Michael the Archangel (cf. Rev 3:12d)

In this blog post I will conveniently (though also merely referentially) coalesce the

various expounding and expositions that I have made in relation to the topic/issue of Michael the Archangel. (See e.g., from here and within this post; -See also the supporting websites listed at the end of this posting: namely here, here, here and here)). These prior discussions should be read to get more details as to what will be succinctly summarily stated here in this present post, and further corroborating points and derived deeper understandings on this subject and its Biblical implications will also be made here.

            And as an great foundational study on the topic of ‘the OT “Angel of the Lord” was “God the Son Jesus Christ”’ see the following excellent, systematic, presentation by Mike Winger, from his entire "How To Find Jesus In the Old Testament" series on this topic:

“Incarnation” does not mean “Creation”

-First of all, to get a quite conflatedly (i.e., with Jehovah Witnesses’ “Theology”) confused “(fantasaical pink) elephant” out of this room, the belief that Jesus was incarnated from the Glorious Divine form that He priorly had with His Father “before the “cosmos” [i.e., and not just ‘created inhabited worlds’) was” (John 17:5, 24) into a more accessible (cf. 1 Tim 6:16) Mighty Angel form, does not at all take anything away from the Full Deity that Jesus inherently had...indeed just as Him later becoming (also necessarily) incarnated (even lower) as a human being likewise did not take anything away from His Divine Nature. (Phil 2:6ff; John 5:26).

“One of the chief princes” (Dan 10:13 NASB)

-As seen from the discussions referenced above, the main, even considered “trumping” (see e.g., here [31:49-32:40ff]), opposing argument made against the claim that Michael the archangel is Jesus is the statement in Dan 10:13 which says that Michael was actually “one of the chief princes”. That indeed is (surfacely/shallowly) quite “trumpingly” plausible, however, succinctly stated here, as it was stated in this (prior) response, the grouping of archangels (“chief angels”) is akin to a military grouping of “officers” which include various hierarchal ranks within it, starting from (typical) a “commander-in-chief” ranking filled by a single person. And that is concretely/exegetically seen by the usage of that Hebrew word there: “sar” (#08269) (= the modern authoritarian term/position “czar”) in the rest of the Bible (e.g. Deut 20:9). (And “prince” (Heb nagid #05057) is manifestly of a distinct position, even higher rank, than a sar (see e.g., 2 Chr 32:21), with a nagid manifestly being for leaders in palatial/“in-house” functions (2 Chr 35:8; cf. 1 Chr 13:1) -just like the U.S. President in Office is primarily the Chief Executive of the United States Government, but also has the (lower/sub/joint) function as the “Commander-in-Chief” of all U.S. Armed Forces.

            So “sar” (368 instance in OT) actually pointedly refers to a “commander”, and in Dan 10:13 the word “chief” (#07223) is added here, and also in the plural, thus literally said “one of the chief commanders”.

            That would seem to not resolve anything here in regards to Jesus being part of that chief commander group, but there are a couple of key exegetical points which easily allow for such an understanding:

-First of all, the word for “one” (Heb: echad  #0259) can actually also be referring to “the/a first”. It is translated/used with such an understanding ca. 43 times in the NASB. (E.g. Gen 2:11 (with the other 3 rivers enumerated in Gen 2:13-14); Gen 8:5, 13; Exod 40:2, 17; Ezek 10:14). So Dan 10:13 can easily be meaning that Michael is “first/foremost” amongst these chief commanders, thus the “commander of these chief commanders”. And while a definite article in the Hebrew would most pointedly say “the first” (cf. Gen 2:11; Ezek 10:14), the understanding of “a first” =“one of” is also shown, in the third point below, to have Biblical validity.

-Secondly, in Josh 5:14-15, that Hebrew word “sar” is used to speak of the “captain of the Lord’s host (=armies)” who appears to Joshua. And as He fully accepts to be worshipped, -unlike other angels/being from Heaven (e.g., one of the 7 plagues angel: Rev 19:10; 22:8-9), moreover stating also that the ground where He was holy (=Exod 3:5 cf. Acts 7:30-33; Luke 20:37), then that being was most likely also the OT “Angel of the Lord”, which as already amply substantiated (e.g., starting here), was clearly the OT appearance of God the Son in His Mighty Angel form, or even, as being known to be angels also appear, as men. (e.g., Gen 18:1-2, 22; 19:1; Dan 10:5-6; 16, 18)

-Thirdly, Rev 8:2-5 speaks of 7 Angels, which are actually Mighty Angels as they stand in the presence of God, but it also names “another angel ‘of the same [Mighty Angel] kind’” (i.e., Greek: allos vs. heteros; cf. Isa 63:9), which engages in functions which are clearly (Day of Atonement) High Priestly, and which the book of Hebrews states that Jesus does in the Heavenly Sanctuary. (cf. Heb 9:1-14 -See discussion in here at Rev 8:2ff). The book of Revelation actually allows from such prophetic elements to be fulfilled both literally/ultimately by Jesus Christ Himself, or, typologically/precursorily by someone else. But having that High Priestly ministering “angel” representing Christ and also here depicted as being above the grouping of 7 Mighty Angels shows how Jesus can indeed be considered to be ‘first of the chief commanders’, and even while in the same (“allos”) form as them.

            In fact, with Michael being God’s Main (Angelic) Messenger, High Priest and Chief Commander is seen Christ’s three main titles as “Prophet (Deut 18:15ff; =angel (Rev 22:9)), Priest and King” respectively, -with actually all three functions involved in what transpires in Rev 8:2-5, including that ministering Angel “kingly” deciding to cease His intercession and instead enter into warring judgement with those who dwell on the Earth (Rev 8:5; 11:17-18; 19:16; =WLF 12.5; EW 36.1)

            So Michael in Dan 10:13 can easily be that ‘Divine, Angel of the Lord, captain/commander of the chief commanders’ (cf. Rev 12:7). And as Divinity is only limited to the Godhead (1 Tim 6:16a), then that Michael could indeed only be God the Son/Jesus Christ!

“The Lord Rebuke You” (Jude 1:9)          

-First of all here, getting some definitions precisely right. The word translated “disputed” in the NASB is the compounded Greek word: diakrino (#1252). But though the word “judgement” in the (NASB) Bible is glibly/surfacely used to translate various distinct Greek judicial terms, these terms do indeed have their distinct emphasis in the judicial procedure. Namely:

-The word krino (#2919) itself pointedly refers to the initiating/suing stages of a judicial process, i.e., the charging/indicting step. (See e.g., Matt 5:40; 7:1-2; Acts 17:31)

-The next judicial step is rendered by the Greek word krisis (#2920) which, as discussed in this post at Rev 18:10, involves the evaluating/testing/court trial/decision-making process of judgement. (See e.g., Matt 5:21; John 5:29; 16:8; Heb 9:27; Rev 18:10; 19:2a)

-Then the final judicial step is pointedly expressed by the Greek word krima (#2917) and refers to the “condemnation/sentencing”. (See e.g., Matt 23:14; Luke 23:40; James 3:1; Rev 18:20b =“indicted condemnations for you against her.”  -And a Theologically most interesting occurrence of this word is in Rev 20:4 which speaks of the Post-Second Coming Millennium Judgement and shows that it indeed involves the ‘meting out of Hell sentences by the redeemed based on already decided cases’ (=GC 660.4)).

So dia-krino (#1252) pointedly mean “through-indictments”, thus only the first judicial step. I.e. in Jude 1:9, a contestation merely based on the charges which had been laid, and which was followed up by an informal trial (= “argued/discussed/reasoned” #1256). Satan was objecting to the worthiness of Moses, unlike Enoch before Gen 5:24, to be resurrected, (indeed the very first dead person to be resurrected (cf. Matt 27:52-53; Acts 2:29-35)), since he had not only sinned, but sinned against light; i.e., having most closely/tangibly experienced God, and the things of God, than all the rest of the people. (Exod 34:29-35|PP 363-373; Num 12:6-8; 20:12). Now as stated in the PP 478.2-4 account, Satan did indeed bring up GC-like “charges” (=krino) against Moses, but Christ in return did not endeavor to enter into (formal) “controversy” (~krisis) with Satan. And it was because the wider (6000+ year) Great Controversy evidence had obviously not yet all been concretely demonstrated by then that Jesus did not engage in inherently/effectively “railing (=slanderous; -i.e., yet still judiciously unproven) trialing (= krisis #2920)” (for any charge which cannot be proven in court is inherently/effectively “slanderous”), with, as alluded to in Jude 1:9 and expounded upon in PP 478.4, Jesus not even “dare” “(informally) try” Satan on merely passed GC-events since it would only be starting at the Cross that Satan would be objectively begin to be shown to all others to (moreover, knowingly/indifferently) have been in the wrong (DA 761.3ff).

            And so, with up to then, God the Father being the Ultimate/Chief Judge (cf. John 5:21-23ff; 27), back then, Michael/Jesus instead straightly referred Satan back to the prior standing judgement decision of the Father in condemning Satan to destruction (PP 39.1ff; see in this post) who likewise had sinned against Great Light (=Ezek 28:14-16). So, and quite like a summary judgement today, Jesus merely “dismissed” Satan case against Moses merely based on the Judicial Precedent of God the Father having pronounced a judgement against Satan as if to say: ‘You yourself cannot bring any case against Moses because you are guilty of even greater condemnation.’ (cf. Deut 17:7; John 8:7-11|DA 461.3)). So in that ‘OT, pre-Human Incarnation’ context which Jude 1:9 refers back to, it was the default state of things that Michael/Jesus make direct references to the decisions of God the Father in such matter of Judgement. Indeed He was sent here to resurrect Moses squarely based upon a merciful decision that God the Father had made in regards to Moses; and yet perhaps in that case Michael, the “Angel of the Lord” having, as also in Zech 3:1-7, also pleaded Moses’ case.

“the Lord” = Jesus Himself

            That said just above, given how Jesus patently referred to Himself in a Third Person Title, namely “Son of Man”, where simple first person references to Himself as “I”, “me” were naturally expected (e.g. Matt 10:23; 12:40; 19:28; 25:31; 26:64; Luke 22:48; John 13:31; etc; cf. Dan 7:13), moreover with the that “Son of Man” title meaning/involving: ‘a heavenly being who has actually been physically born amongsts men’ (i.e., not merely, as angels commonly do, temporarily visitationally transformed into the form of a man.[1]), that Jesus, from the position/perspective of His visibly prominently human form, was thus, as if as a authoritative oathmaking, appealing to the higher nature and position that He hiddenly also possessed as He made these pivotal promises and declerations. And so likewise, in Jude 1:9, Jesus then, having long been “incarnated” from the unapproachable God the Son to the Mighty/Arch- Angel Michael, could then have merely been making a similar appeal to His own, higher, and also possessed authority as “Lord”, -which actually is a position which is distinct, even next to that of the higher one of the Father as “Lord, God the Almighty”. (See Rev 21:22; 19:6-7; 4:8ff; versus 2 Cor 6:17-18; Rev 11:17; 15:3; 16:7). In other words He emphatically had meant: “I myself, who also is the Lord, rebukes you”.

Some Corroborating SOP Revelations

            While EGW did write with an apparently already present Biblical (i.e., from the Bible) understanding that Michael was Jesus; there are several elements from the direct revelations she had which further corroborate, especially the above points made in regards to Michael, pointedly about the Dan 10:13 statement.

-First of all, and manifestly actually quite unbeknownst by most SDA’s, EGW says in her writings, and apparently based on indications in direct revelations, that there indeed is more than one “archangel”. (See Mar 329.4|HP 371.4; 3MR 19.3|SD 295.5). And interestingly enough, the term “sar” is often associated with the head of a subdivided/“denumbered” Strongs #06485) grouping (e.g., Num 31:14; 31:48), which corroborates EGW revelation in 1SP 22.1 (discussed in here) where in that “War in Heaven” (Rev 12:7-9) that Michael’s host/army were “marshaled in companies, each division with a higher commanding angel at their head” (=archangels).

-Secondly, her vision recorded in PP 36.2ff, it was shown that for a while since the creation (by/through Michael/Jesus) of all of the angelic beings (PP 34.2), He had been going about and functioning amongst them as if He was on the same level as them, or at least on the same level as the archangels. Yet, at God’s instruction, He was still to be worshipped by all (PP 35.2-36.1)...and that is all what started Satan’s rebellion in Heaven with him endeavoring to “dispute the supremacy of the Son of God” by “impeaching the wisdom and love of the Creator”. And, as discussed in here, that was all because it was indeed in Wisdom (=Pro 8:22-31) and (benefiting and protective) Love that God the Son had accepted to incarnate Himself as a Mighty Angel, Michael, so that His bestowed Greater/Divine glory/energy could be used to create all of the matter that makes up and sustains this Universe and all that is in it (=Col 1:16-17), and all the while providing God inherent “concretely watermarked” eternal and even unremoveable ownership of all of Creation. So Satan would indeed have to attack that procedure for Creation that God the Father and the Son had agreed to in order to impeach the Authority that, now, Michael had...and Satan proceeded to do this by claiming that God’s created beings, especially angels, did not need to be so ‘owned and ordered’ by God (and His (then unwritten) Law (of Love and Liberty) PP 34.3) to be able to live good, righteous, thriving lives, and that God had only done this because He was an egoistical despot. (GC 499.2)

            So the understanding of Michael being Jesus and also “one, or, first of the chief commanders (=archangels)” actually makes perfect (validated) Great Controversy (revelation) sense. Indeed, just as God set a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Eden, (and in all of His other subsequently created worlds (e.g, EW 39.3)), He likewise tested the faith in Him of His angelic being through allowing God the Son to seemingly be just one of them, yet still being commanded to be worshipped. However, unlike with Adam and Eve, Satan, of his own, came to concoct (pre-Law) “unrighteousness” in himself (=Ezek 28:15), and had no implanted notion in him that there was something that he was not allowed to do (i.e., eat of a forbidden tree)...let alone a “devil” to tempt him. So his fall was a “mystery” (i.e., something “hidden”)...as is the related “mystery of lawlessness” from God’s own people (2 Thess 2:6-8 = Dan 7:25).

            So through all of this, i.e., ordering that the angelic form God the Son be worshipped by all, God had managed to include a way in which the love and obedience given to Him by the angels would inherently be out of a loving choice, and it manifestly is even the case that the angel next in rank to Michael/Jesus: “Lucifer” was probably more talented and beautiful (cf. Ezek 28:13-14) than Michael Himself, and so really had no reason to envy Michael except for the authority of, and worship given to, Him...and that is indeed how he ‘allowed his beauty to corrupt him’ (Ezek 28:17).

Summary

            So there actually is quite well-founded Biblical and Theologically rich and  valid evidence for the understanding that Michael the Archangel was the pre-Human Incarnate Christ...and in fact His “new name” (Rev 3:12d) through which He would now, (i.e., post-Divine Nature (Bestowing) Sacrificing on the Cross), once again be ‘fully deserving of being worshipped as God’ (Phil 2:8-11; Heb 1:3-4ff) is probably again “Michael” (=“who is like God”; cf. Rev 12:7-9|Luke 10:18|DA 490.1-4) which indeed is, in its meaning, hierarchally ‘above every other name (= “character” i.e., even through merely a sinless human life (cf. Rom 3:21-26)) of angels and men’. Thus: ~from “Matt 1:21” back to, as much as then actually feasible: “John 17:5”!

Notes

[1] Which actually has led me to suspect that Ezekiel, who 91x is copiously called a “son of man” (e.g. Ezek 2:1ff), (even with the (perhaps) exception of, Ezekiel’s contemporary, the most righteous and greatly beloved, first apocalyptic, prophet and sub-king (with Daniel actually having been favoringly ascended by God to become the ‘Secretary General of the (forcedly) United Nations’ then (Dan 6:1-3, 28)), Daniel, being once called like this Dan 8:17), was probably actually also of heavenly, and in his case at the highest angelic, origins, moreover given that his priestly-prophetic mission could, if it had been heeded, set up the fully restored Kingdom which would have most likely later succeeded in properly ushering in Jesus Christ the Messiah.

            This would all be out of God, just as He, as discussed here, manifestly had done in sovereignly forming/raising up a, last gasp/chance righteous prophet and king for Judah in the tandem of Jeremiah and Josiah just prior to, and in order to avert, this Babylonian captivity, in order to also sovereignly bring about a restoration (cf. Ezek 36:22-38), all in order to give His Coming Messianic Objective its best chance of being fully successful, -all for the greater benefit of the perishing world, God would have specially, for whatever benefitting reason, “incarnated” an angelic being as Ezekiel, and even “perhaps” as Daniel, also for that key, redemption-pivotal time. God then went on to later do this ‘“son of man” envoying’ with/through Jesus Christ of course, but, as part of a needed tandem (=Matt 17:10-13): Christ’ forerunner, John the Baptist (Matt 11:11), but only according to the same ‘sovereign Spiritual infilling and forming from the womb’ (Luke 1:15-17) as done for Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), and possibly also with the most youthfully devote Josiah. And at a later, also key time, in order to once again fully recover the Remnant of His Babylonianly captured Israel (Rev 7:4-8ff), God evidently also does a similar “tandem incarnational” thing, in the Rev 7:1-3 (=Ezek 9:1-4ff) development (see here), which further goes on to indeed be an Ezekiel-like mission of Rev 10 (=Ezek 3:1ff -see here) & also Rev 11 (=Ezek 40-43ff -see here), with the interacting John (e.g. Rev 7:13; 10:8-11; 11:1) symbolically filling in the other, earthly, (vs. heavenly), born/e “half” of these (joint) tandem-effectuations...all in order to produce, first, the “Two Witnesses” (Rev 11:3-14): Revival-preparations, and then, the returning/indicting/warring “son of man” (cf. here) (Rev 14:14-16|Rev 19:11-16 + Rev 14:17-20|Rev 19:17-21) Reformation-culmination. (Rev 11:15-18, 19). In other words, there are some things in this GC which are so “one-timely”/all-or-nothing pivotal, that God has sovereignly reserved to the right to incarnationally send angelic beings from heaven to accomplish these task in the form of men on Earth...

            ....And again for whatever benefit is then actually involved, which probably may be, -as similarly observed to be involved here, that God then has the right to re-infuse that incarnated angelic being with their prior, higher, Spirit and Character, so that, from their youth, such “Special Agents” of His can keyly, “naturally” grow this infused best self-character which they have been infused with. If an angel was willing to volunteer for this, like Jesus, probably permanent, incarnational mission of God, then He thus has this right to most innately, i.e. even more than what was done for Jeremiah, Josiah and John the Baptist, indeed akin with what occurred with Jesus, so “predestined” them to be able to carry out their key GC mission.