Response to the Counter-Arguments

Leave a reply

While the counter-arguments against equating Jesus and Michael are impressive in their own right, they overlook another line of evidence. Portraying Jesus as an angelic figure is compatible with early Judaism, which often portrayed the coming Messiah in angelic terms. Some scholars have referred to the picture of Christ in Revelation 1 as “angelomorphic Christology”. The mighty angel of Revelation 10:1-2 bears striking resemblance to both the exalted Christ of Revelation 1 and the man clothed in linen of Daniel 10:5-6 and 12:7. The Son of Man appears in the midst of a series of angels in Revelation 14:14. Since the angel that appears in 14:15 is dubbed “another angel”, it could be inferred that the son of man on the clouds is also an angel. While angels are created beings, so are humans, and Jesus’ humanity was an act of creation (John 1:1-3, 14). So spending time in the form of an angel is not inconceivable for Christ. Evidence that the incarnation of Christ should not be limited to a single act is found in Genesis 18, where both Yahweh and two angels appear to Abraham as “men” (Gen 18:2, 10, 22; 19:1).

Counterarguments Against Michael Being Christ

3 Replies

While the identification of Michael as Jesus Christ finds support in certain passages, many scholars and theologians maintain that Michael is solely an angelic being, distinct from Jesus Christ. This is often done to protect the divine nature of Christ and the Christian understanding of the Trinity. Identifying Jesus with the angelic figure Michael, to many, seems to threaten the full deity of Jesus Christ.

There are other counter-arguments. In Daniel, the Christ figure (portrayed as the son of man in Daniel 7:13-14 and 10:16) is distinct from Michael (Dan 10:21). In Revelation, worship of angels is discouraged (19:10 and 22:8-9), while Jesus Christ is clearly an object of legitimate worship (Rev 5:9-14). Christ is connected to God in Revelation by the common use of the divine titles “the first and the last”, “the beginning and the end”, “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Angels, on the other hand, are created beings. Only God is worthy of worship (Rev 4:8-11), no created being deserves worship. For John, therefore, Jesus is clearly superior to the angels. If John had intended to identify Michael with Christ, he could easily have done so, but he does not.

Identifying Michael as Jesus Christ

Identifying Michael as Jesus Christ is widely supported by reference to 1 Thessalonians 4:16. Paul there associates the Second Coming of Jesus with the voice of the archangel. The word archangel (Greek: archangelos, archangelou) appears only two times in the New Testament. In Jude 9 the archangel is named Michael, in 1 Thessalonians, the archangel is not named, but is present at the Second Coming. In both instances, the archangel is involved in the resurrection of the dead. It is a small step from there to the conclusion that the archangel Michael and Jesus Christ are one and the same person, although this is not explicit in 1 Thessalonians or Jude.

Further evidence for identifying the two is the fact that both Michael (Daniel 10:13, 21; Jude 9; Rev 12:7) and Jesus Christ (Matt 4:1-11; Rev 12:7-8) do battle with Satan. Michael is one of the chief princes (Dan 10:13—he is chief ruler in the Greek: archōnton tōn prōtōn), the great prince (Dan 12:1), and an archangel (Jude 9). Jesus Christ is king of kings and lord of lords (Rev 17:14; 19:16), the ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev 1:5). In Revelation 13:4, the worshipers of the sea beast (who is portrayed as a counterfeit of Christ) cry out, “Who is like the beast?” This cry echoes the name of Michael (Rev 12:7), which means, “Who is like God?” So there is significant evidence that at least some writers of the New Testament identified Michael with Jesus Christ.

Michael in the New Testament

The first reference to Michael in the New Testament is found in the book of Jude, where he is referred to as “the archangel Michael” (Jude 1:9), one of the leaders among the angels. This is compatible with the testimony of Enoch, noted above. The passage in Jude recounts a dispute between Michael and the devil over the body of Moses, a narrative which is drawn in part from Zechariah 3 and in part from the lost ending of the Testament of Moses, as noted above. According to scholarly reconstructions of the Testament of Moses, the story went something like this. Moses on Mount Nebo sent Joshua back to the camp of Israel to tell them Moses was dead. When Moses dies, God sends the archangel Michael to recover the body of Moses and bury it in an unknown location. The devil appears in his role as the accuser, slandering Moses’ right to an honorable burial on the grounds of his murder of the Egyptian. Michael, who was Moses’ advocate, not his judge, did not take it upon himself to reject the devil’s accusation, but rebuked him in the name of the Lord. At this, the devil then fled, and Michael buried Moses.

Jude uses this illustration to expose the arrogance of his opponents. If the archangel Michael himself refused to slander Satan when the opportunity showed itself, then the false teachers Jude is writing about are on dangerous ground in blaspheming (slandering) the glorious ones of Israel’s history, like Moses (Jude 1:8). What Jude contributes to our investigation is the affirmation that Michael is a major adversary of Satan, a role that is reminiscent of Daniel 10. But while the scene in Jude is clearly one of conflict, warfare language is not used, so Michael’s role as commander-in-chief of the angels is not in view here. And there is also no hint in Jude that the author equated Michael with Jesus Christ. Jude has mirrored Michael’s traditional roles of archangel, advocate of the righteous, and opponent of Satan.

The last biblical reference to Michael is in Revelation 12:7, the text at the heart of this paper topic. While there are many references to angels in the book of Revelation, Michael is the only angel that is mentioned by name. In Revelation 12:7-9, there is a cosmic war between Michael and his angels, on the one hand, and the dragon/Satan and his angels, on the other. One might have expected John to have placed Christ in this role rather than Michael. Throughout Revelation, Christ is presented as a conqueror or victor (Rev 3:21; 5:5; 17:14; 19:14-15). Be that as it may, Michael emerges victorious in this conflict, casting the dragon/Satan out of heaven. This narrative aligns with the widespread New Testament theme of the victory of Jesus Christ over Satan through his death and resurrection (John 12:31-32). And the mention of Satan as the “accuser of the brethren” reminds readers of the New Testament of Satan’s accusations against Moses in Jude 9, and of Michael’s response in defense of Moses. So the actions of Michael in Revelation 12 raise the possibility that he is more than just one of the archangels, more even than the leader of the archangels, he is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. In that case, the Michael of Old Testament and Jewish narrative would, in fact, be the pre-existent Christ. But this identification is not made explicit in Revelation, hence the need for further study.

Michael Outside the Bible

Outside the biblical canon, Michael’s presence is widespread in Early Jewish texts (see the extensive listing of Jewish sources in David E. Aune, Revelation, 3 vols., Anchor Bible, 2: 694-695). Michael is particularly noteworthy for his benevolence and healing virtue toward humanity (1 Enoch 20:4; 40:9). But his role is generally less powerful in the Jewish sources than it is in Daniel. He is one of the four heavenly archangels in Ethiopic Enoch (1 En 9:1; 40:1-11; 54:6; 71:8-9, 13). He is one of the seven archangels in other parts of Enoch (20:1-7; 81:5; 90:21-22) and in Tobit (12:15). When the job descriptions of the seven angels are differentiated, Michael is the one who attends to the prayers and supplications of God’s people (see, for example, Slavonic 3 Apocalypse of Baruch 11:4 and Origin, de principiis 1.8.1).

In Ascension of Isaiah (3:16), on the other hand, Michael is more than just one of the archangels, he is “the chief of the holy angels”, the “commander-in-chief” (see also Rescension A of the Testament of Abraham [1:4; 2:2; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1; 7:11; 9:8; 10:12; 14:5, 12; 15:1; 19:4, cf. Rescension B, 4:5], 3 Apocalypse of Baruch [11:4, 7, 8], and the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra [4:24]) and the one who opens the graves in the resurrection. In Enoch, Michael is a key figure in the events that led to the fall of the rebellious angels and their punishment. He is the intermediary between God and Israel when the law is delivered to Ezra (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:3). In the Assumption of Moses (also called Testament of Moses), a lost Jewish work mentioned by Origen, Michael is the angel who buries Moses after his death. So, even in early Jewish texts, Michael is treated as more than just one of the archangels.

Michael in the Old Testament

The name “Michael” in Hebrew means “Who is like God?” The earliest appearance of Michael in the Bible is in Daniel, where he is referred to as “one of the chief princes” (Dan 10:13), “your prince” (Dan 10:21), and “the great prince who stands for the children of your people” (Dan 12:1). In Daniel, Michael is a powerful heavenly being associated with the protection of Daniel’s people in the midst of captivity. He also plays the key role in the final judgment (Dan 12:1, cf. 1 Enoch 54:6) and in delivering Daniel’s people at the end of time (Dan 12:1). In Daniel 10:13 and 21, he assists the “man clothed in linen” to resist “the prince of the kingdom of Persia”, who is presumably Satan. So Daniel portrays Michael as a prominent adversary of Satan in the cosmic conflict.

Major Earlier Studies on Michael the Archangel

The earliest major work on the archangel Michael that I am aware of is by Wilhelm von Luecken (Michael: Eine Darstellung und Vergleichung der jűdischen und morgenländisch-christlichen Tradition vom Erzengel Michael [Gőttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1898]). His particular interest, however, is understanding the worship of angels in early Jewish and Christian traditions. While many of the roles of Michael that are expressed in current scholarship were already explored in Luecken’s work, he shows little interest in Revelation 12, mentioning it only in passing and even then only on pages 27, 106 and 109.

A century later, the book by Darrell. D. Hannah (Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT 2/109 [Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999]) seeks to update and replace Luecken’s work on Jewish angelology and also explore its role in early Christian christology. It serves as a history of the Michael traditions within the larger field of Jewish angelology. In the New Testament portion of the book, Hannah concludes that functions associated with Michael are attributed to Christ without implying that Michael and Christ are the same individual. Another narrowly focused major work is by J. P. Rohland (Der Erzengel Michael: Artzt und Feldheer: Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frűhbyzantinischen Michaelskultes [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977]). This book focuses on Michael’s roles as healer and field marshal in pre- and early Byzantine theology.

Several recent dissertations come much closer to the topic. One of these is the dissertation of Leo. R. Percer (“The War in Heaven: Michael and Messiah in Revelation 12” [Ph.D. Dissertation, Baylor University, 1999]). Percer’s dissertation examines the role of Michael in Revelation 12 from two perspectives; 1) the ideal, first-century audience, and 2) that of the author of the book. His study considers the roles of Michael and the Messiah in Revelation 12, seeking to understand the relationship between the two. He concludes that Michael is subservient to the Messiah in Revelation 12 rather than equated with him.

A more tangential dissertation on Michael the Archangel is by Lewis O. Anderson (“The Michael Figure in the Book of Daniel” [Ph.D. Dissertation, Andrews University, 1997). The focus of Anderson’s dissertation is limited to the evidence concerning Michael in the book of Daniel. Anderson poses the research questions: Who is Michael? and What is his function in the book of Daniel? He concludes, in contrast with Percer, that Michael is identified in Daniel with the Prince of the host of Yahweh (a veiled reference for God) and with the messianic Son of Man. He is equivalent to the Angel of the Lord, found elsewhere in the Old Testament.

More recently, and closest to the specific purpose of this paper, is the dissertation by Michael O. Akpa (“The Identity and Role of Michael in the Narrative of the War in Heaven: An Exegetical and theological Study of Rev 12:7-12” [Ph.D. Dissertation, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2007]). He concludes, in direct contrast with Percer, that Michael in Revelation 12 is the same entity as the male child (Rev 12:5), Christ (Rev 12:10), and the Lamb (Rev 12:11). Michael functions in the narrative as both a divine warrior and as a judge. It is evident from this quick survey of the three relatively recent dissertations that the identity of Michael the Archangel in the Bible is not a settled issue.

The Identity of Michael in Revelation 12

Among Seventh-day Adventists, the quick and dirty solution to the identity of Michael in the Bible is that Michael is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, who leads the cosmic conflict against Satan (SDABC, 7:809, cf. 3SG 38; DA 99; Appendix to PP 761). Adventists tend to take their lead from Ellen G. White, who in Desire of Ages, page 99, quotes Daniel 10:21 as follows: “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Her assertion is affirmed by the editors of Patriarchs and Prophets, who comment on page 761: “Christ . . . was revealed to [the prophets] as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord’s host, Michael the archangel.” But nowhere in Scripture is Jesus called ever Michael. That equation may be implied in some places, but it is not stated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Aside from incidental genealogical references, the name Michael, as a heavenly being, appears five times in the Bible; three times in the book of Daniel and one each in the New Testament books of Jude and Revelation. In this blog series, I survey the major positions on Michael in the Bible and offer a contribution or two to the topic drawn from the literary context of the Michael reference in Revelation 12. Since Revelation 12 is probably the key chapter in the Bible for the cosmic conflict, this study will also contribute to understanding of that larger theme. To be continued. . . .

Conclusion: Living in Light of the End

When you get to know and love people, it is a natural tendency to avoid conflict in your dealings with them. But while it may be convenient to do so, Adventist Christian communities can never abandon God’s ideals because we look forward to God’s eschatological restoration of the ideal in a glorious garden city, the New Jerusalem (Rev 22:1-5; Rom 8:19-25). While the ideal is not always achieved in Christian communities, we are called to display the ideal to the degree possible in anticipation of the new earth and the new humanity exhibited in the resurrected body of Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3-14; 2 Cor 5:15; Eph 2:3-7). Adventist Christian communities seek to uphold the ideal, while treating all who fall short of that ideal, whether by nature or by choice, as if they were the living embodiment of Jesus Christ in our midst. “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me (Matt 25:40, NKJV).” As long as human probation remains open, God does not abandon those He loves (Ezek 16:1-64; John 21:15-17), neither should we. I invite all who read these words to be faithful in loving others the way Christ has loved us (John 13:34).

The Bible and Compassion

What can we learn from Scripture about how to treat those who do not meet the ideal (which includes every one of us at one time or another)? It is critical to begin by acknowledging that LGBT+ people (along with the rest of humanity, of course) bear the image of God (Gen 1:26-27. While the image of God may be marred in all of us, it is not fully eradicated by sin. To disrespect the image of God in anyone is to disrespect the One who created and sustains us all. But, more than that, LGBT+ people are “brothers (sisters) for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11). When we disrespect anyone for whom Christ died, we disrespect the cross, and the high value God placed upon the human race there. We also look to the example of Jesus Christ, who in His earthly life treated sinners of all sorts with dignity and respect, including tax collectors, whose very profession was offensive to followers of God at the time (Matt 9:10-12; Luke 15:1-2; 19:1-10). Jesus refused to look down on any sinner or condemn them (Luke 7:36-50), but invited them to re-orient their lives in relation to God’s ideals (John 8:11).

To know someone is to love them. When we take the time to know and love LGBT+ people, they are no longer abstractions, they are human beings who want to be understood, respected, treated fairly, and loved like anyone else. LGBT+ people have been disproportionately affected by stigma, discrimination, and abuse. The church and its institutions, often motivated by fidelity to Scripture, have nevertheless caused significant harm to LGBT+ individuals. So, any outreach to them must begin with repentance and heartfelt confession, followed by careful listening to their life stories and their struggles. It is from a context of love and understanding, acknowledging the brokenness we have in common, that we earn the right to invite them to consider the advantages in a life of sexual purity and self-control (1 Thess 4:4-7; Rom 12:2). “Our neighbor is everyone who is wounded and bruised by the adversary. Our neighbor is everyone who is the property of God.” Desire of Ages, 503.