Jesus is the Archangel Michael??

[Within Reason]

The founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, prophetess Ellen White, said that Jesus Christ is one and the same with the Archangel Michael mentioned in the Bible. This is a belief that the SDA have in common with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Both sects came out of the Millerite movement in 19th century America.

How did Ellen White come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? Although she claims to be a prophet, she mentions no visions on this subject.

In her five volume work Conflict of the Ages, "Michael" only occurs four times. One of those is in the Notes at the end and adds nothing new. The other three mentions are quotes from the Book of Daniel, one a straight quote. The other two add a tidbit of commentary.

<< The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Dan. 10:21. >>

This is from Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, Chapter 10: The Voice in the Wilderness
(Kindle Locatons 20960-20962)

In case you missed it, that's "but Michael [Christ] your Prince." EW inserts a one word commentary into a quote from Daniel, inserting "[Christ]" after "Michael." There isn't a word of justification for this extraordinary identification.

<< For three weeks Gabriel wrestled with the powers of darkness, seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus; and before the contest closed, Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid. “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days,” Gabriel declares; “but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” Daniel 10:13. >>

--Ellen White, Prophets and Kings, Chapter 46: "The Prophets of God Helping Them"
(Kindle Locations 18185-18188)

Here Ellen White gives only six words of raw assertion preceding a quote from Daniel where Michael helps defeat the King of Persia.

I have checked other books by Ellen White and can find no mention of the Archangel Michael. In her defining work Conflict of the Ages, there are only seven words of commentary on Michael aside from quoting Daniel. We have only "[Christ]" inserted after "Michael" and "Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid." This hardly explains why White adopts a position which is not spelled out in the Bible and which is completely at odds with all scholarship outside the Jehovah's Witnesses and those sects which follow Ellen White as a prophet.

Here is a question for Seventh Day Adventists: Am I missing something? Where did Ellen White explain or defend her position that Jesus is one and the same with the Archangel Michael? It looks like she picked up the idea from the Millerite movement and later simply assumed it to be true.

You will find a more comprehensive search here on "Michael" amongst the Seventh-day Adventists - Ellen G. White Writings

Yet, that is merely the EGW material. More study was done by James, Bates, and others - Ellen G. White Writings

This was already so done by the many reformers, such as Luther, Melanchthon and others, and even those before them, even as wikipedia acknowledges (screenshot):

Michael (archangel) - Wikipedia

It is an interesting subject, and one with many evidences, as Seventh-day Adventists have provided, such as here.

I leave it with others to make their own study of the scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

The founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, prophetess Ellen White, said that Jesus Christ is one and the same with the Archangel Michael mentioned in the Bible. This is a belief that the SDA have in common with the Jehovah's Witnesses. .

Totally false is that claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching the same thing about Christ as did Ellen White.

What is true is that we can all read in Genesis 18 that God (YHWH) and 2 angels meet Abraham and the bible calls them "three men". This does not mean that God is a man or that angels are men. It means they have the ability to appear as men. When SDAs claim that God the Son (infinite God the Son , the second person of the Godhead) appeared in the form of the "Angel of the LORD" or talk about the name "Michael" they are not even remotely describing what Jehovah's Witnesses teach - and JWs have reminded me of that countless times. As if it were not obvious enough.

No, Albion questions whether or not it is correct to say that the SDA's share the JW belief with regard to this matter. I don't think they do.

Albion is correct on that point.

I didn't realize that SDA had this same doctrine that the JW's have of Christ being Michael the Archangel.

Same here -- and I know quite a bit more about what SDAs teach on this topic than you will see in the OP.

=== so now ... for what Dale "is not telling you" about what Ellen White said regarding God the Son.

(First of all notice that he never quotes our stated doctrines - our statements of belief because we don't actually have one that says "Michael is Jesus".. a 'detail' you may not have known from reading the OP)

"The world was made by him, “and without him was not anything made that was made.” If Christ made all things, he existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore...." {7ABC 438.1}

Of course some will complain that Ellen White was raised United Methodist and so Trinitarian -- all along. So beit - clearly her statements absolutely place Christ as God.


"The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son, and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both."—Patriarchs and Prophets, 36. {7ABC 438.3}

"In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear. How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem’s manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fullness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. ...Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one. It is in this union that we find the hope of our fallen race. Looking upon Christ in humanity, we look upon God, and see in Him the brightness of His glory, the express image of His person.—The Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896. {7ABC 443.4}

" This Word is to be the chief study in our schools. In it we may learn what our redemption has cost Him who from the beginning was equal with the Father, and who sacrificed His life that a people might stand before Him redeemed from everything earthly, renewed in the image of God. {CT 13.2}


"Point after point Paul lingered over, in order that those who should read his epistle might fully comprehend the wonderful condescension of the Saviour in their behalf. Presenting Christ as He was when equal with God and with Him receiving the homage of the angels, the apostle traced His course until He had reached the lowest depths of humiliation. Paul was convinced that if they could be brought to comprehend the amazing sacrifice made by the Majesty of heaven, all selfishness would be banished from their lives. He showed how the Son of God had laid aside His glory, voluntarily subjecting Himself to the conditions of human nature, and then had humbled Himself as a servant, becoming obedient unto death, “even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8), that He might lift fallen man from degradation to hope and joy and heaven". {AA 333.1}

When we think of the great gift of heaven for the redemption of a sinful world, and then consider the offerings that we can make, we shrink from drawing a comparison. The demands that might be made upon a whole universe could not compare with that one gift. Immeasurable love was expressed when One equal with the Father came to pay the price for the souls of men, and bring to them eternal life. Shall those who profess the name of Christ see no attraction in the world’s Redeemer, be indifferent to the possession of truth and righteousness, and turn from the heavenly treasure to the earthly? {CS 226.1}

 

[Dale]

Totally false is that claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching the same thing about Christ as did Ellen White.

What is true is that we can all read in Genesis 18 that God (YHWH) and 2 angels meet Abraham and the bible calls them "three men". This does not mean that God is a man or that angels are men. It means they have the ability to appear as men. When SDAs claim that God the Son (infinite God the Son , the second person of the Godhead) appeared in the form of the "Angel of the LORD" or talk about the name "Michael" they are not even remotely describing what Jehovah's Witnesses teach - and JWs have reminded me of that countless times. As if it were not obvious enough.



Albion is correct on that point.



Same here -- and I know quite a bit more about what SDAs teach on this topic than you will see in the OP.

=== so now ... for what Dale "is not telling you" about what Ellen White said regarding God the Son.

"The world was made by him, “and without him was not anything made that was made.” If Christ made all things, he existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore...." {7ABC 438.1}

Of course some will complain that Ellen White was raised United Methodist and so Trinitarian -- all along. So beit - clearly her statements absolutely place Christ as God.


"The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son, and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both."—Patriarchs and Prophets, 36. {7ABC 438.3}

"In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear. How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem’s manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fullness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. ...Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one. It is in this union that we find the hope of our fallen race. Looking upon Christ in humanity, we look upon God, and see in Him the brightness of His glory, the express image of His person.—The Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896. {7ABC 443.4}

" This Word is to be the chief study in our schools. In it we may learn what our redemption has cost Him who from the beginning was equal with the Father, and who sacrificed His life that a people might stand before Him redeemed from everything earthly, renewed in the image of God. {CT 13.2}


"Point after point Paul lingered over, in order that those who should read his epistle might fully comprehend the wonderful condescension of the Saviour in their behalf. Presenting Christ as He was when equal with God and with Him receiving the homage of the angels, the apostle traced His course until He had reached the lowest depths of humiliation. Paul was convinced that if they could be brought to comprehend the amazing sacrifice made by the Majesty of heaven, all selfishness would be banished from their lives. He showed how the Son of God had laid aside His glory, voluntarily subjecting Himself to the conditions of human nature, and then had humbled Himself as a servant, becoming obedient unto death, “even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8), that He might lift fallen man from degradation to hope and joy and heaven". {AA 333.1}

When we think of the great gift of heaven for the redemption of a sinful world, and then consider the offerings that we can make, we shrink from drawing a comparison. The demands that might be made upon a whole universe could not compare with that one gift. Immeasurable love was expressed when One equal with the Father came to pay the price for the souls of men, and bring to them eternal life. Shall those who profess the name of Christ see no attraction in the world’s Redeemer, be indifferent to the possession of truth and righteousness, and turn from the heavenly treasure to the earthly? {CS 226.1}

All you are really doing here is confusing the issue and putting words in my mouth. The OP says nothing about whether Jesus the Son is equal to God the Father. It simply asserts that Ellen White clearly taught that Jesus is the same as the Archangel Michael. She doesn't give any reasoning, or even a vision, to support this claim she makes it.


Quote
<< The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Dan. 10:21. >>

This is from Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, Chapter 10: The Voice in the Wilderness
(Kindle Locatons 20960-20962)

In case you missed it, that's "but Michael [Christ] your Prince." EW inserts a one word commentary into a quote from Daniel, inserting "[Christ]" after "Michael." There isn't a word of justification for this extraordinary identification.
End Quote

So, Bob, do you have an answer to the point made here, backed by a verbatim quote from Ellen White?

 

[mmksparbud]

The founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, prophetess Ellen White, said that Jesus Christ is one and the same with the Archangel Michael mentioned in the Bible. This is a belief that the SDA have in common with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Both sects came out of the Millerite movement in 19th century America.

How did Ellen White come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? Although she claims to be a prophet, she mentions no visions on this subject.

In her five volume work Conflict of the Ages, "Michael" only occurs four times. One of those is in the Notes at the end and adds nothing new. The other three mentions are quotes from the Book of Daniel, one a straight quote. The other two add a tidbit of commentary.

<< The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Dan. 10:21. >>

This is from Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, Chapter 10: The Voice in the Wilderness
(Kindle Locatons 20960-20962)

In case you missed it, that's "but Michael [Christ] your Prince." EW inserts a one word commentary into a quote from Daniel, inserting "[Christ]" after "Michael." There isn't a word of justification for this extraordinary identification.

<< For three weeks Gabriel wrestled with the powers of darkness, seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus; and before the contest closed, Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid. “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days,” Gabriel declares; “but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” Daniel 10:13. >>

--Ellen White, Prophets and Kings, Chapter 46: "The Prophets of God Helping Them"
(Kindle Locations 18185-18188)

Here Ellen White gives only six words of raw assertion preceding a quote from Daniel where Michael helps defeat the King of Persia.

I have checked other books by Ellen White and can find no mention of the Archangel Michael. In her defining work Conflict of the Ages, there are only seven words of commentary on Michael aside from quoting Daniel. We have only "[Christ]" inserted after "Michael" and "Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid." This hardly explains why White adopts a position which is not spelled out in the Bible and which is completely at odds with all scholarship outside the Jehovah's Witnesses and those sects which follow Ellen White as a prophet.

Here is a question for Seventh Day Adventists: Am I missing something? Where did Ellen White explain or defend her position that Jesus is one and the same with the Archangel Michael? It looks like she picked up the idea from the Millerite movement and later simply assumed it to be true.

She said very little about Michael. Our belief about Michael comes from the bible itself, not her.
Michael is a title for the pre-incarnate Christ. He is not a created angel, He is THE Archangel, the leader of all the angels, the name means "who is like God."---That is not a name given to any angel.

1Th 4:16 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:

Jesus has the voice of the archangel. There is only one archangel,

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

The angels are called His angels---they are Christ's for He created them. They are called His army in Rev. 19. Jesus marches at the head of His army, just as Rev 12 says Michael and His angels. There are not 2 sets of angels, one for Christ and one set for Michael. It is one set of angels, His army of angels and Michael is the title He uses as the head of those angels.

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Dan 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

Jos 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
Jos 5:15 And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

No angel ever accepts worship from man--ever. No angel makes a place Holy, only the presence of God can do that. Captain of the hoist of the Lord---Archangel, same thing.

Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Exo 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
Exo 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

Again, the angel of the Lord, and God are used together---the ground is Hioly because God is there---Michael is not a crated angel, He is Jesus, the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, the Archangel, Captain of the Host and leads His angels---He created them.

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book

No angel stands up for His people---Jesus is our mediator.

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Messiah the Prince, He is Michael, our Prince.

It matters not the Jw's, the Buddhists, the Hindus, atheists, Tutankhamun or anyone else believes the same thing.
The bible says He is.

 

[BobRyan]

All you are really doing here is confusing the issue and putting words in my mouth. The OP says nothing about whether Jesus the Son is equal to God the Father.

it never occurred to me that your claim was that Ellen White's claim was that Michael (even as Christ) is equal to God the Father. But that the problem in her statement is that it is not a strict verbatim quote of Daniel 10.

I "thought" you were saying her claim was that Jesus was not God the Son but rather was a created being, an angel -- like the Jehovah's Witnesses claim.

So when I point out that Ellen White taught that Christ is God the Son equal to the Father -- I thought it would be "news" to you and be one more evidence to you that you got this wrong.

instead we get "The OP says nothing about whether Jesus the Son is equal to God the Father." in your response. I find your logic "illusive" just then.

Details.

Maybe you can clarify and I will reply more specifically to your point.

 

[BobRyan]

The OP says nothing about whether Jesus the Son is equal to God the Father. It simply asserts that Ellen White clearly taught that Jesus is the same as the Archangel Michael.

Just as most Bible scholars assert that the "Angel of the Lord" is the pre-incarnate Christ.



===================================== not BobRyan

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

by Bob McCabe

http://dbts.edu/blog/author/rmccabe/

"The issue for us concerns whether this term can refer to the infinite supernatural Being, God. In order to prove that this term can refer to God, we will need to examine when it is used in connection with the phrase “of the LORD.” While this expression is used thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, we will examine two of these.

Example 1

"The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. While tending the flock of his father-in-law at Horeb, Moses saw that a burning bush was not being consumed by the fire. As he approached the bush, v. 2 clearly states that the angel of the LORD appeared to him in the flames of the bush. It is stated in v. 4 that the LORD spoke to him from within the bush. In v. 6 the Being in the bush further identifies that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the conversation continues between these two, the Being in the bush announces His name, “I AM WHO I AM” (v. 14). Thus, this passage indicates that the angel of the LORD mentioned in v. 2 is clearly identified by Himself and accepted by Moses as the infinite God.

Example 2

Zechariah 3:1–10 is our second passage. The content of Zechariah’s fourth vision focuses on Israel’s future cleansing from sin and reinstatement as a priestly nation. Verse 1 introduces the participants: “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him” (NIV 2011). More specifically, these participants are Joshua the high priest, the antecedent of “he” is the interpreting angel (he is referred to in 1:9, 14, 19; 2:3; 4:1, 3, 5; etc.; in light of 1:9 the interpreting angel was apparently present to explain some of the details of these visions to Zechariah), the antecedent of “me” is Zechariah, the angel of the LORD, and Satan. In this verse Joshua is described as standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan is pictured as standing at the right hand of the angel of the LORD to resist him. With this introduction to the vision we should note that the angel of the LORD is the focal point around which the following context revolves.

"The first half of v. 2 reads like this: “The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan!’” In light of the participants mentioned in v. 1, we could read this verse in this fashion: “And the LORD, that is the angel of the LORD, said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan.’” Therefore, v. 2 identifies the angel of the LORD as the LORD and indicates that there is a distinction between the angel of the LORD and the LORD. This identification is further substantiated in v. 4. If we follow the context of vv. 2–4 carefully, we should notice that it is the angel of the LORD who forgives sin in v. 4. Since God is the only one who forgives sin, it is readily apparent that the angel of the LORD is God. Consequently, this passage provides solid support for both the deity of the angel of the LORD and his distinctiveness from the LORD.

Who is both deity and yet a distinct person from the LORD? Since no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16) and since the Holy Spirit never takes on bodily form, this suggests that the supernatural Being to which this expression refers is the second member of the Trinity (also compare Exod 3:14 with John 8:58). Therefore, the angel of the LORD was a temporary manifestation of the LORD Jesus Christ in a preincarnate form


======================================

Even so - the SDA denomination has no doctrinal statements on who Michael is - we just have the doctrinal statements in our "28 Fundamental Beliefs" regarding the Trinity -- the Godhead and Christ as the second person of the Godhead.

 

[BobRyan]

In case you missed it, that's "but Michael [Christ] your Prince." EW inserts a one word commentary into a quote from Daniel, inserting "[Christ]" after "Michael."...

So, Bob, do you have an answer to the point made here,

Did you make a point? Apparently I still don't know what it is.

Is it your belief that every reference in the NT to an OT text is always "verbatim" without even a one word change -- used as a "test" to see if the NT writer is a heretic???

Is it your position that the LXX and the Hebrew text have not a single word difference for the same text??

Is it your position that KJV and NIV have not a single word difference for a given text? And also for example The Living Bible? OR that they are all heretical if one word of difference?

I "thought" your argument was that having that one word difference is heretical because it might mean she thought Christ was a created being and not the 2nd person of the Godhead - equal to the Father.

IF your point is about the "one word" itself -- regardless if she is claiming that God the Son appearing in the form of Michael is still God the Son equal with the father -- then I missed that detail in your OP.

In that case - how about us having a thread that is focused on that very singular key assumption regarding "one word difference" in your post and see what the Bible says about it so that all can be edified by scriptural context regarding your claim?

 

[Dale]

Just as most Bible scholars assert that the "Angel of the Lord" is the pre-incarnate Christ.



===================================== not BobRyan

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

by Bob McCabe

http://dbts.edu/blog/author/rmccabe/

"The issue for us concerns whether this term can refer to the infinite supernatural Being, God. In order to prove that this term can refer to God, we will need to examine when it is used in connection with the phrase “of the LORD.” While this expression is used thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, we will examine two of these.

Example 1

"The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. While tending the flock of his father-in-law at Horeb, Moses saw that a burning bush was not being consumed by the fire. As he approached the bush, v. 2 clearly states that the angel of the LORD appeared to him in the flames of the bush. It is stated in v. 4 that the LORD spoke to him from within the bush. In v. 6 the Being in the bush further identifies that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the conversation continues between these two, the Being in the bush announces His name, “I AM WHO I AM” (v. 14). Thus, this passage indicates that the angel of the LORD mentioned in v. 2 is clearly identified by Himself and accepted by Moses as the infinite God.

Example 2

Zechariah 3:1–10 is our second passage. The content of Zechariah’s fourth vision focuses on Israel’s future cleansing from sin and reinstatement as a priestly nation. Verse 1 introduces the participants: “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him” (NIV 2011). More specifically, these participants are Joshua the high priest, the antecedent of “he” is the interpreting angel (he is referred to in 1:9, 14, 19; 2:3; 4:1, 3, 5; etc.; in light of 1:9 the interpreting angel was apparently present to explain some of the details of these visions to Zechariah), the antecedent of “me” is Zechariah, the angel of the LORD, and Satan. In this verse Joshua is described as standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan is pictured as standing at the right hand of the angel of the LORD to resist him. With this introduction to the vision we should note that the angel of the LORD is the focal point around which the following context revolves.

"The first half of v. 2 reads like this: “The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan!’” In light of the participants mentioned in v. 1, we could read this verse in this fashion: “And the LORD, that is the angel of the LORD, said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan.’” Therefore, v. 2 identifies the angel of the LORD as the LORD and indicates that there is a distinction between the angel of the LORD and the LORD. This identification is further substantiated in v. 4. If we follow the context of vv. 2–4 carefully, we should notice that it is the angel of the LORD who forgives sin in v. 4. Since God is the only one who forgives sin, it is readily apparent that the angel of the LORD is God. Consequently, this passage provides solid support for both the deity of the angel of the LORD and his distinctiveness from the LORD.

Who is both deity and yet a distinct person from the LORD? Since no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16) and since the Holy Spirit never takes on bodily form, this suggests that the supernatural Being to which this expression refers is the second member of the Trinity (also compare Exod 3:14 with John 8:58). Therefore, the angel of the LORD was a temporary manifestation of the LORD Jesus Christ in a preincarnate form


======================================

Even so - the SDA denomination has no doctrinal statements on who Michael is - we just have the doctrinal statements in our "28 Fundamental Beliefs" regarding the Trinity -- the Godhead and Christ as the second person of the Godhead.

Bob Ryan: "Just as most Bible scholars assert that the "Angel of the Lord" is the pre-incarnate Christ."

Most scholars have said no such thing. I've discussed this at length in the past. Scholars find the term "Angel of the Lord" to be highly confusing and no single theory about what it means is generally accepted.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How did Ellen White come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Archangel Michael?

It might not have been a conclusion**. However the error of it continued because of reasons known and unknown.

** i.e. not a conclusion, if someone told her, and she neglected to see that it is not possible via Scripture.

She trusted someone who mis-spoke terribly contrary to Scripture.

Same things happen so often today. People "hear" such a teaching, quite a variety, and believe them,
instead of
testing by Scripture, instead of not accepting it because it cannot be proven in line with Scripture,
so they go on, never proven, never tested, believing errors ... "not making waves"? "desiring the approval of men instead of the approval of God" ...

Several possiblities - all allowing errors to continue.

 

[mmksparbud]

It might not have been a conclusion**. However the error of it continued because of reasons known and unknown.

** i.e. not a conclusion, if someone told her, and she neglected to see that it is not possible via Scripture.

She trusted someone who mis-spoke terribly contrary to Scripture.

Same things happen so often today. People "hear" such a teaching, quite a variety, and believe them,
instead of
testing by Scripture, instead of not accepting it because it cannot be proven in line with Scripture,
so they go on, never proven, never tested, believing errors ... "not making waves"? "desiring the approval of men instead of the approval of God" ...

Several possiblities - all allowing errors to continue.

Read post # 24. Scripture does not agree with you.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Read post # 24. Scripture does not agree with you.

Rather, the errors that you apparently espouse are because of tradition, whether Ellen or someone else.
No one can be set free from such errors,

unless the Father grants it.

 

[mmksparbud]

Rather, the errors that you apparently espouse are because of tradition, whether Ellen or someone else.
No one can be set free from such errors,

unless the Father grants it.

If you bothered to read the post you would see it has nothing to do with EGW---tradition---or anything but what the bible says.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you bothered to read the post you would see it has nothing to do with EGW---tradition---or anything but what the bible says.

Yes, I read it. And accurately reported and responed to you that it is tradition you learned or accepted from somewhere.
No truth in it at all, from Scripture, nor anywhere else claiming it.

This was already exposed long time, and on the forum some time ago, and available in full , in the past anyway, on the internet, totally exposing the tradition as false, in some sermons also for over a century all along.

When it first started, it was known to be false- there was no waiting period necessary .... for those who test everything before accepting it, as the Bereans were blessed for doing.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes, I read it. And accurately reported and responed to you that it is tradition you learned or accepted from somewhere.
No truth in it at all, from Scripture, nor anywhere else claiming it.

This was already exposed long time, and on the forum some time ago, and available in full , in the past anyway, on the internet, totally exposing the tradition as false, in some sermons also for over a century all along.

When it first started, it was known to be false- there was no waiting period necessary .... for those who test everything before accepting it, as the Bereans were blessed for doing.

LOL!! OK---If you think an angel deserves worship---then it must be so! HA. You're not reading, your going by what you haver been taught---but that is your choice.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

LOL!! OK---If you think an angel deserves worship---then it must be so! HA. You're not reading, your going by what you haver been taught---but that is your choice.

When I first heard the false teaching about Jesus being the same as an angel,
I knew it was false, and thought it was from Ellen White.
Later, I learned it was from the devil.

 

[mmksparbud]

When I first heard the false teaching about Jesus being the same as an angel,
I knew it was false, and thought it was from Ellen White.
Later, I learned it was from the devil.

Obviously you did not read the post---Jesus is not a created angel---no way no how. He is God. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus also has some 200 names and titles, and Michael is just one of those. It is not from EGW, certainly not from the devil---if you read the scriptures it says it all right there. Like I said, you're just going by what you were taught, what someone told you, tradition, not from actual study of scripture.
But you are free to believe whatever you want.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan: "Just as most Bible scholars assert that the "Angel of the Lord" is the pre-incarnate Christ."

Most scholars have said no such thing. accepted.

The post you replied to included this text from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe

"
Example 1

Ex 3:1-2 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

"The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. While tending the flock of his father-in-law at Horeb, Moses saw that a burning bush was not being consumed by the fire. As he approached the bush, v. 2 clearly states that the angel of the LORD appeared to him in the flames of the bush. It is stated in v. 4 that the LORD spoke to him from within the bush. In v. 6 the Being in the bush further identifies that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the conversation continues between these two, the Being in the bush announces His name, “I AM WHO I AM” (v. 14). Thus, this passage indicates that the angel of the LORD mentioned in v. 2 is clearly identified by Himself and accepted by Moses as the infinite God.

Example 2

Zechariah 3:1–10... the antecedent of “he” is the interpreting angel (he is referred to in 1:9, 14, 19; 2:3; 4:1, 3, 5; etc.; in light of 1:9 the interpreting angel was apparently present to explain some of the details of these visions to Zechariah), the antecedent of “me” is Zechariah, the angel of the LORD, and Satan. In this verse Joshua is described as standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan is pictured as standing at the right hand of the angel of the LORD to resist him. With this introduction to the vision we should note that the angel of the LORD is the focal point around which the following context revolves.

"The first half of v. 2 reads like this: “The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan!’” In light of the participants mentioned in v. 1, we could read this verse in this fashion: “And the LORD, that is the angel of the LORD, said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan.’” Therefore, v. 2 identifies the angel of the LORD as the LORD and indicates that there is a distinction between the angel of the LORD and the LORD. This identification is further substantiated in v. 4. If we follow the context of vv. 2–4 carefully, we should notice that it is the angel of the LORD who forgives sin in v. 4. Since God is the only one who forgives sin, it is readily apparent that the angel of the LORD is God. Consequently, this passage provides solid support for both the deity of the angel of the LORD and his distinctiveness from the LORD.

Who is both deity and yet a distinct person from the LORD? Since no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16) and since the Holy Spirit never takes on bodily form, this suggests that the supernatural Being to which this expression refers is the second member of the Trinity (also compare Exod 3:14 with John 8:58). Therefore, the angel of the LORD was a temporary manifestation of the LORD Jesus Christ in a preincarnate form
"
=========================end quote

Your response above did not deal with the texts that point to the fact.

As for the scholarship agreeing with Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe

Some examples:

Friday at 10:53 PM #19

I think that is true given the connection with "YHWH" in the OT whenever you see the "Angel of the LORD". In the OT at the very least.

===================================== not BobRyan

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

by Bob McCabe

http://dbts.edu/blog/author/rmccabe/

"The issue for us concerns whether this term can refer to the infinite supernatural Being, God. In order to prove that this term can refer to God, we will need to examine when it is used in connection with the phrase “of the LORD.” While this expression is used thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, we will examine two of these.

Example 1

"The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. While tending the flock of his father-in-law at Horeb, Moses saw that a burning bush was not being consumed by the fire. As he approached the bush, v. 2 clearly states that the angel of the LORD appeared to him in the flames of the bush. It is stated in v. 4 that the LORD spoke to him from within the bush. In v. 6 the Being in the bush further identifies that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the conversation continues between these two, the Being in the bush announces His name, “I AM WHO I AM” (v. 14). Thus, this passage indicates that the angel of the LORD mentioned in v. 2 is clearly identified by Himself and accepted by Moses as the infinite God.

Example 2

Zechariah 3:1–10 is our second passage. The content of Zechariah’s fourth vision focuses on Israel’s future cleansing from sin and reinstatement as a priestly nation. Verse 1 introduces the participants: “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him” (NIV 2011). More specifically, these participants are Joshua the high priest, the antecedent of “he” is the interpreting angel (he is referred to in 1:9, 14, 19; 2:3; 4:1, 3, 5; etc.; in light of 1:9 the interpreting angel was apparently present to explain some of the details of these visions to Zechariah), the antecedent of “me” is Zechariah, the angel of the LORD, and Satan. In this verse Joshua is described as standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan is pictured as standing at the right hand of the angel of the LORD to resist him. With this introduction to the vision we should note that the angel of the LORD is the focal point around which the following context revolves.

"The first half of v. 2 reads like this: “The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan!’” In light of the participants mentioned in v. 1, we could read this verse in this fashion: “And the LORD, that is the angel of the LORD, said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan.’” Therefore, v. 2 identifies the angel of the LORD as the LORD and indicates that there is a distinction between the angel of the LORD and the LORD. This identification is further substantiated in v. 4. If we follow the context of vv. 2–4 carefully, we should notice that it is the angel of the LORD who forgives sin in v. 4. Since God is the only one who forgives sin, it is readily apparent that the angel of the LORD is God. Consequently, this passage provides solid support for both the deity of the angel of the LORD and his distinctiveness from the LORD.

Who is both deity and yet a distinct person from the LORD? Since no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16) and since the Holy Spirit never takes on bodily form, this suggests that the supernatural Being to which this expression refers is the second member of the Trinity (also compare Exod 3:14 with John 8:58). Therefore, the angel of the LORD was a temporary manifestation of the LORD Jesus Christ in a preincarnate form

=========================================
and what of Ex 3:2?

Adam Clarke Commentary
Exodus 3 Verse 2

The angel of the Lord - Not a created angel certainly; for he is called יהוה Jehovah, Exodus 3:4, etc., and has the most expressive attributes of the Godhead applied to him, Exodus 3:14, etc. Yet he is an angel, מלאך malach, a messenger, in whom was the name of God, Exodus 23:21; and in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Colossians 2:9; and who, in all these primitive times, was the Messenger of the covenant, Malachi 3:1. And who was this but Jesus, the Leader, Redeemer, and Savior of mankind? See Clarke's note on Genesis 16:7.

=================

James Burton Coffman
Ex 3 Verse 2-3

"And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt."

"The angel of Jehovah ..." As the context proves, "The Angel of Jehovah is not a created angel but Jehovah himself in his act of self-revelation."[10] This is merely another name for God, of which there are many in the Bible. Although this verse does not indicate it, there is reason to believe that the Angel of Jehovah should be identified with our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead; he is also called the Angel of the Covenant.[11]


=================================
Jamieson Fausset Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Verse 2-3

the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire — It is common in Scripture to represent the elements and operations of nature, as winds, fires, earthquakes, pestilence, everything enlisted in executing the divine will, as the “angels” or messengers of God. But in such cases God Himself is considered as really, though invisibly, present. Here the preternatural fire may be primarily meant by the expression “angel of the Lord”; but it is clear that under this symbol, the Divine Being was present, whose name is given (Exodus 3:4, Exodus 3:6), and elsewhere called the angel of the covenant, Jehovah-Jesus.

===============================
Albert Barnes Commentary

Exodus 3
Ex 3:1-2 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

vs 2
What Moses saw was the flame of fire in the bush; what he recognized therein was an intimation of the presence of God, who maketh a flame of fire His angel. Compare Psalm 104:4. The words which Moses heard were those of God Himself, as all ancient and most modern divines have held, manifested in the Person of the Son.

Where we see this --

Albert Barnes Commentary

Exodus 3
Ex 3:1-2 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

Exodus 3:2
What Moses saw was the flame of fire in the bush; what he recognized therein was an intimation of the presence of God, who maketh a flame of fire His angel. Compare Psalm 104:4. The words which Moses heard were those of God Himself, as all ancient and most modern divines have held, manifested in the Person of the Son.

I think we can all agree that none of those Bible scholars were following Ellen White to make their statements or take their positions on this subject. So we cannot blame her for positions they take.

Nor can we "blame me" for positions those scholars take.

 

[BobRyan]

-Jesus is not a created angel---no way no how. He is God. Jesus is the Son of God. .

indeed He is -- just as Ellen White said - "fully God in the highest sense" and "equal with God the Father" in that regard.

 

[Dale]

The post you replied to included this text from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe

"
Example 1

Ex 3:1-2 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

"The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. While tending the flock of his father-in-law at Horeb, Moses saw that a burning bush was not being consumed by the fire. As he approached the bush, v. 2 clearly states that the angel of the LORD appeared to him in the flames of the bush. It is stated in v. 4 that the LORD spoke to him from within the bush. In v. 6 the Being in the bush further identifies that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the conversation continues between these two, the Being in the bush announces His name, “I AM WHO I AM” (v. 14). Thus, this passage indicates that the angel of the LORD mentioned in v. 2 is clearly identified by Himself and accepted by Moses as the infinite God.

Example 2

Zechariah 3:1–10... the antecedent of “he” is the interpreting angel (he is referred to in 1:9, 14, 19; 2:3; 4:1, 3, 5; etc.; in light of 1:9 the interpreting angel was apparently present to explain some of the details of these visions to Zechariah), the antecedent of “me” is Zechariah, the angel of the LORD, and Satan. In this verse Joshua is described as standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan is pictured as standing at the right hand of the angel of the LORD to resist him. With this introduction to the vision we should note that the angel of the LORD is the focal point around which the following context revolves.

"The first half of v. 2 reads like this: “The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan!’” In light of the participants mentioned in v. 1, we could read this verse in this fashion: “And the LORD, that is the angel of the LORD, said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan.’” Therefore, v. 2 identifies the angel of the LORD as the LORD and indicates that there is a distinction between the angel of the LORD and the LORD. This identification is further substantiated in v. 4. If we follow the context of vv. 2–4 carefully, we should notice that it is the angel of the LORD who forgives sin in v. 4. Since God is the only one who forgives sin, it is readily apparent that the angel of the LORD is God. Consequently, this passage provides solid support for both the deity of the angel of the LORD and his distinctiveness from the LORD.

Who is both deity and yet a distinct person from the LORD? Since no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16) and since the Holy Spirit never takes on bodily form, this suggests that the supernatural Being to which this expression refers is the second member of the Trinity (also compare Exod 3:14 with John 8:58). Therefore, the angel of the LORD was a temporary manifestation of the LORD Jesus Christ in a preincarnate form
"
=========================end quote

Your response above did not deal with the texts that point to the fact.

As for the scholarship agreeing with Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe

Some examples:

Friday at 10:53 PM #19



Where we see this --



I think we can all agree that none of those Bible scholars were following Ellen White to make their statements or take their positions on this subject. So we cannot blame her for positions they take.

Nor can we "blame me" for positions those scholars take.

Most theologians are far more cautious on the subject.

Our knowledge of angels is very limited because there is no chapter or passage in the Bible that lays out the story on angels. Hebrews Chapter 2 is the closest thing to an exception but even here we do not learn what we would like to know about angels.

Bob McCabe is quoted: << The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. >>

In fact, the term "angel of the Lord" appears several times in Genesis. I don't know why McCabe is trying to tell us otherwise.

An article on Angels in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia discusses the meaning of Angel of the Lord.

"A study of these passages shows that while the angel and Yahweh are at times distinguished from each other, they are with equal frequency, and in the same passages, merged into each other. How is this to be explained? It is obvious that these apparitions cannot be the Almighty Himself, whom no man hath seen, or can see."

Later,

"The question still remains, Who is theophanic angel? To this many answers have been given, of which the following may be mentioned: (1) This angel is simply an angel with a special commission; (2) He may be a momentary descent of God into visibility; (3) He may be the Logos, a kind of temporary preincarnation of the second person of the Trinity. Each has its difficulties, but the last is certainly the most tempting to the mind. Yet it must be remembered that at best these are only conjectures that touch on a great mystery. It is certain that from the beginning God used angels in human form, with human voices, in order to communicate with man; and the appearances of the angel of the Lord, with his special redemptive relation to God's people, show the working of that Divine mode of self-revelation which culminated in the coming of the Saviour, and are thus a fore-shadowing of, and a preparation for, the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Further than this, it is not safe to go."

If that quote is too complicated, it can be boiled down to two points on the Angel of the Lord.

First, "many answers have been given".
Second, "it is a fore-shadowing and a preparation for ...Jesus Christ. Further than this, it is not safe to go."



Link
Angel in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

 

[mmksparbud]

Most theologians are far more cautious on the subject.

Our knowledge of angels is very limited because there is no chapter or passage in the Bible that lays out the story on angels. Hebrews Chapter 2 is the closest thing to an exception but even here we do not learn what we would like to know about angels.

Bob McCabe is quoted: << The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. >>

In fact, the term "angel of the Lord" appears several times in Genesis. I don't know why McCabe is trying to tell us otherwise.

An article on Angels in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia discusses the meaning of Angel of the Lord.

"A study of these passages shows that while the angel and Yahweh are at times distinguished from each other, they are with equal frequency, and in the same passages, merged into each other. How is this to be explained? It is obvious that these apparitions cannot be the Almighty Himself, whom no man hath seen, or can see."

Later,

"The question still remains, Who is theophanic angel? To this many answers have been given, of which the following may be mentioned: (1) This angel is simply an angel with a special commission; (2) He may be a momentary descent of God into visibility; (3) He may be the Logos, a kind of temporary preincarnation of the second person of the Trinity. Each has its difficulties, but the last is certainly the most tempting to the mind. Yet it must be remembered that at best these are only conjectures that touch on a great mystery. It is certain that from the beginning God used angels in human form, with human voices, in order to communicate with man; and the appearances of the angel of the Lord, with his special redemptive relation to God's people, show the working of that Divine mode of self-revelation which culminated in the coming of the Saviour, and are thus a fore-shadowing of, and a preparation for, the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Further than this, it is not safe to go."

If that quote is too complicated, it can be boiled down to two points on the Angel of the Lord.

First, "many answers have been given".
Second, "it is a fore-shadowing and a preparation for ...Jesus Christ. Further than this, it is not safe to go."



Link
Angel in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Again, no angel will allow worship, Michael and the angel of the Lord have both accepted worship and they do indeed, merge into the Almighty is some passages. Jesus said no one has seen the Father, however, Jesus was the Creator of all and it is He that was the one that spoke to Moses and others for Jesus said none has ever heard the Father either.
Joh_5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.