Michael the Archangel, a characterization of Jesus in heaven?

[Eloi]

We, Jehovah's Witnesses, consider that Jesus is also the Archangel Michael. It is not just our belief, as many biblical scholars of other religious denominations have considered the matter in the same way.

Can this idea be demonstrated with the Bible? If that is not the case, the idea will not even be part of the Jehovah's Witness body of doctrines. In no way would we consider as belief something that did not have sufficient biblical support.

I would like to talk about that matter on this topic, as there is a lot of information that I would like to share about it. The subject of debate is: can it be demonstrated with the Bible that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? My answer is that you can do that, and in passing the topic I will try to prove it.

[JehovahsWitness]

DANIEL 10:13 GREAT PRINCE OR LEADER?






VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS

New International Version
... Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

New Living Translation
Then Michael, one of the archangels, came to help me, and I left him there with the spirit prince of the kingdom of Persia.

English Standard Version
...but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,

Berean Study Bible
...Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

King James Bible
... but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

New King James Version
... of Persia.

New American Standard Bible
.... then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

NASB 1995
“... then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

NASB 1977
“...then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

Amplified Bible
...Then, behold, Michael, one of the chief [of the celestial] princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

Christian Standard Bible
...Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me after I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
... Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me after I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

American Standard Version
...but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
... and behold, Mikaeil, one of the Princes, first came to help me, and I remained there against the Ruler of Persia

Brenton Septuagint Translation
... and behold, Michael, one of the princes, came to help me; and I left him there with the chief of the kingdom of the Persians:

Contemporary English Version
... Then Michael, who is one of the strongest guardian angels, came to rescue me from the kings of Persia.

Douay-Rheims Bible
... and behold Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I remained there by the king of the Persians.

English Revised Version
...but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Good News Translation
The angel prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me for twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief angels, came to help me, because I had been left there alone in Persia.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
...But then Michael, one of the chief commanders, came to help me because I was left alone with the kings of Persia.

International Standard Version
...Then all of a sudden, Michael, one of the chief angels, came to assist me! I had been detained there near the kings of Persia.

JPS Tanakh 1917
...but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I was left over there beside the kings of Persia.

Literal Standard Version
...and behold, Michael, first of the chief heads, has come to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;

NET Bible
...But Michael, one of the leading princes, came to help me, because I was left there with the kings of Persia.

New Heart English Bible
... but, look, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was left there with the kings of Persia.

World English Bible
... but, behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Young's Literal Translation
'... and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Per

[myth-one.com]

We, Jehovah's Witnesses, consider that Jesus is also the Archangel Michael. It is not just our belief, as many biblical scholars of other religious denominations have considered the matter in the same way.

Can this idea be demonstrated with the Bible? If that is not the case, the idea will not even be part of the Jehovah's Witness body of doctrines. In no way would we consider as belief something that did not have sufficient biblical support.

I would like to talk about that matter on this topic, as there is a lot of information that I would like to share about it. The subject of debate is: can it be demonstrated with the Bible that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? My answer is that you can do that, and in passing the topic I will try to prove it.

Isn't the connection between Jesus and whom He was made from clearly spelled out by the following verse:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...

The Word was made flesh, not Michael.

And that would make sense because the Word created the heaven and the earth:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Word created the earth, there was a problem on the earth, so who should be involved with solving that problem?

The Word.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Yes, and who else has this position besides Jesus? He is the only one who is mediating between God and people. No one else is mentioned in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, etc. So that surely means that Jesus is in the position of Michael at Daniel 12, and vice versa for the account in Matthew. They are the same Person.

Not so, not even close.

Michael's position was not as a mediator but as a representative.

There is no vice-versa.

Closer than you think.

Michael's position WAS as a mediator between God and the people. What else could this mean?----"During that time [the Great Tribulation] Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people." (Daniel 12:1)

Sure looks like he is designated as a mediator.

.

[onewithhim]

We, Jehovah's Witnesses, consider that Jesus is also the Archangel Michael. It is not just our belief, as many biblical scholars of other religious denominations have considered the matter in the same way.

Can this idea be demonstrated with the Bible? If that is not the case, the idea will not even be part of the Jehovah's Witness body of doctrines. In no way would we consider as belief something that did not have sufficient biblical support.

I would like to talk about that matter on this topic, as there is a lot of information that I would like to share about it. The subject of debate is: can it be demonstrated with the Bible that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? My answer is that you can do that, and in passing the topic I will try to prove it.

Isn't the connection between Jesus and whom He was made from clearly spelled out by the following verse:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...

The Word was made flesh, not Michael.

The Word was and is Jesus. And it has been shown how we can equate Jesus with Michael.

[Eloi]

Although the archangel Michael, the spiritual "prince" of Jehovah's people, is mentioned by name in only a few places in the Bible, we can note that other biblical events refer to the same person even without mentioning that name of his. For example, when Jehovah told Moses that he would bring israelites out of Egypt, he told them that he was going to put an angel who would fight their battles for them.

Exo. 23:20 “I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you on the way and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, because my name is in him. 22 However, if you strictly obey his voice and do all that I say, I will show hostility to your enemies and oppose those who oppose you. 23 For my angel will go ahead of you and will bring you to the Amʹor·ites, the Hitʹtites, the Perʹiz·zites, the Caʹnaan·ites, the Hiʹvites, and the Jebʹu·sites, and I will annihilate them.

If Michael is said to be the Prince of Daniel's people and the one who fights their battles, then that angel that Jehovah mentions to Moses is also Michael.

Likewise, the angel that appears visibly to Joshua when he was going to conquer the first territories of Canaan, is the same angel that Jehovah had spoken of to Moses, and therefore Michael, the Archangel:

Josh. 5:13 When Joshua was near Jerʹi·cho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua walked up to him and asked: “Are you on our side or on the side of our adversaries?” 14 To this he said: “No, but I have come as prince of Jehovah’s army.” With that Joshua fell with his face to the ground and prostrated himself and said to him: “What does my lord have to say to his servant?” 15 The prince of Jehovah’s army replied to Joshua: “Remove your sandals from your feet, because the place where you are standing is holy.” At once Joshua did so.

Then it becomes clear to us who it is that was protecting Israel all the time, fighting their battles and ridding them of their enemies. It was Michael, as the personal angel of Jehovah himself, who was acting on his behalf: Jesus himself before he was born as a human being.

Is. 63: 7 I will mention Jehovah’s acts of loyal love,
The praiseworthy acts of Jehovah,
Because of all that Jehovah has done for us,
The many good things he has done for the house of Israel,
According to his mercy and his great loyal love.
 8 For he said: “Surely they are my people, sons who will not be disloyal.”
So he became their Savior.
 9 During all their distress it was distressing to him.
And his own personal messenger saved them.
In his love and compassion he repurchased them,
And he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
10 But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit.
He then turned into their enemy,
And he fought against them.

Isn't it true that it is now better understood what Jehovah's promise through Malachi means to the Jews some 400 years before Jesus Christ was born?

Mal. 3:1 “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies."

[Eloi]

When we read the word "messenger" in the Scriptures I just mentioned before, the literal word in Hebrew (and its sustitute in Greek) means ANGEL at the same time. Only the context can tell if the word refers to a human messenger or an actual angel. Like in Mal. 3:1 (part b) the expression "the messenger of the covenant will come" actually refers to a spirit who was in contact already with the Jews (cause it says "in whom you take delight") and to a human, Jesus himself as a messenger from God.

Compare with what this text says:

John 1:9 The true light that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own home, but his own people did not accept him. 12 However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name.

Did all the Christians of the first century know that apart from being the Logos of God in heaven, Jesus himself was the angel that guided Israel and that he was also called Michael, as Archangel and spiritual Leader of Jehovah's Army in favor of the people of Jehovah's human worshipers?

That does not seem to be the case, but Paul is clear about that situation, as he said:

Heb. 5:7 During his life on earth, Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. 9 And after he had been made perfect, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been designated by God a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.
11 We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing.

One thing is certain: Paul knew it, because if not, he could not have said that Jesus would come again, but that next time with the voice of Archangel. Why do I say that? If "archangel" is a title of a heavenly position of less authority than that of the position that Jesus occupies in heaven just after being exalted by Jehovah, then it would not have been appropriate to say that he would come with a voice like that one, for it would be like say that a lion meows like a cat. So the only option is that Jesus himself is the Archangel when he acts with the authority of the Leader of the heavenly Army at his disposal, like in another times he was Michael himself in the same position before his own human life and post-human exaltation.

And isn't that exactly what the Christian Greek Scriptures say about Jesus and his angels? In the NT Jesus is described executing judgment with his angels; only in the Gospel according Matthew we have these declarations, as examples:

Matt. 13:41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen. (...) 49 That is how it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from among the righteous 50 and will cast them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be.

... 16:27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior.

... 24:31 And he [the Son of man] will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

... 25:31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

... 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels?

So based on those biblical statements: can we think of Jesus as the Archangel of God's heavenly Army of angels?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Yes, and who else has this position besides Jesus? He is the only one who is mediating between God and people. No one else is mentioned in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, etc. So that surely means that Jesus is in the position of Michael at Daniel 12, and vice versa for the account in Matthew. They are the same Person.

Not so, not even close.

Michael's position was not as a mediator but as a representative.

There is no vice-versa.

Closer than you think.



Michael's position WAS as a mediator between God and the people. What else could this mean?----"During that time [the Great Tribulation] Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people." (Daniel 12:1)

Sure looks like he is designated as a mediator.

Whatever. It doesn't really matter.

Michael was/is/shall be, Michel, an archangel.

Unlike God's Beloved Son, in whom God remains well pleased.

Chalk and cheese.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Yes, and who else has this position besides Jesus? He is the only one who is mediating between God and people. No one else is mentioned in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, etc. So that surely means that Jesus is in the position of Michael at Daniel 12, and vice versa for the account in Matthew. They are the same Person.

Not so, not even close.

Michael's position was not as a mediator but as a representative.

There is no vice-versa.

Closer than you think.



Michael's position WAS as a mediator between God and the people. What else could this mean?----"During that time [the Great Tribulation] Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people." (Daniel 12:1)

Sure looks like he is designated as a mediator.

Whatever. It doesn't really matter.

Michael was/is/shall be, Michel, an archangel.

Unlike God's Beloved Son, in whom God remains well pleased.

Chalk and cheese.

So you have nothing constructive to say about my argument here? You don't want to attempt an answer to my question about Daniel 12:1? Your only answer is "It doesn't really matter"? It matters to me and that's why I asked you about Daniel 12:1. Can you extend some kindness?


.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Yes, and who else has this position besides Jesus? He is the only one who is mediating between God and people. No one else is mentioned in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, etc. So that surely means that Jesus is in the position of Michael at Daniel 12, and vice versa for the account in Matthew. They are the same Person.

Not so, not even close.

Michael's position was not as a mediator but as a representative.

There is no vice-versa.

Closer than you think.



Michael's position WAS as a mediator between God and the people. What else could this mean?----"During that time [the Great Tribulation] Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people." (Daniel 12:1)

Sure looks like he is designated as a mediator.

Whatever. It doesn't really matter.

Michael was/is/shall be, Michel, an archangel.

Unlike God's Beloved Son, in whom God remains well pleased.

Chalk and cheese.

So you have nothing constructive to say about my argument here? You don't want to attempt an answer to my question about Daniel 12:1? Your only answer is "It doesn't really matter"? It matters to me and that's why I asked you about Daniel 12:1. Can you extend some kindness?

I can and will try to do that.

Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24 and Luke 21 do include one similar theme, but that commonality is not Michael and Jesus.

Each mentions a very severe time of stress in Israel and on its people.

But none of these three passages says anything about a mediator.

Michael is described in your translation of Daniel 12:1 as:

"will stand up"; "standing in behalf of".

That is not what a mediator is, or what a mediator does.

It does not support, but refutes, what you said it looks like:

"he is designated as a mediator."

I know these things matter to you.

They do to me also, in the sense of writing as truthfully as possible.

I regret you may not have found the above constructive.

Ah well, this is me signing off.

In a different way.

The word you used to end your post, "kindness", seems to be rarely expressed these days.

But when you did, it was a pleasant reminder of a beautiful song I love.

So I just want to share it now with you, as one believer to another.

Enjoy!

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Yes, and who else has this position besides Jesus? He is the only one who is mediating between God and people. No one else is mentioned in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, etc. So that surely means that Jesus is in the position of Michael at Daniel 12, and vice versa for the account in Matthew. They are the same Person.

Not so, not even close.

Michael's position was not as a mediator but as a representative.

There is no vice-versa.

Closer than you think.



Michael's position WAS as a mediator between God and the people. What else could this mean?----"During that time [the Great Tribulation] Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people." (Daniel 12:1)

Sure looks like he is designated as a mediator.

Whatever. It doesn't really matter.

Michael was/is/shall be, Michel, an archangel.

Unlike God's Beloved Son, in whom God remains well pleased.

Chalk and cheese.

So you have nothing constructive to say about my argument here? You don't want to attempt an answer to my question about Daniel 12:1? Your only answer is "It doesn't really matter"? It matters to me and that's why I asked you about Daniel 12:1. Can you extend some kindness?

I can and will try to do that.

Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24 and Luke 21 do include one similar theme, but that commonality is not Michael and Jesus.

Each mentions a very severe time of stress in Israel and on its people.

But none of these three passages says anything about a mediator.

Michael is described in your translation of Daniel 12:1 as:

"will stand up"; "standing in behalf of".

That is not what a mediator is, or what a mediator does.

It does not support, but refutes, what you said it looks like:

"he is designated as a mediator."

I know these things matter to you.

They do to me also, in the sense of writing as truthfully as possible.

I regret you may not have found the above constructive.

Ah well, this is me signing off.

In a different way.

The word you used to end your post, "kindness", seems to be rarely expressed these days.

But when you did, it was a pleasant reminder of a beautiful song I love.

So I just want to share it now with you, as one believer to another.

Enjoy!

Very pretty song. I wonder though....how can God love us "no matter what we do" when he is calling us to repent? Why repent if he accepts us no matter what we do?

I also want to say that "mediator" was a term that I used to describe what Jesus is (it is actually attributed to him at I Timothy 2:5) and Michael as well. Michael "stands up" for his people. What else could that mean but that he is mediating in some way for the people---between God and men? I look forward to your comment.