as SDA Teach?
Jude 1:9 Michael the Archangel --- said (to Satan) 'The Lord rebuke thee'
Rom 10:9 If you confess 'Jesus is LORD' you shall be saved.
Most Christians are amazed to learn that SDA teaches that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, but Ellen White said He was Michael, so if they changed this, they'd need to reject her as 'the spirit of prophecy' and they'd not be the remnant church! So now they hold He's both God the Son, and Michael.
It makes a great difference who Jesus really is for 2 Cor 11:4 says, there'll be those who teach another Jesus, preach a different gospel and have another spirit. These marks identify cults, who invariably attack the Doctrine of Christ. Early SDA denied His deity saying He's the archangel. Their Commentary vol 5 p 1129 cites Ellen "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty"
I Tim 2:5; Heb 7:4; Rev 17:14; 15:3 &16:5-7 show He is Almighty God.
The real Jesus is the God-man Christ Jesus. He was never an Archangel! He's not God-angel-man. So SDA has a different Jesus. But Ellen White said:
"Michael, or Christ, with the angels that buried Moses" (Jude 9, Spiritual Gifts, IV a, p. 158)
"And before the context closed Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid---Gabriel declares 'But lo, Michael, one of the Chief Princes came to help me" (Dan 10:13, Prophets & Kings, p.572)
"There is none that holdeth with me in these things but Michael (Christ) your prince." (Desire of Ages p.99)
"Moses passed under the dominion of death - but Christ the Savior brought him forth from the grave. Jude 9" (ibid 379)
SDA use her 'gift' to prove He is Michael as seen from their Commentary vol 4, p. 860 where they appeal to her writings as their final authority; and that Michael standing up in Dan 12:1 is Jesus ending his mediation for us, quoting Desire of Ages p.379. In 1 Ths 4:16 they reason as He's coming with the voice of the archangel, then He must be Michael! To allow this, they redefine what an Archangel is, in vol. 7, p. 706 -- Michael is one of the names of Christ -- not as the chief angel, but as the ruler over the angels'. Here they say 'an archangel is not an angel', but is an Archbishop a bishop, or the Chief of police, a police? Isa 8:20 "If they speak not according to this Word, there is no light in them".
We must show the Bible definition of this, to see how wrong their redefinition is. To evade this test of Scripture, SDA have made their own Clear Word Bible (1994), adding E.G. White's interpretations into the text!
1 Ths 4:16 "When Christ descends from heaven, He, as the Archangel will" ---
Rev 12:7 "God's Son Michael and the loyal angels fought."
Jude 9 "the Lord Jesus Christ, also called Michael the Archangel"
Dan 10:13 "then Michael, the prince of the Lord's host, came to help me"
Rev 10:1 "Next I saw a mighty Angel --- I knew it was the Lord Jesus"
Rev 10:5 "Then this mighty Angel, the Lord Jesus ---"
Rev 10:8+9 (--take the book from the Mighty Angel--) "So I went up to the Son of God and asked --- "
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT shows the word 'Archangel' is from two words: 'archay' meaning 'chief' and 'aggelos' meaning 'angel', defining 'Archangel' as 'The chief of the angels', flatly confuting SDA's Commentary's words "not as chief of the angels".
The LXX, Dan 10:13 shows he is "one of the Chiefs of the princes". Here the article is in plural spelling 'twv' and 'archay' is also plural 'Archwvtwv' so it literally says 'one of the chiefs of the angels". --- There are more archangels.
1. Heb 1:14 says angels are all spirits but Jesus showed He was not a Spirit (Lk 24: 27-29). So to the SDA who made Him an angel in Rev 10, He is a spirit, which denies His bodily resurrection, an Anti-Christian deception (2 Jn 7), as well as denying He is the God-Man (Col. 2:9).
2. Angels are all created beings, while Jesus is their creator (Jn 1:1-3; Col 1:16-18) but not created !
3. Heb 1&2 tells many ways Jesus is better (by nature) than the angels, emphasizing His true deity!
Gesenius' Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon of the OT proves decisively that the Chiefs of Princes in Dan 10 are the archangels. Of Michael, it says "One of the seven (7) archangels who interceded for the people of Israel before God". Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Dictionary concurs, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives more insight re. the 7 archangels. In Luke 1:9 Gabriel says "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God". Rev 1:4 speaks of the 'seven spirits' (which angels are) who are before God's throne.
But Jesus is God on the throne (Jn 1:1; Mk 16:19; Acts 2:32-36). In Rev 3:1 it is "He who has the seven spirits (angels) of God". In 15+16 these 'seven angels' hold the seven vials with the last plagues for the earth. In Zech 3:9 Jesus is the 'Stone having seven eyes'--the Seven Archangels before his throne.
As the Bible shows these 7 spirits, and the 7 archangels are 7 spirits, these are the 7 archangels in Tobit (LXX), so Michael the Archangel is one of the 7 arch-angels. Jesus who is the fullness of Deity bodily, is 'the Man Christ Jesus', and NOT a Spirit, thus not the archangel, Michael.
Thayer's Lexicon also tells of more info in the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Book of Enoch, We know Enoch is quoted in Jude 14 (the same context as vs 9 about Michael). Here we learn who the archangels are, as the Jews knew about "And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel looked down from heave"--- The footnote points to 40:2 where it explains the names of the 7 archangels as being: Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, Raphael, Raguel, Saraquel and Remiel. The note continues to tell their ministry, sometimes expressed in their names.
But SDA use to defend their stance saying that since Jesus comes with the archangel's voice, and since He says all who are in their graves will hear His voice and be raised to life, then His voice is the archangel's voice, and He's the archangel!. Looking carefully at these passages we see why they only allude to them. 1 Thess says He's coming with the archangel's voice, and with the trump of God. If his coming with the archangel's voice makes Him the archangel, then His coming with the trump of God also makes Him a trumpet! The error is evident, yet it's deeper for it's the voice He's coming with. This reduces Him to merely a voice-not even an angel. But the preposition 'with' followed by an article 'the' plus a noun, speaks of a separate entity, not the same entity.
The verse says "The Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout -a commanding call--" Jesus Himself is going to shout, and this is what He refers to in John 5, that those who are asleep in the dust of the earth, will hear His voice-not an angel's when He comes. Since He says in Matt 25 that He will come with all His angels, of course He will bring the 7 archangels with Him. But in Matt 24:31 He says He'll send them forth 'with the great sound of a trumpet' while 1 Cor 15:52 says the 'trumpet will sound and the dead will rise'.
Yet since He brings all archangels, there's no reason the archangel in 1 Thess is Michael. Odds are 7 to one it's a different one, especially as SDA teach that God cast off Israel, and as Michael is the archangel for the Jewish people, and Jesus is coming for His church, in contrast to Israel. -unless it be in a context of Michael calling all the angels to battle, to combat Satan and his angels, who would certainly try to prevent Jesus' return for His church. Since Michael and his angels evicted Satan and his hosts from heaven in Rev 12, (where Christ is God on the throne), and as Michael dispensed with the Prince of Persia in Dan. 10, it follows there would be a great spiritual battle taking place in conjunction with Armageddon, when Christ comes for His church.
In Dan 10, Michael is not the one who spoke to Daniel, but the Archangel who came to dispense with the 'prince of Persia'. The ONE speaking to Daniel is described as 'a man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of uphaz, His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze ' (vs 5+6).
We see this same ONE in Rev 1:13-18, who is clothed in linen, and his eyes are like flame of fire, and his feet like fine brass, refined in fire. He is Jesus Christ. Thus Christ spoke to Daniel, and so He was not Michael, one of the Chiefs of the Angels!
Distinction between Jesus and Michael is seen by comparing Rev 12 with the Gospels, for when Michael cast Satan from heaven, Jesus said "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven", showing He was God on the throne as He watched Michael, with the division of angels at his command, casting Satan and his hosts from heaven. Jesus watched as Michael was fighting.
A similar distinction is seen comparing Jude 9 with Rom 10:9, cited in the heading of this article. Here Michael did not dare accuse Satan, but said "The LORD rebuke thee". Jesus, Who is "LORD over all" had no problems accusing Satan, declaring him 'a liar from the beginning' and 'the father of lies'. And Rom 10:9 says we must confess that Jesus IS LORD to be saved.
SDA argue that since the name 'Michael' means 'Who is like God', then it must be Jesus who is God, for it would be desecration to apply such a name to an angel. This is only human logic, based on inadequate evidence and asks 'why did Ellen apply it to Jesus before they accepted He was God, and while she denied He was Almighty God?' The name 'Michael' means 'Who is like God?" in a question, subjunctive mood. It's linguistic nonsense to apply this to Jesus Who IS God. Since He is God, it would be against His Divine nature to call Him a name saying He is like God, much less asking Is He like God? Yet the Bible shows the names of all the other Archangels, were even given to men, as well as these angels, though and while each of these names describes some characteristic of Jesus as God. We will illustrate these below:
Gabriel from 'El Gibbor' (Mighty God). Ezra 2:20 a man is called 'Gibbar'.
Raphael from 'Jehovah Rapha' (El heals) used for man in 1 Chron 8:2+37
Raguel means 'friend' or 'husband-lover' (Songs), of Christ. The name 'Reu' (Gen 11:18) is a short-form of this, as also in Luke 3:35 (Gk # 4466).
Saraquel 'Sar' (prince) & 'Raquel' (wandering sheep). Jesus is Prince and the Lamb who journeys (Mk 13:34). In Matt 2:18 we see'Rachel'.
Remiel ('Ram Yah') is 'Jehovah raised God'. It's used for men in Ezra 10:25
Uriel is 'the flame of God' as in Deut 4:24. II Chr 13:2 etc apply this to men.
Phanuel (the face of God) in Deut 34:10 is applied to men in Lk 2:36 as 'Peniel'; also 1 Chr 4:4 and 8:25.
Michael Who is like God? not applied to God, but 9 men as 1 Chr 5: 13, 14;
Nb. 'Uriel' and 'Phanuel' are 2 names for the same Angel, the one earlier, the other later dating.
This straw man assumes what it tries to prove. It assumes only one person can say 'the Lord rebuke thee'; and each time we see 'the angel of the Lord' it is Yhwh; and that as Yhwh the Son--not Yhwh the Father or Holy Spirit. It's error to use the OT to define the New, and to use prophetic passages to overturn didactic Scripture and establish doctrine. And it's error to use the Heb 'Malach' of messenger as equal to archaggelos in NT Gk, when in Daniel the Heb 'Sar' (prince) is used for Michael--not malach as in Zechariah.
Here they limit the persons of Zech 3:2 to those in 3:1, when there's no reason there could not be 4: the Lord's Messenger; Joshua; Satan, & Yhwh Himself. The context of Zech 3 begins in Zech 1 where the Lord's Angel (vs11) stands between the Myrtle trees, talking to Yhwh (vs12) who answers the angel (vs13).
As the messenger is an angel, and not Yhwh in Zech 1, and this context leads us into Zech 3, then neither is the Angel the Yhwh who tells Satan "Yhwh rebuke thee"(3:2); and there are 4 entities in 3:1+2, (as we noted apparent, above).
That the messenger is not Yhwh is also seen from vs 6 onward where the angel says "Thus says Yhwh", and Yhwh says He'll send "My Servant, the Branch". Yhwh's Servant, the Branch (Heb netzer) speaks of Jesus (Isa 42:1; 52:15) The Nazarene. Thus Jesus whom Yhwh would send, is not the Yhwh who speaks in Zech 3, and neither the Messenger of Yhwh who as we've shown isn't Yhwh.
So the Yhwh of this passage must be either Yhwh the Father, or Yhwh the Holy Spirit. But since here in Zech 3:2 the Yhwh who spoke said "Yhwh who chose Israel rebuke thee", and as Eph 1:2+3 says God the Father chose us in Christ, we deduce it was Yhwh the Holy Spirit who was speaking here in Zech 3:2.
As Peter said 'Holy Men of old spoke being impelled by the Holy Spirit', and since the Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah (Acts 28:25), and as the Holy Spirit was the Yhwh who Israel tested in the wilderness (Heb 3:7; Ex 17:2-7), so too here He was the Yhwh who was speaking in Zech 3:1+2 and vs 6 &c.
Thus here in Zech 3, the Angel (Messenger) of Yhwh is not Yhwh, and neither is this Angel the Pre-Incarnate Christ. And the Yhwh who rebuked Satan was the Holy Spirit here, which is a very different scene in Jude 9 where Michael the Archangel did not dare to accuse Satan, while Jesus Himself both accused and rebuked Satan during His ministry saying "Get behind me Satan", and "the devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning". Here the SDA's misuse of Zech 3 has failed in every way. But they show they know their efforts were wrong:
To deny Jesus was first created by God (Prov 8:22+) their commentary says:
"There is an obvious parallel in this passage to the work of the Second Person of the Godhead. However, the passage is allegorical, and caution must be exercised not to press an allegory beyond what the original writer had in mind. Interpretations derived must always be in harmony with the analogy of Scripture. (vol III, p.972)
"--- Dogmatic conclusions from parabolic passages are unjustified---verification of doctrinal beliefs should always be sought in the literal statements of the Bible". (ibid, 973)
Since SDA know and use these principles in Prov 8, then it is conclusive they know it's wrong to violate these same principles in using Zech 3:1+2 to try and show Jesus is Michael the archangel, especially when they ignore the context of Zech 1:7 through 3:10, they use the OT to define the New, begging the question on many assumptions, and assuming what they set out to prove.
Former SDA, Dudly Canright, in his Life of E.G.White--- on p162 tells Dr. Kellogg theorized all that was left of a person at death was a record of his life kept in heaven, and at the resurrection a new body of new matter would be formed like the old one and made to think he was the same person. James White who accepted this also asked Ellen for her "light" on it. She said God had shown this to her. When Canright asked "How about Christ's body which was raised?" she answered, "He dropped it all when he ascended". Here Jesus' dropping off His resurrected body, allowed Him to be the Spirit-being, Michael the Archangel, who she recorded as winging his way with her around in heaven, in A Word to the Little Flock, in 1847.