Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Joseph,

    What you separate into "scripture" and "tradition" I only regard as "ancient texts".

    Why bother to look into "tradition"?

    Because Jewish tradition upstream of the NT shows where the NT notions came from and what they meant to contemporary readers.

    Because Christian tradition downstream of the NT shows how the NT notions were understood by early receptors.

    To me this helps a lot.

    Now you can treat "scripture" (actually what happened to become the Christian, or more specifically Protestant, Bible) as if it were an aerolith fallen right from heaven, dismiss any continuity with "tradition," and study it on its own grounds under the sole light of your own mind (and Holy Spirit of course). That's what people like Russell or Rutherford attempted to do. You're still bound to deal with the inner diversity of "scripture" and come up with your own synthesis which, I'm afraid, will have to be called "unscriptural". Where does "scripture" positively say that Jesus-Christ is an angel?

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    What you separate into "scripture" and "tradition" I only regard as "ancient texts". Why bother to look into "tradition"? Because Jewish tradition upstream of the NT shows where the NT notions came from and what they meant to contemporary readers. Because Christian tradition downstream of the NT shows how the NT notions were understood by early receptors. To me this helps a lot. Narkissos, Jewish use of terms can be extremely helpful in understanding texts. But one cannot expect Jewish tradition especially that taken from sources that reject Christ to be of much help. When one considers the struggle that Paul had with such Jewish sources, it is easy to see why they are not helpful. Even during such early days of the Christian Faith, error was running rampant and took many years along with the selective appointment of Elders to get under control. Narkissos said: Where does "scripture" positively say that Jesus-Christ is an angel? Such a positive statement, one that would be acceptable to you is not required. That our Lord was at one time a non-human and our creator is proof enough. This discussion provided enough evidence without going into symbolic texts. Yet such projections of thought are not uncommon. Gal 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. This acceptance of Paul even as Christ Jesus is such a projection of thought and quite remarkable. The side reference to angel can also be applied to such a Christ. The word angel is actually used more in the sense of human messenger but making such leaps is not out of the question. Denying them, now that is where proof is also needed. Why is it that you reject the idea? Do you have hard evidence against such a teaching? Joseph

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Narkissos....Philo certainly was an influence on early Christianity and particularly on Justin Martyr who of course was very much interested in philosophy. But the NT use of arkhangelos looks like it is influenced more by the dominant use of the term and concept in Second Temple Judaism; the word occurs only twice in the NT, (1) its occurrence in Jude 9 is obviously dependent on a pseudepigraphal source and thus reflecting the usual sense of the word in the pseudepigrapha, and (2) its occurrence in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is part of the Judgment Day apocalyptic tradition which draws not on Philonic theological concepts but on the notion of angels heralding the advent with trumpets (see the texts cited in my last post). See also the parallel in Matthew 24:30-31 in which the Son of Man at his advent sends "his angels" to gather the elect "with a loud trumpet".

    Joseph...I don't find much compelling reason to follow Barnes' conjecture. The language in the passage is strikingly similar to the text I cited in 1 Corinthians, suggesting again that Paul has in mind the setting in which the advent occurs, and the text does not itself make any identification. "The verse focuses contextually on our Lord himself and his function," as you put it, but this is a weak basis for claiming an identity between the Lord and the "archangel", for Paul earlier in the same book describes the Lord as accompanied by angels during his advent: "...in the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones (meta pantón tón hagión autou)" (3:13). This wording is reminiscent of 1 Enoch 1:9 (quoted in Jude 14-15) which describes the theophany at the Day of the Lord, and other texts referring to an angelic accompaniment at the advent include the following:

    Mark 8:38: "The Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels".
    Matthew 13:11: "The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil".
    Matthew 16:27: "The Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done".
    Matthew 25:31: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him".
    2 Thessalonians 1:17: "This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels".

    It is thus perfectly reasonable to infer that an angelic shout that occurs when the Lord comes is not necessarily the voice of the Lord himself, but the angels that are with him.

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Leolaia,

    It does not matter. Each point of view was offered. It is now up to the readers to decide. One should be careful when stringing similar sounding texts together however. Our Lord's angels can also refer to those human messengers (angels) chosen to rule with him. Not everything is a simple as it sounds. This subject can get all mixed up when strung together like this.

    Joseph

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Leolaia,

    But the NT use of arkhangelos looks like it is influenced more by the dominant use of the term and concept in Second Temple Judaism; the word occurs only twice in the NT, (1) its occurrence in Jude 9 is obviously dependent on a pseudepigraphal source and thus reflecting the usual sense of the word in the pseudepigrapha, and (2) its occurrence in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is part of the Judgment Day apocalyptic tradition which draws not on Philonic theological concepts but on the notion of angels heralding the advent with trumpets (see the texts cited in my last post). See also the parallel in Matthew 24:30-31 in which the Son of Man at his advent sends "his angels" to gather the elect "with a loud trumpet".

    Perhaps I was not clear enough but I fully agree. The NT "archangel" and/or "Michael" do belong to the apocalyptic tradition involving several archangels. This makes the selective use of the Philonic tradition in other NT texts (especially Pauline literature) all the more interesting.

    What do you think of Acts 7 between Philo and Justin as a faint echo of an early Christian angelic christology? I guess Justin did not come up alone with this idea of calling Jesus an "Angel".

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Joseph....One can get carried away with parallelomania. At the same time, the methodology of letting parallels shed light on ambiguous or difficult texts (a commonplace in biblical exegesis) is a helpful constraint against wild, idiosyncratic interpretations that an interpreter may impose on a text according to one's whims, which go against the whole literary history of a given concept or motif. In this case, as I pointed out, looking at what Paul says elsewhere in his own letters and even in the same book is certainly fully justified. Moreover, Paul did not invent most of these apocalyptic motifs and terminology and thus it is important to consider what they meant in the literature at the time. As you say you are right that all of this is interpretation and nothing is conclusive; what I submit is that the evidence is much more in favor of the position outlined above rather than the Society's own idiosyncratic view.

    Narkissos....Justin Martyr certainly was not the first, otherwise the polemic in Hebrews 1-2 would not have had much of a point. I somehow recall however that Justin's use of the term "angel" was especially indebted to the "angel of YHWH" figure in the OT, and that Justin clarified that Jesus had the title of Angel but was not "an angel"....isn't there a text in Justin saying that Jesus is CALLED "Angel" but IS "God"? I'll have to take a look in the literature to refresh my memory...

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Leolaia and Narkissos, Statements such as carried away have no relevance here. This is after all a discussion on Michel the archangel and the reader must decide for themselves which view is most accurate. Why is it that some think the scriptures are not enough? Narkissos: I take it that you mean this text? 30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, 32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. Non-humans have appeared to man in the name of and in the capacity of God as shown here. It is not difficult to understand how such identities can get confused and/or fused together. Since terms such as God can also be shared the result is theories and doctrines of every description that must be sorted through. This information regarding angels is also available at: Ex 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. Ex 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. Ex 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. Not even use of the name of God shown here as LORD can be used to prove identity for such reasons. All such things can be and are delegated and the context can be subtle in such cases. That others used such thoughts or distorted them in their work is not surprising. To make matters worse the word “angels” was used by Jews as a sacred term for the prophets of old and resurrected Jews in particular. It was used of the Egyptians that left their first estate (Egypt) with Moses. It is used this way of such humans in Hebrews and Paul taught: 1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? Thus it is also used of such resurrected angels (OT human messengers of the covenant) that gain entry into the promised Kingdom to come. In fact our Lord taught that anyone of the recreation will be like the angels at such a time. Such use became confused or fused in literature over the years and we now have this opportunity to sort all this out. Calling the human Jesus an angel or even archangel is not a problem any more than calling such ancient prophets angels was. When we use the word Jesus or Christ, we must be conscious that a human being or someone with a human identity or nature is under discussion. The ascended Jesus did not lose such an identity simply because He is seated at the right hand of God. WT doctrine, the teaching of others and their impact on translation must all be viewed with a critical eye. Joseph

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Joseph,

    Yeah, that's one of the texts I was referring to in Acts 7: the formal identification of the "Angel of Yhwh" as the speaker of Yhwh's "I" in Exodus 3 and a couple of other passages is indeed central to both Philo and Justin.

    Leolaia,

    isn't there a text in Justin saying that Jesus is CALLED "Angel" but IS "God"?

    There are several in the Dialogue with Trypho, but imo we should not read too much into this formal nuance, since many others passages treat both predicates parallelly ("is Angel and God", "is called Angel and God"); btw Justin consistently distinguishes between this "God" and "God the Maker of all things" (we are still far from the Nicene creed). I just quote here chapter 56 which is only the beginning of the (pretty long) relevant passage:

    Moses, then, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by Another who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: 'God appeared to him under the oak in Mature, as he sat at his tent-door at noontide. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent; and he bowed himself toward the ground, and said;' "(and so on;) " 'Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward the adjacent country, and beheld, and, lo, a flame went up from the earth, like the smoke of a furnace.'" And when I had made an end of quoting these words, I asked them if they had understood them.

    And they said they had understood them, but that the passages adduced brought forward no proof that there is any other God or Lord, or that the Holy Spirit says so, besides the Maker of all things.

    Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them." And quoting once more the previous passage, I asked Trypho, "Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mature, as the Scripture asserts?"

    He said, "Assuredly."

    "Was He one of those three," I said, "whom Abraham saw, and whom the Holy Spirit of prophecy describes as men?"

    He said, "No; but God appeared to him, before the vision of the three. Then those three whom the Scripture calls men, were angels; two of them sent to destroy Sodom, and one to announce the joyful tidings to Sarah, that she would bear a son; for which cause he was sent, and having accomplished his errand, went away."

    "How then," said I, "does the one of the three, who was in the tent, and who said, 'I shall return to thee hereafter, and Sarah shall have a son,' appear to have returned when Sarah had begotten a son, and to be there declared, by the prophetic word, God? But that you may clearly discern what I say, listen to the words expressly employed by Moses; they are these: 'And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian bond-woman, whom she bore to Abraham, sporting with Isaac her son, and said to Abraham, Cast out this bond-woman and her son; for the son of this bond-woman shall not share the inheritance of my son Isaac. And the matter seemed very grievous in Abraham's sight, because of his son. But God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman. In all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken to her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.' Have you perceived, then, that He who said under the oak that He would return, since He knew it would be necessary to advise Abraham to do what Sarah wished him, came back as it is written; and is God, as the words declare, when they so speak: 'God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman?' " I inquired. And Trypho said, "Certainly; but you have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets. You have proved, however, that we were wrong in believing that the three who were in the tent with Abraham were all angels."

    I replied again, "If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes[messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation."

    "Assuredly," he said, "for up to this moment this has been our belief."

    Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,--numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with."

    And Trypho said, "Prove now that this is the case, that we also may agree with you. For we do not understand you to affirm that He has done or said anything contrary to the will of the Maker of all things."

    Then I said, "The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: 'The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor(Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.' "

    Then the fourth of those who had remained with Trypho said, "It must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham."

    "It is not on this ground solely," I said, "that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely[for what is said] by Moses, but also[for what is said] by David. For there is written by him: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool,' as I have already quoted. And again, in other words: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of Thy kingdom: Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.' If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord, besides the Father of all things and His Christ, answer me; for I undertake to prove to you from Scriptures themselves, that He whom the Scripture calls Lord is not one of the two angels that went to Sodom, but He who was with them, and is called God, that appeared to Abraham."

    And Trypho said, "Prove this; for, as you see, the day advances, and we are not prepared for such perilous replies; since never yet have we heard any man investigating, or searching into, or proving these matters; nor would we have tolerated your conversation, had you not referred everything to the Scriptures: for you are very zealous in adducing proofs from them; and you are of opinion that there is no God above the Maker of all things."

    Then I replied, "You are aware, then, that the Scripture says, 'And the Lord said to Abraham, Why did Sarah hugh, saying, Shall I truly conceive? for I am old. Is anything impossible with God? At the time appointed shall I return to thee according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.' And after a little interval: 'And the men rose up from thence, and looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah; and Abraham went with them, to bring them on the way. And the Lord said, I will not conceal from Abraham, my servant, what I do.' And again, after a little, it thus says: 'The Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sins are very grievous. I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to their cry which has come unto me; and if not, that I may know. And the men turned away thence, and went to Sodom. But Abraham was standing before the Lord; and Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt Thou destroy the righteous with the wicked?' "(and so on, for I do not think fit to write over again the same words, having written them all before, but shall of necessity give those by which I established the proof to Trypho and his companions. Then I proceeded to what follows, in which these words are recorded:) " 'And the Lord went His way as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and[Abraham] went to his place. And there came two angels to Sodom at even. And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom;' and what follows until, 'But the men put forth their hands, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door of the house;' and what follows till, 'And the angels laid hold on his hand, and on the hand of his wife, and on the hands of his daughters, the Lord being merciful to him. And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that they said, Save, save thy life. Look not behind thee, nor stay in all the neighbourhood; escape to the mountain, lest thou be taken along with[them]. And Lot said to them, I beseech[Thee], O Lord, since Thy servant bath found grace in Thy sight, and Thou hast magnified Thy righteousness, which Thou showest towards me in saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountain, lest evil overtake me, and I die. Behold, this city is near to flee unto, and it is small: there I shall be safe, since it is small; and any soul shall live. And He said to him, Behold, I have accepted thee also in this matter, so as not to destroy the city for which thou hast spoken. Make haste to save thyself there; for I shall not do anything till thou be come thither. Therefore he called the name of the city Segor(Zoar). The sun was risen upon the earth; and Lot entered into Segor(Zoar). And the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven; and He overthrew these cities, and all the neighbourhood.'" And after another pause I added: "And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when[the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came[to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who[remains] in the heavens, i.e.,the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the[judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms:'The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.' "

  • twinkletoes
    twinkletoes

    Wow !! thank you all so much for your comments, this is obviously a really deep subject and I apologise if it has been discussed in great depth before, (I did a search on this site but nothing much came up)

    There are so many new ones on this site now, that I don't suppose it will matter if subjects such as this are re-discussed.

    Are some of the scriptures that you refer to, from the Books not found in the witnesses own bible?

    Once again, thank you all for your comments.

    Twink

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Hi Twinkletoes,

    Are some of the scriptures that you refer to, from the Books not found in the witnesses own bible?

    If I did not miss anything only the deuterocanonical book of Tobit (quoted by Leolaia) belongs to the Catholic Bible (the JW Bible follows the Protestant canon which excludes the Deuterocanonicals); and the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch), quoted in Jude, is accepted as Holy Scripture by the Ethiopian Church only afaik.

    Otherwise all other quotations and references belong to the wider body of early Jewish and Christian literature. You may learn a lot about them on

    www.earlyjewishwritings.com

    www.earlychristianwritings.com

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit