I cannot speak for anyone else, but I will tell you why I cannot accept this interpretation (and yes, it is an interpretation, just as the trinity is an interpretation):
Christ does not teach this of Himself.
He could have made a simple statement if it were true (same with the trinity). But He does not teach it. Even in Revelation, He is referred to as Himself (Jaheshua - though most texts will write Jesus). Why would Christ be referred to as both in the same book/place after He has already returned to heaven? Yes, Michael is in revelation, but not as the Christ. Michael is never described as the Lamb of God, or as the Truth, or as the Word, or the Way, or the Son of God, or the High Priest, or the King (nor as the King of Kings and Lord of lords), etc.
Just as Christ does not teach that He is part of a triune God, Christ does not teach that He is the arkangel Michael.
Christ is the Son of God. The Word. The Life. The Way. The Truth. The firstborn. The Amen. The Faithful and True Witness. His name is Jaheshua. <-these are things that He taught (and teaches still).
He does not teach that He is Michael.
Christ does not teach - anywhere - that He is the archangel Michael. Since He (Christ) is the One to whom I listen and obey, I will continue to listen to Him and accept His word/teaching on this (and any other) matter.
"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."
Sure.Lets look at the facts regarding Jesus and Michael.
Indeed. But many angels (including other princes - Michael is one) existed in heaven before Christ came to earth. There is no connection between Christ having existed in heaven before coming to earth - and the idea that Christ is Michael.1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1,3, 14; 3:13; 8:23, 58; 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus’ existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.
A - You're basing this point on an assumption.2. Jesus’ position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah’s creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.
Are there not four angels holding back the four winds so that no harm comes to Israel? All four angels are doing something powerful for Israel, are they not? Therefore, other angels can be chosen to do important tasks to protect Israel. Gabriel came and brought messages to people in Israel from God as well - (and of course the word angel simply means messenger)... but does that make Gabriel, Christ (the Word of God, who spoke as God told Him to speak)?
Of course not.
And if Michael serves and supports Christ, would he (Michael) not also serve and support those who belong to Christ - such as Israel? Michael is the prince of Israel, after all. But Christ is the Prince of princes (of which Michael is one).
Michael IS a powerful angel - one of the chief princes - and he has remained loyal to Christ, supporting and serving Christ.
But Michael is not Christ.
Michael is one of the chief princes.3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
We know that there are multiple princes (Daniel 10:13)- and each prince has a principality, such as Persia, or Greece, or Israel, etc, Daniel 10:20.
But Christ is prince OF princes. He is over them all (including Michael).
As for 1 Thessalonians, Christ coming with the voice of an archangel does not make Him an and/or that archangel... anymore than Christ coming with the trumpet call of God makes Him God.
Overcomer summed that up here:
And just because Michael disputed with Satan about something does not indicate that Michael is Christ.Jesus is the one coming down from heaven. But do the words “voice of the archangel” mean that Jesus is an archangel, let alone THE archangel Michael? Not at all. If I said my sister sings with the voice of an angel, would you assume she’s an angel? And if Jesus comes with the trumpet call of God, why doesn’t the JW assume that he’s God? After all, if the one clause tells us Jesus is an archangel then why doesn’t the next clause, structured exactly the same way, mean that he’s God?
Michael is the arkangel who remained faithful to Christ. The Adversary is the arkangel (originally a guardian angel) who turned away from Christ (to look at himself).
A - That is not true.4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.
The Adversary has angels as well.
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.
B - There are multiple princes (as Daniel shows). Christ is prince of princes (multiple).
This is not evidence that Christ is Michael.5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.
Many experts believe the trinity is true; many experts believe hell (as a place of eternal torment) is true; etc.
Even the people who believe that Christ is Michael believe other things that are false. So how is it that their beliefs could be credible as support?
And of course there is the verse that speak AGAINST the Son of God being an angel (and an archangel is still an angel).
Christ is the Son of God, born from God, brought forth from God (as Proverbs 8 does make clear, and yes, my Lord does teach that He is Wisdom. Does Christ not call out? Do not those who find Christ, find life?)
May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, so as to hear the truth of this (and any) matter, from THE Truth: Christ Jaheshua. And may anyone who thirsts, as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,