Steward's Portion

MY WIFE AND I like to go out on “spiritual dates.” A spiritual date involves the trinity of marriage, which is to say, it involves you, your earthly spouse, and your heavenly spouse. So a “spiritual date” is a mixture of romance and revelation. For my wife and I, it plays out like any normal date would, except that our conversation is conducted as an open prayer, where we expect God to be a participant. Anything can happen when God is present. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20, KJV).

We were on one of these dates just the other night when my wife recounted a notion that has always bothered her. That notion is that “Satan’s greatest mistake was sending Christ to the cross.” The implication being that Satan thought crucifying Christ would put an end to His work of redemption. When this concept is spoken in church, it always gets a resounding “Amen!” from the people. It’s meant to speak to the failure of Satan’s rebellion and the wisdom of God that confounds the wicked. But it has always been followed by a check in my spirit, and I echoed my wife’s uneasiness about accepting this notion as Biblical.

So as we were casually discussing why we felt this way, God commented on the matter.  In an instant He brought to mind a series of verses and topics I had been studying over the last few months, and reminded me of what His word actually says about the corrupted genius of Satan.

I wont’ take the time to present those studies here, but it basically boiled down to this, “Satan isn’t that stupid.” Even more to the point, Satan did his best to keep Christ off the cross.  Satan knew exactly what Jesus had come to do, and was vested in keeping Him from becoming an atoning sacrifice for humanity.

CORRUPTED GENIUS

God reminded me of the dual rebuke He delivered to Satan and the king of Tyre via Ezekiel.  The king of Tyre was operating according to the influences of Satan, so the Lord sent the prophet Ezekiel to rebuke the king by addressing the spirit behind him.  In that rebuke, God said this about Satan:

‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.  (Ezekiel 28:12, NIV)

When heavens greatest angel sinned and became Satan, his intellect was not taken from him, rather it was corrupted with self-interest.  This means that Satan has remained creations most brilliant mind.  Please don’t misunderstand me here, recognizing Satan’s created brilliance is not a glorification of the creature, but of the Creator.

“For who makes you differ from another?  And what do you have that you did not receive?  Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Corinthians 4:7, NKJV).

Having reminded me that Satan is not an ignorant being, God then pointed out that Satan knew, long before the crucifixion of Christ, that the Messiah would one day arrive to die as an atoning sacrifice.  How did Satan know this?  His knowledge came from God’s covenant promises to mankind, all of which pointed to the need for Christ’s death.

REVEALED FROM THE BEGINNING

Remember, when God confronted Adam, Eve, and Satan over their sin, a prophecy was given.  Satan was behind the Serpent’s actions in the garden of Eden, so God gave a dual rebuke to both of them.

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” (Genesis 3:15, NKJV)

When God said “He shall bruise your head,” Satan instantly knew that God was telling him that he would be defeated by a male descendant of Eve.

Satan then observed as God proceeded to demonstrate for Adam and Eve how their sin would be atoned for.  God took an animal, killed it, and clothed Adam and Eve with its skin (Genesis 3:21). This revealed that the prophesied male descendant of Eve would become an atoning sacrifice for mankind.

God’s establishment of animal sacrifice is confirmed in the first generation of mankind, with Cain and Abel, when they brought their sacrificial offerings before the Lord.

“Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.” (Genesis 4:3-4, NIV)

Abel brought an animal sacrifice, but Cain brought an offering “of the fruit of the ground” (Genesis 4:3, KJV).  Scripture tells us that, “the LORD respected Abel and his offering, {5} but He did not respect Cain and his offering” (Genesis 4:4-5, NKJV).  So we must ask, why were they sacrificing anything in the first place, and where did Abel get the idea that God would be pleased with an animal sacrifice?

The book of Hebrews informs us that Abel was acting by faith.  In other words, he was obeying God’s revealed will – the specifics of which He had demonstrated for their parents when He killed the first animals and clothed Adam and Eve with their skin.  This revelation about covenant sacrifice was then passed on to their children.  Cain, however, ignored the details and reasoned that any kind of sacrificial offering would suffice.

“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.”  (Hebrews 11:4, ESV)

So Abel took the instruction of God seriously and acted by faith, but Cain was only interested in appeasing God, as would every heathen culture thereafter.  Abel’s sacrifice of faith, and Cain’s sacrifice of appeasement, were founded upon the first covenant sacrifice of Eden, at which Satan was present.

More covenant extensions followed, and with each came more and more revelation about God’s plan for redemption.  Eventually, every prophetic detail was provided in clear detail, and Satan planned accordingly.

If you study the corrupted belief systems of those nations that influenced Israel to sin, you’ll find many perverted gospel messages.  All this goes to show that Satan had a working knowledge of God’s plan of redemption prior to Christ’s first advent, and was working hard to pervert its truths in the minds of men.  So when Christ finally arrived, how did Satan oppose Him?

TEMPTATION TO SKIP THE CROSS:

Dominion had been given to man over the earth.  Man was to govern it, and rule.  But Satan usurped that government by enslaving men to sin.  This allowed Him to move and control men through their sinful lusts and desires, like a horse led by the bit in its mouth.  This placed spiritual control over the nations of the earth in Satan’s hands.

For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere.  (Ephesians 6:12, AMP)

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.  (2 Corinthians 4:4, KJV)

Satan is the god of this present darkness, and holds dominion through corrupted men.  Jesus, however, had been sent to redeem men back to righteousness, take dominion as a man, and rule over the earth.  In order to do this, Jesus would have to suffer greatly on the cross.

As would be revealed, Jesus was desperate for another way to accomplish God’s will:

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.  (Matthew 26:39, KJV)

He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.  (Matthew 26:42, KJV)

Knowing this lay ahead of the Lamb of God, Satan challenged the Father to let him tempt Jesus after a 40 day fast.  The Father agreed, and the Holy Spirit led Jesus to the place where He would be tempted.

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.  (2)  And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.  (Matthew 4:1-2, KJV)

Satan’s final temptation of Christ involved an offer that would allow Jesus to seemingly accomplish His mission to take back dominion over the earth, but apart from the suffering of the cross.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. {9} “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

{10} Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”   (Matthew 4:8-10, NIV)

After this rejection, Satan attempted to force Jesus to be King, and then moved to kill Him apart from the cross.

LONG LIVE THE KING!

Jesus made a point of keeping a low profile.  His aim was not to create a scene and get Himself killed, nor was it His intention to impress everyone so much that they would promote Him to King over Israel.  His purpose was simply to reveal the nature of the Father to Israel.  The rest would play out naturally.  This is why he often commanded the people that He healed to not make Him known before the appointed time.

“And charged them that they should not make Him known: 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, 18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory. 21 And in His name shall the Gentiles trust.” (Matthew 12:16-21, KJV)

So when demons spoke out and identified Jesus as the Messiah early, they were silenced.

“Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” 25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!”" (Mark 1:23-25, NIV)

Much was expected of the Messiah.  Jesus, however, had not come to fulfil their misconceptions of Him.  If Jesus’ identity as the promised Messiah was known too early, the people would move to see their expectations realized, and if disappointed, they would move against Jesus.  Truly that day would come, but before that day, Jesus needed time to accomplish the Father’s will and demonstrate it before the people.  God’s aim was not to make the people understand, but to reveal the sin within them that kept them from understanding.  So Jesus spoke the truth of the kingdom to the people, but in parables.  If they knew God as they all claimed, then God would make the meaning of Jesus’ words understood to them.  If they were cut off from God, they would have no understanding.

“Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And He answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. 15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’” (Matthew 13:10-15, ESV)

The identity of Christ could only be properly received by those whom The Holy Spirit had awakened spiritually.

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-17, KJV)

When natural men viewed Jesus, they responded to His words and miracles contrary to the will of God. For example, when Jesus multiplied fish and bread to feed the multitude, the people responded contrary to the Spirit of God, and sought to make Jesus King.

“When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, He departed again into a mountain Himself alone.” (John 6:15, KJV)

Jesus had not come to rule over the people as a mighty prophet, or king. But that is what men desired. Men would work to protect a holy man working mighty miracles. They would not permit such a man to die.

But die Jesus must, but not as the result of murder or natural causes. Jesus must die by the will of the people in order to become a sacrifice. And while Satan surely wanted Him dead, he did not want Jesus to die as a sacrifice. For example, listen to how Jesus responded to the will of Peter and Satan when they both opposed Jesus’ sacrificial death:

“From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But He turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Matthew 16:21-23, KJV)

“Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee” was the will of Satan expressed through Peter. Satan knew that the death and resurrection of Christ would rob him of his primary power over men – the fear of death. Therefore Satan shared the desire of men, in that he wanted to keep the Messiah off the alter of the cross at any cost.

I tell you the truth, on the day of Christ’s crucifixion, heaven was rejoicing, and Satan was the one in mourning.

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:14-17, KJV)

MURDER

This is not to say that Satan didn’t want Jesus dead, but only that he didn’t want Jesus to die as an atonement for the people. For Satan “was a murderer from the beginning,” and desired nothing more than to kill Jesus (John 8:44, KJV). However, the sacrificial system pointed to the fact the Messiah needed to die as a sacrifice for sin. And Satan knew that Christ’s death would be upon a crucifix of Rome, just like the serpent that was lifted up in the wilderness foreshadowing Jesus being lifted up (Numbers 21:9). Because of this, Satan knew that Jesus could not be a victim of murder, commit suicide, or die a natural death if He were to be a sacrifice for the people. No, Jesus would need the people of Israel to select Him for a death that He would willingly submit to.

So Satan moved to cause Christ’s death apart from the will and knowledge of the people. He began early, planting his murderous fear of Christ into the hearts of useful vessels. For example, when Christ was born, Satan placed his own concern into the heart of king Herod. A star had appeared in the east, that was unlike any other star that had ever been seen. It was clearly a sign, and it disturbed the king and all of Jerusalem. So Herod sent for the wise men, the Magi, who could interpret this sign.

The Magi informed Herod that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. So he requested that when they found the child’s exact location that they return and tell him. For Herod secretly desired to kill the newborn Christ. But upon discovering Jesus, God warned the Magi in a dream not to return to Herod. And when the king realized that the Magi had defied his request, he broadened his murderous intentions. Instead of simply identifying and killing the Messiah, he would have to kill every child two years and younger in and around Bethlehem in order to ensure that he killed Jesus (Matthew 2:3-16). Jesus, however, was moved to Egypt the same night that the Magi discovered Him, and remained safe.

Later, as an adult, the religious leaders of Israel made plans to murder Jesus. However, they intended to kill Jesus secretly, and apart from the will of the people.

“Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; 4 and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him.” (Matthew 26:3-4, NASB).

Secrecy was key. To murder Jesus in private, apart from the cross, and apart from the will of the people, was mandatory. It was to this end that Satan entered Judas Iscariot.

“Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. 4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.” (Luke 22:3-4, KJV)

The plan was simple. Betray Jesus into the hands of the chief priests and the elders who “plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him.” Jesus would be taken before a private council, found guilty, and killed privately. Eventually, he would fade from minds of the people. But this is where things went contrary to plan.

“At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67″If you are the Christ,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” 70They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am.” 71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.” 23:1 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate.” (Luke 22:66-23:1, NIV)

Instead of murdering Jesus themselves, the pious leaders didn’t want to soil their own hands, so they tried to get Rome to execute Jesus for them. This is where things began to escalate into public view.

“When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. 7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. … 11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. 12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. 13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:” (Luke 23:6-14, KJV)

The publicity of Jesus transfer from Pilate to Herod and back again provoked national attention. It brought to the forefront the question of who Jesus was and why Rome should put him to death on behalf of Israel.

After much questioning and accusations, the identity of Jesus became known. Jesus claimed to be God come in the flesh. He believed Himself to be the Messiah. And while this was not a crime in Roman law, it provoked the people to anger. For the people believed that the true Messiah would have come in glory and power, and would never be subject to imprisonment by Rome. They could receive Jesus as a great prophet, but not as Messiah. The rest is history.

What should have been a private murder became a public execution. And that execution became a sacrifice when Christ submitted to the will of the people to put Him to death, as a sacrificial lamb is led to the slaughter at the will of sinners.

CONCLUSION

The importance of understanding the true nature of Satan’s “greatest mistake” is correctly understanding the nature and purpose of Christ’s death.  If Jesus was killed by men, He failed.  If Jesus was killed by Satan, He failed.  If Jesus was murdered or died of natural causes, He failed.  Only a sacrificial death has any value in God’s plan for redemption.  Death is not the focus of the cross, but sacrifice.  Satan tried desperately to distract and alter that Divine purpose, but failed.

A secondary value in understanding Satan’s greatest mistake has to do with the nature of his intellectual devices.  Our ignorance of Satan’s motivations can be used against us.

“Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.” (2 Corinthians 2:11, KJV)

The Greek word for “devices” is “noema” (no’-ay-mah), and means “the disposition and or purpose of the intellect.”

We must not be ignorant of Satan’s intellectual purposes. For Satan is the author of many perverted doctrines and manifestations of supernatural power, all of which appear to be in line with God’s truth. These intellectual perversions are as subtle as believing Satan wanted Jesus on the cross, as opposed to privately murdered. The spiritual ramifications of murder verses sacrifice illustrate the importance of understanding the purposes of both God and Satan. Far too often we ignore Satan as a defeated foe, and loose sight of his subtle devices, some of which, come into the church through the mouths of saints, who not unlike the apostle Peter, have failed to grasp the spiritual battle at hand.

QUESTION: I’ve heard that we become angels when we die. Is that true?  Can you address some of the arguments that teach this?

QUICK OVERVIEW:

• The few ways in which we are equal with angels are specified because we are not equal in every way (Luke 20:35-36; Matthew 22:30)
• We do not replace or become angels because angels “minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation,” an eternal assignment for beings who will never become men (Hebrews 1:13-14 KJV)
• We will judge the angels, not become angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).
• We will be transformed into the image of Christ, not angels (Romans 8:29; 1 John 3:2) What will Christ be for eternity?
• Christ’s humanity is eternal because He eternally represents Adam and his descendants (Hebrews 2:16-17, 7:22-25)
• We are glorified above the angels in Christ (Hebrews 1:4).

THE BIBLE SAYS that in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels.  Does that mean that we will become angels?  Some think so.  In this study we’ll take a look at what the Bible actually teaches.  I believe that an honest examination of the scriptures leaves no room for the interpretation that we’ll become angels when we die.  Why?  Well, there are at least two reasons.  The first has to do with the nature of equality.  The Bible tells us that we will be equal with the angels in some ways, but not in every way.  In fact, it’s the ways in which we are told we will not be like the angels that stands as our second reason for knowing that we won’t become angels.

EQUALITY:

Let’s start with the issue of equality.  In what way is the Bible speaking of equality?  There is more than one way to be equal with something.

For example, when speaking of the equality of mankind, we might say that all men are created equal.  But how are we all equal with one another?  Are we all equal in gender, intelligence, strength, appearance, talents, or even in mobility?  Certainly this cannot be implied, nor inferred, by the phrase “all men are created equal.” This statement is thus qualified by the specific parameters of a defined plain of comparison.  In the realm of intrinsic value, all men have descended from Adam, and are thus equal in the created value of their humanity.  Even in the realms of individual calling, appointed service, and eternal reward, there is inequality, and yet, this inequality in no way nullifies the other realms in which men are found to be equal.

Equality can mean several things.  It can mean that two things are identical in every respect, or that they have the same rights, or that they are balanced in relation to one another.  Equality can imply impartiality, in that one person is treated no different from another.  Or it can simply mean that two things are equivalent in some ways, but not others.  So when we are told that mankind will become “equal unto the angels,” what is being implied?

“But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: {36} Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”  (Luke 20:35-36, KJV)

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”  (Matthew 22:30, KJV)

These passages identify two realms of equality: 1) men will no longer marry or be given in marriage, and 2) men will never die.  The fact that these two scriptures make a point of identifying the ways in which we will be equal reveals that they are not teaching that we are equal in every way.

These comparisons of equality were presented to a group of men who had failed to grasp that in the resurrection the symbols employed on earth will no longer be in force.  They did not understand that in the resurrection, men, like angels, will neither marry nor be married to one another, 1) because they will no longer be under the command to populate the earth, nor will they be under the command to produce godly seed (Genesis 1:28, Malachi 2:15), and 2) marriage as seen on earth will no longer have a purpose because earthly marriage is a symbol of heavenly marriage – the eternal union of God and His church (Ephesians 5:31-32) and this symbol will be fulfilled when we rise to be with Christ for eternity.  Within these two realms – celibacy and eternal life – men and angels will be equal.

I’m confident that we can all agree that, at the very least, we will be equal with the angels in these two ways.  The question that must now be answered is whether there are realms in which men and angels are not equal, and within this, what distinction, if any, will remain between men and angels in eternity future.

THE REPLACEMENT THEORY:

There is a belief that postulates that God created mankind to replace those angels who fell in sin.  It’s then reasoned that if we are going to become angels, and we are said to abide in Christ, then all angels must be partakers of Christ equally.

There are several biblical teachings that I have been unable to reconcile with this theory.  These teachings revolve around:

• The eternal incarnation of Christ as a representative of humanity.
• Christ’s human inheritance.
• And the marriage between Christ and the human church.

THE ETERNAL HUMANITY OF CHRIST:

In order to save Adam and his descendants, it was mandatory for the Messiah to be both Human and Divine.

“For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. {17} Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”  (Hebrews 2:16-17, NASB)

Why was God compelled to take on the nature of those He intended to save?  Why couldn’t He accomplish what He did as an angel?  Or for that matter, why did He have to become anything at all? The simple answer is that redemption requires representation, and representation requires equality in the truest sense.  A human must represent humanity.  (For more information, see “The Secret of the Flesh [COMING SOON].”

What God requires of mankind must be satisfied by mankind.  This is why animal sacrifice gave a picture of what God required of sinful men, but the blood of bulls and goats could not truly satisfy justice against sin (Hebrews 10:4).  Obedience to the symbol could sanctify a man to the postponement of justice, but it could not ultimately satisfy it (Hebrews 9:13) It was just a picture of what was to come.  And for the same reason that animals were unable to satisfy God’s justice against sin on behalf of mankind, neither could angels.

The solution?  God would do what angels and animals could not – God would become a Man.  Jesus came to represent Adam, and by reason of representation, all who have partaken of Adam’s flesh and spirit through birth.

Now consider the eternal work of Christ’s incarnation as the representative of mankind.  Jesus didn’t become a man temporarily, He became a man for all eternity.  This fact rests, once again, upon the requirements of redemption and representation.  The humanity of Jesus Christ was appointed by God to stand eternally before God the Father as an eternal High Priest on behalf of Christ’s brothers in the flesh.

“And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, {21} but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’ ” {22} Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. {23} Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; {24} but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. {25} Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. (Hebrews 7:22-25, NIV)

This priesthood is established on the laws of representation. Again, this is why Jesus was obligated to become like His brethren in the flesh so that He could, as High Priest, stand eternally as the atonement for men.  If He ever ceases to be human, He will cease to represent humanity and we will cease to be covered by His sacrificial priesthood.  Because just as God’s wrath against sin is eternal, so is the office of the atoning priesthood that covers it.  And to that end God has sworn by an unalterable oath that the human priesthood of Jesus will “continueth forever” as “an unchangeable priesthood.”

This is why Melchisedec, the symbolic forerunner of Christ’s eternal priesthood, was introduced to Abraham as one who was:

“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.”  (Hebrews 7:3, KJV)

If the humanity of Christ stands forever in the office of High Priest, then Jesus cannot thereafter cease to be a man, and take upon Himself the nature of any other being.  For this reason we must understand that Jesus “…took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham” so that He could live forever in the “unchangeable priesthood” of men as “a priest forever” (Hebrews 2:16, 7:24-25; 7:3, KJV, NIV).

BETTER THAN THE ANGELS:

When Jesus became a man, His humanity naturally made Him lower than the angels.

You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of Your hands.  (Hebrews 2:7, NKJV)

So what happened when He was resurrected and glorified?  Was He raised to a place of equality with the angels?  No, He was made far greater than the angels.

“Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”  (Hebrews 1:4, KJV)

Christ’s humanity was not simply a temporary mechanism used to laboriously generate angel-like replacements, but an entire legal system through which the inheritance of God would be presented to men alone.

FIRSTBORN OF CREATION:

No one, be they angel or human, may be counted as a co-heir with Christ in His inheritance apart from adoption into the Firstborn.  Consider what this means, and why this is so.

In the eternity past, Jesus was simply known as “The Word.” It was through “The Word” that Jehovah created, or gave birth as it were, to all things.  By this creative act through The Word, Jehovah gained the new title “God the Father.”

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. {2} He was in the beginning with God. {3} All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.  (John 1:1-3, NASB)

Later, God the Father would send “The Word” to earth to be born as both a Son of Man (being of Adam’s descended flesh and spirit) and a Son of God (having come from God the Father).

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.  (John 1:14, NASB)

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (Hebrews 1:5-6, NIV)

It was at this point that “The Word” became known as Jesus Christ, the Firstborn, the Son of God. The term Firstborn does not necessarily imply that someone was the first to be born (Psalms 89:27), but rather stands as the title of one who has all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of an heir; one who enjoys a special relationship with God.  As such, the focus of the word is not on one’s priority in time or origin, but of appointment as heir.

Speaking of king David as a prophetic type of Jesus, it was said:

I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth. (Psalms 89:27, NIV)

And again of Christ’s appointment as Firstborn, we are told:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, {2} but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. {3} The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. {4} So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. {5} For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”? {6} And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”  (Hebrews 1:1-6, NIV)

This appointment had always been intended to be received by Jesus in light of His incarnation as a man.  Thus all things were created for Jesus, with His eternal humanity in view, a position that even the angels were commanded to worship.  (The fact that Lucifer, Heaven’s highest ranking angel was condemned for calling upon the other angels to worship Him reveals, once again, that Jesus was never an angel to begin with).  Jesus was appointed to be preeminent over all of creation, in every way, as the heir of God the Father.

For He [God the Father] rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son [Jesus Christ], {14} in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. {15} He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. {16} For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. {17} He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. {18} He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  (Colossians 1:13-18, NASB, bracketed content added for clarity)

INHERITANCE BY ADOPTION:

So we see that the right of inheritance was not something that is given to the sons of God, but to the Firstborn, the legal heir of the Father.  So how does one gain access to the Firstborn’s inheritance?  Do we need to become sons of Christ?  Does Jesus need to become our Father?  No, in order to partake of Christ’s inheritance, God the Father would have to grant a lesser son co-heir status with His legal Firstborn, God the Son¹.  How is that done?  And to whom?

To be an heir, is to be Abraham’s seed.  So while it is true that both redeemed men and angels are called the sons of God, men have been adopted into this position and angels have not, and it is this mechanism of adoption and baptism into Christ that elevates us above the angels.  It’s not that we were adopted and made sons as the angels are sons, it’s that we have been adopted and baptized “into Christ.” In other words, we have been adopted into the position of the firstborn son, and are thus eligible for the inheritance of the firstborn, a privilege not associated with lesser sons who are not the firstborn.

Angels would have to become what Jesus is – human – in order to even be candidates for adoption into the human Firstborn.  But God the Father has never adopted the angelic sons of God into the Firstborn, nor called them co-heirs with the Son of God.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”? {6} And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”  (Hebrews 1:5-6, NIV)

But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?  (14) Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?  (Hebrews 1:13-14, KJV)

The angels are already the sons of God by the fact that they were created by God (Job 38:6-7).  However, the author of Hebrews is focusing here upon the incarnation of Christ as the human Messiah and the ways in which this is superior to every other position.  It is a position to which the angelic sons of God are not promoted.  Rather, it is expressly stated to be a position under which the angels serve and minister.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE WORD:

“I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”  (2 Corinthians 6:18, NIV)

• Men are co-heirs with Christ according to promise.

If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.  (Galatians 3:29, NIV)

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. (Romans 9:8, NIV)

• If you are made a son of God, it was through Christ, and if through Christ you became a son, then you are a co-heir with the Firstborn Son of God.

Therefore, you are no longer a slave (bond servant) but a son; and if a son, then [it follows that you are] an heir by the aid of God, through Christ.  (Galatians 4:7, AMP)

• The Firstborn is head over all of creation.  Co-heirs with Christ will therefore rule over the lesser sons of God.

Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!  (1 Corinthians 6:3, NIV)

• All who are elevated to co-heir status will be conformed to the image of the Firstborn.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  (Romans 8:29, KJV)

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.  (1 John 3:2, ESV)

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.  (1 Thessalonians 4:17, KJV)

But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.  (1 Corinthians 6:17, ESV).

FINAL THOUGHT:

We don’t need to imagine what God’s purpose for creation is, especially when that purpose has been revealed in God’s own word.  Let’s be faithful in our study and seek after the heart of God in everything.  What seems good to us is rarely good in the eyes of God.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.  (2 Timothy 2:15, NIV)

1. I’ve heard that if a father wanted ALL his children to have equal shares in the inheritance with his firstborn son, then the father could legally “adopt” all of his children into a firstborn relationship. To do this, the father would go to the city gate and present his wishes to the elders. He would then execute a covenant of salt whereby he adopted his children into the position of equal heirs with the firstborn. I have been unable to confirm this however. [↩]

BEFORE WE PROCEED, we should define the question a little further.  This is not the belief that Jesus is an angel.  That is an entirely different argument.  The Deity of Jesus Christ is not being questioned in this assertion.  Rather, it’s the suggestion that scripture also calls God the Son by the name of Michael, the archangel of God.

This notion is inspired by references in scripture to the preincarnate Christ being called “the angel of the LORD” (Gen 22:11-12).  And since the term “angel” means messenger, it’s reasoned that Jesus can appropriately be understood to be Michael the archangel, or chief of angels.  Men such as Charles Spurgeon, John Gill, and Matthew Henry, all believed that Michael is another name for Jesus, and all of them teach the Deity of Christ.

However, every argument I have ever run across, that was in favor of Jesus and Michael being two names for the Son of God, has always been mired in semantics.  The strength of this notion is not found in clearly taught passages, but in similarities, titles, and the subtle meanings of words.  If it were not for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, I don’t think this teaching would be as popular as it is today.

Personally, I have never found a rational justification for its pursuit as a doctrine.  If it were true, it would be the one time in scripture where a name of God was not directly stated to be a name of God, but left instead to be discerned from laborious comparisons of possible inference – not one of which could be decisively argued to as proof of the notion.

But I digress.  Here are some of the arguments in favor of the idea that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and why I do not hold to them.

JESUS THE PRINCE:

In scripture, both Jesus and Michael are both identified as princes. That much is not disputed.  However, this fact is then put forth as evidence that Jesus and Michael are one and the same.  Granted, if Jesus and Michael were two names for the same person, then both would be said to be princes.  But there’s also an obvious problem with using this similarity as evidence – more than one person can hold the title of “prince.”

The strength of this argument rests wholly upon an assumption.  You must already believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same before this “evidence” can carry any weight.  Because, by itself, it proves nothing, and is evidence of nothing.

What’s ironic is that one of the very arguments used to show that both Jesus and Michael are princes also proves that they are separate individuals.  Read the following verse about Michael the Archangel carefully.  What does it say about Michael as a prince?

“But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” (Daniel 10:13, KJV)

Michael is identified as “one of the chief princes.” So we must ask, is Jesus but “one” of many chief princes?  Is Jesus equal to other princes in this capacity?  If Jesus is understood to be The Chief of the angels, then He cannot be said to be Michael who is but “one of” the angelic chiefs. Here is where semantics break against identifiers. Michael is but one of many chiefs in Christ’s angelic army, whereas Jesus is said to be head over all of creation (Ephesians 1:20-23) and the very fullness of God (Colossians 2:9).

THE VOICE OF JESUS:

A second example of arguing from semantics is derived from God’s call to resurrection.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:” (1 Thessalonians 4:16, KJV)

Does this verse teach that Jesus will descend alone? Must we conclude that the “voice of the archangel” is the literal voice of Jesus? Or is this verse simply saying that as Christ descends, His archangels and their angelic armies go before Him heralding His arrival? This question is answered quite plainly by scripture:

“And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matthew 24:31, KJV)

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works.” (Matthew 16:27, KJV)

“And then shall He send His angels, and shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.” (Mark 13:27, KJV)

These verses tell us that Christ will send His angels with a heralding cry and blasts of trumpets. We need not assume that the trumpeting and voices are proceeding from Christ’s mouth. Nor do we need to assume that only one archangel, or trumpet, is involved in the heralding of Christ’s return.

This argument attempts to prove itself by interpreting 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as if the proposition that Jesus is an archangel was already established as true. It is assumed that Jesus is the sole archangel in existence, and then reasons that when He descends “with the voice of the archangel” its teaching that the voice is His own.  When an argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself, you have circular reasoning. This kind of approach to the scriptures is what begins heresies and false teachings.

HIS ANGELS:

Presumption is further extended into other verses such as this one:

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

It’s argued that this verse shows that angels belong to Michael. This argument is again made on the presumption that Michael has already been proven to be Jesus. The evidence here is assumed to imply that Michael owns the angels under his command by right of creation, thereby proving that He is Jesus. But is this the conclusion demanded by this passage?

The archangels are chief angels. There is more than one of them; as scripture pointed out when we were told that Michael was but “one of” these angelic chiefs. They are the generals who lead heaven’s legions, the army of God. And in an army, the chief, or leader is given troops over which he is responsible. Those troops become “his,” in the sense of responsibility. Therefore, the angels under Michael’s command are no more “his angels” by right of creation and ownership than those angels under Satan’s command. Any interpretation that demands that Michael must be Jesus because the angels are “his” must also demand that we believe that Satan created the angels that are “his.” If angels can belong to Satan and not imply creation, on what basis are we arguing that Michael is Jesus? We are again arguing from the standpoint of semantics and presumption.

Thus we see two angel commanders with authority over legions of subservient angel warriors. No ownership need be assumed. We must be careful not to force the scriptures to serve a preconceived notion, because this interpretation is only valid if this duality has been expressly taught elsewhere, which it has not. In the void of direct instruction, we have no authority to imply meaning.

OF POWER AND SIGNIFICANCE:

It is also argued that because Michael is seen to obtain victory in battle quicker than other angels, this somehow implies deity. In my mind, this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to gather a crowd of potential witnesses to give the impression of being a substantial teaching.

If I take scripture at its normal meaning, and understand Michael to be “one of” many leaders of God’s angelic army, I would naturally expect that his classification as a chief prince would imply a greater power and authority than those angels who are not chiefs. Naturally I would expect him to obtain victory quicker than an angel of lesser power and authority. So the notion that Michael’s victory is proof that he must be Jesus is an unnecessary leap of assumption.

Where do we draw the line between operating in the imparted power and authority of God and actually being God? The book of revelation shows us that it is the angels who pour out God’s vials of wrath in many cases without forcing us to conclude that each angel is God Himself. And Jesus told us that we would perform greater works than He did on earth, saying: “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do” (John 14:12, KJV), and yet this does not make those who perform “greater works” than Jesus another Messiah. Success, or the “greatness” of supernatural works is not a basis for determining the identity of Jesus, but certainly reveals an imparted authority.

THE WITNESS OF A NAME:

Can the very meaning of the name “Michael” stand as evidence that Jesus and Michael are one and the same?  It’s suggested that because the name Michael means “who is like God,” this means either that Jesus is like God, or that the name is asking the rhetorical question: “who is like Jesus.”

The archangel Michael and I share the same name. So what would happen if someone observed me performing greater works than Jesus, and then realized that my name is Michael.  Would they naturally assume that I must be Jesus?  Is that really a foregone conclusion?

Names are important, but not every name is exclusive to God. The most potent example is seen in the fact that both Jesus and Satan bear the name “morning star.”

Satan is the Morning Star:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, KJV)

• LUCIFER: 1966. heylel, hay-lale’; from H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:–lucifer.

In other translations this is simply rendered:

“How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, NIV)

Jesus is the Morning Star:

“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” (Revelation 22:16, KJV)

“And I will give him the morning star. {29} He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” (Revelation 2:28-29, KJV)

The name, “Morning Star” falls under the same category as “chief prince” and “Lord.” While they can, and do, apply to Jesus, they can also apply to created beings. The swing vote in our interpretation must be the identifiers found in the verses themselves that differentiate Jesus from Lucifer, and Jesus from Michael. But if we ignore them, then we can easily begin to argue by the strength of semantics and come to some very errant conclusions.

THE LORD REBUKES YOU:

In the book of Jude, we find a dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses.  In what is probably the most revealing verse in the Bible about the identity of Michael, we read this:

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”  (Jude 1:9, NIV)

Immediately, we notice something striking about Michael’s response to Satan.  There is something that he does not dare do.  He does not dare rebuke Satan by His own authority.  Why?  Because Michael is an archangel, and has no intrinsic authority over other angels.  Michael’s authority comes from the Lord, therefore he appeals to the Lord.

It’s here that some people interrupt, and attempt to draw attention away from the real point of this passage by focusing the argument on whether Jesus would rebuke Satan in the Lord’s name.  They point to the following passage as proof that this could have been Jesus rebuking Satan in the name of the Lord.

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. {2} The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”  (Zechariah 3:1, NIV)

Here we see “the angel of the LORD” who is clearly the pre-incarnate Jesus rebuking Satan in the name of the LORD.  In scripture, when you see the word LORD capitalized, that indicates that the actual word used in the text was JEHOVAH, the proper name of God.  Thus Jehovah rebuked Satan saying “Jehovah rebukes you.” And since the name Jehovah means “Self-Existent one, or Eternal One,” that is the equivalent to saying “I AM (Exodus 3:14) rebukes you,” or simply, “I rebuke you.” However you word it, the meaning is the same.

But arguing over whether or not Jesus would ever say “The Lord rebukes you” or “I rebuke you” is irrelevant when we return to our initial reference in Jude.  The real issue at hand is whether Jesus, pre-incarnate or not, would dare to rebuke Satan.  The word “dare” comes from the Greek word tolmao (tol-mah’-o) which means “boldness, by implication to be courageous, to dare.” This word cannot be ignored within the context of this discussion.  It has meaning.  It affects every word that follows it.

If Michael is another name for Jesus, and Jesus was simply rebuking Satan in one of the names of the Father, there would be no need to speak of His lack of courage or boldness in doing so.  Jesus, even as a man, was given the titles “The Mighty God” and “The Everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6, KJV) and is held back by no created being.

Yet we are told in no uncertain terms that this character, “Michael” regardless of who we say he is, did not dare to rebuke Satan directly.  The fact that Michael does not dare take authority himself reveals that this cannot possibly be the pre-incarnate Jesus.  At the time of this dispute, Jesus had not humbled Himself as a man, and held equal and supreme authority with God the Father.  In other words, at the time of this dispute there was no greater authority than Jesus, being an equal part of the Trinity.

But there’s more.  Even when Jesus was born as a lowly man He did not hesitate to rebuke Satan.  In fact, he rebuked Satan by name at least two separate times in recorded scripture.

And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” (Luke 4:8, NKJV)

But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matthew 16:23, NKJV)

There is a distinct difference between one who does not dare rebuke Satan himself, and Jesus who, even as a Man, has no fear whatsoever to rebuke Satan directly.

IN CONCLUSION:

When looking at the idea that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, I simply cannot accept the idea based upon the arguments presented above.  The reason that the archangel Michael features so prominently in scripture, as opposed to other archangels, is that Michael is a guardian of Israel, and therefore appears in references to that nation and the spiritual events associated with them.  Just as there is a spiritual prince of Persia, there is also a spiritual prince of Israel, both of whom serve their masters without being divine themselves.  Suffice it to say, semantics and presumption are the bane of sound doctrine, and we ought to guard ourselves very carefully against adopting any scriptural interpretation who’s primary force is the guesswork and appeals for support from human logic.