This was my response to someone who had raised the topic back in the Pathways-Online days, and the original topic can be found here. I recently posted this on a site (Hourglass2 Outpost) that I occasionally post at, thinking that it would be nice to here what thoughts others might have on the subject, some 6 1/2 years later… and to expand on my own understanding.
What follows then, in a 5-part series, is not only the 6 1/2 year old post, but my response to someone who asked me to comment on their own observations. I hope that it at least provokes further discussion on the topic.
Follow-up Post #2
A well thought out conclusion. Each person needs to make sure on their own, of course.
Please also consider a scripture you didn’t include:
Daniel 10:21, DRC, “But I will tell thee what is set down in the scripture of truth: and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince; [/b]”
If you have the time, please look at my conclusions here:
If you still believe your prior conclusion, I would be happy to be informed as to why. I like to see if I am wrong. ha ha
Christian greetings, ‘Fuzzy,’
Thank you for your response and the invitation to review your own observations. What follows are my further responses to the link you provided, and my reasons for those responses. They are given in the spirit of exchange only, and are not to be taken as dogma.
For the sake of my tendency toward longwindedness, I will respond in segments (this being the second segment), to allow for focused responses as well, and to make it easier for others to follow the discussion.
Notes: Your original material will be colored in blue to avoid confusion later on.
The only other archangel mentioned in the Bible is found at Jude 9. Here we read:
(Webster) “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”
As mentioned in the previous segment I posted, the original Greek language by which our Christian Greek Scriptures are derived did not use what we in the English-speaking world refer to as “definite” and “indefinite” articles, used as “a,” “an,” and “the.” Because of this, there is a tremendous shift in interpretation between a Bible translation that says “Michael the archangel” and one that says “Michael an archangel.”
If the Bible translation someone uses has “the archangel” here, it conveys the idea to the cursory reader that there is only one archangel. Even the word itself, archangel, conveys the idea of utmost or pinnacle. However, as I intimated in my previous segment, archangel is a station–and as such, does not require that there be only ONE such persona holding that station.
Now I know, I know, much of what I’m going into here does not fall within the so-called orthodoxy or widely-accepted view. I already know the widely-accepted view. What I am doing is putting that view to the test, to see if it holds up. And I invite anyone else to do the same. I am looking for the broader truth behind what we have available to us. I am digging. And as such, I would never presume to claim that I’ve found the truth, because the truth can be elusive and our reasoning can be deceptive. But that is where discussion comes into the issue. Being able to talk and reason our way through a topic such as this is a boon to us and to others.
Now, let me get back to the station of archangel and elaborate further.
Any U.S. resident would recognize that the office or station of U.S. President is the highest station an individual can hold. Right now, that station is held by Obama. Does that mean that he is the only President? No, because others have held that station before him. Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, and on the list goes backwards.
Ah, but— you start to say— right there you have proof that only ONE person can hold that station, and that’s proof positive that there is only ONE archangel.
Now, before you start waving the flag of triumph, answer me this: Is Obama the only President currently? In other words, are there any other individuals holding a similar station of authority in any other country? If so, then you can understand a little better my view on the archangel station of authority.
Turn in your Bible to Daniel 10:13:
But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Mi’cha?el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia. (NWT)
I refer to this passage in my original post of this topic. Notice that it says that Michael is one of the foremost princes. Logically, if we equate Jesus with Michael’s pre-Jesus existence, we still have to cope with how Jesus/Michael is but ONE of the foremost princes. However, IF we allow the Bible to stand on its own merits, we can better realize that these “foremost princes” are later referred to as “archangels” in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Otherwise, we have to try to compensate and explain away this rather simple scripture.
Let me explain.
IF Jesus is Michael, as some would suggest, then we should be able to insert Jesus’ name in lieu of Michael’s in that scripture and still have it make sense. So, does it work?
But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Jesus, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia.
On initial glance, it works. But now, we have a new problem: If Jesus is but one of these “foremost” princes–who are the other “foremost” princes Daniel is referring to?
The new problem is easily resolved, however, by realizing that Michael simply is NOT Jesus, whether in some pre-human persona or otherwise. In fact, the angels (archangels included) were created through or by means of the Logos of God. Jehovah did not create all things in existence through an archangel, and neither does the Bible claim this. Neither should we suggest it.
To determine who Michael is, then, if he is not Jesus himself, I will refer you to my original post, which goes into much more detail than I need repeat here regarding the role Michael plays as “one of the foremost princes.”
More to follow in the next segment…
Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
A brother in Christ, Timothy