"WITH
THE VOICE OF ARCHANGEL"
"For the Lord himself shall
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first."
--- I Thessalonians 4:16 (KJV, NRSV, e.t.c.)
"For
the Lord himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of an
archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in christ will rise first."
--- I Thessalonians 4:16 (Gideons, NWT, e.t.c.)
"There
will be the shout of command, the archangel's voice, the sound of God's
trumpet, and the Lord himself will come down from heaven. Those who have died
believing in Christ will rise to life first." --- I
Thessalonians 4:16 (TEV)
"The
foremost angel, both in power and authority is the archangel, Jesus Christ also
called Michael. (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9) Under his authority are seraphs,
cherubs, and angels." --- (The Watchtower, November 1, 1995 "The Truth
About Angels")
Personally, I do not
hold that Jesus Christ our Lord is one in the same with Michael the archangel
but, I have been -- and will always be-- open-minded to any scripturally proven
fact that may show otherwise yet, as far as I've been able to see, there is no
solid evidence to bolster its scriptural status and of course, only conjectures
could help give it grounds in the Bible. Reading through proof texts tendered
by those who claim that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the archangel,
Michael, the above quoted verse tends to be one held in very high regard. In
fact, one isn't faulty to think that it is the very verse (at least, the way
they interpret it) that must have inspired the belief that Jesus is Michael the
archangel but is this what this verse really states? Let's analyze further.
An important information
that one shouldn't overlook is the fact that the Bible was originally written
in other tongues: The Old Testament (hence, OT) was written in Hebrew
and Aramaic while the New Testament in Greek. Thus, it is always important to
turn back to the originals just in case we get to misunderstand what an English
translation is trying to inform. Paul, the other Apostles and at times, Jesus
himself usually alluded to (and many times quoted) the OT from the Greek
translation of the OT known as the Septuagint (hence, LXX) so in
many cases, they tend to make statements with a similar grammatical
construction to some passages in the LXX. Paul was no exception. He was
so fund of the LXX such that his epistles even look like another version
of it.
There are many passages
from the LXX that resembles that of I Thessalonians 4:16 but a
really outstanding verse that mirrors that of Paul is Psalm 47:5:
"God has ascended, with
joyful shouts, the LORD with the sound of trumpet" --- Septuagint
(LXX)
Now.
this is how it mirrors Paul's statement, I Thessalonians 4:16 reads:
"The Lord himself will
descend from heaven, with commanding shouts, with the voice of archangel and
with the trumpet of God"
Grammatical
similarities:
Psalm
47:5 "God has ascended" --- I Thessalonians 4:16
"The Lord himself shall descend"
Psalm
47:5 "with joyful shouts" (en odalagmo)
--- I Thessalonians 4:16 "with commanding shouts" (en
keleusmati)
Psalm
47:5 "...with the sound of trumpet" (en phone
salpiggou) --- I Thessalonians 4:16 "with the voice of
archangel" (en phone arkhaggelou)
One
needs not go further into details to see it clear that Paul used the same
grammatical construction of Psalm 47:5 to write his above quoted
epistle. The striking similarities should be a key into understanding the usage
of "en phone" + subject genitive in Greek.
According
to Strong's concordance, the Greek word "phone" (pronounced,
"fo-nay") has ranges of meanings but its most literal is
"sound"; from which springs "voice", "language",
"dialect", "utterance", "cry", "noise",
e.t.c. In Psalm 47:5, God was more or less ascending with "the
VOICE of a trumpet" (as the WYC translates it), with the SOUND of a
trumpet (as most translations have it) or with the BLAST or ROAR of a trumpet
(as some have also). They all explains the word "phone" which
is also used in I Thessalonians 4:16.
There are many interpretations to
Paul's writing and these interpretations play a big role in determing in one's
heart whether or not Jesus Christ is Michael. Like I said, Psalm 47:5 is
a key into understanding Paul's grammar in I Thessalonians 4:16 and
understanding one helps in understanding the other.
In
Psalm:
Many
translations even translate "...en odalagmo...en
phone salpiggou" (in Psalm 47:5) as: "...amid
joyful shouts...amid the sound of trumpet" (as in DARBY,
AMP, NET, NIV, NIVUK, ); "...as people
shout...and (as) trumpets blast" (as in CEV); "...among
joyful shouts...among the sound of trumpets" (as in HCSB). These should suggest to you how the word
"en" is taken in Psalm 47:5. The word "en"
should be another point of focus for our understanding of I Thessalonians
4:16. It is true that the most used translation of "en" is
'in" or "with" but at times, it means more than what the
English words "in" and "with" have in them. Here are
perfect examples:
"You
became imitators of us amid much tribulation (en thlipsei polle),
welcoming the message with joy given by the Holy Spirit" --- I
Thessalonians 1:6
"But
after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we
had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much
opposition (en pollo agoni)" --- I Thessalonians 2:2
The
usage of "en" by Paul ISN'T saying that "you became
imitators of us en much tribulations" means you became imitators of
them "BY THE USE OF" tribulations (or something similar) but that
they became imitators of them "in times of tribulations";
"amid tribulations"; "at tribulations', e.t.c. The
same with the latter verse. Paul WAS NOT saying that "we...speak to you
the gospel of God en much oppositions" means they speak the gospel
to them "BY THE USE OF" much opposition. He was simply saying that
they speak the gospel to them "in times of much oppositions";
"amid much oppostions"; "at much oppostions",
e.t.c. Thus, we see that the English words "in" and "with"
do not contain the fullness of meaning of the Greek word "en".
However, "with" and "in" could rightly be used as translations
for "en" in the above cited verses but then, the burden falls
on whomever is going to give it an interpretation. If you take the word
'with" to mean "by use of" (as some take "en
phone archaggelou" to mean "by use of/using archangel's voice)
then one would be at odds with these verses, thus, a stronger interpretation
should be used of "with" when used for "en" EVEN in places
where it appears as "meta".
From
our observations above, it is no wonder Bible translations have Psalm 47:5
as:
"Loud
cheers as God climbs the mountain, a ram's horn blast at the summit."
--- MSG
"the
true God ascends the throne acclaimed by shouts of the people. The Eternal is
announced by the blast of a trumpet." --- VOICE
"the
LORD God goes up to his throne at the sound of the trumpet and horn."
--- ERV
"God
goes up to his throne as people shout and trumpets blast." --- CEV
Which
the GNT translations explains:
"God
goes up to his throne. There are joyful shouts and the blast of trumpets, as
the LORD goes up."
These
should give us a better view of this kind of grammatical construction and its
understanding of "en phone" + subject genitive in its kind.
There
are many usages of "en phone" in both LXX and NT
but in all cases, "en phone" + subject genitive never
appears between two nouns of the same identity. Even in cases where it
is SPOKEN by the first or last noun. In II Peter 2:16, we are told that
the donkey "spoke with the voice of a man". the first noun
"donkey" + en phone + "man" (in genitive form, the subject
of the genitive that is). In this case, Peter tells us that this donkey SPOKE
WITH, thus the verb "speak" connects the noun with "en
phone" and then the subject of the genitive (unlike Psalm 47:5 and
I Thessalonians 4:16 that have NO SUCH verb connection). However,
connection or no connection, "en phone" + subject of genive never
appears between two nouns of the same identity; like: The donkey spoke with the
"phone" of a noun that is the same as the donkey; the LORD
with the "phone" of a noun that is the same as the LORD or the
Lord himself with the "phone" of a noun that is the same as
the Lord himself, e.t.c. the Greek doesn't permit such tautologies. If it is
ever necessary to identify a noun with its verb of action in the above, it'd be
written as "with a loud voice" "with his voice" "with
a shrill voice", e.t.c. Do the Maths:
In II
Peter 2:16: Donkey [noun 1] -+- en phone -+- anarthrous genitive
"man" [noun 2] = the "Donkey" is NOT a "man"
In Psalm
47:5: God [noun 1] -+- en phone -+- anarthrous genitive "trumpet" [noun 2] = "God"
is NOT a "trumpet"
In I
Thessalonians 4:16: The Lord [noun 1] -+- en phone -+- anarthrous
genitive "archangel" [noun 2] = ???
Interestingly,
the WYC translates Psalm 47:5 as:
"God
has ascended in hearty song, and the Lord in the voice of a trump..."
(God is not a trump of course, is He?)
And
I Thessalonians 4:16 as:
"The
Lord himself shall descend from heaven in shout of command, in the voice of
an archangel and in the trump of God..." (Why
then should the Lord be an archangel if God isn't a trump?)
The
deeper we go into this, the better we find out how Paul's epistle never made a
link between Jesus and Michael but even established a distinction. To cut
deeper, we'll delve into the LXX once more:
Maab
shall die powerless "with shouting and the cry of a trumpet (meta
phones kai krauges salpiggou)" Amos 2:2 LXX (the words "meta"
and "en" serve the same function). The same message here is
like that of Psalm 47:5, Maab, of course, is not involved in the
"shouting" and "cry(ing) of a trumpet" just as God, in Psalm
47:5, is not involved in the "joyful shouting" since the context
of the entire chapter shows that it is indeed the people who shout and blow the
trumpet as God "goes up". The same could be said of I
Thessalonians 4:16. It is logical and in fact, biblical to interpret,
understand and translate it as:
"the
voice of an archangel is heard as the Lord himself descends from heaven, the
trumpet of God blasts at the summit." --- (as in Psalm 47:5, MSG)
"the
Lord himself shall descend from heaven acclaimed by commanding shouts. The
Eternal Lord is announced by the blast of the trumpet of God [and the voice of
an archangel]." --- (as in Psalm 47:5, VOICE)
"the
LORD himself shall come down from heaven at the sound of the trumpet of God
[and at the hearing of an archangel's voice]." --- (as in Psalm
47:5, ERV)
"the
Lord himself shall descend from heaven as the voice of an archangel is heard
and the trumpet of God is blast." --- (as in Psalm 47:5, CEV)
Which
the TEV translation explains:
"There
will be a shout of command, the archangel's voice, the sound of God's trumpet,
and the Lord himself will come down from heaven." (cf. Psalm 47:5
"God goes up to his throne. there are joyful shouts and the blast of
trumpets as the LORD goes up").
Furthermore, like I earlier pointed
out, "en phone" + subject of a genitive DOES NOT appear
between two nouns of the same identity. If the Bible want to present it that
way, it always appears like "with A loud voice," (Revelation 14:9)"With
A shrill voice/noise/sound," (II Peter 3:10) e.t.c.
Claiming
that Jesus Christ (the Lord himself) is the archangel, in the light of Paul's
epistle, is as silly as writing it out like this:
"The
Lord himself will descend from heaven... with the voice of the Lord
himself..." or "the Archangel himself will descend... with
the voice of archangel himself..." (as for I Thessalonians 4:16)
"God
has gone up... with the sound/voice of God" or "The Trumpet
has gone up... with the sound/voice of the trumpet"(as
for Psalm 47:5)
"The
Donkey... speaking with the voice of the Donkey" or "The
Man... speaking with the voice of the man" (as for II Peter
2:16)
Even
those who claim that Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel find it odd to
interpret I Thessalonians 4:16 to mean: "The Lord himself
will descend from heaven... with the voice of the Lord himself..."
or "the Archangel himself will descend... with the voice of the
Archangel himself..." I've talked this out with many Jesus/Michael
believers and most of them admit that it is "bizarre" to render a
Bible verse like this, but many of them don't seem to know that this is how it
would appear and would be interpreted if one claims that Jesus is
"identical" to the archangel stated in that verse, and of course, the
Bible makes no such tautologies.
It is always a pleasure having dialogues with people who
believe that Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel because even if we put aside
the numerous passages that debunk such a belief, we even get to see its
refutation in the very verse used as their favourite "proof texts".
Jesus was not, is not and will never be Michael the archangel, anyone who sees
it differently should bring forth his/her proof from the Bible and of course,
without unscriptural conjectures.
STAY BLESSED
No comments:
Post a Comment