2

Michael is mentioned in Revelation 12:7

Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. (NIV)

So who is Michael is he just the archangel or is he Jesus

4
  • 1
    Welcome to the site, Bonnie. If you click this link hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/tour you will learn how to ask questions on here. There is a need to be focused on one particular text, or point, instead of asking about several texts. Answers on Hermeneutics are not to be about general subjects (Who is the Archangel in these 3 texts?) And if you want answers about Jehovah's Witness interpretations, such questions need to go in Stack Christianity and to be addressed to them. You'll find may such questions have already been answered there.
    – Anne
    Jan 19 at 16:44
  • 1
    Thank you for letting me know
    – Bonnie
    Jan 19 at 16:56
  • Hello and welcome to the site. Questions on the identity and theology of Michael belong on Christianity: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/michael
    – curiousdannii
    Jan 19 at 23:53
  • Thank you for the link
    – Bonnie
    Jan 20 at 7:35

2 Answers 2

1

It is an odd thing for the Jehovah's Witnesses to attribute Jesus as Michael the Archangel for the following reasons:

1.) Hebrews chapter 1 gives an extensive Christology, identifying Jesus(the Son) in terms no mere Angel or Archangel could have. Examples:

Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is said to be the radiance of God's Glory and the exact representation of His nature. Some translations say: brightness of His(God's) glory and express image of His person. No angel can fit that category.

Here is where things get more expressive:

For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?

And again:

“I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

Hebrews 1:6 might be a little more tricky to interpret because in one instance it says in effect that the firstborn(Jesus) is to be worshipped by all the angels of God, which would include Michael the Archangel. This proves that Jesus isn't an angel of any order whatsoever.

What Hebrews 1:6 also shows us is that if Jesus is to be worshipped by any of the Angels of God, then we only have 2 primary conclusions:

1.) Jesus is God, eternally co-existent with the Father and the Spirit. OR

2.) The Angels of God are committing idolatry right there in Heaven!

The only logical conclusion from such a verse (Heb 1:6) is to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ. But it gets better!

And of the angels He says:

“Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But to the Son He says:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

2.) Jesus is often quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses and deniers of the Deity of Christ as being the firstborn over all creation and by that, they wrongly assume He isn't God. (Colossians 1:15)

To dissect what this term means, namely: Firstborn, we need to look at some OT background. We'll also address what image of the invisible God means:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." (Colossians 1:15)

Jesus is said to be the image of the invisible God, cross referenced to Hebrews 1:3, this means from the Greek "eikōn" "likeness" "image" & the English word "icon" is derived from it. Angels are NOT anywhere described in both the OT or NT as being the "express image of God" or "image of God".

Furthermore, the term firstborn has roots in Jewish and Greek culture as pertaining to first in rank or preeminence in position. In such ancient cultures it was customary for the firstborn to receive the right of the inheritance from his father. In the same way, Jesus receives the inheritance His Father gave to Him. See also: (Jeremiah 31:9, Exodus 4:22)

See also for the image of God in man: How do we reconcile Genesis 1:26 with Isaiah 46:9?

"having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Hebrews 1:4)

"has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds" (Hebrews 1:2)

3.) Third and last: The Jehovah's Witness' translation which is named the New World Translation (NWT) was originally first published in 1950, the later and fully completed translation was made in 1961.

The (NWT) has passages in Hebrews & the rest of the Bible changed and altered in such a way that it denies the deity of Christ & the doctrine of the Trinity.

It's founder was Charles Taze Russell, who was a restoration movement minister. In his early life he questioned core Christian doctrines like the Trinity and even that of Eternal Punishment. So with his bias against such doctrines it's no wonder that he and those after him (like J.F. Rutherford) would be part of the organization that eventually made a translation that gutted the very teaching of the Deity of Christ.

EDIT: Also, the term Begotten in Greek is "monogenēs" which means "one and only, unique". It does NOT mean created or birthed.

10
  • 1
    This is very helpful thank you so much
    – Bonnie
    Jan 19 at 20:31
  • Good answer. Just one critique: "then we only have 2 primary conclusions: 1.) Jesus is God, eternally co-existent with the Father and the Spirit..." That is not a primary conclusion. That's not a conclusion at all, because nowhere is the Spirit mentioned in any of your premises. The right conclusion to draw would simply be that Jesus himself is eternal, and thus God. It would not be that Jesus is eternal along with the Father and Spirit who are also God and thus the Trinity is proved. Hebrews 1:6 proves the deity of Christ, not the Trinity. Otherwise, +1 on the answer.
    – Rajesh
    Jan 19 at 22:20
  • Oh, one more critique. "In his early life he questioned core Christian doctrines like the Trinity and even that of Eternal Punishment." J.F. Rutherford never denied eternal punishment; he denied the hellfire doctrine. Torture is not the only kind of punishment, therefore eternal torture is not the only kind of eternal punishment. Another punishment is permanent obliteration or total destruction from which there is no return indefinitely. That would also serve as an eternal punishment, and thus one does not have to accept the hellfire doctrine to accept eternal punishment.
    – Rajesh
    Jan 19 at 22:31
  • @Rajesh according to historic Christianity, Eternal punishment of the wicked in Hell (consciously) has been a tenet of the Church’s doctrine. Some in the last 2,000 years from the church certainly have objected to it. Re-read what I said about Rutherford, I never said he denied hell.
    – Cork88
    Jan 19 at 23:38
  • @Rajesh It is a primary conclusion if we take the whole of Scripture that Jesus is co-eternal with the rest of the Godhead. Certainly you are correct that Hebrews 1:6 merely proves the deity of Christ, but yet, the whole of scripture wouldn’t teach modalism via Hebrews 1:6 either.
    – Cork88
    Jan 19 at 23:40
0

The title Mikael מִיכָאֵל means "Who [is] Like God?" found in [Daniel 12:1] associated with the Prince of the Army of YHVH שַׂר־צְבָא־יְהֹוָה made known in [Joshua 5:14] who will resurrect the spiritually dead shortly after the ingathering of the exiles. In the presence of Mikael, the ground becomes holy & footwear must be removed as stated שַׁל־נַעַלְךָ מֵעַל רַגְלֶ֔ךָ כִּי הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹמֵד עָלָיו קדֶשׁ הוּא in [Joshua 5:15].

Mikael saves Yisrael from destructive [persecution] - not from their own sins. Only YHVH will forgive sins of Yisrael as Adon Olam stated in [Isaiah 43:25] - " I! I erase your transgressions for My sake, and your sins I will not remember." (אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי הוּא מֹחֶה פְשָׁעֶ֖יךָ לְמַֽעֲנִי וְחַטֹּאתֶיךָ לֹא אֶזְכֹּֽר)

If the NT human prophet Jesus the Nazarene is our one and only Father YHVH of Tanakh, then Jesus the Nazarene could not have been מִיכָאֵל Mikael the שַׂר־צְבָא־יְהֹוָה Prince of the Army of YHVH.

1
  • Very interesting, thanks for this
    – Bonnie
    Jan 19 at 16:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.