It is a well known fact that, after Charles Taze Russell presented his teaching on the subject, JWs entertain the idea that the "pre-incarnated Christ" is one and the same as the Archangel Michael.
What few people know is that the historical writings of many protestant trinitarians show that even many of them have claimed that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel. See here:
“The
earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the
preincarnate 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 Daniel (...).” — John A. Lees, The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048.
[online entry: Michael, (11) @ bibletools.org]
Among the "Protestant scholars" who "identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ" you may (be more or less surprised to) find Theodore Beza, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Matthew Henry ...
What even fewer people know is that the Protestant reformer John Calvin, on the orthodoxy of whose trinitarian doctrine nobody dared and dares cast even the hint of a doubt, not only entertained the idea that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, BUT, rather disconcertingly, he even changed his mind, on this subject, literally from one day to the next.
Lo and behold.
In 1561, John Calvin wrote a Commentary on Daniel in two volumes, dedicated respectively to the first 6 and to the last 6 chapters or the Book of Daniel.
See what happened with this verse:
“At
that time Michael, the great prince who watches over your people, will
arise. There will be a time of distress unlike any other from the
nation’s beginning up to that time. But at that time your own people,
all those whose names are found written in the book, will escape.” (Dan 12:1)
First, in his comment immediately appended to the verse, Calvin writes ...
By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the Church. But if it seems better to understand Michael as the archangel, this sense will prove suitable,
for under Christ as the head, angels are the guardians of the Church.
Whichever be the true meaning, God was the preserver of his Church by
the hand of his only-begotten Son, and because the angels are under the
government of Christ, he might entrust this duty to Michael. — John
Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, Vol.2 (1561), Chapter 12, Daniel 12:1 [bolding by MdS]
... so, in spite of what "many agree in understanding", Calvin considers it "suitable" to read Michael as ... Michael, and Christ ONLY indirectly referred to, "as the head" ...
Then, after a duly pious Prayer (Lecture 64), Calvin expresses his ... er ... rather revised (actually reversed) thought ...
“As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people.” — John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, Vol.2 (1561), Chapter 12, Lecture Sixty Fifth
... so, having ... slept on it, now Calvin prefers to read Michael as ... Christ ...
Does also the reverse apply, that is, does Calvin believe that Christ is none other than the Archangel Michael?
Well, of course this would be rather hard to reconcile with Calvin's famous trinitarian orthodoxy ...
... but, anyway ...
... your comments are welcome ...
No comments:
Post a Comment