Michael in the New Testament

The first reference to Michael in the New Testament is found in the book of Jude, where he is referred to as “the archangel Michael” (Jude 1:9), one of the leaders among the angels. This is compatible with the testimony of Enoch, noted above. The passage in Jude recounts a dispute between Michael and the devil over the body of Moses, a narrative which is drawn in part from Zechariah 3 and in part from the lost ending of the Testament of Moses, as noted above. According to scholarly reconstructions of the Testament of Moses, the story went something like this. Moses on Mount Nebo sent Joshua back to the camp of Israel to tell them Moses was dead. When Moses dies, God sends the archangel Michael to recover the body of Moses and bury it in an unknown location. The devil appears in his role as the accuser, slandering Moses’ right to an honorable burial on the grounds of his murder of the Egyptian. Michael, who was Moses’ advocate, not his judge, did not take it upon himself to reject the devil’s accusation, but rebuked him in the name of the Lord. At this, the devil then fled, and Michael buried Moses.

Jude uses this illustration to expose the arrogance of his opponents. If the archangel Michael himself refused to slander Satan when the opportunity showed itself, then the false teachers Jude is writing about are on dangerous ground in blaspheming (slandering) the glorious ones of Israel’s history, like Moses (Jude 1:8). What Jude contributes to our investigation is the affirmation that Michael is a major adversary of Satan, a role that is reminiscent of Daniel 10. But while the scene in Jude is clearly one of conflict, warfare language is not used, so Michael’s role as commander-in-chief of the angels is not in view here. And there is also no hint in Jude that the author equated Michael with Jesus Christ. Jude has mirrored Michael’s traditional roles of archangel, advocate of the righteous, and opponent of Satan.

The last biblical reference to Michael is in Revelation 12:7, the text at the heart of this paper topic. While there are many references to angels in the book of Revelation, Michael is the only angel that is mentioned by name. In Revelation 12:7-9, there is a cosmic war between Michael and his angels, on the one hand, and the dragon/Satan and his angels, on the other. One might have expected John to have placed Christ in this role rather than Michael. Throughout Revelation, Christ is presented as a conqueror or victor (Rev 3:21; 5:5; 17:14; 19:14-15). Be that as it may, Michael emerges victorious in this conflict, casting the dragon/Satan out of heaven. This narrative aligns with the widespread New Testament theme of the victory of Jesus Christ over Satan through his death and resurrection (John 12:31-32). And the mention of Satan as the “accuser of the brethren” reminds readers of the New Testament of Satan’s accusations against Moses in Jude 9, and of Michael’s response in defense of Moses. So the actions of Michael in Revelation 12 raise the possibility that he is more than just one of the archangels, more even than the leader of the archangels, he is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. In that case, the Michael of Old Testament and Jewish narrative would, in fact, be the pre-existent Christ. But this identification is not made explicit in Revelation, hence the need for further study.

Michael Outside the Bible

Outside the biblical canon, Michael’s presence is widespread in Early Jewish texts (see the extensive listing of Jewish sources in David E. Aune, Revelation, 3 vols., Anchor Bible, 2: 694-695). Michael is particularly noteworthy for his benevolence and healing virtue toward humanity (1 Enoch 20:4; 40:9). But his role is generally less powerful in the Jewish sources than it is in Daniel. He is one of the four heavenly archangels in Ethiopic Enoch (1 En 9:1; 40:1-11; 54:6; 71:8-9, 13). He is one of the seven archangels in other parts of Enoch (20:1-7; 81:5; 90:21-22) and in Tobit (12:15). When the job descriptions of the seven angels are differentiated, Michael is the one who attends to the prayers and supplications of God’s people (see, for example, Slavonic 3 Apocalypse of Baruch 11:4 and Origin, de principiis 1.8.1).

In Ascension of Isaiah (3:16), on the other hand, Michael is more than just one of the archangels, he is “the chief of the holy angels”, the “commander-in-chief” (see also Rescension A of the Testament of Abraham [1:4; 2:2; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1; 7:11; 9:8; 10:12; 14:5, 12; 15:1; 19:4, cf. Rescension B, 4:5], 3 Apocalypse of Baruch [11:4, 7, 8], and the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra [4:24]) and the one who opens the graves in the resurrection. In Enoch, Michael is a key figure in the events that led to the fall of the rebellious angels and their punishment. He is the intermediary between God and Israel when the law is delivered to Ezra (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:3). In the Assumption of Moses (also called Testament of Moses), a lost Jewish work mentioned by Origen, Michael is the angel who buries Moses after his death. So, even in early Jewish texts, Michael is treated as more than just one of the archangels.

Michael in the Old Testament

The name “Michael” in Hebrew means “Who is like God?” The earliest appearance of Michael in the Bible is in Daniel, where he is referred to as “one of the chief princes” (Dan 10:13), “your prince” (Dan 10:21), and “the great prince who stands for the children of your people” (Dan 12:1). In Daniel, Michael is a powerful heavenly being associated with the protection of Daniel’s people in the midst of captivity. He also plays the key role in the final judgment (Dan 12:1, cf. 1 Enoch 54:6) and in delivering Daniel’s people at the end of time (Dan 12:1). In Daniel 10:13 and 21, he assists the “man clothed in linen” to resist “the prince of the kingdom of Persia”, who is presumably Satan. So Daniel portrays Michael as a prominent adversary of Satan in the cosmic conflict.

Major Earlier Studies on Michael the Archangel

The earliest major work on the archangel Michael that I am aware of is by Wilhelm von Luecken (Michael: Eine Darstellung und Vergleichung der jűdischen und morgenländisch-christlichen Tradition vom Erzengel Michael [Gőttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1898]). His particular interest, however, is understanding the worship of angels in early Jewish and Christian traditions. While many of the roles of Michael that are expressed in current scholarship were already explored in Luecken’s work, he shows little interest in Revelation 12, mentioning it only in passing and even then only on pages 27, 106 and 109.

A century later, the book by Darrell. D. Hannah (Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT 2/109 [Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999]) seeks to update and replace Luecken’s work on Jewish angelology and also explore its role in early Christian christology. It serves as a history of the Michael traditions within the larger field of Jewish angelology. In the New Testament portion of the book, Hannah concludes that functions associated with Michael are attributed to Christ without implying that Michael and Christ are the same individual. Another narrowly focused major work is by J. P. Rohland (Der Erzengel Michael: Artzt und Feldheer: Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frűhbyzantinischen Michaelskultes [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977]). This book focuses on Michael’s roles as healer and field marshal in pre- and early Byzantine theology.

Several recent dissertations come much closer to the topic. One of these is the dissertation of Leo. R. Percer (“The War in Heaven: Michael and Messiah in Revelation 12” [Ph.D. Dissertation, Baylor University, 1999]). Percer’s dissertation examines the role of Michael in Revelation 12 from two perspectives; 1) the ideal, first-century audience, and 2) that of the author of the book. His study considers the roles of Michael and the Messiah in Revelation 12, seeking to understand the relationship between the two. He concludes that Michael is subservient to the Messiah in Revelation 12 rather than equated with him.

A more tangential dissertation on Michael the Archangel is by Lewis O. Anderson (“The Michael Figure in the Book of Daniel” [Ph.D. Dissertation, Andrews University, 1997). The focus of Anderson’s dissertation is limited to the evidence concerning Michael in the book of Daniel. Anderson poses the research questions: Who is Michael? and What is his function in the book of Daniel? He concludes, in contrast with Percer, that Michael is identified in Daniel with the Prince of the host of Yahweh (a veiled reference for God) and with the messianic Son of Man. He is equivalent to the Angel of the Lord, found elsewhere in the Old Testament.

More recently, and closest to the specific purpose of this paper, is the dissertation by Michael O. Akpa (“The Identity and Role of Michael in the Narrative of the War in Heaven: An Exegetical and theological Study of Rev 12:7-12” [Ph.D. Dissertation, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2007]). He concludes, in direct contrast with Percer, that Michael in Revelation 12 is the same entity as the male child (Rev 12:5), Christ (Rev 12:10), and the Lamb (Rev 12:11). Michael functions in the narrative as both a divine warrior and as a judge. It is evident from this quick survey of the three relatively recent dissertations that the identity of Michael the Archangel in the Bible is not a settled issue.

The Identity of Michael in Revelation 12

Among Seventh-day Adventists, the quick and dirty solution to the identity of Michael in the Bible is that Michael is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, who leads the cosmic conflict against Satan (SDABC, 7:809, cf. 3SG 38; DA 99; Appendix to PP 761). Adventists tend to take their lead from Ellen G. White, who in Desire of Ages, page 99, quotes Daniel 10:21 as follows: “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Her assertion is affirmed by the editors of Patriarchs and Prophets, who comment on page 761: “Christ . . . was revealed to [the prophets] as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord’s host, Michael the archangel.” But nowhere in Scripture is Jesus called ever Michael. That equation may be implied in some places, but it is not stated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Aside from incidental genealogical references, the name Michael, as a heavenly being, appears five times in the Bible; three times in the book of Daniel and one each in the New Testament books of Jude and Revelation. In this blog series, I survey the major positions on Michael in the Bible and offer a contribution or two to the topic drawn from the literary context of the Michael reference in Revelation 12. Since Revelation 12 is probably the key chapter in the Bible for the cosmic conflict, this study will also contribute to understanding of that larger theme. To be continued. . . .

Conclusion: Living in Light of the End

When you get to know and love people, it is a natural tendency to avoid conflict in your dealings with them. But while it may be convenient to do so, Adventist Christian communities can never abandon God’s ideals because we look forward to God’s eschatological restoration of the ideal in a glorious garden city, the New Jerusalem (Rev 22:1-5; Rom 8:19-25). While the ideal is not always achieved in Christian communities, we are called to display the ideal to the degree possible in anticipation of the new earth and the new humanity exhibited in the resurrected body of Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3-14; 2 Cor 5:15; Eph 2:3-7). Adventist Christian communities seek to uphold the ideal, while treating all who fall short of that ideal, whether by nature or by choice, as if they were the living embodiment of Jesus Christ in our midst. “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me (Matt 25:40, NKJV).” As long as human probation remains open, God does not abandon those He loves (Ezek 16:1-64; John 21:15-17), neither should we. I invite all who read these words to be faithful in loving others the way Christ has loved us (John 13:34).

The Bible and Compassion

What can we learn from Scripture about how to treat those who do not meet the ideal (which includes every one of us at one time or another)? It is critical to begin by acknowledging that LGBT+ people (along with the rest of humanity, of course) bear the image of God (Gen 1:26-27. While the image of God may be marred in all of us, it is not fully eradicated by sin. To disrespect the image of God in anyone is to disrespect the One who created and sustains us all. But, more than that, LGBT+ people are “brothers (sisters) for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11). When we disrespect anyone for whom Christ died, we disrespect the cross, and the high value God placed upon the human race there. We also look to the example of Jesus Christ, who in His earthly life treated sinners of all sorts with dignity and respect, including tax collectors, whose very profession was offensive to followers of God at the time (Matt 9:10-12; Luke 15:1-2; 19:1-10). Jesus refused to look down on any sinner or condemn them (Luke 7:36-50), but invited them to re-orient their lives in relation to God’s ideals (John 8:11).

To know someone is to love them. When we take the time to know and love LGBT+ people, they are no longer abstractions, they are human beings who want to be understood, respected, treated fairly, and loved like anyone else. LGBT+ people have been disproportionately affected by stigma, discrimination, and abuse. The church and its institutions, often motivated by fidelity to Scripture, have nevertheless caused significant harm to LGBT+ individuals. So, any outreach to them must begin with repentance and heartfelt confession, followed by careful listening to their life stories and their struggles. It is from a context of love and understanding, acknowledging the brokenness we have in common, that we earn the right to invite them to consider the advantages in a life of sexual purity and self-control (1 Thess 4:4-7; Rom 12:2). “Our neighbor is everyone who is wounded and bruised by the adversary. Our neighbor is everyone who is the property of God.” Desire of Ages, 503.

Site Alert

This blog site will be transitioning to a new web host over the next ten days. To facilitate that transfer, I will not be posting any blogs, and comments will be disabled during that time. If all goes well, things will be back to normal by the second week of February. I appreciate all who take the time to read and react. I will let you know when we are live again.

The Bible and the Science of Gender and Sexuality

While the Word of God is the foundation of our understanding of God’s will, it does not address all the issues and challenges that a Christian faces in regard to human sexuality. We also gain insight into the realities of human existence through God’s other book, nature. We are encouraged in this approach by Scripture, which declares that God’s creation is a revelation of His handiwork, even in the midst of a broken world (Psa 19:1-4; Rom 1:20). Scientific study helps us understand the trauma that human beings experience as a result of sin. While what we learn from nature must be submitted to the clear teachings of the Scriptures, it can enlighten us particularly in areas where Scripture has not spoken, and it can help clarify issues where Scripture is not clear.

The best, current, scientific information indicates that many, if not most, LGBT+ people did not choose the orientations in which they experience life. While Seventh-day Adventists and other Christians are divided on whether or not LGBT+ is a choice, I feel compelled by evidence-based science to acknowledge that those who claim LGBT+ orientation have not necessarily chosen that condition (Jesus may have hinted at this possibility in Matthew 19:12). This evidence has major implications for addressing this issue. If LGBT+ is not a choice in even some situations, it would be cruel and judgmental to automatically assume that any given individual made that choice in some perverse sense. Where LGBT+ orientation is not a choice, sin does not reside in the orientation, it resides in how one responds to that orientation. I find the issues in this regard to be complex and real. And I deeply appreciate that church leadership through the years has given institutions like my own freedom to wrestle prayerfully with issues like these on the basis, not only of Scripture, but of the best scientific and experiential evidence available to us.

The Bible and Human Reality

This is the second blog in a series on LGBT+ and the Bible. The biblical ideal articulated in the previous blog post is, in a nutshell, as follows: Human beings were created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28). The image of God is introduced in the context of male and female, God’s original ideal regarding gender. God’s ideal on sexuality is then expressed in Genesis 2:24 as occurring in the context of a lifelong marital relationship between a man and a woman. From the creation perspective, sexual relationships outside of such lifelong male/female partnerships fall short of God’s ideal. And all this was re-affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6.

There is another side, however, to the biblical witness regarding sexuality. While Jesus does not directly address issues related to LGBT+, in Matthew 19:7-8 (ESV) He addresses the contrast between the ideal and the real in the human response to Scripture: “They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away (reflecting Deut 24:1-4)?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.’” With the entrance of sin into the world (Gen 3:1-13), the ideal remains in place (cf. Matt 19:9), but things often go seriously awry. The same Moses who articulated the ideal in Genesis 1 and 2, reports how quickly and deeply the human race fell from that ideal (Gen 4:1-24; 6:5; 9:20-23; 11:1-9, cf. many deviations from God’s ideals by the patriarchs). Under inspiration, he upheld the ideal while not ignoring the real. Even after the first advent of Christ, the church struggled to implement the ideal (note, for example, the series of “but ifs” in 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, cf. texts like Matt 19:12c; Rom 8:22-23; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6). So, a biblical approach to LGBT+ issues must address the depths of the human condition at the same time as it seeks to encourage the ideal.

While the Bible does not directly address issues of sexual orientation, as we understand them today, it does indicate that all human beings have an orientation to sin (Rom 3:23; 13:14; Gal 5:24; Eph 2:1-3). In Romans 13:14, Paul does not say that sinful desires are eradicated at conversion, but that those who put Christ at the center of their lives will not “act out” (Greek root: poieō) those desires (Rom 13:14; Eph 2:3). Wrestling with our sin orientation is a lifelong process. We are, therefore, called to embrace God’s ideal for human sexuality “more and more” (1 Thess 4:1-7). This indicates that those seeking to follow Jesus will be at various stages of the “more and more” at any given time. Attempting to enforce the ideal is, therefore, often an exercise in hypocrisy. The brokenness of human beings, as a result of sin, is a brokenness common to us all. It may take different forms, but a biblical approach will avoid an attitude of moral superiority toward anyone failing to attain the ideal.