Question about Michael the Archangel

[honorthesabbath]

Well--Lesb, to add to the confusion, your character looks very feminine too. If I hadn't seen a post of you referring to your wife--I too would have thought you a female.

I cannot believe that you reported me for this post. It was/is not a personal attack against you--geesh!

 

[Lebesgue]

I cannot believe that you reported me for this post. It was/is not a personal attack against you--geesh!

I was angry about being unfairly reported for a post I made on the Y'shua could not have sinned thread. Were you the one who reported me for that because I kinda suspect you were and I am going to be honest, I reported your post in retaliation for that, I WAS a bit offended by your calling my character feminine but I was willing to "let it slide" until I got unfairly reported for another post. It was wrong for me to do that even if you were the one who unfairly reported me for a post where I was just giving my HONEST OPINION.

I am not going to lie, I did report you. I am sorry and I regret it and I wish there were a way I could unreport you for that.

I was really upset because I am probably going to be banned for the post I was reported for and I feel that I was UNFAIRLY reported for just giving an HONEST opinion. I did NOT personally attack anyone and this is a discussion and debate forum.

I unfairly reported you, I am sorry I did and I wish I could undo it, you didn't deserve that.

Shalom.

Lebesgue

 

[RND]

I was angry about being unfairly reported for a post I made on the Y'shua could not have sinned thread. Were you the one who reported me for that because I kinda suspect you were and I am going to be honest, I reported your post in retaliation for that, I WAS a bit offended by your calling my character feminine but I was willing to "let it slide" until I got unfairly reported for another post. It was wrong for me to do that even if you were the one who unfairly reported me for a post where I was just giving my HONEST OPINION.

Reporting out of spite?

I am not going to lie, I did report you. I am sorry and I regret it and I wish there were a way I could unreport you for that.

I was really upset because I am probably going to be banned for the post I was reported for and I feel that I was UNFAIRLY reported for just giving an HONEST opinion. I did NOT personally attack anyone and this is a discussion and debate forum.

I unfairly reported you, I am sorry I did and I wish I could undo it, you didn't deserve that.

Knowing HTS she'll will accept your apology.

 

[Lebesgue]

Reporting out of spite?



Knowing HTS she'll will accept your apology.

I shouldn't have done that and I am truly sorry.

It was WRONG and I ADMIT it.

I'm more than likely going to be banned for a month because of the post I was reported for. So you will be rid of me for a while, you should be glad of that.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[Jon0388g]

I shouldn't have done that and I am truly sorry.

It was WRONG and I ADMIT it.

I'm more than likely going to be banned for a month because of the post I was reported for. So you will be rid of me for a while, you should be glad of that.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

"Ye shall know them by their fruit."

It is a rarity around here that people will openly, and honestly repent of a wrongdoing. May God bless you.

And I'm sure Honour will judge a righteous judgment and forgive 70x7



Jon

 

[Lebesgue]

"Ye shall know them by their fruit."

It is a rarity around here that people will openly, and honestly repent of a wrongdoing. May God bless you.

And I'm sure Honour will judge a righteous judgment and forgive 70x7



Jon

Thank you and G-d Bless you also. I WAS wrong, the ONLY thing to do was admit it and repent.

Shalom,

Lebsgue

 

[FreeinChrist]

Folks - there is a lot of commentary about the other people posting (their name, their character, why they are here) rather than addressing what they wrote. Let's stick to the topic and address the content of the post and not the poster.

 

[Loveaboveall]

I did a thorough search of "Michael" and the "angel of the Lord" and there is nothing to suggest in the bible that this entity was a created being. Also, looking at Matthew Henry's commentary(1700's), he is pretty clear that he believes Michael to be Jesus. This did not come from Joseph Smith.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Matthew Henry on Daniel 12,



Dan 12:1-4
It is usual with the prophets, when they foretel the grievances of the church, to furnish it at the same time with proper antidotes, a remedy for every malady. And no relief is so sovereign, of such general application, so easily accommodated to every case, and of such powerful efficacy, as those that are fetched from Christ and the future state; thence the comforts here are fetched. I. Jesus Christ shall appear his church’s patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, v. 1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, ch. 10:21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deu. 32:3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. 1:5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it? But this is not all: At that time (that is, soon after) Michael shall stand up for the working out of our eternal salvation; the Son of God shall be incarnate, shall be manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Christ stood for the children of our people when he was made sin and a curse for them, stood in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the cure for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in the intercession he ever lives to make within the veil, stands up for them, and stands their friend. And after the destruction of antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type, Christ shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, shall appear for the complete redemption of all his.


And Revelation 12


III. The attempts of the dragon not only proved unsuccessful against the church, but fatal to his own interests; for, upon his endeavour to devour the man-child, he engaged all the powers of heaven against him (v. 7): There was war in heaven. Heaven will espouse the quarrel of the church. Here observe,
1. The seat of this war—in heaven, in the church, which is the kingdom of heaven on earth, under the care of heaven and in the same interest. 2. The parties—Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.





I believe this is more than enough evidence to debunk the myth that this was Joseph Smith's idea, or the Jehovah's Witness'. You can find Matthew Henry's commentary in most church libraries and is still probably one of the most widely used commentaries on the bible.

 

[RND]

Matthew Henry on Daniel 12,



Dan 12:1-4
It is usual with the prophets, when they foretel the grievances of the church, to furnish it at the same time with proper antidotes, a remedy for every malady. And no relief is so sovereign, of such general application, so easily accommodated to every case, and of such powerful efficacy, as those that are fetched from Christ and the future state; thence the comforts here are fetched. I. Jesus Christ shall appear his church’s patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, v. 1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, ch. 10:21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deu. 32:3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. 1:5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it? But this is not all: At that time (that is, soon after) Michael shall stand up for the working out of our eternal salvation; the Son of God shall be incarnate, shall be manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Christ stood for the children of our people when he was made sin and a curse for them, stood in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the cure for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in the intercession he ever lives to make within the veil, stands up for them, and stands their friend. And after the destruction of antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type, Christ shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, shall appear for the complete redemption of all his.


And Revelation 12


III. The attempts of the dragon not only proved unsuccessful against the church, but fatal to his own interests; for, upon his endeavour to devour the man-child, he engaged all the powers of heaven against him (v. 7): There was war in heaven. Heaven will espouse the quarrel of the church. Here observe,
1. The seat of this war—in heaven, in the church, which is the kingdom of heaven on earth, under the care of heaven and in the same interest. 2. The parties—Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.





I believe this is more than enough evidence to debunk the myth that this was Joseph Smith's idea, or the Jehovah's Witness'. You can find Matthew Henry's commentary in most church libraries and is still probably one of the most widely used commentaries on the bible.

Great post LAA! Wonderful clarification. I guess we can assume then that if this was Matthew Henry's view that he got it from some teaching as well.

 

[Sophia7]

I believe this is more than enough evidence to debunk the myth that this was Joseph Smith's idea, or the Jehovah's Witness'. You can find Matthew Henry's commentary in most church libraries and is still probably one of the most widely used commentaries on the bible.

You're right that the idea did not originate with SDAs or JWs or Mormons. Here is Gill's commentary on Daniel 12:1:

The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who is as God, as the name signifies, truly and really God, and equal in nature, power, and glory, to his divine Father: "he shall stand up"; which is not to be understood of his incarnation, or manifestation in the flesh, for this refers to times long after that; yet neither of his personal appearance in the clouds of heaven, and standing upon the earth in the latter day; but of his spiritual presence among his people, and protection of them, and continuance with them: this respects the spiritual reigns of Christ, the Lamb's standing upon Mount Zion, and the 144,000 with him, (Revelation 14:1) , and this will be at that time, when the eastern antichrist, the Turk, will be destroyed; for the words are closely connected with the last verse of the preceding chapter; and when also the western antichrist, the pope of Rome, will come to his end; for, as they rose, so they will fall, much about the same time; and then Christ will rise and stand up, as the glorious Head of the church, and as a triumphant Conqueror over all his enemies, and take to himself his great power, and reign, and that kingdom which of right belongs to him.​

Here is Gill on Jude 9:

By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, (Daniel 10:21) (12:1) (Revelation 12:7).
​

John Calvin also thought that Michael was Christ:

The angel no longer relates future occurrences specially, but proclaims God to be in general the guardian of his Church, so as to preserve it wonderfully amidst many difficulties and dreadful commotion’s, as well as in the profound darkness of disaster and death. This is the meaning of this sentence. This verse consists of two parts: the first relates to that most wretched period which should be full of various and almost numberless calamities; and the second assures us of God’s never-failing protection and preservation of his Church by his own innate power. In this second part the promise is restricted to the elect, and thus a third clause may be distinguished, but it is only an addition to the second just mentioned. At the close of the verse, the angel presents us with a definition of the Church, as many professed to be God’s people who were not really so. He says, Michael, the prince of the people, should stand up Then he states the reason, The calamities of that period should be such as were never witnessed from the beginning of the world As he addresses Daniel, he says, sons of thy people; for he was one of the sons of Abraham, and the nation from which Daniel sprang was in that sense “his.” From this it follows that the calamities of which he will by and bye treat, belong to the true Church, and not to the profane nations. The singular aid of Michael would not have been needed, unless the Church had been oppressed with the most disastrous distresses. We perceive, then, the angel’s meaning to be according to my explanation. The Church should be subject to most numerous and grievous calamities until the advent of Christ, but yet it should feel God’s propitious disposition, ensuring its own safety under his aid and protection. By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the Church. But if it seems better to understand Michael as the archangel, this sense will prove suitable, for under Christ as the head, angels are the guardians of the Church. Whichever be the true meaning, God was the preserver of his Church by the hand of his only-begotten Son, and because the angels are under the government of Christ, he might entrust this duty to Michael. That foul hypocrite, Servetus, has dared to appropriate this passage to himself; for he has inscribed it as a frontispiece on his horrible comments, because he was called Michael! We observe what diabolic fury has seized him, as he dared to claim as his own what is here said of the singular aid afforded by Christ; to his Church. He was a man of the most impure feelings, as we have already sufficiently made known. But this was a proof of his impudence and sacrilegious madness — to adorn himself with this epithet of Christ without, blushing, and. to elevate himself into Christ’s place, by boasting himself to be Michael, the guardian of the Church, and the mighty prince of the people! This fact is well known, for I have the book at hand should any one distrust my word. (Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, Vol. 2, Daniel 12:1)
________________________________________________

The twelfth chapter commenced, as we stated in yesterday’s Lecture, with the angel’s prediction as to the future state of the Church after the manifestation of Christ It was to be subject to many miseries, and hence this passage would soothe the sorrow of Daniel, and of all the pious, as he still promises safety to the Church through the help of God. Daniel therefore represented Michael as the guardian of the Church, and God had enjoined this duty upon Christ, as we learn from the 10th chapter of John, (John 10:28, 29.) As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people. He is called the mighty prince, because he naturally opposed the unconquered fortitude of God to those dangers to which the angel represents the Church to be subject. We well know the very slight causes for which terror often seizes our minds, and when we begin to tremble, nothing can calm our tumult and agitation. The angel then in treating of very grievous contests, and of the imminent danger of the Church, calls Michael the mighty prince As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people, he should exercise immense power, and he alone without the slightest doubt should be sufficient for their protection. (Commentaries on Daniel, Vol. 2, Lecture 65)
​

So did Charles Spurgeon:

Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear him; he is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to thee this family offers its morning vows. (Morning and Evening Devotionals, Morning, October 3)
________________________________________________

"Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels."

- Revelation 12:7

War always will rage between the two great sovereignties until one or other be crushed. Peace between good and evil is an impossibility; the very pretence of it would, in fact, be the triumph of the powers of darkness. Michael will always fight; his holy soul is vexed with sin, and will not endure it. Jesus will always be the dragon's foe, and that not in a quiet sense, but actively, vigorously, with full determination to exterminate evil. All his servants, whether angels in heaven or messengers on earth, will and must fight; they are born to be warriors-at the cross they enter into covenant never to make truce with evil; they are a warlike company, firm in defence and fierce in attack. The duty of every soldier in the army of the Lord is daily, with all his heart, and soul, and strength, to fight against the dragon.

The dragon and his angels will not decline the affray; they are incessant in their onslaughts, sparing no weapon, fair or foul. We are foolish to expect to serve God without opposition: the more zealous we are, the more sure are we to be assailed by the myrmidons of hell. The church may become slothful, but not so her great antagonist; his restless spirit never suffers the war to pause; he hates the woman's seed, and would fain devour the church if he could. The servants of Satan partake much of the old dragon's energy, and are usually an active race. War rages all around, and to dream of peace is dangerous and futile.

Glory be to God, we know the end of the war. The great dragon shall be cast out and for ever destroyed, while Jesus and they who are with him shall receive the crown. Let us sharpen our swords to-night, and pray the Holy Spirit to nerve our arms for the conflict. Never battle so important, never crown so glorious. Every man to his post, ye warriors of the cross, and may the Lord tread Satan under your feet shortly! (Morning and Evening Devotionals, Evening, November 30)
​

Whether it's true or not, these guys were not denying the divinity of Christ by believing this. Clearly, they did not think that Michael was a created being.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

As far as I can tell the only thing new from Seventh -day Adventism is the investigative Judgment. Most everything else were teachings which began before the Adventist movement many long before some only a few years like Edward Irving's Latter Rain.

Some things are more uncertain in origin for instance you will find Adventists who equate Jesus as Michael as a way for God to manifest Himself to angels much as the incarnation is the manifestation of God to humans. It is the way an idea is used that makes the real difference is whether it should be accepted or rejected. And when any idea intrudes so much into the area of speculation it is generally less useful. Such as the idea that God had to appear as an angel to relate to His holy messengers. Which of course EGW took to the point where the angels were unsure about who God was so that in her story Lucifer excited angels to rebellion because he was saying that Michael (Christ) was being exalted.
From the Great Controversy by Ellen White:

Pride in his own glory nourished the desire for supremacy. The high honors conferred upon Lucifer were not appreciated as the gift of God and called forth no gratitude to the Creator. He gloried in his brightness and exaltation, and aspired to be equal with God. He was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host. Angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wisdom and glory above them all. Yet the Son of God was the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father. In all the councils of God, Christ was a participant, while Lucifer was not permitted thus to enter into the divine purposes. "Why," questioned this mighty angel, "should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He thus honored above Lucifer?"
GC.495.002
Leaving his place in the immediate presence of God, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. He sought to create sympathy for himself by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. He claimed that in aspiring to greater power and honor he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but was seeking to secure liberty for all the inhabitants of heaven, that by this means they might attain to a higher state of existence.

You can't help but see the semi-arian nature in much of Ellen White's writings.

 

[RND]

Whether it's true or not, these guys were not denying the divinity of Christ by believing this. Clearly, they did not think that Michael was a created being.

Nice post.

 

[Sophia7]

Nice post.

Thank you.

 

[Pythons]

you did not read the article did you?

Micheal = Who is like God

Arch = Chief of

Cheif of Angels Who is like God? NOW How is that not Jesus.

HE IS THE HEAD OF EVERY THING.

He who "is like" God definitionally isn't God. Additionally, Michael is described as being "one of other" Chief Princes which would automatically disqualify him as being of the same Substance belonging to God.

"But the prince of the Persian Kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the Chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia". Daniel 10,13

 

[Jon0388g]

He who "is like" God definitionally isn't God. Additionally, Michael is described as being "one of other" Chief Princes which would automatically disqualify him as being of the same Substance belonging to God.

"But the prince of the Persian Kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the Chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia". Daniel 10,13

Which being in the universe can be in any way compared to the Eternal? Especially when Scripture says

"O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears." 2 Chronicles 17:20

"Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high?" Psalm 113:5


"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me." Isaiah 46:9


In light of these verses, I'm sure if Michael is a created being His name would in no way imply "one who is like God." Logic must conclude the only being like unto God is God Himself.



Jon

 

[OntheDL]

He who "is like" God definitionally isn't God. Additionally, Michael is described as being "one of other" Chief Princes which would automatically disqualify him as being of the same Substance belonging to God.

"But the prince of the Persian Kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the Chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia". Daniel 10,13

And for the other point, Catholics believe in the three persons in the GodHead. I don't see why this should be a problem for you. Isn't Jesus called a prince in the bible.

Michael the Archangel is one of the chief princes. No where in the bible is there any other archangel mentioned. Gabriel is not an archangel by the biblical account.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

In light of these verses, I'm sure if Michael is a created being His name would in no way imply "one who is like God." Logic must conclude the only being like unto God is God Himself.

Jon

Of course the Jewish name Micah is the essentially the same as Michael:
"Micaiah" (= "Who is like Yhwh?")

Michael: The signification of the name (= "Who is like El"?)

 

[Pythons]

And for the other point, Catholics believe in the three persons in the GodHead. I don't see why this should be a problem for you. Isn't Jesus called a prince in the bible.

Michael the Archangel is one of the chief princes. No where in the bible is there any other archangel mentioned. Gabriel is not an archangel by the biblical account.

In God there are three distinct Persons (Catholic view)

Vs.

Three Persons in God (possible Adventist view)


Catholicism teaches that "In God" are three distinct Persons who are of the exact same substance, will and purpose. The Father was and always will be the Father, The Son was and always be the Son and the Holy Ghost will and always be the Holy Ghost. In all ways The Godhead is eternal.

If the meaning of Michael is as you posted then;

"One" who is like God.

'One' is a singular substance outside of God because 'it is like God' therefore no matter how much it looks, acts or emulates God it isn't God because it is "one".

As for the texts, if Michael is "one of" other Chief princes then God could not be Michael because Michael would share the substance of other princes.

I'm sure there is a better way to show this but I lack the words at this time.. Got some issues at work so I'll be back later.

 

[OntheDL]

In God there are three distinct Persons (Catholic view)

Vs.

Three Persons in God (possible Adventist view)


Catholicism teaches that "In God" are three distinct Persons who are of the exact same substance, will and purpose. The Father was and always will be the Father, The Son was and always be the Son and the Holy Ghost will and always be the Holy Ghost. In all ways The Godhead is eternal.

I'm sure there is a better way to show this but I lack the words at this time.. Got some issues at work so I'll be back later.

I'm not sure if I follow your logic. I think you rely too much on an English phrase that was translated from hebrew that was originally attempted to describe a spiritual being in a human language.

If the meaning of Michael is as you posted then;

"One" who is like God.

'One' is a singular substance outside of God because 'it is like God' therefore no matter how much it looks, acts or emulates God it isn't God because it is "one".

As for the texts, if Michael is "one of" other Chief princes then God could not be Michael because Michael would share the substance of other princes.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.