From the book, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999 (Wissenschaftlicbe Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: Reihe 2; 109), ISBN 3-16-147054-0.
Page 18: While it is not a common motif in OT angelology we do on occasion encounter angelic intercessors and mediators on behalf of humanity (Job 5.1, 16.19, 33.23-28; Zech. 1.12-13). This also seems to fit the royal court pattern; angels intercede for men and women just as members of the
royal court could intercede with the Monarch for those outside the court (cf. Esther 4). This theme will find a great deal of development in later, especially apocalyptic, literature.20 On the other hand, just as an ancient court might contain those who would intercede and defend commoners, so
they could also include those who would serve as public accusers. We find this reflected in the folk tale which frames the book Job (1-2 and 42.7-17). The "Accuser" or "Adversary" here will later develop into the embodiment of evil known as Satan or the Devil, a process already under way in Zech. 3 and 1 Chron. 21.1.21
Page 44: In a related passage, the patriarch Dan instructs his children concerning, apparently, the same angel: "Draw near to God and to the angel who intercedes for you, because he is the mediator between God and men for the peace of Israel. He shall stand in opposition to the kingdom of the enemy" (TDan. 6.2). Three verses later this angel is further identified as ό αγγβλος της ειρήνης. Some have thought this passage suspect. It certainly is very similar to I Tim. 2.5: Έΐς yáp θεός, εις και μεσίτης θεού και ανθρώτων, άνθρωτος Χριστός ' Ιησούς. Hollander and de Jonge‚ who believe the Testaments is essentially a Christian work, view this passage as evidence of a primitive angel Christology.88 Hurtado would rather describe the phrase which parallels 1 Tim. 2.5 as a Christian interpolation. While this is certainly possible, there is nothing specifically Christian about the passage. As we have seen, an angelic mediator between God and humanity could appear in Jewish as well as Christian works.89 If the phrase "mediator between God and men" is not rejected as an interpolation, then it may reflect the tradition that Michael was a heavenly mediator for humanity in general.90
Friday, September 13, 2024
Darrell D. Hannah and Angels As Mediators in Ancient Judaism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
The idea proposed by Darrell D. Hannah and others that Michael the Archangel served as a mediator between God and humanity, and that early Christian angelology may have connected Michael with Christ, is based on speculative interpretations and should be examined critically in light of Scripture.
The Bible is explicit that Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator between God and humanity. 1 Timothy 2:5 clearly states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” This verse rules out the possibility of any angel, including Michael, serving as a mediator. Jesus, as the Son of God, is unique in His role, and no other being can take on this position.
Moreover, the role of Jesus as the mediator is directly connected to His sacrifice on the cross. The New Testament repeatedly affirms that Jesus' mediation is rooted in His atoning death and resurrection (Hebrews 9:15). Since Michael is a created angelic being, he could not have offered such a sacrifice or held the unique role of Jesus in reconciling humanity to God.
The reference to Michael as a mediator in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (TDan 6:2) does not carry the same weight as Scripture. This text is part of the Pseudepigrapha, a collection of writings that are not recognized as divinely inspired or authoritative within the Jewish or Christian biblical canon. While such writings may offer insight into early Jewish thought, they cannot be used as definitive proof for theological claims. Thus, any claim about Michael’s role as a mediator based on non-canonical sources should be approached with caution.
Even if some Jewish texts or early Christian writings speak of angels, including Michael, interceding on behalf of humans, this is fundamentally different from the mediation of Christ. Angels may serve as intercessors or messengers (such as in Zechariah 1:12), but they do not mediate the covenant or offer atonement for sins, as Jesus does. In Hebrews 7:25, we read that Jesus “lives to intercede for them,” emphasizing His unique role as the High Priest and Savior who can fully save humanity through His sacrifice.
The book of Hebrews makes a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels. Hebrews 1:4-5 says that Jesus “became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’?” This passage asserts that Jesus is greater than any angel, including Michael, and is the unique Son of God. Therefore, Michael cannot be equated with Jesus, nor can he share in Jesus' role as mediator or Savior.
While Darrell D. Hannah and other scholars may explore speculative traditions, there is no explicit biblical text that states Michael and Jesus are the same being. Claims that Michael is “the mediator between God and men” (TDan 6:2) or that he plays a Christ-like role are speculative at best. The Bible consistently separates Jesus from angelic beings, affirming His divinity, and there is no passage in the Bible that equates Michael with Christ.
I will make this simple: I'm not claiming that Michael offered his life as a sacrifice in this context or any of the other things you said. I'm merely trying to show that early Judaism viewed angels as mediators. Numerous texts illustrate this point as Andrei Orlov has also demonstrated. It is not just speculation.
Yeah, Christ is our mediator, so we also don't need a mediatrix.
Angels may serve as messengers or intercessors, but Jesus' mediation is vastly different. His mediation involves the atonement for sin and reconciliation between God and humanity, which is a unique, divine function. Unlike angels, Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and His mediation is grounded in His sacrifice on the cross, something no angel could ever do. To suggest that Michael is involved in this kind of mediation fundamentally misunderstands the nature of biblical mediation.
The role of a mediator in the NT is not simply about relaying messages between God and humans but involves redeeming humanity from sin. In Heb. 9:15, Christ is described as the mediator of the new covenant, "He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." This shows that Christ's mediation is tied to His sacrificial death, something no angel could accomplish.
While some Jewish texts may describe angels like Michael as mediators or intercessors, these ideas are not consistent with the teachings of the NT. The Bible presents Jesus Christ ALONE as the mediator of the new covenant, and it never attributes this role to Michael. There is no biblical basis for elevating Michael to the position of a mediator alongside Jesus.
Regarding your brief mention of the Mediatrix concept and the role of Mary: Saints can be a Mediatrix only in a SECONDARY sense, completely subordinate to Christ's unique mediation. She cooperates with Christ in bringing grace to humanity but does so by virtue of her role as the mother of Christ and through her intercessory prayers, not by usurping Christ's singular role as the mediator.
"This, however, must be understood so that it neither takes away nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator." (Lumen Gentium) So it doesn’t conflict with Christ’s unique mediation; it operates similarly to how Christians can pray for one another. Her intercession is always understood as being entirely dependent on Christ’s redemptive work.
We use two meanings for the term "intercession." The first meaning applies only to Christ. In the full sense of the word, He is the only mediator between God and humanity. This is because His divine-human nature is the only bridge between human beings and the incomprehensible divine Being. His death on the cross brought redemption to humanity, and this is effective and sufficient for salvation as long as this world endures.
However, we use another, more ordinary meaning for intercession: to offer help through simple prayer or request on behalf of someone else or alongside them, interceding before God or man. It is certain that we can and should pray for one another, so we cannot deny this type of intercession. Therefore, we must not make a conceptual issue of this, claiming that only Jesus can intercede, because it is clear that we are speaking of two entirely different types of intercession. Jesus’ intercession is absolute, while that of the saints, including Mary, is conditional. Jesus’ intercession is of infinite power, while that of the saints is always finite and is only actualized through the work of Christ.
No one should be scandalized by the idea of co-redemption, because in a certain sense we are all co-redeemers of ourselves and others. This is not to say that Christ’s redemptive work is incomplete without us, or without Mary, but rather that Christ’s redemption is realized in those who unite themselves with the cross of Christ, meaning that they actively work toward their own salvation and the salvation of others. This is why the Paul says, “I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church” (Col. 1:24). We might ask, What could be lacking in Christ’s sufferings? The answer is what we must cooperate with grace.
https://t.ly/if20p
Nincsnevem, I posted your link about hatred of Catholicism and it talks about Mary. However, my remarks were not hateful and Mary is known as the mediatrix. I did not make it up.
The point is granted that Jesus acts as mediator in a way different from angels, but I find the claim that Jesus has to be both God and human in order to be mediator, deficient. One reason is because Moses acted as mediator for Israel and he was human, but he obviously was not YHWH (God). Secondly, ancient Judaism allows for the possibility that angels can mediate for humans and God without being either God or human. Hence, I think the common Trinitarian claim fails on at least two fronts.
See also https://www.academia.edu/26776600/Angelic_Mediators_Gabriel_Uriel_and_Remiel_in_Jewish_Apocalypses
http://jwresearchblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/high-angel-christology-is-jesus-christ.html
From a friend.
Looking at your comments again, I see that you discussed the mediatrix belief. But I was just puzzled by the seeming charge of Catholic hatred, when I said nothing hateful about Catholics. However, people say hateful things about JWs all the time.
Yes, Moses did act as a mediator for Israel, and no one disputes this. However, Moses' mediation was fundamentally different from Christ's mediation. Moses' role was a LIMITED mediator role under the Old Covenant. He represented the people before God and conveyed God's laws to Israel, but he could not reconcile humanity to God. Moses, being a sinner himself, was in need of redemption and could not offer a perfect sacrifice for sin. His mediation was only a shadow of the perfect and ultimate mediation that Christ would bring.
Christ’s mediation, on the other hand, is universal and eternal, operating under the New Covenant. Jesus mediates not just between God and Israel, but between God and all of humanity (Hebrews 9:15). More importantly, Jesus' mediation involves reconciling sinful humanity with a holy God through His own sacrifice. No mere human, including Moses, could fulfill this role because the sacrifice required had to be perfect and without blemish (Hebrews 7:26-27). Moses, like all humans, was imperfect and could not bridge the infinite gap between sinful humanity and a perfectly holy God.
The distinctiveness of Christ’s mediation lies in His dual nature as both God and man. Only as fully God could He offer a sacrifice of infinite value, and only as fully human could He represent humanity and offer Himself in our place (Hebrews 2:14-17). Moses could neither embody the fullness of God nor offer a perfect, once-for-all atonement for sin, which is why his mediatorial role is entirely different and far more limited than that of Christ.
You mentioned that ancient Judaism allowed for the possibility that angels could mediate between humans and God. This is partially true. In certain cases, angels served as messengers or intermediaries, delivering divine messages to humans (as in the cases of Gabriel or the angel of the Lord). However, the biblical role of angels is fundamentally different from the unique mediatory role of Christ.
In all cases where angels appear in Scripture, their role is one of SERVANTS and MESSENGERS who deliver God’s word but do not offer reconciliation between God and man. They announce divine judgment, offer guidance, or protect God’s people, but they are never tasked with providing atonement for sin or restoring fellowship between humanity and God. Hebrews 1:14 confirms that angels are "ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation," underscoring their servant role rather than any mediatorial function in the salvific sense.
Moreover, the notion of an angel acting as a mediator of salvation or redemption is foreign to Scripture. Even though angels might act as intermediaries or protectors, they never take on the role of REDEEMERS or mediators in the ultimate sense. Christ, being both divine and human, stands in a completely different category from angels. As Hebrews 1:5-6 emphasizes, God never called any angel His Son in the unique way that He did with Jesus, and He commands the angels to worship Him, further highlighting the superior status of Christ over the angels.
The claim that Jesus must be both God and human to serve as the perfect mediator is central to Trinitarian theology, and it is deeply rooted in the logic of Scripture.
1. As God: Only someone who is truly divine could bridge the infinite gap between a holy, infinite God and finite, sinful humanity. Our sin against an infinite God requires an infinite atonement. No created being, angelic or human, could offer an adequate sacrifice to cover the sins of the world. The only one who could do so is someone who is infinite Himself — God. Therefore, Christ, being fully God, offers a sacrifice of infinite worth (Hebrews 9:11-14). He alone possesses the divine authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12), which no mere angel or human could do.
2. As Human: At the same time, Christ had to be fully human to stand in our place as our representative. Only as a human could He bear our sins and suffer the punishment that we deserved. He became our substitute, enduring the penalty of death on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21). Hebrews 2:17 explicitly states that Jesus had to be made "like his brothers in every way" in order to become a merciful and faithful high priest who makes atonement for the sins of the people. No angel could fulfill this requirement because angels are not human, and thus cannot stand as a true substitute for humanity.
This dual nature of Christ — fully God and fully human — is essential for His role as mediator. He stands as the perfect bridge between God and humanity because He shares fully in both natures, something that neither angels nor humans like Moses could accomplish.
The comparison of Christ's mediation with that of angels or Moses falls short because neither angels nor Moses could accomplish what Christ did. Moses’ mediation was temporary and limited to the Mosaic covenant, and angels serve as messengers or servants, not redeemers. Only Christ, by being both God and human, could offer the perfect atonement for sin and restore the broken relationship between God and humanity.
To dismiss the necessity of Christ’s dual nature would undermine the biblical teaching on the nature of atonement, sin, and the holiness of God. Only Jesus, as both fully divine and fully human, fulfills the role of the ultimate mediator, which is why Scripture gives Him the title of "the one mediator between God and mankind" (1 Timothy 2:5).
Thus, the common Trinitarian claim — that Jesus, as both God and man, is the only mediator capable of reconciling humanity to God — does not fail. On the contrary, it is rooted in the deep theological truths of Scripture and is essential for a correct understanding of who Jesus is and what He accomplished through His life, death, and resurrection.
"people say hateful things about JWs all the time" - You must know it much better than me, but to make it clear, I clearly don't support any defamatory remarks, I only believe in mutually respectful dialogue.
The document states that Michael is "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13), which does not imply that Michael is unique in rank or authority. Michael is described as a high-ranking angel, but being "one of" clearly distinguishes him from God or Jesus, who is consistently described as supreme and unique in authority. Jesus' titles throughout the New Testament emphasize his divine nature, not a mere angelic role (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:16-17).
In Daniel 12:1, Michael is called "the great prince who stands watch over your people." This describes Michael as a guardian figure, but nowhere is there a mention that Michael is an archangel in this passage, and no indication that he is the same person as Jesus. Jesus is consistently referred to in the New Testament as the Son of God, the Messiah, and the Lord, terms that signify his divine nature (Matthew 16:16, John 20:28).
The text from Jude 9 explicitly calls Michael "the archangel," but it also distinguishes him from the Lord. When Michael contends with Satan over Moses' body, he does not dare to pronounce judgment himself but says, "The Lord rebuke you!" This clearly shows that Michael does not have the authority to rebuke Satan independently, unlike Jesus, who, in his earthly ministry, rebuked Satan directly (Matthew 4:10). This contrast is critical in distinguishing Michael's limited angelic role from Jesus' divine authority.
The document states that angels appeared as men, which is true (e.g., Genesis 18). However, this argument is irrelevant to the claim that Jesus is an angel. The fact that God sends angels as messengers does not imply that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, was merely an angel. Jesus is uniquely described as the incarnate Word (John 1:14), fully divine and fully human, which is not the case for angels, who are created beings (Colossians 1:16).
The document points to the Septuagint's rendering of Isaiah 9:6, where the Messiah is called "the Messenger (Angel) of great counsel." However, this should not be interpreted as implying that Jesus is an angel in the same sense as Michael. The term "angel" here can also mean "messenger" without implying created, non-divine status. The titles given to the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6—"Mighty God, Everlasting Father"—strongly affirm the divine nature of Christ, which the document omits. The "messenger" role in Isaiah 9:6 should be understood as a role of divine communication, not of being a created angelic being.
The document cites Galatians 4:14, claiming that Paul was received "like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus," and argues that this suggests Jesus is an angel. This is a misreading of the text. Paul is simply using a simile to describe how the Galatians welcomed him with reverence, much like they would have welcomed an angel or Christ. The comparison here does not indicate ontological equivalence between Jesus and angels. It speaks to the Galatians' treatment of Paul, not to the nature of Christ. Moreover, the New Testament consistently distinguishes Jesus from angels, for example, in Hebrews 1, where it is made clear that Jesus is superior to angels in every way. See also: https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-galatians4-14.htm
The document attempts to link Jesus with the "angel of the abyss" mentioned in Revelation 20. However, the text itself does not suggest that the angel is Christ. In fact, throughout the book of Revelation, Jesus is portrayed as the Lamb (Revelation 5:6-14) and as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16), not as an angelic being. The "angel of the abyss" is simply a servant of God carrying out divine judgment, which is a role distinct from the exalted position of Christ.
The argument claims that since Michael is the only one referred to as "the archangel" in Jude 9, this implies there is only one archangel, and that Michael must be Jesus. This reasoning is flawed for several reasons. While Jude 9 calls Michael "the archangel," this does not imply that Jesus holds this title or is the same being as Michael. The term “archangel” means “chief angel,” indicating a leader among angels, but it does not equate to being divine or equal to Jesus. Jesus is described in much higher terms, such as the "Son of God" (Hebrews 1:5), who sits at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3), a role vastly superior to that of any angel. Hebrews 1:5-6 explicitly states that no angel was ever called “Son” by God, setting Jesus apart from all angelic beings, including archangels.
Nowhere in Scripture is Michael explicitly identified as Jesus. This connection is drawn only by inference and not by direct biblical statements. While both Michael and Jesus hold important roles in salvation history, the Bible never teaches that they are the same person.
The “angel of the Lord” in Exodus 14:19 who guided the Israelites is not identified as Michael, and there is no scriptural basis to equate this angel with Michael. The Bible often refers to the "angel of the Lord" as a divine manifestation representing God’s presence, and in some cases, this term is used to describe the pre-incarnate Christ. However, this does not imply that the angel here is Michael, nor does it suggest that Jesus and Michael are the same being.
Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that “the rock was Christ” does not refer to Michael. Paul is emphasizing that Christ, not an angel, provided spiritual sustenance to Israel in the wilderness. The rock symbolizes Christ’s sustaining power and presence, not the presence of an angel.
The phrase "with the voice of an archangel" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is a descriptive phrase, not a statement of identity. Just as Jesus will come with “God’s trumpet,” the phrase signifies the authority and grandeur of the event, not that Jesus is the one blowing the trumpet or that he is the archangel. The verse emphasizes the authoritative nature of Jesus’ return, not his identification with an angel.
Angels are often associated with accompanying Christ’s return, but this does not mean Christ is identified with them. Jesus’ role in the Second Coming is described as the Lord of all creation (Matthew 24:30-31, Revelation 19:16), while angels are his servants (Matthew 24:31). To interpret this passage as equating Jesus with the archangel is to ignore the greater context of Jesus' divine authority over angels.
The argument here claims that because the dead are raised at the voice of the archangel in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and at the voice of Jesus in John 5:28-29, Jesus must be Michael the Archangel. This conclusion is unfounded for the following reasons. In John 5:28-29, it is Jesus’ own voice, as the Son of God, that raises the dead. Jesus claims this power by virtue of his divinity (John 5:26). The role of an archangel in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 may simply be to announce or accompany the event, but the authority to raise the dead rests solely with Christ. Angels do not possess the divine authority to give life; only God (and Christ as God’s Son) can do so.
The New Testament draws clear distinctions between Jesus and angels (Hebrews 1:3-14). In John 5:28-29, Jesus explicitly states that it is his voice that will raise the dead, not the voice of an angel. The argument that these voices are one and the same confuses the roles of Christ and the archangel, as Jesus is described as the one with authority over life and death, a role that angels do not hold.
Daniel 10:13 describes Michael as “one of the chief princes,” implying that he is not unique in his rank or authority, but one among several. This directly contradicts the portrayal of Jesus as the unique and only Son of God, supreme over all (Hebrews 1:3). Michael, while an important angelic figure, is never described as unique or supreme in the way Jesus is.
The title “prince” (Hebrew: sar) used for Michael is a general term for a leader or ruler, and it is used in many contexts, including human rulers and angels. It does not indicate divinity. On the other hand, Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus as the “Prince of Peace,” a title that signifies his role in the divine plan of salvation. The use of the word “prince” in these two different contexts does not justify equating Michael with Jesus.
The captain of the Lord’s host in Joshua 5:14 is not identified as Michael in the text. The Bible does not connect this figure with Michael, and there is no reason to assume that this is the case. In fact, many scholars interpret this figure as a theophany—an appearance of God or the pre-incarnate Christ. The fact that Joshua worships the figure (Joshua 5:14) further suggests that this is not an angel, as angels do not accept worship (Revelation 19:10). Therefore, this captain of the host is more likely a manifestation of God or Christ, not an angel.
The argument attempts to link Jesus Christ with Abaddon (Hebrew) or Apollyon (Greek), the angel of the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:11, by suggesting that Abaddon/Apollyon is performing God’s will and therefore could be Jesus. However, this identification is deeply problematic for the following reasons. The name "Abaddon" in Hebrew and "Apollyon" in Greek both mean "Destroyer." While God and Christ both execute judgment and possess the power to destroy, the Bible does not equate Jesus with Abaddon/Apollyon.
While James 4:12 states that God alone has the authority to save and destroy, and John 5:22 affirms that all judgment is given to the Son, this does not necessitate identifying Christ with Abaddon. Abaddon is portrayed as the leader of demonic forces that bring torment upon the earth during the trumpet judgments (Revelation 9:3-11). This destructive figure leads the locusts from the abyss to wreak havoc on those who do not have the seal of God. This role is clearly adversarial and associated with divine judgment upon the wicked, not the role of a savior or redeemer as Christ is.
Abaddon/Apollyon in Revelation 9 leads a host of tormenting locusts from the abyss, which is not in line with Jesus' role in salvation history. Jesus' mission, as described throughout the New Testament, is to save the world (John 3:17), while Abaddon is associated with destruction and torment. The locust army, led by Abaddon, is described as a force of punishment during the end times, whereas Christ comes to bring life, light, and redemption.
Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, himself associated Abaddon with Satan, not with Jesus Christ. Russell’s earlier writings in the Watchtower identify Apollyon/Abaddon as Satan, who has been given the authority to open the abyss and unleash destruction upon the earth. This contradicts the Watchtower Society’s later identification of Abaddon with Jesus. Russell’s original interpretation aligns with traditional views that Apollyon is a demonic figure, not a representation of Christ.
The name "Apollyon" is likely a wordplay on the Greek god Apollo, who was associated with plagues and destruction. Apollo was worshipped in the Greco-Roman world as a god of prophecy, music, and plague, and his name became synonymous with destruction in some contexts. The connection between Apollyon and Apollo suggests a pagan, destructive force, which is antithetical to the biblical portrayal of Christ as the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Linking Jesus to a figure associated with pagan destruction goes against the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as the Savior and Redeemer.
The argument attempts to connect Abaddon with Jesus by noting that both are given "keys" to control the abyss. Revelation 1:18 describes Jesus as holding "the keys of death and Hades," but this refers to Jesus’ authority over life and death. Jesus holds the power to grant eternal life or eternal judgment, but this is a role far different from that of Abaddon, who is described as an agent of destruction. The key to the abyss in Revelation 9:1, which is given to a fallen angel, symbolizes a temporary and limited power to unleash judgment, not Christ's ultimate authority over life and death.
Luke 8:31 mentions demons pleading with Jesus not to cast them into the abyss. While Jesus indeed has authority over the abyss, this authority is rooted in His divinity and role as the one who can judge and defeat demonic forces. Abaddon, on the other hand, is portrayed as a leader of those same destructive forces. The demons' fear of being cast into the abyss underscores Jesus’ supreme authority over them, while Abaddon serves as a leader of demonic entities—a stark contrast to Jesus’ identity as the one who binds and judges those forces.
"Criss-Crossing" and Misleading Cross-References: The argument relies heavily on various study Bibles cross-referencing Revelation 9:1, 9:11, and other passages that describe Christ's authority over the abyss. However, cross-references in study Bibles are not definitive theological proof but are meant to show thematic or linguistic connections. While some study Bibles might link Revelation 9:1 to Jesus' authority in Revelation 1:18, this does not suggest that Abaddon and Jesus are the same person.
The use of cross-referencing by different study Bibles is more an indication of thematic connections, such as authority over the abyss, rather than an assertion that Christ and Abaddon are the same. These references should not be conflated to suggest an equivalence between Jesus and Abaddon.
Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus was called Michael before his earthly life or after his resurrection. John 1:1 describes Jesus as "the Word" (λόγος) in his pre-incarnate state, but the Bible never equates this title with Michael. In fact, Hebrews 1:4-5 specifically states that Jesus is SUPERIOR to angels, affirming that He is not one of them. The passage reads, "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'?"
The Bible consistently refers to Jesus as “Jesus” after his resurrection. Philippians 2:9 states that "God exalted Him and gave Him the name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." There is no indication in Scripture that Jesus resumed any other name, such as Michael. Jesus' unique name signifies His saving role (Matthew 1:21), and Scripture does not suggest a need for multiple names to describe Him.
Michael is referred to as "one of the chief princes" in Daniel 10:13, indicating he is one among others of similar rank. Jesus, on the other hand, is described as unique—the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16). Christ’s divinity and authority are far above any created being, including Michael.
Daniel 10:13 explicitly describes Michael as "one of the chief princes." This indicates that he is not the sole prince, but one among others. If Michael were Christ, he would be uniquely above all other princes. This interpretation contradicts the uniqueness of Christ's role, which is described in Philippians 2:9-11, where Jesus is exalted far above any other name.
The term "Prince of the host" in Daniel 8:11 refers to God, not to Christ or Michael. The distinction between God and Michael is evident here, as Michael is a created being and God is the Creator. The attempt to place Michael on the same level as God or Christ by calling him one of the chief princes is a misunderstanding of the biblical text.
In Matthew 4:10, Jesus directly rebukes Satan, saying, "Away from me, Satan!" Michael, however, in Jude 9, does not rebuke Satan directly but says, "The Lord rebuke you!" This stark difference highlights that Michael defers to God’s authority, while Jesus exercises divine authority directly, underscoring that Jesus and Michael are not the same.
Michael is shown as a servant who respects God’s authority by not rebuking Satan himself. Jesus, being divine, has the authority to rebuke Satan, as shown in the Gospels. The two figures are operating at entirely different levels of authority, which makes it clear that Jesus cannot be Michael.
The designation of Michael as “the archangel” (Jude 9) doesn’t mean he is the only archanel. The role of archangel implies a high-ranking angel, not a divine being, and certainly not Jesus, who is far superior to angels (Hebrews 1:4).
The Hebrew text of Daniel 10:13 refers to Michael as "one of the chief princes," not "one of the archangels." The distinction is critical, as the term "chief princes" implies that Michael is not the highest being but one among others of similar rank. This would not be fitting for Christ, who is supreme over all (Colossians 1:16-17).
Thessalonians 4:16 does not suggest that Christ is an archangel. The text states that Christ will descend "with the voice of an archangel," but this does not mean He is the archangel. Rather, the archangel’s voice is an accompaniment to Christ’s coming. The voice of the archangel is distinct from the person of Christ, much like the trumpet of God is also mentioned but does not imply that Christ is a trumpet.
The passage describes multiple events—Christ descending, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God—all occurring at once. However, Christ’s role is unique; He is the one who raises the dead, while the archangel is merely present. This indicates that Jesus is not the archangel but the divine Son of God with authority over all creation (John 5:25).
Hebrews 1:5 asks, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’?” This is a rhetorical question meant to show that no angel has ever been addressed in this way. This verse specifically sets Jesus apart from the angelic host, highlighting His unique status as the Son of God.
Hebrews 1:13 asks another rhetorical question: “To which of the angels has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’?” Again, the author of Hebrews uses this question to show that the privilege and authority given to Jesus are exclusive to Him, not shared with any angel.
Hebrews 2:5 emphasizes that “it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come,” but to Jesus. This further confirms that Jesus has authority over the angels and is not one of them.
These distinctions are made deliberately to highlight the superiority of Jesus over angels. The context makes it clear that the writer of Hebrews is excluding Jesus from the category of angels, not merely placing Him in a different class of angels.
While "messenger" is indeed the basic meaning of the word, the context of Hebrews clearly distinguishes between created spiritual beings (angels) and the unique divine Son of God, Jesus. In Hebrews 1:4-5, it is clear that Jesus' sonship is what differentiates Him from the angels. The Son is qualitatively superior to the angels because He is not a created being but the eternal Logos (John 1:1), through whom all things were made (John 1:3).
The analogy provided by Psalm 82:7 ("you shall die like men") to argue that judges could be men yet distinguished from ordinary men does not apply to Jesus and angels. The point in Hebrews is not just that Jesus is different from angels but that He is categorically not an angel. His sonship and divinity place Him in a different realm altogether.
The title of Son applied to Jesus implies a unique relationship with God that no angel could ever have. Hebrews 1:2 tells us that God “has spoken to us by his Son,” distinguishing the Son from other messengers. Additionally, Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature," a description that cannot apply to any angel, since angels are created beings.
The entire structure of Hebrews 1 is intended to contrast Jesus with angels, not to claim that He is one of them but greater. Hebrews 1:6 goes further, stating that all angels are to worship Jesus, something that would be entirely inappropriate if Jesus were just another angel. Worship belongs to God alone, and Jesus is portrayed as receiving worship because of His divine nature, not because He is a particularly high-ranking angel.
The only archangel named in the Bible is Michael (Jude 9). The fact that the term "archangel" is applied only to Michael indicates that it refers to a distinct and high-ranking angel, not to Jesus, who is God the Son and far superior to angels.
The argument that “ARCH in ARCHangel” makes Jesus superior to angels is based on a misunderstanding. The term "archangel" simply means a chief or leader among angels, not someone who is divine. As such, it would be inappropriate to apply this term to Jesus, whose identity as the Son of God far exceeds the status of any angel, even the highest-ranking one.
The analogy given by Doctor Watts in comparing George Washington as an officer who was elevated to a higher rank does not apply to Jesus. Hebrews 1 is not describing a promotion from one rank to another but is emphasizing the ontological difference between Jesus and angels. Jesus is not a created being who is elevated to a higher rank; He is the eternal Son who is inherently superior to all creation, including angels.
Watts' interpretation of Jesus being “anointed above His fellows” in Hebrews 1:9 does not suggest that Jesus is one of the angels. The “fellows” here are not angels but could refer to human beings or the anointed ones (prophets, priests, and kings) with whom Jesus shares certain roles but exceeds in His ultimate authority and divinity.
The argument presented attempts to connect Wisdom literature and certain texts from the Pseudepigrapha with the idea of angelic Christology, suggesting that Jesus Christ can be understood as an angelic figure, similar to how Wisdom is depicted in these texts. However, this analogy fails to consider the proper context and distinct roles of Wisdom and Christ in Jewish and Christian theology. Proverbs 8 and Wisdom of Solomon (chapters 6-10) personify Wisdom as a mediator between God and humanity, but this personification of Wisdom is metaphorical, not intended to depict Wisdom as a separate divine being. Wisdom is often described as emanating from God to show His attributes, but it is not presented as an actual angelic entity.
In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is not merely a mediator like Wisdom. He is the incarnate Son of God, the Logos (Word) made flesh (John 1:14). The Logos is fully divine and eternal, not just an agent or messenger of God. The New Testament clearly differentiates between Jesus and created beings (angels, including the personified Wisdom).
The analogy between Wisdom and Christ relies heavily on the notion that both can function as mediators or messengers, implying that Christ could be viewed as an angelic figure in this sense. This view ignores the ontological distinction between Jesus and Wisdom in Christian theology. Wisdom, as personified in the Old Testament and extra-biblical literature like the Pseudepigrapha, functions as a symbolic personification of God's wisdom. Jesus, on the other hand, is the second person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man.
While Wisdom may be seen as a representative of God's power and knowledge, Jesus' role as the Logos goes far beyond this. John 1:1 explicitly identifies the Logos (Word) with God Himself: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This places Jesus in a different category from both Wisdom and the angels, affirming His divine nature.
The references to angels in Exodus 14:19, Exodus 23:20-21, and Daniel 3:25 are cited to suggest that Jesus can be understood as an angelic figure. However, this interpretation is flawed for several reasons:
Exodus 14:19 speaks of the "angel of God" leading Israel, but this angel is a separate being from God Himself, acting under divine authority. The passage does not indicate that this angel is Jesus or that it is equivalent to the Logos. In Exodus 23:20-21, God sends an angel with His name in him, indicating a close association with divine authority, but this does not equate the angel with God or with Jesus Christ.
Daniel 3:25 describes an angelic figure who saved Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace. Nebuchadnezzar, a pagan king, interprets this figure as “a son of the gods,” but this is not a definitive or authoritative identification of the angel with Jesus.
The Pseudepigrapha (1 Enoch 42:1-2) speaks of Wisdom dwelling among angels, but this symbolic imagery should not be conflated with Christological doctrine. Wisdom's return to heaven is not analogous to the incarnation of the Logos. The Logos does not return to dwell with angels but becomes flesh and dwells among humanity (John 1:14).
The suggestion that Christ is „a lesser Jehovah”, whom we can see, and that this somehow justifies an angelic interpretation of Jesus, is deeply problematic: This idea borders on subordinationism, a heresy that denies the full equality of the Son with the Father. Orthodox Christian theology affirms the Trinity, in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal. Jesus is not a lesser Jehovah or a lower-level deity; He is fully God (as shown in John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:19, and Colossians 2:9).
The fact that angels were sent to mediate between God and humans in certain Old Testament events does not imply that Jesus is an angel. Hebrews 1:1-4 emphasizes that Jesus is superior to angels and not part of their category. He is the eternal Son of God, who took on human flesh, not an angelic messenger.
Finally, the comparison between Logos and Wisdom is mistaken. While both terms have been used to describe divine attributes in various traditions, the Logos as understood in Christian theology is radically different from the personification of Wisdom: Logos (Word) in the Gospel of John is the pre-existent, eternal divine Son who is fully God and through whom all things were created (John 1:3). He is not a created being, as angels and the personified Wisdom are understood in other Jewish traditions.
While Wisdom is depicted as playing a mediating role in certain Jewish writings, this role does not equate to divine status in the same way that the Logos is understood in Christian theology.
The argument suggests that the Logos (Word) and the Angel of the LORD were interchangeable concepts within Jewish thought, as seen in various Jewish writings and Wisdom literature. However, this conflation misunderstands both the nature of the Logos in Christian theology and the role of the Angel of the LORD in Jewish thought.
Philo’s use of the Logos in a Hellenistic-Jewish context does not reflect the Christian understanding of the Logos as presented in John 1:1-14, where the Logos is fully identified with God and becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ. Philo viewed the Logos as a mediating figure but never equated it with the Messiah. Christian theology, on the other hand, identifies the Logos with the eternal Son of God, distinct from any angelic or mediating being.
The Angel of the LORD in Jewish thought is consistently described as a created being, not divine or eternal. Attempts to equate Jesus with the Angel of the LORD ignore the clear distinctions between the two in both Jewish and Christian texts.
The suggestion that Wisdom (often personified in Wisdom literature) was identified with the Angel of the LORD or even with the Logos reflects a misunderstanding of the metaphorical language used in Wisdom literature. Wisdom, particularly in books like Proverbs, Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon, is personified as an attribute of God. This personification does not mean that Wisdom is a separate divine being or an angel. The role of Wisdom in these texts is to demonstrate how God’s guidance and knowledge are present in the world.
The Logos in John 1 is far more than a personified attribute. The Logos is presented as God Himself, through whom all things were made and who became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The Logos is not angelic or subordinate but eternally divine. This difference is essential to understanding the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
The argument attempts to merge the concepts of Wisdom, Logos, and angels, suggesting that these are part of a common Jewish speculation about divine intermediaries. However, this interpretation overlooks the distinctions between these figures: Wisdom is consistently personified as an attribute of God, while the Logos in Christian theology is the pre-existent Son of God.
Angels, by contrast, are always presented as created beings, subordinate to God and serving as His messengers. The Logos is distinct from angels, as made clear in Hebrews 1:3-14, where Jesus is explicitly said to be superior to angels, and God’s Son is described as the exact imprint of God’s nature.
The argument relies heavily on a speculative reading of Jewish angelology, claiming that Jesus fits into the Jewish tradition of angels as mediating figures. This interpretation is flawed for several reasons: Paul’s Christology in the New Testament clearly places Jesus above all angels. In Colossians 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:6-11, Paul describes Jesus as the image of the invisible God, the one through whom all things were created, and the one who humbled Himself and was exalted by God. This exaltation is not something that could apply to any angelic being.
Early Christian writings distinguish Jesus from angels entirely. Jesus is worshiped and glorified in ways that are never appropriate for angels. In Revelation, for instance, angels explicitly refuse worship (Revelation 19:10), while Jesus receives it (Revelation 5:12-14).
The notion that Jewish theology accommodated a two-deity system — with Yahweh and a minor, mediating deity — is a misrepresentation of Jewish monotheism. Deuteronomy 6:4 and other foundational texts of the Hebrew Bible emphasize the oneness of God. The idea of a second, subordinate deity would be considered heretical within Judaism. While some Jewish literature speaks of angels or Wisdom as mediating between God and humanity, these figures are never equated with God Himself.
The Christian understanding of the Trinity builds on this Jewish monotheism by affirming that Jesus, the Son, is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This understanding does not introduce a second, lesser deity but rather expresses the complex unity of the one true God.
The argument that "Kyrios" (Lord) was a title used for angels in Jewish tradition and then applied to Jesus as merely an angelic or heavenly being distorts the meaning of the term in Christian usage. In the New Testament, the title Kyrios is explicitly used to describe Jesus’ divine authority. For example, in Philippians 2:9-11, Jesus is given the name above every name and every knee shall bow to Him, clearly placing Him in a position of divine worship, not angelic service.
The use of Kyrios for angels in Jewish texts does not negate its Christian application to Jesus as Lord of all creation. The New Testament writers consistently apply divine attributes and titles to Jesus, affirming His deity.
The argument that Paul and other New Testament writers did not attribute full divinity to Jesus contradicts the clear teaching of the New Testament: Colossians 2:9 states that in Christ all the fullness of deity dwells bodily. This is a direct affirmation of Christ’s divine nature. Hebrews 1:3 declares that Jesus is the exact imprint of God’s nature, meaning that He is not just a heavenly being or angel, but fully God. The New Testament consistently presents Jesus as divine, eternal, and equal to the Father, far surpassing any angelic figure.
The argument presented relies heavily on the idea that early Christian thought embraced a form of angel-Christology, which identified Jesus as a high-ranking angel—particularly the archangel Michael. However, this interpretation is both historically and theologically flawed. Early Christian texts, particularly the New Testament, consistently present Jesus as divine, not merely an angelic being. Hebrews 1:3-4 explicitly states that Jesus is the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of His nature, clearly distinguishing Him from angels. The rest of Hebrews 1 further emphasizes that Jesus is superior to angels (Hebrews 1:5-14), showing that Christ is not an angel, but rather the Son of God with a unique divine nature.
The claim that early Christians identified Jesus with the archangel Michael is not supported by the New Testament, where Jesus is consistently portrayed as Lord, Savior, and God Incarnate. This is reinforced by passages such as John 1:1 ("the Word was God"), Philippians 2:6 ("being in very nature God"), and Colossians 2:9 ("For in Christ all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form").
The argument also seeks to conflate the Wisdom and Logos traditions with angelic figures, suggesting that Jesus was understood as a kind of supreme angel in early Christian and Jewish thought. However, this interpretation overlooks the distinctiveness of these concepts: Wisdom in the Jewish and Christian traditions is often personified but never understood as an angelic being. In Proverbs and other Wisdom literature, Wisdom is depicted as a divine attribute or the creative power of God, not an angel. In Christian theology, Jesus is identified with the Logos, or Word of God (John 1:1), which goes far beyond an angelic figure. The Logos is described as eternal, divine, and the creator of all things (John 1:3), whereas angels are created beings.
The Logos-Christology of Philo and others in Hellenistic Judaism should not be confused with the Christian understanding of the Logos. For Philo, the Logos was an intermediary between God and the world, but it was never equated with the Messiah or seen as divine in the Trinitarian sense. Christian theology, particularly in John’s Gospel, identifies the Logos as God Himself, incarnate in Jesus Christ.
The argument asserts that early Christianity did not have a clear concept of the Trinity and that angel-Christology was prevalent before the Arian controversy. This is a misunderstanding of early Christian doctrine: While it is true that the formal language of the Trinity developed over time (particularly in response to heresies like Arianism), the essential beliefs about Jesus’ divinity and His relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit were present from the earliest Christian writings. Paul’s letters, for example, affirm the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20).
The Trinitarian doctrine was not an invention of the 4th century, but a clarification of what Christians had always believed—that Jesus is fully God and yet distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. This belief is rooted in the New Testament and the early Christian creeds, which affirmed the divinity of Christ alongside the oneness of God.
The argument frequently cites Justin Martyr to support the idea of an angelic Christology. However, Justin consistently describes Jesus as divine and distinct from angels: In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin defends the idea that Jesus is both God and man, emphasizing His pre-existence and divinity (e.g., Dialogue 56, where Justin explains that the Son of God is distinct from the angels). While Justin does refer to Christ as a messenger (since Jesus was sent by the Father), this does not mean that Justin considered Jesus to be an angel. Rather, Justin understood Jesus as the Logos, eternally begotten of the Father and one in essence with Him.
The claim that early Christian scholars such as Origen, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and others interpreted Christ as an angel—particularly as Michael the Archangel—is a significant misinterpretation of these theologians’ writings. While these scholars do use angelic language to describe Christ, this is not because they viewed Jesus as a mere angel. Instead, they understood Him to be divine and used angelic terminology metaphorically or symbolically.
Origen, for instance, defended the eternality and divinity of Christ. In "Contra Celsum", Origen repeatedly affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, eternal, and of the same essence as the Father, which directly contradicts any notion that Christ could be an angelic being.
Justin Martyr, although he refers to Christ as a messenger or angel of God, clearly distinguishes Christ from angels in the Platonic sense of the term. In "Dialogue with Trypho" (Chapter 56), Justin affirms the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus and places Him above the angelic host.
The use of angelic titles in early Christian writings reflects Jesus' mediatorial role and His position as the one who conveys God’s message to humanity. It does not imply that early Christians believed Jesus was an angel in the sense of being a created being like Michael or Gabriel.
The text relies heavily on selective quotations from Church Fathers and theologians, but it ignores their broader context and teachings, particularly their affirmation of Christ’s divinity: John Calvin, for example, affirmed the eternal sonship and divinity of Christ. Although Calvin might have considered Michael as a type or symbol of Christ, he did not imply that Jesus was actually Michael the Archangel. Instead, Calvin upheld the Trinitarian understanding of Christ as God the Son, co-equal with the Father.
John Wesley, cited in support of angel-Christology, also affirmed the divine nature of Christ in his sermons and writings. Wesley held to the traditional Trinitarian doctrine, and his references to Michael were not literal identifications of Jesus as an angel, but rather symbolic representations of Christ’s protective role for His people.
The identification of the Angel of the Lord with Christ in the Old Testament does not imply that Jesus is an angel in the created sense. The Angel of the Lord is often understood as a theophany, a manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ, but not as an angelic being. This distinction is crucial: When the Angel of the Lord appears in the Old Testament, He speaks as God and is worshiped as God (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6, where the Angel of the Lord appears in the burning bush and declares Himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). This is not an angelic figure like Michael or Gabriel, but the pre-incarnate Son revealing Himself to humanity.
Billy Graham's comment that God sometimes appeared as an angel should be understood within this context of theophanies—manifestations of God, not created angels. Christ appearing as a divine messenger does not reduce His nature to that of a created angel.
The argument relies heavily on verbal parallels between Daniel and Revelation, but drawing parallels between texts does not necessarily mean that the two books share the same message or timing. The Book of Daniel is an apocalyptic text that uses symbolic language, which was later echoed in Revelation, but the contexts and meanings differ significantly.
Revelation draws from Daniel's imagery, but the events described in Revelation go far beyond the tribulations faced by Daniel's people. Revelation expands its scope to include all of humanity's eschatological end, whereas Daniel focuses on Israel's immediate future. Therefore, while they share apocalyptic symbolism, they do not describe the same series of events or prophecies.
Furthermore, allusions in Revelation to Daniel do not confirm the timing of tribulations. For example, Revelation 12 refers to Michael standing against the dragon, but this imagery concerns spiritual warfare and Christ's victory over Satan, which is not directly tied to the tribulations of Daniel 12 in the sense that the two events are synchronous.
The argument seeks to connect the archangel Michael in Daniel 12:1 with Christ in the tribulation described in Matthew 24:21. However, this interpretation distorts the nature of both figures: Michael is clearly presented as an angel, a created being, while Jesus Christ is consistently portrayed as the divine Son of God. There is no biblical evidence that Michael and Jesus are the same being. Hebrews 1:5-6 explicitly contrasts Jesus with angels, stating that God never said to any angel, “You are my Son.” Michael’s role in Daniel is that of a heavenly prince who defends God's people, whereas Jesus is the Messiah, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords in Revelation 19:16. The role of Michael as an archangel and Jesus' divine role as the Son of God are distinct, and no scriptural connection merges their identities.
The parallel drawn between Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 concerning the great tribulation fails to recognize the differences in their respective contexts: Daniel 12:1 refers to tribulations that would come upon Israel and describes Michael standing up to protect the Jewish people. It is more national and immediate in its focus. This passage refers to specific tribulations related to Israel’s future in the context of Old Testament prophecy. Matthew 24:21, on the other hand, speaks of a global tribulation that culminates in Christ’s second coming. This tribulation is universal and not confined to the historical trials of Israel. Jesus' presence in Matthew 24 concerns His return as King and Judge over all the nations, which is a cosmic event not limited to the immediate historical context of Daniel.
Thus, while the two tribulations may share apocalyptic imagery, they are not the same event, nor do they follow the same timeline.
The index presents numerous verbal parallels between Daniel and other biblical books, especially Revelation, but verbal similarity does not equate to thematic unity. Such parallels are commonly found in apocalyptic literature and do not necessarily suggest that the two books are detailing the same prophecy. Apocalyptic language tends to employ common motifs like judgment, angels, thrones, and heavenly warfare, which are shared across different prophetic visions. However, the meaning of these terms depends on their specific context. For instance, Michael leading heavenly armies in Revelation (12:7) reflects a spiritual battle between good and evil, not a literal military conflict or tribulation on earth as in Daniel 12.
The Book of Revelation draws from many Old Testament sources, including Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, but its vision is broader and concerns the end of history. While Daniel focuses more on Israel’s destiny, Revelation expands this vision to the entire world, focusing on the ultimate triumph of Christ and judgment of evil. Revelation 1:1 clarifies that it is a revelation of Jesus Christ given to show what must soon take place, a cosmic vision that includes the second coming, the defeat of Satan, and the new creation. It is not simply a rehash of Daniel’s prophecies, although it draws inspiration from the same apocalyptic framework.
The document you provided focuses on the roles of angelic mediators like Gabriel, Uriel, and Remiel in Jewish apocalypses, specifically analyzing their appearances and functions in texts such as Daniel, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. Below is a response to help refute the idea that these angels should be seen as identical or interchangeable with Christ based on their roles in these apocalypses.
The suggestion that figures like Gabriel, Michael, or Remiel in apocalyptic literature might be equated with Christ or represent pre-incarnate appearances of the Messiah can be refuted based on several theological, historical, and exegetical grounds:
The document emphasizes that the roles of Gabriel, Uriel, and Remiel are consistently depicted as mediators, tasked with specific functions such as conveying divine messages, interpreting visions, or guiding the protagonist. These roles are different from the role of Christ in Christian theology, who is seen as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1, 14), possessing divine authority and not just a messenger or interpreter. While angels serve as intermediaries between God and humans, Christ is the ultimate revelation of God, not merely a messenger.
In the apocalyptic literature, angels like Gabriel and Michael are often described as military figures (e.g., Michael’s role as a warrior in Revelation 12:7 and Daniel 10:13). They fight on behalf of Israel or interpret divine messages. However, Jesus Christ, according to Christian theology, transcends these roles. He is not merely an archangel but is worshipped as divine (Philippians 2:6-11). The roles of angels, even if exalted, are subservient to the authority of God, while Christ is described as seated at the right hand of God, having authority over all creation (Ephesians 1:20-23).
The portrayal of angels in the apocalypses follows well-established traditions in Jewish angelology, particularly from texts like 1 Enoch and Daniel, which the document itself recognizes. These figures operate within a created order and serve under God’s command. The suggestion that these angels could be Christ conflates angelic functions with the unique Christological role of the Messiah, who, in Christian thought, is co-equal with God and not a created being like the angels. Hebrews 1:5-14 explicitly makes this distinction, stating that God has never called any angel “Son” in the way Christ is addressed.
Jewish apocalyptic literature often separates the role of messianic figures from that of angels. As noted in the document, Uriel and Remiel are described with specific roles related to revelations about historical or cosmic events, but they are not the Messiah. This separation is crucial in understanding how Jewish traditions viewed angels and the coming Messiah. The later identification of Christ with such figures in some Christian interpretations can be seen as a theological development distinct from the original Jewish context.
Nincsnevem, I'm personally done with this thread, but I was not trying to prove all the claims you address in your reply. My point was simple: there are examples of mediators, who are different from one or both parties they represent. I never tried to equate angels or Moses with Christ.
Jesus is the one and only mediator for humankind, but not because he's God and man. The bible never makes any such claim. That is something made up by Trinitarians.
“I only believe in mutually respectful dialogue.” - I raise is spamming 60% plus of long posts insisting your view is correct and their is no other option beside trinitarian theology ( which nobody here recognises as infallible)
Is this Respectful dialogue? I think kit
Post a Comment