This scripture is talking about angels from heaven, not demons. He includes himself in "we", therefore he was not speaking of fallen angels. They were once angels, but sinned. When it says "sinned" it's talking about their first sin, the moment they fell from being angels. Angels / (sinned) / Demons Again, they were angels in their original positions, but they forsook their positions, therefore they are no longer angels. Brother, the very definition of angel means a righteous one in service to God... All love...
Hi, Joshua, I see the same way as Londoner on the subject that "demons" are still "Angels", I have to believe the Apostle Paul, 2 Co 12:7 ... an "Angel" of "Satan", to keep slapping me, that I might not be overly exalted. God's "Word" final" Authority". Another Bible text 1 Co 6:3 "Do you not know that we shall judge "Angel"? That is even the hope that some of us have. If more Bible proof is needed I will find some. Yours In "The Body of Christ" Regent
If that's the case Regent, then there are two archangels, one Christ Jesus and the other Satan... But the very definition is in service to God...
Christian greetings, Regent! I'll offer my thoughts after citing the verse you mentioned: For God did not place the coming inhabited world [Note: “The coming inhabited world” here probably refers to the present Christian age. It was viewed as “coming” from the perspective of Old Testament times], under the control of angels [and] that is the world we are talking about. — Hebrews 2:5, An Understandable Version New Testament (AUV-NT) [Inserted Note is in the translation's text and is not by me] Placed together with the post-Babylon Jewish belief that angels operated as princes over nations upon the earth Michael and the other "chief princes," the apostle Paul's reference to these same princes in his letter to the Ephesian followers of Jesus (Ephesians 6:12), and I find myself left having to consider the possibility that while Jesus's rule has replaced the angelic princedoms of "Old Testament times," there are angels who resist this change in the heavenly arrangement. I seem to recall somewhere coming across a view that there were angels who refused to consider a mere mortal human anything more than the dust from which they came, ants before gods, one might say. The very suggestion that they would be subject to, much less bow before a human in an act of subservience was preposterous— and they refuse to relent their influences over whatever nation or peoples they've held a princedom over since there came to be peoples— and so the rebellion in heaven began and continues fervently now that all authority had been bestowed upon the glorified Jesus. In any case, the writer of Hebrews applies the words of David to Jesus, proclaiming Jesus as the "son of man" who was made "a little lower than angels" and who now has all things subjected under his feet. Jesus unmistakably holds authority over all of the creatures of heaven, not just the angels. Just an aside, but I tend to think of angels as the foot soldiers and servants of heaven something akin to what we will be like in the kingdom of God, I might add, in a paradise earth both for one another and for our Father. Does this make Jesus the archangel, since he now has command of them? I suppose so, in an abstract sort of way, since we'd then need to think of him as also the archcherub, archseraph, and arch-four living creatures, not to mention archhuman if we apply it in that sense. Does this make him now glorified Michael? I think several views and perspectives have been expressed up to this point of the discussion, enough that the readers should have a reasonable foundation for building their conclusions on while adding what they can research and discern. I just so happen to believe that Michael's not to be confused with Jesus, although his zeal for Jehovah's sovereignty has certainly earned him the name "Who is like God?" He's a commander of angels, making him their "archangel," according to Second Temple era extra-Biblical writings. I'd even go so far as to suggest that Michael was the first to present his top-notch myriad of angels to the appointed ruler of Creation, on bended knee— and that he's at the front of the battle lines fulfilling Jehovah's directive to make Jesus' enemies as a footstool for the glorified son of man, he and his myriad of angels fighting with the devil and his angels. With all that said, I personally see no support for any heavenly creature, whether a Seraph, Cherub, one of the four living creatures, a/an/the archangel, or angel having all things placed in subjection under them. Even commanding a myriad of angels was never understood as a rulership, as the archangel or "commanding officer" or "chief prince" was to faithfully carry out the orders given to him by his superior— in this case, Jehovah's orders regarding the enemies of Jesus. Not sure I answered your question, brother, so let me know. Submitted for your perusal and consideration, ~~Earthbound
To Earthbound and Friends. Yes, you did answer the question that I ask. The only part of your answer that I see differently is that you say that the "Coming inhabited world" probably refers to the present Christian age. I think the apostles were very clear to what they were still waiting. Ac 1:6 "...Lord, are you restoring the "Kingdom" to Israel at this time? also Php 3:20,21 "As for us our citizenship exists in heavens, from which place also we are eagerly "Waiting" for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, vs21 "who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the operation of the power that he has, even to subject all things to himself. The Christain era is still waiting for this. Rom 8:19-24, also Rev 22:20 ... "Amen" Come, Lord Jesus." Yes let your "kingdom" come Mt 6:10, The coming kingdom is the "Coming inhabited world" Heb 2:5. PS, I will write a little latter to show how I understand if Jesus is the "Archangel Michel", quick answer "no and yes" and by the way, you did fine to explain that idea. To our Earthbound (For Now). May you be blessed in all knowledge of God's Word and in his Love.
You are missing the point of this scripture. Yes, he was talking about angels, but did you notice, he said: "Let them be accursed". An accursed angel is a demon. They're still angels. A righteous human who becomes bad is still a human. The same is with angels. You miss the point again. The bible calls them angels. They sinned and became demons. They are still angels, but bad ones. Again, you are ignoring what the bible says. Jude called them ANGELS. The definition is irrelevant. It's what the bible says that counts. Londoner
Well my point was, if they were demons they would have already been accursed. I believe both understandings can be derived by 2Pt 2:4, it's not a definitive scripture. It can be argued that Jude is speaking of them as angels when they forsook their positions. "Jude 6 - And the angels that did not keep their original position" Regardless of all that brother, Regent posted the definitive scripture that tells us Satan rules over angels. Therefore from the available data I have come to the conclusion there must be two archangels, Michael and Satan.
Hi Joshuastone7 Regent Lessard will correct me if I'm wrong: but he was trying to make the point that in 2 Cor 12:7, Paul called the demon, an "angel". This has nothing to do with Archangels. That is a separate argument. The argument here is whether the bible calls demons, angels, and it does as we've shown. He also quoted 1 Cor 6:3 - Do YOU not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? What "angels" was Paul talking about, Joshua? Londoner
You didn't understand what I was saying, I was agreeing with you. Since demons are still angels, that means there are two archangels.
Hi Joshuastone7 Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, Satan is the Ruler of the Demons, and he has his angels, according to Revelation 12:7, but the scriptures never call any of the demons an Archangel, even Satan. The Archangel title is only given to holy angels. Look at Dan 12, where a holy angel told Daniel that the Prince of Persia was resisting him. He called Michael, one of the foremost princes to help him. The prince of Greece also turned up to join the resistance against the unnamed holy angel. Those high ranking demons entitled the princes of Persia and Greece are never called Archangels. Londoner
Princes in the OT are only ever said to rule over men, there is no mention of an archangel in the OT (by name or definition), but by deduction we can conclude there was one, Satan. Then Michael became an archangel in the NT, when he went from a prince over men, to a ruler of angels. That's to say if you consider the term archangel to simply mean ruler of angels. If you do not believe Satan can be called an archangel, that leaves only one again, Michael.
I love that quote by Russell....I am currently and have been for some time working my way thru his Beroeans study of the scriptures...the verse by verse one...well actually it's not every verse...and yes we see his errors but he certainly had much Holy Spirit...and am always learning something
Hi Joshuastone7 To be more precise - An Archangel as it appears in the bible, is a holy angel ruling over holy angels. As regards, Michael, I do not believe he is the only Archangel. Dan 10:13 - But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia. Michael is one of the foremost princes. That means that there are others. But Michael has been assigned to assist the nation of Israel specifically. Dan 10:21, 12:1 - However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these [things] but Miʹcha·el, the prince of YOU people. “And during that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book. For this, and other reasons, I don't believe that Jesus is Michael. Londoner
Hi Joshuastone7 I don't follow what you are saying. I quoted scriptures (Dan 10:21, 12:1) where Michael is assigned as the Prince of the nation of Israel. Where have I said that a prince is over angels? Londoner
Exactly, so the only place a ruler of angels is mentioned is with Michael in the NT, therefore you can't call any of the princes in the OT an archangel including Michael. In other words prince does not mean archangel. This also means that Michael was a prince in the OT, not an archangel. He would have had to have changed jobs from the OT to the NT.
Hi Joshuastone7 I see what you're saying now. The OT/NT is irrelevant. Michael is either an Archangel or he is not. Jude 6 says Michael is an Archangel, it has nothing to do with OT/NT. Remember, Dan 10 is discussing events that will occur in the future, in the time of the end, when the New Covenant begins to be fulfilled. Londoner
Michael is said to be "the prince of you people" in Daniel (meaning in Daniels time), and seems to be stating that Michael was a prince, just as other angles acted as princes in the OT. If Michael had been a ruler of angels in the OT, he wouldn't have been spoken of on equal terms with other angels... After all Daniel calls him "one of the princes." If we take the Bible for what it says, Michael was a ruler of men in the OT as a prince, and then became an archangel in the NT.