Who's That At My Door? Responding to Jehovah's Witnesses: Who Is Jesus (Part 3)

File:Casaemcasa.jpg

According to, You May Survive Armageddon into God’s New World, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus Christ has existed in three different, separate states.
1)      Michael the archangel, God’s first creation.  He ceased being Michael when He became
2)      A perfect man on earth for 33 years.  In His resurrection He again became
3)      Michael the archangel.[1]

A question that can be raised about the doctrine of Michael the Archangel = Christ comes from a reference in Jude chapter 9.  Jude 9 states:

9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” [2]

            Herbert Kern comments on this saying:
This verse (Jude 9) states “the archangel Michael…did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him (the devil).  But in Matthew 4:10 Jesus rebuked the devil, saying, “Away from Me, Satan!”  Why could Jesus (who Jehovah’s Witnesses say was only a perfect man on earth) rebuke the devil, while the archangel Michael could not do so?
Kern raises an interesting point about Christ being a created being, the created being of Michael the Archangel.  Obviously their doctrine of Jesus' identity does not stand.  Stay tuned for more...



[1] Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, You May Survive Armageddon into God’s New World, (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Soceity, 1955), 112.
[2] New International Version, Electronic Version (QuickVerse 7.0)

Comments

Nelson said…
Herbert Kern comments on this saying:
This verse (Jude 9) states “the archangel Michael…did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him (the devil). But in Matthew 4:10 Jesus rebuked the devil, saying, “Away from Me, Satan!” Why could Jesus (who Jehovah’s Witnesses say was only a perfect man on earth) rebuke the devil, while the archangel Michael could not do so?

Kern raises an interesting point about Christ being a created being, the created being of Michael the Archangel. Obviously their doctrine of Jesus' identity does not stand. Stay tuned for more...

I reply:
This line of reasoning is very shallow and exposes a serious deficit in Bible knowledge. Moses died in 1473 B.C.E. and was buried by Jehovah in a location never since discovered. (De 34:5-7) Satan obviously was intent on using Moses body in some way Jehovah did not decree.

Jesus as Michael the archangel in heaven back then in 1473 B.C.E. followed the admonition that Peter, who under inspiration, was able to reveal concerning angels at 2Pet 2:11:

“ whereas angels, although they are greater in strength and power, do not bring against them an accusation in abusive terms, [not doing so] out of respect for Jehovah.”

We find a similar account in Zec.3:1-2 where we read:

“And he proceeded to show me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand in order to resist him. Then [the angel of] Jehovah said to Satan: “Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan, yes, Jehovah rebuke you, he who is choosing Jerusalem! Is this one not a log snatched out of the fire?”

In 1473 B.C.E. Satan surely deserved a rebuke, but Michael, who at the time he was disputing with Satan had not yet had “all the judging” committed to him, felt that such a judgment should come only from Jehovah God.

Do we not read at John 5:22: “For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son.”

Additionally, Jesus told his disciples he had RECEIVED all authority at Matt 28:18 where we read:

“And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”

Obviously if Jesus RECEIVES all authority, he did not possess it at one time.

As archangel, Michael had extensive authority. Yet, he humbly deferred to Jehovah rather than trying to seize additional authority. Besides humility, he also showed modesty, or an awareness of his limitations. Jude was inspired to write about this incident for a reason. Sadly, some Christians in Jude’s day were not humble. They were haughtily “speaking abusively of all the things they really [did] not know.” (Jude 10)
Assuming you hold to JW doctrine, Jesus was an angel first and then became a man, and then went back to being an angel again... right?

Does the Bible teach this? Where does Jesus say that He is Michael? Where do the New Testament writers call Jesus, Michael? Jesus identified Himself as many things, as well as did the writers, but where specifically is Jesus called Michael the archangel.
Anonymous said…
I will post my response in sections as there is a limit to the amount I can post at once.
First

Assuming you hold to JW doctrine, Jesus was an angel first and then became a man, and then went back to being an angel again... right?
I respond: I hold to what the Bible teaches. And yes, it shows us that the spirit being, Michael the archangel, became flesh, died, and was raised a spirit creature once again. John 1:14; 1Cor 15:45

Does the Bible teach this? Where does Jesus say that He is Michael? Where do the New Testament writers call Jesus, Michael? Jesus identified Himself as many things, as well as did the writers, but where specifically is Jesus called Michael the archangel.
I respond: The Bible nowhere specifically SAYS Jesus is Michael the archangel. With that I agree. But the question then is, who is Michael the archangel, and was Jesus an angel? Did Jesus ever say he was an angel? If so, are you telling me there is an angel OVER Jesus?
So let’s answer these one at a time: Who is Michael? The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called “archangel.” (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as “one of the foremost princes”; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by “the prince of the royal realm of Persia.” Michael was called “the prince of [Daniel’s] people,” “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that “Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.”—Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
Anonymous said…
Second:
There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16.
The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea.’” Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.
In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator
Anonymous said…
Third
Who is Michael according to known Bible commentators?
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible Daniel Chapter 12
12:1 And at that a 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.
The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ’s coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.
Daniel Chapter 10
Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. (i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.
Revelation Chapter 12:7
"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who are capable of examining for themselves."
*************************************************
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible 1 Thessalonians 4:16
with the voice of the archangel; so Michael is called, in (Jude 1:9) with which compare (Revelation 12:7) and who perhaps is no other than Christ himself, who is the head of all principality and power; and the sense be, that Christ shall descend from heaven with a voice, or shall then utter such a voice, as will show him to be the archangel; or as the Syriac version renders it, "the head", or "prince of angels"; and which whether, it will be an articulate voice, such as was expressed at the grave of Lazarus; or a violent clap of thunder, which is the voice of God; or the exertion of the power of Christ, is not certain: it is added,
*************************************************
Anonymous said…
Forth:
Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible
Daniel Chapter 12 After the prediction of the troubles of the Jews under Antiochus, prefiguring the troubles of the Christian church under the anti-christian power, we have here, I. Comforts, and very precious ones, prescribed as cordials for the support of God’s people in those times of trouble; and they are such as may indifferently serve both for those former times of trouble under Antiochus and those latter which were prefigured by them (v. 1-4). II. A conference between Christ and an angel concerning the time of the continuance of these events, designed for Daniel’s satisfaction (v. 5-7). III. Daniel’s enquiry for his own satisfaction (v. 8). And the answer he received to that enquiry (v. 9–12).
Verses 1-4 It is usual with the prophets, when they foretell 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.

Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries. 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.
Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments.

Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary. Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5
*************************************************
Anonymous said…
Fifth
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
The Book of Daniel Chapter 12:
For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.
Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it
*************************************************
John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048 states:
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel
*************************************************
Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369. http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/vii.htm
*************************************************
WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated: There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158
*************************************************
From Brittanica.com:
"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."
Anonymous said…
Sixth
From Brittanica.com:
"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."
*************************************************
A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical Protestant outfit, says: "Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1977), p. 35
*************************************************
Regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked: "By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).
*************************************************
LANGE"S COMMENTARY calls the figure here (Rev 12:7-10) "the warlike form of Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7
*************************************************
AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of Michael: "It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882
*************************************************
Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
Paul says, '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 Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26, 28, 29.
Anonymous said…
Seventh:
Brown's dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist.
*************************************************
Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in scripture frequently called an Angel.[1]
*************************************************
Butterworth, Cruden, & Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
*************************************************
Doctor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his “Notes on the Bible,” acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called an Angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim.
*************************************************
Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed,says that the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ.
*************************************************
Michael Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages where the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ.
*************************************************
Bunyan makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed Michael helped me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54.
*************************************************
Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
*************************************************
Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page[s] 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human family was created.
*************************************************E.W. Hengstenberg, in his Christologie des Alten Testaments und Kommentar uber die messianischen Weissagungen, Bd. iii. 2 Aufl. 1857 identifies the archangel Michael with the Logos-Christ. "Paul says, '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 will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears that when the Lord shall descend with a shout,
his voice will be that of the Archangel,or head Messenger (Michael); therefore the Lord must be that head Messenger (Michael). This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised
by his voice. He says...the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." John v. 26, 28, 29.c
- Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions,
1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (pp. 304 in the T. & T. Clark publication); (p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
. 7.
Anonymous said…
Eigth
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.
*************************************************"the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the 'Antichrist'. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo's speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an archangel’s, and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael. Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the Post Apostolic Logos-Christology appear in a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common presupposition." Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133
*************************************************Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains: Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.
*************************************************
Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.: "And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare, Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 816, paragraph 9.)
Anonymous said…
Ninth
Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition): He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever.—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (8), pp. 756-7.
*************************************************
In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd century: In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.
*************************************************
"For Justin the Logos-Christ was, therefore, the archistrategos, the highest angel-prince and leader of the angelic host." Werner, ibid. 135
*************************************************
"THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA" ---" A descriptive record of" "THE HISTORY, RELIGION, LITERATURE, AND THE CUSTOMS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES"---volume VIII, pages 535-538-----KTAV PUBLISHING HOUSE. “He (Jesus) was the angel in the burning bush (and) the angel that wrestled with Jacob, as well as Israel’s High Priest.”
*************************************************
Daniel and Revelation, Uriah Smith:
"Michael is called the "archangel" in Jude 9.This means the chief angel or the head over the angels. There is but one. Who is he? He is the one whose voice is heard from heaven when the dead are raised. (1 Thessalonians 4: 16.) Whose voice is heard in connection with that event? The voice of our Lord Jesus Christ. (John 5: 28.)"
Anonymous said…
Tenth
Second Question: “Was Jesus an angel and did Jesus ever say he was an angel?”
Yes Jesus wan an angel and yes Jesus himself said he was an angel. Where do we find this in scripture?
Please turn to Revelation 22 and let your eyes rest on verse 16. There we read:

“‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’”
What are stars in the book of Revelation? Rev, 1:20 tells us: “As for the sacred secret of the seven stars that you saw upon my right hand, and [of] the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars mean [the] angels of the seven congregations, and the seven lampstands mean seven congregations.”

Let’s compare more verses shall we? Rev 12:4 says: “and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, that, when she did give birth, it might devour her child.”

Here we find the angels that follows Satan depicted as stars. As Rev 12:7 continues: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled”

Rev 9:1 says: “And the fifth angel blew his trumpet. And I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to the earth, and the key of the pit of the abyss was given him. Here we find a Star, an angel, that falls from heaven to the earth.

But what of the phrase the “morning star?”

Rev 2:28 says: “And I will give him the morning star.” Jesus himself later explains what this “star” is, saying: “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.” (Revelation 22:16) Yes, it is Jesus who fulfills the prophecy that Jehovah forced from the unwilling lips of Balaam: at Numbers 24:!7 where we read:

“A star will certainly step forth out of Jacob, and a scepter will indeed rise out of Israel.”

How will Jesus give “the morning star” to those who conquer? Evidently, by giving himself to them, by taking them into the closest, most intimate relationship with him as John 14:2, 3 reads:

“In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told YOU, because I am going my way to prepare a place for YOU. Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for YOU, I am coming again and will receive YOU home to myself, that where I am YOU also may be.”
Anonymous said…
LAST
But let us look a little closer at this statement: “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’”

As noted above Numbers 24:17 tells us that Jesus would be the star to step forth out of Jacob.

2Peter 1:19 states:
“Consequently we have the prophetic word [made] more sure; and YOU are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and a daystar rises, in YOUR hearts.”

Who is the “daystar,” when does he rise, and how do we come to know that this has happened? The “daystar” is Jesus Christ in Kingdom power. (Rev. 22:16) In 1914, Jesus rose before all creation as the Messianic King, heralding the dawn of a new day. The transfiguration provided a visionary foreview of Jesus’ glory and Kingdom power, underscoring the dependability of God’s prophetic word. Paying attention to that word illuminates our hearts, and we are thus made aware that the Daystar has risen.

“Daystar.” The expression “daystar” (Gr., pho•spho′ros) occurs once, at 2 Peter 1:19, and is similar in meaning to “morning star.” Such stars at certain seasons of the year are the last stars to rise on the eastern horizon before the sun appears and thus are heralds of the dawn of a new day. Peter’s previous reference to the vision of Jesus’ transfiguration in magnificent glory suggests a relation to his entering into kingly power as “the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star [a•ster′].”—Re 22:16; 2:26-28.

Does the Bible use the term Morning Stars to refer to other beings? Let’s look at Job 38:7 which reads:

“When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?”

Here the angels that were with God “in the beginning” of the creation of the heavens and the earth of Gen 1:1. Responding to what they saw Jehovah do, they cried out! Job 38:4 “Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?”

So according to Rev. 22:16, Jesus himself says he is an angel, the “Bright Morning Star.”

So we conclude with our final question: If so, are you telling me there is an angel OVER Jesus?
Of course not! Jesus must therefore be none other than Michael the Archangel.
Nelson,

Two Questions for Clarification:

1 How do you reconcile your view of Michael as being unique and the only chief prince with the following statement from a 1927 Jehovah’s Witness book titled, “Creation”? It states on page 23 of the 1,100,00 edition, “Long ages ago, before earthly time began, the great Jehovah God had a wonderful and mighty organization consisting of a host of spirit creatures, the beautiful angels among them, archangels, seraphim, cherubim, Lucifer and the mighty Logos, the two latter being designated as 'the morning stars.'" [Creation, 1927, 1,100,000 ed., pp.23] We also read, “’Archangel’ is the name given to some of God’s spirit creatures, which name signifies ‘first in rank’ of the angels. (1 Thess. 4: 16) The title or name ‘archangel’ was also applied at times to the Logos, when he was serving Jehovah in a certain or specific capacity.” [Watchtower 1940 feb 1 p.46] It seems to me that the Watchtower taught that the archangel was not unique but was among others of the same rank, and Jesus was separated from the category of being an archangel. Has the Watchtower changed its teachings?

2)Your previous 8-9 postings gather scripture from a plethora of places (i.e. 20-30 plus different sections of scripture) in order to answer the simple question of, “where specifically is Jesus called Michael the archangel?” Isn’t this doing systematic theology, something that you spoke against earlier?
Anonymous said…
It seems to me that the Watchtower taught that the archangel was not unique but was among others of the same rank, and Jesus was separated from the category of being an archangel. Has the Watchtower changed its teachings?

I respond:
Yes the Creation book and the 1940 WT does mention the term archangel in the plural. However these two statements were wrong, and later clarified, as the term archangel only appears only in the singular in the text of the Bible. Michael being the only one mentioned as such by direct name (Jude 9) and Jesus identified as such at 1Thess. 4:16. The Bible nowhere uses the term archangels.

2)Your previous 8-9 postings gather scripture from a plethora of places (i.e. 20-30 plus different sections of scripture) in order to answer the simple question of, “where specifically is Jesus called Michael the archangel?” Isn’t this doing systematic theology, something that you spoke against earlier?

I respond:
By researching what others have written on the subject and posting a plethora of these sources that provide evidence that Jesus is Michael, I am NOT doing systematic theology! I merely posted what many of your Trinitarian brethren understand regarding whether or not Jesus is Michael! Do you understand what the term systematic theology is? I never spoke against systematic theology. I stated that you are putting the conclusion, from your twisted systematic theological approach, OVER what the Bible says. Herein is where your approach will ALWAYS fail. The Bible SAYS One God “The Father” (One Person) over and over again. The Bible NOWHERE says One God “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (3 Persons).

That being said, the only way you can try to arrive at such an Anti-Biblical Trinitarian conclusion is “to play Bible hopscotch, trying to lump a bunch of scriptures, twisting them all out of context, making words not mean what they mean, redefining words to meet your preconceived theological view,” all to try and arrive at some anti-Biblical triune God. Something that IN THE END goes AGAINST what the Bible says.
We all see what you are trying to accomplish Matt. And it does not gel. Your main point is:
“Even though the Bible NOWHERE says One God 3 Persons we believe it because of systematic theology. You teach Jesus is Michael the archangel even though the Bible nowhere says it, even YOU use systematic theology to arrive at Jesus being Michael the archangel.”

Now the only way the above comment would have any validity is that if the Bible specifically SAID Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. So care to show me where the Bible SAYS Jesus is NOT Michael? But even that would be a stretch as if the Bible said Jesus is not Michael in big bold letters, If I somehow used systematic theology to over ride that statement, then I would be guilty of making the Bible contradict itself. Which is exactly what YOU do when you teach the One God is REALLY 3 persons!!
Both your theology and your approach are flawed. Besides both the Hebrew mal•╩╝akh′ and the Greek ag′ge•los literally mean “messenger.” Are you going to try and tell me Jesus was not a messenger? John 7:16
[Response Below in Segments]

In response to all the quotes you posted, many of them are outside of confessional Lutheranism and would not be respected by many.

Furthermore, their comments need to be taken within the context of the author’s Christology. For example, Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho in 155 AD states,

"For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God."

We also see the Methodist, Adam Clarke, commenting on John 20:28 saying,

“Those who deny the Godhead of Christ would have us to believe that these words are an exclamation of Thomas, made through surprise, and that they were addressed to the Father and not to Christ. Theodore of Mopsuestia was the first, I believe, who gave the words this turn; and the fifth Ecumenic council, held at Constantinople, anathematized him for it. This was not according to the spirit of the Gospel of God. However, a man must do violence to every rule of construction who can apply the address here to any but Christ. The text is plain: Jesus comes in - sees Thomas, and addresses him; desiring him to come to him, and put his finger into the print of the nails, etc. Thomas, perfectly satisfied of the reality of our Lord’s resurrection, says unto him, - My Lord! and My God! i.e. Thou art indeed the very same person, - my Lord whose disciple I have so long been; and thou art my God, henceforth the object of my religious adoration. Thomas was the first who gave the title of God to Jesus; and, by this glorious confession, made some amends for his former obstinate incredulity. It is worthy of remark, that from this time forward the whole of the disciples treated our Lord with the most supreme respect, never using that familiarity towards him which they had often used before. The resurrection from the dead gave them the fullest proof of the divinity of Christ.”

In other words, context is crucial.
I could also quote your own sources to argue against your position too. Such as the comment below by the Watchtower in 1879 that states,

'Jesus, means Savior, and we are carried forward from the mere word to the exalted official position, on account of which he can "save to the uttermost all who come unto God by him." His position is contrasted with that of men and angels, as he is Lord of both, having "all power in heaven and earth." Hence it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship him"; [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because he has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they." Michael or Gabriel are perhaps grander names than Jesus, though Jesus is grand in it's very simplicity, but the official character of the Son of God as Savior and King is the inheritance from his Father, which is far superior to theirs, for it pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell.' [The Watchtower Reprints, November 11, 1879, p.48]

In other words, we could go around and around and around. Really what is at hand here is that everyone has a systematic theology. Mine is rooted in Paul, Augustine, Luther and Walther. Your systematic theology flows from Russell, Rutherford, etc… Many of the arguments that you have already presented can be read, almost verbatim, from books put out by the Watchtower Society such as, “Aid to Bible Understanding” and “Insight On The Scriptures.” In other words, no one has an independent epistemology. I don’t and you don’t. Furthermore, we both would claim that the bible is our only source; however, the way in which we interpret it is where the disagreement is flowing from. Your epistemology flows from your interpretive values and history and my epistemology flows from my context. In other words, we are both employing systematic theology that is formed by our history, epistemology, and context. We are both employing a systematic theology in our exegesis of the scriptures.
Finally, you stated that “Jesus=Michael” is not in the bible word for word. I will also confess that the word Trinity is not in the bible. You asked about Biblical proof on the Trinity and Jesus… and I have already posted on this subject and its Biblical basis.

There are 68 verses in the following sheet testifying for the doctrine of the Trinity.
http://www.pastormattrichard.com/2011/06/pdf-monday-trinity.html

In the following sheet there are over 117 verses on the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
http://www.pastormattrichard.com/2011/06/pdf-monday-divinity-of-jesus-christ.html

In response to these sheets you will obviously accuse me of playing , “Bible hopscotch, trying to lump a bunch of scriptures, twisting them all out of context, making words not mean what they mean, redefining words to meet my own preconceived theological view.” This is your systematic theology and your epistemology reacting to my systematic theology and epistemology.

Furthermore, you will respond, as you have already done so, by quoting 1-2 verses in support of your stance in which I will typically respond by saying that, “it is not proper to make a theological doctrine out of one to two verses. This kind of ‘proof texting’ allows one to take one or two verses on a subject and then use them to interpret all the others. Instead of getting a balanced position, one will arrive at an interpretation that is in agreement with their theological position.”

My point is that there are two histories, two epistemologies and two systematic theologies at odds here.
My friend, I am comfortable confessing that I hold to Lutheranism. Not because it is the only way within Christendom, but rather because I believe it is the best way. I believe it does a phenomenal job in continually reminding me of my depravity and my inability to please God through my moral, intellectual and religious abilities; that I am spiritually bankrupt. It continually reminds me that I am totally helpless and that even my best of works and the best of my theological efforts are mere rubbish. (Philippians 3:4-9) It continually shows me that it is ‘not’ my moral ascent, intellectual accumulation, nor my religious fervor that enables me to climb to God but rather a descending savior who comes to me to forgive me of sins and declare me righteous on the basis of Jesus’ report card. This is what faith receives!

"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." (1Timothy 1:15)

We are great sinners, but Jesus is a greater savior! May we rest in Jesus Christ, who became wisdom for us from God.

Grace and Peace to you my friend in Jesus Name.