Was he a Trinitarian? If so, he is just one of many who affirm that view. But, all to often it is seen as some heretical view. Jehovah's Witnesses hold it, and it is absurd! They may say. Of course, I think we are right in affirming that, and that Jesus is not Jehovah. Yet I see nothing in that belief itself, that is: Jesus is Michael, that is automatically incompatible with the Trinity, yet it is harped on so often by them!
Kinkade contends that Michael was not a proper name but that cannot be true, as demonstrated by previous usage and ehad simply means ONE, to which he tries to attach some special significance. I can see what he is driving at.
Kinkade was not tied to any church per se. His views differ from traditional members of Christendom, but he may have believed in Christ's divinity. Like you say, Sean, there have been Trinitarians who affirmed that Christ is Michael although he's supposed to be Jehovah too.
Duncan, I don't agree with Kinkade's discussion in toto, but at least he was willing to break away from numerous traditions of the church.
As I recall, in the preface to Kinkade's book he says that he worked at a job just to be able to afford a Bible, and that he wanted one that had no commentary, because he wanted his conclusions to be drawn from the text and only the test. With that methodology, he concluded that Jesus is the Arch-Angel Michael and not God, and that the holy spirit is just another way of speaking about God in action, i.e. not a person, but God's power.
The name "Michael" does indeed mean "who is like God," but this phrase is actually a rhetorical question, implying that no one is like God. Michael’s name emphasizes God’s uniqueness and sovereignty, not Michael's similarity to God. It is not a title that inherently identifies someone as divine or as the Son of God. The term "Archangel" means "chief angel" or "principal messenger," but this title does not automatically equate the bearer with divinity. Angels are created beings, and the title "Archangel" simply indicates a high rank among the angels. Jesus, on the other hand, is not merely the highest of angels but is consistently described in Scripture as the unique Son of God, distinct from all created beings, including angels.
While the Bible does use the term "Archangel" in the singular, this does not necessarily imply there is only one archangel. Rather, it emphasizes the specific role or function of that angel in a particular context. The Bible mentions Michael specifically as "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13), suggesting that there are multiple high-ranking angels, even if they are not all explicitly called "archangels" in the text. Jesus is never directly called an archangel in Scripture. Instead, He is given titles that affirm His divine nature and authority, such as "Son of God," "King of kings," and "Lord of lords" (Revelation 19:16). These titles place Him far above any angelic being, including Michael.
While Jesus is clearly described as the one who will judge the world (Acts 17:31; John 5:22), Michael’s role in the end times is different. In Daniel 12:1, Michael is described as a protector of God’s people, not as the judge. Jesus’ role as judge is based on His divine authority as the Son of God, while Michael’s role is that of a powerful angelic defender. The distinction between Jesus and angels is made clear in Hebrews 1, where the author argues that Jesus is superior to all angels. Hebrews 1:13, for example, asks, "To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’?" This rhetorical question highlights that no angel, including Michael, holds the same position or authority as Jesus.
In the Bible, the term "messenger" (Greek: "angelos") can refer to a variety of roles, including human messengers (as in the case of John the Baptist, Mark 1:2) and divine messengers (angels). However, being a messenger does not make someone an angel in the sense of being a created spiritual being. Jesus, as the "Word of God" (John 1:1), is the ultimate messenger of God’s will, but this title reflects His divine nature, not a created angelic status. Jesus is more than just a messenger; He is the incarnate Word of God, fully divine and fully human (John 1:14). His role as God’s messenger to humanity is unique and incomparable to the role of any angel, including Michael. Jesus' identity as the Son of God, part of the Trinity, transcends the role of any angelic being.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apostolorum.html
ReplyDeleteCalvin’s Commentaries on The Prophet Daniel, Vol. II, Baker reprint, vol. XIII, pp. 369, 370.
ReplyDeleteThe wording in rev 22:6 I find intriguing. Also Ephesians 4:11 - ευαγγελιστάς. Angels of good news.
ReplyDeleteWas he a Trinitarian? If so, he is just one of many who affirm that view. But, all to often it is seen as some heretical view. Jehovah's Witnesses hold it, and it is absurd! They may say. Of course, I think we are right in affirming that, and that Jesus is not Jehovah. Yet I see nothing in that belief itself, that is: Jesus is Michael, that is automatically incompatible with the Trinity, yet it is harped on so often by them!
ReplyDeletehttps://archive.org/stream/bibledoctrineofg00kink#page/n7/mode/2up
ReplyDeleteKinkade contends that Michael was not a proper name but that cannot be true, as demonstrated by previous usage and ehad simply means ONE, to which he tries to attach some special significance. I can see what he is driving at.
ReplyDeleteKinkade was not tied to any church per se. His views differ from traditional members of Christendom, but he may have believed in Christ's divinity. Like you say, Sean, there have been Trinitarians who affirmed that Christ is Michael although he's supposed to be Jehovah too.
ReplyDeleteDuncan, I don't agree with Kinkade's discussion in toto, but at least he was willing to break away from numerous traditions of the church.
As I recall, in the preface to Kinkade's book he says that he worked at a job just to be able to afford a Bible, and that he wanted one that had no commentary, because he wanted his conclusions to be drawn from the text and only the test. With that methodology, he concluded that Jesus is the Arch-Angel Michael and not God, and that the holy spirit is just another way of speaking about God in action, i.e. not a person, but God's power.
ReplyDelete~Kaz
The name "Michael" does indeed mean "who is like God," but this phrase is actually a rhetorical question, implying that no one is like God. Michael’s name emphasizes God’s uniqueness and sovereignty, not Michael's similarity to God. It is not a title that inherently identifies someone as divine or as the Son of God. The term "Archangel" means "chief angel" or "principal messenger," but this title does not automatically equate the bearer with divinity. Angels are created beings, and the title "Archangel" simply indicates a high rank among the angels. Jesus, on the other hand, is not merely the highest of angels but is consistently described in Scripture as the unique Son of God, distinct from all created beings, including angels.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Bible does use the term "Archangel" in the singular, this does not necessarily imply there is only one archangel. Rather, it emphasizes the specific role or function of that angel in a particular context. The Bible mentions Michael specifically as "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13), suggesting that there are multiple high-ranking angels, even if they are not all explicitly called "archangels" in the text.
Jesus is never directly called an archangel in Scripture. Instead, He is given titles that affirm His divine nature and authority, such as "Son of God," "King of kings," and "Lord of lords" (Revelation 19:16). These titles place Him far above any angelic being, including Michael.
While Jesus is clearly described as the one who will judge the world (Acts 17:31; John 5:22), Michael’s role in the end times is different. In Daniel 12:1, Michael is described as a protector of God’s people, not as the judge. Jesus’ role as judge is based on His divine authority as the Son of God, while Michael’s role is that of a powerful angelic defender.
The distinction between Jesus and angels is made clear in Hebrews 1, where the author argues that Jesus is superior to all angels. Hebrews 1:13, for example, asks, "To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’?" This rhetorical question highlights that no angel, including Michael, holds the same position or authority as Jesus.
In the Bible, the term "messenger" (Greek: "angelos") can refer to a variety of roles, including human messengers (as in the case of John the Baptist, Mark 1:2) and divine messengers (angels). However, being a messenger does not make someone an angel in the sense of being a created spiritual being. Jesus, as the "Word of God" (John 1:1), is the ultimate messenger of God’s will, but this title reflects His divine nature, not a created angelic status.
Jesus is more than just a messenger; He is the incarnate Word of God, fully divine and fully human (John 1:14). His role as God’s messenger to humanity is unique and incomparable to the role of any angel, including Michael. Jesus' identity as the Son of God, part of the Trinity, transcends the role of any angelic being.