Is It Possible For Christians To Be Possessed By Demons?

We know from Scripture that it is impossible for genuine Christians to be possessed by demons because they are owned by God Himself (1 Corinthians 7:23). He is sovereign over creation, and nothing can snatch us from His hand. As Jesus declared, "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:29). Demons, therefore, have no control or dominion over us.

God has redeemed us with the shed blood of His Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 20:28). The cost of our redemption was the precious blood of Jesus, signifying the immense value God places on us as His children. This redemption means that we have been bought at a price and now belong to God. Consequently, demons have no claim over us; we cannot be taken possession of by them.

The God who indwells us is greater than the forces of this world (1 John 4:4). The Holy Spirit's presence within believers signifies God's ownership and protection. The Spirit empowers us, guides us, and assures us of our standing as God's children (Romans 8:15-16). Demons, being part of the created order, are subject to God's authority and cannot possess a believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. As Paul writes, "For you are the temple of the living God" (2 Corinthians 6:16), and there can be no fellowship between the Holy Spirit and demons.

Christ's victory over demonic powers is comprehensive and conclusive. Colossians 2:15 tells us that Jesus disarmed the principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them by triumphing over them through the cross. This victory is not only historical but also active in the lives of believers. As we stand firm in Christ, we are reminded that He has already defeated the enemy, and this victory is ours to claim through faith.

Understanding that Christians cannot be possessed by demons has significant practical implications. It provides believers with a sense of security and confidence in their spiritual walk. This assurance allows Christians to focus on their sanctification process, growing in holiness without fear of demonic possession. However, believers must remain vigilant, recognizing that while they cannot be possessed, they can still be oppressed or tempted by demonic forces. Continual reliance on God's strength and the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Scripture reading, and fellowship are essential in maintaining spiritual health.

Does God Hate Sinners?

        "The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity." (Psalm 5:5)

        God's Law is perfect. It is a reflection of His character and nature. He cannot allow sin and rebellion into His kingdom. God absolutely despises iniquity. He judges sinners. He punishes sinners. Sin stems forth from the human heart. His wrath is a reality. God cannot simply ignore or overlook our sin. This biblical truth should give rise to a state of concern in people. However, there is good news which counterbalances the bad news of humanity being condemned by God for sin.

        God is loving and gracious. He is patient. At the same time, our Creator is holy and just. He is provoked to wrath by our unrighteousness. God's love and hatred are perfect. He hates without sinful intent. To be hated of God means to be under His wrath and judgment. Those whom He loves are those who have found favor in His sight. It was out of His unfathomable love for us that He sent His only begotten Son into this world to make atonement for our sins:

        "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." (Romans 5:8-10)

        There exists a debt of sin against God, who is holy, that needed to be settled (Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:56). No man in his fallen condition could possibly fulfill the necessary demands to make restitution. Thus, Jesus Christ took on human flesh so that we could be reconciled to God. He is without sin. An infinite debt requires a ransom of infinite value.

        "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)

        Jesus is the tangible manifestation of God's love for humanity. He came to bring spiritual life to us. Therefore, those who desire to have fellowship with God must be restored to harmony with Him through faith in Christ. We must have our sins forgiven. We must have our sins removed. God took the initiative to save us, even though we had no merit on our part.

        How can a God of love hate at the same time? God is love, but love is not God Himself. That is not all there is to God. There are many aspects of His character. He is a complex being. God's provisional love for sinners is not incompatible with His righteous judgment. He has every attribute perfectly. If we are Christians, then God is not only our King but also our Father.

         God does indeed love us, but it is more than warm feelings. He has provided a means for us to escape divine condemnation. The richness of His mercy is unsearchable. He desires reconciliation with sinners, especially those who believe on Christ for salvation. Nevertheless, we should not take these truths lightly. We should abhor sin, just as He does. We should reject it, regardless of the cost. In fact, the command for us to love our enemies is rooted in God's provisional love for sinners.

         We are justified by God's grace through our faith in Christ's atonement for sin. We cannot merit our salvation. God desires that all men come to salvation (Acts 17:26-31). He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). He has no desire in punishing the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:10-11). It is not God who sends people to hell. People end up there because that is the eternal destiny that they chose for themselves. There is a day coming in which every man will give account of himself to God.

How Miracles Illustrate The Foolishness Of Atheism

        Atheists quickly rule out the possibility of miracles because a consistent naturalistic worldview does not allow them to embrace the validity of supernatural realities. In other words, these people automatically deem false anything that is not observable to the five human senses. This is done by atheists in their attempts to eliminate God from the equation of life. Following is a handful of basic points to keep in mind within the context of atheism and the miraculous.

        There are indeed rare, extraordinary phenomena, whether they be recovery from near impossible medical emergencies or survival without injury from natural disasters. There has even been drastic character transformation in formally malicious people who converted to Christianity. Consider the example of the Apostle Paul who was a murderer prior to his conversion. It would be more reasonable to attribute such incidents to divine providence than to mere chance.

        We should not make the hasty generalization of dismissing authentic miracles along with counterfeits. Authentic experiences serve as evidences for God being very much at work throughout creation. The real issue is that we lack faith in Him. That is a tendency of our fallen nature. The issue that carries the greatest weight is whether miracles are even possible.

        Empirical evidence is not the only form of available evidence. There is also eyewitness testimony. One need not assume without proof that the New Testament writings are historically fraudulent, especially when it has so much manuscript evidence favoring its veracity. Something is termed miraculous only when no other explanation exists that is scientific.

        Scientific experiments tell us how nature regularly operates under certain conditions, not that miracles are an impossibility. Thus, there are both natural and supernatural explanations. It is because of our scientific knowledge that we can discern whether an occurrence is a miracle. Miracles do not contradict natural laws, but rather transcend them. God has the power to temporarily suspend scientific laws for His own purposes because He created them.

        Furthermore, it is a highly unscientific to assume that God does not exist because such a colossal argument requires that one obtain infinite knowledge about everything. This cannot be done by beings who are finite by design. He is beyond the limited scope of nature. A test-tube will never be capable of coherently explaining the fullness of reality.

        If the God of the Bible does exist (which we maintain that He does), then the case is closed. He can indeed work miracles. Whether one believes in the possibility of miracles is ultimately a matter of underlying philosophical presuppositions about this world. Even if there were no supreme deity governing the universe, atheism would still have no reason to exist or proclaim itself to be true. The concept of moral truths would be no different than our personal appetites.

Human Love Can Become Corrupt

"We may give our human loves the unconditional allegiance which we owe only to God. Then they become gods: then they become demons. Then they will destroy us, and also destroy themselves. For natural loves that are allowed to become gods do not remain loves. They are still called so, but can become in fact complicated forms of hatred."

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 8

True Love Entails Self-Sacrifice

"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell."

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 121

Is The Office Of The Pope A Fulfillment Of Moses' Seat (Matthew 23:1-2)?

           "After Jesus established His Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter’s chair became the new seat of authority under the New Covenant. This is why, when the Pope officially speaks on a matter of faith and morals with the intention of proclaiming a universal doctrine for the Church (which is rare), we say He is speaking “ex cathedra” (from the “chair”). Jesus’ use of the “chair of Moses” certainly shows a continuum of authority as the New Covenant replaced the Old." (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/qa-seat-moses/)

          Moses' seat was a symbolic expression of teaching the Pentateuch. Further, it pertained more to civil law than issuing religious dogma (Exodus 18:13-27). It was applied to the Jews as the standard of judgment. Moses was judge; the priesthood constituted a theocracy. These leaders did not continually make up new laws, but rather upheld the laws that God had originally given to His people through Moses. They could teach only to the extent of what the Law said. If the chair of Moses was a prophetic anticipation of papal authority being bestowed by Christ to Peter, then why were many men able to utilize it at the same time rather than a signle ruler who presides over everyone else?

            The New Testament never associates some chair of Peter with the seat of Moses, nor does it speak of him as having apostolic successors. Even if there was historical evidence for a tradition of successors from Moses' seat (which we have none so far), it would not follow that there exists a logical connection between that and a succession of Roman bishops. Neither is there any evidence suggesting that the Jewish people attributed a charism of teaching infalliblity to their leaders. In fact, we know from the gospels themselves that the scribes and Pharisees promulgated doctrinal error. They were called by Jesus Christ "blind guides" and accused of "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:1-9; 23:16).

           Whatever teaching from the writings of Moses and the Prophets that the scribes and Pharisees had faithfully taught, Christ instructed His audience to obey. Their teachings in that regard were authoritative. However, He told them to not emulate the moral and doctrinal errors of the religious leaders (Matthew 23:3). These men made themselves appear extremely pious in their daily religious practices before others, but God knew that their hearts were far from Him. He knew that the scribes and Pharisees were only seeking flattery from the public. Their reward was received while still on earth. If anything at all, we should take this passage of Scripture to be a warning against pride.

           Negative parallels exist between the scribes and Pharisees back in the days of Jesus Christ's earthly ministry and the modern Church of Rome. Catholics appeal to a traceable lineage to lend credence to the veracity of their arguments, yet Jesus and John the Baptist rejected the scribes and Pharisees who made similar arguments (Matthew 3:7-9; John 8:36-45). The Church of Rome claims to possess divine oral tradition, yet Christ strongly rebuked the religious leaders of His day who made identical claims (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:7-13). Roman Catholic officials unashamedly wield religious titles of honor, yet Christ expressed emphatic disapproval of people who reserved such for themselves (Matthew 23:8-12). Just as the critics of Jesus asked by what authority He performed miracles (Luke 20:2), Roman Catholic apologists ask the same question in regard to us making interpretations of Scripture.

Does Daniel 7:13-14 Affirm That Jesus Is God?

          “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14, emphasis added)

          This messianic prophecy articulated through Daniel emphatically describes God ("Ancient of Days") as sitting in judgment over the conquered nations of rebellion. They are represented in context as various beasts, along with the establishment of the eternal throne of Jesus Christ His Son. He is clearly portrayed in this text as being sovereign over creation. He is thus a figure worthy of our worship. This vision reveals to us that both God the Father and God the Son rule over all creation.

          This is the only occurrence in the Old Testament of the term "son of man" referring solely to the promised Jewish Messiah. Daniel wrote of Jesus Christ from the viewpoint of heaven, whereas the gospel writers described Him from an earthly vantage point. After His resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven through the clouds. Now, He sits at the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:12). Christ has been given dominion over His eternal kingdom. 

          Moreover, the text of Daniel 7:13-14 can be paralleled with Revelation chapters four and five. In that context, we see that the Lamb of God alone is found to be worthy of opening the scroll declaring the inheritance of the nations. This takes place when the evil kingdoms of this world get eliminated forever. He has been given authority, glory, and power. Christ reigns with majestic glory for all eternity onward. He shares the throne of God. Christ is truly God incarnate.

          Jerome wrote the following in his commentary on Daniel 7:13:

          “And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man.” He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven' (Acts 1:11)”.

          Wayne A. Grudem provides further insight on the text of Daniel 7:13-14 being a messianic prophecy: 

          "Someone who had heavenly origin and who was given eternal rule over the whole world. The high priests did not miss the point of this passage when Jesus said, ‘Hereafter you will see the Son of man seated on the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven‘ (Matt. 26:46). The reference to Daniel 7:13-14 was unmistakable, and the high priest and his council knew that Jesus was claiming to be the eternal world ruler of heavenly origin spoken of in Daniel’s vision. Immediately they said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy…. He deserves death’ (Matt. 26:65-66).” (Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, p. 238)

AMA Statement on Abortion

"There we shall discover an enemy in the camp; there we shall witness as hideous a view of moral deformity as the evil spirit could present…. Men who seek not to save, but to destroy; men known not only to the profession, but to the public, as abortionists….

“Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment is given to all, and applies to all without exception…. Notwithstanding all this, we see in our midst a class of men, regardless of all principle, regardless of all honor; who daily destroy that fair fabric of God’s creation; who daily pull down what he has built up; who act in antagonism to that profession of which they claim to be members….

It matters not at what state of development his victim may have arrived—it matters not how small or how apparently insignificant it may be—it is a murder; a foul, unprovoked murder; and its blood, like the blood of Abel, will cry from earth to Heaven for vengeance….

Every practicing physician in the land (as well as every good man) has a certain amount of interest at stake in this matter…. The members of the profession should form themselves into a special police to watch, and to detect, and bring to justice these characters. They should shrink with horror from all intercourse with them, professionally or otherwise. These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society."

American Medical Association 1871 statement on abortion, as cited by Randy Alcorn in "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments," p. 217

Evaluating Roman Catholic Claims Of Apostolic Succession

• The Catechism Of The Roman Catholic Church Says In Regard To Apostolic Succession:

          -“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (CCC # 77)

          -"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (CCC # 882)

• Apostolic Succession As Defined By The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

          -“…the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession...Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession.…Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles…” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Apostolicity")

• Biblical Arguments Against Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession:

          -There is very little evidence that the Apostle Peter stayed in Rome, apart from the timing of his martyrdom. No one can rightly claim to have the same authority as the apostles, since they are not eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection (Acts 1:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1).
          -The New Testament never records the apostles passing on their authority to successors.
          -The original teachings of Jesus Christ, the apostles, and their closest associates have been accurately recorded and preserved in the New Testament. Scripture equips the man of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Truth can easily be determined when Scripture is properly exegeted.
          -The determining factor of the truthfulness and faithfulness of a church is its adherence to Scripture (Acts 17:11-12). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to have a physical, traceable lineage back to Abraham, yet Christ rejected them (John 8:36-45). We do not need a chain of apostolic successors from Christ and the original apostles to preserve divinely revealed truth (Matthew 3:7-9; Galatians 3:7). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to posses divine extra-biblical tradition, yet Christ publicly refuted them with Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9).
          -The only known historical record containing the inspired words of Jesus Christ and the apostles is the New Testament itself. That is the remnants of apostolic authority. The Encyclopedia Britannica affirms that, "the origins of episcopacy are obscure."

• Is Acts 1:15-26 An Example Of Apostolic Succession, As Roman Catholic Apologists Claim?: 

          -The context of this passage is talking *specifically* about the traitor Judas. Moreover, Acts 1:15-26 does not mention anything about the apostles having future successors. If this passage proves anything at all, then it does not provide us with an argument for apostolic succession. Rather, it provides biblical warrant for replacing ungodly and unfaithful church leaders with ones who are actually fit to serve God.
          -At this point, the apostles did not begin their apostolic ministry. They did not even receive the power Christ had promised to bestow upon them earlier in this chapter (Acts 1:8). The apostles did not receive it until the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, this is not an example of the apostles passing on spiritual authority to successors. The apostles did not have any power at this time.
          -This occasion was the actual replacement of an apostle with another apostle. This is dissimilar with the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession, considering that they teach that only apostolic authority is passed on (not the essence of the office itself). Papal "successors" themselves do not become apostles like Matthias did.

• Does 2 Timothy 2:2 Provide Evidence For Apostolic Succession?:

          -The Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to pass on the truth of the gospel to "faithful men," not "priests and bishops." This passage merely describes the simple process of discipleship and the passing on of apostolic doctrine (i.e. "what you heard from me"). In fact, this theme is echoed throughout the two epistles written to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:6-11; 16; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; 3:14-15). There is no mention in this context of passing on extra-biblical oral tradition or infallible teaching authority. Catholics simply read these concepts into Scripture. Note that Paul does not say anything in reference to a future successor for himself. Instead, he pointed to Scripture as our rule of faith (2 Timothy 3:16-17). He mentions nothing else for us to turn to in times of deception.

• Apostolic Succession And The Early Church: 

          -When one finds references to apostolic succession in the earliest Christian writings, it is quite different from how the modern Church of Rome perceives this concept. The earliest churches occupied the term as a proof of the preservation of doctrinal truth, whereas the Rome has coined the phrase to describe the passing on of authority in a specific office. The use of apostolic succession as a preservation of truth given by the apostles was used by all of the churches that were founded by them in the first century. Apostolic succession was used as an argument against Gnosticism. 

          -The Jewish people had lists of successors for their priests and teachers. One example of priestly succession in Judaism is the transition from Aaron to his son Eleazar. So, the earliest Christians would have already been familiar with such a concept. The early church developed creeds on the basis of Scripture. Doctrinal developments were not originally foreign to the New Testament. New ideas would be tested to see if they would contradict already established doctrines. The earliest Christians were not governed by an overarching church hierarchy headquartered in Rome. The emphasis of lineage in the early church was spiritual. Each congregation worked independently to preserve apostolic truth, but had fellowship together and cooperated to settle disputes.

• Contradictions In Early Succession Lists Of Roman Bishops:

          -"There are contradictory late second century and early third century succession lists of alleged Roman bishops. Why is this so? Many scholars note it is because there actually was no succession of a single bishop until A.D. 150. This is why such later church fathers contradicted each other on who the earliest single bishops were. Writing around A.D. 180 Irenaeus wrote that Peter and Paul instituted Linus as the first Roman bishop and then Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherius followed (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3). However, writing around A.D. 200 Tertullian offers a rival view. Instead of Peter and Paul instituting Linus as the first Roman bishop and then Clement being third in the list as Irenaeus claimed, Tertullian said Peter ordained Clement as the first Roman bishop. Clement went from being the third bishop of Rome to the first." (Keith Thompson, "Absence of Papal Views Among the Earliest Christians")

• The Papacy And Its Historical Development:

          -No available writings from the first and second centuries affirm that the Apostle Peter was appointed the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The most primitive sources documenting the existence of the Christian faith say nothing about the necessity of believing in the primacy of Peter or the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. What is also interesting, is that the earliest pagans and heretics never objected to the existence of the Papacy in their dialogues with early Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian. What we do find in patristic writings is that congregations were governed by pluralities of elders.
          -For the first three centuries of Christianity, the Roman church was viewed with a position of honor among Christians (distinguished from a position of primacy). It was located in the capital of the empire, which was also known as the "Eternal City." This church was the largest, eventually totaling around 30,000 by the middle of the third century, despite persecution by the Roman Empire. The church at Rome was the most prosperous church financially in the West. It was known for theological orthodoxy and being a center for charity. The church at Rome's larger size greatly enhanced its impact. The apostles Peter and Paul were viewed as the founders of the Roman church by the timing of the second century. However, Rome possessed no more authority than other churches for at least three centuries. Rome was esteemed because it was custom, not owing to institution by Christ.
          -Roman Emperor Constantine moved the capital east from Rome to the city of Byzantium. It was given the name Constantinople. It was regarded as the “New Rome." The political focus of the Roman Empire was moved to the East. Consequently, the bishop of Constantinople acquired the status of religious headship. A fundamental cultural dilemma which led up to the split of the Roman Empire was that Christians within the Western church spoke the Latin language and the Eastern church was Greek. This separation increased upon the death of Constantine in A.D. 337 as his two sons inherited a divided kingdom.
          -In 381, Roman Emperor Theodosius summoned an assembly in which he declared the bishop of Constantinople to be in a position of supremacy, as Constantinople was considered the New Rome. However, Rome reacted in strong disagreement. The Roman Bishop Damasus announced for the first time the supremacy of Rome, and argued in the same fashion as do modern Roman Catholic apologists who appeal to Matthew 16:18.
          -In Rome, the leadership position was passed along seven bishops after Damasus up to Leo, who was appointed bishop in 440. He afterward taught on the matter of the Christian church's authority being grounded in the Roman bishop, since the "keys" were given by Jesus Christ to Peter (which was a gross misapplication of Scripture). Authority was wrongfully bestowed upon the bishop of Rome on this basis— 400+ years after the death of Christ. Thus, it was not the early church nor was it the apostolic church. Joseph F. Kelly said, “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.” (The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity, p. 2)

• Vatican Forgeries:

          -The Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian decretals are examples of fraudulent documents written and latter used by popes to bolster claims of their supremacy over the church.
          -The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online says that the, "Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages."

Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel?

• Defining The Issues: 

          -The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel are the same person. They teach that Michael is Jesus in His preexisting form. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Christ was the first part of God's creation, prior to the formation of Adam. It is believed that Christ resumed His role as Michael the Archangel after His death and resurrection. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the concept of a bodily resurrection, so they teach that He rose spiritually from the grave. This view carries with it a number of exegetical and theological problems, however. For instance, Jesus cannot simply be Michael the Archangel because the angels worshiped Him:

          "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?...And let all the angels of God worship Him...Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands... But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”?" (Hebrews 1 paraphrased)

          Jesus Christ is exalted by God in a way never given to angels. His name is above that of the angels. Further, angels are never called the Son of God. Never has God said that He is their Father. Thus, the author of Hebrews clearly distinguishes Christ from the angels. 

          Consider the following passage from Revelation in which angels worship Christ. He is given adoration, which no angels can justifiably claim for themselves:

          "And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped." (Revelation 5:13-14)

          Christ has a position of authority over creation that only God Himself can legitimately be said to have. If He is a created being, then the angels who offered Him worship would have been condemned by God for acts of idolatry. Scripture forbids the worship of creations (Deuteronomy 6:13), including angels. Therefore, Jesus Christ must not be an angel, but God Himself. 

          The Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear Translation renders Hebrews 1:3 as follows: "[Jesus] is the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being." If Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, then, according to the logic of the cited text, then that would mean the very essence or nature of God must be that of an angel. That would be nothing short of sheer blasphemy.

          If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, then why is it that he had to call upon the name of the Lord in order to cast judgment on the devil?:

          "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you." (Jude 9)

           Christ openly rebuked Satan without invoking any name of authority. He wields the same power and authority as God because that is who He is:

          "and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." (Matthew 4:9-10)