Leithart on the "body of Moses"

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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?
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,
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ----------

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?


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)?

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.


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

The ESV.

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

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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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?
 
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.
 
"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 :detective:
 
"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.
 
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.
 
??

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top