On Michael the great prince.

MICHAEL

(Mi′cha·el) [Who Is Like God?].

1. The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called “archangel.” (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as “one of the foremost princes”; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by “the prince of the royal realm of Persia.” Michael was called “the prince of [Daniel’s] people,” “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that “Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.”—Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea.’” Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

A reproduction of Matthew Henry's commentary on Daniel 12:1

Jesus Christ shall appear his church’s patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, Dan. 12:1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, Dan. 10:21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deut. 32:3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. 1:5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it? But this is not all: At that time (that is, soon after) Michael shall stand up for the working out of our eternal salvation; the Son of God shall be incarnate, shall be manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Christ stood for the children of our people when he was made sin and a curse for them, stood in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the cure for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in the intercession he ever lives to make within the veil, stands up for them, and stands their friend. And after the destruction of antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type, Christ shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, shall appear for the complete redemption of all his.

 Matthew Henry's commentary on the identity of Michael at revelation12:7.

The parties—Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.

 

 

A Freudian slip?

Researcher Almost Admits, then Quickly Retracts, that "Intelligent Design" Is Needed to Explore Origin of Life

Casey Luskin July 1, 2015 6:11 AM | 

Here is a video of a lecture, delivered last year at Case Western University, by University of Akron origin-of-life researcher Nita Sahai. Her subject is "The Origins of Life: From Geochemistry to Biochemistry." She starts by making a comment that I agree with: "One of the most fundamental and profound questions that all human societies have asked from prehistory until now is where did we come from." She then gives a highly competent presentation of various issues in the origin of life, including a nice discussion of the "chicken and egg" problem of "which came first: replication or metabolism?"

Offering more criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis, she admits that RNA self-replication has never been achieved, nor has monomer polymerization to yield RNA enzymes. Dr. Sahai seems to like the model that minerals led to the origin of life -- something like the infamous "on the backs of crystals" model that Michael Ruse prefers.

Towards the end of the video (around 48:30) she lists some of the different types of molecules that would need to be coordinated to form life, including (as she puts it), "four nucleotides, twenty amino acids, ... a few lipids ..., several clays and other minerals." She then calls the task of getting just the right components to form life in a lab experiment "a combinatorial nightmare" and says "we need to use intelligent -- not intelligent design," at which point she is looks a tad bit embarrassed and is immediately and abruptly interrupted by another professor who wants to rescue her and help her find better wording. He tells her to say "careful selection," so she then settles on the wording: "We need to carefully select which nucleotides to start with, which amino acids and minerals..."

But if you look up the etymology of the word "intelligence" then we find that it comes from the Latin word intellegentia which has the roots "inter" (meaning "between") and "legō" (meaning "choose, pick out, read") which together translate literally, as "the act of choosing between." The meaning of "intelligent design" might just as well be rendered as "to carefully choose or select."

So we have here an origin-of-life researcher admitting the "combinatorial nightmare" faced by researchers trying to model the origin of life in the lab, and then admitting that "intelligent design" -- I mean "careful selecting" -- is needed to do this.

But if this is such a nightmare for smart researchers like Nita Sahai working in the lab, what makes us think that blind and unguided processes can do the job? The answer, classically, is time. Yet during her talk, Sahai admits that life arose "very early" in earth's history. The combinatorial nightmare and the lack of time to solve it via undirected chemical reactions is perhaps the biggest problem facing origin-of-life theorists.