Melito, bishop of Sardis, calls the Son Archangel

[Dan_Parker]

I understand Melito is considered a Saint. Has anyone ever seen this before? From CCEL:

Among the Syriac fragments of Melito published by Cureton is one from a work “On Faith,” which contains a remarkable christological creed, an eloquent expansion of the Regula Fidei.13761376 Spicileg. Solesm. T. II. p. LIX.376 The Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten before the light; who was Creator with the Father; who was the Fashioner of man; who was all things in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs, Law in the law, Chief Priest among the priests, King among the kings, Prophet among the prophets, **Archangel **among the angels; [ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html]](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html])

 

[Todd_Easton]

In this case, the words *angels *and *archangel *are probably being used in the general sense of messengers and chief-messenger bringing God’s words to mankind, as St. John the Baptist is called an angel (aggelon) in Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, and Luke 1:76 and not being used to refer only to those creatures who were created as pure spirits and who sometimes bring God’s words to mankind.

 

[patrick457]

Please do not neglect to show the whole thing:

The Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten before the light; who was Creator with the Father; who was the Fashioner of man; who was all things in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs, Law in the law, Chief Priest among the priests, King among the kings, Prophet among the prophets, Archangel among the angels; He piloted Noah, conducted Abraham, was bound with Isaac, exiled with Jacob, was Captain with Moses; He foretold his own sufferings in David and the prophets; He was incarnate in the Virgin; worshipped by the Magi; He healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, was rejected by the people, condemned by Pilate, hanged upon the tree, buried in the earth, rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles, ascended to heaven; He is the Rest of the departed, the Recoverer of the lost, the Light of the blind, the Refuge of the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer [Syriac: *Chief] of the cherubim, the Captain of angels; God who is of God, the Son of the Father, the King for ever and ever.

While Melito (or Irenaeus; some authors attribute the quote to Irenaeus due to the fact that it appears in Syriac and Armenian fragments of works by that author), does describe Jesus to be an “Archangel among the angels” or “the Captain of angels”, he equally describes Him as God in explicit terms. One should note however that this quote is generally considered to be of questionable authenticity.

As Todd already pointed out, the Greek angelos has a more general meaning, extending beyond the spiritual beings we call angels - in Greek it can and does refer to mere humans, as in John the Baptist’s case (cf. Mark 1:2).

As an aside, perhaps you know about Isaiah 9:6 (“For unto us a child is born…”). The Greek Septuagint renders the verse thus:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us,
Whose government is upon his shoulder:
And his name is called ‘Messenger of Great Counsel’ (Megalēs Boulēs Angelos),
For I will bring peace upon the rulers,
Peace and health to him.

Ever since the early days (from Justin and Irenaeus), it is traditionally accepted that the title does refer to Jesus (there are even icons showing Christ as the Angel of Great Counsel, complete with wings!*)- but the Fathers understood the term in the “functional” sense; the term angelos is here interpreted to mean that Christ is a ‘Messenger’ of God. There is a huge gap into saying that Christ is an angelos by function and an angelos by nature.

Of course, there was some variety. Valentinian Gnostics speculated that Christ was an ‘angel’ (one of the many ‘emanations’, or aeons, of the one God); magic practitioners looked upon Christ as a particularly potent angel which can “thwart” demons; and yes, even the JW view that Christ was literally a high archangel is not original. Others were more careful, saying that while it is possible that Christ ‘disguised’ Himself as an angel during His descent or the Annunciation, He was not and did not actually become an angel by nature. In fact, if the above quote is indeed an authentic work by Irenaeus, it would be the only work where he uses the term unambiguously; some have speculated that Irenaeus was uncomfortable to use angelos in an explicit way to refer to Christ because of the Gnostic (mis)understanding and the subordinationist tendencies which sprang from the use of the word (such as in the works of St. Justin Martyr).

*Then again, John the Baptist is also oftentimes given wings in some icons due to his being a messenger/‘angel’.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Todd and Patrick have provided enough that I really have nothing left to add other than to repeat their points. The word angel αγγελος means messenger, and does not always refer to God’s created spiritual beings. The bishops of the 7 churches of Asia in Revelation were referred to as the angels of those churches by St. John. Jesus is also referred to as an angel of the Lord in the OT, such as in Daniel 3 in the furnace, at least that is an understanding that many of the Church Fathers had, which in turn might be what St. Melito had in mind.

 

[matahari]

I understand Melito is considered a Saint. Has anyone ever seen this before? From CCEL:

Among the Syriac fragments of Melito published by Cureton is one from a work “On Faith,” which contains a remarkable christological creed, an eloquent expansion of the Regula Fidei.13761376 Spicileg. Solesm. T. II. p. LIX.376 The Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten before the light; who was Creator with the Father; who was the Fashioner of man; who was all things in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs, Law in the law, Chief Priest among the priests, King among the kings, Prophet among the prophets, **Archangel **among the angels; [ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html]](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html])

---

Why not go to the Bible , even if your version has been altered here and there by watchtower.
Hebrews 1:5-6 states " For to which of the angels has he ever said Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ?and again I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?
And again when he brings the firstborn into the world he says And let all the angels of God adore him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I understand Melito is considered a Saint. Has anyone ever seen this before? From CCEL:

Among the Syriac fragments of Melito published by Cureton is one from a work “On Faith,” which contains a remarkable christological creed, an eloquent expansion of the Regula Fidei.13761376 Spicileg. Solesm. T. II. p. LIX.376 The Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten before the light; who was Creator with the Father; who was the Fashioner of man; who was all things in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs, Law in the law, Chief Priest among the priests, King among the kings, Prophet among the prophets, **Archangel **among the angels; [ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html]](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html])

He is - and is a second-century Father.​

I hope that quotation is not meant as a difficulty - it’s not. He could have drawn a similar conclusion from Isaiah 9.6, a text often applied to Christ: for he could have called Christ “Angel of great counsel”, as the Vulgate does. I’m not aware of any complaints that Jerome was denying the deity of Christ - and he was not.

What Melito is affirming is that the Word is the Exemplar of all creation: which the Word could not be, were he himself a creature. He is Archangel, Prophet, and much more, because He is the Head and source of their being and their activity; because He is, they can come into being. He is called by their names, because He is so much more exalted than either of them is. Likewise, David’s Lord (which He is) goes by the name of David, so that it might be known that David is and has nothing that he does not derive from the Word.

To add to the list: He is Apostle & Sacrifice, not because He is a creature, as his Apostles are, & as the sacrifices of men are; but because these creatures are nothing and of no value without Him. He it is through whom they have any efficacy. He is High Priest, not because He is weak & sinful like Aaron, who made the calf, nor because His infinitely valuable Sacrifice is as poor and beggarly as theirs - so it needed constantly to be repeated - but because their sacrifice had some resemblance to His, to which it pointed, that it might be fulfilled in His. In every instance, He has the name of that which is less than He, so that what is less may be seen to be fulfilled in that which is His. So archangels are called by the name that is proper to Him Alone, that their likeness to him, faint as it is (for He is a consuming fire, whereas each of them is only a flame of fire) may be more apparent, so that all Glory may be paid to Him, and not at all to wretched and insignificant creatures (Revelation 5).

So He can be called Archangel - but no archangel is fit to be called Lord: as is apparent from the Letter to the Hebrews.

When Melito says something that levels the Lord of Archangels with mere archangels, you may have a point - until he does, the objection has no weight. But to call Him by a name or title or quality He has given to His creatures (which every Christian does when following the Bible in calling God “good” or “righteous” or “holy”, since these are weak human words for the Unapproachable & Inexpressible & Incomparable God), is fully in accordance with the Divine Majesty of the Son Who is the Word and Lord. A problem would arise if a Father denied the Divine Majesty of the Son, as Arius did. But to call the Son by a name which He shares with creatures is no objection - is He mere man of flesh and blood, because He has humbled himself to share in our flesh and blood and weakness ?

So if anything, the quotation tells against the position of those who deny that Jesus is Creator & Exemplar of every creature and the Reason for creation. He is so highly exalted, that it is impossible to distinguish His honour from that of the Father. If He is so exalted by nature, then nothing prevents His humbling Himself to what is less than He is. Which fits with the traditional Christian doctrine.

 

[Dan_Parker]

He is - and is a second-century Father.​

I hope that quotation is not meant as a difficulty - it’s not. He could have drawn a similar conclusion from Isaiah 9.6, a text often applied to Christ: for he could have called Christ “Angel of great counsel”, as the Vulgate does. I’m not aware of any complaints that Jerome was denying the deity of Christ - and he was not.

What Melito is affirming is that the Word is the Exemplar of all creation: which the Word could not be, were he himself a creature. He is Archangel, Prophet, and much more, because He is the Head and source of their being and their activity; because He is, they can come into being. He is called by their names, because He is so much more exalted than either of them is. Likewise, David’s Lord (which He is) goes by the name of David, so that it might be known that David is and has nothing that he does not derive from the Word.

To add to the list: He is Apostle & Sacrifice, not because He is a creature, as his Apostles are, & as the sacrifices of men are; but because these creatures are nothing and of no value without Him. He it is through whom they have any efficacy. He is High Priest, not because He is weak & sinful like Aaron, who made the calf, nor because His infinitely valuable Sacrifice is as poor and beggarly as theirs - so it needed constantly to be repeated - but because their sacrifice had some resemblance to His, to which it pointed, that it might be fulfilled in His. In every instance, He has the name of that which is less than He, so that what is less may be seen to be fulfilled in that which is His. So archangels are called by the name that is proper to Him Alone, that their likeness to him, faint as it is (for He is a consuming fire, whereas each of them is only a flame of fire) may be more apparent, so that all Glory may be paid to Him, and not at all to wretched and insignificant creatures (Revelation 5).

So He can be called Archangel - but no archangel is fit to be called Lord: as is apparent from the Letter to the Hebrews.

When Melito says something that levels the Lord of Archangels with mere archangels, you may have a point - until he does, the objection has no weight. But to call Him by a name or title or quality He has given to His creatures (which every Christian does when following the Bible in calling God “good” or “righteous” or “holy”, since these are weak human words for the Unapproachable & Inexpressible & Incomparable God), is fully in accordance with the Divine Majesty of the Son Who is the Word and Lord. A problem would arise if a Father denied the Divine Majesty of the Son, as Arius did. But to call the Son by a name which He shares with creatures is no objection - is He mere man of flesh and blood, because He has humbled himself to share in our flesh and blood and weakness ?

So if anything, the quotation tells against the position of those who deny that Jesus is Creator & Exemplar of every creature and the Reason for creation. He is so highly exalted, that it is impossible to distinguish His honour from that of the Father. If He is so exalted by nature, then nothing prevents His humbling Himself to what is less than He is. Which fits with the traditional Christian doctrine.

Thanks for your comments. The only reason I mention Melito is that he calls the Son Archangel which is very close to calling him Michael since Michael is the only angel called Archangel in Scripture and Archangel is only used in the singular in Scripture. I don’t represent any theologian as claiming Jesus was a created angel just because they make this identification.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for your comments. The only reason I mention Melito is that he calls the Son Archangel which is very close to calling him Michael since Michael is the only angel called Archangel in Scripture and Archangel is only used in the singular in Scripture. I don’t represent any theologian as claiming Jesus was a created angel just because they make this identification.

Technically it is an old belief that there were seven principal angels (it was already expressed in the book of Tobit) - and as I mentioned, there were already certain people who came up with the idea that Jesus was originally one of those seven angels who got ‘promoted’ to being the Son of God, just as there are people who thought of Jesus as a mere man born through natural generation or that the preexisting heavenly power called Christ descended to the man Jesus on His baptism or that Jesus and Adam are one and the same person.

I know of one sermon written by an anonymous 2nd-3rd century North African ascetic - but ascribed to Cyprian of Carthage - which expresses this view, saying that God created those seven angels from fire and made one of those His son (there is a scribal gloss in the manuscript which makes clear that it is “against the universal/catholic faith”), and that this ‘promoted’ angel is the “Lord Sabaoth/Lord of hosts” of Isaiah’s vision!

Some state that one of the possible sources of the “Christ=angel” belief is that Jewish work entitled the Prayer of Joseph, which explicitly states the belief that an angel could appear both as an angel and a man: some believe that the work may present Jacob as a human incarnation of an angel called Israel, who competed with Uriel over their rank:

Thus Jacob says: “I, Jacob, who speak to you, and Israel, I am an angel of God, a ruling spirit, and Abraham and Isaac were created before every work of God; and I am Jacob, called Jacob by men, but my name is Israel, called Israel by God, a man seeing God, because I am the first-born of every creature which God caused to live.”
And he adds: “When I was coming from Mesopotamia of Syria, Uriel, the angel of God, came forth, and said, I have come down to the earth and made my dwelling among men, and I am called Jacob by name. He was angry with me and fought with me and wrestled against me, saying that his name and the name of Him who is before every angel should be before my name. And I told him his name and how great he was among the sons of God;
Are you not Uriel my eighth, and I am Israel and archangel of the power of the Lord and a chief captain among the sons of God? Am not I Israel, the first minister in the sight of God, and I invoked my God by the inextinguishable name?”

St. Justin Martyr shares the belief with the work (Dialogue with Trypho 125) that the name ‘Israel’ refers to a heavenly being: however, he differs from the Prayer of Joseph in that he believes that there were not one and the same being but two distinct persons who only happened to share the same name:

[3] Accordingly the name Israel signifies this, ‘A man who overcomes power’; for Isra is ‘a man overcoming’ (ἄνθρωπος νικῶν), and El is ‘power’ (δύναμις). And that Christ would act so when He became man was foretold by the mystery of Jacob’s wrestling with Him who appeared to him, in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is “the firstborn of all creatures.”
[4] For when He became man, as I previously remarked, the devil came to Him—i.e., that power which is called the serpent and Satan—tempting Him, and striving to effect His downfall by asking Him to worship him. But He destroyed and overthrew the devil, having proved him to be wicked, in that he asked to be worshipped as God, contrary to the Scripture; who is an apostate from the will of God. For He answers him, "It is written: 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’" (Matthew 4:10) Then, overcome and convicted, the devil departed at that time.
[5] But since our Christ was to be numbed, i.e., by pain and experience of suffering, He made a previous intimation of this by touching Jacob’s thigh, and causing it to shrink. But Israel was His name from of old/from above (ὄνομα αὐτῷ ἄνωθεν), to which He altered the name of the blessed Jacob when He blessed him with His own name, proclaiming thereby that all who through Him have fled for refuge to the Father, constitute the blessed Israel. But you, having understood none of this, and not being prepared to understand, since you are the children of Jacob after the fleshly seed, expect that you shall be assuredly saved. But that you deceive yourselves in such matters, I have proved by many words.

 

[patrick457]

Another source may be the mysterious sect called the Magharians (“Cave Dwellers”, due to the fact that their writings were found in caves), who is said to have flourished around the turn of the eras and are contemporaneous with the Sadducees. From what we know about them based on very late sources dating from the 10th centuries including two Arabic works, the Magharians, apparently in reaction to the literalistic approach to the Scriptures by Sadducees (the Magharians felt that by taking the anthropomorphic language of Scripture literally, the Sadducees degraded the incomparable God), believe that the creator of the universe is actually an angel, who in turn was created by God for this very purpose. Thus, all the references to “YHWH” or to “Elohim” in the Torah actually refer to this creator angel: which is no problem since the Magharians hold that this angel also possesses God’s name, or so our sources say. The same angel revealed the Torah and came to earth in human form as God’s messenger.

All in all, the Magharian belief is quite similar to other Gnostic groups in that the job of creating the physical world is relegated to a being inferior to the Divine (say, an angel or an elevated human), but it also differs in that the creator is not a malevolent entity opposed to God - such as the Sethians’ Yaldabaoth or the Saklas of Mandaeanism or the Cathars’ idea of Satan - but is instead an agent of His.

Even so, out of all these, there are only a few early sources which might equate Christ with the angel named Michael (and even these are ambiguous): in fact, in the Testament of Solomon and in one 4th century amulet listing the Ichthys acrostic along with six angelic names (making a total of seven), Jesus and Michael are clearly distinguished. The list of names goes:

ΡΑΦΑΗΛ (Raphaēl)
ΠΕΝΕΛ (Penel)
ΟΥΡΙΗΛ (Ouriēl)
ΙΧΘΥΣ (IChThYS: “Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior”)
ΜΙΧΑΗΛ (Michaēl)
ΓΑΒΡΙΗΛ (Gabriēl)
ΑΖΑΗΛ (Azaēl)

That’s it for the little history lesson.

 

[Ron_Conte]

This is said by way of a figure; certainly Jesus is not an angel in nature. He has two natures, one Divine and one human, united as one person. Notice that Jesus is also called Law and Patriarch, both of which are used figuratively also.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Technically it is an old belief that there were seven principal angels (it was already expressed in the book of Tobit) - and as I mentioned, there were already certain people who came up with the idea that Jesus was originally one of those seven angels who got ‘promoted’ to being the Son of God, just as there are people who thought of Jesus as a mere man born through natural generation or that the preexisting heavenly power called Christ descended to the man Jesus on His baptism or that Jesus and Adam are one and the same person.

I know of one sermon written by an anonymous 2nd-3rd century North African ascetic - but ascribed to Cyprian of Carthage - which expresses this view, saying that God created those seven angels from fire and made one of those His son (there is a scribal gloss in the manuscript which makes clear that it is “against the universal/catholic faith”), and that this ‘promoted’ angel is the “Lord Sabaoth/Lord of hosts” of Isaiah’s vision!

Some state that one of the possible sources of the “Christ=angel” belief is that Jewish work entitled the Prayer of Joseph, which explicitly states the belief that an angel could appear both as an angel and a man: some believe that the work may present Jacob as a human incarnation of an angel called Israel, who competed with Uriel over their rank:

Thus Jacob says: “I, Jacob, who speak to you, and Israel, I am an angel of God, a ruling spirit, and Abraham and Isaac were created before every work of God; and I am Jacob, called Jacob by men, but my name is Israel, called Israel by God, a man seeing God, because I am the first-born of every creature which God caused to live.”
And he adds: “When I was coming from Mesopotamia of Syria, Uriel, the angel of God, came forth, and said, I have come down to the earth and made my dwelling among men, and I am called Jacob by name. He was angry with me and fought with me and wrestled against me, saying that his name and the name of Him who is before every angel should be before my name. And I told him his name and how great he was among the sons of God;
Are you not Uriel my eighth, and I am Israel and archangel of the power of the Lord and a chief captain among the sons of God? Am not I Israel, the first minister in the sight of God, and I invoked my God by the inextinguishable name?”

St. Justin Martyr shares the belief with the work (Dialogue with Trypho 125) that the name ‘Israel’ refers to a heavenly being: however, he differs from the Prayer of Joseph in that he believes that there were not one and the same being but two distinct persons who only happened to share the same name:

[3] Accordingly the name Israel signifies this, ‘A man who overcomes power’; for Isra is ‘a man overcoming’ (ἄνθρωπος νικῶν), and El is ‘power’ (δύναμις). And that Christ would act so when He became man was foretold by the mystery of Jacob’s wrestling with Him who appeared to him, in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is “the firstborn of all creatures.”
[4] For when He became man, as I previously remarked, the devil came to Him—i.e., that power which is called the serpent and Satan—tempting Him, and striving to effect His downfall by asking Him to worship him. But He destroyed and overthrew the devil, having proved him to be wicked, in that he asked to be worshipped as God, contrary to the Scripture; who is an apostate from the will of God. For He answers him, "It is written: 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’" (Matthew 4:10) Then, overcome and convicted, the devil departed at that time.
[5] But since our Christ was to be numbed, i.e., by pain and experience of suffering, He made a previous intimation of this by touching Jacob’s thigh, and causing it to shrink. But Israel was His name from of old/from above (ὄνομα αὐτῷ ἄνωθεν), to which He altered the name of the blessed Jacob when He blessed him with His own name, proclaiming thereby that all who through Him have fled for refuge to the Father, constitute the blessed Israel. But you, having understood none of this, and not being prepared to understand, since you are the children of Jacob after the fleshly seed, expect that you shall be assuredly saved. But that you deceive yourselves in such matters, I have proved by many words.

Thanks, are you familiar with Origen stating that one of the seraphs at Isaiah 6 was the Son?

 

[Dan_Parker]

patrick457:
Please do not neglect to show the whole thing:

Dan:
Please respond to the part where I did not claim Melito was denying the Son was God You did not reply to my “whole thing”.

In addition in the quote you highlight, note that some terms have the definite article and some do not. It does not say “the God who is of God” but God. I would like to see this in the original language. It might just be equivalent to “a God who is of God” in that language

The Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten before the light; who was Creator with the Father; who was the Fashioner of man; who was all things in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs, Law in the law, Chief Priest among the priests, King among the kings, Prophet among the prophets, Archangel among the angels; He piloted Noah, conducted Abraham, was bound with Isaac, exiled with Jacob, was Captain with Moses; He foretold his own sufferings in David and the prophets; He was incarnate in the Virgin; worshipped by the Magi; He healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, was rejected by the people, condemned by Pilate, hanged upon the tree, buried in the earth, rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles, ascended to heaven; He is the Rest of the departed, the Recoverer of the lost, the Light of the blind, the Refuge of the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer [Syriac: *Chief

] of the cherubim, the Captain of angels; God who is of God, the Son of the Father, the King for ever and ever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for your comments. The only reason I mention Melito is that he calls the Son Archangel which is very close to calling him Michael since Michael is the only angel called Archangel in Scripture and Archangel is only used in the singular in Scripture. I don’t represent any theologian as claiming Jesus was a created angel just because they make this identification.

Dan-

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan-

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same?

Yes we do. However it is not a foundational doctrine and we are not dogmatic on the subject. We present the biblical evidence for that conclusion. If the term Archangel or Michael were not in Scripture it would have no impact on our theology. The evidence for this view is the same as arguments you would hear from Protestant theologians such as John Calvin, John Gill, John Wesley, etc. For example the footnotes from the 1599 Geneva Study Bible on Daniel 12:

Chapter 12

12:1 And at that (a) time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ’s coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.
​

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes we do. However it is not a foundational doctrine and we are not dogmatic on the subject. We present the biblical evidence for that conclusion. If the term Archangel or Michael were not in Scripture it would have no impact on our theology. The evidence for this view is the same as arguments you would hear from Protestant theologians such as John Calvin, John Gill, John Wesley, etc. For example the footnotes from the 1599 Geneva Study Bible on Daniel 12:
Chapter 12

12:1 And at that (a) time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
INDENT The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ’s coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.
[/INDENT]

Do you expect me, a Catholic, to be convinced by a footnote in a Bible produced in 1599 in Geneva of all places?

But I would like to see your quotes from Wesley and the others, please.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Do you expect me, a Catholic, to be convinced by a footnote in a Bible produced in 1599 in Geneva of all places?

But I would like to see your quotes from Wesley and the others, please.

Wesley commentary on Daniel 12

[1] And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

For the children — The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation.

A time of trouble — A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wesley commentary on Daniel 12
[1] And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

For the children — The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation.

A time of trouble — A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

Dan-

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.

I see from the link and quote you provided that Wesley references Michael as “messiah”, but the necessary connection between Michael and Jesus is still absent.

Fortunately, John Wesley was a truly prolific preacher who delivered over 40,000 sermons during his lifetime. This makes your task easy for surely Wesley would have mentioned his belief that Michael was Jesus (or vice-versa) at some point in all that time.

Can you produce any evidence that John Wesley believed that Jesus Christ is one and the same being as Michael the Archangel?

Thanks again.

 

[Dan_Parker]

"Wesley:

[1] And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be **a time of trouble**, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

For the children — The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be **yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation.**

**A time of trouble — **A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, **probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.**

Dan-

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.

I see from the link and quote you provided that Wesley references Michael as “messiah”, but the necessary connection between Michael and Jesus is still absent.

Fortunately, John Wesley was a truly prolific preacher who delivered over 40,000 sermons during his lifetime. This makes your task easy for surely Wesley would have mentioned his belief that Michael was Jesus (or vice-versa) at some point in all that time.

Can you produce any evidence that John Wesley believed that Jesus Christ is one and the same being as Michael the Archangel?

Thanks again.

I’ll take a look when I have time, but do you really question that he taught that Michael was not Christ? You apparently are not aware that the Greek equivalant to the Hebrew Messiah is XRISTOS, Christ in English.

Wait, I hear a bugle! Douay Rheims to the rescue!

DRA John 1:41 He findeth first his brother Simon and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll take a look when I have time, but do you really question that he taught that Michael was not Christ? You apparently are not aware that the Greek equivalant to the Hebrew Messiah is XRISTOS, Christ in English.

Wait, I hear a bugle! Douay Rheims to the rescue!
DRA John 1:41 He findeth first his brother Simon and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

Dan-

If Wesley actually believed as you do that Jesus and Michael were one and the same, then that fact should be found throughout Wesley’s extensive writings and sermons, don’t you think?

Of course, I’m sure that the Watchtower has done extensive research to support this claim and that you do not make such an assertion on the basis of a single, obscure passage from Wesley’s commentary on Daniel. I know that you don’t want to be accused of “proof-texting” or taking Wesley out of context.

So, it would be helpful to read the other quotes that you must have from Wesley in which he lays out the case that Jesus and Michael are one and the same being.

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan-

If Wesley actually believed as you do that Jesus and Michael were one and the same, then that fact should be found throughout Wesley’s extensive writings and sermons, don’t you think?

Dan:
Actually, Jehovah’s Witnesses consider this to be a minor doctrine. The word Archangel and Michael don’t appear that often. At most it would occur during commentaries on the passages like Daniel 12. As you can see, this is exactly where Wesley mentions it.

Of course, I’m sure that the Watchtower has done extensive research to support this claim and that you do not make such an assertion on the basis of a single, obscure passage from Wesley’s commentary on Daniel. I know that you don’t want to be accused of “proof-texting” or taking Wesley out of context.

Dan:
I searched our references for John Wesley and found one where we discuss his link to the Methodists. There is nothing in print about his identification of Michael with the Messiah. That is what I expected. So if you wish to criticize anyone, you can criticize me.

So, it would be helpful to read the other quotes that you must have from Wesley in which he lays out the case that Jesus and Michael are one and the same being.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Dan:
I am always very careful to explain that I don’t represent any of these scholars as believing that Christ is a created angel. Many explicitly deny this, unlike Wesley. I bring this up when others criticize this minor teaching of JWs and state that this is a JW invention. Also, we do not leverage this minor doctrine as a proof that Christ was created. It is really not a big deal to us at all.

So as you can see, since this is not that important topic for Jehovah’s Witnesses at all, and since I explicitly don’t represent Wesley as believing Christ was a created angel, it would be waste of my time to attempt to prove something I don’t believe because you insist. If you like you can do the research. This topic appears to be more important to you than it is to me.

I am also happy you have learned that Messiah equals Christ. You are welcome.