| Author | Message | ||
| Lori |
I found the answer!!!! The first two chapters of Hebrews answer the question completely. Hebrews 1: 3-6 says, The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have become your Father?" or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?' And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "let all the angels worship Him"........ I don't think these verses leave any question as to whether or not Christ would be identified as an angel. I suppose that it was important for me to know, so that I would be able to step away, with confidence, from yet another error of SDA doctrine. I've worried that in posting the Michael Enigma that I might have lead some one astray; however, I feel like the scripture above answers the question entirely. Christ IS NOT Michael the archangel according to these verses. | ||
| Lynn W |
Lori, I just read the article you printed. Praise the Lord, you've found the answer. For anyone still in doubt, I have a few questions & comments. First, the article was written by an Adventist. I have yet to meet an Adventist who doesn't get their doctrine straight from Ellen White. THEN they go to scripture to "prove" that EW was right. They do so only by twisting or ignoring certain scriptures. Second, it says "In the Greek New Testament, as compared to the Old Testament, the word "angel" means "messenger," etc. Correction - it means messenger in the Old as well as New Testament. Third, it says "The Hebrew name "Michael" means "who is like God" or "Who is like God?" Whether this name is a question, statement, or a challenge will be clear by further study." Correction - in the Hebrew the word "Mi" is always interrogative, as in "Mi-kamoka" - "who is like you?" (Ex. 15:11) Fourth, When the angel speaks, he is speaking for the Lord as the article points out by quoting the verse, "And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord," etc. Fifth, it says, "In recounting this experience of Abraham in Acts 3:25, Peter also identifies this "angel of the Lord" as God." Acts 3:25 says, "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." If the reference is to "in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed," Remember that Gen. 12:3 records the same blessing where the speaker is identified as the Lord. More later. | ||
| Lynn W |
In refering to Dan. 8:25, the article says, ""Prince of princes" is actually the same term that is translated "prince of the host" in verse 11." I don't know what Bible he's reading, but in the Maseoretic text (Hebrew), they are different terms. Sarim is princes, tsavaot is hosts. It's the same word in Rom 9:29 and James 5:4 which the translators didn't bother to translate into English. (Another SDA lie, "Lord of sabaoth" is "Lord of hosts," not sabbath.) You don't need to know Hebrew, you can look it up in your concordance and see that they are not the same #. Then look up the 2 different #s in the dictionary in the back & see that there is no overlap in the definitions. The Hebrew language had no question marks, so it was neccesary to use a separate word for a question than for a statement so there is no doubt that Mi is a question - who?. On the other hand, the word for "Who is like God" is "asher." The words "that" or "which" can be substituted as in "he is the one who is like God. This article has created a new problem. Now, not only is Jesus and angel but, according to this article, God is really an angel. It must be understood that the angels were God's messengers. Therefore, they were representing God, so when they were sent by God, it was as though God Himself were there. God Himself said to Moses, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God." Exod 4:16 Does this mean Moses became God? | ||
| Lynn W |
In the first paragraph, I should have said a correction to another SDA lie: "Lord of sabaoth" is "Lord of hosts," not sabbath. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Dear Lori, I read your posting from the SDA minister (SDAM) saying the archangel ěMichael is none other than Jesus,î and looked up all the texts he used. While I do not doubt the sincerity of this man, it is unfortunately so very true that a person can sincerely think heís aboard a plane to London, when heís really on a flight bound for Baghdad. I reached this conclusion after having looked up all the texts cited by SDAM. I found that he has painted a picture of his own ideas that he has read into the texts (eisogesis). If he had read the ideas that are really in the texts (exegesis) he would have painted a far different picture. I also found that I agree with Colleenís observation that ěthere is no biblical evidence to suggest that at any point Jesus became an angel.î And with Susan that ěJesus was NOT the brother of Lucifer, an angel or just a good teacher. He was God incarnate.î But since I have gone to all this work (not so easy for me to do, since I too have to burst out of my SDA mystification), I have decided to share my own findings with you and with anyone else who cares to visit this website. SDAM is correct in that there are only 15 biblical references to the name Michael and that the first 10 of them ěrefer to real people named Michael.î That leaves only 5 texts with which to deal: three in Daniel, one in Jude and one in Revelation. I donít need to recite all of his many other texts, since an examination of only the ones containing the name Michael will suffice to show how mired he is in serious, anti-Christian, anti-biblical error. (Iím using the King James Version, since thatís the one he uses.) DANIEL 10:13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. A footnote in the New International Version (NIV) says the Persian prince was ěapparently a demon exercising influence over the Persian realm in the interests of Satanî and that ěhis resistance was finally overcome by the archangel Michael, ëthe great prince who protectsí the people of God.íî The scholarly notes throughout the NIV Study Bible give no hint anywhere of deity for the archangel Michael, although this mighty angel, acting in God's name, is more than a match for the Persian demon. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) says that in the book of Daniel, Michael is ěone of the chief princes,î the ěprinceî of Israel, the ěgreat princeî and perhaps also ěthe prince of the host.î Michael appears as ěthe great patron and champion of Israel,î and as ěthe watchful guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or devilish.î The ISBE goes on to make a rather telling point: ěIn the uncanonical, apocalyptic writings, however, Jewish angelology [study of angels] is further developed. In them Michael frequently appears and [executes] functions similar to those which are described in Daniel. He is the first of the ëfour presences that stand before God.í ń Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel or Phanuel.î The book of Enoch, for example, lists 7 heavenly messengers with the rank of archangel or highest-ranking category of angel. Thus the Jews of Danielís time did not consider any archangel to be deity or God. They revered Michael, but would consider any attribution of divine status for this powerful being to be nothing short of blasphemy. DANIEL 10:21. But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. Strongís Greek/Hebrew Dictionary says the Hebrew word Miykaíel literally means, ěone who is like God,î not one who is God. DANIEL 12:1. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for 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. Nelsonís Bible Dictionary for this reference says Michael is an ěangel of high rank, who served as prince or guardian over the destinies of the nation of Israel.î JUDE 1:9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him [the devil] a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. Nelsonís Bible Dictionary says this: ěAccording to the Epistle of Jude, Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses .Ö This reference is a puzzle to scholars, because the incident to which Jude refers does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament.î But that doesnít argue for SDAMís position, since, as we have seen, the Old Testament Jews never regarded Michael as anything more than a high-ranking angel and certainly not a deity. Furthermore, it would seem obvious that if Jude had been inspired to write about Michael as a deity or Jesus Christ in this text, he would have written, ěI rebuke thee,î not, "The Lord rebuke thee." A parallel can be found in Revelation 3:13-19 where St. John was inspired to quote the Holy Spirit as saying, ěAs many as I love I rebuke and chasten.î John did not quote the Holy Spirit as saying, ěAs many as the Lord loves the Lord rebukes and chastens,î for that would be making the Holy Spirit less than fully God. John did not make the mistake that SDAM is making. The ISBE says, ěThis passage, according to most modern authorities, is derived from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses [book from the time between the Old and New Testaments included in the Catholic Douay Version, but not in Protestant Bibles].î The ISBE goes on to make another telling point: ěThe earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate [pre-Christmas or pre-existent] Christ, finding support for their view Ö in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel.î Here we see where EGW got this idea that she then passed on to SDAM. In other words, while Arianism (ancient heresy that denies the full deity of the pre-existent Christ) didnít originate with Adventism, it certainly took root there, and it still thrives in the hearts of people such as SDAM. REVELATION 12:7. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels. The ISBE says that these Arian Protestants associated the ěchildî -- also found in the 12th chapter of Revelation, where it clearly represents Christ -- with ěMichael and his angels.î But there is no support for so arbitrary an association. To the contrary, any battle between the pre-incarnate Christ and the archangel Lucifer would be no contest at all. As Colleen pointed out, SDAMís position ěSounds awfully much like the Great Controversy, doesnít it?î Yes, Colleen, uncomfortably so. It seems to me, at least, that any ěcontestî or ěwarî in heaven between Christ and Lucifer would either demote Christ to the level of an archangel or promote Lucifer to the level of deity. Otherwise, God could be accused of ěnot fighting fair.î But God always fights fair. And in this instance he let the angels fight it out on their own turf and in their own way, which is, of course, far beyond our comprehension. Because of our SDA upbringing we have been ěimprintedî to think that ěThe Great Controversyî is between Christ and Satan as though they were equals, either two archangels or two deities fighting.. But if you read the most relevant chapter, Revelation 16, with an unbiased mind, you will see that ěthe battle of Armageddonî is not a contest between equals or brothers at all! For the one who says, ěBehold, I come as a thief,î -- Jesus Christ -- is the one who summons both demons and unrepentant humans: ěAnd he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.î Revelation 16:16. Jesus will be "in the frey," of course; that's because he'll be in our hearts. But Jesus will also be "above the frey," summoning unrepentant evildoers, whether humans or fallen angels, as a potter sits above the wheel and shapes destinies. This is not a chess match pitting Christ and Satan against each other as equals, as we have been led to believe by certain SDA artists. This is not an equal match. If anything it's an unequal match, for Christ as God has full control. This is what is meant by "the soveriegnity of God" -- full control. There is no hint of equality between Christ and Satan anywhere in Scripture, and there never has been. There is in Adventism and in the thinking of EGW and SDAM. But certainly not in Scripture! In the Bible from Genesis to Revelation Jesus Christ is always fully God! And God is always fully sovereign! Thatís why Jesus is worthy of our trust and love and praise, Lori. Sincerely, Jude the Obscure | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Dear Lynn, I appreciated your posts on this discussion. They show you did your homework! Keep up the good, if sometimes grueling, work. --Jude the Obscure | ||
| Darrell |
Regarding Lynn's post about Sabaoth vs. Sabbath, in Rom. 9:29 and James 5:4 the KJV uses the word "sabaoth" which means "hosts" or "armies of heaven". However, in Matt. 12:8, Mark 2:28, and Luke 6:5 Jesus calls Himself "Lord of the Sabbath" which in the clear context is the 7th day. It is easy to see how the similiar words could be confusing, as they were to me until I learned the actual meaning of sabaoth. Fortunately newer translations do not use this word. Although some individual SDAs may confuse these words, I have not heard any pastors, teachers, or theologians confuse them (which does not mean it has never happened). I am interested to know how others on this site would interpret these "Lord of the Sabbath" statements of Jesus. More in line with the main topic: I found the comments by "Jude the Obscure" interesting, and especially the discussion about Jude 1:9 and Rev. 12:7. Clearly the Bible leaves no room for believing that Jesus is less than the Son of God, and is in fact God. Whether or not "Michael the Archangel" is also one of His names seems unimportant to me, and if true would not lessen His deity. |
