MICHAEL
"THE ARCHANGEL"
"Yet
Michael the archangel, in contending with the Devil, when he disputed about the
body of Moses, dared not bring reviling accusation, but said, "The LORD
rebuke you!" " --- Jude 9 (Most translations have it this way)
"God's
Word refers to Michael "the archangel." Jude 9. this term means
"chief angel". Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This
suggests that there is only one such angel. In fact, the term "archangel"
occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural."
--- What Does the Bible Really Teach? Appndx. pp. 218-219
If you've ever had a
dialogue with some sect of Christians or Pseudo-Christians who hold and believe
that Jesus is the same as Michael, I'm pretty sure you must have heard them use
I Thessalonians 4:16 alongside Jude 9 much more often than they
use others. It is claimed that since the Bible only mentions one
"Archangel" and never has the word in a plural form, therefore,
Michael must be the ONLY archangel. (In support of this claim, they cite Jude
9 as proof because of the use of the article "Michael THE
archangel" to mean that Michael is the only one). And from this line of
argument, the link this very claim into saying that the archangel mentioned in I
Thessalonians 4:16 is none other than Michael.
The claim is very faulty
on many levels (as we will discuss them word-for-word here) but let us start by
straightening things out a little. We can't tell for certain whether or not
there is ONLY one archangel because the Bible never says so out-rightly but
using Jude 9 to support such stance is pretty off. This is an exemplary
result of total misunderstanding of Biblical language (especially Greek). It is
worth noting that NOT ALL manuscripts have Jude 9 to read "Mikael
ho arkhagglos," some simply have "Mikael arkhaggelos".
There is a reason for it being better to have it translated as "Michael
the archangel". For example,
II
Peter 2:15 reads:
"They
have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the
son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness"
Daniel
12:1 LXX reads:
"The
angel wearing linen clothes said, "At that time, Michael the great
prince who stands up for the sons of you people will appear. Then there
will be a time of troubles, the worst since nations first came into existence.
When that time comes, all the people of your nation whose names are written in
God's book will be saved" "
And many
more.
In
the above, we see the same language that appears in Jude 9 being used in
other passages and if we are to draw the same conclusions drawn by the logic of
Jesus/Michael believers, then we would be forced to conclude that Balaam is the
ONLY son of Beor and that Michael is the only prince (or chief prince). Well,
it would be nice to know the following:
I.
That Beor had another son besides Balaam whose name was Bela (Genesis 36:31;
I Chronicle 1:43); and
II.
That Michael is not the only [chief] prince but "ONE OF the chief
princes" (Daniel 10:13).
And
from the looks of these, it appears that it'd be a complete contradiction if
the aforestated logic is applied here. Yes, it would. This why I earlier said
that there is a reason why Jude 9 is better translated as "Michael
the archangel" despite the fact that not all manuscripts have it that way.
There are many other passages that have the same construction and out-rightly
speak against the aforestated logic but in order to save time, we simply believe
that the ones listed above would do.
In Jude 9, the term
"Michael the archangel" doesn't state that he is the one and only
archangel, rather, the article "THE" serves as an identifier article.
What I mean is this; there are many Michaels is the Bible (Numbers 13:13. 1
Chronicles 5:13, 14; 6:40; 7:3; 8:16; 12:20; 27:18. 2 Chronicles 21:2. Ezra
8:8.) therefore, it was necessary for Jude to specify which particular Michael
he was referring to. he was simply saying "Michael, the archangel one not
the other ones" just as Peter was saying "Balaam, the one who is
Beor's son" (and of course, the name "Balaam" must have been a
common name among the Jews and so, Peter as well had to specify). The same
thing goes to Daniel and the others who used the same language in the Bible.
Jude wasn't saying that Michael was the one and only archangel, Peter wasn't
saying that Balaam was the only son of Beor and Daniel, also, wasn't saying
that Michael was the only chief prince, they were simply using the identifier
article "THE" to specify whom they were talking/writing about.
The very fact that Michael is the
only mentioned archangel in the Bible proves nothing at all. In fact, Jude is
the only person that designated him with that title (not that he was the only
one who knew him as such). To cut deeper into this issue, there are reasons
even to believe that there are more archangels besides Michael. For example:
Michael
is a prince, of course, an angelic prince and being the "archangel"
(which, in Greek, means "chief-angel"), he is by implication, the
"chief prince". And being the chief of these guardian, angelic,
warrior princes, he is "the great prince who stands up for the sons of you
people" (Daniel 12:1). But the Bible doesn't tell us that he is the
ONLY chief prince, rather Daniel identifies him as "ONE OF the
chief/foremost princes" (Daniel 10:13) which sharply contrasts the
idea that he is the only chief angel.
Another
seemingly similar point that I see in the Bible which may or may not be related
to what I'm about to point out is the sentence "the seven angels who
stand before the throne of God" found in Revelation 8:2
which I believe is referring to the "seven spirits (of God) who
stand before God" in Revelation 1:4; 4:5; 5:6 (cf. Hebrews
1:14). A closer look at those statements brings one into early Jewish view
of the angels and their chiefs.
Reading
from the apocrypha, Tobit 12:15 has:
"I
am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand in the glorious presence
of the Lord, ready to serve him"
A Jewish encyclopedia has:
"According to Enoch, xxi., as the text has now
been critically fixed (see Charles, `Book of Enoch,' p. 357), there are seven
archangels ('irin we-kaddishin,
`holy ones who watch'): (1) Uriel ['God is Light'; compare II Esd. iv. 1], set
over the world's luminaries and over Sheol [compare Enoch, xxi. 5, xxvii. 2,
xxxiii. 3, 4]; (2) Raphael, set over the spirits of men [compare Enoch, x. 4,
where he is told to bind Azazel and to heal the earth with Tobit-iii. 17]; (3)
Raguel [Ra'uel, `the terrifier'], who chastiseth the world of the luminaries;
(4) Michael, set over the best part of mankind, over the people of Israel; (5)
Sariel [Æth., Sarakiel, Suriel,
`God turneth'?], set over the spirits who seduce the spirits to sin; (6)
Gabriel, set over paradise, the serpents [seraphim?], and the cherubim; (7)
Jerahmeel ['God is merciful'], whom God set over the resurrection [compare II
Esd. iv. 36; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, lv. 3; Steindorf, `Elias Apoc.' p.
152]." ("Angelology:
A Heavenly Hierarchy," Jewish Encyclopedia.com)
And
if you read from the passages written in the Book of Enoch, another apocrypha,
these "seven angels" are labeled "the seven archangels"
with Michael being a number. For some reasons, people believe that Jude
14-15 which is found nowhere in the OT or LXX to be a direct
quotation from the Book of Enoch which also has it in the same pattern, yet
whether or not, no one is sure but what stands is that IF Jude really quoted
from Enoch, then he must have been aware of the verses that label Michael as
one of the seven archangels which would mean that he was alluding to it in
verse 9. However, like I said, no one is sure if Jude directly quoted Enoch,
thus, I don't stand on that ground but on scriptural stance, there are reasons
to believe that there are more archangels, Daniel 10:13 for example, and
EVEN IF Michael is the only archangel (of which no one knows), Jude 9 is
definitely not a proof for that.
STAY
BLESSED
No comments:
Post a Comment