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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[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.

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)?

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]

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)?

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?

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[earl40]

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.

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]

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?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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)?

 

[bookslover]

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.

 

[earl40]

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?