Jesus the archangel Michael? No.

by mdb 30 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  moggy lover....According to John Collins, 'md in post-exilic Hebrew has a sense of "come on the scene" and points to such texts as the Damascus Document: "...until a Messiah shall arise ('d 'mwd mshych) from Aaron and another from Israel" (CD 20:1). This is the sense that occurs through much of ch. 11 to highlight the transitions between one king to the next. Because Michael arises in 12:1 immediately after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes is related at the end of ch. 11, this sense may be relevant to this verse (as is the description of Michael as h-shr h-gdwl "the great prince"). But the same verb occurs again in 12:1b and clearly has the sense there of "protect" (i.e. "who stands by those who belong to your people") and reflects the role of Michael in intertestamental literature as an angelic advocate and guardian of Israel (a role formerly filled by Yahweh). Compare also:

  "And now fear the Lord, my children, be on guard against Satan and his spirits. Draw near to God and to the angel who intercedes for you, because he is the mediator between God and men for the peace of Israel. He shall stand in opposition to the kingdom of the enemy. Therefore the enemy is eager to trip up all who call on the Lord, because he knows that on the day in which Israel trusts, the enemy's kingdom will be brought to an end. This angel of peace will strengthen Israel so that it will not succumb to an evil destiny" (Testament of Dan 6:1-5).

  See also Testament of Levi 5:5-6. An offensive "standing" is also the sense of 'md in Daniel 8:25, 11:14 (with the same preposition 'l, here "against"). The most attractive interpretation of 'md in 12:1a is that provided by Collins and Nickelsburg which sees Michael as standing in judgment, as indicated by the context of the verse (i.e. the heavenly books being opened, the resurrection, etc.), the similar judicial scene in ch. 7, and the very similar characterization of Michael/Melchizedek in Qumran literature. The major study for this is G. W. Nickelsburg's "Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism" published in Harvard Theological Studies in 1972.

  I do believe there are some scholars who identify Michael with a Messianic figure of Judaism, but identifying Michael with Jesus Christ specifically appears to be relatively recent [Late 19th Cent with the rise of SDAism

  Right, and none of the scholars I mentioned identify Michael with Jesus Christ per se; they identify him with the "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7. And this connection has been noticed by exegetes for a very long time, at least as early as Ibn Ezra. Since the Son of Man figure in ch. 7 was identified with Jesus Christ from the first century onward, it is easy to see how this connection can be pressed into service to identify Jesus Christ with Michael (even if they are otherwise distinguished from each other in early Christian literature). It is simply within the context of Daniel itself (which knows nothing of Jesus or later interpretations of the book) that Michael has a lot in common with the Son of Man figure. This is discussed in detail in John Collins' Hermeneia commentary and most adeptly in John Day's God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

  Evidently the Jews were influenced by this concept when in captivity to Babylon, although Zoroastrianism was the religion of Persia.

  To a great extent, most definitely. But as John Day demonstrates, there is a lot in the language of Daniel that derives from native Canaanite and Israelite traditions and both Michael and the "one like a son of man" occupy the role formerly held by Yahweh (as judge-executioner-national patron) in Israelite religion and by Baal in earlier henotheism. Day even points to a latent role of Michael in Judaism as a bringer of rain and snow (just like Baal and Yahweh), and of course the descriptive language in ch. 7 of the "one like a son of man" borrows from classic Baal/Yahweh epithets.
• 

  Leolaia

  BTW, I should also note that there is a difference between ch. 7 and ch. 12 in how the heavenly figures are construed. In the Aramaic apocalypse (of which ch. 7 forms a part), the Ancient of Days and the "one like a son of man" are figures within a symbolic vision and may, like the four beasts, have symbolic reference. Indeed, the heavenly figure seems to correspond to "the holy ones of the Most High"//"the people of the holy ones of the Most High" (cf. 7:14, 18, 27). It is unclear whether the reference is to the heavenly qdyshy (i.e. the angelic host), or to earthly Israel, or to martyrs who become heavenly beings upon their deaths as in Revelation (there is discussion of this debate in Collins). Michael however appears only in the Hebrew apocalypse, which was later than the Aramaic apocalypse and to some extent interprets it. The suggestion, then, is that ch. 12 interprets the judicial scene in ch. 7, just as ch. 8 interprets ch. 7 as well.
• 

  Narkissos

  The most attractive interpretation of 'md in 12:1a is that provided by Collins and Nickelsburg which sees Michael as standing in judgment, as indicated by the context of the verse (i.e. the heavenly books being opened, the resurrection, etc.), the similar judicial scene in ch. 7, and the very similar characterization of Michael/Melchizedek in Qumran literature.

  I'd just highlight that standing in judgement doesn't mean judging (the judge sits in judgement, Daniel 7:9ff etc.) but playing the part of one side in a contradictory debate, that of the advocate, witness (either for the defence or the prosecution) or accuser: in the present case Michael is not the impartial judge, but Israel's defender.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....Right, and that's exactly what we find in Jubilees 18:9, the "angel of the presence" (cf. 1:27, 29, 2:1, etc.) stands as a legal defender before the accuser Prince Mastema and before the accused, Abraham. It seems as if Jubilees and Daniel have retained the old El and Baal/Yahweh distinction and thus Michael or the angel of the presence takes the role of Baal/Yahweh, who stands before the judge El/Ancient of Days. In other texts in the OT, Yahweh has been conflated with El and thus takes a dual role.
• 

  peacefulpete

  You mention the early character of the Aramaic vision scene, does this suggest the writer was sourcing/interpreting an earlier work?
• 

  Leolaia

  PP....It's possible that ch. 7 is interpreting an earlier ch. 2 (which itself seems to have two layers of interpretation), but the evidence is still ambiguous. It is attractive tho because ch. 7 seems to allude to aspects of several chapters of the "tales" section of Aramaic Daniel (see Reinhold Kratz, "The Visions of Daniel" in Collins & Flint 2001). The throne scene in ch. 7 meanwhile is almost certainly dependent on earlier third-century BC Enochic material appearing in the Book of Watchers and the Book of Giants, and the dream vision of the beasts also bears a number of striking similarities to the contemporaneous Animal Apocalypse.
• 

  heathen

  I'm quite sure that the catholic church was the first to identify michael with jesus . I do remember the song michael row your boat ashore as in when jesus was preaching aboard a boat . I think leolaiahs research may offer a different approach or view of things but is not the final authority on the matter at all . I think Daniel is another end time prophetic book .
• 

  Narkissos

  I'm quite sure that the catholic church was the first to identify michael with jesus

  Really?

  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10275b.htm
• 

  Leolaia

  Nothing is ever the "last word in the matter". There is always a new insight or question that can arise from further research. The matter is rather which explanation best explains the evidence and is better than alternate explanations. Daniel is a great example of a book whose apocalypticism can only be best understood by its second-century BC context, just like Pastor Russell's The Time is At Hand can only be understood by its 19th-century AD context. A Russellite in the 29th century AD might potentially want to reinterpret Russell's book to claim that Russell was really talking about his own time, but such explanations will not better account for the evidence than the theory that Russell was really talking about his own time and the year 1914. This does not in any way deny that Russell was talking about the end times, of course, for he truly believed that the end was coming in his own time.
• 

  heathen

  I think all "christians" are admonished to expect the end anytime in their lifetime . There's no doubt the first century church awaited the end and the beginning . I think Russel may have stumbled on the end of gentile times but also could have been part of Gods plan . 1914 seems like a good date as any .LOL I just think saying the world ended invisibly sounds pretty stupid .