I WAS GIVEN a brief analysis of evidence that has been used by some scholars to imply that both “Jesus the Messiah” and “Michael the Archangel” are one and the same person.   I was asked to study the scriptures to see if I could substantiate this interpretation, or show it to be false.

Now, this is not the belief that Jesus is an angel.  The Deity of Jesus Christ is not being questioned in this assertion.  Rather, it’s the suggestion that scripture also calls Jesus by the name of Michael, the archangel of God.

This notion is inspired by references in scripture to the preincarnate Christ being called “the angel of the LORD” (Gen 22:11-12).  And since the term “angel” means messenger, it’s reasoned that Jesus can appropriately be understood to be Michael the archangel, or chief of angels.  Men such as Charles Spurgeon, John Gill, and Matthew Henry, all believed that Michael is another name for Jesus, and all of them teach the Deity of Christ.

So I took a look into the evidence put forth in support of such an interpretation.  However, in light of all the evidence they offered, I have yet to find a reason or explicit teaching that demands that I embrace Michael as another name for Jesus. In fact, I couldn’t even find a rational justification for its pursuit as a doctrine. Instead, I found that the basis for this argument is founded upon nothing more than presumption and semantics. Here’s what I mean.

JESUS THE PRINCE:

In scripture, both Jesus and Michael are both identified as princes. That much is not disputed.  However, this fact is then put forth as evidence that Jesus and Michael are one and the same.  Granted, if Jesus and Michael were two names for the same person, then both would be said to be princes.  But there’s also an obvious problem with using this similarity as evidence – more than one person can hold the title of “prince.”

The strength of this argument rests wholly upon an assumption.  You must already believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same before this “evidence” can carry any weight.  Because, by itself, it proves nothing, and is evidence of nothing.

What’s ironic is that one of the very arguments used to show that both Jesus and Michael are princes also proves that they are separate individuals.  Read the following verse about Michael the Archangel carefully.  What does it say about Michael as a prince?

“But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” (Daniel 10:13, KJV)

Michael is identified as “one of the chief princes.” So we must ask, is Jesus but “one” of many chief princes? Is Jesus equal to other princes in this capacity? If Jesus is understood to be the chief of the angels, then He cannot be said to be Michael who is but “one of” the angelic chiefs. Here is where semantics break against identifiers. Michael is but one of many chiefs in Christ’s angelic army. This verse clearly informs us that Michael is not the ultimate head over all angels; he is “one of” the chiefs. This identifier is not applicable to The Sovereign God, Jesus Christ, but it is a fitting description of “one of” God’s chief Archangels.

THE VOICE OF JESUS:

A second example of arguing from semantics is derived from God’s call to resurrection.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:” (1 Thessalonians 4:16, KJV)

Does this verse teach that Jesus will descend alone? Must we conclude that the “voice of the archangel” is the literal voice of Jesus? Or is this verse simply saying that as Christ descends, His archangels and their angelic armies go before Him heralding His arrival? This question is answered quite plainly by scripture:

“And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matthew 24:31, KJV)

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works.” (Matthew 16:27, KJV)

“And then shall He send His angels, and shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.” (Mark 13:27, KJV)

These verses tell us that Christ will send His angels with a heralding cry and blasts of trumpets. We need not assume that the trumpeting and voices are proceeding from Christ’s mouth. Nor do we need to assume that only one archangel, or trumpet, is involved in the heralding of Christ’s return.

This argument attempts to prove itself by interpreting 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as if the proposition that Jesus is an archangel was already established as true. It is assumed that Jesus is the sole archangel in existence, and then reasons that when He descends “with the voice of the archangel” its teaching that the voice is His own.  When an argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself, you have circular reasoning. This kind of approach to the scriptures is what begins heresies and false teachings.

HIS ANGELS:

Presumption is further extended into other verses such as this one:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,” (Revelation 12:7, KJV)

It’s argued that this verse shows that angels belong to Michael. This argument is again made on the presumption that Michael has already been proven to be Jesus. The evidence here is assumed to imply that Michael owns the angels under his command by right of creation, thereby proving that He is Jesus. But is this the conclusion demanded by this passage?

The archangels are chief angels. There is more than one of them; as scripture pointed out when we were told that Michael was but “one of” these angelic chiefs. They are the generals who lead heaven’s legions, the army of God. And in an army, the chief, or leader is given troops over which he is responsible. Those troops become “his,” in the sense of responsibility. Therefore, the angels under Michael’s command are no more “his angels” by right of creation and ownership than those angels under Satan’s command. Any interpretation that demands that Michael must be Jesus because the angels are “his” must also demand that we believe that Satan created the angels that are “his.” If angels can belong to Satan and not imply creation, on what basis are we arguing that Michael is Jesus? We are again arguing from the standpoint of semantics and presumption.

Thus we see two angel commanders with authority over legions of subservient angel warriors. No ownership need be assumed. We must be careful not to force the scriptures to serve a preconceived notion, because this interpretation is only valid if this duality has been expressly taught elsewhere, which it has not. In the void of direct instruction, we have no authority to imply meaning.

OF POWER AND SIGNIFICANCE:

It is also argued that because Michael is seen to obtain victory in battle quicker than other angels, this somehow implies deity. In my mind, this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to gather a crowd of potential witnesses to give the impression of being a substantial teaching.

If I take scripture at its normal meaning, and understand Michael to be “one of” many leaders of God’s angelic army, I would naturally expect that his classification as a chief prince would imply a greater power and authority than those angels who are not chiefs. Naturally I would expect him to obtain victory quicker than an angel of lesser power and authority. So the notion that Michael’s victory is proof that he must be Jesus is an unnecessary leap of assumption.

Where do we draw the line between operating in the imparted power and authority of God and actually being God? The book of revelation shows us that it is the angels who pour out God’s vials of wrath in many cases without forcing us to conclude that each angel is God Himself. And Jesus told us that we would perform greater works than He did on earth, saying: “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do” (John 14:12, KJV), and yet this does not make those who perform “greater works” than Jesus another Messiah. Success, or the “greatness” of supernatural works is not a basis for determining the identity of Jesus, but certainly reveals an imparted authority.

THE WITNESS OF A NAME:

Can the very meaning of the name “Michael” stand as evidence that Jesus and Michael are one and the same?  It’s suggested that because the name Michael means “who is like God,” this means either that Jesus is like God, or that the name is asking the rhetorical question: “who is like Jesus.”

The archangel Michael and I share the same name. So what would happen if someone observed me performing greater works than Jesus, and then realized that my name is Michael.  Would they naturally assume that I must be Jesus?  Is that really a foregone conclusion?

Names are important, but not every name is exclusive to God. The most potent example is seen in the fact that both Jesus and Satan bear the name “morning star.”

Satan is the Morning Star:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, KJV)

• LUCIFER: 1966. heylel, hay-lale’; from H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:–lucifer.

In other translations this is simply rendered:

“How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, NIV)

Jesus is the Morning Star:

“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” (Revelation 22:16, KJV)

“And I will give him the morning star. {29} He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” (Revelation 2:28-29, KJV)

The name, “Morning Star” falls under the same category as “chief prince” and “Lord.” While they can, and do, apply to Jesus, they can also apply to created beings. The swing vote in our interpretation must be the identifiers found in the verses themselves that differentiate Jesus from Lucifer, and Jesus from Michael. But if we ignore them, then we can easily begin to argue by the strength of semantics and come to some very errant conclusions.

IN CONCLUSION:

When looking at the idea that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, I simply cannot accept the idea based upon the arguments presented above.  The reason that the archangel Michael features so prominently in scripture, as opposed to other archangels, is that Michael is a guardian of Israel, and therefore appears in references to that nation and the spiritual events associated with them.   Just as there is a spiritual Prince of Persia, there is also a spiritual prince of Israel, both of whom serve their masters without being divine themselves.  Suffice it to say, semantics and presumption are the bane of sound doctrine, and we ought to guard ourselves very carefully against adopting any scriptural interpretation who’s primary force is the guesswork and appeals for support from human logic.