Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

Articles & Posts

War in Heaven – Michael The Archangel verses the Dragon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels” (Revelation 12:7).

Those who have studied the Book of Revelation will recognize this familiar phrase, “War in Heaven,” from the 12th chapter. It is a fascinating chapter and there have been various interpretations of the symbols used.  The passage to be considered reads as follows: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought, (8) and prevailed not; nor was their place found any more in heaven. (9) And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent, who is called the Deceiver, and Satan, who seduceth all the inhabited world: he was cast upon the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (10) And I heard a great voice in heaven, which said: Now is there

deliverance, and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the dominion of his Messiah: because the Accuser of our brethren is cast out, who accused them day and night before our God. (11) And they overcame him, because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony: and they loved not their life, even to death. (12) Therefore, be joyful, O heaven, and ye that dwell there.  Woe to the earth, and to the sea; for the Deceiver hath come down to you, being in great wrath since he knoweth that his time is short” (Revelation 12:7-12).

One common interpretation of this passage suggests that it refers Papacy’s ascent to power. The war waged is not in the literal heaven where God dwells, but in the ecclesiastical heavens, the power of religious control at the time. The warring parties are said to be Rome, pictured by the dragon, and Papacy, pictured by Michael.  The name Michael means “Who as God.” Papacy’s falsely claimed to speak as God as it ascended to power over the Roman Empire in the 4th century. The Roman Empire then was

transformed into the Holy Roman Empire with the Pope exercising a great controlling interest.

To read more, click here:

38 comments to War in Heaven – Michael The Archangel verses the Dragon

  • Gasa

    Bret wonderful quotes on John 1:1 and 14 from old translations and the clarity of the ‘wort’ and ‘it” thank you.

  • Nubby Tope

    I just read an extract from Finished Mystery on YouTube and there it said that Rutherford believed that the Pope was Michael and got promoted to Messiah! If this were true, how did Rutherford get the idea that Michael was the Pope?

    • Chris J

      Nubby Tope. I have a digital copy of the “Finished Mystery” if you want it. Just drop your email address. Yes many Bible Students believe that’s Michael in the book of revelations is the pope during that stage of the Gospel Age. It doesn’t say that it’s Michael the archangel. We believe that there are seven stages to the gospel age and during that period Michael represented the pope during pagan Rome and Christians Rome. Here’s what Russell said about it.
      “Michael and his angels — Not the same Michael referred to in Dan 12:1, which is a literal statement. It would be out of order to have a real Michael fight a symbolic dragon. R306:5, 55:3 The Papacy and its supporters. R306:5, 55:3 Meaning, “Who as God”; in close accord with Paul’s description–“He as God sitteth in the temple of God.” (2Th 2:4) R306:5, 55:3”

      So Rutherford’s understanding reflected the Bible Students in that day. Many bible Student use The Finished Mystery for the Ezekiel Portion.

      • Nubby Tope

        Chris J,

        Hey Chris, thanks for the answer. I find it very hard indeed to accept the idea that anybody could believe that Michael could be likened to the Pope or vice versa. As I was a JW for nearly 59 years I still see their line of reasoning that Michael always was Jesus, and the literal Michael could easily battle Satan (symbolised by a dragon here as he was called dragon, original serpent and Devil) and boot him out of heaven. And although I know that there are no scriptures that state that Michael and Jesus are the same, what verses hint at is good enough for me to carry on with that idea.

        When Christ returns to establish God’s Kingdom on Earth, maybe then this debate will get answered once and for all. I’m happy to wait till then! If Christ AND Michael arrive TOGETHER – Wow! I’ll eat my words then! And I’ll be glad to do so!

        • Chris J

          Nubby Tope,
          If that’s what you believe then believe it. Rejoice in it. That’s what good about the Bible Students. You don’t have to believe what everyone else does. I don’t believe that scapegoat and the Lords Goat in Tabernacle shadows is the church and great company. Many will disagree. But not on a scriptural basis but on a “Thus saith that servant” basis. We are free to see it as we would will. Keep searching and make the truth your own.

        • Richard Tazzyman

          Hello N T(E G)You are certainly right in your view about Michael(Who is Like God).The Name is very near the same as Immanuel,In Revelation 12 7/9 we read that Michael did battle with Satan & threw him out of the Heavens.Angels are spirit creatures that do not have Immortality,Jesus did not posess eternal life untill he laid down his life for mankind & acsended to the heavens & presented his sacrifice to the Father.Satan also does not have eternal life.All Spirit creatures were created by the heavenly Father,so was the Christ,Angels are spirit Creatures who do not posses eternal life,they do not have wings etc,but are Messengers of the Most high.You are certainly right.Any Rubbish that the JUDGE (The Drunk) wrote has no truth in it.Christian greetings,Richard

          • Nubby Tope

            Hi Richard,

            Great points you make! One more thing – if Jesus and Michael are not the same, then how come there’s no record in the Bible of them having a conversation, which surely they’d have? Can 2 people like them live in Heaven and NEVER speak to each other?

            Anyway, Second Coming will reveal so much more info!

  • Peter K. (admin)


    Excellent comments and questions. I have been working some overtime lately and it me take a few days to answer. I think you will find most of these points addressed in that attachment at this link below.


  • Ashley Nave

    The name Immanuel means God Is With Us! The name Michael corresponds with Immanuel which means Who is like God? So Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Look at el at the end of the two names, it would make accurate sense that Jesus is Michael,both names have “el” in them.

  • Ashley Nave

    Christ Jesus is Michael the archangel. Michaels name means Who is like God. Immanuel corresponds to Michael which means With Us Is God! Research Hebrew name meaningd and compare them.

  • I believe yes this is Miguel Jesus Christ in heaven after all there is some greater than Jesus Angel? believe that Jehovah would give this mission to expel Satan from heaven another angel but his Son? Yes Jesus is the same miguel archangel.

    news-of-reino.communities.net / evangelists without borders

  • Dupin

    Here are all the the texts which mention Michael the “Chief Prince” by name in the Bible Keepha:

    Dan_10:13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,

    Dan_10:21 But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.

    Dan_12:1 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.

    Jud_1:9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

    Rev_12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back,

    As you can see, all of the OT occurrences are in the book of Daniel and he is always presented as at the top echelons as far as power is concerned. In Daniel 12 we are told that he is “the Great Prince, who has charge over your people” who “will arise” on behalf of God’s people. Who could that be but the Lord Jesus Christ acting on God’s behalf to deliver in the great time of trouble? Jude’s citation also shows the remarkable humility of Michael, also a quality which points to him being our Lord. The conclusion may not be ironclad, but that is where the scriptures lead when taken in total.

    Sorry about some of the errors from typing, etc.

    • Bret (B.S)


      Peter I would like to get your thoughts on a couple things that have always bothered me with the belief that “Micheal the ArchAngel” is presumed to be Jesus Christ..

      As I usually do, I like to challenge or test each and every doctrine (1Jo 4:1, Acts 17:11)

      Like the Apostle John encouraged us to test every spirit and the Boreans were said to search the scriptures daily to see if they fit…

      I would like to lay out several questions to test this doctrine and get the thoughts of any who would like to comment and include their thoughts…

      1) The reasoning on this matter reminds me of the reasoning of the nominal church’s on the doctrine of Christology… they take many scriptures where Jesus preforms the work of God as his Agent and conclude that Jesus is God….

      Zech 14:5 ….And Jehovah my God will certainly come, all the holy ones being with him
      Rev 1:8 8 “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty”

      These events are also applied to Christ “Coming with his holy ones or holy Angels”, yet we are able to reason and see that Jesus is Gods agent and carries out this divine work… These are just a few of the many scriptures that present such questions..

      2) Just as Jesus never claimed to be God he Never claimed to be Micheal the Archangel….

      The Bible tells us that Jesus is coming with his holy angels and therefore why do we not reason that Micheal a high ranking Angel is nothing more than Christ agent working out the task that is credited to Christ…

      3) Hebrews 1:13 But as to which of the angels has he ever said “Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies the footstool for your feet”?

      This clearly indicates that No angel at any time was ever told to sit at Gods right hand… In fact it is laboring to tell us that No Angel at anytime was ever invited to such a position…

      4) Jesus was given a name above all names and to him every knee should bend (Phil 2:9)… So why would Jesus revert to a name lower than the one given to him?

      I have reviewed over 20 Bible translations and the consensus among all the scholars seems to be that Daniel 10:13 “Michael, one of the chief princes”. There are no indications that he is the only one of this position…

      5) Why not state that possibly Christ could be “Micheal”, and not make it a doctrine that I believe puts us in a position like those who make Christ out to be God could we not be making him out to be something less than what he is?

      Does not Hebrews chapter 1 and 2 indicate that Angels are for the purpose of public servants created in otherwords to serve Adam and the human race… Inferior to man had Adam and his offspring maintaned integrity?

      The reasoning on this matter seems to be just like christendom and how they reason on Christ being God when i think Micheal is an Angel that is nothing more than an agent used by Christ and one of his Holy Angels…

      • Bret (B.S)

        Looking at all the comments here on this post it reminds me of Trinitarians and their arguments posed for Christ being the “Almighty”,

        In fact Thomas called Jesus “My God” in the 20th chapter of John and yet we are able to reason through such scriptures, because Jesus never professed to be God.. Just like he never claimed to be Micheal or an Angel for that matter…

        It seems this is a doctrine on shakey ground and perhaps even putting us at danger of making Christ something lesser than what he is…

        • jeffmezera


          I answer some (if not most) of these questions in a talk I recently gave on this subject in Revelation 12.


          In the talk I point out that there are several inconsistencies I point out in trying to identify the woman as Mary or even the child as Christ. The dragon in the context is specifically called Satan, while at the same time it is tied in the symbols of governmental powers taken from Daniel’s prophecy. In the first half of the talk I chose not to identify what is being spoken about. I simply pour through the clues and symbols given in the text, review how the text identifies it in the chapter and elsewhere in Revelation and then make an attempt for the chapter to interpret itself historically verse by verse. I made an attempt to let the symbols of the text point to the interpretation of the chapter. I was surprised (and several others that I’ve shared this with), that much of the interpretation of the chapter is given historically in the early church BY the early Church. Eusebius mentions the chapter and its interpretation in his Ecclesiastical history.

          It isn’t an exact science though. Since I gave this a couple of months ago I have already changed my mind on the flood (at the end of the chapter) based on evidence from the next chapter.

          Let me know what you think and if it might answer some of the questions you posed.

          I don’t think that those who interpret Michael as Jesus in Daniel 12 and other places (not here in Revelation 12) are stating that Jesus has the same nature as angels after his death and resurrection. As for Jesus’ nature now, it is definitely NOT angelic. We know he is like the Father since he has ascended to his right hand.

          • Bret (B.S)

            I will certainly check out the video…

            Something that stands out in my mind though!!

            I read and hear over and over that the word Angel can and sometimes does refer to someone simply in the capacity of a messenger.
            Certainly thos is true…

            But in Hebrews 1:13 it is clearly in reference not to Human messengers but is in reference to the Angelic creatures in heaven….
            And it clearly states that at no time did God ever tell one of them to sit at his right hand..
            Jesus did in fact tell some that he was the Messiah…
            But Jesus never proffessed to be an Angel or Micheal the ArchAngel for that matter..

            And when I say Angel I am speaking specificaly about those creatures created in heaven and refered to as Angels in the Bible…

            This is clearly no different than the reasoning by the nominal churches that lead them to the conclusion that Jesus is Jehovah… And I could lay down a list much longer than the one listed in behalf of Micheal being Jesus hat leads manny to think wrongly and conclude wrongly…

            Does it not seem as though this is risky and dangerous ground to perhaps demote Jesus to a position possibly beneath him just as the churches elevate Jesus to a diety position?

            Nowhere does Jesus ever claim to be such…

            • Bret (B.S)

              I have seen arguments posed by Socian unitarians that pose a very good question about Jesus even having a pre-existance…

              These arguments cover John 1:1, Col 1:15-19, Phil 2:5-9, John 17:5 and a couple other text that we read a preexistance into…

              But the question that still puzzles me is with regards to Christ Humanity and his being the 2nd Adam…

              How does Christ Anti-date the 1st Adam?

              Is Jesus a Hybred powerful angel/human?

              If he is a bi-man or Hybred prexisting how does he qualify as Adams equal?

              The Greek work “Genesis” means to come into existance and was the same word used in chapter 5 of Genesis with regards to Adam as it was in regards to Jesus Luke 1:35?

              This is a real touchy subject and when you add to this the idea that Jesus is known as an Angel named Micheal even after his resurrection in the book of Daniel it concerns my conscience and reminds me of the reasoning of the nominal churches

              • Bret (B.S)

                Brothers and sisters;

                I am not posing these question for any reason but to clarify many questions that I ponder.. in the Watchtower Organization i was not allowed to openly ask questions and look at and also reason on good logic and questions…

                I often refered to the synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, and Luke) for the simple fact that Jesus never considered himself to be God or ever said that he was… So when I consider the Micheal subject I cannot help but to look to Jesus and see what he said in regards to this topic.. And thats a big fat “0”…. He never touched it and none of the Bible writers ever stated the Jesus was Micheal… this is a red flag to me….

                • Peter K. (admin)


                  I am glad you feel comfortable sharing and even disagreeing. That is what this website is about, to provide the opportunity for honest discussion and disagreement. Each one can evaluate the evidence and decide for themself.

                  If you do not find the pdf link I provided convincing, then I admit that I will not be able to persuade you. However, I think this interchange is healthy. Each of us should take personal responsibility for our own study of scripture. We can exercise respect for Christian liberty and love each other as brothers and sisters in Christ even when we disagree.

                  Food for thought:

                  Jesus never said he was

                  Isaiah 9:6 Immanuel or the Everlasting Father

                  Malachi 3:1 The Messenger of the Covenant

                  Proverbs 8:12, 22. Wisdom

                  Genesis 3:15. The Seed of the woman

                  Psalms 22:6. A worm

                  Isaiah 53:3 A man of sorrows


              • greg (Bible Student)

                Hi Bret.

                I grappled with the question regarding Adam and Jesus being “equal” until I realized that they were only equal in one important sense: Both were Perfect, sinless, blameless. In NO OTHER respect did they need to be equal. They only needed to be “functionally” equal, legally equal, a representation of the “same equivalence.”

                A perfect man sinned. A perfect man stood condemned. A perfect man needed to die. But, since Adam was no longer perfect, his death wouldn’t, couldn’t “equal” or satisfy the legal requirements of the sentence.

                Compare Hebrews 2:17
                “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (NKJV)

                Sadly, the more I try to put words to it, the more confusing it sounds. I find the words “corresponding” or “matching” or “covering” are much less misleading to me than “equal”.


              • Peter K. (admin)


                If Jesus is Michael (meaning who is as God), then the Trinity cannot be true.

                Simply put, God created Jesus as the most powerful spirit being in the Universe. God granted Jesus the title of the Logos (Word of God). Consistent with that title, Jesus was Jehovah’s chief representative, spokesperson and messenger.

                To redeem mankind with an anti-lutron (corresponding price), Jesus changed natures and became a perfect human man. However, Jesus’ sacrifice would have by Justice (a life for a life) resulted in his eternal destruction in place of Adam, except that God made another arrangement with Jesus. Rather than just dying a Ransom at Jordan, Jesus suffered for 3 1/2 years and thereby secured his position as the Mechizedech priest.

                Exalted to heaven higher than even before, Jesus attained to the Divine Nature and immortality. Hence the statement in Acts 13:33 referred once again to his change in nature.

                • greg (Bible Student)

                  Thank you, Peter, for putting this into these specific words for me.

                  “Jesus’ sacrifice would have by Justice (a life for a life) resulted in his eternal destruction in place of Adam, except that God made another arrangement with Jesus.”

                  I have never heard it expressed quite so succinctly, nor so meaningfully.

                  Thanks so much!


                • Bret (B.S)

                  Thank you Peter…

                  Just a couple things along the lines of your thoughts…

                  Even if Jesus is not Micheal I do not believe that he is God, because all he claimed to be was the son of God and messiah…
                  That is simple enough for me because the trinity doctrine goes beyond logic…

                  I have a slightly different view of the “word or logos” of John 1:1…
                  I do not believe the “Word” is a title for Jesus and here is why…

                  Bible readers instinctively hear the text of John 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God,” or “In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father…”

                  readers leap from “word” to “Son”? The text simply reads, “In the beginning was the word,” not “In the beginning was the Son.” The substitution of “Son” for “word,” which for millions of readers appears to be an automatic reflex, has had dramatic consequences. It has exercised a powerful, even mesmerizing influence on Bible readers

                  Again, John wrote: “In the beginning was the word.” He did not say, “In the beginning was the Son of God.” There is, in fact, no direct mention of the Son of God until we come to verse 14, where “the word [not the Son] became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of a unique Son, full of grace and truth.” Until verse 14 there is no mention of a Son. The Son is what the word became, but what is the word?

                  The fact that the word became the man Jesus, the Son of God, does not necessarily or automatically imply that Jesus, the Son of God is one-to-one equivalent to the word before Jesus’ birth. What if the word, the self-expression of God, became embodied in, was manifested in, the man Jesus? That makes very good sense of John 1:1

                  There is more to be said about that innocent sentence: “In the beginning was the word.” There is no justification in the original Greek for placing a capital “W” on “word,” and thus inviting readers to think of a person. That is an interpretation imposed on the text, added to what John wrote. But was that what he intended? The question is, what would John and his readers understand by “word”? Quite obviously there are echoes of Genesis 1:1 here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…and God said [using His word], ‘Let there be light.’ ” “God said” means “God uttered His word,” the medium of His creative activity, His powerful utterance. Psalm 33:6 had provided commentary on Genesis: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made.” And so in John 1:1 God expressed His intention, His word, His self-revealing, creative utterance. But absolutely nothing in the text, apart from the intrusive capital letter on “word” in our versions, turning word into a proper noun, would make us think that The word was Jesus. The word which God spoke was in fact just “the word of God,” the expression of Himself. And one’s word is not another person, obviously.

                  Prior to the King james version there were 8 English versions that all used “it” in reference to the “word” of John Chpt 1

                  • Bret (B.S.)

                    Here are some notes that I have put together over the years… This has been my thoughts on John 1:1 for some time now but I was never allowed to express them as a JW…..

                    Interestingly many contemporary scholars are coming to the same conclusion about John’s opening words. Here are some renderings of John 1:1, 14 and comments which do not require the word to be the person of Jesus.

                    In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine wisdom and word was there with God and it was what God was. (The Complete Gospels)

                    In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God and the Message was deity. He was with God in the beginning. (Simple English Bible)

                    At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. (Phillips New Testament in Plain English)

                    In the beginning was the Word (the Logos, the expressed concept, here personified). (The Authentic New Testament)

                    In the beginning was God’s purpose, and this purpose was revealed in a historical encounter.

                    “The Word,” said John, “became flesh.” We could put it in another way — “the Mind of God became a person.”

                    It is interesting that a translation was made as early as 1795, by Gilbert Wakefield, which rendered John 1:3, 4: “All things were made by it and without it was nothing made.” The same translation rendered the first verse of John 1: “In the beginning was Wisdom.” There is no doubt that from the point of view of Jewish background, Wisdom and Word carried similar meanings.

                    A member of the team of scholars who produced the Revised Version of the Bible (1881) noted that “word” means “Divine Thought manifested in a human form in Jesus Christ.” He rendered verse 3: “In it was the life and the light of men.”

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Bret hello, I and others are enjoying your thoughts. I am going to do some research myself. I have always wondered about Michael and am still considering all thoughts. Thanks for commenting. Jacqueline

                    • Bret (B.S)

                      Notice the Benjamin Wilson Greek Diaglott and John 1:3

                      “Through IT every thing was done; and without IT not even one thing was done, which has been done”

                      In reference to the “word”, “IT” is used and. Ot the personal pronoun “He”

                    • Bret

                      Reading English Bibles which appeared before the King James version of 1611 you would have been introduced to God’s grand design, or word, His master-plan which later in history became the man Jesus Christ, Son of God.

                      Notice “It” and not “He

                      “In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and the worde was god. The same was in the beginnynge with god. All thinges were made by it, and without it, was made nothinge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not” (William Tyndale, The New Testament, 1534).

                      “In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was the worde. The same was in the begynnynge with God. All thinges were made by the same, and without the same was made nothinge that was made. In him was the life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shyneth in the darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not” (Miles Coverdale, Biblia: The Byble, that is, the holy Scripture of the Olde and New Testament, faythfully translated into Englyshe, 1535).

                      “In the begynnynge was the worde, and the word was with God, and the worde was God. The same was in the begynnynge wyth God. All thynges were made by it and without it was made nothynge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in the darknes, but the darknes comprehended it not” (Matthews’ Bible, The Byble, that is to saye, all the holy Scripture: in whych are contayned the olde and new Testamente, truly and purely translated into English, and nowe lately with greate industry and diligence recognised. London: John Daye and William Seres, 1537).

                      “In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was wyth God; and God was the worde. The same was in the begynnyng wyth God. All thinges were made by it, and wythout it, was made nothynge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in darcknes, and the darcknes comprehended it not” (Great Bible, The Byble in Englyshe, that is to saye the Content of al the holy Scrypture, both of the olde, and newe Testament, London: Edward Whitchurche, 1539).

                      “In the begynnyng was the worde, and the word was with God, and God was the worde. The same was in the begynnyng with God. All thynges were made by it, and wythoute it was made nothynge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in darkenes, and the darkenes comprehended it not” (Richard Taverner, The Epistles and Gospelles with a brief Postyl upon the same. London: Richard Bankes, 1540).

                      “In the beginning was the word, and the worde was with God, and that worde was God. The same was in the begynnyng with God. Althinges were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkeness, and the darknes comprehended it not” (William Whittingham, The Newe Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Conferred Diligently with the Greke, and Best Approved Translation, Geneva: Conrad Badius, 1557).

                      “In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was lif, and the lif was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkenes, and the darkenes comprehended it not” (Geneva Bible, The Bible and Holy Scriptures conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testament, Geneva: Rouland Hall, 1560).

                      “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darknesse, and the darknesse comprehendeth it not” (Bishops’ Bible, The Holie Bible, London: Richard Jugge, 1568).

                      “In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darknes, and the darknesse comprehended it not” (Lawrence Tomson, The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Translated out of Greeke by Theod. Beza, London: Robert Barker, 1607).

                    • greg (Bible Student)

                      Hi Bret.

                      I’m very intrigued by your expressions here. I’m reminded of some of my research over the years with respects to The Name of God as revealed in Exodus 3:14, and the scripture in Isaiah 55:11 which says, “So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (NKJV)

                      While I haven’t finished formulating a complete and exhaustive picture integrating all these various elements, I do have a tentative picture that I find to be quite agreeable to my current understanding of things. And that understanding would seem to me to mesh nicely with the idea you expressed regarding the Word in John 1:1.

                      I quote from another website (I will happily provide the URL if anyone is interested):

                      “Jeffrey Tigay… proffers “I Will Be What I Will Be” for the translation of ehyeh asher ehyeh, (Exodus 3:14) and interprets its meaning to be, “My nature will become evident from My actions.”

                      In discussing Exodus 3:14, another website (circa 2005, but that has long since disappeared– I can provide a copy of my archived snapshot of the page if anyone is interested) offered this information that seems to me to be relevant to what you are saying:

                      (begin quote)

                      ‘EHYEH ‘ASHER ‘EHYEH

                      This is the Hebrew first person conjugation of the verb infinitive ‘Hayah (“to be” or “to become”)–it is transliterated (with vowels added), ‘Ehyeh. “To be” is a hard idea to express, just in terms of grammar, let alone philosophy, and certainly let alone concerning God’s Revealed Name.

                      The verb used here is most often translated I AM. Although, from what I’ve read, “I WILL BE” is a better translation, and even yet “I CAUSE TO BECOME” is the best translation.

                      The connecting word used between the two verbs (transliterated with vowels added), “‘asher,” can be translated who, what, which, when, where, how, because.

                      Here are some more possible translations. Consider these, and the context: God was revealing His true essence in these few words.

                      I AM WHO I WILL BE
                      I WAS WHO I AM
                      I CAUSE TO BE WHAT I CAUSE TO BE
                      I EXIST BECAUSE I EXIST
                      I AM WHERE I AM

                      (end quote)

                      It is the last suggested possible translation which seems to me to mesh especially nicely with what you have expressed.

                      Moreover, the Expanded Bible Comments for Isaiah 55:11 apply the phrase “My Mouth” to Jesus, the Mouthpiece of Jehovah. It also applies The Word of Jehovah as that which was sent to Abraham, and includes the Harvest Message given through Jesus.

                      Thanks so much for sharing your expressions and for stimulating my mind and heart. While this information does not end my curiosity or learning, it certainly does greatly increase my heartfelt appreciation about God, Christ, and the Divine Plan.


                    • Bret


                      That is very interesting and I recently watched a scholar giving a theory on the divine name and its meaning…

                      He explained that there at exodus Jehovah told Moses to tell him “EH-YEH (I Exist) Asher (That) EH-YEH ( I Exist)” in other words to the Egyptians who did not believe in YHWH he was telling Moses to tell them that “I Exist that I Exist” because to the Jews “Yah-Weh (He Exists)” so to the Jews who believed in YHWH “He Exists”

                  • Peter K. (admin)

                    Bret – Sorry for the long delay.

                    We are in agreement that Jesus is the Son of God and no part of the Trinity. In regard to the Greek word LOGOS, yes, it generally does not refer to Jesus, however we find examples where it does and contextually John 1:14 being so close to John 1:1 is evidence to consider.

                    John 1:14 (NKJV) “And the Word (3056 logos) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

                    Revelation 19:13 (NKJV) “He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word (3056 logos) of God.”

                    You might find the article at this link examining the Greek translation of John 1:1 of interest.

                    • Bret (B.S.)

                      Thank you Peter; But I have read that Article several time, for it has some very good information.

                      One Scholar proposes that John’s meaning is as follows:

                      “In the beginning there was a divine word and it was stored in God’s heart and was his own creative self-expression. All things came into being through that divine word and without it nothing was made that was made…And the word/plan became flesh — was realized in a human person and dwelt among us.

                      That living expression of God’s intimate purpose for mankind was Jesus Christ, the human person supernaturally conceived as the Son of God. Jesus is thus the expression, as Paul said, of the wisdom of God, “that hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world to our glory” (1 Cor. 2:7).
                      Jesus thought of his own activity as the expression of wisdom, with which he equates himself: “I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes…” (Matt. 23:34). The same saying is reported by Luke: “For this reason the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and Apostles…’” (Luke 11:49). Jesus is indeed the expression of “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 2:24).

                      This understanding of John 1 reflects exactly the Jewish background to the New Testament. At Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls), Jews wrote, “By God’s knowledge everything has been brought into being. And everything that is God established by His purpose, and apart from Him nothing is done” (1 QS XI.11). Jews and the Jewish Christian, John, equated knowledge, wisdom and word, meaning God’s grand scheme for the universe and the salvation of mankind. Professor C.B. Caird of Oxford University wrote, “The Jews had believed only in the preexistence of a personification. Wisdom was a personification, either of a divine attribute, or of a divine purpose, but never a person. Neither the fourth Gospel nor Hebrews speaks of the eternal Word or Wisdom of God in terms which compel us to regard it as a person.” God’s plan and intention was realized in the human being Jesus who was supernaturally begotten, coming into existence as the Son of God”.

                      The Views of Modern Scholars

                      Contemporary scholars are coming to the same conclusion about John’s opening words. Here are some renderings of John 1:1, 14 and comments which do not require the word to be a person before the birth of Jesus.

                      In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine wisdom and word was there with God and it was what God was. (The Complete Gospels)

                      In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God and the Message was deity. He was with God in the beginning. (Simple English Bible)

                      At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. (Phillips New Testament in Plain English)

                      In the beginning was the Word (the Logos, the expressed concept, here personified). (The Authentic New Testament)

                      In the beginning was God’s purpose, and this purpose was revealed in a historical encounter.

                      “The Word,” said John, “became flesh.” We could put it in another way — “the Mind of God became a person.”

                    • Bret (B.S.)

                      That same Scholar Sir Anthony Buzzard also had this to say in reference to John 1:1, and I think it answers well your statement about Jesus being called the “Word”

                      Beginning of quote

                      “In the beginning God had a plan and that plan was within God’s heart and was itself ‘God’ ” — that is, God in His self-revelation. The plan was the very expression of God’s will. It was a divine Plan, reflective of His inner being, close to the heart of God.

                      John is fond of the word “is.” But it is not always an “is” of strict identity. Jesus “is” the resurrection (“I am the resurrection”). God “is” spirit. God “is” love and light (cp. “All flesh is grass”).
                      In fact, God is not actually one-to-one identical with light and love, and Jesus is not literally the resurrection.
                      “The word was God” means that the word was fully expressive of God’s mind. A person “is” his mind, metaphorically speaking. Jesus is the one who can bring about our resurrection.
                      God communicates through His spirit (John 4:24). The word is the index of God’s intention and purpose. It was in His heart, expressive of His very being. As the Translators’ Translation senses the meaning, “the Word was with God and shared his nature,” “the Word was divine.”
                      The word, then, is the divine expression, the divine Plan, the very self of God revealed. The Greek phrase “theos een o logos” (“the word was God”) can be rendered in different ways. The subject is “word” (logos) but the emphasis falls on what the word was: “God” (theos, with no definite article), which stands at the head of the sentence. “God” here is the predicate. It has a slightly adjectival sense which is very hard to put exactly into English. John can say that God is love or light. This is not an exact equivalence. God is full of light and love, characterized by light and love. The word is similarly a perfect expression of God and His mind. The word, we might say, is the mind and heart of God Himself. John therefore wrote: “In the beginning God expressed Himself.” Not “In the beginning God begat a Son.” That imposition of later creeds on the text has been responsible for all sorts of confusion and even mischief — when some actually killed others over the issue of the so-called “eternal Son.”

                      End of quote….

                    • Peter K. (admin)

                      Thanks Brett – Yes, I like Anthony Buzzard and have debated him more than once in the past via a group of us emailing back and forth. In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, the problem is that the evidence for Jesus pre-human existence in the clear statements of scriptures is overwhelming (per the link below). To arrive at the contrary conclusion of NO pre-existence, these dozens of plainly stated scriptures have to be reinterpreted in a manner not obvious or evident by how the scriptures are plainly stated.

                      Yes, sometimes this deeper analysis is required to explain the real meaning of a text. However, to change the meaning of so many texts to support the conclusion of NO pre-existance seems to me tedious and forced. We can always find commentators who appear to make a brilliant argument to support their explanation of grammar and word meaning. Why not just accept the verses as stated? Better than listening to the scholars, we get a clearer definition of words and concepts by following the multiple examples of how they are consistently used in scripture outside of complex and convoluted explanations.


            • Peter K. (admin)


              Perhaps some thought provoking questions would be of interest here.

              If angels are a description of the kind of being, (contrast we are human beings), then why aren’t evil spirits called angels?

              Since humans can be angels (messengers), how can this word not be a job description?

              Since Jesus is called an angel (messenger) in Malachi 3:1 as messenger of the covenant, In Revelation 20:4 as a great angel binding Satan and 1 Thess 4:16 with the voice of the archangel, why then can Jesus NOT be God’s chief messenger?

      • Peter K. (admin)


        Again, I think the attachment at this link addresses most of your points.


        Let me summarize a relevant key point from that study.

        “Angel” is a job description, meaning “messenger.” These messengers can be human beings, however this job description is mostly applied in the Bible to the “spirits” or “spirit being” that God created through Jesus. Not to be confused with the gnostic view of spirits. Just like people have human bodies, so angels have spirit bodies.

        Human beings and spirits can have a variety of job descriptions. However in terms of how God uses spirits for mankind, it has usually been as messengers, hence the Bible commonly refers to these spirits in their roll as messenger, translated angel.

        God’s top or chief “messenger” above all other spirit beings has always been Jesus, hence it is correct to refer to Jesus as God’s chief messenger, translated archangel. There is only one archangel. That is why he is called arch or chief.

        Malachi 3:1 (NKJV) “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the Lord of hosts.”

        Here Jesus is clearly called a messenger (same Hebrew as angel)

        Jesus is known to us by many titles, many of which he never personally identified himself as.

        Mark 8:29-30 (NKJV) “He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.” Then He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him.”

        I think Jesus did not want to publically announce he was Messiah as his miracles spoke for themselves and to announce publically he was Messiah would be used by religious leaders to label Jesus as delusional. How much more so if he announced he was the archangel?

  • Keepha

    Jesus is not Mikhael, as can be demonstrated from the Koine-Judeo Greek Text.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>