Is Jesus the archangle Michael?

[OzarkWoman]

I say no and if one were to read Hebrews 1, the whole chapter, then one can see that it isn't even possible. It seems to me that the ones that cane out of the Miller movement, SDAs and the JWs seem to believe this. I wonder why that is?

[Gail]

In Daniel 12:1 he is called a prince.

[Gail]

In Daniel 10:21 he is called Daniel's prince by the angel who was talking to the prophet

[phkrause]

I'd say yes. From all my reading and listening, etc.

[Green Cochoa]

Here's my study on the topic of Michael the Archangel.

The word "Michael" occurs but twice in the New Testament, once each in Jude and Revelation. Also, the word "archangel" occurs but twice in the entire Bible. However, the words "Michael" and "archangel" are clearly tied in Jude.

The word "archangel" is the word which throws people off most. The fact that "angel" is usually considered a created being is the tricky part. We forget the real meaning of "angel." The word means "messenger of God." Here is the full definition of "angel" from the Greek word, according to my Strong's Concordance:

angelos, n. angel, messenger; this can refer to a human messenger, such as John the Baptist, or messengers sent by John the Baptist or Jesus, or to the supernatural class of being that serves God: the angel:-- angel [96], angels [80], messenger [4], messengers [3], angel's [2]

Now I would ask two questions: 1) Was Jesus a human? and 2) Was Jesus a messenger, sent by God? My answers to both of these are in the affirmative. So, by this definition, one could even have used the term "angel" for Jesus. However, there is nothing in the definition of "angel" which implies that it must be a created being! (Here is where our traditional concepts can throw us off the track of truth.)

Now, apart from that little side-trip, I will not hereafter attempt to call Jesus an angel, for it is to be noted that the Bible does not try to confuse us by doing this. The Bible writers were careful to use the term for beings other than God Himself, unlike the term "son of man" which can be applied to Jesus, to Ezekiel, or to any number of men.

However, the term "archangel" is not the same Greek word as "angel." As previously noted, it is used but twice. The definition in the concordance is not helpful, saying that the word means "archangel" with no additional information. From that, I might safely conclude that the word is not fully understood. When I find that word in the dictionary, it says archangel means "an angel of the highest order," and that the prefix "arch-" means "chief" or "principal," which to me still leave questions.

It is said that "archangel" means "over all the angels." If you accept this, then the being that is "over" the angels may or may not be an angel himself--simply their superior.

Now, laying the definitions themselves aside, let's look at the identity of Michael. On this point, we can be very clear. There can be no mistake as to who Michael is.

Michael is mentioned in Daniel 10:13. "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: bu, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes [marginal note: Or, the first], came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

In Daniel 12:1, Michael is further identified: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people...and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."

So, Michael is "the great prince" who stands "for the children of thy people." Who is this prince? Just three chapters earlier, we read this: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks..."

So, here we have a clear reference to "THE Prince." We know who the Messiah is--that is Jesus. We also know that "prince" means the son of a king. I don't see how the angels (the created messengers of heaven) would be called by this term, do you? So to me, it is quite clear.

Now, if you accept that "archangel" means "over the angels," how many would fit this description? Certainly, Jesus would fit. But we also have God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Depending now on whether or not an angel could also fill this position, perhaps you would have Gabriel (or even other commanding angels). So depending on the definitions (is God "one" or "three"; does Gabriel count), each one may interpret the number of archangels differently.

In conclusion:

1. Messiah is "the Prince."

2. Archangel means "over the angels" or "commander of the angels."

3. Jesus is the Messiah.

4. Jesus, as God, is over the angels (archangel).

5. Jesus pre-existed His earthly existence (John 1:1-14).

6. Jesus did not create Himself (this would be impossible)!

7. Jesus created everything; He is the Creator (Col. 1:14-16).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

The study continued...

There are three in the Godhead, yet the Godhead is one. Deuteronomy 6:4 says "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."

We know that the word "God" in the Hebrew for this text is plural, and in the Creation, God said "Let US make man in OUR image." Thus, Jesus can be said to be but one of the "archangels," if we choose to define that as meaning "above/over the angels," for certainly, each member of the Godhead is above the angels. That is why I suggested that the actual number here is open to interpretation based on one's definitions.

Now, as for the plurality of "princes," one must recognize that in this particular conflict which the angel is describing, there is another prince involved, another "chief prince" even, who represents an entire legion of his own angels.

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days..." (Dan. 10:13) Which prince would that be?

How about this one: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." (John 12:31 -- quoting Jesus). OR "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." (John 14:30 -- again quoting Jesus).

Or this one: "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." (Ephesians 2:2)

Or this: "But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils." (Matthew 9:34) AND "But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." (Matthew 12:24)

Each of these texts speaks of another prince--a darker one. I'm sure you recognize of whom they speak. Yet he is indeed a "chief prince," being the archenemy of Jesus. These two princes stand as commanders for opposite sides of the conflict. Indeed, it is a battle between these commanding princes and their followers.

I think the fact that each of these two is called a "prince" has much to do with the symbolism of the positions which they have taken in the conflict. Satan wants to ascend to the throne, and become "King." Jesus, however, is defending His rightful position on that throne, and praise God, He is the victor!

Most will admit that in Dan. 10:13 the number of princes is not specified, only that there is more than one. I would submit that it may mean two--the two which are both referenced within the verse itself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[OzarkWoman]

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Michael is an archangel, a created being.

[Kevin H]

No Michael is NOT a created being!!!

[Kevin H]

A good book to read and understand is "The God of Old:Inside the Lost World of the Bible" by a Jewish scholar James Kugel

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-god-of-old-by-james-l-kugel/

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Old-Inside-World/dp/0743235851

Kugel points out that one of the lost themes in the Bible is that there is the angel of the Lord that keeps appearing, but this angel of the Lord is NOT an angel but the Lord himself.

There have been other studies on the angel of the Lord. This angel of the Lord is Michael, the captain of the Lord's Host. When a Bible writer tried to bow for a regular created angel he was told "Don't do this for I am a fellow servant..." But there is a very strong vocabulary connection between Joshua's "The Captain of the Lord's host" and Daniel's "Michael the Prince of the Hosts" when Joshua bowed down to Michael, Michael did not tell him "Don't do this because I'm a fellow servant..." but told Joshua you are not going far enough in bowing to me, remove your shoes. You only remove your shoes for Yahweh. Thus the Captain of the Lord's Host, the Angel of the Lord who Daniel says is Michael is no one other than God himself.

Abraham was visited by 3 MEN. Turned out that two of these MEN were not men but angels. However the third MAN was NOT a created being but this MAN was God himself. Men tend to be created beings. But this MAN was NOT a created being. And likewise the Captain of the Lord's host, the Prince of the Host, the angel of the Lord is NOT a created being but the Lord himself!!!

[Kevin H]

God is too big for us to comprehend. God exists outside of the realm of time and space that created beings are limited to. To be able to communicate with us God is not only outside of time and space but also inside of time and space.

God needed to let us know that he is God, thus we have God the Father; the greatness all powerful unapproachable light/deep darkness. But if this was all there was of God, God would be too big and awesome for us to relate to and love. God the Father is necessary but alone is an insufficient revelation of God.

God also needs to let us know that he is personable. That we can have and need to have a relationship with him. Thus the infinite God also reveals himself as God the Son. God as one of us. He APPEARED to the Angels as another angel, the angel who's name is "The one who is like God" and the only one who is like God is God himself. That is the implications of the word "Michael." In the Old Testament he usually (but not always) revealed himself as another human being, but this human being turned out to be God himself.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green has given some good council in post # 685773.

Is the question as to whether or not Christ is Michael important?

Only as it related to whether or not Christ was a created being. That is important.

Those SDAs who say that Christ was Michael also say that Christ was not created.

[M. T. Cross]

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Michael is an archangel, a created being.

[Gregory Matthews]

When Mary gave birth to the Christ, God did beget a son.

That was the sole time that God was begotten.

[M. T. Cross]

That is a pretty simplistic answer Greg, that really does not get to the core of it.

So try it this way......

Was the Father the father before Jesus, or did he only become the Father after the human birth of Jesus

(please bear in mind that I have been asking this question for the last 38 years. I have gotten a lot of really cliche answers much like the one you gave me above. Would love for someone at some point to actually give it some thought)

[phkrause]

Here is the way this is translated by the CJB: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed.

And Gregory makes an excellent point.

[Gail]

I always like to exercise caution when trying to describe God (or His Son's) nature.

But thanks to Kevin for raising the point about the Angel of the Lord. That this is also Jesus. You will discover this in the story of Samson's parents or the Captain of the Lord's hosts with Joshua. The word "angel" means "messenger" more than it means "created being". Just because angels are usually created beings doesn't mean that the word cannot have more than just the one meaning.

[OzarkWoman]

Michael the archangel is perhaps the highest of all the angels. Michael is the only angel in the Bible who is designated “the archangel” (Jude verse 9). Michael the archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan, and Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel “dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy” against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1, 14). Michael the archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.

[Gregory Matthews]

M.T. Cross said:

Quote:

That is a pretty simplistic answer Greg, that really does not get to the core of it.

So try it this way......

Was the Father the father before Jesus, or did he only become the Father after the human birth of Jesus

(please bear in mind that I have been asking this question for the last 38 years. I have gotten a lot of really cliche answers much like the one you gave me above. Would love for someone at some point to actually give it some thought)

1) On one level, I think it is O.K. to simplify religious teachings that are complex. I think that there is merit in being able to do this to the point that children can understand.

I disagree with your inference that my simplistic comment requires little thought. I will suggest that for you to think that reveals a lack of awareness of the depth of consideration that has gone into it.

2) Yes, there is also merit in being able to parse out the individual threads that constitute a religious doctrine and deal with their individual complexities.

3) By the way, I take your question as serious and of value.

[Kevin H]

Michael the archangel is perhaps the highest of all the angels. Michael is the only angel in the Bible who is designated “the archangel” (Jude verse 9). Michael the archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan, and Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel “dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy” against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1, 14). Michael the archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.

Then why did Michael sin by allowing Joshua to bow down to him? Why did Michael require Joshua to not only bow but to also remove his shoes? Why did Michael take what belongs to YAHWEH ONLY!!! Why was Lucifer cast down for wanting to be like God, but the one who's name is "Who is like God" meaning the only angel who is just like God, and who required the bowing and shoes removed not cast down? Is God a hypocrite for punishing Lucifer but not Michael for the same sin?

[debbym]

Quote:

So try it this way......

Was the Father the father before Jesus, or did he only become the Father after the human birth of Jesus

(please bear in mind that I have been asking this question for the last 38 years. I have gotten a lot of really cliche answers much like the one you gave me above. Would love for someone at some point to actually give it some thought)

in a response to your question...i will just informally chat about this. Please bear with me.

I believe Jesus had a role in the members of God to the creation before the creation of humanity.

for some reason i have the visual of Jesus being the communicator of God to the angelic creation and to do this He manifested in an angelic form, being regarded as the head of all the angels as the creator of them or the source from which their existence sprang, yet still in bodily communication with them.

maybe something obtusely in comparison like a mother gives birth to a baby then substance to substance communicates constantly with that baby imprinting on the baby who and what it is and who and what the mother is to the baby.

Jesus also manifested in more then one form in communicating God to humanity before he was born as a human being, like to Joshua. he was also manifested as a burning bush, and a cloud of fire, and a cloud of moisture in the day, and as a rock, and fire and wind.

the revealing of God in a Father Son relationship i do not believe was manifested until the conception and birth and growing up of Jesus. The communicator of God continued to make God known additionally in this form.

God and God the communicator entered into solemn agreement to make God known by becoming a human being and being made a sacrifice for sin, and redeeming mankind and making God known through eternity as a Savior and immortalizing the mercy and compassion of God towards those who were by nature enemies of love.

[M. T. Cross]

That's a very interesting way to look at it Deb. Not the eye rolling interesting, but really interesting interesting. Very cool.

[M. T. Cross]

That is a pretty simplistic answer Greg, that really does not get to the core of it.

So try it this way......

Was the Father the father before Jesus, or did he only become the Father after the human birth of Jesus

(please bear in mind that I have been asking this question for the last 38 years. I have gotten a lot of really cliche answers much like the one you gave me above. Would love for someone at some point to actually give it some thought)

[Gail]

Quote:

Jesus also manifested in more then one form in communicating God to humanity before he was born as a human being, like to Joshua. he was also manifested as a burning bush, and a cloud of fire, and a cloud of moisture in the day, and as a rock, and fire and wind.

That is what I mean about arguing about the nature of God (Christ). We can learn all we can and He is still beyond our grasp.

He is also called lots of other things in the Bible, ie the Branch, the vine, the Daystar, etc. None of those things mean that He is literally those; they are facets or pictures of different aspects of His work and character.

[Green Cochoa]

M. T. Cross,

The word "begotten" in John 3:16 is translated from the Greek word "monogenēs," which occurs only about nine times in the New Testament: six times as "only begotten," twice as "only," and once as "only child" in the KJV. It is traced from μόνος (G3441) and γίνομαι (G1096). The first of these, "monos," means "one," or "alone" (in the sense of "without companion"). The word "mono" should be pretty clear to any of us. I'll address it more later, but let's look at the next word, "ginomai," meaning "to become." This "to become" is significant. If Jesus "became" a son, this directly implies that He was not previously a son. Obviously, He is the only one of the Godhead to have become a son, so the word "only" applies.

Could the word "only" (Gr. mono) mean that Jesus is God's only son? That this cannot be the case is shown just two chapters earlier in John 1:12, which tells us that "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." Any one of us may be a child of God. In this sense, Jesus is not the "only" one. To attempt, therefore, to say that God had only one Son, whom He gave, is to contradict the scriptural fact that God has many sons (and daughters).

But if the "monogenes" were properly translated, I think that we would have a verse saying this:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-become Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus is the only one of the Godhead to have become a son. The Greek word typically translated as "only begotten" can be understood to mean that Jesus is the only one to have become a son.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[M. T. Cross]

So what you have just said Green is one of two things.

1. The Bible can't be trusted to mean what it says

or

2. You have worked on this until it fits what you want it to mean.

The third option of course is that it does mean what it says and he is and always was the only born/created son of the biblical God.