I also believe that your own reading has its own intrinsic worth too
Absolutely, I love different ideas.
Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?
by twinkletoes 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Cygnus
-
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)?
hmike....Good question! I think the henotheistic background of the older parts of the OT is more relevant than anything else, in which Yahweh holds supremacy over other "gods" and who is the national patron of Israel. See for instance Exodus 15:11: "Who is like you among the gods (my-kmkh b-'lm), O Yahweh?" The same theme occurs in Leviticus 19:1, Deuteronomy 3:24, 33:26, 2 Samuel 7:22, Psalm 86:8, 136:4, Jeremiah 10:6, tho not necessarily phrased as a question like the Exodus text. Also, the role of Michael in Daniel as the "divine warrior" patron of Israel.... very much the same role that Yahweh had earlier. Mark Smith and John Day argue that when full-fledged monotheism arose in the Second Temple period and God became more and more remote to humanity (eventually in Jewish tradition isolated in the highest of heavens where only the archangels are in his presence), and when the name "Yahweh" itself was falling into disuse, Michael took over the divine warrior role from Yahweh (cf. Daniel, the War Scroll, Revelation 12). In fact, John Day points to some texts which characterize Michael as a bringer of rain and snow -- the same Baal-esque meteorological role that typified Yahweh in some of the oldest texts. Moreover, the functions of the angels as delineated in 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and other sources, as being in charge of the motions of the sun, or bringing rain or wind, or being in charge of Sheol, or the bringer of healing, etc. is precisely along the same lines of the roles of deities in Canaanite mythology....this probably represents a demotion of the lesser gods in a henotheistic system into "angels"; indeed, aggelos is used to render "son of God" in the LXX OT. Pretty much the same development occurred independently in Islam; the pantheon of Arabian gods were converted under monotheism into a complex hierarchy of angels and demons.
According to Nickelsburg, Michael first appears as the patron angel defending Israel (as other angelic "princes" govern over nations), and then is grouped with three other angels into the four "angels of the presence" or "archangels", and then even later this group was expanded to seven archangels.
-
Narkissos
hmike,
As I said earlier, "who is like you?" is originally a question; not an open question, a rhetorical question which implies "nobody" as the only possible answer. Whereas it particularly well suit the henotheistic or monotheistic mindsets (meaning, respectively, "worship one god" or "there is one g/God"), it can actually be found in polytheistic contexts as well, as a doxological (praise) hyperbole (exaggeration). Within the temple of a particular deity praising him/her as unique in at least some respects belongs to the very act of worship.
It may be interesting to note that, as far as Revelation (13:4), this common feature of worship is attested: "they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?" If this is a conscious echo of the name "Michael" (which is often asserted but by no means certain), this would suggest that even at this late stage "Michael" is still understood as a doxological, rhetorical question. IOW, the name "Michael" would say strictly nothing as to the identity of its bearer (as if it were "he who [relative] is like God") but only qualify him as the champion of monotheism (the one who says "who [interrogative] is like God?" to prove that nobody is).
This is quite distinct from the positive theme of "God's image and resemblance" which runs from the Mesopotamian background of Genesis down to the Hellenistic ramblings about sophia or logos as the specular or mirror image of God (Hebrews 1:3, above, being a very good example). Philo, who offers the best background for the NT writings in this regard, characteristically mentions neither Michael nor Daniel, and as pointed out earlier his use of arkhaggelos is completely distinct from the apocalyptic tradition. This is not to say that the two distinct threads couldn't have met somewhere. But at least for Greek readers it would have required an explicit (mis-)interpretation, such as "Michael is the one who is like God". This afaik we never find.
-
JosephMalik
Leolaia, I never stated that I look only at the text itself. I also consider our roots, God’s intended purpose for us and the mechanisms put in place to accomplish this. Few religions understand salvation and the Kingdom and fewer still understand how it will function and why. Most have everyone going to heaven or continuing to exist in a non-human form when they die. Their minds are focused on a universe far, far away and that is what they envision when they see the word heaven or spirit in the texts. Their foundation is based upon such commentaries as they wrote most of them. But care must be taken as the meaning of many texts using such language is far different. And such commentaries cannot be trusted can they? Just look at the way you dismissed Barnes when I offered such comments to you. Poof, forget about his works. Are we to think that your authorities are superior to the ones I used? Why not get rid of them all then as none of them are scripture and non of them can be trusted. Dwelling on Jude like this is making a whole lot out of nothing. Why? Because that is not the point of Jude’s message. The reason he made that statement is to contrast such a Michael the archangel (important as he was based upon this designation of archangel) and the attitude he had to this devil (that still had authority from God to produce his seed) to the troublemakers Jude describes in the faith: Jude 4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ”. It is anticipated that the outcome for such troublemakers will not be any better than the examples Jude provides in the texts that follow. Leolaia said: 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. This is why it was necessary to point it out. Few see this because it would be deemed sacrilegious to post such a view. But Jude knew better and not only mentioned them but detailed their position compared to others that lived in times past. They are described throughout Paul’s letters and in the book of Acts. This was the reason why Paul appointed Elders and had others he personally selected to appoint elders for him. Peter did not do this, or John or any other apostle did they? The Watchtower doctrine of a Governing Body is based upon such men (James and Jews in Jerusalem) so you know that they would not want anyone to see this either. And no one wants to think that even this effort would fail and the faith would become corrupt for so many years. As for the word spirit. I have explained it’s use many times and even simple words or expressions like “all,” “I am.” “world” “earth,” “kingdom of the heavens” “kingdom of God” and many others deserve more than a simple glance. Ancient use does not always equate with our modern definitions. Direct comparison cannot always be drawn. Our roots and God’s plan for the seed of the Woman should never have become so distorted. 20 “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” And such living will complete this plan for this day of rest. They will be humans, all of them immortal ones at that (consumers of this tree of life) since there was never a plan to make some non-human nor does such a non-human seed or Kind exist outside of our Lord who is scheduled to return here once again in the flesh. Joseph
-
myelaine
And to the angel in the church in Philadelphia write,These things says He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens:
I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.
Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I come quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from God. And I will write on him My new name.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
love michelle