Does 1 Thessalonians 4:16 teach that Jesus is Michael?

As you may already know, Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus and Michael are to be equated (see Is Jesus an Angel?). This blog will focus on 1 Thessalonians 4:16 in more detail in response to a previous comment. Here is what 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states in several versions with the New World Translation last,

• For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first (NASB)
• For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (NIV)
• For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; (RSV)
• 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 (KJV)
• because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first (NWT)
• οτι αυτος ο κυριος εν κελευσματι, εν φωνη αρχαγγελου και εν σαλπιγγι θεου, καταβησεται απ’ ουρανου και οι νεκροι Χριστω αναστησονται πρωτον (Greek without breathing marks/iotas)

Upon first glance and almost any surface reading will quickly tell you that Jesus and Michael are not the same person.

The verse is sentenced structured in this way:

 

 

Greek Diagram of 1 Thess 4:16-17 (Bibleworks)

So as you can see, the three prepositional phrases are parallel all modifying “descend.” Each prepositional phrase uses the same preposition (“with,” εν). Based on its structure they either all have to be the same use or there can be two: the first phrase and then the second/third phrases. The second and third phrases must match in its usage simply because of the AND connection. And if the meanings/usage is different in the second/third phrases then the sentence structure would change slightly:

 

 

 

The prepositional uses could potentially be instrumental, manner, association (usually of personal relationships), or reference/respect, simply based on the Greek word being translated “with.” However, since association usually denotes personal relationships, it is probably not the best choice. And since reference/respect can substitute the words, “with respect to” or “with reference to,” in place of “with,” it is probably not the best choice. This leaves us with two: instrumental and manner. Instrumental usually denotes the means by which one accomplishes something (think thing) and manner is usually the how someone accomplishes something (think attitude). So most likely all of these are the same: instrumental, following the first sentence structure.

 

Apparently, JWs take this verse and say that the Lord makes the “commanding call” is obviously equated with “archangel’s voice.” However, the text does not say that the Lord makes the “commanding call.” Instead the verse says, “with a commanding call.” This could mean two things: (1) Jesus’ descent from heaven back to earth will be accompanied by “a commanding call.” Or (2) Jesus’ descent from heaven back to earth will be with “a commanding call” with an archangel-like voice. Also, if a JW says that Jesus is an archangel from this verse, they must also say that Jesus is God’s trumpet, whatever that means. This text clearly does not equate Jesus with Michael or an archangel. If anything, it only parallels or equates Jesus’ commanding call with the voice of an archangel meaning that they both carry authority and power. The logic of a JW is this:

Jesus’ commanding call = archangel’s voice

therefore, Jesus = archangel.

As simple as this appears, it is faulty. It completely ignores the power of the presposition “with.”

Now note this other objection: “In NWT it says there with an archangel’s voice. Arch means first in rank. Why would archangel’s voice woud associated to Jesus if he is not archangel?” (this is the original communication). In other words, “In NWT it says ‘with an archangel’s voice.’ Arch means first in rank. Why would archangel’s voice be associated to Jesus if he is not archangel?” I love this. Here a JW is clearly admitting that arch means first in rank; however, they want to take a verse like Revelations 3:14, “The beginning (ache) of the creation of God” which could be understood to be “the originator” or “the ruler” (see NET Bible and CBurney, “Christ as the ᾿Αρχή of Creation,” Journal of Theological Studies 27, 1926, 160-77), to mean that Jesus was created or as a defense of Jesus being the firstborn, which is not correct. However (back to the subject at hand), to be first or most supreme among the angels does not necessarily equate to being Jesus. Similarly, first among the US Army (called Chief of Staff of the US Army) doesn’t mean he is the President, even though the President presides and is the Commanding Officer. Instead the Chief of Staff of the US Army serves the President (though he is also under the Secretary of Defense) as part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (which also contains members from the Navy and the Air Force and Marine Corps). Similarly, the archangel Michael serves Jesus as his right-hand man.

John 1.1: Definite, Indefinite, or Qualitative?

One of the two sects that have always fascinated me are Jehovah Witnesses (JWs) and Mormons. One of the most interesting translated passages by JW’s is John 1:1. The New World Translation renders it: “In [the] beginning [a] the Word was, and [b] the Word was with God, and [c] the Word was a god.” The Greek renders 1:1c θεος εν ο λογος (theos en ho logos). Colwell’s Rule tells us, “In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” John 1:1 fits the second half; “it [predicate nominative] does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” Note the rule does not say “an anarthrous predicate nominative which precedes the verb is definite.” Instead, normally, anartharous preverbal predicate nominatives are definite as determined by its context.

Since ο λογος (ho logos, the word) contains the article, by Greek Grammar, it is designated as the subject and the anartharous θεος (theos, God) is the Predicate Nominative (Nominative referring to the case as seen by the sigma, ς; Accusative would have been θεον [theon]). It is also to be noted that it is a pre-verbal noun, that is, it comes before the noun. So it fits Colwell’s construction (because the verb is a copula, like ειμι [eimi] here) and thus becomes a possibility. So now, most recognize that we have two possibilities: definite and indefinite. However, there is a third possibility: qualitative. While many make the mistake and assume that indefinite and qualitative are the same, they are not. This argues from translation, not from sense.

The NWT translates θεος (theos) as indefinite: “the Word was a god,” though I have read recently that someone tried to argue that this was a qualitative expression (here). This article made the same mistake as many prior to Harner viewed qualitative nouns as more or less as indefinite nouns. However, this is not the case. The indefinite rendering suggests that Jesus is now a god among many or just two (note the previous phrase, “the word was with God). The main reason many say that this is indefinite is because it lacks the Greek article. If this were the case, then why did the NWT not translate other anartharous nouns (nouns that lack the article) as indefinite, especially in John 1, such as “in the begininng” (beginning being anartharous; 1:1,2; though this is in a prepositional phrase) or “God” in 1:18? Second, Dixon’s study (“The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John.” ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975) shows that this would be the only anartharous pre-verbal predicate nominative to be indefinite. Third, John’s Gospel sets out to prove or demonstrate a high Christology, or that Jesus is in fact God.

Some would translate 1:1c as definite. So as we have said before, we must look to the context to determine whether this is to be considered definite or not. Wallace notes that the “vast majority of definite anartharous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genetive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεος [theos] in John 1:1c” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax, 268). Also because of the use of the copula, to say that it is definite is to equate the Word (λογος, logos) with God (θεος, theos), which would be modalistic; however, 1:1b does not allow for this equation.

The final reading is that θεος (theos) is qualitative meaning that “The Word was divine,” or better, “the Word was fully God” (NET). While most translations (NIV, NASB, RSV, NAB, NKJV, KJV, NLT, ESV, HCSB, ASV), who translated this as “the word was God,” and scholars would agree that this is how they meant for their translation to be understood, it does not necessarily come across that way initially. Before Colwell’s study and the subsequent studies by Dixon and Harner, scholars believed that θεος (theos) was qualitative though they would say it was definite with a caveat. Please note the following from here:

• “It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theon) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person.  It would be pure Sebellianism to say ‘the Word was ho theos” (Westcott).
• “ho theos en ho logos (convertible terms) would have been pure Sabellianism…. The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea” (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767-768).
• “theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature” (Dana and Mantey, p. 140).
• “theos without the article signifies divine essence, or the generic idea of God in distinction from man and angel; as sarx, ver. 14, signifies the human essence or nature of the Logos” (Lange)
• “theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, not ho theos ,’the Father,’ in Person….as in sarx egeneto [John 1:14], sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en theos expresses that essence which was His-that He was very God.  So that this verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity, – was with God (the Father), – and was Himself God” (Alford).

Harner notes that it is just as important to know the various ways that the author could have presented his argument to fully understand the importance of the way it is actually presented. Harner presents 5 options:

1. ho logos en ho theos (the word was the God)
2. theos en ho logos (God was the word or the Word was God), John 1:1
3. ho logos theos en (the word God was)
4. ho logos en theos (the word was a god)
5. ho logos en theios (the word was divine)

#1 has already been disqualified and would have supported modalism and Sebellianism. #4 would suggest that the Word belonged to the same category or class as theos as some sort of “god” or divine being yet distinct from theos. #5, similar to #4 since in both the second noun is post-verbal, would mean that the Word was divine without specification, and since it is not the same word, it could have some subordination features. Finally, #2 and #3 are qualitative since both anartharous predicate nominatives precede the verb; however, they are not definite since that would be equivalent to #1.

So in conclusion, John 1:1c is qualitative. Probably the best translation is the New English Translation (NET Bible), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.”

As an aside to the discussion is the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c (Auw ne-u-noute pe p-shaje). The Coptic uses the indefinite noun possibly to refer to the abstract, or essence. More than likely the failure to use the article is possibly due to recognizing the previous phrase (Auw p-shaje ne-f-shoop n-nahrm p-noute) as contradictory if they did. Please note Horner’s Coptic translation (need this New Athena Unicode font) says, “[a] God was the word.” While he recognizes “a god” as a possible English translation of the Coptic, it is not the probable translation, based on the Greek.

For what other scholars are saying about this verse, go here.