John Gill said Jesus is Michael the Archangel?
I've always thought of John Gill as being a fairly predictable commentator (not to say that I always agree with him) but I happened to notice this the other day:
Jude 1:9 KJV
(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel,.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, ,which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan_10:21. So Philo the Jew (o) calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel; ...
He says something similar in his commentary of Daniel 10:21 and Daniel 12:1. equating Michael to Jesus Christ, saying that Jesus is the archangel, and again in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. In all of this he affirms that Jesus is none other than our God and creator, but still... my initial thought is that "
Is John Gill is the source of the Jehovah Witness doctrine of Jesus being Michael the Archangel? John Gill, the Calvinist?"
Thoughts? Did John Gill lose his marbles? Two items of consideration:
In favor, he does point out that the reference to "the LORD rebuke thee" in Jude with its Old Testament reference, which does throw confusion into the terms "LORD" and "angel"... where it appears that the LORD himself is the "angel of the LORD" and himself as the LORD says "the LORD rebuke thee."
Zechariah 3:1-2 KJV
(1) And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing
before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
(2)
And the LORD said unto Satan,
The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
Against, is that John Gill seems to have forgotten entirely about his claim that Jesus is the archangel (which he also acknowledges as an angel) when Hebrews tells us that Jesus was no angel.
Hebrews 1:4-8 KJV
(4)
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
(5)
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7)
And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(8)
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels,.... Christ is so much better than the angels, as the Creator, than the creature; as an independent being, than a dependent one; as he that blesses, than he that is blessed; as he that is worshipped, than he that worships:
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,.... That is, he never said to any of the angels what he has said to Christ; namely, what follows,
thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee for though angels are called the sons of God, Job_1:6 yet are never said to be begotten by him; or, with this clause annexed to it, "this day have I begotten thee"; nor are they ever so called in a proper sense, or in such sense as Christ is: this is said to Christ, and of him,
... thoughts? You can get the John Gill commentary as one of the free E-sword downloads. Did Gill lose it, or does he have a valid point?