Oct
23
2009
0

Do the scriptures identify Jesus as Michael the archangel? (Part 5)

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

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 #4

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:

http://bythebible.page.tl/Jesus-h–Prehuman-Existence.htm

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 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, 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.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

B. This argument is strengthened by the following:
Daniel 12:1 clearly refers to Michael the archangel of Jude 9.

Dan 12:1,2 reads, “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. (Webster)

I think that I have sufficiently addressed this part of your article, actually, and will refer you to the previous segments for what I had to offer on this aspect of the discussion–at least in regards to my own findings and conclusions.

I do look forward to continuing this discussion and seeing everyone’s responses.
Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
A brother in Christ, Timothy

Oct
23
2009
0

Do the scriptures identify Jesus as Michael the archangel? (Part 4)

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

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 #3

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:

http://bythebible.page.tl/Jesus-h–Prehuman-Existence.htm

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 fact is that Paul gives a powerful reason for associating that archangel with Jesus whom he also says speaks with an archangel’s voice. (Quoted above) In 1 Cor 10:1-4, Paul associates Jesus directly with the angel that represented God to the Israelites in their exodus. Verse four demonstrates this without doubt:

And, all, drank, the same spiritual drink,—for they continued to drink of the spiritual rock that followed them, and, the rock, was the Christ. (Rotherham)

It’s interesting that you refer to Paul’s own writings as “a powerful reason for associating that archangel with Jesus, and therefore is deserving of a part in my response here.

As you and others may well know, Paul spent a great deal of his time in the ministry trying to help his spiritual brothers and sisters to look beyond the Law and towards what the Law represented in a spiritual sense. Jesus, too, engaged his audience in the same manner.

Too, Paul was a former member of the Pharisees, and as such, he would have been able to readily call upon teachings and common knowledge in order to convey his point.

The example you refer to from 1 Corinthians 10 is one such example.

Let me cite the passage here, using a couple additional Bible translations:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. — 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 (NIV)

My brothers, here is something you should know. Long ago, all our fathers were led by the cloud of God over them. They all went through the Red Sea. It was as if they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same food from the Spirit. They all drank the same water sent by the Spirit. The water they drank came from a Rock of the Spirit which went with them. That Rock was Christ. — 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 (BWE)

I would strongly recommend that you research further on Jewish tradition (exegetical and otherwise) regarding the “rock” that Paul is referring to in reference to the Israelites as they endured the wilderness. Suffice it to say, however, Paul was trying to make the argument that it foreshadowed the Christian congregation’s own time in the wilderness on the way to the Promised Land, nourished and watered by the Rock, which is Christ.

However, it seems that you are taking a significant leap in suggesting what you say here:

In 1 Cor 10:1-4, Paul associates Jesus directly with the angel that represented God to the Israelites in their exodus. Verse four demonstrates this without doubt…

There is no such connection to be found. There is no evidence that the cloud and/or pillar was the manifestation of Michael, an archangel of Jehovah. Is it even implied? No, I do not believe so.

Still, there are Jewish rabbinic traditions that hold that Michael played a significant role as advocate and defender of Israel and intervened not a few times in the Israelites’ behalf. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been privy to these traditions, and I suspect that such traditions were also common knowledge. This would support what Daniel wrote in reference to Michael being a strong advocate for Israel, of course, and who is the prince of the people. What it does not support is that Michael is synonymous with Jesus.

One more point I want to mention before I close this segment is that we hear often how the name “Michael” means “Who is like God?” and that this is further “evidence” that Michael and Jesus are one and the same. However, this assumption is made on the basis of two arguments:

1) That Jesus is the only persona in existence who is like God and therefore can answer such a question as that– an argument that lends itself to either Bitarianism and Trinitarianism, wherein Jesus shares in the very nature of Jehovah.

2) That is a question in the first place.

But, for the sake of discussion, what if it isn’t a question? What if it’s a challenge? From what I have learned about the role that the archangel Michael has had throughout history, his is an unrelenting supporter of Jehovah God amongst the heavenly forces. He wouldn’t hold the position of archangel (“foremost princes”) otherwise, I believe. As such, he takes an avid interest in God’s people and acts as their soldier when the need arises. In Revelation, we find Michael and the angels under his command entering into a cosmic battle with Satan and his own angels, to the point where there is out-and-out war in heaven, but that Michael prevails in that battle and Satan is consequently cast out of heaven, along with his treacherous horde. With that in mind, Michael’s name becomes everything it means. Like David of old, Michael proves that he has God’s backing and is able to overpower and evict this fellow spiritual persona, Satan.

But, you may argue, that victory over Satan and casting him from heaven is a right belonging to Jesus himself.

While it is true that Jesus has the right to do that, there remains a very basic problematic, logical question that rises in assigning the battle/war role to Jesus as described in Revelation, and I think I mention this in my initial post: The entirety of Creation was brought into existence by means of or through the Logos, which is held to be Jesus in his pre-human existence. Everything that exists, mind you. The power that would have required is far, far beyond our capacity to imagine.

Having said that, why would it take–as some suggest–Jesus and his angels to enter into war with Satan, to cast our Accuser out of the heavens? Seriously, now. The Logos was sufficient to bring everything into existence–angels, archangels, the heavenly realm, the earthly realm, humankind… everything. And yet Jesus in his now glorified state needs assistance with dealing with the likes of Satan and his brood?

Quite frankly, I find such a notion insulting to the glory that has been given to Jesus.

Far be it from that being the case, then. Instead, at least to me, it makes much more sense that the angels themselves–like us–have a battling with powers in the spiritual realm, with principalities and forces far beyond our physical senses. We have to take our stand for our God, Jehovah, and for our King, Jesus as the Christ. The angels, too, have to take their stand. The battle involving Michael and Satan is the climax of that confrontation, the finale to a long, ongoing, arduous struggle in the heavens between heavenly angelic brothers. Jesus does not play a role in that battle, for it must be carried out by those whose loyalty remains to be determined. Jesus’ role is as Judge and High Priest and as the rightful Heir to the Kingdom prepared by Jehovah Himself. Jesus has already proven his position on the issue, and shown himself faithful even unto death, and as a result forever removed from access by Satan.

Michael’s name is a challenge to anyone who would dare to undermine Jehovah’s rightful position as Sovereign, and I’m certain that Michael is equally willing to challenge anyone who would dare to undermine Jehovah’s assigned King, Jesus. And there are myriads of angels likewise at-the-ready to do the same, under Michael’s command as their archangel.
Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
A brother in Christ, Timothy

Oct
23
2009
0

Do the scriptures identify Jesus as Michael the archangel? (Part 3)

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

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:

http://bythebible.page.tl/Jesus-h–Prehuman-Existence.htm

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

Oct
23
2009
0

Do the scriptures identify Jesus as Michael the archangel? (Part 2)

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

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 #1

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:

http://bythebible.page.tl/Jesus-h–Prehuman-Existence.htm

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 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, 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.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

A. We know from 1 Thess 4:16 that Christ is an archangel.

(Webster) “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.”

It is easy enough to equate Jesus with the archangel spoken of in this scripture, I admit. For centuries, Christendom has insisted that this scripture proves that Jesus is Michael.

However, here are the problems for me:

First, we can establish that “the Lord” referred to here is Jesus because we can cross-reference the scene of Jesus descending from heaven with that described at Acts 1:11, where we read:

“This Jesus who was received up from YOU into the sky will come thus in the same manner as YOU have beheld him going into the sky.” (NWT, et al)

What, then, of the usage of the terms “with a shout,” “with the voice of an archangel,” and “with the trumpet of God”?

Traditionally, Christendom holds the view of Jesus blowing a trumpet, etc. This imagery can be seen going back across the centuries in church artwork, for example. As a result, when we read the scripture today, because we have been descendants of this long-held notion, we automatically infer that Jesus himself descends while shouting, while speaking as an archangel, while sounding the trumpet of God.

But is this really the image that the Bible writer is trying to convey? Even in our modern times, a person of noteworthy recognition is announced by someone else, either before they enter a room, or as they are are entering a room. Take, for example, a judge in a courtroom. The bailiff or other assigned individual will usually say the words, “All rise for Judge So-and-So,” and everyone on the courtroom rises from their seats. In the United States, when the President enters the room, it is announced authoritatively, and everyone comes to attention. And this has been the case for centuries. In our contemporary lives, in other words, we do not hear a judge announcing himself as he enters his courtroom. We do not hear the President announce himself as he enters the press room or whatever ever surroundings he is arriving upon.

And yet, when it comes to the arrival or entrance of Jesus in full glory, we conjure up that very image. He is announcing his own arrival. Tooting his own horn, as the expression goes.

That is why I am more and more convinced that when Jesus arrives as described at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, that he does so with the pronouncement of an archangel, or, the “voice of an archangel” as it is written. Not to put too fine a point on it, but an archangel acts as bailiff or dignitary to make sure that the audience for the arrival of this very important persona is brought to a proper and rightful state of attention and respect. Just the use of the term “archangel” denotes a high-stationed persona of the heavenly realm, much like “Secretary of State” denotes a high-stationed person in our contemporary times and government hierarchy. In Revelation, this particular angel is referred to as the seventh angel (Revelation 10:7) who is to sound a trumpet. How appropriate that the climax of the outworking of God’s redemption of Humankind be announced by proclamation and trumpet by an archangel!

Another difficulty we face as we try to understand this scripture is the absence of what we refer to as “indefinite articles” such as “a,” “an,” and “the.” Bible translations vary on usage of “the” and “an” in this scripture, probably depending on their interpretational leanings. Even so, my explanation above eliminates the indefinite article difficulty, I believe. Still, I need to also share my observations in regard to the station of “archangel” and whether there is one, many archangels, etc. That will need to wait until a separate segment in this discussion, I’m afraid.

What, then, of the use of the term “with the trumpet of God”? As many may already be aware, the sounding of a trumpet in the Bible preceded a period of judgment, the arrival of a royal dignitary, a battle, or any other significant event that required the arousal of a people to attention. In this case, we’re not talking about just some watchman’s sounding of a trumpet–no, this time it is the trumpet of God Himself being sounded.

It may also bear relevance that the Bible writer’s use of “the trumpet of God” in precedent to their noting that the “dead in Christ shall rise first” is intended to bring to mind what Jesus is recorded as saying at Matthew 24:30-31:

…they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. (NWT)

The phrase “dead in Christ shall rise” is without question (at least in my mind) a part of the this “gathering” of Jesus’ “chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity” and the use of a trumpet to announce that event seems further verification that we are talking about the same event in both scriptures.

There is much to be noted on the Bible’s use of a trumpet within worship and other activity, but for the sake of brevity, I think it bears worthy consideration that at Numbers 29:1, we read:

“‘And in the seventh month, on the first of the month, YOU should hold a holy convention. No sort of laborious work must YOU do. It should prove to be a day of the trumpet blast for YOU. (NWT)

Why this particular passage? Because there seems little reason to doubt that the event described at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 comes at the end of the preaching work that Christians have been assigned. Their labors will have come to their completion. The idea of a “holy convention” surely conjures up the imagery set forth in the rising of the “dead in Christ” and the gathering together of the “chosen ones,” does it not?

Additional points of interest regarding trumpets and their usage in the Bible:

Numbers 10:2,4: 2 “Make for yourself two trumpets of silver. You will make them of hammered work, and they must be at your service for convening the assembly and for breaking up the camps… And if they should blow on just one, the chieftains as heads of the thousands of Israel must also keep their appointment with you. (NWT) [See also: Numbers 10:7-8; Numbers 10:10

1 Corinthians 15:52: Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (NWT)

Revelation 4:1: After these things I saw, and, look! an opened door in heaven, and the first voice that I heard was as of a trumpet, speaking with me, saying: “Come on up here, and I shall show you the things that must take place.” (NWT)

Revelation 10:7: …but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to blow his trumpet, the sacred secret of God according to the good news which he declared to his own slaves the prophets is indeed brought to a finish. (NWT) [See also: Revelation 11:15]

More to follow in regards to the rest of your article…

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
A brother in Christ, Timothy

Written by Timothy Kline in: Christianity | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Oct
23
2009
0

Do the scriptures identify Jesus as Michael the archangel? (Part 1)

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

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.

Original Pathways-Online post

Having said that I will probably shock not a few on this forum by admitting that by Witnesses teaching that Jesus is, in fact, Michael, we probably have erred. I say “probably,” because I do not claim to be an expert on this topic.

I say this because to teach that Jesus is Michael leaves some challenging questions which I don’t think have been addressed by the Society nor by Witnesses. I know that I personally can’t come up with a satisfactory answer to the perplexities of the doctrine.

First, we know that Jesus, having served as the Christ to redeem mankind, was then essentially handed the rulership of the heavens and earth, to begin ruling when his Father, Jehovah deemed the appropriate time. That Jesus had immense power preceding his being born as a human is a pale glimmer to his being absolutely glorified following his faithfulness unto death and subsequent being raised to life once more by Jehovah. His power is all the more limitless, second only to that of Jehovah.

Now, given that realization, let’s take it to the next step of the discussion.

And war broke out in heaven: Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.–Revelation 12:7-9 (NWT)

This is our first problem.

If Jesus’ power is now second only to that of Jehovah, then how much of a war would it really be if Jesus was actually Michael? How much of a battle would it be? While we can affirm that Satan and his angels do not prevail in this cataclysmic war in heaven, does that in and of itself give us enough to infer that because “Michael and his angels” win, that “Michael” is Jesus?

Tying in the passage from Daniel, namely the previously mentioned reference to Michael as “one of the foremost princes,” we know two more facts: one, that the angels themselves engaged in opposing conflicts with other angels. Notice how Daniel recorded what the angel told him:

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. –Daniel 10:13 (NWT)

“The prince of the royal realm of Persia” cannot be a mere reference to a human prince, for what human can be said to be able to stand “in opposition” for even 21 days? Even Paul mentioned the unseen influence of various demonic princes, did he not, in his letter to the Ephesians, to whom he wrote the following:

Put on the complete suit of armor from God that YOU may be able to stand firm against the machinations of the Devil; 12 because we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.–Ephesians 6:11-12 (NWT)

A more succinct rendering follows:

For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms.–Ephesians 6:12 (NLT)

Paul’s statement supports the understanding that while we have our “flesh and blood” rulers, those rulers are watched over and essentially controlled by the “evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world.” It follows, then, that the “prince of the royal realm of Persia” that was said to be “standing in opposition” to this angel sent to deliver a message to Daniel was none other than one of those demonic “evil” rulers that Paul mentions.

On that occasion, another angel, “one of the foremost princes” named Michael, came to the aid of that messenger. If there was a valid reason to say that Michael and Jesus are one and the same, would not Daniel have written that “Michael, the foremost prince (not one of those princes)” came to help this messenger?

In fact, when we reference Strong’s 08269, we find that the original word is sar, which translates into “captain, commander, prince, ruler.”

Thus, Michael is one of the foremost “captains,” “commanders,” “princes,” or “rulers” among the angelic ranks. Much like our human armies have admirals, generals, and captains as commanders of our armies (and since war is of demonic origin, there’s no surprise that our carnal warfare emulates and even may mirror demonic familiarity with ranks!), the angels have rank and station.

Which brings me back to my earlier point about Jesus’ absolute power and glory now. Could Satan and his angels really war against Jesus? It certainly wouldn’t amount to any sort of battle. We’re talking about the glorified Jesus, whose power is second only to Jehovah. Through Jesus, all of Creation came into being, so of what great feat would throwing Satan and his cohorts to the earth be for a fully empowered Jesus?

Thus, we’re left with the conclusion that Jesus himself will not personally engage in this war in heaven–but rather, will give the command, which will then be carried out by the angels which will have been loyal through the millennia. These angels will then engage in a war in heaven (this war is likely already underway, but has yet to reach a climactic point when Satan and his demons are afterwards cast to the earth), fighting against fellow angels in an unimaginable battle. Among those loyal angels will be those angelic captains, or chiefs, commanders or princes, leading the war of righteousness to its final, decisive end. And among those captains will be Michael, who obviously is a staunch supporter of Jehovah’s arrangement to the extent of having as his own name the banner of “Who is like God?”– a very challenge in itself to anyone who would dare usurp Jehovah’s sovereignty.

And yet we can identify Michael, in spite of his high station among angels, as one who leaves judgment to Jehovah, as recorded for us in Jude the following:

9 But when Mi´cha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” –Jude 9 (NWT)

Clearly, Michael is an angel to be reckoned with, which makes it no wonder that he is looking forward to carrying out the work of casting the Devil and his followers from heaven.

But is he Jesus? Do the scriptures support the view that Jesus and Michael are one and the same?

No.

Humbly,
Timothy

Sep
21
2009
1

A Post from the Past

I was shown the doorI

I was shown the door because I asked questions.

[This was originally written by me at Pathways Online: A Discussion Forum for Christians, on July 7, 2005. Someone recently contacted me to offer their support, and I thought it might be a good idea to post this here for those who read this blog and may not be fully aware of my excommunication from the Watchtower organization for asking questions that I was not supposed to ask once I had officially joined the ranks of Jehovah's Witnesses.]

Christian greetings everyone,

After giving it much prayerful consideration, I decided to go ahead and make what I believe is a very important announcement. What follows is all relevant to my announcement, and I ask that you bear with me as I type this out. Once I am finished, I will unlock the topic so that those who feel they would like to respond will be able to do so. I appreciate your patience in this matter.

Now, as some of you already know–because you have known me through the years–I have always endeavored to make my spiritual journey transparent, in that a public record would be kept of my progress as well as my failures through the years, so others could either learn from my mistakes or find some small measure of encouragement in the example I wanted to set in trying to be Christian.

From the beginning, I have always made every effort to never hide my identity, mostly because I believe that I have never said anything about which to be ashamed. I have always tried very hard to speak openly, honestly, and with respect. And, apart from a brief period in 1998 when I was working through my feelings of anger and a sense of betrayal at the Society, I believe that I have managed a small measure of my goal in retaining honorable discussion of scriptural matters.

As a person who was blessed by Jehovah with the gift of writing, I began to write “articles” with my questions and resulting findings, and shared those articles with the online community–not with the conviction that I “had the truth,” but so that others could put what I wrote to the test just as a scientist would be able to replicate a test and see if the same results would take place. Sometimes what I wrote held up–other times it didn’t, and I would have to go back to the “drawing board.” My intent has always been to establish what we are to believe as Christians today, irregardless of what religions and Christian groups tell us we ought to believe. Having had my trust towards the Society turned upside down, I decided that I would never again believe any teaching if I could not prove that teaching directly from the scriptures with the aid of a Watchtower magazine or any other publication published by the Society. I would never again hold to a teaching that I could not personally explain to someone else using exclusively the Bible.

As I mentioned, my articles started appearing online and began to cover areas that are considered “sacred” to most Witnesses. Most will even go so far as to say that these “taboo” areas are fundamental teachings that help separate us from any and all other Christian groups. I went back and re-examined the Society’s teachings on such subjects as “the faithful and discreet slave,” “1914,” the intent and purpose of the Memorial, including who is expected to partake. In each case, I approached the subject as logically as possible, by using the information available at the time that a given teaching was established, and then from there setting about recreating the conditions that allegedly led to that teaching being instituted. I was unable in each of the above subjects to arrive at the same answer as the Society claimed to. And, I “published” my own findings on the internet so that my testing methods could be examined, scrutinized, and find whether I was missing something.

The fact is, I have always invited examination of everything I have ever written about the Bible. And, on a few key subjects, I tried to bring my findings to the attention of my elders–with the hopes that they would sit down with me and go through my own findings with me and see what they came up with. Instead, it was decided that I needed to study more of the Society’s literature–that this would remedy my “doubts.”

There has never been a single instance when the elders sat with me and discussed my findings, to test them out and see if perhaps I was correct. To date, there has been no such attempt on the part of the elders.

I continued to “publish” my findings online, with the original intent: have my findings tested to see if they held up. And, although I was posting on internet message boards by this time, I found them seriously lacking in balance and in a serious desire to get to the heart of the matter where the scriptures were concerned. Most were either entirely anti-Witness or they were entirely pro-Witness. Neither allowed for much worthwhile discussion. I decided that I would try to fill that void–and Pathways-Online was brought online.

And even though I have worked long, hard hours to ensure that Pathways essentially caters to a pro-Witness view, those who were less favorably disposed towards Witnesses were allowed to participate so long as said participation was respectful and mature. Name-calling, personal attacks, insinuated or veiled threats were forbidden. I felt that it was important to allow open discussion on all aspects of Witness faith and belief, for the same reason that I felt compelled to write and then share my “articles.” And, with the proper handling, all such discussions would prove both interesting and educational for everyone involved.

Pathways had remarkable appeal to those who found it. I will always feel like I was blessed at such responsiveness from everyone. Most of those who were here in our beginnings have since moved on for one reason or another. A few have, at times, returned. And some have never left.

Perhaps one of the reasons for this is because Pathways was never meant as a destination. It was, instead, to serve as an oasis, to offer refreshment and fellowship in a way that not very many boards have been able to duplicate where Witnesses are concerned–or even non-Witnesses, for that matter. Here, the individual is the one that matters, and the moment that they arrive they are accepted as a welcome addition to our group of contributors. Obviously there have been those who came through who needed to be banned–whether temporarily in some cases or permanently in other cases. Among those who have been consistently banned are those who claim to be a messiah, or those who engage in prophetic proclamations–especially those who insist on setting dates for certain things to occur. While it is not my place to judge Trinitarians, neither is Pathways the proper place for them.

In any event, Pathways was born of a need for individuals such as myself to have a medium where we could actively exchange thoughts and ideas about the scriptures in light of the Society’s teachings–without the overshadowing fear of being shunned or disfellowshipped as apostates for the same discussion if it took place in a Kingdom Hall or with the congregational elders.

Then, around September of 2002, I joined a fellow Witness in a new task. I offered my webmastering services so that he would be able to publish his many findings that he had tried sharing with the Society through the years–only to be rebuffed for thinking he knew more than the Society about anything. And the site e-watchman.com was created and brought online.

I contracted for the work to handle the site and administrate the server in the fall of 2002 and set about putting his letters up on the internet with the hopes that they would get read by people and they could be put to the test in much the same way as my own writings. The response to his writings was so voluminous that he started posting questions that were sent in by people, and also began writing essays and commentaries.

Then, he turned his efforts to a letter writing campaign, sending out thousands of letters to various branches, kingdom halls, and the Watchtower itself, trying to express the magnitude of the NGO issue so that an investigation would take place, or at least acknowledged for what it was. That was enough to get the attention of the Society, of course, but their response was to contact watchman’s local congregation and ask the elders to help him with his “concerns.”

As I recall, the Paradise Cafe was up and running by this time and had really gained a number of members. I had originally envisioned the Cafe as a more pro-Witness board than Pathways was, because watchman’s views were more stringent where the Watchtower organization and Jehovah’s Witnesses were concerned than my own. It would allow Witnesses of a similar opinion to meet together online and encourage one another without constantly having to fend off detractors and opposers. Of course, the whole idea that the Witness organization is about to come into judgment is, in itself, enough to get a person disfellowshipped for suggesting or believing–but there were clearly those who found that it was the only reasonable explanation in light of the Society’s series of errors in judgment, and having a place to talk freely of such matters–candidly and without reprieve simply because it “questions” the Society–was a much-needed necessity, in my estimation. Unfortunately, the Cafe is at a point right now where that “vision” may never be established due to a number of factors affecting participation there. Fortunately, Pathways seems to have been able to provide somewhat of a refuge in the meantime, and I am humbled by how many have expressed their appreciation for this forum.

Still, having drawn the attention of the Society, the issue of having a site like e-watchman became a matter of serious “concern.”

As some of you may already be aware, watchman has now been disfellowshipped because of e-watchman.com and the writings thereof.

As some of you may also know, I have been the webmaster for watchman for the duration of its being online, and acting as administrator for the Cafe.

This has led to continuing discussions with my local elders (since I have never hidden my real name, it wasn’t any work at all to find out who I was). Last year, I had met with the elders and things seemed at that time as though I would get disfellowshipped over my ties with the e-watchman website. Then, strangely enough, the elders decided that there were no grounds for “judicial action” and the matter was dropped.

Then, there was a meeting set up with two elders here at my home on the evening of June 8, 2005. Again, the issue seemed to revolve around my ties to the e-watchman site, and even more so now that watchman had been disfellowshipped. We sat for at least 2 hours going over the situation as they tried to show why it was “scripturally wrong” to be a webmaster for that site. An article from the Watchtower provided the crux of their argument. By the end of that meeting, the one elder said that if I was going to continue working for that site, it sure wouldn’t be as “one of Jehovah’s Witnesses!” Good-byes were said, and the next day I composed a 9-page letter detailing every aspect of their accusations, and then sent that off to them.

The next call came on June 29, this time asking me if I’d like to meet with the brothers at the hall. I said that would be fine, and we finally agreed to meet on July 6, 2005. This time, it was to be three elders–the obvious indicator for the formation of a judicial committee.

That was last night. I met with the elders and a two-hour discussion followed, reiterating their accusations and I tried to address their accusations. However, the end of the discussion left the issue unresolved to their satisfaction.

I was asked to fully cease all publishing of any articles in the future and remove existing ones; to cease working for and remove any and all websites that I am affiliated with–including e-watchman.com, Pathways-Online, Paradise Cafe, and jehovahsjudgment.com (operated by Al). Of course, I would never agree to this, since I do not believe that any site that I am affiliated with conflict with Christian standards and scriptural requirements.

I was told that I left them with no other option except to “put me out of the organization” as an apostate. (I may go into more details of this meeting, detailing and responding to their accusations and false accusations; I really haven’t decided yet, and if I do–it may be something I post as an article.)

In any case, I was told that I have seven days in which to submit an appeal in writing. While I went to the judicial committee with full intention of afterwards appealing their decision, by the end of the meeting it was obvious to me that such an effort would be wasted. So, I will not be appealing their decision to excommunicate me.

Obviously, the Society has in place the rule that Witnesses are not to speak to or have any association with a disfellowshipped individual, and even MORE so one who has been disfellowshipped for apostasy. I will not begrudge anyone who feels it appropriate to follow the Society’s instruction in this, but I would also ask that they withdraw from Pathways, as I will be continuing to post here and it would be inappropriate for them to continue here as a contributor.

I feel that this action by the Society has opened the door for me to return to my writing and to continue searching the Scriptures so as to make sure of all things. So it is very possible that I will be seen far more often now on Pathways and contributing to the discussions. I am not angry or bitter over this, as I understand that they did what they felt they had to do–but neither do I lend my approval or agreement with it. It simply is the way that the system is at this time. To use this opportunity to start in a campaign of hate-mongering and fault-finding would be the gravest mistake I could make. I refuse to do so.

I was especially torn about announcing this to the forum for the reason that I do not wish to be viewed as a “martyr” for the cause–whatever that “cause” might be. I have only sought to do what would leave me in good conscience. I may not agree with everything that is at the e-watchman website, for example, but in good conscience I worked to put watchman’s material online because I may very well be wrong in my thinking–and it’s better to err on the side of caution and make sure that people know about his findings. In my opinion.

I also did not want people to be all the more afraid of the Society because of its “witchhunt” tactics as more and more people become aware of the problems and inconsistencies of the policies and teachings, just because I was disfellowshipped. For me, I have from the very start made my questions, doubts, and scriptural conclusions known to my elders. It was they who never made the time to sit down with me and go through any of that with me–instead, thinking that the solution was to attend more meetings, get out in service more, read more literature–all tactics inherently designed to “busy” me up so that I didn’t have time to study the Bible with such fervor as has driven me since 1998.

I hope that nobody is discouraged at my excommunication. It was a necessary thing, I truly do believe. Ever since 1998, I have tried to operate within the restraints of the organization’s policies and “chain of command,” while trying to maintain a clear Christian conscience in all aspects of worship. I addressed some of that in my series of articles on “Is Leaving the Answer?” But now, I am no longer bound mute by the Society–except where other Witnesses are concerned, and Jehovah will watch over them, no doubt about it.

Jehovah is pleased to see our faith tested, and to see to what extent we cling to the former things. He draws us out as He did Abram from Ur, to live as alien residents, nothing between us and the world at large but our tent of faith–and each other. The family grows by leaps and bounds with every passing day, and every passing day brings us that much closer to the real city we are awaiting according to His promise.

It seems somehow fitting to close this chapter of my spiritual journey by also closing the door on a username that I have used for some 17 years now. As some of you may have already noticed, when I am online, my Christian name, Timothy, is now showing instead of “morloc,” a username I had been known by since long before the days of the internet.

My only hope now is to live up to the wonderful example of a certain young companion of the apostle Paul, a young man named Timothy.

A fellow slave,
Timothy

Powered by WordPress | Kredit | TheBuckmaker