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.

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.