41.In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself," I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end .,.". God is also referred to as the "first" and theReply: Revelation 22:12-13 does not have Jesus speaking, but his Father, God. In fact, this verse is speaking of Jehovah in Isaiah 40:10, but referring to his son, the Arm of Jehovah.
"last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one first and one last?
"Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis
Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is
the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be
accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the
work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum,
Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as
quoted by Snedeker, ibid])
The First and the Last
"Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master,
whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual
Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of
mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the
Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted
in Concessions, by John Wilson])
"...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater
power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the
most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed,
mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as
a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum
Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions])
"Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first
and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense
as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12,
may denote Christ's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not absolutely
decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I
am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom
thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest
from the beginning." The same explanation may be given of
chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last,
again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's
resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to
the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in
Concessions])
All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who
have not viewed these titles as denoting any ontological oneness of identity
between Christ and the Father. The last example, by Michaelis, is
especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last"
was being applied to Christ in reference to his death and resurrection.
This is how I view it, though in a slightly different manner, namely, that
Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last
to be so resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the
last" have this limitation. Let us take a look? "I am the first and
the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things
saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8
"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the
dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and Col 1:18.
Can you really believe that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before
the scribal changes/ Tiqqune Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting,
O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? you do not die." see also New Jerusalem
Bible. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his own creation.
Since God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be
included. The bible never speaks of only Jesus' human-self/human nature/second
nature dying. This is a 5th century Cappadocian thought read back into
the scriptures.
42.Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I say to you,..." over 50 times in the Bible. In the NWT, the comma is placed after the word "you" every time except in Lk 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word "today". Why is the comma placed after "today" instead of after "you" in this verse? If the translation of this phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it appears (see concordance), andReply: The above statement is neither accurate or fair. The original languages did not have commas, so it is left up to the translator to determine where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The Bible by E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word 'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me in paradise.'
the comma was placed after the word "you", how would it read?
Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin'
e to legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met'
emou ese en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. ("But others press upon the saying,
putting a punctuation mark after 'today,' so that it would be said
this way: 'Truly I tell you today'; and then they add the expression:
'You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Theophylact, an ecclessistical writer
who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.
Alloi -- to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254:
hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith' houtos epipherein
to* met' emou ese etc. ("Others press upon what is spoken; for they say
it must read by putting a comma thus: 'Truly I tell you
today,' and then adding the expression this way: 'You will be with
me' etc.")--Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece,
editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869,
under Luke 23:43.
Kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met' emou ese en to parad[eiso]. ("And immediately he said to me: 'Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Descent into Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.
Ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton parad[eison] met' emou. ("And he said to him: 'Today I tell you the truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'")--Gospel of Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.
Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the
twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke
23:43 as "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." On
that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in
Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb
until the third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the
resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus,
the word "today" at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer's
being with Jesus in Paradise.
Or as the great commentarian Adam Clarke puts it:
To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.] Marcion and the Manichees are reported to have left this verse out of their copies of this evangelist. This saying of our Lord is justly considered as a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul; and it is no wonder that those who have embraced the contrary opinion should endeavour to explain away this meaning. In order to do this, a comma is placed after shmeron, to-day, and then our Lord is supposed to have meant, "Thou shalt be with me after the resurrection I tell thee this, TO-DAY." I am sorry to find men-of great learning and abilities attempting to support this most feeble and worthless criticism. Such support a good cause cannot need; and, in my opinion, even a bad cause must be discredited by it.Reply: I think we already dealt with this scripture above. Jn 1:3 uses the words "apart from" in reference to Jesus (Spencer). In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of its occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one."43.Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart
from him not even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created
being if ALL things came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then
according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to create himself.
44.If the great crowd is to have everlasting life on paradise EARTH, why does IThess 4:17 say, "...we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR; and thus we shall always be with the Lord"?Reply: Verse 7 refers this to those who were *called,* which is exactly what we believe. Verse 16 says that he is an archangel, but I doubt if you believe that.
45.If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus') name instead of Jehovah's (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk 21:12, 17, Jn 15:2 and Acts 9:16)?Reply: Jesus never said we would be persecuted for the sake of his name "instead of Jehovah," but we have already seen above that Jesus was GIVEN a name/authority, and we also know that Jesus, like other kings, "took his seat on Yahweh's throne." 1Chron 29:23 NJB
46.In Mt 1:23, who is Matthew referring to here that has been given the name which means "With Us Is God"?Reply: Simply naming someone Imanuel does not make him God anymore than naming someone Jehu (meaning "Jehovah is He") makes someone Jehovah.
47.The Bible says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11,45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk 2:11, Phil 3:20. Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2Pet 1:1, 2:20, 3:18, etc.)?Reply: For the same reason Jehovah raised up saviours in the past:
48.Referring to Isa 14:9-17, if there is no conscious awareness after death, how could Sheol "... become agitated at you in order to meet you on coming in..." (v.9), how could the souls in Sheol "... speak up and say to you..." (v.10-11), how could the souls in Sheol when "...seeing you will gaze even at you; they will give close examination even to you, [saying,] This this the man'..." (v. 16-17), and how would you be aware that this was happening?Reply: According to my Catholic Dictionary, Sheol is the underworld, grave, or death. Now think about it...How can Death become agitated? It is quite obvious that the context is not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively. Isaiah also says that "Hell is licking its chops in anticipation" Living Bible Catholic Edition (51:4), but we know, like the above statement in chapter 14, that this is a figurative statement, not a literal one.
49.Heb 3:1 refers to "holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling". In Mk 3:35, Jesus says, "Whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother..." Therefore, according to the Bible, whoever does the will of God is a brother of Jesus and a partaker of the heavenly calling. How can this be if the Watchtower Society teaches that only 144,000 people go to heaven?Reply: Perhaps it would be wise to quote the entire scripture at Mark 3:35, "Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother. The previous scriptures dealt with Christ's fleshly family, this one heals with his "spiritual family" (see NIV Study Bible).
50.Heb 11:16, in speaking about some of the faithful people of the Old Testament (Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc.) says, "But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven..." and,"... their God for he has made a city ready for them." The footnote on the word "city" refers to HEAVENLY Jerusalem of Heb 12:22 and Rev 21:2. How can this be since according to the teachings of the Watchtower Society, the onlyReply: God has indeed made a city ready for them, the "new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God." Rev 21:2 NJB
people who will go to heaven are the 144,000 spirit anointed who have been chosen from people who lived after Christ died?
51.In Lk 24:36-39 and in Jn 20:26-27, Jesus showed his disciples the wounds in his body as proof of his resurrection. If Jesus' body had been destroyed by God after he died, how could Jesus show the disciples his body which had the wounds in his hands, feet, and side and claim that he is not just a spirit, "because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have" (Lk 24:39)?Reply: Now think about it. Why did Jesus even have to show the wounds in his body if he was the same bodily Jesus? The truth is, Jesus kept showing up in bodies that were unrecognisable to his followers. He appeared to Mary at John 20:14, but "she did not realize it was Jesus." NJB
52.If Christ was created by God and was the wisdom of God (Prov 8:1-4, 12, 22-31), then before Jesus would have been created, God would have had to have been without wisdom. How is it possible that God could have ever been without wisdom?Reply: Actually, it has been primarily Catholics that have tuoted Jesus as Wisdom. see wisdom.htm. I can just as easily turn this around and ask, why, if God always had wisdom, does the Catholic Bible say that Yahweh created wisdom (NJB) at the above scriptures. Obviously, it is a different wisdom, a personified one, because in Prov 8...Wisdom speaks...and talks of its enjoyment with Yahweh its creator.
53.Rev 7:11 says that "before the throne" is in heaven where "all the angels were standing". Rev 14:2-3 says "And I heard a sound out of heaven ... And they were singing as if a new song before the throne ...". Rev 7:9 says,"... look, a great crowd ... standing before the throne...". Rev 7:14-15 says, "...There are the ones that come out of the great tribulation ... That is why they are before the throne of God ..." Therefore, if "before the throne " means in heaven (Rev 7:11, 14:2-3), and the "great crowd" is "before the throne" (Rev 7:9, 7:14-15), where does that mean that the great crowd will be?Reply: Well let us take an inventory of all things before the throne. 7 burning lamps (7 spirits of God), a sea of glass, 4 living creatures, 24 elders (Rev 4), a golden altar (Rev 8:3), the 144,000 (Rev 14), the dead (Rev 20:12). There seems to be alot going on before the throne. A good lexicon like Thayers and BAGD tells us that *before*, enopion, often means, *in the sight or presence of.* That is why the EARTH is "before God" (Gen 6:11), as is Moses' father-in-law (Ex 18:12), the tribes of Israel with Joshua (Josh 24:1), Bethel (Jg 21:2) etc etc.
54.In Lk 20:37-38, how could Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be "all living to him (God)", since they all died hundreds of years before Jesus said this?Reply: The context of this scripture talks about the resurrection. If as you claim, nobody really dies but their soul lives on, then what need is there of a resurrection? To God, the resurrection is such a sure thing, that all are then living to him. But this view does not contradict scripture where it shows that people and souls actually DO DIE. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Ps 146:4; Ezek 18:4; Rom 6:23)
55.If the soul dies when the body dies, how could the "souls" of Rev 6:9- 11, who were of those who had been "slaughtered" (i.e., killed), cry out "with a loud voice, saying: 'Until when Sovereign Lord ..."?Reply: The following scriptures say that the sun turned black and the moon became like blood, the stars fell to earth and the sky was divided...all of which we know can't happen. The NAB got it right when it says in the footnote, "Symbolic rather than literal description of the cosmic upheavals..."
56.In Mt 28:19, Jesus tells his disciples to baptize "people of all the nations ...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit". Why would the disciples be instructed to baptize in the name of anybody or anything who was not God? Do Jehovah's Witnesses follow the command of Jesus and baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit"?Reply: As was stated above, Name/ONOMA often denotes authority. If a policeman tells you to stop *in the name of the law,* would you suppose the Law is a person or God?
57.If the human soul IS the person, how could the soul go out of a person (Gen 35:18) or come back into a person (1 Kings 17:21)?Reply: My Catholic Bibles often translate SOUL as LIFE, in fact, the NAB uses BREATH at these 2 scriptures, which captures the thought quite nicely, don't you think?
58.The Watchtower Society teaches that the earth will never be destroyed or depopulated. How can it be, then, that God says in Isa 51:6,"... the earth itself will wear out, and its inhabitants will die like a mere gnat...", and that Jesus says in Mt 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away...", and that John says in Rev 21:1 that he saw"... a new heaven and a NEW earth, for the former heaven and the FORMER earth had passed away, and the sea is NO MORE."?Reply: Again, I ask you to think about, why will the heavens, God's dwelling place (1Kings 8:30; Ps 115:16), need destroying? The footnote in the NAB says that they are symbols. I think you are placing too much literalism into the symbolism that the Bible often uses.
59.Referring to Lk 12:4-5, what would be left of a person after they were killed that could be thrown into Gehenna?Reply: According to the NAB, Gehenna (Mt 5:29, 30 ftn) means total destruction. The second death (Rev 20:6, 14).
60.Who or what does the spirit of Christ (Phil 1:19, Gal 4:6, Rom 8:9) refer to? In Gal 4:6, how is it possible that the spirit of Christ could come into our hearts? How is it possible that the spirit of CHRIST could reside in someone? If what the Watchtower Society teaches is true, how could Paul make this statement if Christ was a spirit person residing in heaven?Reply: Who are what does the spirit of Jacob (Gen 45:27) wisdom (Ex 28:3) jealousy (Num 5:14) Pul king of Assyria and Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria (1 Chron 5:26) the Philistines (2 Chron 21:16) Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22) etc, refer to? The spirit can often denote a temperament, and why would we not want the mild temperament of Jesus.
61.In Jn 8:56, Jesus says, "Abraham your father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced". Since Abraham died hundreds of years before Jesus said this, how could Jesus say that Abraham "saw it and rejoiced", if there is no conscious awareness after death?Reply: Perhaps you should read your own Bible. The NAB says here in the footnote, "This seems a reference to the birth of Isaac (Gn 17, 7; 21, 6), the beginning of the fulfillment of promises about Abraham's seed."
62.In Jn 6:51, Jesus says that a person must eat "of this bread" in order to "live forever", and that "the bread that I give IS my flesh". In Jn 6:63, Jesus says "... Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." In Jn 6:54-55, Jesus says, "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life..." and "... for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." Do you partake of the flesh of Christ, as Jesus commanded, in order to have life in yourself and in order to live forever?Reply: Interestingly, the NAB says in a footnote at v. 63, "probably not a reference to the eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and natural." This is not to say that these Catholics do not believe there might be a tie in somewhere, but let us look closely at these words. Verse 34 has, "Jesus said, I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." NAB
63.In Acts 17:31 Paul says, "Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a MAN whom he has appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has resurrected him from the dead". Did Paul believe that the future judge of the world, Jesus Christ, would be an immortal MAN or an invisible spirit creature?Reply: Since you are taking everything supra-literally, does this also mean that during the judgement hour that he will also be a *Lamb* (Rev 6:16), and that the Lamb is also their shepherd (Rev 7:17), a rider of the white horse (Rev 6:2). But the reasonable conclusion is that Jesus is the archangel Michael:
And yet, did not angels appear as men (Gen 18:3; cf. Heb 13:1).
This is not just a JW teaching:
John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930,
Vol. 3,
page 2048 states:
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate 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 .Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person ofWILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated:
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.
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 MichaelFrom Brittanica.com:
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
"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical
http://mamma66.mamma.com/Search?eng=MSN&cb=Mamma&dest=http%3A%2F%2
Fwww.britannica.com%2Fbcom%2Feb%2Farticle%2F1%2F0%252C5716%252C1083
01%2B3%252C00.html&engid=599&af=0&qtype=0&qw=angel+christology&idx=0
"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. 35Regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist
"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
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.882Matthew Henry Commentary:
Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries.John Wesley:
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments.
Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary.
Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5.
Chapter XIIGeneva Study Bible:
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 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.Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes
of the earth desert or oppose it.
Da 12:1—Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the
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.Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. (i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even
Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels."The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on
behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who are capable of examining for themselves."
Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead
in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears
that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of
the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head
Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the
Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his
voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and
they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming,
in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26,
28, 29.
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 Dic- tionary teaches nearly,
if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former
was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist. Buck in his Theological
Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in scripture
frequently called an Angel.[1] Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their
concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
Doc- tor 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 page 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. Pool, in his Annotations, explains those
passages where the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character
of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ. Bunyan makes the pilgrim ascribe
his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed
Michael helped me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54. Guyse
in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev.
xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is
signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page[s] 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human family was created.
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 Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg.
ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.
Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains:
Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.:
"And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare, Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 816, paragraph 9.)Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition):
He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever. (bold italics added)—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (8), pp. 756-7.In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd century:
In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.
64.The WTS teaches that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not reside with Christ in his heavenly kingdom. How then do you explain Mt 8:11 in which Jesus says," But I tell you that many from eastern parts and western parts will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens"?Reply: Again, you are looking for something literal when it should be figurative. In a parallel account, the NAB footnote calls it a parable (Luke 13:22-30) and it figuratively shows the Gentiles reclining at a table of salvation that was originally reserved for Jews.
65.Every true Christian would agree that we should follow the
commands of God. In Mk 9:7,
God the Father commands us to listen to Jesus. Do
you follow this command and listen to
Jesus? After all, Jesus died for your personal sins
(1Jn 2:2, 1Pet 2:24). Jesus tells us to go
directly to him (Mt 11:28-30), and the Father commanded
us to listen to Jesus. Why?
Because JESUS gives us everlasting life (Jn 10:28),
and so that JESUS will enter our
house and be with us and give us the right to sit
on his throne (Rev 3:20- 21). Do you pray
to Jesus as Paul and the early Christians did (1Cor
1:2)? Do you partake of the flesh of
Christ as Jesus commanded (Jn 6:51)? If not, then
are you following the command of the
Father who said "Listen to him"?
Reply: You make it sound as if the literal denial of the eucharistic
transubstantiation is indigenous to JW's.
The verses at John 6 are much disputed amongst scholars who also don't
see it with canabalisitic overtones.
Leon Morris: "The objections already urged [against a eucharistic interpretation]
remain. The very strength of the language is against it. The eating and
drinking spoken of are the means of
bringing eternal life (v. 54), and they are absolutely unqualified.
Are we to say that the one thing necessary for life is to receive the sacrament?
Again, "flesh" is not commonly used with reference to the sacrament. In
every other New Testament passage referring to it the word is "body"
"I am not contending that there is no application to the sacrament.
But I very strongly doubt whether this is the primary meaning. It seems
much better to think of the words as meaning first of all the appropriation
of Christ" (Morris, Leon. _John_ [The New ICC]. Page 377).
"The concept of Jesus as the Bread of Life can be related not alone
to Jewish thought but to other cultures of the nearer and remoter East.
The most remarkable parallel to John 6, however, is found in an utterance
of Rabbi Hillel, son of Gamaliel III . . . He astonished his contemporaries
by saying, 'there shall be no Messiah for Israel, for they have already
eaten him in the days of Hezekiah' " GRB Murray, "Theology in the Fourth
Gospel" p. 98.
Jewish translations of the Talmud into English render the word
for "have eaten" as "enjoy."
"The means to life, accordingly, is not eating and drinking communion
elements, but believing is the means of inwardly accepting the suffering
death of the Passover Lamb who gave his life for the sin of the world"
(Borchert, 272).
"This is my body: That Jesus is speaking FIGURATIVELY should be clear.
The bread SYMBOLIZES his body, just as Jesus speaks figuratively of being
a gate, a shepherd, or a vine (see John 10:7, 11; 15:1)." Evans' NIB Commentary
on Luke, page 321.
The transubstantiation was a bone of contention for hundred of years,
as this ancient poem goes to show:
So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good
Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood.
The Mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;
And transubstantiation, too, she`d never dare believe.
He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale.
"My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail;
For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion,
To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion."
The priest went with the gentleman-he thought to gain a prize.
He said, "I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes."
So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,
"The priest has come to dine with us!" "He`s welcome," she replied.
And when, at last, the meal was o'er, the priest at once began,
To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;
The greatness of our Savior`s love, which Christians can`t deny,
To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.
"I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;
The Sacramental miracle will stop your soul's decline."
"I`ll bake the bread," the lady said. "You may," he did reply,
"And when you`ve seen this miracle, convinced you`ll be, say I."
The Priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless.
The lady asked, "Sir, is it changed?" The priest answered, "Yes,
It`s changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;
Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!"
So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare.
The lady said unto the priest, "I warn you to take care,
For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,
But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter."
The priest was struck real dumb-he looked as pale as death.
The Bread and Wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath.
"Bring me and my horse!" the priest cried, "This is a cursed home!"
The lady replied, "Begone; tis you who shares the curse of Rome."
The husband, too, he sat suprised, and not a word did say.
At length he spoke,"My dear," said he, "the priest has run away;
To gulp such mummery and tripe, I`m not for sure, quite able;
I`ll go with you and we`ll renounce this Roman Catholic fable."
-Author Unknown
Back to Main Page
Back to 65 Questions Pt. 1