I would appreciate your comments on Ezekiel 28. I believe God is talking about the ultimate end of the devil. What do you think?

Ezekiel 28 is a prophecy about the king of Tyre (verse 12). The prophecy is poetic, and uses symbol, metaphor, and hyperbole to describe the king, his perception of himself, his greatness, his wealth, his corruption, and his fate. (Isaiah 14 uses similar descriptions in its portrayal of the king of Babylon.)

       However, it should be understood that God, when describing the king of Tyre, draws from the imagery of another "mighty one" whose self-exalting pride caused him to "fall." The other mighty one was none other than the powerful supernatural being who became Satan the devil. The devil, as the ruler of this world, is the prototype of those human rulers who follow the same pattern of corruption.

       While the descriptions found in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 reveal much about the origin of Satan, we should realize that they are first and foremost poetic descriptions of human leaders. We could therefore easily misapply or misinterpret passages from these chapters.

       The descriptions of total destruction (Isaiah 14:15-20; Ezekiel 28:8-10) apply to the human potentates, but do not necessarily mean that the devil will cease to exist, or that he will be transformed into a man and then destroyed. While God is certainly capable of causing that to happen, these passages do not demand the conclusion that it will happen.

Since "Michael" means "one who is like God," who else but Jesus Christ can fit this description? Do you agree that you were in error [in a television program] in stating that Michael is an archangel, when there is no biblical basis for this Catholic/Protestant presumption? [Editor's note: Unlike some who believe that Michael was Christ, this writer believes the preincarnate Christ was God, and that "Michael" was one of His names.]

According to the book of Jude, Michael is an archangel (Jude 9). Jude tells us that even a strong angel like Michael refuses to pronounce judgment upon the devil, but the "Lord" (Christ, not Michael) will come "to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way" (verses 14,15). Michael the archangel and Jesus the Messiah are clearly contrasted in this passage. Of course, this proves nothing if you reject the book of Jude.

       You asked, "Since 'Michael' means 'one who is like God,' who else but Jesus Christ can fit this description?" Check Numbers 13:13; 1 Chronicles 5:13,14; 6:40; 7:3; 8:16; 12:20; 27:18; 2 Chronicles 21:2; and Ezra 8:8, and ask the same of the "Michael" named in each of these verses. There is one angel and several humans named Michael. The name means "Who is like God?"

       In Daniel 10, Michael comes to the aid of the good angel (possibly Gabriel) to fight with the prince of the kingdom of Persia. Michael is "one of the chief princes," or guardian angels. There are good and evil "princes" (angelic principalities) at work behind the scenes in the affairs of this world. Michael is Israel's "prince," or special guardian. As "one of the chief princes," he is in the same class as the other ruling angels. His battle against supernatural evil is described here, in Jude 9, and in Revelation 12. Jesus Christ is not one of several ruling angels; He is "King of kings and Lord of lords" (Revelation 19:16). He is the One of whom it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship Him" (Hebrews 1:6). The angelsand this surely includes the ruling "princes" of Daniel 1012are "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation" (Hebrews 1:14). They are contrasted with the Son (read Hebrews 1:5-14).

       In Revelation 12, the "male child" who is "caught up to God" is Christ. Then, a couple of verses later, Michael and his angels are seen fighting with the dragon and his angels. The text tells us that Michael, not the male child, fought with the dragon. This leaves the clear impression that the "male child" and Michael are two different persons. One cannot use the argument that the name Michael is used because it would seem too unnatural to have a "child" waging war against the dragon, for elsewhere in Revelation the "Lamb" wages war and expresses His wrath. A war-waging, wrathful "lamb" seems every bit as unnatural.

       The evidence tips the scales in favor of the view that Michael is not Christ, but is one of the ruling angels who, with other supernatural "princes," battles the forces of supernatural evil that are at work behind the scenes in this world.

Are the "twenty-four elders" of Revelation 4 and 5 supernatural beings who dwell in the presence of God, or are they symbolic representations of the saints? They are seated around God's throne, they are clothed in white raiment, and they wear crowns of gold (Revelation 4:24). These descriptions seem to match descriptions other passages give of the saints (Revelation 2:10; 2:26,27; 3:5; 3:21; 7:9). Doesn't this indicate that the elders symbolize the saints?

We believe the elders are supernatural beings who dwell in God's presence and who, along with the "four living creatures" and myriads of angels, are involved in heavenly worship as well as in God's purpose on earth. The fact that they are called "elders" does not mean that they are older human beings. Apparently, John refers to them as elders because of their appearance (they look like "elders," or older menan appearance that is associated with wisdom) and their office.

       There are several reasons for believing that the elders are supernatural beings rather than symbolic representations of the saints.

       First, the elders are distinguished from the saints (Revelation 5:8). Second, they are closely associated with the four "living creatures" (verse 8), and appear to be one of three classes of supernatural beings"elders," "living creatures," and "angels"involved in heavenly worship as well as in God's purpose on earth (verse 11see context). Third, the crowns and white clothing do not necessarily indicate human saints. Majesty and holiness (symbolized by crowns of gold and white clothing) are ascribed to supernatural beings as well as to the saints. John saw seven angels "clothed in pure bright linen" (Revelation 15:6). The heavenly hosts are associated with "thrones," "dominions," "principalities," and "powers" (Colossians 1:16). Michael, as "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13; cf. verse 21), is among the beings involved in warfare against the supernatural "principalities and powers" at work behind the scenes (Daniel 10; cf. Colossians 2:15). These descriptions of "princes," "thrones," "dominions," and so on, match the descriptions of the elders with their crowns and their seats of authority. Fourth, the earthly tabernacle (temple) is a pattern of the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 9). The twenty-four elders, corresponding to the twenty-four courses of priests, are seen in the priestly role of interceding on behalf of the saints.

       At least part of John's purpose in describing these supernatural beings is to emphasize the worthiness of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6). Of all the heavenly powers, including the awesome and majestic beings who dwell in the very presence of God, only the little Lamb who still bears in His body the sacrificial wound is qualified to strip away the seven seals. It seems that these descriptions (Revelation 45) lose their powerful effect (of emphasizing the worthiness of the Lamb) if we view the elders as mere symbolic representations of the saints.

In your brochure, The Seed of Satan, you give your reasons for rejecting the popular belief that in ancient times rebellious angels had sexual relations with women. Doesn't Jude 6 and 7 show that certain angels left their former habitation and went after "strange flesh" in much the same way the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah had done? Is this not speaking of unnatural sexual unions?

The angels who left their "proper domain," or "former habitation," were those who followed Satan in his rebellion. In Jude 57, Jude compares human apostates with (1) the unbelieving Israelites who were saved from Egypt, (2) the angels who rebelled, and (3) the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude was not saying that the angels of verse 6 had "gone after strange flesh" as the Sodomites had done; he was saying that the human apostates (the "certain men" of verse 4) were like Sodom and Gomorrah in that they had "given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh" (verse 7).

       The debate is over whether the "these" of verse 7 are the angels of verse 6 or someone else. Some commentators believe the term refers to Sodom and Gomorrah. They understand verse 7 this way: "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these [i.e., the nearby cities, similar to these citiesSodom and Gomorrah], having given themselves over to sexual immorality."

       However, the repeated use of "these" in the text leaves little doubt that the "these" of verse 7 are the "certain men" of verse 4. Notice: "these dreamers" (verse 8); "these speak evil" (verse 10); "These are spots in your love feasts" (verse 12); "These are grumblers" (verse 16); "These are sensual persons" (verse 19).