Why doesn't the FATHER know the NAME which was written?
Of all the names/titles associated with Jesus (I-e-sous), or Yeshua, even from before his birth: Immanuel, meaning "God is with us" (Isaiah 7:14); Son of God; Word of God; Faithful and True (Rev, 3:14); KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS (Rev, 19:16), there is but one other name that could be associated with him, that only he himself, AND THE FATHER, would know, that is necessarily know, the meaning of this name being: "WHO IS LIKE GOD", and this spiritual personage is not unknown to us. The name is mentioned several times in both the OT and the NT, but not in association with Jesus and yet we could very well be talking about one and the same.
'MICHAEL THE GREAT PRINCE' - Who Is He?
The spirit creature Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible, but when he is, the context is always dramatic. In Daniel we see him fighting (as one of the foremost princes) wicked angels on behalf of God's people (Dan, 10:13,20,21) In Jude he is disputing with Satan over the body of Moses (Jude 1,9). And in the book of Revelation he casts Satan and his demons down to earth (Rev, 12:7-9). Evidently, Michael is a key figure in heaven. Hence, it is proper to wonder, Who is Michael?
Since Michael is a champion of God's people, there is reason to identify him with the unamed angel that God sent ahead of the Israelites hundreds of years before: " Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; because my name is within him." - Exodus 23:20,21 NWT
It is not, entirely, illogical to conclude that this may have been the angel that delivered so many important messages to God's people. (Acts 7:30,35; Judges 2:1-3). The same had full authority from God to act in His name.
Consequently, is there anything here to make us believe that Michael and Jesus Christ are the same person?..... Well, Jesus is called "the Word". He is God's (chief) spokesman........
MICHAEL STANDS UP
"And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." - Dan, 12:1 NWT
Daniel, in chapter 11, had just described the march of world powers from his own time and on into the future. Two of the resulting political entities - the King of the North and the King of the South - would vie for ascendancy and control over God's people. At the climax of that rivalry, Michael would "stand up". What does this mean?
Well, in other parts of this same prophecy, the term "stand up" (arise in the NASB) means that the person ... assumes authority to rule as King (Dan, 11:3,4,7,20,21). Hence when Michael, 'stands up' he, too, starts to rule as a King. Consider the implications of this.
Before Daniel died, the last Jewish King, Zedekiah, had been deposed. There would be no Jewish king for centuries to come. Daniel's prophecy showed that one day, in the future, God's people would once again have a king - Michael.
Ezekiel, Daniel's contemporary, foretold the coming of one "who has the legal right" to rule again as king of God's people (Ez, 21:25-27), namely, Jesus Christ, who was to be anointed by God to rule as king in a heavenly kingdom (Luke 1:31-33; 22:29,30; Psalm 110:1). It is therefore only logical to say that Jesus and Michael are the same person. Hence, in the climax of one prophecy, Jesus becomes a king. In the other prophecy, Michael becomes a king. And, since both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event, surely it is reasonable to conclude that they are also dealing with the same person.
In Jude 9, we see the designation "Archangel" given to Michael. In fact he was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the authoritative scriptures, nor do these scriptures use "archangel" in the plural. "Archangel" means " Chief of the angels." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Among God's spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ. (Matt, 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7). This too argues that Jesus and Michael are the same.
Interestingly, the name of Jesus is linked with the word "archangel" in one of Paul's letters. The apostle Paul writes: "The Lord (Jesus) himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet." (1 Thess, 4:16). The context places this event during "the presence of the Lord," when Jesus has started to rule as king. - 1 Thess, 4:15; Matt, 24:3; Rev, 11:15-18.
JESUS AN ANGEL?
Some object to identifying Jesus with the angel of Jehovah. For Trinitarians, of course, such identification poses a problem, since it shows conclusively that he is not equal to Jehovah God. Remember, though that the basic meaning of "angel" (Hebrew, mal-'akh'; Greek, ag'ge-los) is "messenger." As the "Word" (Greek, lo'gos), Jesus is God's messenger par excellence. Remember, too, that as the archangel, as well as "the firstborn of all creation," Jesus had the highest rank among the angels even before he came to earth, - Coloss, 1:15.
True, the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews: "He (Jesus) has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Heb, 1:4; Phil, 2:9,10). But, this was after his having been here on earth. He was still the archangel and "the beginning of the creation by God." (Rev, 3:14).
Hence, the fact that Michael is the archangel, chief of the angels, the fact that he stands up to rule as King, and the fact that he takes the lead in casting Satan out of heaven at the time of the birth of God's Kingdom all lead us to just one conclusion:....
Michael, the great Prince, is non other than Jesus Christ himself. - Dan, 12:1.
From my 2nd paragraph on, the above is an edited version, of a much longer narrative, taken from the "Watchtower - December 15, 1984", a xeroxed copy of which, has been in my possession for over 30 years. The impact it had on me has obviously been great. Whether or not, the readers of this post experience the same impact, is of small consequence to me, as I just felt compelled to share it. The Trinitarians amongst you, will most likely dismiss it, although I find it hard to believe that they won't at least ponder the possibility. Hopefully, I have not left out any truly important narrative, but then again there is always the option to further edit.