book of Enoch.

Other disagreements. As for the “opinion” that you hold in your book that Rome is the fourth kingdom of Daniel is also in error. Rome is not mentioned in Daniel. Only the ships of Kittim are mentioned from the north that give ominous warnings to Antiochus IV Epiphanes to evacuate Egypt prior to his Parthian campaign. Leaving a combined Media-Persia empire as “Kingdom no. 2 is the source of your error. As most preterists follow, though not all, your view forces a Roman kingdom in Daniel prior to Daniel 12:1’s time of trouble. Michael then shows up again as “one of the “chief archangels, in the time of chaos during the great time of trouble prior to A.D. 70. The confusion again attempting to stretch time out with Rome as the solution to this perplexing chronological problem extenuates the problem This is coupled with the fact your count from the decree of Daniel having Artaxerses Longimanus as a different person than Xerses, when they in fact were one in the same person, this results in your calculation being stretched 86 years to long in the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. This is all another subject.

The subject at hand was is Jesus Michael the “archangel” mentioned in Scripture?, the answer to all the passages in question is no. I pray you and others don’t fall into the unscriptural errors of the SDA cult including this regarding this topic.

I include the following witness in support of the above conclusions regarding this SDA error.
____________________________

Is Jesus 'Michael the Archangel'
as SDA Teach?
Verle Striesfling

Jude 1:9 Michael the Archangel --- said (to Satan) 'The Lord rebuke thee'
Rom 10:9 If you confess 'Jesus is LORD'… you shall be saved.

Most Christians are amazed to learn that SDA teaches that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, but Ellen White said He was Michael, so if they changed this, they'd need to reject her as 'the spirit of prophecy' and they'd not be the remnant church! So now they hold He's both God the Son, and Michael.

It makes a great difference who Jesus really is for 2 Cor 11:4 says, there'll be those who teach another Jesus, preach a different gospel and have another spirit. These marks identify cults, who invariably attack the Doctrine of Christ. Early SDA denied His deity saying He's the archangel. Their Commentary vol. 5 p 1129 cites Ellen "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty"
I Tim 2:5; Heb 7:4; Rev 17:14; 15:3 &16:5-7 show He is Almighty God.

The real Jesus is the God-man Christ Jesus. He was never an Archangel! He's not God-angel-man. So SDA has a different Jesus. But Ellen White said:

"Michael, or Christ, with the angels that buried Moses" (Jude 9, Spiritual Gifts, IV a, p. 158)
"And before the context closed Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid---Gabriel declares 'But lo, Michael, one of the Chief Princes came to help me" (Dan 10:13, Prophets & Kings, p.572)
"There is none that holdeth with me in these things but Michael (Christ) your prince." (Desire of Ages p.99)
"Moses passed under the dominion of death - but Christ the Savior brought him forth from the grave. Jude 9" (ibid 379)

SDA use her 'gift' to prove He is Michael as seen from their Commentary vol. 4, p. 860 where they appeal to her writings as their final authority; and that Michael standing up in Dan 12:1 is Jesus ending his mediation for us, quoting Desire of Ages p.379. In 1 Ths 4:16 they reason as He's coming with the voice of the archangel, then He must be Michael! To allow this, they redefine what an Archangel is, in vol. 7, p. 706 -- Michael is one of the names of Christ -- not as the chief angel, but as the ruler over the angels'. Here they say 'an archangel is not an angel', but is an Archbishop a bishop, or the Chief of police, a police? Isa 8:20 "If they speak not according to this Word, there is no light in them".

We must show the Bible definition of this, to see how wrong their redefinition is. To evade this test of Scripture, SDA have made their own Clear Word Bible (1994), adding E.G. White's interpretations into the text!
1 Thess 4:16 "When Christ descends from heaven, He, as the Archangel will" ---
Rev 12:7 "God's Son Michael and the loyal angels fought."
Jude 9 "the Lord Jesus Christ, also called Michael the Archangel"
Dan 10:13 "then Michael, the prince of the Lord's host, came to help me"

While their commentary tried to accommodate Ellen by saying an archangel is not an angel, now their Clear Word Bible actually making Christ into an angel!
Rev 10:1 "Next I saw a mighty Angel --- I knew it was the Lord Jesus"
Rev 10:5 "Then this mighty Angel, the Lord Jesus ---"
Rev 10:8+9 (--take the book from the Mighty Angel--) "So I went up to the Son of God and asked --- "

Is Jesus 'Michael'?

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT shows the word 'Archangel' is from two words: 'archay' meaning 'chief' and 'aggelos' meaning 'angel', defining 'Archangel' as 'The chief of the angels', flatly confuting SDA's Commentary's words "not as chief of the angels".

The LXX, Dan 10:13 shows he is "one of the Chiefs of the princes". Here the article is in plural spelling 'twv' and 'archay' is also plural 'Archwvtwv' so it literally says 'one of the chiefs of the angels". --- There are more archangels.

The Bible makes clear distinctions between Jesus and the Angels:
1. Heb 1:14 says angels are all spirits but Jesus showed He was not a Spirit (Lk 24: 27-29). So to the SDA who made Him an angel in Rev 10, He is a spirit, which denies His bodily resurrection, an Anti-Christian deception (2 Jn 7), as well as denying He is the God-Man (Col. 2:9).
2. Angels are all created beings, while Jesus is their creator (Jn 1:1-3; Col 1:16-18) but not created !
3. Heb 1&2 tells many ways Jesus is better (by nature) than the angels, emphasizing His true deity!

Gesenius' Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon of the OT proves decisively that the Chiefs of Princes in Dan 10 are the archangels. Of Michael, it says "One of the seven (7) archangels who interceded for the people of Israel before God". Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Dictionary concurs, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives more insight re. the 7 archangels. In Luke 1:9 Gabriel says "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God". Rev 1:4 speaks of the 'seven spirits' (which angels are) who are before God's throne.

But Jesus is God on the throne (Jn 1:1; Mk 16:19; Acts 2:32-36). In Rev 3:1 it is "He who has the seven spirits (angels) of God". In 15+16 these 'seven angels' hold the seven vials with the last plagues for the earth. In Zech 3:9 Jesus is the 'Stone having seven eyes'--the Seven Archangels before his throne. As the Bible shows these 7 spirits, and the 7 archangels are 7 spirits, these are the 7 archangels in Tobit (LXX), so Michael the Archangel is one of the 7 arch-angels. Jesus who is the fullness of Deity bodily, is 'the Man Christ Jesus', and NOT a Spirit, thus not the archangel, Michael.

Thayer's Lexicon also tells of more info in the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Book of Enoch, We know Enoch is quoted in Jude 14 (the same context as vs 9 about Michael). Here we learn who the archangels are, as the Jews knew about "And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel looked down from heaven"--- The footnote points to 40:2 where it explains the names of the 7 archangels as being: Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, Raphael, Raguel, Saraquel and Remiel. The note continues to tell their ministry, sometimes expressed in their names.

But SDA use to defend their stance saying that since Jesus comes with the archangel's voice, and since He says all who are in their graves will hear His voice and be raised to life, then His voice is the archangel's voice, and He's the archangel!. Looking carefully at these passages we see why they only allude to them. 1 Thess says He's coming with the archangel's voice, and with the trump of God. If his coming with the archangel's voice makes Him the archangel, then His coming with the trump of God also makes Him a trumpet! The error is evident, yet it's deeper for it's the voice He's coming with. This reduces Him to merely a voice-not even an angel. But the preposition 'with' followed by an article 'the' plus a noun, speaks of a separate entity, not the same entity. The verse says "The Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout -a commanding call--" Jesus Himself is going to shout, and this is what He refers to in John 5, that those who are asleep in the dust of the earth, will hear His voice-not an angel's when He comes. Since He says in Matt 25 that He will come with all His angels, of course He will bring the 7 archangels with Him. But in Matt 24:31 He says He'll send them forth 'with the great sound of a trumpet' while 1 Cor 15:52 says the 'trumpet will sound and the dead will rise'. Yet since He brings all archangels, there's no reason the archangel in 1 Thess is Michael. Odds are 7 to one it's a different one, especially as SDA teach that God cast off Israel, and as Michael is the archangel for the Jewish people, and Jesus is coming for His church, in contrast to Israel. -unless it be in a context of Michael calling all the angels to battle, to combat Satan and his angels, who would certainly try to prevent Jesus' return for His church. Since Michael and his angels evicted Satan and his hosts from heaven in Rev 12, (where Christ is God on the throne), and as Michael dispensed with the Prince of Persia in
Dan. 10, it follows there would be a great spiritual battle taking place in conjunction with Armageddon, when Christ comes for His church. In Dan 10, Michael is not the one who spoke to Daniel, but the Archangel who came to dispense with the 'prince of Persia'. The ONE speaking to Daniel is described as 'a man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of uphaz, His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze…' (vs 5+6). We see this same ONE in Rev 1:13-18, who is clothed in linen, and his eyes are like flame of fire, and his feet like fine brass, refined in fire. He is Jesus Christ. Thus Christ spoke to Daniel, and so He was not Michael, one of the Chiefs of the Angels!

Distinction between Jesus and Michael is seen by comparing Rev 12 with the Gospels, for when Michael cast Satan from heaven, Jesus said "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven", showing He was God on the throne as He watched Michael, with the division of angels at his command, casting Satan and his hosts from heaven. Jesus watched as Michael was fighting.

A similar distinction is seen comparing Jude 9 with Rom 10:9, cited in the heading of this article. Here Michael did not dare accuse Satan, but said "The LORD rebuke thee". Jesus, Who is "LORD over all" had no problems accusing Satan, declaring him 'a liar from the beginning' and 'the father of lies'. And Rom 10:9 says we must confess that Jesus IS LORD to be saved.
SDA argue that since the name 'Michael' means 'Who is like God', then it must be Jesus who is God, for it would be desecration to apply such a name to an angel. This is only human logic, based on inadequate evidence and asks 'why did Ellen apply it to Jesus before they accepted He was God, and while she denied He was Almighty God?' The name 'Michael' means 'Who is like God?" in a question, subjunctive mood. It's linguistic nonsense to apply this to Jesus Who IS God. Since He is God, it would be against His Divine nature to call Him a name saying He is like God, much less asking Is He like God? Yet the Bible shows the names of all the other Archangels, were even given to men, as well as these angels, though and while each of these names describes some characteristic of Jesus as God. We will illustrate these below:

Gabriel from 'El Gibbor' (Mighty God). Ezra 2:20 a man is called 'Gibbar'.
Raphael from 'Jehovah Rapha' (El heals) used for man in 1 Chron 8:2+37
Raguel means 'friend' or 'husband-lover' (Songs), of Christ. The name 'Reu' (Gen 11:18) is a short-form of this, as also in Luke 3:35 (Gk # 4466).
Saraquel 'Sar' (prince) & 'Raquel' (wandering sheep). Jesus is Prince and the Lamb who journeys (Mk 13:34). In Matt 2:18 we see 'Rachel'.
Remiel ('Ram Yah') is 'Jehovah raised God'. It's used for men in Ezra 10:25
Uriel is 'the flame of God' as in Deut 4:24. II Chr 13:2 etc apply this to men.
Phanuel (the face of God) in Deut 34:10 is applied to men in Lk 2:36 as 'Peniel'; also 1 Chr 4:4 and 8:25.
Michael Who is like God? not applied to God, but 9 men as 1 Chr 5: 13, 14;
Nb. 'Uriel' and 'Phanuel' are 2 names for the same Angel, the one earlier, the other later dating.

When other efforts to show Jesus is Michael fail, SDA Pastors often turn to Zech 3:1+2, saying that 'the Angel of the Lord' often speaks of theophanies of the pre-advent Christ, so here 'the Angel of the Lord' who tells Satan "The Lord rebuke thee---" is Jesus as Michael of Jude 9 who says these words to him. This straw man assumes what it tries to prove. It assumes only one person can say 'the Lord rebuke thee'; and each time we see 'the angel of the Lord' it is Yhwh; and that as Yhwh the Son--not Yhwh the Father or Holy Spirit. It's error to use the OT to define the New, and to use prophetic passages to overturn didactic Scripture and establish doctrine. And it's error to use the Heb 'Malach' of messenger as equal to archaggelos in NT Gk, when in Daniel the Heb 'Sar' (prince) is used for Michael--not malach as in Zechariah.

Here they limit the persons of Zech 3:2 to those in 3:1, when there's no reason there could not be 4: the Lord's Messenger; Joshua; Satan, & Yhwh Himself. The context of Zech 3 begins in Zech 1 where the Lord's Angel (vs11) stands between the Myrtle trees, talking to Yhwh (vs12) who answers the angel (vs13). As the messenger is an angel, and not Yhwh in Zech 1, and this context leads us into Zech 3, then neither is the Angel the Yhwh who tells Satan "Yhwh rebuke thee"(3:2); and there are 4 entities in 3:1+2, (as we noted apparent, above). That the messenger is not Yhwh is also seen from vs 6 onward where the angel says "Thus says Yhwh", and Yhwh says He'll send "My Servant, the Branch". Yhwh's Servant, the Branch (Heb netzer) speaks of Jesus (Isa 42:1; 52:15) The Nazarene. Thus Jesus whom Yhwh would send, is not the Yhwh who speaks in Zech 3, and neither the Messenger of Yhwh who as we've shown isn't Yhwh. So the Yhwh of this passage must be either Yhwh the Father, or Yhwh the Holy Spirit. But since here in Zech 3:2 the Yhwh who spoke said "Yhwh who chose Israel rebuke thee", and as Eph 1:2+3 says God the Father chose us in Christ, we deduce it was Yhwh the Holy Spirit who was speaking here in Zech 3:2.

As Peter said 'Holy Men of old spoke being impelled by the Holy Spirit', and since the Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah (Acts 28:25), and as the Holy Spirit was the Yhwh who Israel tested in the wilderness (Heb 3:7; Ex 17:2-7), so too here He was the Yhwh who was speaking in Zech 3:1+2 and vs 6 &c. Thus here in Zech 3, the Angel (Messenger) of Yhwh is not Yhwh, and neither is this Angel the Pre-Incarnate Christ. And the Yhwh who rebuked Satan was the Holy Spirit here, which is a very different scene in Jude 9 where Michael the Archangel did not dare to accuse Satan, while Jesus Himself both accused and rebuked Satan during His ministry saying "Get behind me Satan", and "the devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning". Here the SDA's misuse of Zech 3 has failed in every way. But they show they know their efforts were wrong: To deny Jesus was first created by God (Prov 8:22+) their commentary says:
"There is an obvious parallel in this passage to the work of the Second Person of the Godhead. However, the passage is allegorical, and caution must be exercised not to press an allegory beyond what the original writer had in mind.

Interpretations derived must always be in harmony with the analogy of Scripture. (vol III, p.972)
"--- Dogmatic conclusions from parabolic passages are unjustified---verification of doctrinal beliefs should always be sought in the literal statements of the Bible". (ibid, 973)

Since SDA know and use these principles in Prov 8, then it is conclusive they know it's wrong to violate these same principles in using Zech 3:1+2 to try and show Jesus is Michael the archangel, especially when they ignore the context of Zech 1:7 through 3:10, they use the OT to define the New, begging the question on many assumptions, and assuming what they set out to prove.
Former SDA, Dudly Canright, in his Life of E.G.White--- on p162 tells Dr. Kellogg theorized all that was left of a person at death was a record of his life kept in heaven, and at the resurrection a new body of new matter would be formed like the old one and made to think he was the same person. James White who accepted this also asked Ellen for her "light" on it. She said God had shown this to her. When Canright asked "How about Christ's body which was raised?" she answered, "He dropped it all when he ascended". Here Jesus' dropping off His resurrected body, allowed Him to be the Spirit-being, Michael the Archangel, who she recorded as winging his way with her around in heaven, in A Word to the Little Flock, in 1847.

For Christ & Kingdom,

Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil

Islamaphobe's picture

Paul,

I see that I struck a sensitive nerve, or should I say I struck a lot of them! You are very knowledgeable, I daresay a lot more knowledgeable about the Bible than I am. And thanks for taking the time to provide such a lengthy response. I shall take a few minutes to respond to some of what you have written, and I suspect that after Virgil posts Part 2, you will have more to say. I look forward to your comments.

First, although the SDAs have adopted the position that Michael is Christ, it does not follow that all who tend to think that way are SDAs. To hold such a position amounts to guilt by association. In writing my book on the four kingdoms of Daniel, I came into contact with some SDA scholars who are very good students of the Bible. I have respect for their knowledge even though I disagree on numerous points. I do not think of myself as a historicist.

As for the YLT translation, I do not say that it is CONCLUSIVE. I say that opens to door to the POSSIBILITY that the translation "one of the chief princes" is somewhat misleading. I recognize that Daniel himself may have thought of Michael as an angel, i.e. a "celestial being" who was created, not eternal. I indicate in Part 2 that what really matters is not what Daniel thought, but the extent to which he accurately transmitted the prophecy.

You state that "[A]ll church fathers prior to Sextus Julius saw the Book of Enoch in a favorable light." I don't know what ALL church fathers thought, but I do know that Enoch did not make it into the canon. I am inclined to believe there are very good reasons for this, and I am persuaded on the point by the very impressive work done by Steven Cox that is posted on the Net. Cox is a Christadelphian, not an SDA. In Part 2, I argue that Jude and 2 Peter do indeed present the case that the Book of Enoch contains false teachings.

Thanks for the heads up on the Huie piece on Genesis 6. I shall have to read that. I did find some flaws in Huie's work that I read, but I found much there that was impressive.

Having invested considerable time in producing a book on the four kingdoms of Daniel in which I defended the proposition that Rome is indeed the fourth kingdom, I am not going to spend any any time arguing that position with you here. I shall simply say that I have very carefully examined the arguments made by those who insist that the fourth kingdom cannot be Rome and come to the firm conclusion that they are wrong. That conclusion applies to you as well, I assure you.

I had not seen the piece by Verle Striesfling and appreciate having it. It is in sharp conflict with the position I take in Part 2. I shall go over it carefully. Again, however, because the SDAs have endorsed a particular position does not mean that I automatically assume that it must be wrong.

In the final analysis, I believe, the conclusion to the question Is Michael Christ? hinges on how we read Revelation 12. I am firmly convinced that Milton Terry, David Chilton, and Kurt Simmons are correct in this. Of course, one could argue that John held a different view about Michael than Daniel did, and that could be. Nevertheless, although there are certainly problems with holding that Michael is Christ in Daniel, I do think one can make a good case for that position.

John S. Evans

ThomasS's picture

Dear John S. Evans,

I see that you mention Milton Terry. Have you read his commentary on the Book of Daniel?

Regards

Th. S.

Islamaphobe's picture

I have read Terry's comments on Daniel in Biblical Apocalyptics. He was a great scholar. I am also confident, however, that he was wrong about the four kingdoms. But then, Daniel 12:4 reminds us that knowledge about such matters will increase.

ThomasS's picture

Terry was, of course, correct in rejecting the identification of the fourth kingdom with Rome, but he was probably wrong in identifying the second kingdom with Media.

Terry wrote an "exposition of Daniel"; I believe he wrote this book after "Biblical Apocalyptics".

Regards

Th. S.

ThomasS's picture

Paul Anderson,

You are, of course, correct in rejecting the identification of the fourth kingdom with Rome, but how do you identify the empires in question?

Th. S.

chrisliv's picture

Hey,

A pretty good lead-in to a tricky theological topic for an old economist. I look forward to your more definitive points in part 2.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Islamaphobe's picture

Good grief! Almost a compliment! Part 2 gets sent out tomorrow.

JSE

LBoogie's picture

"His mention of angels was motivated, in part, by a desire to dispose of the common but mistaken notion propagated by the Book of Enoch that angels can be sexual beings. One can also plausibly surmise that both 2 Peter and Jude are much concerned with refuting commonly held notions associated with the Book of Enoch."

Note that the angels that sinned with the humans are fallen angels. The angels of heaven are not to marry humans. Does this law means that it is impossible for angels to actually cohabitate with humans? Perhaps, if the angel broke the law then they are to be banished from heaven. Note that the fallen angels are confined until death.

gfl46's picture

John,
The Jehovah's Witness group, years ago, stated a belief that Michael was the incarnate CHRIST.
You may wish to look at their studies.
I do NOT endorse this group, I consider it a cult.
Interesting article. Gary

Ed's picture

Again, this is due to the unscriptural understanding of "angels" by most of the church. Angels simply means messenger. But besides that, Michael is NOT an angel. He is THE Arch-Angel, or the Chief Messenger of God, and he is One Who is like a god. This describes Jesus to a tee. The chief Apostle and Prophet; and He is like God; He and the Father are one; if you have seen Him, you've seen the Father.

In addition, JWs believe that Jesus was created. This view of Michael=Jesus does not espouse that. JWs argued that Jesus had no more divinity than we do. There are many dissimilarities with JWs and this belief is one of them.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Islamaphobe's picture

Yes, the JWs have this belief, and the SDAs adhere to a another version of it. I don't agree with those folks, especially the JWs, but they do get "out of the box" and sometimes come up with insights that are worth paying attention to. JSE

Duncan's picture

I stongly agree with the following from Osborne:

It is crucial to note that the two adversaries [in Rev. 12:7-12] are not the dragon and God but the dragon and Michael. There is no true dualism in this book between Satan and God, for there is no equality. The dragon's adversary is the archangel Michael, and he is the more powerful. It is Michael and his angels who go to war against the dragon. Grant Osborne, Revelation, 469

Jesus defeated Satan at the cross, after that all it takes is an angel to take care of him (cf. Rev. 20:1-3)

Duncan's picture

Hi John,

I have to respectively disagree. Jesus is the eternal Word of God, Michael is an angel (Dan. 12:1). I see no reason to equate the two. I think there is a place in Revelation (Rev. 10) where Jesus is portrayed as an Angel. Significantly, He is not called Michael there, however. If Michael were Jesus Revelation 10 would be the place to make that point and it is not made. Here is something I wrote on the Angel of Revelation 10.

The next place in the book of Revelation that we (probably) see Jesus is in Revelation 10. The symbolism is so deep here it is not totally clear whether the Angel in Revelation 10 represents Jesus or is merely a strong angel (legitimate points can be made on both sides). I tend to believe that this Angel symbolizes Jesus because of the many symbols of deity (as well as symbols of God’s covenants) that are associated with this Angel. Also this Angel is the seventh Angel (v. 7) and as I mentioned earlier the number seven is often associated with God in Revelation (thus this could be the Angel of God).

Let me make it clear that Jesus is not an angel; He is the eternal Word of God who became flesh (John. 1:1-14; Rev. 19:13). The strong Angel of Revelation 10 may symbolize Jesus as the Old Testament’s Angel of the Lord, a term often given to God when He would appear physically. When Moses met the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2) it was clear that the “Angel” was God himself, Yahweh (Exodus 3:13-15).The Angel of Revelation 10 may also contain a reference to the Messiah as the Angel (or Messenger) of the covenant (Mal. 3:1).

If the Angel of Revelation 10 is referring to Jesus then the figure of an angel is being used as a symbol here. Jesus is no more a literal angel than he is a literal lamb; both are being used as symbols. David Chilton wrote the following about this strong Angel:

The strong Angel can be none other than Jesus Christ Himself, the “Angel of the LORD” who appeared in the Old Testament. This will be clear enough if the description of this Angel is compared with that of Christ in 1:14-16, and of God on His throne in Ezekiel 1:25-28. There are, however, further indications of the divine identity of this strong Angel. First, the Angel is seen clothed with a cloud-an expression that should call to mind the Glory Cloud. And while the Cloud is filled with innumerable angels (Deut. 33:2 Ps. 68:17), there is only One who could be said to be clothed with it… Second, the Angel had the rainbow upon His head. We have seen the rainbow already in 4:3, around the throne of God; and Ezekiel says of the One whom he saw enthroned that ‘there was a radiance around Him. As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord’ (Ezek. 1:27-28). Third, the Angel’s face was like the sun. This fits the description of Christ in 1:16 and in Matthew 17:2, the account of Christ’s transfiguration… Fourth, His legs were like Pillars of fire. This refers to some of the most complex imagery in all the Bible. Obviously, the phrase is intended to remind us of “the pillar of fire and cloud”-the Glory-Cloud of the Exodus (Ex. 14:24). As we have seen, it is the Lord who “wears” the Cloud (Deut. 31:15)… The Days of Vengeance, 259-261

When the mighty Angel of Revelation 10 speaks it is like a lion roaring (v. 3). This metaphor of God speaking like a lion is used in Amos 3:8 “A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy?” Consistent with my interpretation is the fact that right after the Angel roars, John is told that he must prophesy (v. 11). Similarly when the Angel calls out the seven thunders sounded. Thunder is also likened to the voice of God (Ps 29:3).

Ultimately whether this strong Angel represents Jesus or not, it should be clear that powerful symbols are being used here. To take the literal interpretative approach and say that this is an angel with a rainbow for a hat and pillars of fire for feet (Rev. 10:1) who is holding a literal book (Rev. 10:2) is to miss the depth of meaning that is being communicated here.

ThomasS's picture

Whereas I think it is rather speculative to assume that Jesus is the "angel" in Dan 10, you are very much correct in rejecting the idea that Michael = Christ. Michael is only "one of the leading princes" (Dan 10:13) who while "arguing with the devil and debating with him (...) did not dare to bring a slanderous judgment" (Jud 9). Michael is possibly one of the seven angels tanding before God (Rev 8:2; cf. Tob 12:15).

Regards

Th. S.

Islamaphobe's picture

Thomas,

For some reason, your comment caused me to think of a line from the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, "Verdict first, trial later." I don't expect to change your mind, but I do hope to cause you a little mental anguish.

JSE

ThomasS's picture

Dear JSE,

I think I know most pros and cons re: Michael = Christ. Obviously, some Christians have identified Michael with Christ; this can be seen from e.g. the "non-canonical" book "Hermas". I also think that a case could be made for identifying Michael with "one like a son of man" in Dan 7. Most liberal scholars (e.g. Collins) would say that this interpretation is certain; I disagree.

Looking forward to your study on Dan 2!

Regards

Th. S.

Islamaphobe's picture

You omit pointing out that while Collins identifies Michael as the "one like a son of man," he also regards him as the guardian angel of the Jews, not Christ. Thank God for Collins, though! I love the guy. He's assembled almost all of the liberal arguments on Daniel into one convenient, well-documented place. He's a distinguished scholar whom I compare with the bullseye on a target; and he has performed a public service, I believe, by demonstrating that critical-historical theology is fundamentally bankrupt.

There are several pretty good works on the Net taking the position that Michael is Christ. I suspect that you may not have seen them all. I love researching the Net as a source for my writings because I find competent writers there who think outside the "box" imposed by both liberal and conservative paradigms. The Net is the great underminer of "received" scholalship. Thank God for it! Of course, there are plenty of works there by "space cadets."

As for Daniel 2, I am anxious to see Jordan's work FINALLY emerge into print. I do intend to publish a booklet on Daniel 2 before this year is over.

John S. Evans

ThomasS's picture

Dear John S. Evans,

I think you should send a copy of your book to Collins. Perhaps you will get a peer review of your book.

According to Collins, there is no "Christ" in the Book of Daniel. So your point, that he considers Michael to be "the guardian angel of the Jews, not Christ", is without any relevance.

Yet again your logic is somewhat strange. Do you really think that if one "liberal" commentary on Daniel has problems, that would prove that the liberal approach as such is wrong? Come on -- I mean, what about all the 'conservative' commentaries filled with special pleading, what do they prove?

I really think that you should read some of the published studies (made by scholars) on the identity of Daniel before digesting 'works' on the Internet -- there usually is a good reason why these 'works' never get published, not even by conservative publishers.

I think you can do without Jordan's work...

Regards

Th. S.

Islamaphobe's picture

Thomas,

You are a very well-read scholar. In my opinion, however, you are also a staunch defender of the academic establishment against those "outsiders" who have the audacity to challenge received opinions. Having spent forty years in the academia, I have had a great deal of first-hand experience with "received opinions" that have turned out to be wrong. I believe that academic opinion in religious scholarship is even more suspect than in my old area of economics and finance because of the insistence on applying methodological naturalism to religious studies. Ours is a world in which "credentialism" is very important. This is even truer in Europe than it is here. Of course, much of the scholarly work posted on the Net is bad, probably most of it, but there are also insights there that academics miss because they are "outside the box."

You say my logic is "somewhat strange," but you attack a straw man. I did not write that Collins is the ONLY liberal source worth consulting. What I wrote, in effect, was that he has assembled a great body of liberal literature into one convenient "warehouse" of information. That does not absolve a true scholar from the obligation to see what he may have missed that other liberals have stated.

If Collins or any other liberal wants a copy of my book, he can buy it on the used book market, where it seems to be commanding a rather respectable price. I ordered the publisher to quit printing it because I can do better, and will, God willing. I do not expect a doctrinaire liberal, which Collins is, to take a book such as mine seriously, so why send him a copy?

I am sure that I shall find things in Jordan's book with which I shall disagree. I also trust the scholarship of Jordan more than that of John Collins or any other liberal I have read, and I have read quite a few.

John S. Evans

ThomasS's picture

John S. Evans,

This is how an academic discussion works: you publish a thesis, this thesis is read by (other) scholars who present their criticism. Internet and 'obscure' publishing companies make it possible for all of us to make our work public; but they are not noticed by the scholarly world. There is a good reason for that: Scholars do not have time to read all works made by John, Dick and Harry... So, if you really want to be heard by the scholarly world, you will have to send your book to one of your peers.

Conservative scholars do get their works published. So, if you really believe that Collins & co. are dead wrong, why not write an essay for, say, JETS, JSOT, VT, ZAW or OTS.

I have noticed that you like thinking outside the box; surely liberal scholars think outside the conservative box. You should try it!

The main problem with Collins' commentary is that in reality, it does not provide us with 'common census' (only); oftentimes, Collins confuses his own opinion with the opinion held by most (liberal) scholars. The reviews reflect this.

Unfortunately, the best commentaries available today, are written by scholars within the "liberal" camp -- thus, what we need is a large scholarly commentary written by a conservative scholar who is not afraid to think outside the box. But I seriously doubt that we will see any such commentary the next 10-15 years.

I do hope that you will make your study on Dan 2 available on the Internet :)

Back to the main subject: Two good reasons for rejecting an identification of Michael with Christ are (a) that it is unnecessary, and (b) that it is speculative.

Best regards

Th. S.

Islamaphobe's picture

I have time only to comment briefly and will withhold further exchanges until Part 2 is posted.

Liberals certainly think outside the "conservative" box and vice versa. I do agree that Collins sometimes confuses his own opinion with that of other liberal scholars, not all of whom march in lockstep with him. I can't get into the liberal "box" because I refuse to endorse methodological naturalism as the appropriate methodology for biblical interpretation. I believe that the Book of Daniel contains genuine prophecies. Liberals, as far as I can tell, do not.

You have a point about the identification of Michael with Christ possibly being unnecessary. I think it is necessary because of the insistence on the part of many on identifying Michael as the great angelic protector of the Jews as opposed to being deity. But the larger and more important matter, I think, is gaining recognition for the point that the OT does point to the presence of the pre-incarnate person of Christ. Moreover, much of what biblical scholars do is necessarily "speculative."

JSE

Duncan's picture

John,

I agree with your goal here but think equating Michael with Jesus is both unnecessary and even hurtful (in terms of those who would then teach that Jesus was only an angel. I know that is not what you are saying, but some get confused). One gets the presence of a reincarnate Jesus in Daniel with the Son of Man (who receives the world wide authority that Jesus received (Dan. 7:13-14 cf. Matt. 28:18). Again, equating Jesus with Michael is unnecessary and potentially hurtful.

Duncan

Islamaphobe's picture

Hold off the hanging until you see Part 2.

Duncan's picture

Ooops! I was using the spell check and it put "reincarnate Jesus," I meant "preincarnate Jesus" Quite a difference!

ThomasS's picture

Thus, basically, you refuse to think outside the conservative box. Fine! :)

I really do not see any problems with Michael being the guardian angel of OT Israel and, therefore, New Israel in the NT.

Th. S.

Starlight's picture

John,

I want to thank you for defending us non scholars against the academia lovers.
You are astute in recognizing that “received scholarship” detest the internet and the open market place of ideas it presents. I have noticed that many cannot differentiate between ideas and forms and will reject good ideas because it is not presented in documented scholarly forms. Of course that is important but it does not exclude the internet being a good repository of finding helpful information.
Case in point is that I was languishing for years trying to find answers concerning Genesis. If I had continued to wait on published scholarly academia to bring me the knowledge I have now acquired through the internet I would be still “sleeping” awaiting the “coming” of this providential revelation. But instead I rendered a search for Noah’s flood and found an article by Tim Martin and the rest is history. I found not only my needs for Genesis but also I found Full Preterism.

Even blind pigs can find an occasional acorn now and then.

Blessings

Norm

Islamaphobe's picture

Norm,

If the young Abe Lincoln came back to life and applied for a job in a law office or as a speechwriter, he'd never be accepted! Requiring people to have the proper credentials serves the economic function of limiting entry into the skilled labor pool amd allows those who make hiring decisions to arbitrarily reduce their work load, but sometimes the wheat gets thrown out with the chaff.

JSE

Starlight's picture

John,

I sent you a message.

Norm

Duncan's picture

Consider Daniel 10. The Glorious Man of Dan. 10:5-6 is different from Gabriel (cf. Dan 8:16) he is also different than Michael (Dan. 10:13, 21). Is this glorious Man an unamed angel? I think not; the angels are named in Daniel cf. Dan. 12:1. I maintain that this glorious Man is Jesus. He is clearly differentiated from Michael.

"Then he [the glorious Man of Dan. 10:5-6 cf. Jesus in Rev. 1:12-16) said Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael you prince. Dan. 10:20-21

The glorious Man is Jesus; He is clearly differentiated from Michael. If the glorious Man is not Jesus, who is He?

Islamaphobe's picture

The "glorious Man" is Jesus. In Part 2 I shall argue that He is also Michael.

Duncan's picture

OK, I don't mean to rush you. I must say, however, that I see the two clearly differentiated in Daniel 10:18-21.

God Bless,

Duncan

Ed's picture

Michael is referred to as THE Arch-angel.

1) Michael, as most "names" in the OT, are actually a description. Michael means "one who is like god." Who is more "like God" than Jesus?

2) the word "angel" simply means messenger, as you point out, and then ignore contextually in every other place. In Hebrews, the covenant that was "administered by angels" most likely meant, administered by messengers of God - i.e., prophets, including Moses. All of these were "angels," or messengers. So too was Jesus (by your own admission).

3) You quote Chilton, and yet Chilton is the one who first suggested to me that Michael was the pre-incarnate Christ. He made the point that "Arch-angel" simply means "Chief of the angels" or Captain of the Lord's Host.

4) Michael is said to be arguing with satan over Moses' body. Well, if Moses' body is understood as old covenant Israel, then we see a clear allusion to the battle for Israel, as attested by scripture, which Jesus, the One Who is like a god, won.

Read what Chilton said about it. It's convincing in my opinion.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Islamaphobe's picture

Duncan,

Thanks for the quick response, with which I have to respectfully disagree. I did expect you to disagree, and I value your comments. This issue is a very challenging one. I certainly agree that Jesus is "the eternal Word of God," and I also believe that as such, He is present on several different occasions in the OT, including His being Michael in the Book of Daniel. But comments along that line are for another day. Right now I'm working on finishing Part 2 so as to give you a bigger target to shoot at!

John S. Evans

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43