Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Join us now
Guest William

Is the archangel Michael the same as Jesus Christ?

Recommended Posts

ShinyGospelShoes

Some attempt to point to some disagreement among Lutherans in Jude, but even here those noted scholars, such as Hengstenberg put the disagreement to rest, even citing Vitringa and others:

 

 

Ernst Wilhelm Theodor Herrmann Hengstenberg (AD October 20, 1802, Fröndenberg – AD May 28, 1869, Berlin), was a German Lutheran churchman and neo-Lutheran theologian from an old and important Dortmund family.

 

Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions by E. W. Hengstenberg, Dr. and Prof. of Theol. in Berlin. Second Edition, Greatly Improved. Translated from the German, by the Rev. Theodore Meyer. Volume I. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 38, George Street. London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co. Dublin: John Robertson & Co. 1868.

 

For Hengstenberg on “The Angel of the Lord” being the Logos, Pre-incarnate Christ, etc, see Pages 121-136; Internally Pages 115-130:

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n121/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n122/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n123/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n124/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n125/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n126/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n127/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n128/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n129/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n130/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n131/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n132/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n133/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n134/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n135/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyoldt00meyegoog#page/n136/mode/1up

 

Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary of the Predictions of the Messiah by the Prophets. by E. W. Hengstenberg, Doctor of Phil. and Theol. and Professor of the latter in the University of Berlin. Translated from the German, by Reuel Keith, D.D. Professor in the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary of Virginia. Volume II. Containing the Messianic Prophecies of Zechariah and Daniel. Washington, D.C.: Published by William M. Morrison. 1839.

 

Section: Zechariah 1:7-17.

 

"... [Page 19] 4. The result already obtained is confirmed by a comparison of it with what occurs in other writings of the Old Testament. We have already seen, Vol. I, p. 167, that, Exod. 32:34, another angel is associated with the highest revealer of God, the angel of the Lord, as standing to him in the same relation which he sustains to the Most High God. But what is found in Daniel on this subject is peculiarly important in the interpretation of Zechariah. The angel of the Lord, the great Prince, who represents his people, chap. 12:1, comp. Zech 1:12, appears there under the symbolical name Michael. As a mediator between him (who is present for the most part in silent majesty, and only sometimes, as here, speaking a few words) and the prophet, Gabriel appears, whose office it is to interpret the visions to Daniel, and enable him to understand them; comp. 8:16, 9:21. (Beitr. 1, p. 165ff.) We would already there have directed the attention to the accurate agreement between Daniel and Zechariah in this respect, the more remarkable on account of the manifest independence of both, if we had at that time, as we have been enabled to do since, attained to a certain result in reference to Zechariah.

 

The angel of the Lord halts on a red horse among the myrtle bushes, in a deep valley. The latter is a striking image of the Theocracy ..." [Page 19] - https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold02hegs#page/19/mode/1up

 

 

Section: 3. The Angel with the Measuring Line. Chap. 2: v. 5-17.

 

"... [Page 23] We then have the advantage of an accurate agreement with Dan. chap. 12, where entirely the same persons appear in action, Michael, the angel of the Lord, in company with Gabriel, the angelus interpres, and another angel, (comp. Beitr. 1, p. 167 ff.) ..." [Page 23] - https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold02hegs#page/23/mode/1up

 

 

Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary of the Predictions on the Messianic Predictions. by E. W. Hengstenberg, Dr. and Prof. of Theol. in Berlin. Second Edition, Greatly Improved. Translated from the German by James Martin, B.A. Edinburgh. Volume IV. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street; London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co. Dublin: John Robertson and Co. 1865.

 

Appendix III.

 

"... [Page 300] In the two prophets of the Captivity also, Ezekiel and Daniel, the angel of the Lord is described as personally distinct from the invisible God, essentially different from the inferior angels, and identical with the Logos of John.

 

In Ezek. IX., the prophet Ezekiel sees six men come to execute judgment upon apostate Jerusalem, each man with an instrument of destruction in his hand. In the midst of them there is one clothed with linen, and with writing materials at his side. And they come and stand beside the brazen altar, which has been polluted (see the remarks on Amos IX. 1). The man clothed in linen, the angel of the Lord (see the proofs in vol. I. p. 358), sets a mark upon the foreheads of the men, that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that are done in the midst of the city. His peculiar task is to take care of the elect. At the same time he also superintends the infliction of punishment, and the six inferior angels act as his servants (see vol. I. p. 359, and the commentary on the Rev. VII. 3). Thus the angel of the Lord manifests himself, as at once the fountain of salvation and of punishment to the covenant nation. The dress worn by the angel of the Lord points back to the sacred clothing, worn by the earthly mediator between God and the nation (Lev. XVI. 4, 23). By this attire the angel of the Lord represents him- [Page 300-301] self as the heavenly High Priest, just as in Zech. I. 12, the angel of the Lord appears as the heavenly Mediator, Intercessor, and High Priest. In the appearance of the angel of the Lord as High Priest, there was a prophetic manifestation of the high-priestly office of Christ (compare Zech. VI. 9, 10). In Rev. VII. 2, 3, the sealing is superintended by Christ.

 

In Daniel the angel of the Lord is introduced under the name Michael. (For proof of the identity of Michael and the angel of the Lord, see the Dissertation of Daniel, p. 135).

 

Two different views are entertained with reference to Michael. In the opinion of some, Michael is no other than Christ, or, to speak more correctly, the Word which was in the beginning with God, and which from the very first has been the medium of all his communications to the Church on earth. There are others, again, who regard him as a created angel, to whom is intrusted the care of the Church of the Old and New Testament; or, according to Hofmann's view (Schriftbeweis I. p. 295, 296), "the angel who conducted the affairs of Israel," "the angel-prince who ruled in Israel, as a nation." That the former is the correct view, we have proved in the commentary on Rev. XII. 7 sqq. But we will strengthen our assertion still further, by entering into a thorough examination of the passages in Daniel which bear upon this subject.

 

Michael is mentioned first in Dan. X. 13, "And the prince of the kingdom of Persia stood before me one-and-twenty days, and behold Michael, one of the first princes, came to help me, and I remained there with the kings of Persia." The reason is here assigned by Gabriel remaining away so long. In ver. 12, Gabriel says that he would gladly have come, on the very first day on which Daniel humbled himself before God. Daniel continued mourning for twenty-one days; and it was not till after this that Gabriel came. That Michael must be the possessor of superior power and exalted far above the ordinary angels, is very obvious from this. Gabriel by himself is powerless. Michael must first come to his help, and set him free, before he can bring the joyful tidings to Daniel. ... [Page 301-302]

 

... [Page 302] Michael will set his foot upon the necks of the other "chief princes," and will be a king of kings and a lord of lords (Rev. XIX. 16). ... The absolute superiority of Michael to all the other powers, which is expressly indicated by the name itself ("who is as God," equivalent to "as surely as I am God, no one can contend with me"), is just as little affected by Dan. X. 13 as the [Page 302-303] absolute superiority of Christ by Is. LIII. 12, "therefore will I give him a share of the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong," where Christ is first of all ranked, in just the same manner ...

 

... "Unde simul efficitur," says Michaelis, "ut populus Judaicus huic Michaeli tanquam unico suo patrono summopere sit obstrictus." To be the prince of the covenant nation is a dignity which could not be possessed by a created angel, but one by which Michael was exalted, in harmony with his name, into the sphere of divinity, and by which he is also identified with Christ, who, when he appeared in the midst of Israel, came to "his own possession." ... [Page 303-304]

 

... [Page 304] Michael is not mentioned again, after chap. X. 21, until chap. XII. 1, where it is said, "at that time shall Michael stand, the great prince, which standeth for the children of thy people." "The great prince" (equivalent to the King of kings in the Revelation), serve as the complement to "one of the chief princes." The rescue of Israel is here ascribed to Michael alone, and the subordinate task of Gabriel entirely vanishes. ...

 

... 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 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 here. ..." [Pages 300-304] - https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold04heng#page/300/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold04heng#page/301/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold04heng#page/302/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold04heng#page/303/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold04heng#page/304/mode/1up

 

"... [Page 309] 4. That the angel of the Lord is the Logos of John, who is connected with the supreme God by unity of nature, but personally distinct from him, was, if we except the Fathers mentioned above, the universal doctrine of the early Church. The Fathers of the [Page 309-310] first synod in Antioch, in a letter sent to Paul of Samosata before his deposition (Colet. conc. coll. Venet. I. p. 866, 70), affirm that "the angel of the father, being himself Lord and God μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος, appeared to Abraham and to Jacob, and to Moses in the burning bush." Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Tryphon, § 59-61, proves that Christ spoke to Moses out of the thorn-bush, and says that he is called the angel of the Lord, έκ τοῦ διαγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παρὰ τοῦ πατρος καὶ ποιητοῦ τῶν ἀπάντων.1 See, furtherm Constitutt. Apost. V. 20 b., Coteler. I. p. 325; Irenaeus, c. haeres. IV. 7, § 4; Theophilus, II. 31; Clemens Alex., Paed. I. 7; Tertullian, c. Prax. c. 16; Cyprian, c. Jud. II. 6; Hilary, de trin. IV. § 32; Eusebius, demonstr. evang. V. 10 sqq.; Cyril, Hieros. p. 322, ed. Ox.; Chrysostom, hom. 48 in Gen.; Ambrosius, de fide ad Grat. opp. t. II. p. 460. Theodoret says (interr. 5 in Ex. opp., t. I. ed. Hal. p. 121, on Ex. III. 2), καὶ ὅλον δὲ τὸ Χωριον δείκνυσι θεὸν ὄντα τὸν ὀφθέντα κέκληκε δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ ἄγγελον· ἵνα γνῶμεν ὡς ὁ ὀφθεὶς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὁ μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος.2 ...

 

... 2. See the collection of passages from the Fathers, maintaining the identity of the angel of the Lord and the Logos, in Keil's Opusc. acad., p. 303, and in Ode de angelis." [Pages 309-310] - https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold04heng#page/309/mode/1up

 

https://archive.org/stream/christologyofold04heng#page/310/mode/1up

 

The Revelation of St. John, expounded for those who search the Scriptures. by E. W. Hengstenberg, doctor and professor of theology in Berlin. Translated from the original, by the Rev. Patrick Fairbairn, author of "Typology of Scripture," "Ezekiel, and Exposition," "Jonah," &c. Volume First. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street. London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.; Seeley & Co.; Ward & Co.; Jackson & Walford, Etc. Dublin: John Robertson. 1851.

 

Section: The Prologue, Rev. I. 1-3.

 

"... [Page 62, Internally Page 50] But as in the Old Testament, and especially in those prophets, with whom John has closest affinity, a particular angel is brought into notice, who stands beside the angel of the Lord as the mediating agent of his revelations, we are naturally led to think of such being understood here. Even so early as at Ex. XXXII. 34 we find along with the highest revealer of God, the angel of the Lord or the Logos, an angel placed in a subordinate relation to him as his inseparable attendant. In Daniel the angel of the Lord appears under the symbolical name of Michael. But as he commonly manifests himself in overwhelming majesty, the angel Gabriel acts as mediator between him and the prophet, comp. VIII. 16, IX. 21. ..." [Page 62, Internally Page 50] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n62/mode/1up

 

Section: The Seven Epistles,The Appearance of Christ, I. 14.

 

"... [Page 111; Internally Page 99] Both the long robe and the golden girdle have respect to Daniel X. 5, where it is said of Michael or of the Logos (see on ch. XII. 7) ..." [Page 111; Internally Page 99] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n111/mode/1up

 

 

Section: The Seven Epistles, The Appearance of Christ, I. 15.

 

"... [Page 111; Internally Page 99] The blinding whiteness of the hair (the addition, [Page 111-112; Internally Page 99-100] "as snow," supplies the idea of glittering splendour), denotes not the untarnished purity of Christ, which would be out of place here, where he appears to encourage and to frighten, but his holiness, majesty, glory, to which also we are led by the connection in which it stands with eyes like a flame of fire. Comp. upon whiteness as the colour of serene splendour, the symbolical representation of glory ch. IV. 4. John XVII. 5, "And glorify me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was," corresponds as to meaning. The second half rests upon Dan. X. 6, where it is said of Michael, the Logos, "His body was as Tarsis, his countenance like the lightning, and his eyes as torches of fire, and his arms and his feet like burning brass." ..." [Pages 111-112; Internally Pages 99-100] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n111/mode/1up

 

https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n112/mode/1up

 

 

Section: The Seven Epistles, The Appearance of Christ, I. 18.

 

"... [Page 118; Internally Page 106] Under the Old Testament, such immediate intercourse with heavenly beings, even with angels (Dan. VIII. 17,18, Luke II.10), but most of all with the Lord and his Revealer, especially when he appeared in his glorious Majesty, filled with a profound terror the minds even of his holiest servants. The fervid appearance of the Lord's glory which Isaiah saw, ch. VI. (comp. ver. 4, "And the house was full of smoke, from the fire on the golden altar), primarily had respect, not to him, but to the ungodly people to whom he was going to be sent as a messenger of wrath. Yet even he cried out on beholding it, "Woe is me, for I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell among a people of unclean lips, and mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." Ezekiel, in ch. I. 28, falls upon his face when the Lord appears to him in his burning glory, although the indignation was kindled not against him, but against incorrigible sinners, comp. III. 23, XLII. 3. Daniel falls down, ch. VIII. 17, 18, when Gabriel comes to him, in utter impotence on the ground, but the angel touches him and raises him up again, so that he is able to stand. But Dan. X, 7, ss., comes nearest to the passage before us. Daniel falls on the ground when he sees Michael, the angel of the Lord, in his burning glory ..." [Page 118; Internally Page 106] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n118/mode/1up

 

 

Section: The Seven Trumpets, CH. X. 1.

 

"... [Page 384; Internally Page 376] Ch. X. 1. And I saw another strong angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and the rainbow upon his head; and his face like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire. The other angel (understood most easily in relation to the angels who blew the trumpets), can only be Christ. For everything that is said to characterize this other angel applies only to God, who can be no angel, and to the reflection of his glory, Christ. We cannot suppose with Züllig, that Jehovah had communicated to the angel his proper insignia, for these are not communicable. It would, indeed, have been contrary to the divine word, "I will not give my glory to another"--a breaking down of the limits between the Creator and his creature, for which no analogy is to be found in the whole of Scripture. It must, at any rate, have been very carefully and expressly pointed out, that the glory was altogether of a borrowed kid. But there is not trace whatever of this. Further, the operations of the angel belong only to Christ. The planting of the right foot on the sea, and the left on the earth, as certainly belongs to Christ, as it is to him and not to an angel that God has put in subjection the future word (Hebr. II. 5), as [Page 384-385; Internally Page 376-377] certainly as the domain of the world must be possessed by the Lord and His Christ (ch. XI. 15.) It would have been presumption for a created angel to come forth thus. Nothing but the oath of God, or of one connected with him by oneness of nature, can secure for the church, what requires here to be secured for her. Scripture never attributes to angels such depth of insight into the divine decrees, that their authority could be perfectly secure one for the church--comp. 1 Pet. I. 12, and Rev. V. 3. It would have been somewhat different if the angel had made the oath merely in the name of God, or had related it as having been made by God; as in Gen. XXII. 16. And even there it is not an angel that speaks, but the angel of the Lord: "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord." Here, too, the suitableness of the result is founded on the person swearing; the angel swears in his name; and of such an oath, made by a created angel, Scripture furnishes no example.1 Then, in the original passage, Dan. XII. 7, it is not a created angel, but Michael, the Logos, who stands upon the waters of the Tigris, as the angel here upon the sea and earth, and swears. Finally, the reference to Christ has on its side the analogy of ch. VII. 2, where he appears likewise under the name of another angel. There he comes forth for the consolation of his church, which was troubled at the prospect of the judgments which were to pass over the world; here he meets the disquieting doubts regarding the completion of the kingdom of God, and its final victory over the world, which were awakened by the though of the worldly spirit having gained so much in the church itself. There he consoles the church, when ready to faint on account of her participation in the world's plagues. and here, in like manner, when ready to faint on account of her participation in the world's sins. ... [Pages 384-385; Internally Pages 376-377] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n384/mode/1up

 

https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n385/mode/1up

 

[Page 385; Internally Page 377 Notation Begin] 1 Vitringa: "Does the hope of the church rest on the oath of a created angel? Is it the part of a created angel to swear, that the words of prophecy and the promises given to the church shall be fulfilled? Assuredly, if the hope of the church shall stand unmoved, it cannot be sustained excepting by the faithfulness and oath of that very person, to whose nature failure is not incident, and which of itself is able to perform whatever it swears to--and this can be said only of God. Wherefore God swears by himself (Heb. VI. 7), when his object was to confirm the faith of his people regarding what he had promised in the Old Testament, and shew the unchangeableness of his council." [Page 385; Internally Page 377 Notation End] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n385/mode/1up

 

 

Section: The Seven Trumpets, CH. X. 2.

 

"... [Page 390; Internally Page 382] The planting of the foot on anything is a symbol of taking possession and maintaining with invincible power. In Dan. XII. 6, Michael appears as standing on the waters of the Tigris, as a sign that he has power over the might of heathendom, and consequently could bring it under his dominion. Comp., besides, Ps. VIII. 7, where to put under the feet and to have dominion are parallel; Ps. CX. 1, Jos. X. 24. ..." [Page 390; Internally Page 382] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n390/mode/1up

 

Section: The Dragon, CH. XII. 7, 8, 9.

 

"... [Page 472; Internally Page 464] Ver. 7. And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels. Ver. 8. And he overcame not, and his place was no more found in heaven. Ver. 9. And he was thrown, the great dragon, the old serpent, who is called the devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown on the earth, and his angels were thrown with him. The question here first of all arises, who is Michael? Very different answers have been given to it -- for the fullest account of these, see J. Ode de Angelis, p. 1052, ss. According to one view, Michael is no other than Christ, or more correctly expressed, the Word, who in the beginning was with God, and from the first has mediated in all transactions respecting the church on earth. But, according to another view, supported by the Jewish expositors, some authori- [Pages 472-473; Internally Page 464-465] ties in the ancient church, the greater part of Catholic commentators, who in this manner have endeavoured to find biblical support for their angel-worship, and recently among us by Hoffmann, Michael is a created angel, who has committed to him the charge of the church, both under the old and the new covenant. The following reasons decide in favour of the first view. 1. The name Michael (who is like God) itself shews, that we must not seek for him in the region of the finite. It rests upon Ex. XV. 11, "Who is like thee among the gods, o Lord," and Ps. LXXXIX. 6,7, "Who in the clouds is like the Lord, comes like the Lord among the sons of the mighty? God is greatly to be feared in the fellowship of his saints, and terrible over all that is round about him." In the name: Who is like God, there must be supplied: Whose glory is represented in me. If we should suppose with Bengel, that the name denotes the infinite distance from God, "the humility of this distinguished angel, and his freedom from all self-elation," q.d., I am not like God, it would be no fit designation of the angel-princes, it would have been more appropriate for the least among the angels, or rather for being used as a designation of men. The derisive imitation of the name Michael in ch. XIII. 4, "And they worshipped the beast and said, Who is like the beast? and who is able to make war with him?" implies that his name denotes an incomparable greatness and power-- the εἴναι ἴσα θεῷ, being like God, which is affirmed of God in John V. 18, and Phil. II. 6. Only when the name is viewed in this light does it appear in a suitable connection with the matter at hand. "In the name Michael," says the Berleb. Bible, "which is applied to Jesus Christ, the Lord of Hosts, there is given the sure pledge of victory. For, since he is supreme over the whole world, and the Father has put all things under his feet, angels, principalities, and powers, including those that are evil, must also be subject to him, and shall ever be so. This, therefore, is the proper person to fight in us and for us; and were he not on our side we should never be able to escape from our troubles." 2. Michael first meets us in the book of Daniel, and there, therefore, we must seek for an explanation of his nature. But that he is there identical with the angel of the Lord, has been proved in my Beiträgen I., p. 165, ss. And what [Page 473-474; Internally Page 465-466] was said in the Christology in proof of the angel of the Lord being no created angel, but the Logos, still holds good, notwithstanding the pains of Hoffmann to invalidate it.1 3. What is said in Daniel X. 5,6, of Michael, "His body was like a chrysolite, his countenance like the lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and his feet like shining brass, his speech like a great clamour," this in the Revelation, ch. I. 13-15, and X. 1, is transferred to Christ, which we cannot suppose would have been done, if Michael had been a created angel. Daniel was so terrified by the voice of the person who appeared to him, that he fell down in a state of utter impotence, and could not for a long time raise himself up. John was affected in quite a similar way by the manifestation of Christ. In ch. II. 18, also, features in the description of Christ are drawn from Dan. X. 5. 4. What is here attributed to Michael, the conquering of Satan, is in the fundamental passages of the gospels, and here also in ver. 11, attributed to Christ.2 Vi- [Page 474-475; Internally Page 466-467]

[Page 474; Internally Page 466 Notation Begin] 1. No created angel could be described by the Lord as the one, in whom his name was, and his face, (Ex. XXXIII. 14,15), nor could any created angel have been spoken of by Jacob as having redeemed him, and as blessing his children. To give such pre-eminent honour to a created angel, as Hoffmann wishes, is entirely against the position, which is uniformly ascribed in the Old Testament to angels, and would have paved the way for Polytheism. It would also imply a surrender of the Old Testament foundation for the prologue of the gospel of John, which is of essential moment. We lose also the key for explaining the fact, that as in the Old Testament the angel of the Lord and Satan, so in the New Testament, Christ and Satan stand opposed to each other, and that in the New Testament the angel almost disappears. In this one place alone would he occur in regard to the times of the new covenant under the name of Michael. This is incredible if, as the guardian of the church, he was different from Christ. How much has the Old Testament to say of the angel of the Lord? The grammatical reason also for holding that מלאך יהוה cannot mean an angel, but only the angel of the Lord, also stands firm. Ewald in the last edition of his grammar, § 290, remarks, "A proper name has the same influence as a noun with the article. If the first is to be regarded as indefinite, but the second as definite, the first also can remain so before the article in the status constructus, if no dubiety arises; but should such arise, because in the first word the individual and the indefinite in kind must necessarily be denoted, then the first word cannot be marked by the status constructus." The genitive must in that came be marked by ל, comp. § 292. Such a fundamental rule cannot be shaken by particular passages, in which it seems on a slight consideration to be violated. A close investigation shews, that it is observed also in these. In Haggai I. 13 it is not an angel of the Lord that is the subject of discourse, but Haggai is called the angel of the Lord, to distinguish him from other persons of the same name, but of a different calling. In Mal. II. 7, the priest is not an angel, but the angel of the Lord of Hosts, ordinarius dei minister in his kingdom. The prophets alone as individuals have an extraordinary mission.

 

2. Ode: "Michael overcomes the devil, and throws him down from heaven to earth. But it is evident that the person who accomplishes that great work, is Christ the Son of [Page 474; Internally Page 466 Notation End, continues onto Page 467 Notation]

 

[Page 475; Internally Page 467] tringa says with perfect justice: "If there were another angel besides him, who undertook and accomplished this, a great part of the glory would be taken from the Son of God, which by this name is often ascribed to him in Scripture."--The reasons brought in support of the created angel can easily be set aside. "In the altercation," says Bengel, "with the devil about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. This moderation, befitting only in a creature, certainly indicates a created angel." But in that passage of Jude, Michael speaks expressly as the "archangel," as the captain of the Lord's hosts, as the angel of the Lord, and we can as little draw from it a proof against the godhead of Michael, as from the declaration, "The Father is greater than I," we can find a proof against the Lord's equality in power and glory with the Father.1--But if Michael is Christ, it may be asked, why should he here be called Michael and not Christ? The answer is, the name Michael points to this, that the work, which is here under consideration, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not after his human, but only after his divine nature--comp. 1 John III. 8, "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning; for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." Then, this name forms a bridge between the Old and New Testament. In the Old [Page 475-476; Internally Page 467-468]

 

[continuing from Page 475; Internally Page 466 Notation, Page 476; Internally Page 467 Notation Begin] God; see Matth. XII. 29, Luke XI. 22; comp. with Luke X. 18, Hebr. II. 2,14, and 1 John III. 8."

 

1. Vitringa with justice derives a proof from this very passage against the view of a created angel: "That he is the Son of God, is plain from the following passages compared together, Zech. III. 1, and Jude ver. 9; for he, who is made known in Zech. III. 2 by the name itself of Jehovah, is called in Jude the archangel Michael." This also is not without weight, that the name of no ordinary angel elsewhere occurs in the whole of this book. When Bengel remarks, "Michael alone is called in Scripture an archangel, and elsewhere archangel is found only in 1 Thess. IV. 16, without the name of the being to whom it applied. Whether, therefore, there is more than one archangel, or all good angels stand under Michael, as all bad ones under Satan, is a question more easily asked than answered;" two problems are mixed up together, which are essentially different from each other. That all good angels stand under Michael as all bad ones under Satan cannot be doubted, whenever it is understood, that Michael is no other person than the Logos, the Word. But it may still be a matter of doubt, whether there is more than one archangel. it admits of question whether archangel is the designation of the higher angels generally, the "first princes" in Dan. X. 13, or whether it belongs to him who corresponds to the great prince in Dan. X. 1. But in either case Michael is distinctively the archangel. [Page 476; Internally Page 467 Notation End]

 

[Page 476; Internally Page 468] Testament Michael had appeared as the great prince who fights for the church, Dan. XII. 1. That battle was the prophecy and prelude of the one reported here. --Bengel again says, "In this battle itself Michael makes the onset. For, it is only said afterwards, that the dragon also fought. But elsewhere this enemy, and the other enemies, always make the assault; ver. 4 here, 13, 17, XVII. 14, XIX. 19." Farther, "The battle and the defeat are ascribed pre-eminently to the dragon himself as the principal, and not to his angels; as the Revelation, indeed, in the description of both the good and the evil, is wont to make all, as it were, depend on the head." Because, we add, it is from the head that a cause always mainly proceeds. Michael and Satan are the proper factors of history. All others, however they may push themselves forward, and however much also they may draw upon them the eyes of a short-sighted world, are but subordinate agents and instruments.--The object of the battle we already learn from Zech. III. 1, ss. There the controversy is between Satan and the angel of the Lord, who is all one with Michael, about the sinfulness of the people. Satan desires, that on account of this they may be given up to him still farther. The angel of the Lord rejects this demand, removes the ground of it by imparting forgiveness of sins, and at the same time declares, that a still richer participation of this forgiveness, and in consequence a still deeper confounding of Satan, should take place in the times of Messiah, by which a bridge is raised between that passage and the one before us. There the angel of the Lord stands on the defensive: he defends the people of God against the attacks of Satan; but here he takes the offensive. We are introduced to a more profound insight into this conflict by the fundamental and parallel passages in the gospels. As soon as Christ has become Christ, has received in baptism the fulness of the Spirit, the battle of Satan against him begins, with the view of defeating the work of redemption in its commencement, maintaining his position as the prince of this world, and checking in the bud the reviving glory of the church. In the words of Bengel, "He tempted Christ in the wilderness, and when he was obliged to give way, he withdrew, but only for a season. When the suffering of Jesus came, the enemy again appeared, and the power of darkness raged with fearful violence. But then, too, was the prince of this world [Page 476-477; Internally Page 468-469] Judged. ..." [Pages 472-477; Internally Pages 464-469] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n472/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n473/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n474/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n475/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n476/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh01fairgoog#page/n477/mode/1up

 

The Revelation of St. John, expounded for those who search the Scriptures. by E. W. Hengstenberg, doctor and professor of theology in Berlin. Translated from the original, by the Rev. Patrick Fairbairn, author of "Typology of Scripture," "Ezekiel, and Exposition," "Jonah," &c. Volume Second. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street. London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.; Seeley & Co.; Ward & Co.; Jackson & Walford, Etc. Dublin: John Robertson. 1852.

The Three Enemies of God's Kingdom, The Beast from the Sea, CH. XIII., Etc.

 

"... [Page 35; Internally Page 23] The property of being incomparable belongs only to God -- see Ex. XV. 11; Ps. LXXXIX. 7; Isa. XL. 18 -- and to Christ, ... and appears in the Revelation under the name of Michael, "who is like God," (Rev. XII. 7.) They make the beast, to which the dragon gives his power, or the beast in his connection with the dragon, a Michael, and scornfully challenge the true Michael and his servants to measure themselves to him. ..." [Page 35; Internally Page 23] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh02fairgoog#page/n35/mode/1up

 

The Three Enemies of God's Kingdom, The Beast from the Earth, CH. XIII. 18.

 

"... [Page 64; Internally Page 52] It also perfectly agrees with the description, which St. Paul, in 2 Thess. II. 4, gives of the man of sin: "Who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." The Lord arises--this name originally consecrated to the true God, and derived from the songs of the church, that celebrate him as the Almighty Being, who rises to avenge his enemies, the beast appropriates to himself, as his adherents had already in ver. 4 claimed for him the [Page 64-65; Internally Page 52-53] name Michael. ..." [Pages 64-64; Internally Pages 52-53] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh02fairgoog#page/n64/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh02fairgoog#page/n65/mode/1up

 

The Destruction of the Three Enemies, CH. XIX. 13.

 

"... [Page 273; Internally Page 265] John, Lücke conceives, does not call the "historical Christ" simpliciter the Word, as if the name here did not, precisely as the name Michael, in ch. XII., designate Christ in respect to his divine nature, in which alone there was to be found the security for his last victory over an ungodly world. ..." [Page 273; Internally Page 265] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh02fairgoog#page/n273/mode/1up

 

Proofs for the Genuineness of the Apocalypse, Papias.

 

"... [Page 405; Internally Page 397] Under the fruitless battle-array of the fallen angels, we can only understand their conflict with Christ, as described in the Apocalypse. Papias had first in explanation of the passage in the Apocalypse delineated the divine mission of the angels. Then, how wickedly they had acted in regard to it. Thereafter, the conflict of Michael and his angels with them. Finally, the issue. ..." [Page 405; Internally Page 397] - https://archive.org/stream/revelationstjoh02fairgoog#page/n405/mode/1up

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
43 minutes ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Fair enough.  I was simply asking about how you personally feel about their prayerfully studied and theological position on the subject of the OP - Michael.

Actually, the work is mine own, and though copy/pasted from mine own hard drive, it first had to be manually typed and stored.  Also, whether CnP'ed is non-sequitur to the facts that said persons held and taught and wrote about their stated, and prayerfully studied position on Michael.  Do you hold to the same standard when others cited Hengstenberg, or Luther, or Calvin in their own works?  Do you say that they copy/pasted also?  There are several examples of them all borrowing from one another.

As for E G White, she is not the subject, nor center of attention, any more than any of the others.  She was a leader of a movement as Luther, Wesley, Calvin and others.  So I do not see any difference in that respect.  The only reason she is listed among all the others, is she held to the same position as they on the subject of the OP.  The rest of the theological position of White is not being brought into the picture in this thread.

I personally have not found her to be cultish, but that is for another thread I would think, and I do not intend to go any further here about it.  Thus I did ask about that ("cultish"), yet specific to the topic - Michael.  So, do you see White as "cultish" in this doctrine, and the others not as cultish in this doctrine, or all as cultish in this doctrine or none as cultish in this doctrine?

The Reformer quotes you copy and paste do not agree with you. You misunderstand what they said and it is beginning to show as a lack of comprehension on your part. Rather than address the points made in the OP and in responses made to you you're copying and pasting an overwhelming amount which results in overloading others with the work it takes to thoroughly examine what you're posting. This is drawing complaints. 

 

And furthermore what really annoys me is that you can't even address a simplistic acknowledgment or denial of whether you're Trinitarian. So far I've received three complaints so this is a verbal warning, please stop copying and pasting what you're bombing other sites with. Please slow down and address the other member's points one by one.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
1 minute ago, William said:

The Reformer quotes you copy and paste do not agree with you. You misunderstand what they said and it is beginning to show as a lack of comprehension on your part. Rather than address the points made in the OP and in responses made to you you're copying and pasting an overwhelming amount which results in overloading others with the work it takes to thoroughly examine what you're posting. This is drawing complaints. 

 

And furthermore what really annoys me is that you can't even address a simplistic acknowledgment or denial of whether you're Trinitarian. So far I've received three complaints so this is a verbal warning, please stop copying and pasting what you're bombing other sites with. Please slow down and address the other member's points one by one.

According to SLS Calvin wrote: "... [369] Michael ... I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ ..." (post 16)

 

Calvin really said:

"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."

WWW.SACRED-TEXTS.COM

Calvin's Commentaries, Vol 25: Daniel, Part II, full text etext at sacred-texts.com

Note the deceptive nature of the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
4 minutes ago, Origen said:

Note the deceptive nature of the quote.

I had caught that last night. 

 

Says a lot, not only about a person's perception but how easily perception can be twisted by another [deception]. 

Share this post


Link to post
Follow The Truth
54 minutes ago, William said:

 

 

 

On 9/29/2019 at 9:15 AM, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Hey brother William, just joined the forums, and came across this thread after reading the TOS (Terms of Service), wherein it is written:

 

"... We are an orthodox Protestant community whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. ..."

 

And on this particular doctrine, you are in disagreement with both Martin Luther, and John Calvin (as well as Philip Melanchthon, Genevans, and many others), as they all taught the Son of God is Michael.  Did you know that?  It's even listed on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)#Protestant_views

 

Have you seen those historical citations of their studies?  They actually address a lot of the concerns and texts raised in this thread already.  I would not cite any man as authority, but simply pointing out the historical Reformational position.

 

Wow. I just joined and already I’m learning so much. 

 

John Calvin taught that Jesus the Son of God is Michael?

 

 

I never knew that. 

 

 

 

F

  • Yay 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
Just now, Follow The Truth said:

 

 

Wow. I just joined and already I’m learning so much. 

 

John Calvin taught that Jesus the Son of God is Michael?

 

 

I never knew that. 

 

 

 

F

Did he? Please elaborate more. 

 

"Jesus the Son of God is Michael" what does that mean to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Follow The Truth
Just now, William said:

Did he? Please elaborate more. 

 

"Jesus the Son of God is Michael" what does that mean to you?

 

That was a question.

John Calvin taught that Jesus the Son of God is Michael?

 

Is that true? I don’t really know too much about what John Calvin taught. 

 

 

 

 

F

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Follow The Truth
7 minutes ago, William said:

Jesus the Son of God is Michael" what does that mean to you?

 

 

It means the person who stated this is confused or a heretic. That’s what it means to me.

 

What does it mean to you?

 

 

 

F

 

 

  • ouch 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
32 minutes ago, Follow The Truth said:

 

That was a question.

John Calvin taught that Jesus the Son of God is Michael?

 

Is that true? I don’t really know too much about what John Calvin taught. 

 

F

 

I suggest reading the quotations and checking them against the original works. 

 

Here is what I glean from Calvin:

1) Calvin distinguishes between an angel and Christ. 

2) Calvin refers to the word and title [Michael] and equates not only the office, word and title, but also the duty in guardianship to the superiority of Christ. 

3) Calvin does not equate an angelic being [created] to Jesus Christ.  

 

Here's my question as a result from the dialogue despite the vast amount of information being posted:

 

1) Does Michael refer to any angelic being or is the name and title an office which held by the superiority of Christ as head and the angels under Christ tasked with guardianship over the church?

 

26 minutes ago, Follow The Truth said:

 

 

It means the person who stated this is confused or a heretic. That’s what it means to me.

 

What does it mean to you?

 

 

 

F

 

 

I actually agree with you. 

 

You give me confidence in our readers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
1 minute ago, Follow The Truth said:

It means the person who stated this is confused or a heretic.

season 1 duel of destiny GIF by Star Wars

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
4 hours ago, William said:

..  please stop copying and pasting ... and address the other member's points one by one.

As you will.

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes
1 hour ago, Origen said:

According to SLS Calvin wrote: "... [369] Michael ... I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ ..." (post 16)

 

Calvin really said:

"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."

WWW.SACRED-TEXTS.COM

Calvin's Commentaries, Vol 25: Daniel, Part II, full text etext at sacred-texts.com

Note the deceptive nature of the quote.

Actually, it wasn't deceptive at all, since I quoted the original without elipses, before I later responded to another member and used the elipses ("...") in reference to the original response, to which the person being responded to needed help in reading, as they, for the light of the sun, were unable to see.

 

So which is deceptive?  I leave the evidence for all to decide, and God is my witness and I leave my case with Him who is righteous.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
17 minutes ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

As you will.

 

Oh, they're already addressed, and I did not intend to 'debate' here, but I will leave the link to those interested to the complete material, here - http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=13632827453459163007

 

It's clean, and may be tested here, if any doubt - https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

 

Just noting you still haven't acknowledged or denied whether you're Trinitarian. 

 

Lastly, Cultist seldom debate a subject. Followers of such movements seldom question cultist leaders. 

 

Our members do not particularly appear to be fond of being engaged in a monologue. 

 

I pray that you'll reexamine your position. 

Share this post


Link to post
ShinyGospelShoes

For those that need a picture to help them out:

 

2069101733_AWHN-Bible-MichaelWikipedia.jpg.9d4d26d020ed523f7816d44d9e85d9f9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
10 minutes ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

For those that need a picture to help them out:

 

2069101733_AWHN-Bible-MichaelWikipedia.jpg.9d4d26d020ed523f7816d44d9e85d9f9.jpg

Here, let me help you out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
1 hour ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Actually, it wasn't deceptive at all

Actually it is and you know it is.

 

Calvin stated:

"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."

 

Calvin clearly makes a distinction between the two.   The coordinating conjunction "but" is used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

 

Your quote is deceitful.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
17 hours ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Wikipedia only allows secondary or tertiary sources, and not primary sources to be used...

Another dishonest claim.  Wikipedia has no rule which forbids primary sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
1 hour ago, Origen said:

Another dishonest claim.  Wikipedia has no rule which forbids primary sources.

And no rule which forbids a SDA member from editing a wiki page. Here's the author of that particular page:

 

 home alone film GIF

 

This isn't dishonest because it's Sarcasm Monday:

 

who knows whatever GIF by Paul McCartney

Share this post


Link to post
Follow The Truth
15 hours ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

For those that need a picture to help them out:

 

2069101733_AWHN-Bible-MichaelWikipedia.jpg.9d4d26d020ed523f7816d44d9e85d9f9.jpg

 

There are many views from many different people about this subject. 

Jesus Christ is the Lord, YHWH, of the Old Testament and the New.

 

He appeared to Moses out of the burning bush as the Angel of the Lord, who is the Lord and God.

 

 

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6

 

 

The Angel of the Lord, in the Old Testament was Jesus before He became flesh. An angel is a son of God. The Angel of the Lord is The Son of God.

 

 

The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was Jesus Christ, not Michael the arch angel. 

 

 

 

 

Follow The Truth

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
On 9/30/2019 at 7:53 AM, Becky said:

I have never studied the works of the reformers. Simply comparing the creeds to Scripture i do not find fault in the creeds posted here.

Personally, I don't like defending "Creeds, Confessions" nor Reformer's commentary. But I think it is dishonest to misrepresent the issues, meaning, or what the early Reformer's stated. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...
Articles - News