Originally Posted by Play The Man
So, you don't subscribe to the view that this was a christophany? How do you reconcile your exegesis with Rev. 19:10?
I have no problem with Christophany...but ONLY on a POST RESSURECTIONAL Basis.
No I absolutely DO NOT buy into the ideaology of a preincarnational Christ...absolutely NOT!!!
There is NOTHING in the scriptures that points to anything physical Christ in chronology prior to the incarnation itself. However...ironically, so good are the Angels at giving Glory to where it belongs, that people HAVE got the idea that the Angel is actually Christ himself.
NO Christ did not save Lot from Sodom...that was a Host. NO Christ did not Wrestle with Abraham...that was a Host. NO Christ did not appear to Joshua and present himself as the commander of the Army of the Lord...even I was taken aback by THAT explicit rank. Usually Michael seems to shroud himself in mystery and leave himself open to not just representing Christ, but actually defering completely to Christ in an effort to remain hidden....that whole theology is come about quite deliberatley, because Michael would rather NOT take Glory that doesnt belong to him. So its an easy mistake to make. Which is why I was very supprised when he explained who he was...He of course was refering to his position following the Civil War in the Heavens, where the battle cry was Michaels name, and he was the one who led the advance...he is also the one who captures and imprisions the devil, not just once, but twice, and is in the end permitted to kill Lucifer all together.
I dont need to unify this with Rev 19...because thats NOT the sort of mistake I would make. Rev 19 is specifically FOR people who evidently cant tell the difference between a Host sent to do GODs bidding, and GOD himself...and thus worship the Host...However...if the Host deliberately missleads you into thinking that he is GOD (note he IS GOD, not He is A god) then you will worship GOD and not Him...for you dont believe that he was there at all! So all those people who believe in a preincarnate Christ, are actually physically wrong...but there is no harm done in them believing what they do, because the Angel gets no glory...its all given to Christ, by the belief that it was Christ who did it directly, and not an Angel. in otherwords... Michael has made himself completely transparent...so transparent, millions argue he was never there...thats how convincing the deliberate ambiguity has become.
The Commander of the Army of The Lord...cant be The Lord Himself can it? Otherwise, it is HIS Army. This is someone who The Lord has made Commander for The Lords Army....its not logical to think the Commander and The Lord are one and the same. Otherwise he would say it was his army, and not the army of another. (but thats constantly how he adds the ambiguity, he always defers up the chain of command, leading people to believe he is talking about himself, when actually, he's writing himself out of history by acting as a signpost pointing to GOD. So He might be able to watch someone praise GOD through having contact with Him...but he would NOT dare say the Army was belonging to Him...his Predescessor did exactly that...and we all know what happened to him...dont we! As for the Holy Ground statement...there was something about Jericho...No other city had that happen to them, with the ark. I think Jericho was the first after the Jordan crossing, but I could be wrong...I think this was extra support for Joshua who was, effectively, undertaking his first command of Israel into a long conquest of a large proportion of the middle east. Some translations readily admit this by using the phrase "angel of the Lord" and they refference it to the burning bush...which is interesting because the first order was the same...to take off the shoes on Holy Ground. Personally I hold that the Jews were deliberately kept in darkness about Christ until the Incarnation...therefore I think that any meddling in the old testament, unless hidden from view by cloud, is a Host and not Christ...as far as the Jews were concerned, and in truth, outside of the trinity, the highest form of being in Michael...who is Satans opposite...we go on a lot about how powerful Satan can be...but the majority of Christians dont even know who Michael is...and the majority of non christians think GOD is the opposite of the Devil. If you had seen what had happened to someone who took pride in themselves too much and paid the price, and then you got his job, wouldnt you make absolutely positiviely certain you would NEVER make that mistake...because of that recognition..and maybe the fear of that temptation having been a reality to another of his kind, we almost get an over compensation where Michael completely vanishes into thin air...leaving nothing but the Trinity in one corner, and Satan in the other...He's so good at his job, you dont notice he is doing it...infact, you dont notice he even exists...such is the state for most of christendom. As the chief of all Angels, he's a regular in scripture...but you have to know what you are looking for, or else you only see Christ through him...which is no bad thing, of course...but he really shows what it is to be christlike..so much so, all that can be seen through him IS Christ...and to think, ressurectional Faithful are above even him...the very meaning of his name is he-who-is-like-christ thats what the word Michael means.