Introduction
In order to achieve greater clarity with respect to character and plot in the cosmic conflict, it is necessary to go over the Old Testament ground once more, this time with an eye on the leading agents of the two sides and on the words and actions with which these characters are associated. On both counts the gains promise to be substantial.^ As to characters, the poem in Isaiah names the character fighting a losing battle in Revelation (Isa 14:12), investing him with characteristics quite different from the negative comiotation of his names, titles, and actions in Revelation (12:9; 20:2). These allusions literally give background to the protagonist of evil. On the other hand, there also seems to be an ill-defined boundary between the triumph of Jesus (12:5) and the angelic figure Michael (12:7) in Revelation. As to action, the verbal and spoken record in Isaiah’s poem and in the Genesis account of the fall must be pursued in search for a clearer grasp of the plot in the native context and then in the context of Revelation (Isa
14:13-14; Gen 3:1-6).
The Characters in Revelation 12
Jesus
In what is here identified as the primordial begimiing of Revelation’s story line, a conflict erupts in heaven between Ô icoci ol ayyeXoi amox) and 6 ôpccKwy...
' Boring (“Narrative Christology,” 720) voices an excessive and unnecessary nihilism with respect to the plot in Revelation on the conviction that tlie allusions to the Old Testament in Revelation have been stripped of their plot. “Just how the creation was perverted or went awry is not dealt with or even hinted at in this story,” he asserts in a summary statement, adding the somewhat contradictory note that “the problem that is resolved in this story is a cosmic problem that finds a cosmic solution.”
Kal ol &YYEÀOL auToO (12:7). The identity and characteristics of the parties thus described pose a number of questions. Michael is only named once in Revelation, but his role seems to encroach on, or at least to overlap with, Christ’s function and
prerogatives. Wliile the naiTative initially describes the cosmic battle as a conflict of Michael with the dragon and their respective angels, a pointed shift appears to occur in course of telling the story. Collins obseiwes that “when the dragon has been defeated the kingdom is awarded, not to Michael and his angels, but to Christ.”^ Ford takes note of the same phenomenon, remarking that “it is strange for it to be Michael, rather than the Messiah, who overcomes the dragon.”^ She is equally puzzled by the brief
appearance of the male child in the story since nothing more is said of him despite his obvious importance in the conflict.^
The possibility of such an encroachment is enhanced by the existence of numerous angelic representations of God in the Old Testament,^ by the prominence of
^ John J. Collins, “The Son of Man and tlie Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel,” JBL
93 (1974), 65. That Michael is the victor over the dragon is also pointed out by Bousset {Offenbarung, 340). Boring (“Narrative Christology,” 710) takes away a similar impression from the struggle that lies at the heart of Revelation, thus “the Messiah plays a rather minor and passive role. He is born, rescued from the dragon, and caught up to God and to His tlirone. At the exaltation of the Messiah, the dragon is defeated and cast down from heaven. But it is Michael and his armies, not the Messiah, who defeats him.” Kalms {Sturz des Gottesfeindes, 72) also points it out as a difficulty for the interpretation of Revelation 12 that Christ is not leading the struggle.
^ Ford, Revelation, 194.
“Curiously enough,” Ford {Revelation, 205) observes, “the child does not reappear (unless he is to be identified with the Anointed One in the inteipolated passage in 12:7-13.” This puzzle can have no other resolution than that the male child in 12:5 and the anointed one in 12:10 in some way meet in the
same person.
^ In his overview and discussion of the “Angel of the Lord” concept in the Old Testament, Charles A. Gieschen {Angelomorphic Christology [AGAJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998], 51-69) differentiates between depictions where God and the angel are indistinguishable, that is, a visible manifestation of God, and instances where the angel is distinct from God but shares God’s authority. Gieschen points to Ex 23:20-1 as the crucial text in support of tlie second category. In the light of this evidence James D. G. Dunn’s claim that “Y/îé angel ofYahweh ' is simply a way o f speaking about Yahweh himself'seems overly simplistic and should not be accepted as a foregone conclusion; cf. Christology in the Making (2'“^ ed.; London: SCM Press, 1989), 150.
Michael in the book of Danief and in Jewish apocalyptic works/ and by angelic or angelomorphic depictions of Clnist in early Clnistian writings/ While the extent and meaning of angelic representations of Christ are disputed/ it raises relevant questions
Lewis O, Anderson, Jr. (“The Michael Figure in the Book of Daniel,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Andrews University, 1997, 439) sees Michael combine “within his person the functions of the Angel of the Lord as the personal guide and guardian of Israel, of the Son of Man as the transcendent being who appears at the eschaton, and of the Messiah, as the hoped for eschatological deliverer.”
’ There is little doubt that Michael emerges as the prmcipal named angel in Jewish literature in the pre- and early Clnistian era (Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 125-37). As to identity, the enigmatic U Q Melchizedek at Qumran pictures a heavenly figure that seems to conflate Melchizedek and Michael. As to function, this figure is to effect atonement, achieve the overthrow of Belial, and usher in of the year of jubilee; cf. M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, “HQ Melchizedek and the New Testament,” NTS 12 (1966), 301-26; see also James R. Davila, “Melchizedek, Michael, and War in Heaven,” SBL Seminar Papers 1996, 259-72; Darell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity (WUNT 2.109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 75. In a wide-ranging study of angels in Qumranic literature. Maxwell J. Davidson {Angels at Qumran [JSP Sup 11; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], 148, 263) argues that the Prince of Lights in the Rule of the Communityis an angel, and that this angel, following Yigael Yadin, is Michael. Davidson also sees Michael as the Prince of Lights, God’s angel of truth and the spirit of tmth in the Two Spirits Discourse.
^ An identification of Clnist with Michael seems almost certain in Shepherd o f Hermas {Herm. Sim. 8.3.3); cf. J. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (trans. Jolui A. Baker; London: Darton, Longman and Tood/Chicago: Heniy Regnery, 1964), 124; Halvor Moxnes, “God and His Angel in the Shepherd of Hermas,” ST 2^ (1974), 49-56; Carolyn Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortiess Press, 1999), 204. Collins (“Son of Man,” 65) designates die celebration of victory in Rev 12:10 as “an example of angelic christology” because “the role allotted to Michael or another angelic figure in Jewish texts is here allotted to Clirist.” Based on the literary relationship between descriptions of an angel in Daniel and the risen Cln ist in Revelation and on die assumption that an angelophany also has ingredients of a theophany, Clnistopher Rowland sees early Cliristology aided by Jewish angelology; cf. “The Vision of die Risen Clnist in Rev i.l3 ff.: The Debt of An Early
Clnistology to An Aspect of Jewish Angelology,” JTS 31 (1980), 1-11; idem., “A Man Clothed in Linen: Daniel 10.6ff. and Jewish Angelology,” JSNT2A (1985), 99-110.
^ Dumi {Christology, 158) makes the sweeping and improvable assertion that 'There is no evidence that any NT writer thought o f Jesus as actually present in Israel’s past, either as the angel of the Lord, or as ‘the Lord’ himself,” while reluctantly making allowance for angelomorphic descriptions of Clnist in Revelation (p. 156). Larry W. Hurtado {One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988], 74) comes to the New Testament
evidence with a more nuanced question than does Dunn, asking not whether any of its writers viewed Clnist as an angel but rather “whether Jewish angelology may have assisted early Jewish CMstians in coming to terms theologically with the exalted Clnist.” Richard Bauckham (“The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism, eds. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 43-69) takes a skeptical view of the entire concept of ‘angelomoiphic Christology,’ discounting visual resemblances as a blind alley because descriptions of a heavenly being are not specific enough to establish the identity of that being with certainty. Instead, God
is set apart from all other beings as “sole Creator and sole Supreme Ruler,” and perceptions of God’s unique identity are manifested in worship, which is specifically denied to or refused by angelic beings. Identification of Jesus with God, not divine bifurcation or some angelic intermediary figure, mediates in Bauckham’s view the early Cliristian understanding of Christ.
with regard to the Michael figure in Revelation to the point that some interpreters see 6 Mi%af]À as Clirist/^
One camiot take the answer to this question for granted one way or the other. It is also clear that the importance of this question for the story line is considerable. If it is decided that Michael cannot refer to Clnist, it will be necessary to delimit the role of the Michael figure so as not to detract from Chiist the victory ovei'whelmingly attributed to him in the cosmic conflict depicted in Revelation. This is particularly vital since the victory ascribed to Cln*ist relates to the means by which victory is achieved (5:6, 9;
12:5; 19:1, 13). If, on the other hand, the Michael figure stands for Christ, it is equally important to explore underexposed parameters in the story that could account for such terminology and conflation of identity.
There is no doubt that the risen Clnist in Revelation is portrayed in language previously used by Daniel (Rev 1:13-16; Dan 10:5-6).^ ^ It seems equally certain that the “man clothed in linen” in Daniel’s vision has angelic fonn (Dan 10:5; 12:6-7; cf. Rev 10:5-6). The person introduced in Revelation can be none other than the risen Jesus, saying of himself, “I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever” (1:18).^^ Jesus is here invested with angelic or angelomorphic characteristics, but he is also
Cf. Collins, “Son of Man,” 65. Robert H. Gimdry (“Angelomoiphic Cln istology in the Book of Revelation,” SBL Seminar Papers 1994, 662-78) finds Revelation replete with angelomoiphic representations o f Chiist also m the sense that Christ assumes the functions of an angel. Traugott Holtz {Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes [TU 85; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962], 117-18) notes the angelomorphic features in Revelation’s description of Clnist, but he thinks that the author departs sufficiently fiom the Old Testament text to distinguish Christ from an angel. Rowland (“Vision of the Risen Chiist,” 1-11) is not saying that Chiist is seen ontologically as an angel in Revelation, but he maintains that Old Testament angelology is a featuie of early Clnistology. Adela Yarbro Collins
{Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism [JSJSup 50; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996], 159) concludes that “the book of Revelation expresses an angelic Christology which is best understood in the context of the Jewish motif of the principal angel.”
“ This is hardly a new msight, but it has been laid out again in persuasive detail by Peter F. Carrell m Jesus and the angels: Angelology and the christology o f the Apocalypse o f John (SNTSMS 95; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 148-65.
endowed with attributes belonging to “an Ancient One” (Dan 7:9, NRSV) or “the Ancient of Days” (NKJV). As the Ancient of Days takes his seat on the fiery throne, Daniel notes “the hair of his head like pure wool” as one of his features (Dan 7:9)/^ Revelation applies the same feature to Clirist (1:14). Characteristics of an angel and attributes belonging to God are thus conflated to represent Jesus. The angel appearing to Daniel is not Michael, but the implication is that had Daniel described Michael, he would have had a similar appearance.
It is possible to make these elements mean no more than stock descriptions of an exalted heavenly being,but one camiot be entirely confident that the author of
Revelation had no more than this in mind. Michael is looming ever larger in Daniel’s representations. He is described as “one of the chief princes” (10:13), “your prince” (10:21), and finally “the great prince, the protector of your people” (12:1).’^ Two possibilities are especially noteworthy in Lewis O. Anderson’s study of the Michael figure in Daniel. He suggests that when Daniel writes that “Michael shall arise,” one could appropriately substitute “at that time shall Yahweh arise.” The other notable feature is Daniel’s intimate association of Michael with the resurrection (Dan 12:1), especially in view of the fact that explicit references to the resurrection are extremely
Loren T. Stuckeiibruck {Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology o f the Apocalypse o f John [WUNT 2/70; Tübingen: J. C. B. Moin- (Paul Siebeck), 1995], 213) finds it significant that this characteristic is the only one exclusively associated with God.
Carrell {Jesus and the angels, 155-56) may be correct that these external similarities are not intended to suggest identity of Christ with the Ancient of Days or with an angel.
Cf. Bauckham, “Worship of Jesus,” 51.
Danie l 1 2:1, Tjiay m 'h v nnpn ‘pinan “iton'pKS’p I b r X'-nn is tianslated in the LXX as i c a l K a r a T p v w p au e K eiv r iv ' t r a p c A .e u a e T ai Mi%aT|% 6 ayy^Xoç 6 l a é y a ç oco t tik q c è ï ï l t o ù ç uloùç t oO