Michael the Archangel “one who is God.

[Amo]

Amos- This get some things settled.  Who were the founders of the SDA?  That formed the church within the first 5 years of its existence?

I don't know who Amos is, but I'll address the above after more clarification.  Do you want to know who literally organized the denomination which officially existed in 1863, or those who founded the actual doctrines upon which it stands?  There is a big difference between the two.

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Just wanted to point out that Michael is ONE of the CHIEF PRINCES
(dan 10:13)

[Hobie]

No, you are mistaken Jesus is not Michael the Archangel.

The concept of Michael the Archangel being Jesus started in the 7th day church when the 7th day Adventist church was being founded, when they denied the deity of Jesus.


"For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee?'"  Hebrews 1:5

"But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever...'"
 Hebrews 1:8a


But to which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet?' Are they [the angels] not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?"  Hebrews 1:13-14

This belief did not originate with the SDA church.  Nor are they the only ones who make this connection.

The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in #Re 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn’s BD).
John A. Lees (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

ARCHANGEL

This world is only twice used in the Bible, #1Th 4:16 Jude 1:9. In this last passage it is applied to Michael, who, in #Da 10:13,21 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in #Re 12:7-9 as the leader of an angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant. ( American Tract Society Bible Dictionary)

The Rabbinical traditions about Michael are very numerous. They oppose him constantly to Sammael, the accuser and enemy of Israel, as disputing for the soul of Moses; as bringing the ram the substitute for Isaac, which Sammael sought to keep back, etc., etc.: they give him the title of the "great high- priest in heaven," as well as that of the "great prince and conqueror;" and finally lay it down that "wherever Michael is said to have appeared, there the glory of the Shechinah is intended." It is clear that the sounder among them, in making such use of the name, intended to personify the Divine Power, and typify the Messiah (see Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. i. 1079, 1119, ii. 8, 15, ed. Dresd. 1742).( Smiths Revised Bible Dictionary)

I know it wasn't started in the 7th day church, but I was trying to say it was a doctrine of the 7th day adventist from the beginning.  Also, the 7th day adventist use to deny the deity of Jesus, they called him Michael the Arch Angel, because they didn't think he was God.

Not even close, the Jews believed in Michael the Archangel, the early church and the Protestant Reformation had it, and the church members that formed the Adventist church brought it or accepted it when they came in and the church never has in any way denied the deity of Jesus, so study before making such claims.

[Sinead]

Just wanted to point out that Michael is ONE of the CHIEF PRINCES
(dan 10:13)

I agree, he is. He is, from what I understand the highest angel God has created. It is he who will throw satan into the bottomless pit.
When the archangel Michael confronted satan he dared not bring an accusation against him because he knows satan's power.
If Michael was really Jesus then this wouldn't have happened. Satan is scared of Jesus, not the other way around.

[Hobie]

Just wanted to point out that Michael is ONE of the CHIEF PRINCES
(dan 10:13)

and if you take the rest of the verses you see who Michael is, read your scripture...

[LightHammer]

Just wanted to point out that Michael is ONE of the CHIEF PRINCES
(dan 10:13)

and if you take the rest of the verses you see who Michael is, read your scripture...

No Christ is not one of the chief of the princes. He is the King. Your theology kind of falls apart with that verse, especially if we're talking about the Logos pre-incarnate.

All subservient titles of the Logos all come from His capacity as the incarnate God. In His status as pre-incarnate God He only has one subservient title "Son". That title does not necessarily deal with heierachy as much as it deals with the divine generation and how God the Father begot God the Son.

So if we're beholding the Logos before the miracle of the Incarnation, He would not be "one of the chief princes".

It's very simple to see that Christ pre-incarnate is not Michael. To insist upon such is to simultaneously claim that Sacred Scripture teaches us that the Wisdom of God (Logos) is but one of some other pre-incarnate king's princes. That's a big negative.

P.S.

The appropriate translation for Michael is not "one who is God" it is "one who is like God".

[LightHammer]

Daniel 10:13
`And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;

[djconklin]

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in D[a]n[iel]l ." -- John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048.

Concerning Michael as recorded in Daniel 12:1 John Calvin states:

"The twelfth chapter commenced, as we stated in yesterday's Lecture, with the angel's prediction as to the future state of the Church after the manifestation of Christ It was to be subject to many miseries, and hence this passage would soothe the sorrow of Daniel, and of all the pious, as he still promises safety to the Church through the help of God. Daniel therefore represented Michael as the guardian of the Church, and God had enjoined this duty upon Christ, as we learn from the 10th chapter of John, (John 10:28, 29.) As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." -- J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/vii.htm

Theodore Beza:
Daniel 10:13- Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=da&chapter=010.
Daniel 12:1 - The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=da&chapter=012

John Wesley:
Daniel 10:13 Withstood me - God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael - Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained - To counter - work their designs against the people of God.
Daniel 10:21 - Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=da&chapter=010.
Daniel 12:1 - For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=da&chapter=012

Adam Clarke:
But lo, Michael
Daniel 10:13 - Gabriel, who speaks, did not leave Cyrus till Michael came to take his place. Michael, he who is like God, sometimes appears to signify the Messiah, at other times the highest or chief archangel. Indeed there is no archangel mentioned in the whole Scripture but this one. See Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7.
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=10&verse=13#Da10_13

John Gill:
Daniel 10:13 - but, lo, Michael one of the chief Princes, came to help me; called in the New Testament an Archangel, the Prince of angels, the Head of all principality and power; and is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel; who is "one", or "the first of the chief Princes" {x}, superior to angels, in nature, name, and office.
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=10&verse=13
Daniel 10:21 - and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your Prince; Christ the Prince of the kings of the earth, he was the Prince, Protector, and Guardian of the people of the Jews; he is the Angel that went before them in the wilderness, and guarded them in it, and guided them into the land of Canaan
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=010&verse=021
Daniel 12:1 - The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who is as God
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=012&verse=001

Matthew Henry:
Daniel 12:1 - The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, ch. 10:21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deu. 32:3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. 1:5.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=da&chapter=012

"There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21). -- William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.

[LightHammer]

The earliest Protestant scholars meaning some guys 1600 years removed from the Early Church right? These guys 1600 years removed from the Early Church came up with this speculation yes?

K. Thought so.

[DaveW]

That entire list of commentators are wrong.

And I would LOVE to see exactly WHO Matthew Henry was referring to when he said " Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... " What were HIS sources?

[djconklin]

The earliest Protestant scholars meaning some guys 1600 years removed from the Early Church right? These guys 1600 years removed from the Early Church came up with this speculation yes?

K. Thought so.

Who said it was speculation?

[djconklin]

>That entire list of commentators are wrong.

Don't you just love that detailed analysis and proof?  Why it just takes your breath away!  Stunning and unbelievable would be too weak to describe the majesty of it all.

[DaveW]

>That entire list of commentators are wrong.

Don't you just love that detailed analysis and proof?  Why it just takes your breath away!  Stunning and unbelievable would be too weak to describe the majesty of it all.

I have read a lot of Jewish commentary from the first century.  I have NEVER seen anything that supports this.

I see no scripture to support this in its face value meaning.

But you ask for proof - how do you prove a negative?

[djconklin]

>I have read a lot of Jewish commentary from the first century.

And we have loads of proof about that claim too.

You positively claimed that the commentators were wrong: where's your proof?

[LightHammer]

1. It is specualtion. New speculation at that.

2. I provided a detailed analysis that was ignored so if I were DaveW I probably would've responded in the same way.