Quote:
Not sure where this comes from...
Michael is never described in the Bible as an angel... only an archangel, and a prince. The Greek word for archangel means, primarily, "a ruler of angels"
The Greek word "archangel" or "archeangel" is a mistransliteration, dear LQ (peace to you!). "Someone", some scribe, at some point THOUGHT that Matthew, John, et al., was speaking of something along the lines of a "chiliarch" (i.e., someone over, say, a thousand troops). This is an error. What the writers were speaking of is an ARK angel. Specifically, a CHERUB... of the Ark. Of which there were two: the one called "Mischa'El" (or "Michael")... whose name means "Chosen of God" (and NOT "who is like God" fercrissakes... as NO ONE is like God EXCEPT Christ, who Michael is NOT)... and the other, "Beli'Jah'El" (or "Belial"), which means "Without JAH as (his) God"... which is the name of the Adversary ("Satan" and "Devil" are descriptions and designations).
The same transliteration occurs with the phrase "In the beginning." The TRUE rendering of that phrase is "In the ARK"... meaning, in the womb of the Woman, "Sarah", the Jerusalem "Above"... the spirit realm... which is the "mother" of Christ and his brothers. And... the FREE "wife" of JAH. She equates to Sarah, the wife of Abraham (Jah), the mother of Isaac (Christ) and Israel (his children/brothers - brothers because they are also sons of God, children because Christ "begets" them... with holy spirit...which is why he is called "eternal father" - he is not THE Father, but "father" in the sense that he gives them eternal life, an authority given HIM by JAH). She (Sarah, the Woman) is represented by the NEW Covenant.
In contrast, her counterpart, the "slave" wife of Abraham (Jah), is the earth... or physical realm... "Hagar"... whose son is Ishmael (Adham) and whose children "persecute Isaac." As the young man Ishmael did his brother Isaac. Ishmael and Isaac were half-brothers: same father, different mothers. As is Christ and Adham: same father, different mothers.
I digress.
Because the scribes don't know Christ (and, by default, don't know JAH), they didn't... and still don't... understand the significance of Arks. Whether it be Noah's ark, the ark which hid and protected Moses, the Ark of the (Old) Covenant or, most importantly, the Ark of the NEW Covenant. They don't understand the significance of the COVER/DOOR/MERCY (Seat)... or, as you know him, Christ, the Son of God... nor the "cherubs that were covering" (the Ark of the Old Covenant): Michael and Belial. Some understand the purpose and significance of Christ, but do not grasp the purpose (to guard and keep their faces toward the Cover) and significance (two HIGHEST cherubs) of the other two.
Because they don't understand... and so misinterpret and then mistransliterate... when it comes TO the word "ark". Or "arke". Or "arch." Or "arche." Michael IS a prince and a foremost (or, for some, chief) angel. But that is not what was meant by the term "arkangel." Or "archangel." The term "arkangel"... means the same as "arkaic angel" - angel... of the Ark. Not "ancient" or "old" angel. It DOES mean "original" or "chief" in some manner, if one wants to go the extent of saying Michael and Belial were the FIRST angels created. But all of these things add up NOT simply to them being chiliarchs, but much, much more.
And to understand THIS truth, if not yet able to hear Christ himself share it (or, as for me, SEE it), one must research the word "arkangel." In some, few, instances, some modern dictionaries/cyclopediae will help you. In researching older manuscripts, and older sources of etymology, one can find it. As I've shared, etymology is a love of mine... and dear hubby's... so we researched (and shared) this truth many, many years ago. So long ago that I no longer know where. specifically, to direct you to look at this current time. Cyclopediae like McClintock and Strong might help.
But don't be fooled by modern etymology/dictionary descriptions. The "false pen" of the scribes has changed many a thing over time. Always has, always will. As our dear Lord once told me, though:
"ALL I tell you IS written. But all that is written is not what I will tell you."What he meant is that everything HE says IS written... somewhere... albeit not necessarily in the Bible. And all that is written, including in the Bible, is not what he would tell us (because it is not all TRUE). He has proven that to me over and over again, just recently, with his revelation about his death at creation. He told me... and then gave me one verse that supported what he told me. True, it was only one verse, but... it IS written.
Quote:
I can agree with this if Michael is actually an angel, that is, if "archangel" is actually an angel. However, what if the "archangel" is not himself actually an angel? Does the chief of the angels have to be an angel? An example we can relate to: the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. Yet, he himself is not a soldier.
Again, the word "angel" means "messenger." And Michael certainly was and is a messenger. He is the one who delivered the revelation to John. That makes him a messenger. Also, again, however, the term "arkangel" doesn't mean "chief angel," but "ARKangel"... or "CHERUB of the Ark." A "cherub" is a RANK among spirit beings. The highest, after Christ. So, in that sense, he IS a "chief angel" or "chief CHERUB." All spirit beings are seraphs: flying, flesh-eating serpents (dragons, from "drakon"). NOT snakes. Those are beasts of THIS world. These are MEN, albeit not human OR solely male... but "men" in the sense that they stand on TWO legs (hence, "able-bodied"), and have the same physical features (eyes, noses, mouths, hands, feet, etc.), as EARTHLING man. They are merely of a different SUBSTANCE, but the same FORM.
I don't necessarily see evidence either way in the scriptures, though. Arguments for or against are both pretty well-defined. To be clear: I am leaning toward, "no, Michael is not Christ", but there's enough logic the other way to make me hesitate on being fully convinced. Not to debate... this is certainly not a matter related to the building up of faith... as I said, more of a curiosity.
The best argument for one like you would be:
1. Christ himself saying (to Daniel) that he (Christ) had no one BUT Michael to come and help him when the Prince of Persia (Belial, the OTHER cherub of the ARK, who was placed in the garden with Adham/Eve) was standing in opposition to him - the reason there was no one ELSE is because Michael, Belial's TWIN... is the only one (of the lesser (than God/Christ) spirit beings) who COULD oppose Beiial. The only spirit who had the EQUAL STRENGTH to do so. Hence, it was Michael who led the battle AGAINST Belial... and WON... so that the latter was ousted from the innermost parts of the spirit realm;
2. Daniel, in the same account, calling the one speaking to him, which one was the SAME One seen and similarly described by John (golden waistband, flaming eyes, face/head/hair like lightening/white, bronze feet, etc.)... his "Lord." He not only would not have called Michael that, but MICHAEL wouldn't have let him do so. As he did not let JOHN worship him, but spoke the TRUTH, that he was John's FELLOW slave/servant OF Christ);
3. Michael IS an angel, whether "arkangel" or just plain angel... and Christ is NOT an angel. Angels, while messengers, are CREATED. Christ was not created; he was BORN. Which is why he IS a son... THE Son... and why angels are NOT sons (they are servants OF the son(s) of God).
A lot to take in and consider, I know. But perhaps you can consider it like "manna" and use it to sustain you for awhile while you "digest" it. Rather than gathering more, try to have your... mmmmmmm... curiosity... sustained... just a bit while you either ask as to the truth of these things and/or try to research them yourself. If you have a mind and heart to do so, of course.
But I hope it helps, truly.
As always, peace to you!
YSSFS of Christ,
Shel