Leolaia,
Sabrina....The problem is that your interpretation of Revelation 12 is not grounded in actually attested motifs and allusions but in stipulative suppositions ("this may be"..."at Christ's crucifixion possibly"..."could very well be"...etc.), just the same manner as the Society interprets Revelation arbitrarily in the Revelation Climax book.
I was merely trying to show that Revelation 12 did not disallow the possibility that Jesus is Michael as you asserted. The "stipulative suppositions" as you call them were an attempt to allow for the beliefs or thoughts of others who also believe that Jesus is Michael. The only purpose of the post was to refute your assertion with regard to Revelation 12 not to necessarily express my own beliefs on every scripture. On this board a Christian is at times between a rock and hard place. If s/he expresses definite and finite thought on a scripture they risk being called dogmatic. If they speak in more open minded terms with "stipulative suppositions" they can then be regarded as hedging their bets or worse Watchtower-like.
A more faithful interpretation would be one that considers what the tropes and motifs meant at the time by their attestation and use in prophetic and apocalyptic literature; thus, the allusion to the "male child who is to rule the nations with an iron sceptre" is a very specific reference to the Messiah, as it was widely attested with this meaning.
You say "a more faithful interpretation....." yet, I did say the child was Jesus. I may not have expressed it as you would but then we are approaching this from different viewpoints. We do agree on the child being the Messiah.
You are correct about the "woman" signifying either Israel or spiritual Israel, as this is also a commonplace of OT and apocalyptic literature (as well as the twelve stars being an allusion to the twelve tribes, as the same motif has this application in a dream vision in Genesis), and the persecution of the woman recalls the persecution of the Jews or Christians in the respective eras.
I agree with you, though for me the need to look outside the Bible for spiritual interpretation of the scriptures is not necessary. I believe the Bible sufficiently explains itself.
The problem that I was pointing out, which is being overlooked, is that Michael and the Messiah child are being distinguished because in the same scene one is defending the other against the dragon. The logic of the scene does not work by conflating one with the other.
Okay! Now we get to the heart of the problem!
Revelation 12:5-7
"She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven an longer."
May I ask, where does it say in those scriptures that Michael is defending the Child? It does not say that at all. What it says is that after the child was caught up to God and his throne, war broke out. When the Messiah was resurrected to heaven was he really a small child in need of defending? By no means. So the idea that Michael was defending the Child is neither supported by the scripture nor by the reality of the situation.
One must also not insist that Michael is conceived as being Jesus because only Jesus can fight and defeat the dragon and his angels; in Daniel, Michael defeats the kingdoms ruled by the other angelic princes, in 1 Enoch, Michael binds the leading rebel angel under the rocks of the earth until Judgment Day, and finally in the War Scroll Michael has just this role of fighting against the forces of darkness. Rather, Michael fights on the behalf of the Messiah, protecting him and his people (the woman) at a time when they are most vulnerable.
The prophecies and teachings of the Bible are and must be supported and explained by the Bible itself. To use other religious books as keys to unlock the secrets of the Bible is not supported by the Bible.
And while Revelation 12 is somewhat ambiguous because of the language of the apoacyptic genre, there is no equivocation in Hebrews 1 which is specifically designed to deny any angel christology for Jesus.
I have attempted to partially answer this question in my post to Kenneson on this thread. You said Hebrews 1 was"...specifically designed to deny any angel christology for Jesus." I would like to quote verse 4 of that chapter from a few translations: First though....
Verse 3 - He is the reflection of God's glory and bears the impress of God's own being, sustaining all thing by his powerful command; and now that he has purged sins away, he has taken his seat at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high.
Verse 4 in various Bibles
NJB - "So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name."
NKJV - "having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they"
NRSV - "having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs"
NASB - "having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they."
##############
Paul was obviously trying to make the point that Jesus' ransom sacrifice had made his name and position in the heavens rise even higher than it had been.
The Firstborn Son of God always had a special and holy position, he was the Word. Through him the angels themselves were created. But is it really so hard to believe that if the Son of God, the Word, can come to earth and be born between the legs of a woman, regard himself a friend and be called teacher by some lowly men and women who did not always know their right from their left, that he could not also be called Chief Angel by the very angels he had lived with, worked with and fought side by side with?
Jesus was certainly above the angels, that does not preclude him from being called the Archangel and Hebrews 1 does not preclude that either.
Sabrina
