# Geneva Bible - Jesus is Michael?



## Javilo (Feb 20, 2011)

I was surprised to learn that the Geneva Bible teaches (1 Thes 4:16? like the JW's}
that Jesus is Michael in the study notes. So it seems like it it God's will that this
version has died out, teaching this heresy.Hardly being used by anyone today. Never seen it in modern languge or used in a church.This makes sense because the King
James bible from the same time period, is still with us.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 20, 2011)

> The word which the apostle uses here, properly signifies that encouragement which mariners give to one another, when they altogether with one shout put forth their oars and row together


.

This is the only note on I Thes. 4:16

Maybe you meant a different verse?


----------



## Michael (Feb 20, 2011)

> 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a {h}
> shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump
> of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
> 
> ...



Not sure where the problem is...?


----------



## Javilo (Feb 20, 2011)

At Daniel 10:13 & 12:1 the Geneva Bible study notes clearly teach that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 20, 2011)

> 10:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me
> 
> one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the
> 
> ...



I see what you are saying here. 

Calvin states



> 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





> 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.



So Calvin says that the Geneva note is possible, but he disagrees. I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch so I can't say whether it is possible or not. I can't see how a plain reading of the text would lead one to believe that this is Christ.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 20, 2011)

Javilo said:


> At Daniel 10:13 & 12:1 the Geneva Bible study notes clearly teach that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.


 
Yes, they do. If that blows you away, you should read Calvin's comments on the same passages. Perhaps something is meant that is NOT what the JW's have twisted these verses to mean?


----------



## TimV (Feb 20, 2011)

It's perfectly in line with Calvinistic/Protestant thought to see Michael as a Christophany. Check out this old thread from our board:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f40/christophany-35088/


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Feb 20, 2011)

Of course the Hebrew name "Michael" means "(one) who is like God." The interpretation arises from that meaning. I myself am of the opinion that there is an archangel named Michael, and that Christ is the "Angel of the Lord" or the "Angel of the covenant". As Todd said above, even acknowledging however that Michael = Christ does no violence to His unmitigated deity.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 20, 2011)

The Jehovah's Witnesses use these verses to say that Jesus is not fully God, but the most powerful created being (a "lesser" god, if you will).

That is NOT what the reformers here are saying (or in the case of Calvin, leaving as a possibility).

They mean more what the Seventh Day Adventists believe; that the title "Archangel" (which means head or King of the angels), means that the apparition of Micheal in the Old Testament was a Pre-Incarnate form of Christ. That this was the term used to refer to Christ when He was leading His heavenly armies and such. In other words, unlike the JW's, they believe that Michael is simply another name for Jesus, but do not deny that Jesus is fully God.

Now understand I do NOT agree with them, and believe this to be monstrous error; but not damnable heresy. It is a far cry from what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe.


----------



## TimV (Feb 20, 2011)

Well, if what many of not most of us believe is just monstrous and not damnable, I can live with that


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 20, 2011)

TimV said:


> Well, if what many of not most of us believe is just monstrous and not damnable, I can live with that


 
Are you saying you believe Michael the Archangel in the Old Testament (as well as in Revelation), is actually Christ?


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 20, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> Are you saying you believe Michael the Archangel in the Old Testament (as well as in Revelation), is actually Christ?



In truth, it isn't that uncommon of a view among orthodox believers.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 20, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying you believe Michael the Archangel in the Old Testament (as well as in Revelation), is actually Christ?
> ...



This is actually the first I have ever heard of it. Could someone point me to some writings discussing this view? I would like to learn more.


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 20, 2011)

There have been threads discussing it before. Tim supplied a link to one. I will try to find more and post them here.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 20, 2011)

Oops, I passed over the link. My mistake.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 20, 2011)

The Christ = Michael belief was fairly common, If I recall correctly, in the early centuries after the Reformation. JW's believe Jesus is only the archangel Michael, a secondary god to Jehovah. A Christian view is that the Archangel Michael is indeed Christ our Lord, the 2nd person of the Trinity, and the same as Jehovah. I don't buy that Michael = Jesus, but won't call anyone who believes it a heretic by any means.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 21, 2011)

Turretin held this view as well. Saying that Michael is another name for Christ is a far cry from saying that Christ is merely Michael the Archangel as the JWs might hold.


----------



## Eohric (Feb 28, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> Now understand I do NOT agree with them, and believe this to be monstrous error; but not damnable heresy. It is a far cry from what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe.



How is it a monstrous error? Unless you can show that such a view is pernicious, and could tend towards some sort of heresy, I would be careful of throwing such a phrase around.

---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

The Full Deity of the Angel of the LORD

The author of this website is not the biggest fan of Calvinism/Reformed Theology, but the scriptural passages he brings up are rather interesting concerning the deity of the Angel of the Lord.


----------

