# Leithart on the "body of Moses"



## surnamelevi

Peter Leithart - Michael's Dispute

I know that Leithart may not be the most loved pastor by some on this board but I found this piece on Jude 9 and the "body of Moses" refering to the Aaronic priesthood to be thought provoking. 

Also his dealing with the identity of Michael to be Jesus was new to me coming from a Protestant. Surely Leithart affirms the deity of Jesus, so can one say that Michael is Jesus without jumping on the JW train? 

Discuss.


----------



## VictorBravo

surnamelevi said:


> Also his dealing with the identity of Michael to be Jesus was new to me coming from a Protestant.



But it is not at all a new concept for historic Protestants. See, for example, John Gill's commentary on Jude 9:



> By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan_10:21.


----------



## Herald

VictorBravo said:


> surnamelevi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also his dealing with the identity of Michael to be Jesus was new to me coming from a Protestant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is not at all a new concept for historic Protestants. See, for example, John Gill's commentary on Jude 9:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan_10:21.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Like!

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## VictorBravo

By the way, the piece is still on the Biblical Horizons website: Biblical Horizons » No. 2: Michael’s Dispute with the Devil .

I'd note that it is from 1989, which seems to be a period of relative sanity for the writer and people cited. In those days Peter Leithart was not publishing Federal Vision stuff and James Jordan had not yet achieved escape velocity from the bounds of theological gravity (as far as I can tell without much research).

And Leithart's conclusion in the essay seems sensible enough: "Rather than rashly pronouncing a railing judgment against Satan, we should follow the example of Michael and appeal to the Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke you."


----------



## surnamelevi

VictorBravo said:


> surnamelevi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also his dealing with the identity of Michael to be Jesus was new to me coming from a Protestant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is not at all a new concept for historic Protestants. See, for example, John Gill's commentary on Jude 9:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan_10:21.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Interesting. This was just new to me coming from a protestant POV. I was only aware that the JW have some view of it to deny Jesus' diety. Thanks for the quote!


----------



## earl40

9 But even _the archangel Michael_, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

I understand some may believe Michael in Jude 9 is Jesus. If so can we not insert Jesus so the verse reads like such?

9 But even _Jesus_, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Now in Zechariah 3 if we do the same.... 1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before _the angel of the LORD_, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before _Jesus_, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

For some reason the verse in Zechariah sounds OK but in Jude it does not.


----------



## Peairtach

Sounds a bit convoluted. I don't know if a bit of "interpretative maximalism" is going on here.

*Leithart*


> This may seem somewhat far-fetched, but it is no more far-fetched than a dispute between Michael and the devil about where to bury Moses’ physical remains.


We know that Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, and we know that Elijah was bodily taken to Heaven. 

Which leaves Moses and the mysterious account of his grave:


> So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. (Deut 34:5-6)



Since there is the above in Deuteronomy, isn't it possible that something happened to Moses' body, which we could only guess at?


----------



## py3ak

Turretin, _Institutes_ VII.8,9


> In Rev. 12:7 mention is made of Michael and his angels who fought with the dragon, yet nothing can be collected from this to favor the heavenly hierarchy. (1) Michael can well be understood as Christ himself, the Lord of angels, who is truly as God (or equal to God), the leader and prince of the heavenly army (Jos. 5:13; Is. 55:4; Heb. 2:10). The antithesis from the passage of Paul (Rom. 16:20) demands this, and the first gospel oracle (Gen. 3:15) confirms it. Under this name he seems also to be designated in Dan. 12:1. Nor ought Dan. 10:5, 6, 21 to be otherwise explained where Michael is spoken of as compared with Rev. 1:13 (who is called "one of the chief princes" [Dan. 10:13] because he is the head and prince of angels). In the same sense, mention is made of "Michael the archangel who contended with the devil about the body of Moses" (Jd. 9). This is evidently said of Christ, since what is here ascribed to Michael ("the Lord rebuke thee") is attributed to Jehovah in Zech. 3:2. When, however, it is said that he durst not "pronounce a curse," this was not because of impotence, but of moderation; abstaining from curses not through fear of laws, but restraining himself, to afford an example of patience to us. Thus to "dare" is frequently put for to "bear" and to "will" something. (2) If a created angel is meant (as some think), the name denoted a temporary order and an office committed to him for a time, to carry out the judgments of God by a certain economy. which (the embassy being finished) is again laid down. Still from this cannot be inferred an order of perpetual power and jurisdiction.



G. Campbell Morgan holds that Moses was resurrected at some point before the appearance on the mount of transfiguration, and that is the point where the dispute over his body occurred. It's a guess, of course, but it seems ingenious.


----------



## surnamelevi

earl40 said:


> 9 But even _the archangel Michael_, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
> 
> I understand some may believe Michael in Jude 9 is Jesus. If so can we not insert Jesus so the verse reads like such?
> 
> 9 But even _Jesus_, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
> 
> Now in Zechariah 3 if we do the same.... 1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before _the angel of the LORD_, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”
> 
> 1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before _Jesus_, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”
> 
> For some reason the verse in Zechariah sounds OK but in Jude it does not.



That's fair to say, it is kind of a brain puzzle. But does it sound different to insert Jesus in other places that suggest a preincarnate Jesus (i.e the 4th person in the fiery furnace in Daniel)?


----------



## Peairtach

D.A.Carson in his _Commentary on the NT use of the OT_ is the contributer on Jude and says, among other things,



> It has been suggested that Jude does not himself actually believe the story to be true but cites it to illustrate the moral point that the story makes (in much the same waynthat someone might cite a _Harry Potter_ book or the film _West Side Story_ to illustrate a point). That may or may not be so, but it is wonderfully difficult to demonstrate. p1075





> The tradition of angels disputing with the devil goes back to Zech. 3:2 [..] and grows stronger in the literature of early Judaism [ various texts are cited]. The idea seems to be that when Moses dies, Satan wants to claim or destroy the body of Moses rather than bury him, perhaps on the grounds that Moses was a failure (just as Satan wants to claim Joshua, in some sense, in Zech 3:2). p1075


----------



## bookslover

Sorry to let the air out of your tires, guys, but, since the Bible itself does not make any connection between Jesus and Michael, perhaps there should be a little less confidence (John Gill, call your office) in making such a connection. The fact that "Michael" means "who is like God?" proves nothing. Let's not go farther than the Scripture goes, folks.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Richard,
Calvin, at the forefront of many of our Reformed forefathers, agreed that Michael is just the pre-incarnate Son of God. This IS an exegetically defensible position, and apparently was the preferred interpretation for most of our history. It's also the position that I defend. And I agree with the constellation of Reformed lights that this is the "Bible's connection." No one is insisting that you adopt it on the basis of references to past authorities, but simply asserting that the position is unbiblical doesn't actually deal with the stance.

Sorry to let the air out of your tires...


----------



## bookslover

Contra_Mundum said:


> Richard,
> Calvin, at the forefront of many of our Reformed forefathers, agreed that Michael is just the pre-incarnate Son of God. This IS an exegetically defensible position, and apparently was the preferred interpretation for most of our history. It's also the position that I defend. And I agree with the constellation of Reformed lights that this is the "Bible's connection." No one is insisting that you adopt it on the basis of references to past authorities, but simply asserting that the position is unbiblical doesn't actually deal with the stance.
> 
> Sorry to let the air out of your tires...



Bruce: So far, there's been no biblical proof of this in this thread, merely speculation by Gill, Turretin, Calvin, et al as to what the verse _could_ mean. If there's actual biblical affirmation that Michael is, in fact, Jesus, I'd like to see it. Not possible speculative extrapolations from various verses, but an actual affirmation.


----------



## py3ak

Richard, the fact that Turretin makes the point doesn't mean it's not a Biblical point! Look at Turretin's words again.

_In the same sense, mention is made of "Michael the archangel who contended with the devil about the body of Moses" (Jd. 9). This is evidently said of Christ, since what is here ascribed to Michael ("the Lord rebuke thee") is attributed to Jehovah in Zech. 3:2._

Here is a Scriptural argument that "Michael" is another name for Jesus. Jude 9 attributes something to Michael which in Zechariah 3:2 is attributed to Jehovah. Therefore, Michael is another name for Jehovah: this means that it is appropriate to consider that name another name for Jesus. The other texts Turretin references hint that it is a name applied with particular propriety to God the Son.

Now Turretin understands that not everyone adopts this point of view, so he shows how neither point of view establishes a heavenly hierarchy a la Pseudo-Dionysius; but his actual statements give Biblical evidence for taking the historic Reformed view.


----------



## bookslover

py3ak said:


> Richard, the fact that Turretin makes the point doesn't mean it's not a Biblical point! Look at Turretin's words again.
> 
> _In the same sense, mention is made of "Michael the archangel who contended with the devil about the body of Moses" (Jd. 9). This is evidently said of Christ, since what is here ascribed to Michael ("the Lord rebuke thee") is attributed to Jehovah in Zech. 3:2._
> 
> Here is a Scriptural argument that "Michael" is another name for Jesus. Jude 9 attributes something to Michael which in Zechariah 3:2 is attributed to Jehovah. Therefore, Michael is another name for Jehovah: this means that it is appropriate to consider that name another name for Jesus. The other texts Turretin references hint that it is a name applied with particular propriety to God the Son.
> 
> Now Turretin understands that not everyone adopts this point of view, so he shows how neither point of view establishes a heavenly hierarchy a la Pseudo-Dionysius; but his actual statements give Biblical evidence for taking the historic Reformed view.



Except that, in Jude 9, Michael is specifically described as an archangel. Jesus is not an archangel, since an archangel is a created being. Also, the fact that the same form of words is used in Zechariah and Jude doesn't make the connection, as it's probably a formal, stereotyped expression.


----------



## py3ak

bookslover said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, the fact that Turretin makes the point doesn't mean it's not a Biblical point! Look at Turretin's words again.
> 
> _In the same sense, mention is made of "Michael the archangel who contended with the devil about the body of Moses" (Jd. 9). This is evidently said of Christ, since what is here ascribed to Michael ("the Lord rebuke thee") is attributed to Jehovah in Zech. 3:2._
> 
> Here is a Scriptural argument that "Michael" is another name for Jesus. Jude 9 attributes something to Michael which in Zechariah 3:2 is attributed to Jehovah. Therefore, Michael is another name for Jehovah: this means that it is appropriate to consider that name another name for Jesus. The other texts Turretin references hint that it is a name applied with particular propriety to God the Son.
> 
> Now Turretin understands that not everyone adopts this point of view, so he shows how neither point of view establishes a heavenly hierarchy a la Pseudo-Dionysius; but his actual statements give Biblical evidence for taking the historic Reformed view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that, in Jude 9, Michael is specifically described as an archangel. Jesus is not an archangel, since an archangel is a created being. Also, the fact that the same form of words is used in Zechariah and Jude doesn't make the connection, as it's probably a formal, stereotyped expression.
Click to expand...


And so the tables turn! I need to see biblical affirmation, not possible speculative extrapolation, that an archangel is a created being. I'm just kidding - I'll accept reasonable implication, of course.


----------



## earl40

surnamelevi said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9 But even _the archangel Michael_, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
> 
> I understand some may believe Michael in Jude 9 is Jesus. If so can we not insert Jesus so the verse reads like such?
> 
> 9 But even _Jesus_, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
> 
> Now in Zechariah 3 if we do the same.... 1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before _the angel of the LORD_, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”
> 
> 1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before _Jesus_, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”
> 
> For some reason the verse in Zechariah sounds OK but in Jude it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fair to say, it is kind of a brain puzzle. But does it sound different to insert Jesus in other places that suggest a preincarnate Jesus (i.e the 4th person in the fiery furnace in Daniel)?
Click to expand...


I looked at that instance and in Daniel we have a description of Nebuchadnezzar who did not know God at that time. In other words, I still see a difference in Jude and the rest of the passages that we believe are a preincarnate appearance of Jesus. I just do not see where Jesus could not condemn or pronounce anybody, especially since the devil condemnation was already from old. Also I wonder if in Zecariah the Hebrew could be translated _I_ The LORD rebuke you?


Any Hebrew scholars here?

Also why, could or would not, Jesus slander the devil? For it says he would not dare?


----------



## bookslover

earl40 said:


> surnamelevi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9 But even _the archangel Michael_, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
> 
> I understand some may believe Michael in Jude 9 is Jesus. If so can we not insert Jesus so the verse reads like such?
> 
> 9 But even _Jesus_, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
> 
> Now in Zechariah 3 if we do the same.... 1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before _the angel of the LORD_, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”
> 
> 1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before _Jesus_, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”
> 
> For some reason the verse in Zechariah sounds OK but in Jude it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fair to say, it is kind of a brain puzzle. But does it sound different to insert Jesus in other places that suggest a preincarnate Jesus (i.e the 4th person in the fiery furnace in Daniel)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked at that instance and in Daniel we have a description of Nebuchadnezzar who did not know God at that time. In other words, I still see a difference in Jude and the rest of the passages that we believe are a preincarnate appearance of Jesus. I just do not see where Jesus could not condemn or pronounce anybody, especially since the devil condemnation was already from old. Also I wonder if in Zecariah the Hebrew could be translated _I_ The LORD rebuke you?
> 
> 
> Any Hebrew scholars here?
> 
> Also why, could or would not, Jesus slander the devil? For it says he would not dare?
Click to expand...


The ESV of Zechariah 3.2 does say, in fact, "The Lord rebuke you."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

earl40 said:


> Also why, could or would not, Jesus slander the devil? For it says he would not dare?


Literally, it says "He was not bold to bring a judgment of blasphemy." The ESV renders it "did not presume."

2Pet.2:11 (parallel text) reads: "whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord." The point here seems to be that it is characteristic of ungodly men and false teachers that they make bolder pronouncements (in sin and ignorance) than the angels who excel them make.

Whether Peter has the Zech.3 text in mind or not, Jude makes an explicit reference to that passage. As if to say, _No, not even the chief of angels is unguarded in his speech; instead referring the urge to execrate (one who richly deserves it) unto the highest of Judges._

This is, in fact, the very manner of the Incarnate Christ as well, who said, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him," Jn.3:17

And Jn.12:47, "If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.... For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak." Cf. Jn.8:28, "I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me;" Jn.10:18, "This charge I have received from my Father;" also Jn.14:10; 7:17.

It well befits the Second Person to refer judgment (for the present) to the Father, "You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me," Jn.8:15-16. He will be the agent of the Father's justice _at the appointed time,_ Jn.5:22. So for now, he restrains himself.


Is Christ not the Captain of the Lord's Armies, Jos.5:14-15? He is the King of kings, the Prophet of prophets, the Priest of priests. He is the Angel of the Lord; why not the Angel of angels, indeed?

Here are the key references:Dan.10:13, "Michael, *first* of the chief princes"
Dan.10:21, "Michael your prince"
Dan.12:1, "Michael... the great prince who stands for the children of your people"
Jud.1:9, "Michael the archangel," (or the *chief* angel)
Rev.12:7, "Michael and *his* angels"​
These are all testimonies of the highest rank. Who more proper to "stand" (as the Advocate or Defender) of his people than the Son? The OT references are shadowy, but that is only to be expected. But as Jude interprets Zech.3:1-2, there are four parties present: Joshua, Satan (the Accuser), the Angel of the Lord, and the Lord himself. In v2, it is not immediately obvious that the Angel speaks. It is said that the Lord speaks, making reference in his speech to "the Lord."

Jude infallibly interprets for us by identifying the speaker as the Angel, who is therefore also wholly identified with the Word of the Lord (so much, that it is said the Lord himself Speaks). However confusing this was to the OT people, and perhaps the prophet himself, under a NT age of revelation these mysteries are far less obscure. And it is Jude, therefore, who applies the name "Michael" to this Angel.



As an addendum, the term "archangel" is a NT word, used only twice (I didn't find it in the LXX). In 1Ths.4:16, it is said that Christ comes the second time "with a shout, the voice of the archangel." I don't think we need to find another being to utter this cry than the One who comes. Whether there was Jewish speculation about ranks of angels, and names for them, is not really significant for biblical interpretation. It may be that such an elaboration on a spiritual theme (angels) reflects pre-NT attempts to understand texts like Dan.10-12. It takes real, heavenly revelation to bring the full truth entirely to light.


----------



## rbcbob

Contra_Mundum said:


> These are all testimonies of the highest rank. Who more proper to "stand" (as the Advocate or Defender) of his people than the Son? The OT references are shadowy, but that is only to be expected. But as Jude interprets Zech.3:1-2, there are four parties present: Joshua, Satan (the Accuser), the Angel of the Lord, and the Lord himself. In v2, it is not immediately obvious that the Angel speaks. It is said that the Lord speaks, making reference in his speech to "the Lord."
> 
> Jude infallibly interprets for us by identifying the speaker as the Angel, who is therefore also wholly identified with the Word of the Lord (so much, that it is said the Lord himself Speaks). However confusing this was to the OT people, and perhaps the prophet himself, under a NT age of revelation these mysteries are far less obscure. And it is Jude, therefore, who applies the name "Michael" to this Angel.



Bruce, I believe you are correct in your collation of Scriptures. Additionally "archangel" ἀρχάγγελος means “chief angel” or "Chief Messenger". Several texts which may support would be:

Revelation 10:1 I saw still another mighty angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud. And a rainbow was on his head, his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire. 

Gen 16:10 Then the Angel of the LORD said to her, "I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude." 

Malachi 3:1 …. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.


----------



## earl40

Contra_Mundum said:


> Whether Peter has the Zech.3 text in mind or not, Jude makes an explicit reference to that passage. As if to say, _No, not even the chief of angels is unguarded in his speech; instead referring the urge to execrate (one who richly deserves it) unto the highest of Judges._
> This is, in fact, the very manner of the Incarnate Christ as well, who said, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him," Jn.3:17



Thank you Rev. Bruce. Now I understand that Jesus did not come to condemn (men) but there is a passage where Jesus, in a sense, condemned the devil and did not hold His peace? Yes it was not to his face but He does pronounce judgment and I bet you a dollar the devil heard Jesus.

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Earl,
I'd explain our Lord's comments as a statement of the facts of the case, rather than a formal charge. In the passage, he's even speaking rather directly and *chidingly* to those who are rejecting him--and yet we cannot say that his accusatory words toward those men are the same thing as formally accusing and judging them (or else there'd be a contradiction with his stated mission).

Blessings,


----------



## earl40

Contra_Mundum said:


> Earl,
> I'd explain our Lord's comments as a statement of the facts of the case, rather than a formal charge. In the passage, he's even speaking rather directly and *chidingly* to those who are rejecting him--and yet we cannot say that his accusatory words toward those men are the same thing as formally accusing and judging them (or else there'd be a contradiction with his stated mission).
> 
> Blessings,



I do see that He is indeed doing so towards the men as you pointed out which is a very good point relative to His mission to relative to men. Though I don't see Him doing this towards the devil here. For in Jude I could see Jesus "dare to condemn him for slander", if Michael is Jesus, as he did in the passage I referenced because though it is a statement of fact it is indeed In my most humble opinion a pronouncement of the devils sure and current condemnation. 

Of course you may be totally correct in your estimations of the identity of Michael in Jude being Jesus as were many great minds that have been referenced before in this thread. 

Quick question....is Michael also Jesus in Revelation 12?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

earl40 said:


> Quick question....is Michael also Jesus in Revelation 12?


I think so, mainly because John so clearly borrows heavily from the OT, and Daniel specifically. And because I think such an identification fits the subject matter.

I don't have a problem with another person's view, even contradictory to my own. I only object if someone says that my view is unsupportable by any Scriptural appeal, without any demonstrated understanding of how it was derived, or its pedigree of luminary exponents.


----------



## bookslover

Contra_Mundum said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question....is Michael also Jesus in Revelation 12?
> 
> 
> 
> I think so, mainly because John so clearly borrows heavily from the OT, and Daniel specifically. And because I think such an identification fits the subject matter.
> 
> I don't have a problem with another person's view, even contradictory to my own. I only object if someone says that my view is unsupportable by any Scriptural appeal, without any demonstrated understanding of how it was derived, or its pedigree of luminary exponents.
Click to expand...


Well, it's _still_ true that an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And it's _still_ true that, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.


----------



## earl40

bookslover said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question....is Michael also Jesus in Revelation 12?
> 
> 
> 
> I think so, mainly because John so clearly borrows heavily from the OT, and Daniel specifically. And because I think such an identification fits the subject matter.
> 
> I don't have a problem with another person's view, even contradictory to my own. I only object if someone says that my view is unsupportable by any Scriptural appeal, without any demonstrated understanding of how it was derived, or its pedigree of luminary exponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's _still_ true that an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And it's _still_ true that, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.
Click to expand...



Of course if one looks at Michael as being the chief (arch) messenger (angel), then one would have no problem with how Michael is protrayed a Jesus. Not that I disagree with your viewpoint. As I wrote this it occured to me the only "peronal" name given to Jeus is Jesus. In other words, if Michael is Jesus why not call Him Michael?


----------



## py3ak

bookslover said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question....is Michael also Jesus in Revelation 12?
> 
> 
> 
> I think so, mainly because John so clearly borrows heavily from the OT, and Daniel specifically. And because I think such an identification fits the subject matter.
> 
> I don't have a problem with another person's view, even contradictory to my own. I only object if someone says that my view is unsupportable by any Scriptural appeal, without any demonstrated understanding of how it was derived, or its pedigree of luminary exponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's _still_ true that an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And it's _still_ true that, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.
Click to expand...




py3ak said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, the fact that Turretin makes the point doesn't mean it's not a Biblical point! Look at Turretin's words again.
> 
> _In the same sense, mention is made of "Michael the archangel who contended with the devil about the body of Moses" (Jd. 9). This is evidently said of Christ, since what is here ascribed to Michael ("the Lord rebuke thee") is attributed to Jehovah in Zech. 3:2._
> 
> Here is a Scriptural argument that "Michael" is another name for Jesus. Jude 9 attributes something to Michael which in Zechariah 3:2 is attributed to Jehovah. Therefore, Michael is another name for Jehovah: this means that it is appropriate to consider that name another name for Jesus. The other texts Turretin references hint that it is a name applied with particular propriety to God the Son.
> 
> Now Turretin understands that not everyone adopts this point of view, so he shows how neither point of view establishes a heavenly hierarchy a la Pseudo-Dionysius; but his actual statements give Biblical evidence for taking the historic Reformed view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that, in Jude 9, Michael is specifically described as an archangel. Jesus is not an archangel, since an archangel is a created being. Also, the fact that the same form of words is used in Zechariah and Jude doesn't make the connection, as it's probably a formal, stereotyped expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the tables turn! I need to see biblical affirmation, not possible speculative extrapolation, that an archangel is a created being. I'm just kidding - I'll accept reasonable implication, of course.
Click to expand...


Would you care to provide any Biblical evidence for that assertion?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

bookslover said:


> Well, *it's still true that* an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And *it's still true that*, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.


Who (of us or anyone who's been mentioned) thinks Jesus is a created being?

What or Who is the *Angel* of the Lord?

Can you give us a _biblically derived_ definition of the archangel--one that demonstrates created status?



I honestly don't think that Calvin or anyone has ever stumbled over the logic of this proposed counterargument, 
1. (All) Jesus is not created. (or no created thing is Jesus)
2. (All) archangels are created.
3. Ergo, Jesus is not an archangel.
There's obvious agreement on (1); and clearly dispute over (2). "Where's the support for (2)?" is all that's requested. Some Scriptural cause has actually been given to identify the Angel of the Lord, Jesus, and Michael--> all three in one instance as the same. Perhaps the reasoning is wrong, but why? And what are the alternatives, and why should we admit such?




earl40 said:


> As I wrote this it occured to me the only "peronal" name given to Jeus is Jesus. In other words, if Michael is Jesus why not call Him Michael?


A few points may be made:

1) There are other "personal" names for Jesus: e.g. *Emmanuel* and *Shiloh* come to mind.
2) If an identity is given the Savior in the OT, before he comes into the world, in order to teach his people something about him, we shouldn't be surprised if the NT picks up on the OT terminology, such as in Rev.12 and Jude.
3) There is always a question about how to render descriptions from one language into another. Is "Michael" better as a name or a title/description; or are we compelled in one unique case to the idea of both (as in the name Jesus/Joshua)?


----------



## bookslover

py3ak said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question....is Michael also Jesus in Revelation 12?
> 
> 
> 
> I think so, mainly because John so clearly borrows heavily from the OT, and Daniel specifically. And because I think such an identification fits the subject matter.
> 
> I don't have a problem with another person's view, even contradictory to my own. I only object if someone says that my view is unsupportable by any Scriptural appeal, without any demonstrated understanding of how it was derived, or its pedigree of luminary exponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's _still_ true that an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And it's _still_ true that, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, the fact that Turretin makes the point doesn't mean it's not a Biblical point! Look at Turretin's words again.
> 
> _In the same sense, mention is made of "Michael the archangel who contended with the devil about the body of Moses" (Jd. 9). This is evidently said of Christ, since what is here ascribed to Michael ("the Lord rebuke thee") is attributed to Jehovah in Zech. 3:2._
> 
> Here is a Scriptural argument that "Michael" is another name for Jesus. Jude 9 attributes something to Michael which in Zechariah 3:2 is attributed to Jehovah. Therefore, Michael is another name for Jehovah: this means that it is appropriate to consider that name another name for Jesus. The other texts Turretin references hint that it is a name applied with particular propriety to God the Son.
> 
> Now Turretin understands that not everyone adopts this point of view, so he shows how neither point of view establishes a heavenly hierarchy a la Pseudo-Dionysius; but his actual statements give Biblical evidence for taking the historic Reformed view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that, in Jude 9, Michael is specifically described as an archangel. Jesus is not an archangel, since an archangel is a created being. Also, the fact that the same form of words is used in Zechariah and Jude doesn't make the connection, as it's probably a formal, stereotyped expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the tables turn! I need to see biblical affirmation, not possible speculative extrapolation, that an archangel is a created being. I'm just kidding - I'll accept reasonable implication, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you care to provide any Biblical evidence for that assertion?
Click to expand...


Certainly: _But, when the *archangel Michael*, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The *Lord* rebuke you."_ (Jude 9)

Michael is specifically called an archangel, which is a created being. Notice also that calls on the Lord to rebuke the devil - the archangel Michael and the Lord not being the same person, or what would be the point of calling on Him?

---------- Post added at 02:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 AM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, *it's still true that* an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And *it's still true that*, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Who (of us or anyone who's been mentioned) thinks Jesus is a created being?
> 
> What or Who is the *Angel* of the Lord?
> 
> Can you give us a _biblically derived_ definition of the archangel--one that demonstrates created status?
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't think that Calvin or anyone has ever stumbled over the logic of this proposed counterargument,
> 1. (All) Jesus is not created. (or no created thing is Jesus)
> 2. (All) archangels are created.
> 3. Ergo, Jesus is not an archangel.
> There's obvious agreement on (1); and clearly dispute over (2). "Where's the support for (2)?" is all that's requested. Some Scriptural cause has actually been given to identify the Angel of the Lord, Jesus, and Michael--> all three in one instance as the same. Perhaps the reasoning is wrong, but why? And what are the alternatives, and why should we admit such?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I wrote this it occured to me the only "peronal" name given to Jeus is Jesus. In other words, if Michael is Jesus why not call Him Michael?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few points may be made:
> 
> 1) There are other "personal" names for Jesus: e.g. *Emmanuel* and *Shiloh* come to mind.
> 2) If an identity is given the Savior in the OT, before he comes into the world, in order to teach his people something about him, we shouldn't be surprised if the NT picks up on the OT terminology, such as in Rev.12 and Jude.
> 3) There is always a question about how to render descriptions from one language into another. Is "Michael" better as a name or a title/description; or are we compelled in one unique case to the idea of both (as in the name Jesus/Joshua)?
Click to expand...


1. No one posting to this thread believes that Jesus is a created being.

2. The Angel of the Lord is a theophany - a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament.

3. The use of the term "archangel" itself and the contrast between him and the Lord in Jude 9 show that he is a created being. Also, there is another contrast between the two in 1 Thessalonians 4.16. The Lord will descend from heaven accompanied by an archangel. And, in 2 Peter 2.11, the category of created beings known as angels are described as not "pronounc[ing] a blasphemous judgment" - the exact same phrase the archangel Michael is described as not pronouncing against the devil in Jude 9. Angels and archangels share that trait - they leave pronouncing judgements to God. Archangels are created beings.


----------



## earl40

bookslover said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question....is Michael also Jesus in Revelation 12?
> 
> 
> 
> I think so, mainly because John so clearly borrows heavily from the OT, and Daniel specifically. And because I think such an identification fits the subject matter.
> 
> I don't have a problem with another person's view, even contradictory to my own. I only object if someone says that my view is unsupportable by any Scriptural appeal, without any demonstrated understanding of how it was derived, or its pedigree of luminary exponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's _still_ true that an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And it's _still_ true that, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, the fact that Turretin makes the point doesn't mean it's not a Biblical point! Look at Turretin's words again.
> 
> _In the same sense, mention is made of "Michael the archangel who contended with the devil about the body of Moses" (Jd. 9). This is evidently said of Christ, since what is here ascribed to Michael ("the Lord rebuke thee") is attributed to Jehovah in Zech. 3:2._
> 
> Here is a Scriptural argument that "Michael" is another name for Jesus. Jude 9 attributes something to Michael which in Zechariah 3:2 is attributed to Jehovah. Therefore, Michael is another name for Jehovah: this means that it is appropriate to consider that name another name for Jesus. The other texts Turretin references hint that it is a name applied with particular propriety to God the Son.
> 
> Now Turretin understands that not everyone adopts this point of view, so he shows how neither point of view establishes a heavenly hierarchy a la Pseudo-Dionysius; but his actual statements give Biblical evidence for taking the historic Reformed view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that, in Jude 9, Michael is specifically described as an archangel. Jesus is not an archangel, since an archangel is a created being. Also, the fact that the same form of words is used in Zechariah and Jude doesn't make the connection, as it's probably a formal, stereotyped expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the tables turn! I need to see biblical affirmation, not possible speculative extrapolation, that an archangel is a created being. I'm just kidding - I'll accept reasonable implication, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you care to provide any Biblical evidence for that assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly: _But, when the *archangel Michael*, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The *Lord* rebuke you."_ (Jude 9)
> 
> Michael is specifically called an archangel, which is a created being. Notice also that calls on the Lord to rebuke the devil - the archangel Michael and the Lord not being the same person, or what would be the point of calling on Him?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, *it's still true that* an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And *it's still true that*, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who (of us or anyone who's been mentioned) thinks Jesus is a created being?
> 
> What or Who is the *Angel* of the Lord?
> 
> Can you give us a _biblically derived_ definition of the archangel--one that demonstrates created status?
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't think that Calvin or anyone has ever stumbled over the logic of this proposed counterargument,
> 1. (All) Jesus is not created. (or no created thing is Jesus)
> 2. (All) archangels are created.
> 3. Ergo, Jesus is not an archangel.
> There's obvious agreement on (1); and clearly dispute over (2). "Where's the support for (2)?" is all that's requested. Some Scriptural cause has actually been given to identify the Angel of the Lord, Jesus, and Michael--> all three in one instance as the same. Perhaps the reasoning is wrong, but why? And what are the alternatives, and why should we admit such?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I wrote this it occured to me the only "peronal" name given to Jeus is Jesus. In other words, if Michael is Jesus why not call Him Michael?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few points may be made:
> 
> 1) There are other "personal" names for Jesus: e.g. *Emmanuel* and *Shiloh* come to mind.
> 2) If an identity is given the Savior in the OT, before he comes into the world, in order to teach his people something about him, we shouldn't be surprised if the NT picks up on the OT terminology, such as in Rev.12 and Jude.
> 3) There is always a question about how to render descriptions from one language into another. Is "Michael" better as a name or a title/description; or are we compelled in one unique case to the idea of both (as in the name Jesus/Joshua)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. No one posting to this thread believes that Jesus is a created being.
> 
> 2. The Angel of the Lord is a theophany - a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament.
> 
> 3. The use of the term "archangel" itself and the contrast between him and the Lord in Jude 9 show that he is a created being. Also, there is another contrast between the two in 1 Thessalonians 4.16. The Lord will descend from heaven accompanied by an archangel. And, in 2 Peter 2.11, the category of created beings known as angels are described as not "pronounc[ing] a blasphemous judgment" - the exact same phrase the archangel Michael is described as not pronouncing against the devil in Jude 9. Angels and archangels share that trait - they leave pronouncing judgements to God. Archangels are created beings.
Click to expand...



Just currious what translation did you obtain 1 Thessalonian 4:16 from?


----------



## py3ak

bookslover said:


> Certainly: But, when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." (Jude 9)
> 
> Michael is specifically called an archangel, which is a created being. Notice also that calls on the Lord to rebuke the devil - the archangel Michael and the Lord not being the same person, or what would be the point of calling on Him?



Reasserting that an archangel is a created being begs the point in dispute: that's the exact idea that stands in need of corroboration. Saying that the use of term archangel shows that an archangel is a created being simply doesn't cut it. 
Our doctrine of the Trinity is certainly robust enough to deal with the Son calling on the Father - indeed, it is quite frequent. Like the Lord sending the Lord, it is no obscure intimation of that doctrine. As for 1 Thessalonians 4:16, is our Lord accompanied by an archangel and by a divine trumpet?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Contra_Mundum said:


> Some Scriptural cause has actually been given to identify the Angel of the Lord, Jesus, and Michael--> all three in one instance as the same. Perhaps the reasoning is wrong, but why? And what are the alternatives, and why should we admit such?





bookslover said:


> 3. The use of the term "archangel" itself and the contrast between him and the Lord in Jude 9 show that he is a created being. Also, there is another contrast between the two in 1 Thessalonians 4.16. The Lord will descend from heaven accompanied by an archangel. And, in 2 Peter 2.11, the category of created beings known as angels are described as not "pronounc[ing] a blasphemous judgment" - the exact same phrase the archangel Michael is described as not pronouncing against the devil in Jude 9. Angels and archangels share that trait - they leave pronouncing judgements to God. Archangels are created beings.



Thank you, Richard.

Now there's two courses of reasoning presented from the biblical data, to varying conclusions.

I'm content to let the reader determine which one he thinks does greater justice.

Peace,


----------



## bookslover

earl40 said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question....is Michael also Jesus in Revelation 12?
> 
> 
> 
> I think so, mainly because John so clearly borrows heavily from the OT, and Daniel specifically. And because I think such an identification fits the subject matter.
> 
> I don't have a problem with another person's view, even contradictory to my own. I only object if someone says that my view is unsupportable by any Scriptural appeal, without any demonstrated understanding of how it was derived, or its pedigree of luminary exponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's _still_ true that an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And it's _still_ true that, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, the fact that Turretin makes the point doesn't mean it's not a Biblical point! Look at Turretin's words again.
> 
> _In the same sense, mention is made of "Michael the archangel who contended with the devil about the body of Moses" (Jd. 9). This is evidently said of Christ, since what is here ascribed to Michael ("the Lord rebuke thee") is attributed to Jehovah in Zech. 3:2._
> 
> Here is a Scriptural argument that "Michael" is another name for Jesus. Jude 9 attributes something to Michael which in Zechariah 3:2 is attributed to Jehovah. Therefore, Michael is another name for Jehovah: this means that it is appropriate to consider that name another name for Jesus. The other texts Turretin references hint that it is a name applied with particular propriety to God the Son.
> 
> Now Turretin understands that not everyone adopts this point of view, so he shows how neither point of view establishes a heavenly hierarchy a la Pseudo-Dionysius; but his actual statements give Biblical evidence for taking the historic Reformed view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that, in Jude 9, Michael is specifically described as an archangel. Jesus is not an archangel, since an archangel is a created being. Also, the fact that the same form of words is used in Zechariah and Jude doesn't make the connection, as it's probably a formal, stereotyped expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the tables turn! I need to see biblical affirmation, not possible speculative extrapolation, that an archangel is a created being. I'm just kidding - I'll accept reasonable implication, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you care to provide any Biblical evidence for that assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly: _But, when the *archangel Michael*, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The *Lord* rebuke you."_ (Jude 9)
> 
> Michael is specifically called an archangel, which is a created being. Notice also that calls on the Lord to rebuke the devil - the archangel Michael and the Lord not being the same person, or what would be the point of calling on Him?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, *it's still true that* an archangel is merely a created being, albeit, in this case, God's chief angel (it would seem). And *it's still true that*, since that's the case, it's impossible for Michael to be Jesus Christ, since our Lord is not a created being - Calvin, or Turretin, or Gill, or whoever else notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who (of us or anyone who's been mentioned) thinks Jesus is a created being?
> 
> What or Who is the *Angel* of the Lord?
> 
> Can you give us a _biblically derived_ definition of the archangel--one that demonstrates created status?
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't think that Calvin or anyone has ever stumbled over the logic of this proposed counterargument,
> 1. (All) Jesus is not created. (or no created thing is Jesus)
> 2. (All) archangels are created.
> 3. Ergo, Jesus is not an archangel.
> There's obvious agreement on (1); and clearly dispute over (2). "Where's the support for (2)?" is all that's requested. Some Scriptural cause has actually been given to identify the Angel of the Lord, Jesus, and Michael--> all three in one instance as the same. Perhaps the reasoning is wrong, but why? And what are the alternatives, and why should we admit such?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I wrote this it occured to me the only "peronal" name given to Jeus is Jesus. In other words, if Michael is Jesus why not call Him Michael?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few points may be made:
> 
> 1) There are other "personal" names for Jesus: e.g. *Emmanuel* and *Shiloh* come to mind.
> 2) If an identity is given the Savior in the OT, before he comes into the world, in order to teach his people something about him, we shouldn't be surprised if the NT picks up on the OT terminology, such as in Rev.12 and Jude.
> 3) There is always a question about how to render descriptions from one language into another. Is "Michael" better as a name or a title/description; or are we compelled in one unique case to the idea of both (as in the name Jesus/Joshua)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. No one posting to this thread believes that Jesus is a created being.
> 
> 2. The Angel of the Lord is a theophany - a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament.
> 
> 3. The use of the term "archangel" itself and the contrast between him and the Lord in Jude 9 show that he is a created being. Also, there is another contrast between the two in 1 Thessalonians 4.16. The Lord will descend from heaven accompanied by an archangel. And, in 2 Peter 2.11, the category of created beings known as angels are described as not "pronounc[ing] a blasphemous judgment" - the exact same phrase the archangel Michael is described as not pronouncing against the devil in Jude 9. Angels and archangels share that trait - they leave pronouncing judgements to God. Archangels are created beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just currious what translation did you obtain 1 Thessalonian 4:16 from?
Click to expand...


The ESV.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly: But, when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." (Jude 9)
> 
> Michael is specifically called an archangel, which is a created being. Notice also that calls on the Lord to rebuke the devil - the archangel Michael and the Lord not being the same person, or what would be the point of calling on Him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasserting that an archangel is a created being begs the point in dispute: that's the exact idea that stands in need of corroboration. Saying that the use of term archangel shows that an archangel is a created being simply doesn't cut it.
> Our doctrine of the Trinity is certainly robust enough to deal with the Son calling on the Father - indeed, it is quite frequent. Like the Lord sending the Lord, it is no obscure intimation of that doctrine. As for 1 Thessalonians 4:16, is our Lord accompanied by an archangel and by a divine trumpet?
Click to expand...


Well, I don't know what more I can say. It's the witness of the text itself - the Bible calls Michael an archangel, who refers to the Lord (someone who is _not him_ as the one to pronounce a judgment. These two are contrasted in the text. Is that so hard?

---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

By the way, in his comments on Jude 9, Calvin does not say, either directly or indirectly, that Michael is actually our Lord. In fact, just the opposite - he affirms, in context, that Michael is an angel: _That Michael is introduced alone as disputing against Satan is not new. We know that myriads of angels are ever ready to render service to God, but He chooses this or that to do His business as He pleases...And it is a comparison, as they say, between the greater and the less. Michael dared not to speak more severely against Satan (though a reprobate and condemned) than to deliver him to be God to be restrained..._ Thus, in this latter portion, Calvin affirms what I affirmed - that Michael and the Lord are not the same.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Calvin, on Dan.10:13


> He adds next, Behold! Michael, one of the chief leaders or princes, came to strengthen me *Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to this opinion*. Clearly enough, if all angels keep watch over the faithful and elect, still Christ holds the first rank among them, because he is their head, and uses their ministry and assistance to defend all his people. But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it in doubt for the present, and shall say more on the subject in the twelfth chapter...



Dan.10:16


> most probably the same angel is here designated of whom Daniel has hitherto spoken. We have already stated him [the other messenger] not to be the Christ, because this interpretation [being Christ] is better suited to that Michael who has been already mentioned, and will be again at the end of this chapter.



Dan.10:21


> first, a single one was sent to Daniel, and then Michael, whom some think to be Christ. *I do not object to this view, for he calls him a prince of the Church, and this title seems by no means to belong to any angels, but to be peculiar to Christ*. On the whole, the angel signifies that God did not put forth his full strength in contending for his Church, but shews himself to be a servant to promote its safety till the time of deliverance should arise.



Dan.12:1


> By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the Church. But if it seems better to understand Michael as the archangel, this sense will prove suitable, for under Christ as the head, angels are the guardians of the Church. Whichever be the true meaning, God was the preserver of his Church by the hand of his only-begotten Son, and because the angels are under the government of Christ, he might entrust this duty to Michael.



Zech.3:2


> God speaks here; and yet he seems to be the angel of Jehovah: but this is not inscrutable; for as in the last verse, where Zechariah says that Joshua stood before the Angel of Jehovah, Christ is doubtless meant, who is called an angel and also Jehovah; so also he may be named in this verse. But that no contentious person may say that we refine on the words too much, we may take them simply thus, — that God mentions here his own name in the third person; and this mode of so speaking is not rare in Scripture...



Jude 1:9


> That Michael is introduced alone as disputing against Satan is not new. We know that myriads of angels are ever ready to render service to God; but he chooses this or that to do his business as he pleases. What Jude relates as having been said by Michael, is found also in the book of Zechariah, “Let God chide (or check) thee, Satan.” (Zech.3:2.) And it is a comparison, as they say, between the greater and the less. Michael dared not to speak more severely against Satan (though a reprobate and condemned) than to deliver him to God to be restrained; but those men hesitated not to load with extreme reproaches the powers which God had adorned with peculiar honors.



Jude 1:11


> It was certainly lawful for Michael to fulminate against Satan his final curse; and we see how vehemently the prophets threatened the ungodly; but when Michael forbore extreme severity (otherwise lawful), what madness was it to observe no moderation towards those excelling in glory?





The prophets are among the more mature commentaries of Calvin. It is clear from them that he prefers to take Michael as Christ in Daniel. He also takes the Zechariah passage as referring to Christ, and indicates that Jude refers to Zech.3:2. He steers clear of any controversy in Jude, and I say it's doubtful that his description in Jude can be taken as an outright denial that Michael is another name for Christ. Indeed, Calvin's point is not to say anything at all here about _who_ Michael might be in connection with Christ, but to show how (despite Michael's _right (!)_ to rebuke Satan) he restrains himself.

Where he offers his opinion on their singular identity, he seems plainly to support the idea.


----------



## py3ak

The argument is straightforward. But that method of argumentation could not be applied with propriety in other texts with similar formal characteristics (e.g., 1 Timothy 5:21), and so the method is suspect, and its application to Jude rendered at least not so patently obvious as to need no defense.


----------



## bookslover

"It was certainly lawful for Michael to fulminate against Satan..." Really? How does Calvin know this, in light of the fact that the Bible says virtually nothing about the responsibilities of the class of angels known as archangels? And in light of the fact that Michael himself did not dare to cross the line into God's territory (so to speak) in Jude 9?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Richard,
I don't see any more profit from the discussion. The positions have been laid forth, and the exegetical witnesses for either side have chimed in.

You're just going to have to let Calvin be himself, and try to puzzle out his rationale from what you know about his thinking in general.

As for their being "classes" of angels, aside from this rare designation (possibly of a single being, so far as we can tell), where is a hierarchy taught in Scripture? We know that intertestamental Judaism speculated quite a bit on the organization of the spirit-realm. Otherwise...?

And, your last question presupposes an interpretation of the meaning of Jude 1:9--obviously one that runs counter to what some other translators and exegetes have taken from it.

It is your strongly held insistence on the idea that there really is no other possible read of Jde.1:9 other than the one you've settled on, that leads you to express shock that Calvin (or anyone) could so blatantly (!) contradict the Bible.

It's because this seems to me an issue of secondary importance that I cannot justify continuing a polemical defense.

Peace.


----------



## Gavin

"From the Hebrew name מִיכָאֵל (Mikha'el) meaning "who is like God?". This is a rhetorical question, implying no person is like God. Saint Michael is one of the seven archangels in Hebrew tradition and the only one identified as an archangel in the Bible. In the Book of Revelation in the New Testament he is portrayed as the leader of heaven's armies, and thus is considered the patron saint of soldiers." from Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Michael


----------



## Peairtach

> "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! (Isaiah 14:12, ESV)





> "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." (Rev 22:16)





> And I will give him the morning star. (Rev 2:28)



I wondered if these passages also may indicate that Christ becomes the King of Angels in the stead of Lucifer, but this would merit another thread.


----------



## Phil D.

While I am not dogmatic with respect to either position, the fact that the author of Hebrews goes to such lengths to establish the inherant distinctness and superiority of Christ over "angels" without any given qualification, would seem to militate against Him being identified as such elsewhere in scripture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

??



Phil D. said:


> While I am not dogmatic with respect to either position, the fact that the author of Hebrews goes to such lengths to establish the inherant distinctness and superiority of Christ over "angels" without any given qualification, would seem to militate against Him being identified as such elsewhere in scripture.



How does this observation square with the oft made connection between Christ and the OT *Angel* of the Lord, usually regarded as a theophany?


----------



## earl40

This will be my last word here but in the plain reading of the text below here we have Jesus as "the angel of Jehovah" in Zechariah *rebuking* Satan. And in Jude 9 we have Michael *not rebuking* Satan. Though it may have been explained to me earlier, I see that if Michael is Jesus in the book of Jude then I see no reason For Jesus not to do as *He did* earlier in Zechariah. Of course I may be reading Zechariah wrong in that is it possible "the angel of Jehovah" is not rebuking satan here....correct me if I am reading this wrong.

2 And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, *Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee.*

9 But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, *durst not* bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.


----------



## Peairtach

Leaving aside the subject of Michael being identified with Christ, for which there seems to be a strong case, Leithart's identification of the body of Moses with the Aaronic priesthood seems to be purely fanciful. Chilton was into "interpretative maximalism" which produces such fanciful interpretations.

*Leithart*


> Thus, the “body of Moses” in Jude 9 may be the Aaronic priesthood, and by implication, the entire Mosaic liturgical and social system. Why would the priesthood be called the “body of Moses”? Perhaps, as David Chilton has suggested, the priesthood was the “body of Moses” in the same way that the New Covenant priesthood, the Church, is the Body of Christ.


----------



## bookslover

Bruce: I think you're right. I've got my position. You have yours. Calvin has his. And I guess we should just leave it at that. As to a hierarchy among the angels, I would just say that a hierarchy is implied in the use of the term "archangel." If some (or, at least, one) are archangels, that implies that others are not (A implies non-A, as those fancy-schmancy philosophers would say).


----------

