General results of study of metaphors. — The above lists, by no means exhaustive, of metaphors in the NT and early Christian literature, show how rich and various was the stock of ideas from which the writers of Christian antiquity drew to illustrate the gospel message with which their heart was aflame. It is obvious that to under- stand aright we must know something of the back- ground of the Early Church in the pagan world,
tliat welter of rites and cults in the Gra;co- Koman and Oriental world which modern research has done so much to make vivid. Yet some are probably mistaken in attaching too much import- ance, or the wrong sort of importance, to all this : the phraseology in which the gospel message was first clothed had often extraneous origin ; the message itself was fresh and unique. External influences may account for the form but not for the fact. It may be that in some cases a metaphor or figure, not only of word but of thought, all'ected the thought which it clothed, and this is the sole argument for ' mythology ' in the NT. This leads, in conclusion, to the psychological aspect of meta- phor. Psychology ' proves the fundamental con- nexion between the religious and the non-religious aspects of Life and Thought' (S. A. Cook, Founda- tions of Religion, 1914, p. 91). All spiritual truths are conceived through imperfect symbols, but the symbol must be examined, and what is essential separated from the outward form, before the truth within can be clear.
Literature.— For Metaphor as a whole : F. E. Kdnig, artt. 'Style of Scripture' .and 'Symbols and Symbolical Actions' in HUB v., Stili^tik, Rhetorik, Poetik, in Bezug an/ die bihlischc Litteratnr, komparatimsch darqestellt, 1900; L-. E. Browne, The Parables of the Gospels (liulsean Prize Essay), 1913 ; W. Sanday, ChristoUigies Ancient and Modern, 1910, ch. ix. : 'The Guiding Principle of Symbolism.'
For the books of the NT, the best Commentaries ; especially Sanday - Headlam, Romans ^ (ICC), 1902 ; Robertson"- Plummer, 1 Corinthians (ICC), 1911 ; H. L. Goudge, 1 Corinthians (Westminster Com., 1903) ; J. Armitage Robinson, Ephesians, 1903 ; G. Milligan, Thessalonians, 190S ; J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians*, 1878; J. B. Mayor, Ep. of St. Jaines-K 1910 ; A. E. Brooke, Johannine Epistles (ICC), 1912 ; H. B. Swete, Apocaljjpsc of St. John", 1907.
General: C. Clemen, Primitive Christianity and its Non- Jewish Sources, Eng. tr., 1012 ; H. St. J. Thackeray, Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thoufjht, 1900; G. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, Eng. tr.2, 1911. Other authorities quoted in the text. L. D. AGATE.
MICHAEL (Heb.Wp,' Who is like God?').— In Dn 10-' Michael is described as the 'prince,' i.e. the patron or guardian angel of Israel, in antithesis to the ' prince ' of Persia and the ' prince ' of Greece (v.-°). In the account of the troublous times of the Last Days in 12', Michael, ' the great prince,' is Israel's champion, by whom deliverance is wrought. These are the only references supplied by the OT, but they exercised a powerful influence upon the Jewish tradition that grew up regarding Michael (in which he further appears as one of the seven archangels and the chief of the four great arch- angels), and through this upon NT conceptions. In the NT he is twice mentioned by name (.Jude*, where he is described as ' the archangel,' and Rev 12'), and in both cases discharges functions that are in keeping with the position assigned him in Daniel. (1) In Jude» (cf. Dt 34«), which is based on the apocryphal Assumption of Moses (see Orig. de Princip. III. ii. 1), he stands forward as the repre- sentative of Israel to dispute the Devil's claim to possess the body of Moses, a claim made, according to the apocryphal book, on the two grounds that the Devil was the lord of matter and that Moses had been guilty of slaying the Egyptian (see Charles, Assumption of Moses, 1897, p. 1051}'.). (2) In Rev 12' as in Dn 12 Michael plaj's a leading part in the conflict that is to issue in the Messianic triumph of the Last Days. In accordance with the Jewish eschatological idea of a celestial b.attle which is to precede this triumph (Sib. Orac. iii. 79611'.), there is war in heaven, and Michael and his angels go forth to war with the great red dragon (otherwise described as ' the old serpent, he that is called tlie Devil and Satan,' v.') and his angels, with the result that the latter are overthrown and cast down to the earth. The significant thing here is the position assigned to Michael. It is by him, not by the ' man cliild who is to rule all the nations
36
MIDIAN
MILETUS
with a rod of iron ' (v.'), tliat the dragon is over- come and cast out from heaven (cf. Bousset, Der Antichrist, 1895, p. 151 tt'.).
There are two other passages in the NT where Michael, though not mentioned, appears to be referred to. (1) In Ac 7^" he is probably to be identified witli the angel who spoke to Moses in Mount Sinai. According to Gal 3" the Law was 'ordained by anr;els,' and in He 2^ ' tlie word ' is described as ' spoKen by angels' (cf. Jos. Ant. XV. V. 3). In Jub. i. 27, ii. 1, liowever, it is the angel of the presence who instructs Moses and delivers to him the tables of the Law, and in what was probably the original Assumption of Moses (pre- served only in Greek fragments) ' Michael the archangel ' is expressly said to have taught Moses at the giving of the Law. (2) In 1 Th i'" 'the voice of the archangel and the trump of God ' sug- gests another reference to the Michael of Jewish tradition. This is tlie only place in the NT besides Jude' where the word 'archangel' occurs, and though the archangel in this case is not named, it is natural to suppose that the great archangel is meant. ' The voice of the archangel ' and ' the trump of God ' are evidently to be taken as parallel expressions (cf. Mt 24^', ' He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet'), and it is a common feature of the later Jewish tradition of the Day of Judgment that the trumpet is blown by Michael the archangel (see Bousset, op. cit. p. 166). J. 0. Lambert.