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.
LGBT+ and the Bible
Since many people today are struggling to understand the Bible’s teachings in relation to LGBT+, I recently did some further study on this in consultation with some highly regard spiritual and academic leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Having said that, the reflections that follow are my own and represent my current understanding on an issue that seems settled to many, yet is very unsettled to many others. I begin with a summary of I consider the biblical ideal on sexuality and gender. To believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in the whole Judeo-Christian Bible (Luke 24:44-45; John 5:39-40), including both Old (Hebrew Bible) and New (Greek Bible) Testaments. Our understanding of the biblical ideal must be grounded in biblical principles while at the same time considering the realities of today’s broken world.
The biblical teaching on sexuality and gender originates in the story of creation (Genesis 1-3). God created everything and everyone, and that creation was “very good” (Gen 1:31). In that context, the biblical ideal on gender is expressed in Genesis 1:26-27 for the whole human race. Human beings were created in the image of God. Being in the image of God expresses the extremely high value all human beings have in God’s sight. In Genesis 1, 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 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.
These biblical ideals are not arbitrary decrees. They come from a loving Creator who desires our best good as human beings (John 10:10). Sexuality brings out the best (love, care, commitment– cf. SoS 4:1-16) and the worst (lust, indifference, exploitation– cf. 2 Sam 11:1-27; 13:1-33) in human beings. So expressions of sexuality outside the ideal can lead to destructive consequences. Without the stable foundation of a loving and intact family, children often grow up confused, alienated, and angry. A husband and wife, whose child is a living embodiment of their longstanding oneness, are the ideal guardians to which that child can be entrusted. Promiscuity of all kinds violates the ideal and results in consequences that can be clearly seen in society today. So the Seventh-day Adventist Church is on solid biblical grounds in opposing promiscuity of all kinds.
The biblical principles on gender and sexuality are re-affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV—cf. Mark 10:6-9). In response to a question about divorce, Jesus said: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female (referring to Genesis 1:27), and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ (quoting Genesis 2:24)?” In this statement, Jesus re-affirms the Genesis ideal for both gender and sexuality. The ideal, therefore, is not limited to the beginning of human history, it continues to be valid for the ongoing Christian community. Sexuality brings out the best in human beings when expressed in the context of loving, trusting relationships that grow deeper and deeper over a lifetime.
But that is not all the Bible has to say about this issue. Stay tuned.
Conclusion of Israel, Jesus and the Church
I apologize for a lengthy period of no posting. I know a number of you were looking forward to the conclusion of the series on LaRondelle, Israel and the Church. Distracted with many other things. With this posting, the series is now complete.
Old Testament Israel was made up of the literal descendants of Jacob in their twelve tribes settled in the promised land that was centered on the city of Jerusalem. So Israel in the Old Testament was identified in literal and local terms. Gentiles consisted of everyone outside Israel’s national and geographical boundaries. Those wishing to worship the God of Israel, therefore, would find Him at the temple in Jerusalem. But when the temple was destroyed and the descendants of Jacob were scattered to Babylon, God used those circumstances to open up the possibility of a broader definition of Israel.
According to the New Testament, a new Israel was established in the person of Jesus Christ. He came out of Egypt, passed through the waters, spent 40 days in the wilderness and called twelve disciples to form the “twelve tribes” of a new, spiritual Israel. He was Israel as Israel was intended to be. Just as His life, death and resurrection were modeled on the history and experience of Israel, so the experience of His disciples was to be modeled on Him and through Him on Old Testament Israel. So when the New Testament talks about the church it often does so in the language of Israel. The church, in the book of Revelation and throughout the New Testament, is modeled on the experience of Old Testament Israel. But this is not true in a direct sense. They are modeled on Israel because they are in relationship with the One who embraced the whole history and experience of Israel in Himself.
In contrast to Old Testament Israel, which was literal and local in nature, the new Israel (the church) is spiritual and worldwide, because it is grounded in relationship with Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. This Israel is made up of people from every nation, tribe, and language. They are found in every geographical corner of the world. And through the Holy Spirit, they have no need to go to Jerusalem, God is equally accessible from anywhere on earth. Likewise, opposition to Jesus and the church is spiritual and worldwide when it appears in Revelation. If one truly grasps the significance of this New Testament re-definition of Jew and Gentile, Israel and the nations, one’s reading of the Bible will never be the same.
One More Witness
A second example. Let’s look at a specific Old Testament geographical term which is used in in Revelation 16:12: “The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.” Should we interpret the river Euphrates literally or geographically? Or does it have a spiritual, worldwide meaning like Revelation 1:7? We are not left to guess. The meaning of the Euphrates River in Revelation 16 is provided in Revelation 17. This becomes evident when we look at 17:1: “Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters. . . .’”
Notice two things about this text. First, one of the bowl-angels of chapter 16 has come to explain something, and, second, that something has to do with “many waters.” So which of the seven bowl angels is this? Which of the seven bowls have anything to do with water? There are three possible candidates; the second bowl (Rev 16:3– falls on the sea), the third (16:4-7– rivers and springs), and the sixth (16:12– Euphrates River). Which of these three bowl-angels is the angel of Revelation 17? The answer is clarified in verse 5: “This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” (Rev 17:5). Babylon was an ancient city located on the Euphrates River. So when you talk about a woman who sits on many waters (17:1) and whose name is Babylon (17:5), there is no question exactly what the waters of Revelation 17:1 are, they are the Euphrates River, which is also described as “many waters” in Jeremiah 51:13. The angel who comes to John in Revelation 17 is the sixth bowl angel. He has come to explain something about the Euphrates River.
What the angel has come to explain is found in Revelation 17:15: “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.” What are these “waters you saw?” They are the waters of Rev 17:1, the waters of the Euphrates River. What does the Euphrates River represent? It represents “peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.” The Euphrates River is a symbol of many nations– the political, secular, and economic powers of this world. In the Old Testament, the Euphrates River was a literal and local river. But in the book of Revelation it is a symbol of a world-wide spiritual, concept, those people in the world who oppose Jesus Christ, not primarily on religious grounds, but as a threat to their political, secular and economic goals. In re-defining the Israel of the Old Testament, Jesus also re-defined how God looks at the earthly “enemy.” Differences between nations that have no impact on the larger issues in the cosmic conflict are of little or no importance to Bible prophecy. What counts is how people relate to Jesus Christ.