Speculation is cool, but turning obvious speculation into definite doctrine that you can be disfellowshipped for disagreeing with is a bit off.
Personally, though, I still don't see any strong link between Jesus and Michael, although I know you weren't trying to prove it, but any association is still very speculative without a definite statement. Even if it's possible that Jesus is Michael, or just another archangel, the scriptural links are still quite weak.
I also don't think you have to have a Trinitarian agenda if you try to prove JWs wrong on this one. Lovelylil was actually a unitarian.
Jesus, Michael, archangels - People who live in glass houses shouldn't....
by Inquisitor 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Zico
-
Narkissos
As to the background of the NT, one must distinguish between two hugely different lines of inspiration: (1) the "apocalyptical," mostly Palestinian, which is especially reflected in "Enochic" literature and (2) the "sapiential/philosophical," mostly from the Hellenistic Jewish diaspora, which culminates in the work of Philo of Alexandria. At the risk of oversimplifying, # 1 is interested in history and the "hidden world behind the scenes" (heavenly beings, angels, demons), and end-time scenarii whereas # 2 is interested in understanding the permanent order of the world through timeless intellectual, moral and spiritual "truths".
The name Michael exclusively belongs to # 1, and Michael is definitely one in a group of (4? 7?) "archangels" (which is also apparent in Daniel, "one of the chief princes"), even though sometimes with a status of "first among peers" (which corresponds to his role of "prince of Israel" in Daniel).
From 1 Enoch:
9:1: Then Michael and Gabriel, Raphael, Suryal / Uriel, looked down from heaven, and saw the quantity of blood which was shed on earth, and all the iniquity which was done upon it, and said one to another, It is the voice of their cries...
20 These are the names of the angels who watch.
Uriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over clamor and terror.
Raphael, one of the holy angels, who presides over the spirits of men.
Raguel, one of the holy angels, who inflicts punishment on the world and the luminaries.
Michael, one of the holy angels, who, presiding over human virtue, commands the nations.
Sar(ak)iel, one of the holy angels, who presides over the spirits of the children of men that transgress.
Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over Ikisat, over paradise, and over the cherubim.
Remiel, one of the holy angels, who presides over the resurrected.24:4 Michael, one of the holy and glorious angels who were with me, and one who presided over them...
40:8f: After this I besought the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, to explain all that was concealed. I said to him, Who are those whom I have seen on the four sides, and who words I have heard and written down? He replied, The first is the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael. The second is he who presides over every suffering and every affliction of the sons of men, the holy Raphael. The third, who presides over all that is powerful, is Gabriel. And the fourth, who presides over repentance, and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life, is Phanuel. These are the four angels of the most high God, and their four voices, which at that time I heard.
53:6: Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel shall be strengthened in that day, and shall then cast them into a furnace of blazing fire, that the Lord of spirits may be avenged of them for their crimes; because they became ministers of Satan, and seduced those who dwell upon earth.
58:1 The holy Michael, another holy angel, one of the holy ones, was sent, who raised me up.
70:4,11,16f: And Michael, one of the archangels, took me by my right hand, raised me up, and brought me out to where was every secret of mercy and secret of righteousness. (...) Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel and the holy angels who were in the heavens above, went in and out of it. Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel went out of that habitation, and holy angels innumerable. (...) The Ancient of days came with Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel, with thousands of thousands, and myriads and myriads, which could not be numbered. Then that angel came to me, and with his voice saluted me, saying, You are the Son of man, who art born for righteousness, and righteousness has rested upon you.
(Note that the Son of Man, here apparently identified to Enoch, is distinct from Michael.)
It is quite obvious to me that the names Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, in the texts which happened to be part of the "Bible" (Raphael in Tobit) point back to this multiform tradition of a group of "archangels," the inner circle of angels (those who stand before the face of God). So are the formations of 4 or 7 angels in Revelation.
Now if we look to the other (Hellenistic) tradition, as represented by Philo, we find a very different and unique use of "archangel" as one of the titles for the logos which encapsulates the tradition of personified Wisdom. But this logos although personified is more an idea (the idea of ideas, both the intellect and the principle of intelligibility) than a person:
And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees -- Israel. -- On the Confusion of Tongues, 146.
And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;" neither being uncreate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace. -- Who is the Heir of Divine Things, 205f.
It is noteworthy that the NT texts construct their Christology mostly on the Hellenistic (# 2) concepts and metaphors (logos, Son of God, image of God, firstborn, etc.) except the "(arch)angelic" one (which the book of Hebrews, a highly Hellenistic work in spite of its title, explicitly rules out). And, otoh, all references to "(arch)angels" belong to the apocalyptic sphere (# 1), where the angels are distinct from and subject to Christ (as they are to God: "his angels"). Perhaps the belief in "(arch)angels" was just too realistic among early Christian circles to make the word "(arch)angel" available as a metaphor (as it is to Philo).
-
Inquisitor
I also don't think you have to have a Trinitarian agenda if you try to prove JWs wrong on this one. Lovelylil was actually a unitarian. - Zico
You make a good point Zico. I apologize for the thoughtless ad hominem attack, esp to lovelylil. My critique of their arguments however, stays.
INQ
-
Inquisitor
Having read Narkissos' post, it would seem that any effort to seriously identify Michael the Archangel must draw on Apocryphal scriptures. WITHOUT the Apocryphal reference, the passing mention of Michael in the Biblical canon is not sufficient to insist that Jesus is not an Archangel.
It is easy to prove (using Hebrews) that Jesus is not an angel per se, but there is nothing explicit to imply that he doesn't hold the rank of Archangel (does Archangel describe the rank or nature of the celestial creature? If it is a rank/title, then even one the only-begotten Son could conceivably hold such a rank). Unless, one accepts the Apocrypha's dichotomy of Archangels and Son of God/Word.
But here's where it gets interesting: MOST Protestant/Evangelical/"true Christians" reject the Apocrypha as a spiritual authority. Will they* then heartily embrace the Apocrypha just to score some payback points against JW beliefs?
INQ
*not referring to anyone specific on JWD
p.s. With all this said, I still admit that equating Michael with Jesus, as JWs do, is rather dubious. Relying on canonical scripture alone, one could be confident that Jesus isn't an angel, but confidence that he isn't an Archangel depends upon a Trinitarian premise.
-
Narkissos
In popular Protestant imagination the "apocrypha" are later additions to "the Bible". In the present case, the Enochic tradition is definitely earlier than the NT and some of it even predatesDaniel.
So approaching this issue in a "Bible-only" way (by the Protestant canon) is choosing a large-knit network of secondary allusions over the "original" story which they refer to (explicitly in the case of Jude). Coming back to my "movie" illustration, it's like trying to figure out what a "Jedi" is by using only the occurrences of this word on JWD (as I did when I first came here).
In practice, I have found that most Evangelicals readily accept evidence from the "Apocrypha" when it doesn't contradict their doctrine, and they trust "their" scholars to sort it out...
-
glenster
I can't get out to a library to see "When Jesus Became God." Is there a web
site that gives a good idea of it? All I've found on the Internet are basic
book reviews, and I want to have all the acriptural interpretations and histor-
ical facts to go on. I can see what both sides say for the various scriptures
pretty easily, and I've got about 40 pages for a secular presentation of the
forced points and skewered history used by the JWs leaders when teaching their
exclusive rules for their "144,000" exclusiveness. People of whatever reli-
gious or non-religious view are welcome and have added things.As far as I can tell from reviews, the author believes that when the main-
stream view, which the author doesn't believe in, became the official view in
the early 300's, that politics unhappily affected relationships with people of
Judaism for the worse. That's interesting to me, but does it give historical
references that make a difference in what's better indicated as the original
Christian view, or why the Arians considered Lucian their founder if there were
earlier examples more impressive to offer that way, that I can see on the In-
ternet?From what I've see so far, the mainstream view has a stronger case than the
JWs leaders (forced points aside) in related history, too, as being the orig-
inally intended idea for a Bible belief, but I'm mainly looking at the scrip-
tures and history before the time of the Council.Regarding the Jesus > Michael aspect, from what I'm seeing above, there isn't
any unambiguous connection between Jesus and Michael intended originally from
whatever religious or non-religious point of view except as claimed by the JWs
leaders forced points for their "144,000" cooked up elitism.