Michael Is Part Of The Trinity

[redwave]

No, Michael is Hebrew and is a question: "Who (is) like God?" It does not identify anyone or state anything regarding what someone is; it asks a simple rhetorical question. Here is how it breaks down:

Mi = who?

(is)

cha = kha = like

'El = God

Michael is also stated to be NOT the Chief Prince, but is said to be 'achad hassarim hari'shonim (English: "ONE OF the chief princes or rulers." (See Daniel 10:13). That means that there are more than one chief prince amongst the angels. Other nations had angelic "princes" as well but Michael was Israel's prince. But, Michael was but one of the most important princes, according to the Bible.

Additionally, Latter-day revelation identifies Michael as Adam and as the Ancient of Days. Still won't work.

Yes, I realize Michael is a Hebrew name. My real name happens to be Michael by the way. I have seen other definitions for it.

Daniel 10:13 is probably the most difficult verse regarding Michael: "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me." It appears at first glance that Michael is only "one of" the chief princes. This is an unfortunate translation in the King James. The word "one" comes from the Hebrew word "echad," which is also frequently translated as "first," as in the president's wife being called "first lady." (See Genesis 1:5; 8:13.) This changes the whole meaning of the verse to Michael being first of, greatest or highest of, to the chief of princesâ??again a reference to Jesus. The prince of the kingdom of Persia who withstood the angel was no doubt the devil who frequently appears working in the shadow of earthly monarchs such as the king of Babylon, the king of Tyre, and the Roman power (Isaiah 14:4, Ezekiel 28:2, Revelation 12:4). And remember that Jesus calls Satan "the prince of this world" (John 12:31).

Daniel 10:21 says, "But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince." Notice here that the angel refers to Michael as your Prince. Who was Danielâ??s prince In the previous chapter, we see the answer. In Daniel 9:25, Danielâ??s Messiah is called the prince, which is another clear indication of Michaelâ??s identity! So Gabriel is saying that Michael the archangel is Jesus, who knows all the truth of Scripture. Michael Stands Up

The final reference to Michael in Daniel is in chapter 12: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people." Notice here that Michael is not called a great prince but "the great prince." Is there any prince greater then Jesus He is also identified as the one who "standeth for the children of thy people." This means that He intercedes, defends and even stands as a substitute. Who could this be other then Jesus

Commenting on this verse, Matthew Henry states: "Michael signifies, 'Who is like God,' and his name, with the title of 'the great Prince,' points out the Divine Savior. Christ stood for the children of our people in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the curse for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in pleading for them at the throne of grace." Jesus is clearly the one who always stands in our place and for our defense.

Michael standing up is also a reference to the Lord preparing to come. Notice that Michael is so exalted and powerful, his standing launches the great time of trouble. This in turn is followed by the second coming of Jesus and the resurrection (Daniel 12:2).

The Voice of Michael

If we isolate and examine the word "archangel," we see another interesting match. The only other passage in the Bible that uses the word "archangel" is 1 Thessalonians 4:16. And note its context: "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." It is the voice of the archangel that raises the dead in Christ, and the Lord Himself who shouts it. This indicates that they are one and the same. Jesus is the one who shouts with the voice of the archangel, or "greatest messenger," to raise the dead!

Obviously, angels don't have the power to resurrect the dead. Only God who gives life has the power to restore it. "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. â?¦ Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth" (John 5:26, 28, 29).

In Jude, we see the archangel contending with the devil for the body of Moses, who, incidentally, was resurrected and taken to heaven from whence he appeared on the mount of transfiguration to encourage Christ (Mark 9). In 1 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul describes the resurrection as happening in response to the voice of the archangel. Again we see the parallel between these two verses; both describe the archangel in the act of resurrecting.

You want to pull the latter day revelation trump card on me, it is not biblical so it doesnâ??t work for me.

[MormonMason]

Yes, I realize Michael is a Hebrew name. My real name happens to be Michael by the way. I have seen other definitions for it.

Those other definitions would be wrong. The Hebrew Mi is an interrogative particle, meaning 'who?' Misuses and misinterpretations of the word notwithstanding, the name means "Who is like God?" and only that.

Daniel 10:13 is probably the most difficult verse regarding Michael: "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me." It appears at first glance that Michael is only "one of" the chief princes. This is an unfortunate translation in the King James. The word "one" comes from the Hebrew word "echad," which is also frequently translated as "first," as in the president's wife being called "first lady." (See Genesis 1:5; 8:13.) This changes the whole meaning of the verse to Michael being first of, greatest or highest of, to the chief of princesâ??again a reference to Jesus....

Hebrew grammar disagrees with you. There is nothing unfortunate or even difficult about the rendering of the King James Version of the Bible here as it agrees precisely with the meaning dictated by Hebrew grammatical structure of the phrase. Your engagement in the Strong's Concordance root fallacy notwithstanding, the word translated "one of" is in the construct state, which means that it is the first part of the phrase 'achad hassarim hari'shonim and should be rendered "one of the chief princes" as it is found in the KJV and other versions of the Bible.

You might have had a case if the word for 'one' were not in the construct state as it here is. If the word were in the absolute state, it would simply have meant one as you so want it to mean particularly if it was used as an ordinal in the absolute state. But, it is in the construct state so your entire argument collapses like a house of cards on its own bad foundation. The word for one in the construct state means one of in the sentence and must be combined with the remainder of the phrase with which it is construct.

It is only translated "first" when connected in prepositional phrases with prepositions, which you cannot see there in the pertinent phrase of Daniel 10:13, and of which you would not learn from being a Strong's Concordance-jockey. There are no connective prepositions in the phrase and it is not in the absolute state in order for there not to be prepositions! The gender and number of the same phrase also confirm the KJV rendering as both of the two last of the three words in that phrase are masculine plurals connected with the preceding construct. To be rendered to have the meaning you insist on would require a major grammatical overhaul of the passage.

Following are five passages where the number one does occur in the absolute state and as an Ordinal number. They are here with and without prepositions.

Here is your first example of the use of the word for one translated as an ordinal; there are no prepositions but the word for one is in the absolute state.

Here is your second of two examples of the use of the word one as translated as an ordinal, which again shows a differing grammatical structure from what you will shortly see at Daniel 10:13. This example has two forms of the same word for one and carries prepositions. The first of the two in this example is in the construct state. The second of the two in this example is in the absolute state.

Here, there are prepositions and the word for one is in the absolute state. The underlined phrase means in (the) first month.

Here, the word for one is in the feminine construct state but is joined with another word in the construct state with prepositions connecting the constructs with the name of the king and with the historical timeline words meaning and in the year.

Here there are two occurrences of the same word for one but please try to notice the subtle differences in the usage and vocalization. However, the first occurence is in the absolute state and is joined to another number by the conjunctive waw and followed by the word for day, also in the absolute.

In the second occurrence, the word for one is in the masculine construct state to agree with the masculine absolute plurals in the passage. As you can see here, all the forms for ordinal numbers differ from the usage for the cardinal number in the phrase to be translated one of the chief princes here.

Now, compare the Hebrew of Genesis 21:15 and Genesis 22:2 with the above second occurrence in Daniel 10:13 with the occurrence of the word for one in the same masculine construct state and masculine plural absolute state form of the word following, exactly the same grammatical usage of the word one as that found at the second occurrence of Daniel 10:13! The underlined portion of the first of these examples here is to be rendered one of the bushes not the "first of the bushes." The underlined portion of the second example here is to be rendered one of the mountains or one of the hills, not "the first of the hills" or "the first of the mountains."

I can provide many more examples of the usage of the words, but the only acceptable rendering of the second part of the sentence in Daniel 10:13 is one of the chief princes, just as it appears in the KJV. There are no first ladies or a first one here. The truth is that the only reason it would be unfortunate for you in the rendering as it stands is because it is one of the prongs entirely refuting your argument.

The second prong undercutting your argument is the passage as found at Hebrews 1, which says:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5

[MormonMason]

Well, part of CMZ = Michael.

Your last name wouldn't be Zimmerman, would it? Just curious.

[redwave]

Are you an English/Hebrew/grammar teacher? That was quite a response! How do you find the time? Anyway consider this, A quick look in a Bible concordance reveals that there are 15 references to the name Michael in Scripture. Ten of these are simply people named Michael. In fact, the entry for "Michael" in the lexicon (a Greek and/or Hebrew dictionary) states, "The name of an archangel and nine Israelites." It is the identity of Michael, the archangel and prince, mentioned in the last five references that I seek in this study.

The first three of these references to Michael are in the Old Testament book of the prophet Daniel. The last two are mentioned in the New Testament books of Jude and Revelation. With an honest study and comparison of these and other verses, clues quickly emerge that lead us to an inescapable conclusion of Michael's true identity; He is none other than Jesusâ??He is not a created angel or cherub, but this name is another of the many grand titles for God's eternal Son!

At first glance, the Old Testament appears to portray Michael as a prince, and the New Testament describes Him as an archangel. But by looking at other related Scriptures where similar language and wording are used, we will see an interesting pattern emerge. Warning

Before you proceed any further, please carefully read and digest this next thought. Because the word "angel" means messenger, it is used very freely and broadly in Scripture. Sometimes, men are called angels in the Bible (1 Samuel 29:9; Galatians 4:14). And sometimes angels are called men (Genesis 32:24). And in other places, as will be soon shown, God Himself is identified as an angel! Of course, even angels are called angels.

Typically, when a person thinks of an angel, they picture one of the many levels of winged, ministering spirits known as angels, seraphim, or cherubim. Unlike Jesus, these celestial beings are created. There are some cults that teach that Jesus, before His earthly incarnation, was really just a powerful angel that had a feud with His wayward fellow angel Lucifer. In turn, this means that Jesus is a created being who has been promoted by the Father and therefore not the eternal God as Christians accept. This study categorically rejects that view. Jesus is, and always has been, God's eternal Son and indeed God Himself. Any comparison made to Jesus as an angel in this study is simply in the classical sense as a greatest messenger of salvation and is in no way intended to diminish from His eternal divinity.

The Key is in the Name

First, let's consider the meaning of some words and names. In the Greek New Testament, the word "angel" means "messenger," and "arch" means "chief, principle, greatest, or highest." So "archangel" simply means "highest or greatest messenger." The Hebrew name "Michael," found in the Old Testament, means "who is like God" or sometimes it forms a question: "Who is like God" So the title Michael the archangel can be translated as "The greatest messenger who is God." Whether this name is a question, statement, or a challenge will be clear by further study. One angel did profess to be like God. That covering cherub fallen from the heavenly courts is Lucifer, who became the devil or Satan, by claiming to "be like the most High" (Isaiah 14:14). In Revelation 12:7, Satan is opposed by "Michael and his angels" and is cast out of heaven.

The Angel of the Lord

The phrase "angel of the Lord" is found 68 times in Scripture. Sometimes it applies to Gabriel who appeared to Daniel, Zacharias, and Mary. But Gabriel is called "an" angel of the Lord (Luke 1:11). He is not referred to as "the" angel of the Lord. Neither is he ever called the archangel. (And while weâ??re on the subject, the popular angel Raphael does not appear anywhere in Scripture.) Gabriel is probably one of the two covering cherubs who flank the throne of God. Remember that he said to Zacharias, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God," (Luke 1:19). Lucifer once held the other position before his fall (Ezekiel 28:14). If the highest rank held by an angel is that of the covering cherubs by the throne of God then who and what is an archangel And who is this mighty individual identified as "the angel of the Lord" who performs such prominent roles in the redemption of man

God the Father created all things through Jesus (Hebrews 1:2; Ephesians 3:9). It is not implausible to assume that if Christ came to earth and became a man in His battle against Satan to save human beings, He might also have in some way identified with the angels to protect them from Satan's evil influence in heaven. In fact, there are several references in Scripture to a mysterious being identified as "the angel of the Lord" before Christ's earthly incarnation. Yet each time He is mentioned, there are clues to His identity. Let's review them briefly in the order in which they appear.

Hagar

After Hagar the handmaid of Abraham bore Ishmael, she and the barren Sarah could no longer coexist peacefully. Sarah dealt severely with her now haughty hand- maid until Hagar fled into the desert. "And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness" (Genesis 16:7). The angel told Hagar to go back and submit to Sarah and promised that her son, Ishmael, would be the father of a great nation. When the "angel" disappeared, Hagar "called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me" (verse 13). It appears Hagar recognized that the "angel of the Lord" who had spoken to her was really God. But keep reading; it gets clearer!

Abraham

God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on mount Moriah. Just as he was about to plunge the dagger into his son of promise, the angel of the Lord stopped him. "And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, 'Abraham, Abraham:' and he said, 'Here am I.' And he said, 'Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me'" (Genesis 22:11, 12).

It is clear that Abraham was offering his son to God and not to a mere angel. "And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, 'By myself have I sworn,' saith the Lord, 'for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, â?¦ because thou hast obeyed my voice'" (Genesis 22:15-18). In recounting this experience of Abraham in Acts 3:25, Peter also identifies this "angel of the Lord" who made a covenant with the Patriarch as God.

Jacob

While fleeing from his angry brother Esau, Jacob had a dream in which God confirmed the covenant of Abraham to him. After receiving assurance that God would be with him and bring him back safely to his home in Canaan, Jacob vowed to return to God a tithe of all his increase. He set up the stone he had been using for a pil- low and anointed it with oil to solemnize his vow. Then he named the place Beth-el, or house of God, since God had appeared to him there.

Twenty years later, Jacob was on his way back home, not a penniless fugitive, but a wealthy man. God decided to remind Jacob who had really brought him success. Here's how Jacob recounted the story: "And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I" (Genesis 31:11). In verse 13, this "angel of God" identifies Himself: "I am the God of Beth-el, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me."

Then, when Jacob wrestled with a heavenly being (Genesis 32:22-32), he was given a new name and blessed him. Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved" (verse 30). In the New Testament, Jesus is the one who blesses His people and gives them a new name (Matthew 5:3-12; Revelation 2:17). As you can see, it is becoming increas- ingly clear that the angel of the Lord is Jesus Himself.

When Jacob was on his deathbed blessing Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, he used the terms "angel" and "God" interchangeably. "God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads" (Genesis 48:15, 16).

The Scriptures are very clear there is neither a redeemer nor savior but God. "I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior; Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer" (Isaiah 43:11, 14). Once again we see that the angel who redeemed Jacob is another name for our Redeemer, Jesus!

Moses

Moses saw a burning bush that was not consumed. "And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush" (Exodus 3:2). Verse 4 identifies this angel: "God called unto him out of the midst of the bush." And in verse 6 He identifies Himself again. "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." The angel of the Lord identifies Himself as God!

In his last sermon before he was stoned to death, Stephen agrees with the Exodus account. "And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Acts 7:30-32).

Israel

In another instance, the children of Israel were led through the wilderness by God. "And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night" (Exodus 13:21). Moses later describes this being that led them this way: "And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them" (Exodus 14:19). Again, "the angel of God" is identified as God.

Balaam

The angel of the Lord again figures prominently in the story of Balaam and his talking donkey. It is this angel who saves the donkey from her merciless master and nearly kills the covetous prophet, who is on his way to curse God's people (Numbers 22:21-35). After Balaam's close brush with death, "the angel of the Lord said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shall speak" (verse 35). The next chapter reveals who put the words in the prophet's mouth: "And God met Balaam: â?¦ And the Lord put a word in Balaam's mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus shalt thou speak" (Numbers 23:4, 5). Here again, "the angel of the Lord" turns out to be God Himself.

Judges

Now let's move on to the book of Judges, where we read, "And an 'angel of the LORD' came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you" (2:1). By now we should recognize a pattern. Just who brought the Israelites out of Egypt and made the covenant with Israel that He would never breakâ??the angel of the Lord or pre-incarnate son of GOD Himself Yes! The answer is both, one and the same.

Gideon

Gideon has an encounter with the angel of the Lord in the book of Judges. The angel tells Gideon that the Lord is with him. Gideon points to the oppression of Israel by the Midianites as evidence to the contrary. "And the Lord looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee" (Judges 6:14). Throughout the rest of the narrative, the person speaking to Gideon is identified interchangeably as the Lord, the angel of the Lord, and the angel of God.

Manoah

Samson's mother, the wife of Manoah, was barren. "And the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman" (Judges 13:3). This angel told her she would bear a son who would deliver the apostate Israelites from their heathen oppressors. She quickly called Manoah, who prayed for another visit from the "man of God." When the angel came the second time, Manoah asked him his name. The King James says that the angel told Manoah that his name was "Secret," with a margin notation that translates it as "Wonderful." This immediately makes us think of Isaiah's familiar prophecy that Jesus would be called, "Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). The name "Wonderful" for the angel of the Lord who appeared to Manoah connects this "angel" with the coming Messiah who was to be called "Wonderful."

Once again, after seeing this "Wonderful messenger," Manoah declared they had seen God. And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God!" (Judges 13:22).

No One has Seen the Father

Suddenly we have more leads than we can follow! We can clearly see that "angel of the Lord" is frequently identified to be God Himself. But the Bible states, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). John 6:46 also tells us, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." Obviously, since no man has seen God the Father, all of these Old Testament sightings of God as the "angel of the Lord" must have been Jesus, God the Son, veiling His glory so they could endure His presence without being consumed.

The Angel of the Covenant

One of the most famous messianic prophecies is found in Malachi 3:1: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."

The messenger of the covenant spoken of here in Malachi is clearly a reference to the advent of Jesus Christ. The word translated as messenger (mal'ak) is the same exact word used in the previous Old Testament passages translated as angel of the Lord. So this would also be a proper translation: "Behold, I will send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the angel of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. What could be clearer

Rebuking the Accuser

There is one more important reference in which the angel of the Lord appears in the Old Testament. The prophet Zechariah was given a vision of Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord. Satan is standing at his right hand to resist him. Here we see two adversaries contending over a sinful human being. Joshua's filthy garment symbolizes his sin. (Zechariah 3:3).

In this narrative, the name changes quickly from "the angel of the Lord" (verse 1) to "the Lord" (verse 2), indicating again that they are the same. Then the Lord makes an interesting statement. "And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan" (Zechariah 3:2). There is only one other place in Scripture, Jude 9, where this sen- tence is foundâ??and Michael the archangel speaks it!

In the short epistle of Jude, we witness a vignette similar to Joshua and the angel in Zechariah. "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 1:9). The situations are amazingly parallel: Christ and Satan are contending over the fate of two of Godâ??s great human leaders (a living one in the case of Joshua, and a dead one in the case of Moses). The debate is ended abruptly when Jesus says, "The Lord rebuke thee."

This passage raises another valid question. Some people are confused by part of this verse in Jude 1:9 where Michael rebukes the devil. They wonder: If Michael is really another name for Jesus, then why does he invoke the name of the Lord when rebuking Satan Why not do it Himself as He did when tempted in the wilderness. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan" (Matthew 4:10).

In studying the Scriptures and language of Jesus, we quickly see it was a very common practice for Jesus to speak of Himself in the second person, as in Luke 18:8: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth" And if there is still any lingering question, we have this other clear Scripture in Zechariah 3:2, where the Lord does the same thing Michael does in Jude. He invokes His own name when rebuking the devil. "And the LORD said to Satan, 'The LORD rebuke you, Satan!'" Perhaps these Scriptures are examples of God the Son, appealing to the name of His Father in rebuking Satan.

Michael the Prince

Michael is mentioned more in Daniel than in any other book in Scripture. (See Daniel 10:13; 10:21; 12:1.) In all three references, He is called a princeâ??your prince and the great prince. Isaiah's prophecy about the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6) reveals oneof the key names he says that would apply to the Messiah is "Prince of Peace."

There is another verse in Daniel 8:25 where the "Prince of princes" is mentioned. Again, the cosmic conflict is being played out with Christ on one side and the devil on the other, with humanity serving as the battlefield. "Prince of princes" is actually the same term that is translated "prince of the host" in verse 11. This is similar to "Lord of lords" (Psalm 136:3), "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17), and "King of kings" (Revelation 19:16). All these are titles of deity. He is even referred to as "Messiah the Prince" (Daniel 9:25).

Who is this being that the angels call the Great Prince Let's let the Bible tell us.

â?¢ Isaiah 9:6: "And his name shall be called â?¦The Prince of Peace."

â?¢ Acts 3:14, 15: "But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and â?¦ killed the Prince of life."

â?¢ Acts 5:30, 31: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and

hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour."

â?¢ Revelations 1:5: "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth."

These verses clearly echo with three verses in Daniel in which Michael is called a "prince."

[CMZ]

Your last name wouldn't be Zimmerman, would it? Just curious.

No. But the first two letters in Zimmerman are the same as the first two letters in my last name.

[MormonMason]

Redwave,

I do not at this time teach Hebrew grammar. I do, however, know how to read it.

You are quite lucky that I am not your college professor and that you are not turning in the above "study" as your own! You posted an entire page of material over your last couple posts from a Catholic message board (located here: Roman Catholic Church Forum - Who is Michael the Archangel?) without any attribution. Were I your professor, you would be getting a grade of 'F' and I would even now be drawing up the paperwork necessary to suspend or expel you--that is, unless your name was Doug Batchelor.

On the other hand, I should do that rather than prepare my own responses. It would save some time. Trouble is, if I did that I would be as misled on this issue as you seem to be. You have yet to deal with my above post that shows the validity of the KJV reading of Daniel 10:13, which completely undercuts the entire argument you cited. The Hebrew grammar of Daniel 10:13 clearly states that Michael is "ONE OF the chief princes."

I also would not make too much about the lack of the article in the passages speaking of other angels whereas the article is used in the translation when speaking of Michael. I am looking at the article you cited and the argument is fallacious. Even in the examples cited in the article you cut and pasted here do not have the article, and literally can be translated an angel of the LORD as at Luke 1:11.

Here is Luke 1:11 in the Greek New Testament:

Following are several of the examples given in your above cut 'n' paste article, with both the Hebrew and the LXX Greek translation of the OT for the same passages. As you look these over, I want you to notice a pattern in the translation as well as to observe that the article is missing from both the Hebrew and the Greek in these passages cited by the author as support of the significance of the use of the article the in the phrase the angel of the LORD.

As you can see, none of these examples use the article with reference to this angel of the LORD. The article you cited is inconsistent and erroneous in its claims. The article's conclusion also is severely weakened with the actual evidence of the scriptures.

In fairness, however, the phrase as used is monadic and should have the article in English translation unless context demands otherwise. This means that I would translate consistently across the board as the angel of the Lord for both Luke 1:11 and all the other passages I just cited, if I wanted to be consistent. But, in being fair I do not acknowledge the validity of your post's position. The post is inconsistent and relies upon a translation that at times is inconsistent in its approaches due to commitee differences. We can see this inconsistency by citing the Greek underlying the English translations of Matthew 1:20 and Luke 2:9.

Note that the English translation of the KJV gives the article in the translation, even though the Greek lacks it.

Notice here that the Savior was already born and the angel here was telling of the birth. Again, the English translation used the article here even though it is not in the Greek text. Worse, even if we did accept the article here, if what you advocate were true, Michael would be incarnate on earth by this point in the narrative, if indeed "the angel of the Lord" was a reference to Michael while not for other angels as your cut 'n' pasted article claims. Also notice that the phrase translated "the glory of the Lord" in the same passage also is anarthrous, or without the article, meaning that it literally could be translated as a glory of the Lord--if one wanted to ignore the fact that it is a monadic phrase, that is.

And, there is something else your quoted author bungled rather badly when he was addressing Catholics. He told them that the name Raphael as referring to an angel is nowhere found in scripture. It IS found in Catholic scripture:

Tobiah went to look for someone acquainted with the roads who would travel with him to Media. As soon as he went out, he found the angel Raphael standing before him, though he did not know that this was an angel of God. (Tobit 5:4, NAB)

He should be a little clearer in his argument and take into consideration his audience next time.

Once again, you cannot and will not find out such things while being a Strong's Concordance-jockey. The fact is, the article you have been citing is incorrect and inconsistent. Michael is ONE OF the chief princes, just as Daniel 10:13 tells us, and your author's entire premise falls off its own foundation thereby.

Now, all this being said, you should consult Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. This book concerning the rewriting of the Bible to hide the fact that Yahweh (Jehovah) was the name of that angel has much information of interest, particularly considering that Hosea identified the angel who wrestled with Jacob as Yahweh himself. You will need to be able to look at the Hebrew to see this, however, and no use of Strong's Concordance or its dictionaries will help you to see that clearly enough.

[redwave]

Redwave,

I do not at this time teach Hebrew grammar. I do, however, know how to read it.

You are quite lucky that I am not your college professor and that you are not turning in the above "study" as your own! You posted an entire page of material over your last couple posts from a Catholic message board (located here: Roman Catholic Church Forum - Who is Michael the Archangel?) without any attribution. Were I your professor, you would be getting a grade of 'F' and I would even now be drawing up the paperwork necessary to suspend or expel you--that is, unless your name was Doug Batchelor.

Sounds like you have some problems, but I can guarantee you I am not one of them. That is the first time I have seen that message board. I am familiar with Doug Batchelor, and used several of his quotes. I have been sharing with you these along with my theories, personal beliefs, and scripture,â? bible scriptureâ? in this thread. I can not prove anything. Neither can you. My theories are drawn from the bible and people that draw their theories from the bible. Yours are from latter day modern revelation, which in my opinion is a fancy term for making it up as we go along. I remember childhood times when learning a new game. Usually a good friend would be explaining the rules, but half way through the game the rules seem to change. My friend would simply explain no, this is how it goes in this circumstance. Later in the game more rules seemed to be changed or modified. This is called making it up as we go along, in order to win. Godâ??s word does not change, neither do his laws.

As for responding to your questions or other comments, as soon as I see mocking or a condescending attitude, or overtones like I have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it reveals to me the spirit that motivates you and your words so I donâ??t really give your questions or comments much attention.

Back to basics, the name Michael means who is like God. Who else is like God? In my opinion, based on bible, it can only be Jesus.

I feel it is time to agree to disagree.

[Anijen]

Redwave writes;

God’s word does not change, neither do his laws.

Hmmm it would seem it does, see Old Testament < New Testament

Sorry to say this but Mormon Mason is correct and your argument is he changes the rules as he goes along = grade F

Anijen

[owl]

I'm not going to read all this thread, so I hope I'm not redundant.

I don't claim to receive any revelation for the church and it won't make any difference to my faith if this is not correct. However, I offer it anyway in the hope that it will add some light.

I am sure the position of Holy Ghost is an assignment. Obviouly such an assignment could not be filled by Adam/Michael during his mortality. Christ could himself have filled that reponsibilty during that interim.

First, BY said that Adam is the only God with whom we have to deal.

Second, we do not generally have any contact with others of the Godhead except the Holy Ghost.

Therefore, it is highly likely that Adam fills the office of Holy Ghost during the period up to his ressurection, and the reason the spirit will be withdrawn in the period after Adam's resurrection is that there will be no one pertaining to this earth left to fill the office.

I take comfort in the idea that the reason Adam is do dilligent in filling the duties of his office is his love for us as his offspring, and it must pain him not to be able to reach out to us untill we seek. His love for us is exceeded only by Father and Christ.

He that hath ears let him hear.

[consiglieri]

What a wise old bird.

[owl]

I have been going back and reading a few posts andI have a comment to those arguing about Michael and angel of the Lord,

I am not a Hebrew scholar, but just from context of the translation, I have always had the idea that the word angel is often used in place of spirit, that is, when it says 'the angel of the Lord apeared' it means 'the spirit of the Lord appeared.' It probably should be capitalized if it is not, ie Spirit of the Lord.

And to Redwave,

As far as I can see Mormon Mason was arguing completely from the Bible and from his understanding of Hebrew Grammar. I saw no mention of modern revelation. The fact that you cannot counter his grammatic evidence is no justification for claiming the rules have changed.

[Mike Reed]

How is this possible? In light of the following:If the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam then how can Adam be the Holy Ghost?

While an active TBM, I used to believe that Adam was the Holy Ghost. Regarding the passage that you cite, I concluded that premortal Jesus/Jehovah (or another ministering spiritâ??Joseph Smith maybe?â??under his direction) took over Adam/Michael's responsibility during his {im}mortal probation. In LDS doctrine, there is Lucifer who presides over the third of the hosts of heaven that fell away. When one is tempted... it is highly unlikely that Lucifer is the spirit who is tempting, rather, the likelihood is that it would be a spirit acting under his direction. And yet, Lucifer is the one who gets credit for the temptation. Likewise, I believed that there was one who presides over the spirits of mankind (who gets credit for that which happens under his ministry).... I believe Joseph Smith said that Michael presides over the spirits of mankind, and even identified him as the member of the first presidency of the godhead. (going from memory here) Anyway... with Michael being a member of the first presidency of the Godhead, and also having the responsibility to presiding over the spirits of mankind... it made sense to me that Adam/Michael would be a member of the trinity. And approaching this with dualist thinking, Michael being the prince of angels who led the righteous to battle in the preexistence... it made sense that this role would continue today... the Holy Spirit (Michael) battling against the evil forces of Lucifer. Also... I speculated about the common LDS view that our ancestors are actively working for our benefit on the other side of the veil. As is often taught... they cannot be perfected without us, and we cannot be perfected without them. These spiritual family members who are often involved in our lives on the other side of the veil... we may feel their influence now and again... and who will get the credit? The Holy Spirit. And given the premise that our ancestors are actively working for our good on the other side of the veil, and the premise that they are often identified as the Holy Spirit... who is the common ancestor of all? That again would be Michael. I further speculated that Joseph Smith believed this and may have taught it to Brigham Young.... and that Brigham Young may have misunderstood what Joseph Smith taught, and wallah! We got the Adam God theory!