JESUS CHRIST: MICHAEL’S GOD

The following excerpt is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Chapter 19: Is Jesus Christ an Angel?, Part 3: The Name of Jesus: Jesus’ Divine Names, pp. 359-368.

In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library. All emphasis will be mine.

JESUS: MICHAEL, GOD, OR BOTH?

Answering the question of whether Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel is a bit more complicated than a simple Yes or No. There are actually three possible answers to this question, not two, as one might naturally suppose (see Table 10).

1. Historically, many Christians have understood Michael to be another name for the eternal Son of God, second person of the Trinity. Those orthodox Christians taking this position have generally understood the title archangel to mean that Christ is the ruler over all the angels, not that he is the greatest angel. Few orthodox Christians defend this view today.

2. Since the nineteenth century, many (not all) Adventists and some Adventist offshoots, most notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have viewed Jesus Christ as the first and greatest created being, whom they identify as Michael. According to this view, the title archangel refers to one chief or supreme angel and confirms that Christ is not God.

3. Most contemporary Christians do not identify Jesus as Michael at all. In their view, the term archangel refers to any of several leading or ruling angels, not just to Michael. Most contemporary biblical scholars also hold this view regardless of their personal theological or religious affiliation.

Table 10. Jesus and Michael: Three Views

Jesus as Michael, the Lord of the Angels

Perhaps the most famous Christian theologian to identify Jesus as Michael was John Calvin—although in his case the identification is not uniform in his writings.

In his commentary on Daniel, Calvin argues for identifying Michael there as the preincarnate Christ and distinguished him from Michael the archangel:

Consistent with this distinction, in Calvin’s commentaries elsewhere he identifies the “archangel” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as an angel acting on behalf of Christ, and he identifies Michael in Jude 9 as an angel rather than as Christ.²

Similarly, the nineteenth-century commentator Adam Clarke with some hesitation identifies Michael as Christ in Daniel 10:13 and more clearly in Jude 9, but in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 he explicitly distinguishes Christ from the archangel mentioned there.³ Other notable Christian scholars who view at least some biblical references to Michael as references to Christ include eighteenth-century theologian Jonathan Edwards and nineteenth-century biblical scholar E. W. Hengstenberg, among many others.⁴ Interestingly, in their recent book arguing that the “angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament is the preincarnate Christ, Matt Foreman and Doug Van Dorn include an appendix offering arguments for and against identifying Michael as Christ (Van Dorn favors this identification while Foreman does not).⁵

What we need to understand about this interpretation is that its foundation is the New Testament doctrine that Christ is the divine, uncreated Son or Logos who existed with the Father throughout the Old Testament era. Based on this clear teaching, such scholars as Calvin, Edwards, Hengstenberg, and Clarke found it most likely that at least some statements about Michael referred to the preincarnate Christ. For all these scholars, our primary and controlling source of doctrine about the person of Christ must be the direct statements about him found in the New Testament, and rightly so.

Jesus as Michael, the First Created Angel

Since the early twentieth century Jehovah’s Witnesses have been the religion most prominently teaching that Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. In their view, identifying Christ as Michael confirms that he is not God and does not have the authority or deserve the same honors as God. For example, in an article published in 2010, the Watchtower magazine asks, “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?” Here is the response:

This identification of Jesus as “Michael, the chief angel,” has practical ramifications for how one views Jesus or relates to him:

Notice that the Watchtower argues here that Jesus Christ, as Michael, “refrained from overstepping his authority” because he was only “the Chief Angel” and that “it was not his place to bring judgment.” We have here the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine of the person of Christ in a nutshell: Jesus Christ was Michael, the chief angel, not God.

Although the Watchtower interprets Jude 9 to mean that the prehuman Jesus was not authorized to judge Satan, the Society admits that Jesus has that authority now:

IS THERE ONLY ONE ARCHANGEL?

Jehovah’s Witnesses view Christ as the first creature God made and as his agent in all of his other divine works including creation, salvation, and judgment. Consistent with this belief, Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the term “archangel” (Greek, archangelos) to express Christ’s unique status as the greatest and preeminent angel. “The prefix ‘arch,’ meaning ‘chief ’ or ‘principal,’ implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel.”¹¹ They explain that Christ was originally an angel created by God before everything else and is therefore the chief angel (Michael).

Essentially, the Watchtower’s argument here is an argument from the etymology, or root elements, of the word. Biblical scholars have been warning for decades that such appeals to the etymology of a word to determine its meaning are often erroneous.¹² In this particular case, there are compelling reasons to reject the Society’s argument.

First of all, some compound nouns using arch– are used in the Bible in plural forms to refer to a group of individuals, such as “chief priests” (archiereis, occurring fifty times in the New Testament, e.g., Matt. 2:4; Mark 14:53, 55; Luke 19:47; John 19:6) or “chief bodyguards” (archisōmatophylakes, Esther 2:21 LXX). When used as a part of titles such as these, the prefix arch– simply indicates that those who hold this title occupy a higher position than others. It tells us nothing about whether that title is held by one individual or more than one.

Second, if the word archangel by definition could refer to only one individual, then we would expect to find it always used in this way in ancient literature. To the contrary, ancient Jewish texts commonly speak of a group of archangels, either four or seven. Speaking of the Jewish apocalyptic literature that was part of the culture of the New Testament writers (such as the books attributed to Enoch and Baruch), Darrell Hannah observes:

Michael, Sariel (or Uriel), Raphael, and Gabriel are the usual four archangels; in lists of seven archangels, Sariel and Uriel are treated separately and the names Raguel and Remiel are added.¹⁴

The point here is not that these Jewish apocalyptic texts carry any divine authority as inspired Scripture. The issue here is lexical—what the word meant—not theological.

Perhaps there is only one archangel, or four, or seven, or a hundred. The Bible does not say explicitly how many there are. The word “archangel” does not itself answer this question. However, unless the New Testament tells us somewhere that there is only one archangel, the most reasonable inference is that its writers accepted the conventional use of the term to refer to a group of chief angels, not to refer to only one specific angel that rules over all other angels.

In order to buttress the claim that there is only one archangel, Jehovah’s Witnesses also appeal to the use of the Greek definite article (translated “the”) with the word “archangel.” Jehovah’s Witnesses often appeal to the Greek article, or the lack of it, in theological arguments. Such arguments need to be considered very cautiously, as it is easy to make mistakes. Here the Watchtower argues that since Michael is called “the archangel” (ho archangelos) in Jude 9, “This suggests that there is only one such angel.”¹⁵ This inference is fallacious. The expression “Michael the archangel” is similar to the expression “the angel Gabriel” (Luke 1:26), which of course does not mean that Gabriel was the only angel. Grammatically, the article in these instances functions the same way as in such expressions as “Nathan the prophet” (2 Sam. 7:2) or “David the king” (1 Chron. 29:1, 9). The article tells us nothing whatsoever as to whether Michael was the only archangel.

Finally, the Watchtower Society has repeatedly pointed out that the term archangel “occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural.”¹⁶ This sounds like an impressive point until one considers the fact that the word archangel occurs only twice in the whole Bible (1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9)! Given how rare the term is in the Bible, the fact that it happens not to appear there in the plural may be mere happenstance, not evidence that there can only be one archangel. Surprisingly, Adam Clarke also used this very weak argument in support of identifying the archangel in Jude 9 as Christ.¹⁷

Other words appear in the Bible that happen to occur only in the singular form but that could have been used in a plural form in reference to more than one person or thing. A particularly relevant example is the word “chief tax collector” (architelōnēs, Luke 19:2). The standard lexical reference work by Louw and Nida explains this term to mean “chief tax collector, in the sense of one who controlled activities of certain other tax collectors—‘chief tax collector, director of tax collectors.’ . . . It is also possible to understand architelōnēs as meaning a principal or important tax collector rather than one who controlled the activities of other tax collectors.”¹⁸

Zacchaeus was obviously not the head of tax collection for the entire Roman army, but just for his territory or region. So here we have another noun with the prefix arch– (“chief”) that can refer to more than one individual (in this case a group of principal or supervisor tax collectors); perhaps we could translate the term “senior tax collector.” The word just so happens to occur only one time in the Bible and in the singular.

Likewise, from the fact that the word archangel occurs only as a singular in the Bible, we cannot reasonably infer that there can be only one archangel. This is a hasty generalization (since the word only occurs twice) and is proven to be mistaken reasoning from the fact that other words occur only as singular forms but can be used as plurals.

Although no other angel is explicitly called an archangel in the New Testament, Luke’s account of Gabriel’s visitation to Mary reflects the conventional ancient Jewish view that Gabriel was an archangel. Gabriel tells Mary, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God” (Luke 1:19 NASB). This statement closely parallels a statement attributed to Michael in the Jewish text called the Testament of Abraham: “I am Michael . . . who stands in the presence of God.”¹⁹ The Greek words here are exactly the same as in Luke 1:19 except for the name Michael rather than Gabriel.

The Testament was probably written in the first century AD and thus was roughly contemporaneous with the New Testament writings. Although it is a highly fanciful story, the book illustrates that Gabriel’s self-description in Luke 1:19 reflected conventional Jewish understanding of the archangels. Similarly, the book of Tobit (ca. 225–175 BC), accepted as part of the Old Testament by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches but not by Protestants, quotes Raphael as saying, “I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ready and enter before the glory of the Lord” (Tob. 12:15 NRSV).²⁰ As noted earlier, Raphael was one of this special group of four or seven archangels in the Jewish literature of the period. In light of these two texts, it is clear that Luke 1:19 reflects the traditional belief that Gabriel was also one of these archangels.

The traditional Jewish belief in seven archangels is also reflected in the statement in Revelation 8:2, “Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God” (see also 8:6). This statement combines two elements about archangels found in ancient Jewish literature. The first is the reference to “the seven angels,” the most common number of archangels in Jewish literature. Second, these are not just any seven angels; rather, as we just saw in Luke 1:19, these angels are the ones “who stand before God.” John here tacitly assumes that the readers will know about this specific group of angels, which in Jewish texts are often called archangels. The combination of these two elements in the same statement makes it quite clear that these seven angels were archangels.

We have, then, evidence showing that the New Testament writers accepted without argument or comment the traditional belief among Jews in that period that a group of angels, often called “archangels,” were chief or ruling angels, among whom were both Gabriel and Michael. This finding strongly counts against the Jehovah’s Witness belief that the preincarnate Christ was a uniquely preeminent but created angelic being. It also counts against the older traditional Christian theory that Michael was the preincarnate, divine Son, a view that virtually requires that there be only one archangel.²¹

IS JESUS MICHAEL?

Even if the New Testament reflects a belief in multiple archangels, is there any biblical basis for identifying one of them, Michael, as Jesus Christ?

The Name “Michael”

One obvious problem for this identification is that Michael and Jesus are two entirely different names. However, the Watchtower argues that Jesus might also have the name Michael since human beings in the Bible sometimes have two names. One example they mention is Jacob, also called Israel (Gen. 35:10; 49:1–2). They also point out that Simon is called Peter and other forms of these names, Simeon and Cephas, the Aramaic equivalent to Peter (Matt. 10:2; 16:16; John 1:42; Acts 15:7, 14).²²

These examples are not relevant to the question of Jesus’ supposed identity with Michael. In both instances a man is given a new name to express a change in his relationship with God. Thus Jacob was renamed Israel after wrestling with a mysterious figure who seems to have been God or a messenger representing God (Gen. 32:28). Jesus gave the name Peter to Simon after Simon had acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 16:18; Mark 3:16).

In these and similar instances, the Bible explicitly states that the two names belonged to the same individual; there is no need for guesswork. It is surely hazardous to base a doctrine on the possibility that the two names Jesus and Michael might belong to the same person without some statement to that effect. Indeed, given the importance that the New Testament places on the person of Jesus Christ, the fact that it mentions Michael by name only twice and in neither context identifies him as Jesus (Jude 9; Rev. 12:7) is a reasonably cogent argument against the identification.

Michael in the Book of Daniel

In order to defend the identification of Jesus as Michael, then, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who espouse this position resort to interpreting the few references to Michael in the Bible as implicit—we might even say, covert— references to Christ. Michael first appears in the Bible by name in the book of Daniel.

According to the Watchtower Society, when Daniel speaks of Michael “standing up” as “the great prince,” this prophecy corresponds to what the New Testament reveals Christ will do as God’s appointed king. They quote Daniel’s statement, “At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince” (Dan. 12:1 NKJV), and comment:

The Watchtower’s reasoning here glosses over the way Michael is introduced. After three weeks of fasting in mourning, Daniel had a vision of a supernatural being (Dan. 10:5–6) who spoke to him (10:9). The being told Daniel:

In this passage, Michael is the supernatural “prince” of Israel or of the Jewish nation, comparable to other supernatural beings that were the princes of Persia and Greece. Michael was not the only being of his kind, but he is specifically said to have been “one of the chief princes” (Dan. 10:13). This statement—the first reference to Michael in the Bible—immediately establishes him as one member of a group of supernatural beings. The later expression “the great prince” used of Michael (12:1) is equivalent in meaning to “one of the chief princes” (10:13). Michael was the great or chief prince of Israel just as other angelic beings were the chief princes of other nations—princes that were supernatural enemies of Israel and against whom Michael fought.²⁴ Thus, Michael as described in the book of Daniel clearly cannot be the person later called Jesus Christ. Even Watchtower theology, which views Christ as a creature, places him in a category of his own as the only creature made directly by God.

It is true that in the near context of Daniel’s reference to Michael “standing” or “arising,” Daniel also refers to earthly kings as doing the same thing. However, these parallels are consistent with the statement in Daniel 10:13 that Michael was “one of the chief princes.” As a royal figure himself, albeit a supernatural one, he also would “arise” in support of the Jewish nation.

Michael in the Book of Revelation

In one of the visions recorded in Revelation, John says, “Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon” (Rev. 12:7). Jehovah’s Witnesses note that this statement refers to “Michael and his angels,” while elsewhere the New Testament speaks of Christ and “his angels” (Matt. 13:41; 16:27; 24:31; Mark 13:27; 2 Thess. 1:7). Later in the book of Revelation, John describes a vision in which Christ, called “The Word of God,” leads “the armies of heaven” (Rev. 19:13–14). The Watchtower argues, “Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.”²⁵

This argument, if pursued consistently, would “prove” that Christ is not only Michael the archangel but also that he is God the Father, since the New Testament also refers to the angels as God’s angels or the Father’s angels (Matt. 4:6; 22:30; 26:53; Luke 4:10; 12:8–9; 15:10; John 1:51; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 3:5)! Since Jesus is not the Father, there is something wrong with this reasoning. Evidently, Michael leads the army of angels in Revelation 12:7 on behalf of Christ, who is his superior. Just as we might speak of the president’s army and also refer to it as a general’s army without identifying the general as the president, the New Testament speaks of Christ’s angels and also of Michael’s angels without identifying Christ as Michael.

In Revelation 12, Michael and his angels are fighting the “great red dragon,” which represents Satan the devil, in a “war in heaven.” This war takes place after Christ is born on earth as “the Lamb,” sheds his “blood” to conquer the devil, and then ascends to God and his throne (Rev. 12:3–11). Far from identifying Christ as Michael, this passage pictures Christ sharing God’s throne and ruling with him while Michael and his angels throw the devil and his angels down to the earth.

Later, Christ is described in another vision as the Word (Logos) of God leading the armies of heaven against the beast and his forces on earth (Rev. 19:11–21). This vision represents a later stage in Christ’s victory over sin in which he will bring judgment on the wicked who were inspired by the devil after his fall to the earth in Revelation 12. As Darrell Hannah comments: “The victory which Michael achieves only expels Satan from heaven, the victory of the Logos will end Satan’s threat forever. . . . His victory over the dragon in Revelation is limited and dependent upon the victory of Christ achieved on the Cross.”²⁶ Reading Revelation 12:7 in the context of the whole book, then, makes it quite clear that Michael is not Christ.

1. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, trans. Thomas Myers [1852] (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 2:368, cf. 369–70.

2. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, trans. and ed. John Pringle [1851] (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 282–83 (at 1 Thess. 4:16); Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. and ed. John Owen [1855] (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 439 (at Jude 9).

3. Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Authorized Translation . . . With a Commentary and Critical Notes, a New Edition (London: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1836), Old Testament, 3244 (on Dan. 10:13); New Testament, 1548 (on 1 Thess. 4:16), 2000–2001 (on Jude 9).

4. Jonathan Edwards, “Miscellaneous Observations,” in Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2:606; E. W. Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John, trans. Patrick Fairbairn (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1852), 1:562–66.

5. Foreman and Van Dorn, Angel of the Lord, 359–62.

6. “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?” Watchtower, 1 April 2010, 19.

7. “Imitate Jesus’ Humility and Tenderness,” Watchtower, 15 Feb. 2015, 6, and elsewhere.

8. Revelation—Its Grand Climax at Hand! (Wallkill, NY: Watchtower, 1988), 181.

9. “Who Is Michael the Archangel?” Awake!, 8 Feb. 2002, 16.

10. What Does the Bible Really Teach? (Wallkill, NY: Watchtower, 2005), 218.

11. “Archangel,” in Insight on the Scriptures, 1:156, and elsewhere.

12. E.g., Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 28–33.

13. Hannah, Michael and Christ, 29.

14. Hannah, Michael and Christ, 29.

15. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 218.

16. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 218.

17. Clarke, Holy Bible . . . New Testament, 2000–2001 (on Jude 9).

18. Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, §57.185 (1:579).

19. Testament of Abraham (A) 7.11, quoted in Hannah, Michael and Christ, 123 n. 4.

20. Cf. 1 Enoch 20.3, where Raphael is one of seven such angels; see George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, ed. Klaus Baltzer, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 294.

21. Cf. Foreman and Van Dorn, Angel of the Lord, 361, where the idea of a group of archangels is acknowledged only outside the Bible.

22. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 218; “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?,” 19.

23. “Michael,” in Insight on the Scriptures, 2:394.

24. Cf. Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, 3rd ed., 171 n. 68, who argues that Michael is unique because he alone is called “the great prince.”

25. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 219; see also “Michael,” in Insight on the Scriptures, 2:394.

26. Hannah, Michael and Christ, 128, 136–37. See also Charles A. Gieschen, “The Identity of Michael in Revelation 12: Created Angel or the Son of God?” CTQ 74 (2010): 139–43.

Further Reading

JESUS CHRIST: MICHAEL’S GOD PT. 2