Archangel Michael: who is he?

 

"At that time Michael will arise, the great leader, the defender of the children of your people" - Daniel 12:1

 

Among the angels mentioned by name in the Bible, Michael is the one who has absolute primacy.

The other is Gabriel - Daniel 8:15; 10:13, 21; 12:1; Luke 1:19, 26; Revelation 12:7

No other angels are mentioned by name in the inspired Scriptures.

Obviously both Michael and Gabriel play important roles in God's plan.

Michael is always presented as a warrior, a leader, a first prince and the archangel - see Daniel 10:13; 12:1 Jude 9; Revelation 12:12

Of Gabriel, "the Hero of God", we only know that he receives the order from another angel, evidently superior, to explain the vision of chapter 8 to the prophet Daniel - Daniel 8:15

After about 500 years, we see him again announcing the birth of John the Baptist and the extraordinary birth of the Lord Jesus - Luke 1:19, 26

This article will talk about Michele as it is precisely this subject that has given rise to various interpretations and conjectures about his identity.

Some will say that he is simply a chief angel, a creature inferior to God or to that "part of God" (for those who believe in the trinity) called the only begotten Son, ie the Lord Jesus Christ.

Any argument that questioned this dogma and that wanted to identify the figure of Michael with that of the Lord Jesus Christ would be immediately rejected to the sound of biblical verses and more or less logical reasoning.

On the other hand there are also those who, while believing in the trinity, assert that Jesus can be identified with the figure of Michael as a manifestation of the divinity that operates in heaven.

Still others, especially among some self-styled Messianic Jews, will deny both the trinity and any divinity or prehuman existence to the Lord Jesus and therefore logically the Michael mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments cannot be him.

It would be only an archangel, a superior creature at the head of the angels.

Finally there are those who, while not believing in the trinity, use apparent logic to identify Michael with the Lord Jesus before and after his coming to earth.

They say that the name of the Lord before he came to earth was precisely Michael and remained so when he returned to heaven.

Below we will discuss some statements used to argue that Michael and the glorified Lord Jesus are the same person.

The claims are as follows.

1) The glorious spirit person who bears this name is called "one of the first princes" and "The great prince who watches over your people".

2) The archangel, which means "chief of the angels" would be only one. There would be no other archangels.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 it is said that the Lord Jesus comes with the "voice of an archangel" and that the archangel, being one, is Michael.

3) Michael means "Who is like God?" identifying him as the one who takes the lead in upholding God's sovereignty.

4) Since Michael is seen fighting against Satan and cast him out of heaven, it would be appropriate for the Lord himself to do so, as seen later in Revelation 19.

5) Michael's rising is related to a great time of tribulation, as well as there will be great tribulation when the Lord comes to judge the nations - see Daniel 12:1 and compare Matthew 24:21

Before seeing another point of view that is detached from all the religious currents described above, let's analyze these statements.

1) The glorious spirit person of this name is identified as "one of the first princes" and "The great prince who watches over your people" - Daniel 10:13, 21

This reasoning would argue that Jesus, being the first creature of God (see Revelation 3:14; Colossians 1:15) is also one of the first princes or the great prince and therefore would be Michael.

It is true that he is not said to be the first prince ... but those who say that the expression "one of the first" does not categorically exclude him from being the first are right .

In the first group there is also "the first" , right?

So the former can be identified specifically as "the first" but also as "one of the first".

However, precisely because it is identified as "one of the first principles", this scripture cannot be taken to demonstrate that Michael is Jesus.

At the very least, one could say that it cannot be excluded.

Finally the expression "the great prince who watches over your people" proves nothing except that every nation has an angel or demon who watches over it such as the prince of Persia or the prince of Greece – compare Daniel 10:13, 20

Israel would (or will have in the future) simply a great prince, among the first, in its defense.

While admitting that it would be more than logical for us that it was the Lord Jesus himself who defended Israel, we must admit that all this is not sufficient to prove his identity - Joshua 5:13-15

2) Archangel means "chief of the angels" and therefore there would be only one chief angel. The Bible never mentions other archangels.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 it is said that the Lord Jesus comes with the voice of an archangel and that the archangel being one is only Michael.

It is true that no other archangels apart from Michael are mentioned in the Bible but this, in itself, does not prove that there are no others.

We must assume that the Bible does not explain many things about the celestial realms because it was written for us, that is, it was meant to be understandable to us.

Certainly everything we need is written in it (compare 2 Timothy 3:16, 17) but let us try to imagine what this Book would become if it included even only the names of the angels – which will probably be billions – the various heavenly arrangements, tasks , how it all began in the details etc.

None of us can know how the celestial realms are made up, which are infinitely larger and more complicated than ours.

The Bible, when speaking of the celestial realms, simplifies their description with symbolic language and this proves only one thing: we are too limited to fully understand them – compare Job 36:26; 42:1-3

There may be more archangels, who's to say?

While archangel means "chief of angels," it definitely does not mean "sole chief of angels."

No one knows how the celestial hierarchies are arranged.

Undoubtedly Jesus will "send his angels to gather the elect" (Matthew 24:31, 25:31) but this, rather than proving his identity as Michael, could include Michael himself as one of the Lord Jesus' army underlings.

An army can also have a military leader, a supreme general, but the general always answers to the King.

3) Michael means "Who is like God?" identifying him as the one who takes the lead in upholding God's sovereignty.

Even this argument could be logical since it is the Lord Jesus who upholds everything (Hebrews 1:3) but He could still have delegated that authority to one of his subordinates.

The name "Elijah", for example, means "My God is Yahweh" but this in no way proves that Elijah was the Lord Jesus Christ who identified Yahweh as his Father and God - see John 20:17

The meaning of Michael's name, while it would seem appropriate, does not prove that he is Christ.

4) Since Michael is seen fighting against Satan and cast him out of heaven, it would be appropriate for the Lord himself to do so, as seen later in Revelation 19.

Yes, it would be appropriate for the Lord Jesus to cast out Satan but he can delegate this role to others just as Moses and David had their generals fighting their battles -

Deuteronomy 31:23; 1 Chronicles 6:15 pm

Furthermore it could also be added that the event described in Revelation chapter 12 is immediately following the enthronement of Christ - Revelation 11:15

If we wanted to compare this situation to what would happen in a human kingdom, as soon as the King takes office he sits on the throne while he watches the pitched battle that drives away the enemies of the kingdom.

The king does not fight when installed. He can fight before or even after.

Archangel Michael, therefore, could play the role of army leader or general of the "King of Kings" - Revelation 19:16

It should also be noted that there should no longer be a reason to call him "Michael" after his enthronement.

If he was the Lord Jesus, why in a similar context and so close to chapter 19 of the Apocalypse should he be called Michael and not clearly say that he is Jesus as deduced in chapter 19:13?

For the same reason why also in Jude, a letter addressed to Christians, after mentioning "our Lord Jesus Christ" should he call him Michael without specifying or in the least suggesting that they were the same person? - Jude 5, 9

5) Michael's rising is related to a great time of distress as well as there will be a great Tribulation when the Lord comes to judge the nations.

This is absolutely true but those who have followed the blog articles know that the Apocalypse is in chronological order and that the great tribulation mentioned by Jesus is the one described in the six seals and that the Lord will shorten it to save the elect - Matthew 24:21

Michael on the other hand rises "at that time", that is, later and not necessarily at the beginning of the day of the Lord; time when there will be the last clash between the king of the north and the south which corresponds to the great war of Revelation chapter nine - see Revelation 9:13-20 and compare with Daniel 11:40-45; 12:1

Once the war is over Michael will undertake the battle against Satan and in this sense he will "arise".

Satan's ousting from earth will cause "great distress" the devil having great anger knowing he has a short period of time", i.e. three and a half years - Daniel 12:1; Revelation 12:7, 12; 13:5

We can therefore conclude that none of the statements presented can prove that Michael is or is not Jesus.

Are we still on the high seas or is it possible to understand who the Archangel Michael really is?

Who is Archangel Michael?

 

We believe that the Lord Jesus is not Almighty God but His only begotten Son, also called Mighty God, Great God, Only Begotten God, to emphasize His unique relationship and nature with the Father, the one Almighty God - John 1: 18; 8:30 pm, Isaiah 9:5; Titus 2:13

No "trinitarian formula" convinces us that Jesus is God and no sophistry makes us waste time on the possible difference between created and generated.

The Son of God had a beginning, God has always existed.

On the contrary, we believe that the trinitarian teaching is a belief borrowed and borrowed from pagan religions.

We obviously believe that Jesus existed as a spirit creature before he came to earth and returned to that nature after his resurrection - John 1:1; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:13-18; Hebrews 1:3, 4

We believe that this divine nature, while exclusive and superior to all others, is also possessed by other celestial creatures as children of God and will be possessed by Christians once they are resurrected and transformed - 2 Peter 1:4; 1John 3:2

But what about Michael?

Is he the Lord Jesus in his pre-human form or glorified?

To understand this, let's take some salient parts of Daniel chapter 10.

At one point the prophet says “ and behold a man, dressed in linen, who had a golden belt of Ufaz around his hips. His body was like chrysolite, his face shone like lightning, his eyes were like flaming fire, his arms and feet were like shining bronze, and the sound of his voice was like the noise of a multitude." (vv 5, 6)

Again in verses 8 to 10 we will read… “my strength left me. Then I heard the sound of his words, but as soon as I heard them I fell asleep on my face. And behold, a hand touched me and made me stand on my knees and on my palms.”

Then in verse 16… “ And behold one that had the appearance of a son of man ; he touched my lips..."
And verses 20 and 21 conclude with these words..." He said: "Do you know why I have come to you? Now I am going back to fight with the king of Persia; and when I go out to fight, the prince of Greece. But I want to make known to you what is written in the book of truth; and there is no one to support me against those, except Michael your leader"

Let's analyze these verses carefully.

Daniel sees a great vision.

A man, who is actually a spirit being, appears to him.

This is the first and only time in the Old Testament that a detailed description of a spiritual being is given to us.

In the book of Daniel, apart from chapters 3:28 and 6:22, angels or spirit beings are those who stand before the throne and are asked by the prophet about the meaning of the visions they have just had - Daniel 7:10,16

In verses 15 the prophet sees one manlike in appearance and another man in the middle of the river who orders the first manlike, who turns out to be Gabriel, to explain the vision to Daniel, but further on in chapter 8 there is no detailed description of the appearance of these men or earthling-like creatures.

Only in chapter 10 do we notice something extraordinary: an accurate description that is practically identical to that reported in the first chapter of the book of Revelation.

Let's compare the two descriptions:

Dan iel 10:5 = “ a man dressed in linen, with a golden girdle of Ufaz around his waist”.

Revelation 1:13 = “ one like a son of man, clothed in a long robe and girded with a golden belt around his chest”

Daniel 10:6 = “ his eyes were like flaming fire”.

Revelation 1:14 = “ his eyes were like a flame of fire ”.

Daniel 10:6 = “his feet were like bronze shining” ( clean NWT)

Revelation 1:15 = “ his feet were like incandescent bronze, red-hot in a furnace”

Dan 10:6 = “ and the sound of his voice was like the noise of a multitude”.

Rev 1:15 = " and his voice was like the rushing of great waters"

Although some details are omitted both in Daniel and in Revelation, the set of details can only lead us to conclude that these two subjects are very similar… to say the least.

Regarding the subject of chapter 1 of Revelation we have no doubts about his identity because he himself identifies himself, in verses 17 and 18, in this way... "Do not be afraid, I am the first and the last, and the living. I was dead, but behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I hold the keys of death and of hell."

We have no doubt it is the glorified Lord Jesus, is it not?

If we continue reading chapter 10 to verse 8, Daniel says " I was left alone to contemplate that great vision. There was no strength left in me... And behold, a hand touched me and made me rest on my knees and on the palms of my hands" .

Note John's reaction to seeing the Lord Jesus in chapter 1:17… " When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me."

Note that the reaction of both Daniel and John is also practically the same.

Both prophets lose strength, faint.

In both cases they are touched and encouraged.

Both are "grand visions".

In addition to this there is a detail, which cannot be overlooked and cannot be accidental, which helps us understand the identity of the man dressed in linen seen by Daniele.

When Daniel pulls himself up and raises his eyes he sees this... "And behold one who looked like a son of man ; he touched my lips".

"Then he who had the form of a man touched me again and strengthened me."

If we go back to Revelation 1:13 we read that in the midst of the lampstands there is " one like a son of man ".

We know this is Jesus and only the Lord has this exclusive title which he himself used and will use again - Matthew 24:31

Now some may say that this is a coincidence, that there is no proof that they are the same person, but is it so?

If we take Daniel 7:13 we read that in the vision the prophet sees "one like a son of man" who is given power and dominion.

The expression is identical in both Hebrew and Aramaic, in several places in Daniel.

If the man clothed in linen were not the Lord Jesus, why is it only at this point in the entire Old Testament that such a detailed description of this son of man is given?

This description is very similar if not identical to the one in Revelation which describes the Lord Jesus.

However someone could say that when Daniel saw the vision the Lord Jesus had not yet come to earth and therefore could not yet define himself as the Son of man... but Daniel is seeing a vision that concerns the future and, exactly as in chapter seven, the The Lord may have given a foretaste of his future role as Son of man even though he was not yet one.

But what good is this description of the linen-clad son of man in relation to Michael's identity?

Well, if the son of man dressed in linen is none other than the Lord Jesus, he cannot be Michael as in the following verses it is said that "Michael, one of the first leaders, came to my rescue… and there was no there is no one to support me against them, except Michael your leader" - (vv 13, 20)

Michael and the son of man dressed in linen are two clearly distinct people and the fact that Michael comes to the aid of the Lord Jesus does not imply that Jesus is inferior or weaker but simply that he helps him in the battle against the demons of the nations of Persia and of Greece.

At chapter 11:1 it is the same son of man who comes to Michael's aid.

There seems to be a very close collaboration between the two, as there was between Moses and Joshua - Exodus 33:11; Deuteronomy 34:9; Joshua 1:1, 2

If the first principles were created through the Lord Jesus (everything came into existence through Him) it is possible that Michael is even the first created and this would explain such an important role.

However the Bible does not say this and this remains merely a guess - Colossians 1:16

In conclusion, therefore, if the statements quoted at the beginning do not lead to any effective conclusion on the identity of Michael and if even the peculiar characteristics of this creature can be common to several powerful angels, only one person corresponds perfectly to the description reported in Revelation and only one person can be a "son of man" and at the same time a very powerful angel.

This person cannot be anyone other than the Lord Jesus.

Consequently, according to Daniel, this person is helped, helps and commands this archangel named Michael who, it goes without saying, cannot be himself.

Based on the Scriptures and not on our personal ideas, the Lord Jesus cannot be Michael as clearly distinct from him.

Michael, if anything, is a leader, a general… as was Joshua in relation to Moses.

Are we not joyful to understand this?

In the past, the blog author himself tended to believe that Michael was Jesus for several reasons also mentioned in this article.

This study allows us to take an important step forward and will undoubtedly open new doors to Scriptural understanding.

Praise Yah!