When we read Daniel 12: 1, we can highlight several versions among them. We have the following settings. "Michael, the great prince, the defender of the children of your people will rise" 1 , "the angel Michael, the protector of the people of God, will appear." 2 , "Michael, the great prince, will rise up for the children of your people" 3,4 , "Miguel, the great prince who protects his people" 5 . We therefore have that Michael is the defender or protector of the people of God, and we see that Romans quotes about Jesus. "The Redeemer will come from Zion" 6 , what we have is that Michael is the great prince who defends the people of God. Now who is the great prince who defends God's people? . When we read John 17: 14-16,we see the example of the "protector of God's people" 2 , Jesus is the protector of God's people. So the question remains who would be "great prince, who stands up for the children of your people" 4 , this is Jesus. We see the connection of "the great prince who protects his people" 5 , with the text "But on that occasion his people, everyone whose name is written in the book, will be released" 5. Now we have Michael as the great prince and who stands up for the children of God, linked to salvation in connection with the book of life. So we have that Jesus is the great prince defending the people of God. Could we say that Jesus is the little prince who defends the people of God? Logically not. Could we say that Jesus is the average prince who defends the people of God? Neither. So Jesus is the great prince. The term "great" comes from the term "gâdôl" 8 , this term links the prince "the oldest, the most, the very, superior" 8 , What is the prince who has these prerogatives and who is the defender of God's people. Now there is only one Jesus Christ.
When we read in the Portuguese translation NVI we have "Miguel, one of the supreme princes" 9 . Something is wrong, since the supreme is something above something, it is like saying to the highest gods, now very high is the highest, and supreme is the highest, if we have two supreme princes, then neither of them is supreme, now and if there is one supreme prince, would Jesus be like a prince, a simple one? It does not exist above supreme, supreme is the highest position that a prince can be. Thus we define that Jesus is not a supreme prince, or there are others in the same rank as supreme prince of Jesus. So there is something wrong, because Jesus is the supreme prince. We can solve this problem by seeing the literal translation of the scriptures 10 . In it we have the following construction "Michael, first of the chief heads"10 , and now we have that Miguel is the first of the chief of princes. In other words, Miguel is the supreme prince. And now we can make a parallel that can unite all the scriptures. For example. If there are several supreme princes, then Jesus is one of them, or is inferior, there is no superior to supreme. Having multiple supreme is therefore an unbiblical concept. Having a supreme who is Christ, that is biblical. So literal translation 10 is correct. There is a supreme prince and this is Jesus, so Miguel is Jesus, or Miguel is a supreme prince just like Jesus, which is unbiblical, or Jesus is inferior to Miguel, which is also unbiblical, so what what remains is that Michael is Jesus, and Jesus is the supreme prince who defends God's people.
But why define the term "one" as "first"? Was that the correct translation? Let's look at the literal form of translation.
Here says the first of the chief of the heads. If we look in Hebrew we have, where it first has (אחד- 'echad - ekh-awd'), the same echad as (Shema! Hear, O Israel: Yahweh, our Lord, is the only God!), Where we read unique is the term (echad), the same as Daniel 10:13 means the oldest, the first or the only one in antiquity.
The term chiefs comes from (ראשׁן ראשׁון- ri'shon ri'shon - ree-shone ', ree-shone'), meaning that Miguel is the first head of the heads.
So the problem is in the Portuguese translation and not the text. The Hebrew text says (miykhäël achad haSäriym härishoniym) (Miguel (miykhäël) first (initial, unique) (achad) of (ha) chiefs (Säriym) of (ha) heads (rishoniym))
So what we have is that Miguel is the be initial of all princes. What agrees with the verse. "Col_1: 15 which is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"; In other words, we are dealing with (אחד- 'echad - ekh-awd'), a numeral, and not an article. The numeral can be classified as ordinal, "first", or cardinal "one", the article is not numeral, as it does not define a number.
Again demonstrating that Michael can only be Christ.
From H4310 and (the prefixed derivation from) H3588 and H410; who (is) like God ?; In this way of reading term the addition of (is) is, and the question mark, in direct reading the term is who like god. or "whoever equals God". The triad of terms refers to an idea extremely superior to a concept, also considering the term archangel ἀρχάγγελος
The first or the head of the messengers. What agrees with the verse. Eph_4: 15 before, following the truth in love, let us grow in everything in that which is the head, Christ,
The term archangel Michael is a term that united denotes a being that could only fit in Christ.
Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
divinity, Michael, archangel, angels, heavenly kingdom, Jesus