What goes for Jesus: does it go for the Archangel Michael or not?

 

I have said in an earlier post why in some ways I have admiration for those who call themselves one of  Jehovah’s witnesses. So this time, rather than repeat myself, I'll get straight to the problem.

When I have listened to witnesses talk about their belief that Jesus is actually the Archangel Michael - that is what Jehovah's witnesses believe - I find it leaves problems unsolved.

The following problem is particularly key. Jesus is in a very exalted position in Christian scripture. If the Kingdom Halls' beliefs are correct, it should be possible to replace the word ‘Jesus’ with the word ‘Angel’ in scripture verses, without doing damage to the sense of it. You may never have thought of trying it. But it's a good way to test this. 

Let’s test it then as an exercise just for this one post only. I’ll try substituting the word ‘Angel’ for ‘Jesus’ or for ‘Christ’ in a series of New Testament verses about Jesus below. See how it sounds to you. Especially if you are a believer, how does this strike your spiritual sensibilities?

 

To start with, ‘the body of Christ’ in Ephesians 4:12 would be ‘the body of the Angel.’ You get the idea now. This would be what you get: "to knit God's holy people together for the work of service to build up the body of THE ANGEL". My question: how does this unusual statement strike you? And why believe you are the body of an angel?

 

And Ephesians 5:30-32? - "we are parts of the ANGEL's body... the two become one flesh. This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to the ANGEL and the church". My question: why would you want to be one flesh with an angel?

 

Or Philippians 2? - “at the name of THE ANGEL every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that THE ANGEL is Lord”. My question to believers: do you bow to angels? (Have you read Revelation?)

 

Or Ephesians 5:19-20? - “sing and make melody in your heart to THE ANGEL”.  My question: why ever practice such devotions to an angel?

 

Or 1 Peter 3:15? - "sanctify THE ANGEL as Lord in your hearts". My question: why practice such devotions to an angel? Surely that is ill-judged religion.

 

How about Revelation 5:13? - "to the ANGEL be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever!" My question: why ever practice such vocal devotion and adoration to an angel?

 

Or 2 Thessalonians 1:12 - ‘That the name of THE ANGEL may be glorified in you’. My question: Who should such honour really be given to?

 

Or how about God's purposes, revealed in John 5:23? - "that all may honour the ANGEL just as they honour the Father." My question: why give to an angel honour on a par to the God the Father? How is that ever true religion?

 

Or Galatians 3:29? - "simply by being the ANGEL's, you are the progeny of Abraham". My question: do you agree that this is out of place, bizarre, and inappropriate?

 

Or Matthew 28:19? - "baptise them in the name of the Father and of the ANGEL and of the Holy Spirit". My question: would you ever baptise people in the name of an angel?

 

Or Colossians 3:16? - "whatever you say or do, let it be in the name of THE ANGEL". My question: why ever put an angel at the centre of your religious practices?

 

Or 1 Peter 2:3 - 'ye have tasted, that the ANGEL is sweet'. My question: why would you ever taste an angel?

 

Or Philippians 3:8? - "For THE ANGEL's sake, I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain THE ANGEL". My question: why would anyone ever do that for an angel?

Or Romans 16:7? - "my kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who were in THE ANGEL before me". That would be bizarre.

Or Colossians 1:15? - "THE ANGEL is the image of the unseen God". That would be incorrect theology by any stretch of the imagination.

Or Romans 14:18? - "It is the person who serves THE ANGEL in these things that will be approved by God". That would be deeply questionable.

How about, ‘there is one mediator between God and man, the ANGEL Jesus Christ’. These are precisely the sorts of things the New Testament does not say.

How about Acts 7:59? – “And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: “Oh ANGEL, receive my spirit.”” Pretty bad, isn’t it?

 

My question then: why would anyone ever want to practice a religion revolving like this around an angel? It is surely misplaced to even think it.

Endnote

As shocked as I may feel about all this, one has to understand that Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe that they represent one greater than Jesus. 

They therefore believe that in their hierarchy, they represent a higher position by proxy, whereas Jesus represents a lower position, They literally describe Jesus as "inferior." 

That is, they think they represent someone superior (Jehovah). (Jehovah "superior," Jesus "inferior." That's their mantra.) 

This helps to explain why some Jehovah's Witnesses are keen to say that Jehovah is Almighty and Jesus is not. They don't consider themselves to be representatives of the "inferior" Jesus. They consider themselves to be representatives of Jesus' superior. This makes me feel quite queasy. 

As though they think that their Michael-Jesus is on one side of the equation whilst they are on the better side of the equation. 

It may well make them insensitive to how shocking it sounds to orthodox Christians. But when the Jehovah's Witnesses relegate Jesus to being an angel (archangel) and "inferior," all of this is going on in the minds of their organisation. However, ordinary JW members have probably never felt free to do the kind of analysis I have done above. 

(If you were to wonder how that reconciles with representing the "body of Christ", it doesn't have to, for Jehovah's Witnesses generally, as they reserve "body of Christ" for their "144,000." Which means they don't have to think through being the body of Christ.)