Calvinists: Did John Calvin teach that Jesus and Michael the Archangel were the same being?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I confess that I am the JW who provided a list of scholars who identified Michael as Christ. I am glad to see my list confirmed. Calvin was apparently singled out of the list because his name was recognizable to PRmerger.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim that these theologians consider the Son to be a created angel because of this identification. In fact we are not dogmatic on the subject that he is Michael, but we do strongly believe it. Also we don’t use this as proof that he was created.

I am also in agreement that we can find evidence of angel-Christology in the earlier writers of the 2nd century like Justin. That is to be expected in JW theology because we see a gradual change from the 2nd century up to the 4th and beyond until the Trinity is finally articulated.
I would hardly call that evidence, furthermore, archangels are pretty much at the bottom rung of the angelic hierarchy, it is the seraphim who are highest in rank (and sees the face of God daily), that being said, why would the Son of God be placed at such a level?
 
Reformed Christians are not obligated to believe whatever Calvin said in his commentaries!

Furthermore, saying that the Biblical reference to Michael is a reference to Christ does *not *mean that Calvin demoted Christ to the status of a creature.

Now to the question: in his commentary on Daniel, Calvin says the following in lectures 64-65:

He then goes on to develop this thought at length. Note the polemic against Servetus (who did not believe in the Trinity). Calvin is not downplaying Christ’s divinity–quite the contrary, he’s reading “Michael” as Christ in order to emphasize Christ’s headship and protection of the Church.

I believe that some of the early Church Fathers also interpreted Michael this way.

Edwin
Precisely! To say that Calvin taught that Jesus and Michael were the same being based on the quote (which Geer provided a more accurate version of) is ridiculous if interpreted to mean any lessening of the diety of Christ! That is NOT what that quote says. Read what BottleofGeer posted. Even if he (Calvin) were willing to explore the possibility I bet it was more in line with Michael being a theophany or Christophany.

For those of you not familiar with Systematic Theology you may want to look at issue from whether Melchizedeck was a “type” of Christ to the issue of uses of the term “Angel of the Lord” where it refers to Christ.

The interpretation that the OP had caused me to roll on the floor in laughter.

In fact with out much research…after I posted I found this:

**
Most non-Trinitarians who quote this passage leave out the first 5 or 6 words, and thus make it appear that Calvin believes that the Angel Michael is Christ. However, the first clause, and the telltale “but” signal that this is not the case. Calvin believes that Michael, in the book of Daniel, is not necessarily the archangel (though he admits this possibility), and if not, Michael prefigures Christ in His role as Head of the church. Calvin implies a strict dichotomy: If Michael is an Angel, he’s not Christ; if not an angel, Christ makes the most sense, given the context.
**
forananswer.blogspot.com/2006/10/did-john-calvin-really-teach-that.html

In other words nice try to those trying either to impugn John Calvin or use him to support unorthodox faith. Apparently, the trick has been tried before. Reminds me of similar misquoting I have seen done with Fulton Sheen’s stuff.
 
No, actually it’s the JW’s Christology that this is all about.

The context for the OP was regarding a discussion with a JW. I had read somewhere that JWs were the first to claim Jesus and Michael were the same being. The JW claimed “JWs have a unique combination of beliefs but offhand (I) cannot think of one thing that was not taught at one time or another since the Reformation.”

I doubted, but it seems that his claim is correct.

That clears things up - TY 🙂

 
I would hardly call that evidence, furthermore, archangels are pretty much at the bottom rung of the angelic hierarchy, it is the seraphim who are highest in rank (and sees the face of God daily), that being said, why would the Son of God be placed at such a level?
What is your source of information about archangels being at the bottom of the rung. That flies in the face of how the archangel is portrayed in Scripture as the leader of “his angels” NAB Revelation 12:7 Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back

Also, the Lutheran Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon has this to say of the word archangel:
a member of the higher ranks in the celestial hierarchy, chief angel, archangel

While usage and not etymology is the way to understand the sense of words, the fact that this word is a combination of arche + angel fits its usage as one of the senses of the word is ruler or authority figure.

Speaking of seraphim, have you heard of the view as expressed by some early theologians like Origen that one of the Seraph’s with Jehovah In Isaiah 6 was the Son?

NJB Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me, holding in its hand a live coal which it had taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. 7 With this it touched my mouth and said: ‘Look, this has touched your lips, your guilt has been removed and your sin forgiven.’

What angel can forgive sins but the very Son of God?
 

Calvin on Dan. 10.21:

  • God seemed, at least for a time, to leave his people without help, and afterwards two angels were sent to contend for them; first, a single one was sent to Daniel, and then Michael, whom some think to be Christ. I do not object to this view, for he calls him a prince of the Church, and this title seems by no means to belong to any angels, but to be peculiar to Christ. On the whole, the angel signifies that God did not put forth his full strength in contending for his Church, but shews himself to be a servant to promote its safety till the time of deliverance should arise. He afterwards adds — for the next verse may be treated shortly, and ought to be connected with this in one context…
  • [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.v.xxii.html?highlight=who,is,michael#highlight (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.v.xxii.html?highlight=who,is,michael#highlight)
**He doesn’t object to the identification, but neither does he clearly adopt it. Someone mentioned Spurgeon & Gill: to the list can be added Cruden’s Concordance, first published in 1737, which lists the titles of Christ at the end: among them ****it includes Michael, and gives references to Daniel. **
That’s the thing with accepting JW quotes, they tend to be misleading. It seems to me to be the other way around (which I still think is wrong but is at least less troublesome than the other) Calvin seems to be saying that saint Michael the archangel is actually not an angel but Christ, the son of God… … still wierd, but does not support the JW doctrine.
 
That’s the thing with accepting JW quotes, they tend to be misleading. It seems to me to be the other way around (which I still think is wrong but is at least less troublesome than the other) Calvin seems to be saying that saint Michael the archangel is actually not an angel but Christ, the son of God… … still wierd, but does not support the JW doctrine.
Actually it does support JW doctrine. While we do not dogmatically state this doctrine, not even as dogmatically as some Protestants I have read, we also don’t claim that this proves he was a created angel. It also does not prove that he was not a created angel. It is minor point in JW theology that is always brought up by detractors who think we made it up when in fact this was taught by the great majority of Protestant Reformers including Calvin and Wesley. It may be a bit selfish of me, but it always brings me a great deal of joy to share this with Protestants 😃
 
Actually it does support JW doctrine. While we do not dogmatically state this doctrine, not even as dogmatically as some Protestants I have read, we also don’t claim that this proves he was a created angel. It also does not prove that he was not a created angel. It is minor point in JW theology that is always brought up by detractors who think we made it up when in fact this was taught by the great majority of Protestant Reformers including Calvin and Wesley. It may be a bit selfish of me, but it always brings me a great deal of joy to share this with Protestants 😃
I know a lot of Baptist but I have never,never heard any thing so out of line You will have one person who will say YES but remember he is not a christian he belong to the cult of JW. And I like to make a bet Calvin or Wesley open their mouth about ,Please show us that a great majority of protestant reformers believe this or to make it easy for you name 3 and show the prove
 
In a discussion with some JWs on another thread, I asked what other Christian religions taught that before Jesus Christ came to earth, he was the archangel Michael.

A JW referred me to a site which showed a quote from John Calvin:
“I embrace the opinion of those who refer
this (Michael) to the person of Christ,
because it suits the subject best
to represent him as standing forward for
the defense of his elect people.”
  • John Calvin,
    COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK
    OF THE PROPHET DANIEL,
    trans. T. Myers
    (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979),
    vol. 2 p. 369.
Can anyone expound on this a bit? Do Calvinists really believe that Jesus and Michael are the same being?
The actual wording of Calvin’s comments as found on CCEL.
He adds next, Behold! Michael, one of the chief leaders or princes, came to strengthen me Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to this opinion. Clearly enough, if all angels keep watch over the faithful and elect, still Christ holds the first rank among them, because he is their head, and uses their ministry and assistance to defend all his people.
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.v.xiv.html

Please note this appears to be T. Myers translation done in the 1850’s.
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.i.html
 
I know a lot of Baptist but I have never,never heard any thing so out of line You will have one person who will say YES but remember he is not a christian he belong to the cult of JW. And I like to make a bet Calvin or Wesley open their mouth about ,Please show us that a great majority of protestant reformers believe this or to make it easy for you name 3 and show the prove
Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding “Michael” in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

“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.

WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY , stated:

" 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

**
A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical Protestant outfit, says:**

" Michael … in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." – INTERNATIONAL BIBLE DICTIONARY – ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos Internatioanl, 1977), p.35

**Regarding the occurrence of “Michael” in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked: **

" By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary – not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).

LANGE’S COMMENTARY calls the figure here (Rev 12:7-10) " the warlike form of Christ." J.P. Lange’s COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES , s.v. Rev. 12:7

**AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of Michael: **

" It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself… Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." – publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882

**Brown’s dictionary of the Bible on the words MICHAEL and ANGEL **says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood’s Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same thing on this subject that Brown’s does.

The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, under the article ANGEL, asserts that Christ is in scripture frequently called an Angel. Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ. Doctor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called an angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim. Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 pages of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Guyse in his paraphrase on the New-Testament, on Rev 12:7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.

Doctor Watts in his glories of Christ, pages 200, 201, 202, 218, 223 and 224, teaches the same doctrine. Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ; and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Scott’s Bible on Gen. 14:9,10; chapter 18 throughout; Exodus 3:2-7, Judges 2:1-5; Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1; Rev 12:7
**
John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048 states: **

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 Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn’s BD).

I could mention others writers who have advocated this doctrine, but these are sufficient to prove that it has long been believed among the most eminent trinitarians. These can checked out in any theological library available in your area, so anyone can check for themselves.
 
I am going to unsubscribe from this thread and focus on Sacred Scripture. If anyone wants to discuss Scripture see me there. - Dan Parker
 
In a discussion with some JWs on another thread, I asked what other Christian religions taught that before Jesus Christ came to earth, he was the archangel Michael.

A JW referred me to a site which showed a quote from John Calvin:
“I embrace the opinion of those who refer
this (Michael) to the person of Christ,
because it suits the subject best
to represent him as standing forward for
the defense of his elect people.”
  • John Calvin,
    COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK
    OF THE PROPHET DANIEL,
    trans. T. Myers
    (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979),
    vol. 2 p. 369.
Can anyone expound on this a bit? Do Calvinists really believe that Jesus and Michael are the same being?
As an aside, just in case you were wondering, Mormons identify the archangel Michael with Adam! 😃
I am going to unsubscribe from this thread and focus on Sacred Scripture. If anyone wants to discuss Scripture see me there. - Dan Parker
What Sacred Scripture? I don’t see much activity from you there either. There were two threads that you were participating in, and you seem to have chickened out of them as well! 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top