The Archangel Michael
This is where
things start to get a little uncomfortable for some readers. I think that most
Christians will agree with the literal reading of John 1:1, which states, “In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
This indicates that the second “person” of God, who “became flesh” (John 1:14) as
the Messiah, was a pre-existing and eternal being. What many are less sure
about is the form that He held before His incarnation as a man.
Let us consider for a
moment the terms that are used in Scripture to describe the Archangel Michael.
He is called “one of the chief Princes” (Dan 10:13), “your prince” (to the human
Daniel in 10:21), “the great prince which standeth for your people” (Dan 12:1)
and as an Archangel in Jude 9.
There is no question
that the second Person of the Most High has appeared in angelic form throughout
the course of Biblical history. He appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18, he
wrestled with Jacob in chapter 32 of the same book – see Hosea 12:2-4 for
confirmation of the “man” and “Lord” as an angel. Concerning the idea that the
beings Michael and the Son are the same Being, a friend of mine brought the
following questions to my attention:
The
first passage I found concerning Michael was Daniel 10:13. In that verse, it
refers to Michael as ONE of the chief princes, implying that there are more
than one. Daniel 12:1 also refers to Michael as the ‘great prince who protects
your people’ implying that there are other ‘great princes’ to protect other
people.
My response to this was
as follows:
Two separate issues here. First of all, yes Michael is ONE of the chief
princes, or Archangels. There are seven, for Raphael, in the book of Tobit (not
sure how you feel about the Apocryphal writings, but your later quote from Jude
comes from Judas (Jude) citing a similar non-Canonical book.), states that he
is one of the seven that stand in the presence of Yah. The difference between
Michael and the other six becomes apparent when he is referred to in your other
verse, 12:1, when He is seen as being the one who intercedes. “For who?” you
ask... and that’s the subject of the next section.
But while we’re on
this first, I don’t want to give you the impression that my “leg to stand on”
is only from the Apocrypha either ;) There is ample evidence in the Canonized
word. To assume that Michael isn’t Yahshua just because He is referred to as
ONE of a set isn’t really conclusive... He is also called the Son of Man (one
of many). Also, when He appeared to Abraham in the company of two other angels,
He presented himself as just one of the three, and not set apart. The
difference wasn’t in His (perceivable) nature or appearance, but in His job.
While the other two were sent on their mission to destroy Sodom, Yahshua in
man-form remained with Abraham while he (Abraham) pled for the life of those in
the valley below. Again, the office of intercessor is filled only by the
Son.
That brings us to
your second point. It seems as if Daniel is implying that Michael is only the
chief prince over his people (i.e., the Israelites only), and there are
other guardians appointed over other peoples. Whereas this is a valid point,
and you are quite correct in interpreting it this way, for one of the demons
considers himself prince of Persia in that very book, consider also the verse
just after it. Michael’s standing up starts the “time of trouble such as never
was.” What is this but the tribulation? And also, “your people” are also the
ones who are found written in the book of life! (all of this is also in 12:1).
The “your people” then, is not just the people of Daniel’s country, any more
than the “children of Abraham” refers only to the Jews.
WE are the children
of Abraham – Daniel’s people is us! It refers to those who are faithful to the
Most High, whose names are in the book of Life irrespective of tongue, or
country or race. And who is the intercessor for the people of the Most High?
Only one person I know can possibly fill this post... Christ who died to redeem
us.
Her second question was:
Then in Jude 9, it says that Michael, when he disputed over the body of
Moses did not dare bring a slanderous accusation against Satan, but said, “The
Lord rebuke you.” If Michael was (is) truly the angelic personification of the
Son (and thus part of the Godhead), why would he have need to rebuke Satan in
any other name than his own?
To this I responded:
As a human, He also had no need to be baptized, or to keep the Passover,
which pointed to His own self. He had no need to keep the Sabbath (for He is
lord also of the Sabbath), for He would have no need of spiritual or physical
rest. He had no need to feel the sufferings He did at Gethsemane, nor to be
circumcised, which we can assume He was coming from an orthodox Jewish
family... in fact, it’s stated in Luke 2:21.
This also begins to
answer your following question of why would He so appear to the angels if they
had no need of redemption. It is not Christ’s death alone which saves us, but
His life. His death justifies us and takes away the penalty of sin already
committed (the article on the Victory speaks of this), but it is His LIFE that
is to be our example thereafter. He did nothing we cannot do. He relied on only
the Father when He was in human form, yet was fully God. Do you remember we
spoke about Him taking on also angelic limitations as an angel? This is just
that point revisited. As the Archangel Michael, he did nothing the lowest
Domination could not do. He called upon the Father to do His will.
I’ll also add this,
though I did not include it in my reply to her at the time. There is an
incident in the book of Zechariah between the Lord (either Father or Son) and
Lucifer. It is recorded thus: “And the LORD said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke
thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not
this a brand plucked out of the fire?’” (Zec 3:2) Is this not the same type of
contest as in Jude 9? I looked this up in Hebrew, and the verse actually reads,
“And YHWH EL said unto H’SHTN, ‘YHWH rebuke thee, H’SHTN...’” The Lord calls
upon Yah (the Father-God) to rebuke Satan during the controversy over a soul,
in this case the high-priest Joshua.
Her third point of
contention was this:
These are the Biblical references, but there is this also. The Word became
flesh – the Son came as Yahshua – for us. For what purpose would the Son be
made manifest in angelic form? As spiritual beings, they are already privy to
the nature (as much as a creation can be) of the three-in-one, and, also, no
sacrifice was required for any type of angelic redemption. Therefore, the ‘incarnation’
of the Son as an angel seems unnecessary.
My response:
We often make the mistake of thinking of angels as being so high above us.
They are, to a great extent, but even Christ taught that angels were limited in
their understanding, just as we are. “But of that day and hour knoweth no
[man], no, not the angels of Heaven, but my Father only.” (Matthew 24:36) Also,
recall that the purpose of the Cherubim are as teachers. To these “near ones”
who are closest to the Throne (except for possibly the Seraphim, who may be
thought of as the “Nazarites” of the angels as per Num 6:2), falls the
responsibility of instructing the other angels. If they are instructed, they
also learn. In fact, their chief delight is in learning more of their Father’s
nature – as should be ours.
For this reason
Michael appeared to them as one of the Cherubim. You are right, they had no
need of redemption, so He had no need to take on the nature of the lowest class
of the Host for an example to them. He could take on a more fitting aspect,
that of wisdom, the role of teacher and example. Consider that if we really
understood fully the Old Testament, we would not have needed the example of
Christ’s life either. He could have come, paid the debt of sin in obscurity and
vanished without anyone taking note. But the Scriptures all pointed to Him. It
was necessary because of our nature that He be “lifted up.” The angels do not
have a sinful nature as do we, so they naturally recognize the Godhood of
Christ in any form. There was no need of a standing rebuke to their pride,
which is the reason He became a lowly carpenter and wanderer for us.
My
friend was not 100% convinced, but my words here seemed to enable her to
indulge me long enough to read the story and perhaps (hopefully) glean relevant
principles from it. That is all I ask of you, and naturally, any further emails
with questions and comments are welcome.
Also, I think this is as
good a time as any to allay any possible fears that this is a case of angel
worship. This dangerous new tendency seems to have been around for some time,
but you will not find it present here. The angel which revealed the events
recorded in John’s Apocalypse declared in no uncertain terms, “See thou do it
[worship me] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets,
and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (Rev 22:9)
Regardless of what He was in the past, Yahshua, the second Person of Yahweh,
remains our “faithful High Priest” (Heb 2:17) until such a time as He will
descend with “a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of
God.” (1 Th 4:16) He, the human, will return as “this same Jesus, which is
taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him
go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)