In the text below, I quote his text in green, and my text is in black.
I conclude, based on investigating many Bible passages, that Jesus is NOT the same as Michael the Archangel.
Friend Adrian,
I hold you in high esteem for your zeal for God, and for your desire to learn and teach from His scriptures. As you suggested, I prayed for wisdom (James 1:5) and for the help of the Holy Spirit, and I diligently searched the Scriptures (cf: Bereans, Acts) to evaluate the truth of your arguments that attempted to show that Jesus = Michael.
I found that your summary does an excellent job of documenting the old-testament theophanies and linking them to Jesus Christ.
However, as far as the question "Is Jesus = Michael the ArchAngel" is concerned, I found that the evidence of the Bible is much more consistent with "Jesus is NOT Michael" rather than "Jesus is Michael".
Let us reason together, looking at the arguments. I refer to each section of your summary by its title or its main idea, in the discussion below. I haven't quoted your entire summary due to limitations of space.
I completely agree with your conclusions in these sections. The appearances of the "Angel of the Lord" (in the Old Testament) do appear to be Jesus, prior to his incarnation.
See below for additional discussion.
Bottom-line: While this fact does not PROVE that Michael is not Jesus, it is consistent with the idea that he is not Jesus; however this fact is not inconsistent with the idea that Michael = Jesus either (if Michael=Jesus, they just didnt happen to mention it).
Elsewhere in the Bible, we see that God-the-Son has the authority to rebuke Satan. When we see the temptation of Jesus in the New Testament (Luke 4 etc) we see that Jesus is fully confident of his own authority to rebuke Satan; he is able to rebuke Satan based on his own authority, and in his own name.
Now, let's look at the Jude passage (Jude 9). Here we see that Michael the archangel did not dare to rebuke or accuse Satan, but said in effect "May God rebuke you"... So, we see that Michael was not confident of his own authority and capacity/ capability to rebuke (and defeat) Satan, but relied instead on saying "May God rebuke you".
So, we see Jesus being able to stand on his own authority to rebuke Satan, but Michael not being able to stand on his own authority to rebuke Satan. This then suggests that Jesus and Michael are different beings, and are NOT the same person.
Bottom-line: Michael depends on a higher authority, whereas Jesus depends on his own authority in a similar situation involving Satan, suggesting that Michael is NOT Jesus.
Bottom-line: This particular section does not either prove or disprove the idea that Michael = Jesus.
In any case, we find that "Michael, one of the chief princes" is a better translation than "Michael, chief of the chief princes", or "Michael, highest of the chief princes". Why?
(a) If the idea "chief of the chief princes" or "highest of the chief princes" was intended, it would be easy for the Biblical author to write "prince of princes" or "chief of chief princes" or "highest of chief princes" etc, using the Hebrew word for "chief" or "highest" etc. Instead he uses "echad" (English: "one")...
(b) Using Strong's concordance, we see also that while "echad" can mean "one" or when used as an ordinal, it can mean "first" (first in being counted), there is a better Hebrew word for "First in rank". The word is "rishown" or "rishon", which means "first in place, time or rank". If the author meant "Michael, the first in rank among the chief princes" he would more likely have used the word "rishown". However, if the author meant "Michael, one of the chief princes", he would have used the word "echad" (which is exactly what the author did).
(c) Furthermore, I looked up Daniel 10:13 in the Septuagint, which as you know is the Greek translation (3rd century BC) of the Hebrew scriptures. The translation was made by Jewish Rabbi's who knew Hebrew, and the way it was used, in a timeframe much closer to the time of Daniel than we are at today. Looking at their translation of Daniel 10:13, we see them use the Greek word "eis" (Strongs # 1520) for the word "one" in the sentence "Michael, one of the chief princes". The Greek word "eis" translates into the English word "one" and not to the English word "chief" or "first in rank". If the translators meant that Michael was the chief (or first in rank) among the chief princes, they would have used the word "arche" or "protos" or "uper" or "lian" or one of their derivatives. They clearly did not do this.
So we see that Michael is "one" of the chief princes and not the chief (first in rank) of the chief princes. This discussion suggests that Michael is NOT Jesus (since the book of Hebrews says that Jesus is superior to angels, meaning created angels, as opposed to the angel of the Lord).
Bottom-line: The discussion above suggests that Michael is NOT Jesus.
An angel speaks to Daniel (Daniel chapters 10,11). In Daniel 10:20-11:1, this angel says that he fights against the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece... and he goes on to say "No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince... And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him" (Daniel 10:21-11:1).
What do we see from this passage?
(a) The angel refers to "Michael, your prince". In the context, he is referring to the "prince of Persia" (an evil angel), the "prince of Greece" (an evil angel), and "your prince" (a good angel). So, "your prince" is either "Daniel's prince" or "Daniel's people's prince". The second appears to be more consistent with other Bible passages. So Michael there is the "prince of Israel" (in parallel with the other angels, the "prince of Persia" and the "prince of Greece")... It appears that there are high-level angels responsible for different nations, both from God's side and from Satan's side. It is possible that such angels are the "chief princes" referred to in the Bible (Daniel 10:13, for instance)... Below these "chief princes" then, there would be other lower-level angels... The tone of the discussion (in these verses) suggests that "Michael" and the "un-named Daniel-10 angel" are peers. We dont see evidence of great superiority on the part of Michael (over the "unnamed angel" or over the "princes" of Persia or Greece). *** This is consistent with "Michael" being one of several "chief princes" who are over different nations, and this is NOT consistent with Michael being Jesus (who is superior to all created angels, cf: Hebrews).
(b) In Daniel 11:1, the "unnamed angel" states that he took his stand to support and protect Michael. This is consistent with Michael being a peer of the "unnamed angel". If Michael were Jesus (particularly before his incarnation, remembering that it was during Jesus' incarnation that he put aside many of his God-powers to take the form of a man) he would not NEED the "unnamed angel" to support and protect him. Since Jesus is God-the-Son, he does not NEED the "protection" of a created angel who is "inferior" to Jesus. The language used by the "unnamed angel" indicates that he and Michael are peers, not that Michael is vastly his superior. *** This is consistent then with Michael NOT being Jesus, but being a created angel instead.
Bottom-line: The discussion above suggests that Michael is NOT Jesus.
(a) Michael is not mentioned in this passage.
(b) The sentence structure does not mandate that the "voice of the archangel" is the "voice of Jesus".
There are multiple things happening here (at the 2nd coming of Christ), and the Bible indicates that Jesus appears with many many angels. We would expect the hosts of angels to include archangels and so the shout, the archangel-voice, the trumpet, dont all have to be by the same single person.
There is a parallel to this situation in the fall of Jericho. We recall that Joshua and the Israelites march around Jericho seven times (on the 7th day). Let's look at the sequence of events. (a) The Lord commands Joshua to do this. (b) Joshua commands the priests and the people (and the officers: Joshua 3:2 shows that Joshua had officers over the people, but below himself) to march around Jericho once a day for 6 days, then 7 times on the 7th day, then the priests blow trumpets and everyone shouts. (c) They march around Jericho 7 times on the 7th day, then the priests blow the trumpets, and when they hear this, all the people shout, and the walls fall...
So, in this account, we see (a) the Lord's command, (b) Joshua's command, (c) the implied presence of the officers beneath Joshua, (d) priests blowing the trumpets, (e) the people all shout... All these events occur close-in-time and are associated with the fall of Jericho.
Similarly, at the 2nd coming of Jesus (and the resulting fall of humankind's "walls" of sin and rebellion against God) we have (a) the loud command of God (NIV translation) or shout (KJV?), (b) the voice of the archangel, and (c) the trumpet of God, all happening in parallel (or very close together) without this neccessarily meaning that Jesus is the archangel Michael...
Bottom-line: The section & discussion do NOT demonstrate that Michael = Jesus (but, neither do they do the opposite).
Bottom-line: The section & discussion do NOT demonstrate that Michael = Jesus (but, neither do they do the opposite).
Daniel 12:1 therefore does NOT indicate that Michael is Jesus... In fact, Jesus does not stand just for the Jews, he "stands" for the whole world, for Jews and for Gentiles of ALL nations, anyone who will accept him in humility and repentance. Jesus' scope (the whole world) appears to be much larger than that of Michael (the people of Israel).
Bottom-line: The discussion above suggests that Michael is NOT Jesus (since Jesus' scope appears to be larger).
The argument for Michael = Jesus, is basically a peer comparison, i.e., "Dragon" is-to "Satan" is-as "Michael" is-to "Jesus". This assumes that a peer comparison between Satan and Jesus is possible. However, Satan and Jesus are not peers. Jesus is not a created being. On the other hand, Satan is a created angel (likely was an archangel before he fell). Correspondingly, Michael appears to be a created archangel. Satan is on the side of evil; Michael is on the side of good.
So, in this Biblical passage, it is legitimate to compare Satan (created archangel on the side of evil) against Michael (created archangel on the side of good), but not Satan against Jesus (which would be suggesting equivalence between created-being versus creator)... So, as we see, the evidence again suggests that Michael is a created archangel, and is NOT Jesus.
Bottom-line: The discussion above suggests that Michael is NOT Jesus.
Bottom-line: The discussion above suggests that Michael is NOT Jesus.
The phrase "Lord of hosts" is found 245 times in the Bible and refers to the "commander of God's angelic army." So the "captain of the Lord's host" that Joshua saw was not an angel, but Jesus Himself. That explains why He demanded that Joshua remove his shoes. The place was holy because Jesus was there, just as Jesus' presence at the burning bush made that ground holy for Moses. So Michael, the captain of the Lord's host, or army, is another title for Jesus. [end of quote]
However, this does NOT indicate that Michael = Jesus.
Why?
(a) The clincher would be if the "unusual warrior" were referred to as Michael. He is not. So, this does not prove that he is Michael, but neither does it disprove the concept.
(b) So, let's go on and look at the phrase "Lord of Hosts", as you mentioned, used 245 times in the Bible. I looked this up using Strong's concordance. I did not find a single instance where "Lord of Hosts" was applied to Michael the archangel.
The occurrences of "Lord of Hosts" were applied to God almighty. The usage appear to refer to God as "God of the angelic hosts", and "Lord of the angelic hosts", which is broader in scope than just "commander of God's angelic army". The usage appears to refer to the incredible power of God (a Hebraism to depict the greatness of God's power).
(c) Does any of this indicate that Michael = Jesus? No.
There appear to be more than one "chief prince" among the angelic hosts. The angels appear to be organized like an army. From examples we see in the Bible, (human) armies appeared to be organized with a hierarchy of commanders at different levels (like today's private-corporal-sergeant-lieutenant and other officers etc). There are some indications that similar hierarchies are present among the angels. To look at an analogy, the Allies, during the 2nd world war, had different "supreme commanders" for the armed forces in "the Pacific theatre" and in the "European theatre" etc. Similarly, it appears that each "chief prince" has a hierarchy of angels beneath him, and is possibly assigned to different world-regions. So, Michael would have angels beneath him, and so would the other "chief princes".
I haven't come across any statement in the Bible that Michael is the one-and-only supreme commander of all the angelic beings. I do see a reference to "Michael and his angels"... However, there also appear to be other "chief princes" with angels beneath them.
The sole and highest "supreme commander" of the angelic hosts appears to be Jesus Christ, and he appears to be higher than the "chief princes", who are created beings.
Bottom-line: This section overall does not either prove or disprove the idea that Michael = Jesus.
Introduction
Sections discussing Old Testament Appearances of Jesus
Section titled "Manoah" [Adrian quote] Samson's mother, the wife of Manoah, was barren. "And the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman" (Judges 13:3). This angel told her she would bear a son who would deliver the apostate Israelites from their heathen oppressors. She quickly called Manoah, who prayed for another visit from the "man of God." When the angel came the second time, Manoah asked him his name. The King James Version of the Bible says that the angel told Manoah that his name was "Secret," with a margin notation that translates it as "Wonderful." This immediately makes us think of Isaiah's familiar prophecy that the name of the coming Messiah would be "Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). The name "Wonderful" for the angel of the Lord who appeared to Manoah connects this "angel" with the coming Messiah who was to be called "Wonderful." [end of quote]
The theophany to Manoah, where the Angel of the Lord (AOL) says his name is "wonderful", and correlating this with later Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 9:6... Now, if "Michael the ArchAngel" was a significant title of Jesus, why does the AOL not use that title with Manoah, and why does the title not appear in Isaiah 9:6, where several of the most significant titles of Christ are provided...
Section titled "Rebuking the Accuser"[Adrian quote] There is one more important reference where the angel of the Lord appears in the Old Testament. The prophet Zechariah was given a vision of Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord. Satan is standing at his right hand to resist him. Here we see two adversaries contending over a sinful human being. In this case the sin is represented by Joshua's filthy garments (Zechariah 3:3). In this narrative the name changes quickly from "the angel of the Lord" (verse 1) to "the Lord" (verse 2), indicating again that they are one and the same. Then the Lord makes an interesting statement. "And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan" (Zechariah 3:2) There is only one other place in Scripture, Jude verse nine, where this sentence is found, and it is spoken by Michael the archangel! In the small New Testament epistle of Jude we see a vignette similar to Joshua and the angel in the book of Zechariah. "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 1:9). The situations are amazingly parallel. Christ and Satan are contending over a sinner. A live one in the case of Joshua, and a dead one in the case of Moses. The debate is ended abruptly when Jesus says, "The Lord rebuke thee." Jesus also rebuked the devil when He was tempted in the wilderness. "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan" (Luke 4:8). [end of quote]
Zechariah sees a vision of Joshua the high-priest and Satan standing before AOL... and AOL says "The Lord rebuke thee, Satan"... This appears to be "God the Son" saying to Satan, "May God-the-Father rebuke you, Satan"... This happens without any commentary (in these verses in the Bible) of God-the-Son not having authority to rebuke Satan...
Section titled "Messiah the Prince"[Adrian quote] Isaiah's prophecy about the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6) reveals a key word that bears investigating. One of the names he says that would apply to the Messiah is "Prince of Peace." This immediately reminds us of the three verses in Daniel in which Michael is called a "prince." There is another verse in Daniel where the "Prince of princes" is mentioned. Again the cosmic conflict is being played out with Christ on one side and the devil on the other, with humanity serving as the battlefield. Symbolic names identify the two arch foes. Both struggle to gain control, Satan against our will and Christ only with our willingness. "Prince of princes" is actually the same term that is translated "prince of the host" in verse 11. This is similar to "Lord of lords" (Psalm 136:3), "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17), and "King of kings" (Revelation 19:16). All these are titles of deity. He is even referred to as "Messiah the Prince" (Daniel 9:25). [end of quote]
The fact that both Michael and Jesus are referred to as "prince" does not mean necessarily that they are the same person. As we all know, there are many "princes" refered to in the Bible, and this does not make them equal to Jesus. However, I do realize that this argument is not your main-argument, and that you are building a case with many bricks.
Section titled "One, or First?"[Adrian quote] Daniel 10:13 is probably the most difficult verse regarding Michael: "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." It appears at first glance that Michael is only "one of" the chief princes. This is an unfortunate translation in the King James Version. The word "one" comes from the Hebrew word "echad" which also means "first," as in "first day" (Genesis 1:5). This changes the whole meaning of the verse to Michael being first of, or highest of, the chief princes. Again, a reference to Jesus. [end of quote]
If we assume that the Hebrew word could equally be either "One" or "First", we can't use this passage to say for sure that Jesus is Michael. Ok, lets say that Michael is indeed the highest of the chief princes (angels). That does not automatically mean that he has to be Jesus. He could be a created Archangel who is the #1 among the created-angels, but is below Jesus.
Additional discussion of "the archangel Michael" from the book of Daniel
Section titled "Voice of Michael" [Adrian quote] If we take the term "Michael the archangel" and examine the word "archangel," we see another interesting match. The only other passage in the Bible that uses the word "archangel" is 1 Thessalonians 4:16. But look at its context. "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." It is the voice of the archangel that raises the dead in Christ, and the Lord Himself who shouts it. This indicates that they are one and the same. Jesus is the one who shouts with the voice of the archangel, or "greatest Messenger," to raise the dead! [end]
I Thes 4:16: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first"...
Section idea -- "Angels don't have power to resurrect the dead"[Adrian quote] Obviously, angels don't have the power to resurrect the dead. Only God who gives life has the power to restore it. "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. … Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth" (John 5:26, 28, 29). In Jude we see the archangel contending with the devil for the body of Moses, who, incidentally, was resurrected and taken to heaven from whence he appeared on the mount of transfiguration to encourage Christ (Mark 9). In 1 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul describes the resurrection as happening in response to the voice of the archangel. Again we see the parallel between these two verses; both describe the archangel in the act of resurrecting. [end of quote]
True, but we cant use this to prove that Michael = Jesus, because the Biblical text does not say that Michael resurrected the dead, and no, it does not say that "the resurrection happened in response to the voice of the archangel". It is the power of God (independent of the archangel) that causes the resurrection, and not the voice of the archangel. In other words, the "voice of the archangel" and "the resurrection" are co-temporaneous, but are not cause-and-effect; it is the power of God, acting at the same time as (or immediately following) the "voice of the archangel" that causes the resurrection. And so the "voice of the archangel" could be the voice of a created archangel, and does NOT have to be the voice of Jesus.
Section idea -- "Michael stands for the children of thy people"[Adrian quote] When Michael stands up in Daniel chapter 12, there also follows a resurrection, and he is described as the one who, "standeth for the children of thy people" (verse 1). Commenting on this verse, Matthew Henry states: "Michael signifies, 'Who is like God,' and his name, with the title of 'the great Prince,' points out the Divine Savior. Christ stood for the children of our people in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the curse for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in pleading for them at the throne of grace." Jesus is clearly the one who always stands in our place and for our defense. [end of quote]
Daniel 12:1 -- Michael "standeth for the children of thy people". The "thy" being spoken to is Daniel; and "thy people" are the Jews. This is consistent with Michael being the archangel (chief prince) who protects the people of Israel (similar to the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece, except they are responsible for Satan's work in those nations).
Section titled "worshipping the commander" [Adrian quote] In Revelation, Michael is portrayed as leading the heavenly hosts, or armies, in the war against the rebellious Lucifer that took place there. "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels" (Revelation 12:7). Here the term "dragon" is a symbolic name for Satan, the leader of evil (verse 9), so it is very safe to assume that Michael is another name for Jesus, the embodiment and leader of good. [end of quote]
Revelation 12:7 does NOT indicate that Michael is Jesus. Yes, "dragon" is a name for Satan, the leader of evil. Does this mean that "Michael" is a name for Jesus? No, it does not.
Further Discussion: What about "Michael and his angels" waging war in heaven against "Satan and his angels"?[Adrian quote] In Revelation, Michael is portrayed as leading the heavenly hosts, or armies, in the war against the rebellious Lucifer that took place there. "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels" (Revelation 12:7). [end of quote]
I can understand the need for Michael AND his angels to wage war against Satan, if Michael and Satan are peers (both created archangels). However, if Michael is Jesus, remember that Jesus spoke and the universe was created; the power at his disposal is truly incredible. All he would have to do is "speak" and Satan would be hurled out of heaven. Also, this appears to occur before Jesus was born as a man (incarnated, putting aside much of his God-powers), so he had not limited his powers yet. The fact that "Michael" does not just "say the word" and have Satan ejected from heaven, but rather has to wage war (suggesting a process) together with his angels, against Satan, suggests that Michael is NOT Jesus.
Section titled "worshipping the commander"[Adrian quote] Just as Israel was preparing for its first battle after crossing into the Promised Land, Joshua had an encounter with an unusual warrior. "And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so" (Joshua 5:13-15). Not only did Joshua worship this being, but the heavenly captain received his worship. If he had been a mere angel, he would have rebuked Joshua just like the angel rebuked John for trying to worship him (see Revelation 19:10; 22:8, 9). In all the cases where the angel of the Lord accepts worship, it is clearly the Son of God. But where regular created angels are worshiped, they refuse it. Even Jesus reminded Satan in the wilderness, "For it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Luke 4:8). In fact, all the created angels are commanded to worship Jesus as they did during His first advent. "And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Hebrews 1:6). The devil is infuriated because he knows that someday even he will be compelled to acknowledge Jesus as king and worship Him. "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10, 11).
I agree with the conclusion that this "unusual warrior" is most likely Jesus in an old-testament theophany.