Bookstore (USA) | Libros en español | Bookstore (Canada)
Livres en Français (Canada) | Bookstore (UK) |

Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?

We conclude that Jesus is Michael the archangel from the fact that it is Jesus who, preparatory to the his Millennial reign, takes his Millennial power and brings the time of trouble upon the nations (2 Thessalonians 1:7,8; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 11:15-18; 19:11- 21), which Daniel said Michael would do (Daniel 12:1, compared with Matthew 24:21) Michael is called the Archangel, that is, the chief Messenger (Jude 9) which is what the Logos would be. But there could only be one chief messenger of God, that is, Jesus (Malachi 3:1; Psalm 34:7) Hence the word archangel never occurs Biblically in the plural, archangels. If there were more than one archangel, Jude, in speaking of Michael, would have called him an archangel, whereas,, since there is but one, he called him the archangel. We believe that Jesus is meant by the archangel of 1 Thessalonians 4:16. We note that it is the voice of Jesus that, in the second advent, shakes the heavens and earth and makes them disappear, and awakens the dead. (Hebrews 12:26; John 5:29) It is before his face in his second advent that the heavens and earth flee away. (Revelation 20:11). It is in his day, the second advent period, that they will be dissolved (2 Peter 3:7,10,12). Thus there is great evidence that Jesus is Michael the archangel.

Even many of our trinitarian neighbors believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael. While we not wish to be understood as being dogmatic that Jesus is Michael the archangel, we do tend to agree with these trinitarians that Jesus is Michael, but we do not agree that he was not created. Many trinitarians also believe that Jesus was the angel of Yahweh spoken of several times in the OT. We have discussed this in our study:
The Angel of Yahweh
http://reslight.net/angelofyahweh.html

Regarding Michael the archangel, we read:

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl ." -- John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048

Concerning Michael as recorded in Daniel 12:1 John Calvin states:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." -- J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/vii.htm

"There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21) -- William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158

We present the following references, not because we agree with all their conclusions, but to show that there are many who believe that Jesus is Yahweh, including trinitarians, who also have and do believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel. (Of course, we do not believe that Jesus is Yahweh)
http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/jude/gill/jude1.htm http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/1thessalonians/gill/1thessalonians4.htm http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/deuteronomy/gill/deuteronomy34.htm http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/daniel/gill/daniel12.htm http://www.primitivebaptist.org/HostedSites/Donaldson/Pastoral_Letters/May_1994.htm http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/tracts/tract_23c_part_1.htm
http://members.aol.com/twarren15/michael.html
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/michael.htm http://s008.infomall.org/profacts2/proph19.html#jesusid

Now we will consider 1 Thessalonians 4:16:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with [Greek, *en*, Strong's #1722] a shout, with [en] the voice of the archangel, and with [en] God's trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first.

The argument is often given that Jesus is accompanied by the voice of the archangel, and thus Jesus is not the archangel. However, the Greek word *en* does not mean in company of, but rather "instrument" or "locality". As meaning "with", it used in the Bible in the sense like: I am writing this "with" my pen; I am talking with my mouth.

a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between (1519) and (1537))
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for En". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi? number=1722&version=kjv
Tiny url for above:
http://tinyurl.com/8cwvd

As far as we have been able to ascertain, the koine Greek word en is never used in the NT to mean "accompanied by" or "alongside of".

Jesus comes with a shout - a sudden loud cry. It was said of a popular blues singer: "He sang with a shout, a tear, a laugh, with love and with the blues." The word "with" does not mean "accompanied by", but it expresses the mode used. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not speak of a literal shout, but "shout" is used as expression of a signal given, especially to the watchers, that Jesus had arrived. The shout, however, is Jesus' shout -- it is his shout, not a shout that simply accompanies Jesus.

Jesus comes with the "voice" of the archangel. Again, using "with" in the sense an instrument used, Jesus comes *with* the voice, in a sense that one would say that I am writing *with* this pen. Jesus is not being accompanied by the voice; he is the provider of the voice. One might say, "John spoke with his voice". This does not mean that John spoke in accompaniment with his voice, but rather that John spoke by means of his voice. Likewise Jesus, comes with the voice of the archangel. His voice as the archangel is used a means to convey his coming. Again, it is, of course, not speaking of literal speaking and making sounds with a voice, but "voice" is used to designate that a signal is given to the watchers that he comes.

Jesus comes with the trumpet of God. Jesus is the one who uses the trumpet of God as a means to make known to the watchers of his return. Again, *en* can be seen to be used in the sense of instrumentality, not being accompanied with.

The basic meaning of "en", however, is that of position. If this be the meaning applied to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, then we have Jesus coming "in" a shout, "in" the voice of the archangel, and "in" the trumpet of God. This could only be applied as meaning in the authority of, as far as "in the voice of the archangel", and "in" the trumpet of God. Thus Jesus would come, not with a man's voice as he did while on earth, but with all the power of "the voice of the archangel." If the title "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to a lesser being, then the reference to "the voice of the archangel" would not be appropriate, but would be describing a voice of lesser authority.

Jesus is not, nor ever has been, one of the class being referred to as "angels" in Hebrews 1. Nothing in Hebrews 1 excludes Jesus from being the archangel. His being the archangel places him outside and above the ordinary class of angels. The word "archangel" (chief, or first angel) is similar to the word "architect" -- first, chief builder. Although the architect is the "chief builder", he is still not of he ordinary class of construction workers who carry out the "chief builder"'s plans. It is the same with Jesus as the archangel. Although this title makes him the "chief angel", it excludes him of the being of the ordinary class commonly referred to as "angels".

We know that Jesus is called an angel in Malachi 3:1 (the Hebrew word for angel is often rendered "messenger" in this verse). The usage of angel here does not mean that Jesus is of the ordinary class of angels, nor does the usage of the term "archangel" mean so.

Indeed, Jesus was above these angels before he came to the earth, but became lower than they when he came to earth. (Hebrews 2:9) Hebrews 1:4 tells of Jesus' exaltation above the angels. Jesus' exaltation is also spoken of in Hebrews 1:3; 12:2, as well as Ephesians 1:21,22; Philippians 2:9. It was not to an angel that this exaltation came, but the man Jesus was exalted from his lowly estate, lower than the angels, to a state higher than the angels, even "far higher" than he had enjoyed before his debasement to the earth.
http://reslight.net/heb1-1-10.html

We now will address Jude 1:9 (Jude 9):

But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling [Greek, Blasphemia, blasphemy] judgment [Greek, krisis] upon him, but said, "The Lord [Yahweh] rebuke you." -- Revised Standard Version.

But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!" World English Bible translation

9 But Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses; he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, "Let the Lord rebuke you!" -- Literal Translation of the Bible, Jay Green.

The claim seems to be that Michael did not rebuke Satan here, and therefore Michael does not have authority to rebuke Satan. Jesus, of course, did rebuke Satan. (Matthew 17:18; Luke 4:18; John 8:44) However, the thought that Michael cannot rebuke Satan has to be assumed from Jude 1:9. Jesus did, in effect, rebuke Satan by saying, "May Yahweh rebuke you." However, Jesus recognized his authority to rebuke Satan comes from his God, Yahweh (Jehovah), in whose name he came. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

We need to realize the context of Jude 1:9. It is speaking of reviling or railing against authority, of taking matters into one's own hands.

Jude 1:8 Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile [Greek, Blasphemeo] the glorious ones.

Jude 1:10 But these men revile [Blasphemeo] whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

Jesus did not revile, not even against his enemies (1 Peter 2:23), nor did he blaspheme by taking matters in his own hands, but he did rebuke in the name of -- in the authority of -- his God and Father. (Matthew 9:8; 28:18; Mark 11:10; John 5:43; 10:25) He did not seek a judgment against Satan or anyone else aside from his God and Father. (John 5:30) The blasphemy spoken of, had Michael pursued such a course, would have been, in effect, a rebellion against his God. Had Jesus as Michael taken upon himself to bring a railing -- blaphemous - - judgment against Satan, it would have been without God's authority.

There is nothing in Jude 1:9 that says that Michael could not rebuke Satan, but rather that his rebuke was not blasphemous. Thus, there is no charge of reviling or blasphemy that can be laid against Jesus, since he always did everything to please his God and Father. -- John 8:29.

There is nothing in Jude 1:9 that excludes Jesus from being Michael the archangel.

The claim is made that Charles Taze Russell taught that Jesus was not Michael the Archangel. The Watch Tower, 1879, page 4, is cited as proof of this. The reference is to an article entitled, "God is Love", in which is is stated: "He of whom it was said, "Let all the angels of God worship him," [that must include Michael]." The problem is, this article was not written by Russell, but rather by John H. Paton. The entire article may be seen online at:
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r9b.htm.

Russell did indeed teach that Jesus is Michael the archangel, as can be seen by examining just a few articles.
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r490b.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r5050.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r1062c.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r5031.htm

On the reverse side, some have claimed that no one thought that Jesus is Michael until Russell came up with this teaching. This is not true, as we have already noted that the teaching that Jesus is Michael the archangel had been around for a long time before Russell.

Hebrews 2:16 is often quoted as showing that Jesus could not be the archangel, Michael.

While some translations insert the word "form" or "nature" into Hebrews 2:16, there is no matching word for this in any Greek text that I know of, nor in any other ancient text.

Of course, when Jesus became a human he did not take the nature of angels -- why should he? It was only as a human that he could suffer and die for our sins. -- 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:6

Hebrews 2:16 - For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. -- New King James Version.

for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold, -- Young's Literal Translation.

Yes, Jesus came for the benefit of the seed of Abraham, who will rule with him to bless all the families of the earth.

This reads in the KJV as: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

The word translated "verily" is "Depou". This word is only used once in the Bible; it is not used in the Septuagint. "It is used when something is affirmed in a slightly ironical manner, as if with an pretence of uncertainty; perhaps; doubtless; verily; truly." -- Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Depou". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi? number=1222&version=kjv
Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/dkpsa

However, other scholars believe the word means that the statement made is a well-known, universally admitted truth; Dean Alford renders it "For, as we all know"; Moffatt translates it "Of course."

As we have shown, there is no word in the Hebrew to match the word "nature" that appears in the KJV. Nevertheless, if Jesus had become an angel, he would not have the price to pay for Adam's sin. Most translator's, however, render this with the thought of taking hold to help or assist, not about his taking upon himself some form of existence.

Either way of looking at the verse would fit the context, which is speaking about how Jesus had become like his brothers. He did not take a plane of life as an angel, but as a human, as his brothers with him as the seed of Abraham. 16). He was higher than the angelic plane before coming to the earth and passed by it to take the human plane of existence that he might be man's Redeemer. Also, his becoming as his brothers was not to aid the angels who were never under condemnation, but his brothers, as the seed of Abraham, who are released from condemnation through faith in Jesus. -- Galatians 3:29.

Philippians 2:8 speaks of Jesus taking on the form [appearance] of a bond-servant. While a human he was in the likeness of man, of sinful flesh. (Philippians 2:8; Romans 7:5) He was, however, not a bond- servant to sin, although he suffered as though he were a bond-servant to sin, in order to pay for the sin of the world.

Jesus is not, nor ever has been, one of the class being referred to as "angels" in Hebrews. Nothing in Hebrews excludes Jesus from being the archangel. His being the archangel places him outside and above the ordinary class of angels. The word "archangel" (chief, or first angel) is similar to the word "architect" -- first, chief builder. Although the architect is the "chief builder", he is still not of he ordinary class of construction workers who carry out the "chief builder"'s plans. It is the same with Jesus as the archangel. Although this title makes him the "chief angel", it excludes him of the being of the ordinary class commonly referred to as "angels".

We know that Jesus is called an angel in Malachi 3:1 (the Hebrew word for angel is often rendered "messenger" in this verse). The usage of angel here does not mean that Jesus is of the ordinary class of angels, nor does the usage of the term "archangel" mean so.

Indeed, Jesus was above the angels referred to in Hebrews before he came to the earth, but he became lower than they when he came to earth. (Hebrews 2:9) Hebrews 1:4 tells of Jesus' exaltation above the angels. Jesus' exaltation is also spoken of in Hebrews 1:3; 12:2, as well as Ephesians 1:21,22; Philippians 2:9. It was not to an angel that this exaltation came, but the man Jesus was exalted from his lowly estate, lower than the angels, to a state higher than the angels, even "far higher" than he had enjoyed before his debasement to the earth.
http://reslight.net/heb1-1-10.html

Some point to the Jewish tradition that there are several archangels as proof that there is more than one archangel, and that Michael is equal to these other archangels, and thus it is claimed Jesus is not Michael. Some have claimed that the angels Raphael and Uriel are also archangels. Some encyclopedias and other references can be given to document this idea. These same reference works also often point out that the Jewish leaders sometime before Christ came had adopted many different philosophies and mythologies from the Greeks and other heathen cultures.

However, we should not base our views on what the disobedient Jews may have believed. Indeed, the Jewish leaders had turned away from truth, so much so that Jesus said that their father was the devil, the father of the lie. -- John 8:44.

Raphael is never mentioned in scripture. Although the apocraphal book Tobit mentions Raphael, Raphael is not called an archangel. Likewise, the apostate book of Enoch mentions Raphael, but still does not call him an archangel. Raphael, in the book of Enoch especially, if there ever was such an appearance of such an angel, probably is one of the fallen angels, as he did not come in the name of Yahweh (Jehovah). Raphael appears to be a Jewish adaptation of Mercury-Hermes, the heathen God of Air, the messenger of the Gods, the wanderer between the Spheres, the Lord of the function of inspiration and intuition. The book of Enoch very plainly has adopted and blended Hellenistic mythology concerning hades and tartarus with Biblical allusions.
http://reslight.net/biblehell.html

Another argument given is that Daniel 10:13 excludes Jesus from being Michael, since Michael is said to be "one of the chief princes."

Daniel 10:13 - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one(1) of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (1) Margin: or, the first King James Version.

Daniel 10:13 - `And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia; -- Young's Literal Translation.

There is nothing in this scripture that proves that Jesus is not Michael, the chief messenger. His being one of the chief princes, only shows that there are chief princes (rulers, leaders, Captains, Generals, Commanders*), and that here Michael is classified as one of these "chief princes" -- Commanders-in-Chief, as we might say today. It is a military classification, not a classification of rank of being. Nothing is said about these "chief princes" all being equal in being. Nor is there anything here that would make all the angels "chief princes". What brings the classification together, however, is that these are chief rulers -- Commanders, Generals, not that they are angels.
========
*Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Sar".
"The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon".
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi? number=8269&version=kjv
Tiny URL for above:
http://tinyurl.com/9rz64

The Gentiles have their rulers, princes, who rule over them. Thus we read that the prince, ruler, of the kingdom of Persia withstood the angel speaking to Daniel fror for 21 days. (Daniel 10:13) Michael, however, is not the prince or ruler of one of the Gentile Kingdoms, but Michael is said to be "Michael your prince [ruler]," (Daniel 10:21) "the prince of the covenant", (Daniel 11:22) "the great prince who stands for the children of your people." (Daniel 12:1) These expressions are prophetic. Michael, in other words, in prophecy, is the chief prince who is ruler over Daniel's people, that is, Israel, God's people, and by extension, the Israel of faith. (Galatians 3:7,9,26-29; 6:16) This ruler is identified in the NT as Jesus, who is King of Israel. (John 1:49; 12:13) Jesus is the promised "prince" of Israel. Jesus is the "Commander-in-Chief" -- Read Ephesians 1:20- 23 and Revelation 19:11-16.

The princes -- rulers -- over the Gentile Kingdoms are not identified by name in Daniel, and only two are mentioned in Daniel, that is, the prince of Persia, and the prince of Greece. -- Daniel 10:20.

Jesus is also called "prince of princes". (Daniel 8:25) In the kingdom age to come, Jesus will have associate kings and princes -- that saints -- who will rule with him, and yet will under him. (Daniel 7:22,27; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 1:9; Revelation 5:10) Some will be joint-heirs with him (Romans 8:17), while others will be princes in all the earth. -- Psalm 45:16; Isaiah 32:1.

However, the Hebrew word echad can also mean "first", and thus could be rendered "first of the chief princes", as seen in Young's Translation. As such, then, Jesus would be the "first" of the chief princes, which would again agree with the title of archangel, if the chief princes spoken are a class amongst the angels. Jesus is first of all the chief princes, not necessarily in time, but in that his rulership is greater than all those others spoken of as the chief princes. However, Jesus, being the firstborn creature, did exist before any others who might be called "Chief Prince", whether this prince be angelic or human. And being the archangel before coming to the earth, he did exercise a rulership over the angels before his exaltation.

A quote from R.E. Streeter:

Michael is represented as coming to the assistance of this one that Daniel saw. The name Michael signifies, "He who is like God." In Jude we have Michael spoken of as the archangel. The term archangel signifies "head or chief angel"; and the angel of the vision under consideration speaks of Michael as the first of the chief princes (See marginal reading on verse 13.) We sometimes hear of archangels as though there were many; but the Scriptures do not so speak. According to the Scriptures there is but one archangel. In I Thess. 4:16, St. Paul states that when Christ shall raise dead, it will be in connection with the voice of the Archangel. Connecting this utterance with Christ's own words concerning that event, "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God," we can but identify Michael with our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Daniel 12, Michael is called the "great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people." It is not probable that such expressions can have reference to any other personage than the Lord Jesus Christ.
========
Daniel, the Beloved of Jehovah, by R.E. Streeter, page 174.

At any rate, there is nothing in Daniel 10:13 that excludes Jesus from being Michael. The idea that there is something in what is said that would exclude Jesus from being Michael has to be added to and read into what is said there.

It is our hopes that associated Bible study groups all over the world will utilize Restoration Light publications in their Bible study. Feel free to print and distribute copies this and/or our other studies for other Bible Students and/or interested persons.