Geneva Bible - Jesus is Michael?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Javilo

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

CIT

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

Puritan Board Senior
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:

(h) 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.

Not sure where the problem is...?
 

Javilo

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

CIT

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
10:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me

one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the

chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with

the kings of Persia.



(h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence,

and did not only for this time hinder the building of

the temple, but would have further raged, if God had

not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed

for the profit of the Church.

(i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the

world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends

forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ

Jesus the head of angels.

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

Iron Dramatist
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?
 

Rev. Todd Ruddell

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

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

Damon Rambo

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

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

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top