Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  hmike....The Hebrew word is ml'k "messenger" whereas "Michael" is myk'l....positing a derivation from the former would require assuming metathesis, which is inherently unlikely and is also implausible because -'l is a usual suffix in angelic names.

  I was looking at more intertestamental texts today that seem to be quite relevant. Hebrews 2:2 states: "He did not appoint angels to be rulers of the world to come" and this is strikingly close to the following: "And he sanctified them [Israel] and gathered them from all of the sons of man because there are many nations and many peoples, and they all belong to him, but over all of them he caused spirits to rule so that they might lead them astray from following him. But over Israel he did not cause any angel or spirit to rule because he alone is their ruler" (Jubilees 15:31-32). The concept here is clearly related to the notion in Daniel (ultimately rooted in the pre-exilic mythopolitical view in Deuteronomy 32:8-9) that each nation is ruled by angelic "princes", and thus the "angels" here are supernatural "spirits".

  I think a middle position between Joseph's interpretation (= hoi aggeloi are not "angels" in ch. 1) and the traditional one (= hoi aggeloi are "angels" in this passage) is actually quite feasible....on the grounds I mentioned several posts ago, that the dead faithful were viewed as existing in heaven in their postmortem state, if not as "angels" at least angel-like. What makes this possibility seem quite feasible are the traditions in the Second Temple period about the levitical priesthood which are precisely along these lines. Consider, again, what Jubilees has to say:

  "And he [Jacob] turned to Levi first and he began to bless him first, and he said to him, 'May the God of all, the Lord of ages, bless you and your sons in all ages .... May he draw you and your seed near to him from all flesh to serve in his sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones. May your sons' seed be like them with respect to honor and greatness and sanctification. And may he make them great in every age' " (Jubilees 31:13-14).

  A similar tradition occurs in the Testament of Levi:

  "Listen, therefore, concerning the heavens which have been shown to you. The lowest is dark ... In the second are the armies arrayed for the Day of Judgment to work vengeance on the spirits of error and Beliar. Above them are the Holy Ones. In the uppermost heaven of all dwells the Great Glory in the Holy of Holies superior to all holiness. There with him are the archangels who serve and offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord in behalf of all the sins of ignorance of the righteous ones. They present to the Lord a pleasing odor, a rational and bloodless oblation. In the heaven below them are the messengers who carry the responses to the angels of the Lord's presence. There with him are Thrones and Authorities; praises to God are offered there eternally....The Most High has given heed to your prayer that you [the sons of Levi] be delivered from wrongdoing, that you should become a son to him, as a minister and priest in his presence" (Testament of Levi 3:2-8, 4:2).

  Here the descendents of Levi are pictured as serving as priests in God's presence, just as the "archangels" offer priestly sacrifices in God's presence. They are also referred to as becoming "sons" to God, which echoes the claim in Hebrews 1:5 that God never told any angel that he was his "son", as well as 2:10 and 12:5-8 referring to saved Christians as being "sons" of God. Since Hebrews is steeped in the priestly tradition, it may be addressing or playing with some of these earlier concepts in Jewish literature about the priesthood and the expected priestly Messiah (cf. 11QMelch, which construes the priest Melchizedek as the heavenly "Anointed of the Spirit", to wage the final war against Belial like Michael in 1QM). The idea that Christians would join the angelic assembly in heaven is also expressed in 12:22-23: "You have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem where the millions of angels have gathered for the festival, with the whole Church in which everyone is a firstborn son and a citizen of heaven". The concept in Revelation, particularly ch. 7, of the "great multitude" of martyrs killed in the Great Tribulation serving as priests in the heavenly sanctuary, also comes readily to mind.

  The Testament of Moses also have another fascinating text that might be related to these notions. In describing the imminent end times, ch. 9 introduces the enigmatic figure of Taxo, "a man from the tribe of Levi" who endures the final Great Tribulation and exhorts the faithful to "die rather than transgress the commandments of the Lord of Lords, the God of our fathers. For if we do this, and do die, our blood will be avenged before the Lord" (9:6-7). These words are immediately followed by a description of the eschatological kingdom:

  "Then his kingdom will appear throughout all creation. Then the Devil will have an end. Yes, sorrow will be led away with him. Then will be filled the hands of the messenger, who is in the highest place appointed. He will at once avenge them of their enemies....Then you will be happy, O Israel! And you will mount above the necks and the wings of an eagle. All things will be fulfilled. And God will raise you to the heights. He will fix you firmly in the heaven of the stars, in the place of their habitations. And you will behold from on high and you will see your enemies down on the earth. And recognizing them you will rejoice and give thanks, confessing your Creator" (Testament of Moses 10:1-2, 8-10).

  This is a most difficult text because it is not clear who Taxo is supposed to be (a Messiah figure? a martyr? symbolic of a group?), who the "his" in "his kingdom" refers to (i.e. to the "Lord" or to Taxo), who the "messenger" is supposed to be, or even whether ch. 10 originally followed ch. 9 or has been dislocated from somewhere else in the text. One helpful fact is that the phrase "filling one's hands" is a technical term referring to the consecration of priests (cf. Exodus 28:41, 29:29, Leviticus 8:33, 21:10; Numbers 3:3, Judges 17:5, 1 Kings 13:33, Testament of Levi 8:10, Joseph and Asenath 27:2, etc.), which makes it all the more plausible that Taxo, the descendent of Levi, is the one who is the "messenger" (nuntius) that is consecrated as a priest and "appointed to the highest place" (in summo constitutus). The Latin nuntius "messenger" may well be a translation of an underlying Greek aggelos, but what is notable is that the "messenger" is appointed to the "highest place" just as Israel itself is raised and established "in the heaven of stars". This may be one reason for considering Taxo as symbolic of Israel, or as its representative. But what is especially striking is the similarity in this scenario and the death-resurrection-exaltation of Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, etc. Taxo urges everyone in faithful Israel to die a martyr's death, and presumably dies himself, and then we have a description of Israel and a priestly (= Levite) messenger being raised to heaven and exalted; the reference to being "appointed to the highest place" recalls Ephesians 1:20-23 which states that God "made him [Jesus] over all things" or Hebrews 1:2-4 which says that the Son took his place "in heaven at the right hand of divine Majesty," making himself "far superior to the angels". So the idea that Jesus, dying a martyr's death, would be exalted to heaven might well have a pre-Christian Jewish basis, as it is also expressed in Revelation.
• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia,

  Perhaps with a more literal translation of Hebrews 12:22ff your point would come across even better:

  But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

  This may be stupid, but at first glance I wondered if the "Taxo" character in the Testament of Moses is not somehow derived of Psalm 110 (the key proof-text in Hebrews): according to the order (kata tèn taxin) of Melchisedek
• 

  Leolaia

  The reference to the "assembly" looks like it might be related to Psalm 82:1 ... a text that is also cited in 11QMelch (e.g. "a god has taken his place in the assembly of God; in the midst of divine beings he holds judgment"), which interestingly interprets it as referring to Melchizedek who "by his might will judge God's holy ones" ... a passage that sounds quite a bit like 1 Corinthians 6:3.

  There's been a zillion conjectures and theories as to the meaning of the name Taxo. One applies gematric numerical values to the Greek name to get the value 431, which fits rbwn 'qb' "Rabbi Aqiba", another does the same thing to the presumed Aramaic tqshw to get the Aramaic phrase chshmwny' "Hasmonean", another treats it as an ab-bag deformation of 'l'ts (< 'l'tsr "Eleazar, the Maccabean martyr) into tksw "Taxo", another treats it as values of a Greek number which is to be multiplied by a week of years in order to get a chronological date (quite Watchtower-esque in my opinion), another treats it as a code-name for "Moses" since both mshh and tgshw add up to the same number 39, another suggests that it is a conflation of the Hebrew and Greek methods of indicating the "Alpha and Omega", i.e. tau-Alpha-aleph-Omega (with Hebrew being right-to-left and Greek left-to-right), another claims that it could be from Hebrew tqn' "zealous one" which would have been misread by a copyist as tqsw, another proposes that it is simply the Greek taxó "I shall prepare" (which would fit with Taxo's role as a Messiah), another suggested Latin taxo "badger" < Hebrew tchsh which has resonance with such Maccabean-era texts as 1 Enoch 96:2, 2 Maccabees 10:6, and the Thassi (? < tchshy "one like a badger") of 1 Maccabees 2:3. I guess your suggestion would be a new one to add to the long list (which I've omitted many others). Trying to retrovert the name into Aramaic or Hebrew is just a minefield because of the endless possibilities: t = tau or teth, x = kaph and samekh, kaph and shin, kaph and zayin, qoph and samekh, qoph and shin, qoph and zayin, cheth and samekh, cheth and shin, cheth and zayin, gimel and samekh, gimel and shin, gimel and zayin, as well as making emendations and so forth. So it's anyone's guess... and many have given many guesses....
• 

  Narkissos

  Thx Leolaia...

  I can't check anything at once, I was just thinking, quite intuitively, that the Latin form Taxo might stand for a Greek (barbarism?) Taxôn, which would be pretty much evocative of Levitical/priestly order (cf. the uses of taxis in 1 Esdras 1:15; Luke 1:8 besides Psalm 109/110:4). This does not sound Semitic imo. Too bad the "r" doesn't fit in the Eleazar cryptogram hypothesis, it would have been quite attractive too...
• 

  JosephMalik

  Leolaia, Just when I thought this discussion was over here we go again. Well I think all this was covered well enough and I have been struggling for the last few days with cutting up and moving a large Pear tree that was blown down during the recent Hurricane here in Wilmington, NC. Contractors are busy with more heavily damaged neighborhoods and no one wants to touch it. But a brief comment or two may help. Leolaia said: However there are some significant problems with such an interpretation. One, as Narkissos pointed out earlier, is that v. 8, 14 refers to hoi aggeloi as "spirits" (pneumata) and "flames of fire (puros phloga), and while you offer an allegorizing interpretation ("serving in a zealous way"), the language is certainly more appropriate for "angels" rather than human "messengers" (cf. aggelos "angel" as pneuma in Acts 23:9, and the fiery nature of the seraphim in the OT, for instance). There are no significant problems with this interpretation. Hebrews was written at a much higher level than most NT texts and even most OT texts so such comparison with them will not work here. Hebrews as a book stands alone. Perhaps I could have used different words that would have been more suitable to you but there is no need. This interpretation of the word spirit for which there is no real definition other than wind is useless. There was an immense problem with such Jews, Christian ones like James and his following still keeping such Law, tradition and circumcision that Paul faced throughout his ministry. They even ganged up on Paul and wanted to kill him as he opposed them on this. Anyone who can grasp the emotion they had for Abraham or Moses can grasp such words as spirits, or flames of fire regarding them. Just because seraphim have similar qualities does not alter this does it? Pay attention to who is being discussed and why. Leolaia said: The second is that there would be an unmotivated shift in meaning of aggelos in ch. 2 (since v. 9 refers to the Son's brief status as "lower than the angels", v. 16 explicitly contrasted hoi aggeloi with "those descended from Abraham", etc.) There was a clear shift explicitly defined as I already mentioned. History was being discussed from both human and non-human perspectives in regard to the Son to show that His position and authority was not dependent upon such Law and His authority could not be challenged by such Hebrews. To understand a text we should stay with the text and its purpose and its impact upon those targeted by it. Running all over the Bible is not much help since the context of such other texts seldom approaches the context of the verse under discussion. Are we to think that such readers in times past would run to get another parchment in order to understand this one? Meanings of words such as angel, heaven, Lord, and God change with context. And words such as spirit, well that is a wild card in and of itself. But the Watchtower and others get away from it and that is how they can push their distorted views. For example you said and used the following as an argument: “What is more, these two statements are strongly reminiscent of the christological liturgies of Philippians 2, Colossians 1 and the parallel in Ephesians 1 which refer to heavenly beings over whom Jesus is set:” But such heavenly things (beings as you call them) were human. Just because some authorities you depend upon view them otherwise does not constitute proof. The fact is that they are human beings in authority or power over which our Lord also has Preeminence. So I prefer to show a verse and explain it and not just throw them around. Error is everywhere to be found in such works so I encourage personal study and careful examination so that those serving our Lord can determine such meaning for themselves. And now it is time to saw, cut and drag another portion of that tree to our pick up area in front of the house. Joseph
• 

  Cygnus

  Joseph,

  I love your postings. I too have a pear tree. Don't hurt yourself moving it/dismembering it! My pears have come out lousy the last couple of years. If yours is big enough and it's unsalvagable, fruit wood is great for firewood and commands big dollars, around here anyway. Good luck, old friend.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Cygnus, This was a flowering tree known as a Bradford Pear. It was thick with branches and flowered full and early and finishes before the Azaleas come out. The Red Maples did fine but a dogwood nearby lost a nice branch and is leaning a bit. We are still in good shape. Anyone that wants the wood can help themselves. Thanks for the kind words and take care of those hands my friend.
  
  Joseph
• 

  hmike

  Narkissos & Leolaia,

  Thanks for the replies. That answers part of my question. The other part is about what being like God would mean to the ancients. How would that compare to man being made "in the image of God" (Genesis) and the Greek, "being in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6)?
• 

  Cygnus

  hmike, may I recommend Anthony Buzzard's "The Trinity - Christendom's Self Inflicted Wound".............or something like that. A highly enjoyable book, even if you don't totally agree with him.
• 

  Leolaia

  Joseph....We have two different approaches of looking at a text. Your method is to look only at the text itself and how it makes sense to you whereas I do this in addition to comparing the text with other texts that express similar language, concepts, and motifs. You seem to mistake my approach as mere proof-texting (which is what the Watchtower does), but this is false. If you read my long post above, you can see that I examine closely the internal structure, argument, and theme of the Hebrews text; proof-texting is concerned only with linking separate texts without regard to the context. What I'm doing is not materially different than the approach in most major commentaries. The use of parallels is not deterministic (as it is with proof-texting), such that one adopts a meaning or concept from the parallels without any regard to the use of the terms in context; they serve mainly to resolve ambiguities in the text and constrain the interpretation against reading one's own concepts (including concepts that would be totally foreign to the mind of any first-century writer) into the text. In a sense you already tacitly employ this method, because you do refer to what these key terms, such as aggelos or pneuma, are supposed to mean. The meaning of these terms do not exist independently of other texts; you wouldn't know what the range of meaning in aggelos is supposed to be without considering how this term is used elsewhere. Then, when you do this lexical research, you might find that one meaning predominates when the text discusses one particular theme, and a different meaning predominates when a different subject is discussed. Then, when you go back to the text under discussion and see how the term is used in its given context and what the theme of the text is, it becomes much more apparent which of the two meanings is more likely. This is essentially what I am doing, except that I am looking not just at individual words but also phrases and motifs.

  The earlier discussion in this thread on the meaning of arkhaggelos is a splendid example of this. If you look ONLY at Jude 9 and nothing else, one can only have a rather vague idea of the kind of rank or position or nature that this term expresses. Whatever ancient everyday meaning that the word would have had at the time (such that a first-century reader would immediately recognize the meaning of the term from the text alone) has been lost. One could arbitrarily impose one's own favorite interpretation of the term on the text, such as what the Society does when it takes apart the word and claims it entails an inherent uniqueness of its referent. Such a person would say that one is looking only at the context alone....but frankly there is not enough in the context to develop a clear identity without abritrarily making choices in resolving the uncertainty. The other approach, as I previously demonstrated, is that one can look at how this term is used in OTHER texts of the time, which would develop a clearer concept of what the meaning of the word is and what it is likely to be in its given context. These other sources show that indeed arkhaggelos does not imply inherent uniqueness, as it occurs in the plural and there are other named archangels other than Michael. In the vast majority of these texts, the idea of plurality of archangels occurs...whereas there is much less agreement about their function, status, and so forth. This fact alone suggests that Michael is most likely in Jude 9 one of a number of archangels. There is no conflict between this and the way the word is used in Jude. More importantly, the term is used in a haggadaic-type story typical of the OT-expansions of the pseudepigrapha, and especially of the testament genre (since the episode being described in Jude 9 is similar to those in the testament genre; indeed it most likely comes from the lost ending of the Testament of Moses), which makes the way the term is used in these sources (and how Michael is portrayed in these sources) even more telling. This evidence would make an interpretation that Michael is one of a group of archangels in Jude 9 much more likely than the alternative. True, this information does not come from the text itself. The text is laconic; yet at the same time it is allusive of these earlier haggadaic traditions, and the data restores what is likely to be the background of the passage.

  In my opinion, the main problem with limiting oneself to the text alone (ch. 1-2 of Hebrews, for instance) is that ambiguities do exist in the text and the interpretation you give is not self-evident in the text, for many of the reasons given earlier. For instance, you say regarding the pneuma and puros phloga in 1:8:

  There was an immense problem with such Jews, Christian ones like James and his following still keeping such Law, tradition and circumcision that Paul faced throughout his ministry. They even ganged up on Paul and wanted to kill him as he opposed them on this. Anyone who can grasp the emotion they had for Abraham or Moses can grasp such words as spirits, or flames of fire regarding them. Just because seraphim have similar qualities does not alter this does it? Pay attention to who is being discussed and why.

  I have quite the opposite assessment. I see nothing in the context of the chapter that suggests that the author's citation of Psalm 104:4 has anything to do with the situation described above (the conflict between Paul and Torah-observant Jewish Christians), or that the terms in question are to be interpreted in just the manner indicated. Instead, this explanation has the appearance of ad hoc eisegesis that imposes a background on the text that is probably irrelevant. (I also wonder if you implicitly base this on the assumption that Paul is the author of Hebrews, which is questionable; the homily is anonymous) Without looking at external evidence of the language used in the text and just sticking to what is in the text itself, I would instead start with the oppositions and distinctions made in the passage and how they support the theme of the chapter, that the Son is superior to "all things" ... including the hoi aggeloi. The statement that the hoi aggeloi are "servants" that are made "flames of fire" and "spirits/winds" is CONTRASTED with the rulership of the Son in a citation of Psalm 45:6-7 (key words: "throne" and "royal scepter"); the contrast is marked by de "but", and since these allusions consistently depict the hoi aggeloi as inferior to the Son in various ways (i.e. sonship in v. 5, worship in v. 6, immortality in v. 11-12), it can be easily inferred that Psalm 104:4 is cited to demonstrate the inferiority of the hoi aggeloi in terms of the Son's rulership. And indeed, the text refers to them as leitourgous "servants", which contrasts strikingly with the Son as the supreme authority. And this contributes perfectly to the overall theme (cf. v. 4 and the other allusions), and idea is expressed again in the summary in v. 14: "The truth is that they are all spirits (pneumata) whose work is service (diakonian), sent to help those who will be the heirs of salvation". The idea that the text is cited to portrary the human hoi aggeloi as "zealous", on the other hand, doesn't do anything to further this theme (e.g. the citations in v. 8-9 are not about the Son's superior ZEAL). The mention of the hoi aggeloi being "made" (poión) as pneumata and puros phloga "flames of fire" also serves the author's aim in portraying the Son as superior, this time in terms of his NATURE: "flames of fire" is clearly inferior to the "radiant light of God's glory" (apaugasma tés doxés) that describes the Son in v. 3.

  For these and many other reasons, I find a figurative interpretation of v. 7 as "fiery zeal" to be implausible, while the alternative makes perfect sense and fits better with the overall context. And when all the external evidence is considered, I consider the interpretation of hoi aggeloi as "angels" to be overwhelming compared to the idea of them as (non-heavenly) human messengers of the covenant. But as I've said before, every interpretation is subjective and thus is never 100% certain....so I am speaking only in relative terms on which approach is better supported by the evidence. The view developed in your posts appears to me to be very forced; but that is only my assessment...you may well think the same of mine. Also, since the value of the text lies in what it means to the reader, and since signification is a co-constructive process that approaches texts as resources for symbolic meaning, I find much value in the whole history of interpretation and the plethora of different readings that contain much insight in their own right.... even if they deviate as they all inevitably do from what the author likely intended. So tho I believe the interpretation of hoi aggeloi in Hebrews 1 as "angels" is what the author in fact originally intended and best respects both the internal and external contexts of the passage, I also believe that your own reading has its own intrinsic worth too. In fact, it is the creative reinterpretation of texts that produces new religious and conceptual insights that move theology along (cf. the development of christology, for instance).