Michael and The Angel of The LORD

The Jehovah's Witnesses are infamous for believing Jesus was Michael The Archangel.  What makes the JW view of Jesus extremely Blasphemous though isn't about Michael at all but about making Him a created being and denying The Trinity.

Meanwhile they don't even believe God The Father is Infinite but rather Finite.  They used to officially teach He lived on a star in the constellation Pleiades, but later abandoned that.  I think it could be possible God has a Tabernacle in the Heavens just as He's had one on Earth, and that could be New Jerusalem, the Heavenly Zion by the Sides of The North.  But ultimately God is Omnipresent.

Here is a brief analysis of why the Watchtower Bible's translation of John 1:1 is wrong.

[And I now have a post on why even the mildest form of Semi-Arianism is wrong]
However the idea that Michael (which means "Who is Like God") might be a name given to The Angel of The LORD, who some Jews and nearly all Christians both agree to be God manifested within The World, a Theophany, is I think a worthwhile possibly to investigate.

Michael appears in The New Testament, and usually the view among Christians is that The Angel of The LORD is a form or title Jesus took only in The Hebrew Bible (besides occasional New Testament quotations of those incidents), and that upon the Incarnation it does not apply to Jesus anymore.

 In English we keep forgetting that angel is just a word for messenger, Jesus used it of John The Baptist which should prove gaining humanity does not take away the term's accuracy.  Everything that made that word apply to John, Jesus was doing also.  The term "Word of God" certainly still applies to Jesus in the New Testament, and in my view those titles are related in concept, messages are made up of words after all.

At any-rate the reference to Michael in Jude at least is an incident that probably took place in the Old Testament era.  And Revelation is often defined as the most Old Testament part of The New Testament.  Together those are every NT usage of the name Michael.

Many Christians have argued The Angel in Revelation 10 could be Jesus, pointing to parallels between it's description and Jesus in the first chapter.  Jesus certainly takes many forms throughout Revelation, The Lamb in chapter 5, the Son of Man in 14 and so on.  Could it be the Angel in chapter 10 is Michael preparing for the actions he shall take in chapter 12?

I now believe The Man-Child in chapter 12 is The Church rather then Jesus, so seeing Jesus as Michael at that moment becomes far more plausible.  But even if you still think The Man-Child is Jesus, that the Man-Child takes the form of Michael as soon as He's in Heaven is a possibility.

It's largely because of Revelation 12 that Michael gets defined in popular imagination as the military commander of God's Angels.  In Joshua The Angel of The LORD appears to him before the battle of Jericho and identifies himself as The Captain of The LORD's hosts.

Jude alone actually quotes Michael.  And what Michael says to Satan is the same thing The Angel of The LORD said to Satan in Zechariah 3.  Now those are clearly not the same incident so Michael could be quoting Zechariah.  But still, the fact that the only statement attributed to Michael is also attributed to The Angel of The LORD is interesting.

Jude alone is the reason we call Michael The Archangel.  I now unlike in the past believe Archangel is a term that applies to multiple angels.  Because the only other time it appears is in I Thessalonians 4, in the infamous Rapture passage, but while it reads singular in the KJV in The Greek it is actually in a plural form there, which to me verifies connecting this to The Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11 where many voices are in Heaven after The Trumpet sounds.

I think Archangel is a synonym for when you see "Principality" used in the KJV as seemingly a type or rank of Angels.  In the Greek "Principality" is Arca or Arche, the same word that combines with Angel to make Archangel.  This I believe correlates to in Hebrew the word Sar (one of many Hebrew words translated Prince) when used of Angels.

In Daniel 10 Michael is called the Chief Prince, and in chapter 12 he's the Great Prince, Daniel 10 also shows other Angels are Princes too, but Michael has a higher rank among the Princes.  Daniel 8 calls Jesus the Prince of Princes, likewise Isaiah 9 calls Jesus The Prince of Peace (Which could be interpreted as Prince of Salem).  In each of these cases the Hebrew word is Sar.

Daniel 10 5-9 describes Daniel seeing a being who many interpret as a Theophany, again with parallels to Revelation 1 and also Revelation 10.  Interestingly this same entity's voice is also described as being "Like the Voice of a Multitude".  After this encounter Daniel passes out.

The Angel speaking to Daniel after he wakes up in verse 10 (and is really saying everything in chapter 11 and the beginning of 12) can't be Jesus because he needed help to get past the Prince of Persia to get to Daniel.  It is common to use that fact to refute the idea of seeing a Theophany here at all, but others have suggested this isn't necessarily the same Angel.

Here is the thing, it is Michael who this Angel says came to help him and enabled him to finally reach Daniel.  So it seems logical to consider that perhaps Michael is The Angel that Daniel sees in verses 5-9.

What happens when Michael "Stands Up" in Chapter 12 is that those who's names are written in The Book are Delivered(Saved) and many are Resurrected.  I think this Prophecy as I argued before has a dual fulfillment.  That it can apply to both Jesus Resurrection in 30 AD and The Rapture at the middle of the 70th Week.  I argued that independent of possibly seeing Michael and Jesus as the same, but them being the same certainly makes that fit even stronger.

Again this is nothing to be dogmatic on.  But I think when debating JWs we should be willing to say, Yes maybe Michael is Jesus, but that is separate from the debate of if Jesus is God.

Was Alexander The Great Resurrected in 30 AD?

This is a follow up to an earlier study I did.  Were some of the Angels once normal human beings.  Where I argued many Old Testament Saints who were resurrected in 30 AD now also serve as Angels.

Why argue that a notorious Gentile Pagan world leader could be among those?  We begin in Daniel 7.

Daniel 7 is a prophecy where the symbolism has two layers to it.  The Beasts represents the kingdoms/nations of those world empires.  But also for the first three at least their most notorious Kings who made them world empires.  The Fourth is more complicated because Rome's history is more complicated.

Daniel 7:12 after describing the fourth beast's destruction says "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." This shows that those three nations will still exist in the Millennium.  But I also feel it should also apply to the three Kings.  Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great.  Which would make those three saved individuals.

With Nebuchadnezzar we know he's saved because Daniel 4 records his Salvation.

Some Dispensationlists teach salvation was different before The Cross, it's by Faith Alone only after.  Problem is Paul was using the Old Testament to prove his point.  In Galatians we are told Abraham was saved by Faith when he believed God in Genesis 15.

What exactly you needed to believe may have been different, since the NT wasn't written yet.  But it was still by Belief.  Jesus also tells us as The Queen of Sheba was saved because she believed Solomon, and the men of Nineveh because they believed Jonah.  That they repented was a different cause to a different effect.

Isaiah 44-45 records a message God wrote to Cyrus before he was born.  We know from the end of 2 Chronicles and beginning of Ezra that Cyrus did as God told him.  Josephus records that it was Daniel who showed Isaiah's scroll to Cyrus.  So Cyrus was saved by believing Isaiah's message I suspect.

Josephus later records that Daniel's prophecies that mentioned Alexander The Great were shown to Alexander when he was in Jerusalem.  If you read Josephus account of Alexander in Jerusalem with this Biblical precedent in mind, you'll be left with little doubt that he was Saved at that time.  And because I believe in Eternal Security, none of his later sins either disproved that salvation or undid it.

As I said before on the subject of the 30 AD Resurrection of Old Testament Saints.  Maybe not all were resurrected then (Matthew's text says many not all) and some are being saved for later.  So if we ever find Alexander's body it would not disprove anything I argued for above, only what I'm about to argue for below.

I've looked at the history of historical references to Alexander's body and/or tomb and found some things curious.

The last recorded visit that takes place before 30 AD is when Augustus visited it.  Where he accidentally damaged his Nose trying to place a reef on the body.  Dion Cassius, LI, 16 and LXXV, 13. reports Augustus' request to see the body of Alexander. "But touching the nose he did some damage to it. Asked if he wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, he refused, saying that: "I came to see a king and not dead men".  Also Suetonius, vit. Auq. XVIII.

The first visit known to happen after 30 AD is Caligula's also recorded by Suetonius.  He removed Alexander's breast plate, but the body isn't really directly mentioned.  You'd think the man with the more reckless personality seeking to do a more difficult task would do more damage to it?

Dion also records that in his own day the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus sealed up the Tomb.  He also mentions that Severus placed in the Mausoleum all the secret books "so none could read the books nor see the body".  Septimius Severus was also one of the Emperors who persecuted Christianity, and his wife was a notorious opponent of Christianity.

The next Emperor, Caracalla, placed items in the Tomb but again the body isn't mentioned.  A modern theory that he moved the body to a tomb in Macedon has been formed.  Why would he do that while still honoring the Tomb in Alexandria?  He also believed he was something like a reincarnation of Alexander (he was one of the crazy Emperors) maybe a lack of Body there helped reinforce that idea in his head.

The Body itself seems to have always been visible and referenced before 30 AD, but after that direct references to the body are avoided.  Maybe it disappeared in 30 AD?

It was in the 4th Century that certainty of what structure was Alexander's Tomb was lost.  Some theories interestingly have one of the earliest Christian Churches of Alexandria built over the Tomb.  One specifically is a Church called the Church of Alexander.  There were no Church Buildings before the Third Century, so Church building was still a new thing during this period.  Why would Christians want to build a Church over his tomb and name it after him?  Did early Alexandrian Christians have a tradition we've lost?  Could it be in 30 AD Alexander rose again and proclaimed the Olympian gods false and that the recently Crucified Jesus of Nazareth was The One True God?

Let's return to Scripture.  Acts 16:8-12

And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas.  And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, "Come over into Macedonia, and help us."

 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.  Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.

I agree with the theory that the part of Acts 16 where Paul is at Troas (Troy) is where Luke (The Macedonian physician) joins him, because it's there that the narrative voice changed from third person to first person.  But it's sometimes tied into that to identify Luke with the man who appeared to Paul in the vision asking him to come to Macedonia.  But that to me is clearly an Angelic personage.  Paul probably sought a Macedonian who was in Troas after that vision to help him as he decided to head to Macedonia.

To 1st Century AD Greek speakers the biography of Alexander was as well known as the biography of George Washington is to us.  And this part of the Acts narrative was very likely to make readers think of Alexander.  Paul is sort of following Alexander's footsteps in reverse.  Troy was one of the first places Alexander made a point to visit after he traversed from Europe into Asia.  Paul is from Troy going to leave Asia and enter Europe with Macedon being the first place he goes.  A city founded by and named after Alexander's father.  Mention is also made of Samothace, the Island were Philip and Olympias (Alexander's parents) met while being inducted into a Dionsytic cult.

Other scholars have suggested that either Alexander or Philip is who the readers were meant to assume this man was.  But they do so without tying any of these Resurrection or Daniel related issues into it.

Alexander did not have to be Resurrected to be used by God for this vision.  Samuel did not need to be physically Resurrected to be used by God to deliver a message to Saul.  But on this side of The Cross, Abraham's Bosom is empty, so the nature of the after life is different then it was before.

Saul was a namesake to Paul's Jewish name.  But also similar to Alexander in some ways, both were important Kings of their nations but who's descendants didn't inherent their Thrones.  For Alexander this detail about him is among the things Daniel predicts in chapter 11.  Both also got angry and threw spears at people.

So, who knows, it's not something to build a huge doctrine on.  But it's interesting.

Update March 4th 2017:  I now consider this theory mostly defunct for two reasons.

1.  I now strongly suspect those Resurrected in 30 AD are limited to people buried on the Mount of Olives at that time.  And it's not likely Alexander's body wound up there.

2. Now that I believe in Universal Salvation, I no longer aboslutly need Alexander to have been Saved in his Mortal Life to possibly be on Earth during The Future Messianic Era, thus fitting Daniel 7.  Though I still feel that is probably necessary to be here during the Millennium, and I do still think Alexander was possibly Saved in that sense.

Update October 23rd 2017: I have become more skeptical of the Mount of Olives model.  And also decided that even if the 30 AD Resurrection began there, it may still have not been limited to it.

On the subject of Unviersal Sa;vation, I also don't even think those Resurrected in 30 AD were only of Believers, since I tie that Resurrection to Daniel 12.  Either way I do still count Alexander, however flawed he was, as a righteous Gentile.

Update November 2018: Since that last Update I've become more convinced then ever of the Mount of Olives model.

But the main reason for this new update is that I've learned there are references to Alexander's Body in Alexandria following the time of Caligula. I've learned this while researching the theory that Alexander's Tomb become the Tomb of St Mark in the 390s AD.

The Gospel Preached unto all Kingdoms, and Revelation 14

Matthew 24:14 at the end of describing the Pre-Abominaiton persecution says.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

On it's own sounds like it's foretelling The Church spreading The Gospel.  Completing the Great Commission finally in the End Times.

Both Chuck Missler (Pre-Trib) and Chris White (Pre-Wrath) see a correlation to Revelation 14:6.

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people".

It's funny first because it actually doesn't fit either of their Rapture models to have a Pre-Rapture event in Revelation 14.

Going back to what I argued before, about the Resurrection and The Rapture actually possibly being separated by 10 days (Trumpets to Yom Kippur).  I said there I was inclined to see Revelation 14 as during this period.

Remembering that "angel" simply means messenger.  It could be the angels here are resurrected Church Believers.

I want to say something about Revelation 14:8 that Post-Tirbbers might use to back up their non-chronological view of Revelation.

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

I could see someone trying to argue this proved Babylon already fell even though it's Fall is described latter.  God (and his Prophets) often uses past tense language in reference to future events(commonly known as “prophetic perfect”; example, Isaiah 53; 21:1-10).

The full context and intent here is clearly that this "Angel" is giving a Prophecy of Babylon's coming Fall.  Not simply telling everyone what they already know because they just saw it happen.

Arguing for the Divinity of The Messiah

The thought has occasionally entered my mind, of a Jewish person possibly hypothetically saying the following during a debate with a Christian.

"Maybe, hypothetically, a Christian could convince me (but it wouldn't be easy) of the idea of The Messiah, having two advents where he doesn't do any of the Kingly stuff until the second coming. Or him suffering and dying as an offering for Sin and then being Resurrected, and maybe even Born of a Virgin. And that maybe Jesus/Yeshua was that. But what I could never accept is the idea of The Messiah being the Son of God, or God manifesting as a Human. It's inherently not Monotheistic, it's Pagan like the demigods of Greek mythology or the Avatars of Vishnu in Hinduism."

Now I haven't encountered a Jewish person willing to say that, or heard of one. But I think it's an important aspect to look at. I think it's a good idea here to set aside all the other disagreements in how Christians (Jew and Gentile) and Non-Christian Jews interpret Messianic Prophecy and look chiefly at what was most offensive to the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua's own day. The idea of God being made Flesh.

So I've felt moved by The Holy Spirit to try and help prepare fellow believers for such a discussion. Below I'll be speaking as if talking to Jews directly, so feel free to Copy/Paste my arguments, I don't Copyright any of these dissertations.

I'll be basing all of this on only the Masoretic Hebrew Text, no Septuagint or Hellenistic apocryphal writings. And nothing from Christian translations Jews would object to. I'll be using this linked below Translation made by Jews. Rather then my usual KJV defaulting.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

The objection clearly isn't that it's something God can't do. Besides simply saying God can do anything, even Jewish interpretations of Scripture agree that "The Angel of The LORD" or "The Angel of God" is God taking a physical tangible Human looking form. The Word (Dabar in Hebrew) could be viewed that way also, like in Genesis 15 where the Dabar performs the Covenant ritual all on his own. The Angel who announces the conception of Samson is an example, and the Captain of The Host who appears to Joshua before The Battle of Jericho. Anytime an Angel accepts Worship and yet isn't evil or fallen that's clearly not an ordinary Angel but God Himself.

The very name of Israel comes from when Jacob wrestled with God. And in Genesis 18 everyone agrees the leader of the three Angels there is God himself talking with Abraham. And He actually eats food with Abraham and Sarah. That's a pretty physical tangible Human like form, I'd argue incarnating as a Human isn't that much greater a leap.

But again, it's not about what God can do but what he's willing to. Is actually becoming a Human simply to far beneath him? Remember God made Adam in his own Image, Genesis 1:26. So really why assume incarnating as a Human is something he'd never do when Adam was modeled after himself to begin with?

Then there is the Hebrew word Go'el. That word is variously translated Kinsman, Redeemer, and Avenger/Revenger. The word means all of those things. It maybe does not necessarily literally have to mean a biological relative every time it's used, but the Kinsman aspect is important to it's function in the Mosaic Law. And is vital to understanding the Book of Ruth, where Boaz is the Kinsman Redeemer, being a near male relative of Naomi and Ruth's late husband.

The word is used of God in Isaiah 41:14 and 43:14 "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I help thee, saith the LORD, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Also in 44:6 and 24. And 47:4, 48:17, 49:7 and 26 and 54:5. And other Isaiah examples, also Jeremiah 50:34

Job said in 19:25 "But as for me, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He will witness at the last upon the dust". Also Psalms 19:14 and 78:35.

What about the Preexistence of The Messiah?

Micah 5 "out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days." and Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us". Both verses even in Jewish translations imply a Preexistence.

Rapheal Patai is a Jewish scholar who agrees to the Preexistence of The Messiah "The concept of the preexistence of The Messiah accords with the general Talmudic view which holds that "The Holy One, blessed be He, prepares the remedy before the wound"", (The Messiah Texts pp. 16-17). Preexistence alone doesn't prove Divinity, but it makes him very special. Because while some cults believe we all had a preexistence like the Mormons, that view is entirely UnBiblical, from Genesis 2 "Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The Soul and Spirit are created at the same time The Body is.

The Messiah is David's Son/Descendant. Yet David calls him lord in Psalm 110 "The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'" Psalm 2 is also interesting. The Messiah appears to be relating how "the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession."

Psalm 45 is considered a Messianic Psalm, it explicitly refers to the King as God in verse 8, and says in verse 11 to Worship him.

The clincher however I believe is to look at Ezekiel 40-48's description of the coming Messianic Kingdom. How come this in depth description mentions no Palace where The Messiah Ben-David rules from? A great deal of the point of the Messianic Age is to fulfill the Davidic promise from II Samuel 7, that a Son of David would sit on David's Throne forever. And this promise is inherently linked to Jerusalem.

And yet Ezekiel in his in-depth description of The Messianic future geography and architecture of Israel, Jerusalem and The Temple mentions no dwelling place for The Messiah. The only Throne mentioned is in Ezekiel 43:7 in the Holy of Holies, no longer separated from The Holy Place by the Veil. Where The LORD tells Ezekiel "this is the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the house of Israel shall no more defile My holy name".

 Here the LORD is saying he himself will rule. How can this be reconciled with the Davidic Promise? Clearly the Throne of David and the Throne of God have become the same Throne. And therefor God must incarnate as The Son of David, Son of Abraham, Son of Adam.

Ezekiel 40-48 does have references to a "Prince" (Nasi in the Hebrew). If the word for Prince here had been Sar or Nagyid then it could make sense to say he's The Messiah, but Nasi isn't a royal term, and could more accurately be translated President.  Ezekiel 34:23&24 and 37:24:25 explain that the Nasi is David himself Resurrected, not his Son who's The Messiah.

The LORD also enters through the Eastern Gate, just as The Messiah is supposed to do.

Add on top of that some interesting material from Zechariah 12-14. In 12:17 "In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a godlike being, as the angel of the LORD before them."

 That verse is definitely translated differently in Christian translations, but even the way it's translated here is still pretty compelling. Also 14:9 "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one." And in verse 16 "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

Genesis 3:15's Seed of the Woman is viewed by Jews as being Humanity, and unlike many Christians I'm not going to object to that. It's relevance here is this crushing the head of the Serpent theme does come up again in the Hebrew Bible.  Psalms 74:12-14, 89:10, 91:13, Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 51:9.  And in those passages it is The LORD that crushes the heads of serpents.

In Genesis 3:20 Adam names the Woman Eve because she is " the mother of all living".  Deuteronomy 5:26 calls YHWH the "Living God".  Mean Eve through one of her many daughter has to become the Mother of God.

Now as far as the comparison to Polytheistic Pagan concepts go. The demigods of Greek mythology were half-man/half-god. Christians view Yeshua as All-Man and All-God. And he was born of a Virgin, no weird Zeus turning into an animal or a golden shower to seduce and/or rape a girl.

The Avatars of Vishnu comparison is, I'll admit, a more valid one. Though I'd like to point out it's unclear how long people in India even understood the concept as they do now, even the Mahabharata is much younger then many casual references say it is, being post Alexander. Modern Hinduism is mostly the result of British Colonialism.

Many Scholars are probably more qualified to explain all the distinctions then I am. The key one I feel however is the Uniqueness. God only did this once, Yeshua will have a Second Coming, but it'll be the same Body he had before, still carrying the Wounds he received on The Cross. I know some bizarre cults and theorists out there try to argue for a Rebirth by abusing Revelation 12, but all serious scholars of Revelation know that that is a symbolic recap of History. So there are no repeated incarnations every age like what Vishu does.

I hope the above discussion has been revealing and insightful.

Were some of the Angels once normal Human beings

You're probably assuming this is a silly question, only movies and TV shows sometimes suggest Angels are Humans who died, but clearly that's not Biblical.  But actually Revelation has two verses that seem to imply exactly that.

19:10. "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

22:8-9.  "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.  Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."

Most gloss over these just assuming they're about how Believers will be like the Angels in the Resurrection.  But the exact terminology is clearly saying more then that. They are Brethren.

Clearly not all Angels are.  For one thing no Fallen Angels can be, once a Human is saved and redeemed in Jesus that can't be undone. 

Also no Old Testament Angels were in my view.  I believe this is referring to people who are Resurrected (truly Resurrected), and no one was Resurrected before Jesus was in 30 AD.  So all Old Testament Angels are separate Creations of God, not kin to Adam.

This takes me again to Matthew 27:52-53 during it's account of the Death of Jesus on The Cross.

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Post-Tribulationists (and maybe also some Pre-Wrathers) and others who's Eschatology has trouble with The Resurrection of Believers not happening all at once, or who want to deny the Resurrection we are promised is a literal Bodily one at all.  Need to insist that these are only a temporary Resurrection like Lazurus, not part of the True Resurrection.

I like to respond to that by saying Jesus had already done that, that wasn't a new sign anymore.  This is after his Resurrection so I feel it must be in part to further show that the Resurrection has come.  And then I tie it into the Doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades/Sheol (commonly called Hell).

But it is hard to prove doctrinally a detail only alluded to in one of the four Gospels.  None the less I have felt lead by The Holy Spirit to view this frequently over looked detail as vital to unlocking many mysteries related to The Resurrection.

Now that I have also noticed this overlooked fact from The Book of Revelation, I feel assured more then ever my view is right.  Many Old Testament saints have already been Resurrected and have become Angels.

Remember, Angel is not a zoological, or technical term, it simply means messenger.  So certainly God could be using these Resurrected individuals as messengers if he wants to.  And it is used sometimes of still living not yet resurrected Humans, like Jesus using it of John the Baptist quoting Malachi 3.  And I agree with the view that the Angels of the seven Churches were believers in those congregations who held that as their office.

Were all Old Testament Saints Resurrected then?  The wording says many not all.  And indeed I don't want to rule out any pre 30 AD bodies we know are still here un-resurrected because we have their bodies from being among the Saved. Any remaining would be Resurrected at the same time as the post-Rapture saints.

Why was Satan interested in the body of Moses in that account related in Jude's Epistle?  Some want to tie that into the Two Witnesses mystery, but I view the other Witness as Enoch.  I think perhaps God wanted the rising of Moses to also be a witness to the Resurrection.  I've seen some theorize this passage is about Moses' Resurrection, Michael seems to be linked to the Resurrection of Saints in Daniel 12.

The two verses from Revelation are different in the wording they use.  It is unclear if they're actually the same Angel.  I'm hesitant to argue that of course John wouldn't start worshiping again the same one that had already corrected him, his doing that at all doesn't seem logical to us, you'd have to be there.

The scene from Chapter 22 is immediately followed by John being given an instruction that parallels instructions given to Moses by God about the writing of The Torah in The Torah.  So that has me thinking Moses could be who this is.  The beginning of the Canon and the end of the Canon together.

The 22 verse is using terminology that implies an Old Testament saint.  The verse in Chapter 19 sounds at first like it could be of a New Testament believer with it's terminology.  But no one of The Church Age has been Resurrected yet.  Maybe he's the thief who was on the Cross next to Jesus who was promised he'd be with him in Paradise?

His story is a strong Testimony of The Gospel.  And he's in a unique place historically, the only Saved person known to have died after the end of the "Law and the Prophets", which "were until John (The Baptist)", but before the Birth of The Church at Pentecost.  There could have been others, but he's the only Biblically documented example.

The 24 Elders are frequently by Pre-Tirbbers identified as The Church now in Heaven after The Rapture.  Their proof of this is being described as individuals made "kings and priests" in 5:10.  Which John says of us believers in 1:6.  As a Mid-Tribber I agree with Pre-Tribbers on the uniqueness of The Church, not all saved are part of The Church.  But this particular promise to Co-Reign with Christ is not among the Church specific promises.

David we know will be be a co-ruler during The Messianic Kingdom from Ezekiel 34 and 37 as a "Prince"(Nasi).  He I believe is the same "Prince"(Nasi) from Ezekiel 40-48.  Revelation 20 informs us that those post Rapture saints martyred for not taking The Mark or worshiping The Beast's Image will be co-ruling during The Millennium.

I agree that it's significant that the 24 Elders are not in the Old Testament visions of The Heavenly Throne Room in Isaiah and Ezekiel. 

The 24 Elders have Crowns already.  So they've already received rewards.  The Church Age believers rewards are given after The Seventh Trumpet based on what's said in Revelation 11.  So I think these also are Resurrected Old Testament believers.

Because I view Revelation 21 as clearly defining The Church/The Bride of Christ as synonymous with New Jerusalem.  I also conclude that The Church isn't on Earth during The Millennium.  So I must also conclude that the saints with Jesus when he returns riding on a White Horse in Revelation 19 are also those Resurrected in 30 A.D.

Jude quoting Enoch said there he would come with "Ten Thousands of his Saints".  That seems like a lot to be strangely unnoticed by Secular history.  Chuck Missler and Mark Easton argue that Jesus in his Resurrection was only visible to Saved individuals during those 40 days in 30 A.D.

I feel Enoch's Prophecy helps prove my point, they can't be all the Saved.  The Church has far more then a mere Tens of Thousands.  As a Mid-Tirbber I view the 144,000 as the bare minimum of just those alive when The Rapture happens, much less the Dead in Christ who Rise first.