The Watchtower organization has for years taught that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Are they correct in this teaching? Let me start off with saying that it is impossible to say for sure or not, because the bible simply is not totally clear on this subject. As a JW in the past I have defended on several occasions the Society’s teaching that Jesus is in fact Michael. However after examining the bible and other commentaries on the bible, I have to say that now I am leaning the other way. I don’t think the Society is right on this teaching. Also let all readers know I do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

The first time Michael is mentioned is in Daniel 10:13 – “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me for 21 days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me after I had been left there with the kings of Persia”

Something that jumps out at me from this text is that Michael isn’t the chief prince, he is one of the chief princes. If Jesus is Michael and “one of the chief princes”, are there also other angelic chief princes that are equal to Jesus? That certainly could not be true, so this is one thing that I have taken into consideration in my study of this question. This text by itself would give more credence to the belief that Jesus is not Michael.

Daniel 12:1 also mentions Michael – “At that time Michael the great prince who stands watch over your people will rise up. There will be a time of distress such as never has occurred since nations come into being until that time…”

The Society has long equated the “rising up” or standing up of Michael with Jesus receiving kingdom power in 1914. Does the term “rise up” or “stand up” (NWT) always refer to someone assuming power as a king? Consider Daniel 11:11 (NWT) “And the king of the south will embitter himself and will have to go forth and fight with him, that is with the king of the north; and he will certainly have a large crowd stand up, and the crowd will actually be given into the hand of that one.”

Does the crowd mentioned here that “stands up” all assume power as kings? Of course not. Also when Daniel 12:1 mentions that Michael rises or stands up it is not implying that he became king, it simply means he acts on behalf of God’s people.

The Society has tried to tie Jesus, Michael, and the unnamed angel in Exodus 23:20,21 all together. This simply is pure speculation. It is true that these 3 all spoke with authority for God, but isn’t that true of all angels that are sent by God? Do they not all speak with the authority given them by God?

Another text that the Society points to is 1 Thess. 4:16 (NWT) “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an (not the) archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet,…”

The Society will say that only an archangel can call with an archangel’s voice, and therefore Jesus is that archangel. But is this what this text is saying? Should we conclude that since Jesus comes with God’s trumpet he must be God, since only God can come with God’s trumpet? Of course not. We also can not conclude that Jesus is an archangel because he descends with an archangels voice.

To give an example, when a king or a president enter a room often there is a voice introducing them, such as “Ladies and gentlemen: The President of the United States” I think this text is giving the same idea. When Jesus returns he will return with his angels and any archangels that there are.

Hebrews chap. 1 also emphasizes the superiority of Jesus over the angels. The writer of Hebrews cites from Psalms 2 in Hebrews 1:5 -”For example, to which of the angels did he ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today I have become your father’? And again: ‘I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son’?

Notice also how Paul quotes from Ps. 110 in Heb. 1:13 “But with reference to which of the angels has he ever said: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet’?

The point Paul was making is that God never said these things to any angel. Jesus is much superior to any angel. But Michael, the archangel, was alive at the time these prophecies were recorded in the Psalms. If God had Michael in mind at the time he inspired these prophecies, how is what Paul said in Hebrews correct? Paul specifically said that God never spoke these words to an angel. Therefore Jesus could not be an angel.

Also consider the fact that when Jesus was on earth he spoke with authority in condemning Satan for twisting the scriptures, but Michael refused to do the same when he had a disagreement with Satan (Jude 9).

These are the reasons that I no longer believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael. This is not to say definitively that the Society’s belief on this matter is wrong, it is just my opinion. Since the bible is unclear on the identification of Michael, it indicates this is not a salvation matter.

Rating 4.13 out of 5
[?]

57 Comments on Is Jesus Michael the archangel?

  1. A says:

    See the following, which I found useful. It addresses and answers all the questions you raise.

    Article – Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?
    http://tinyurl.com/2dbhux3

    Video – Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?
    http://tinyurl.com/4n7plh3

    A.

      (Quote)

  2. LonelySheep says:

    Andrew, your Prima facie argument seems sound. I would like to put it to the test. With your permission, can I copy your comments and post it on e-jehovahswitness.com (this is the sight run by e-Watchman,aka Robert King)? If you don’t already know, the site is pro Jehovah and is sympathetic to JW’s but it is not scared to highlight shortcomings in our beliefs or in the organisation itself. It would be interesting to hear what the brothers would think.

      (Quote)

  3. Amos says:

    Greetings Andrew,
    Thank’s for bringing this topic up. I do agree with you & lean toward the view that Michael is not our Lord Jesus, but is as the scriptures say…”Then Michael, one of the chief princes”, not “THE chief prince”, as you brought out.

    I am still not yet completely settled into my new home yet, so am not able to go into much discussion for a while yet.

    Amos

      (Quote)

    • Dennis says:

      Well hurry up and get settled then, we miss you input. :)

      Dennis

        (Quote)

      • Amos says:

        I’m going as fast as I can…..but won’t be properly settled for another couple of months yet. Don’t worry, I too miss the participation here with everyone.
        I have started to go to a non-denominational “house church” (four couples) at my new town, they are a loving group. I’m starting to have some very good scriptural discussions with them.

        Your brother, Amos

          (Quote)

  4. LonelySheep says:

    Thanks Andrew, I will post it up and give you full credit along with our God Jehovah and his Son Jesus for your revelation.

    There are some very sharp minds there, and if your thoughts can bear up under their scrutiny you may well be onto something.

    Perhaps you may wish to drop in and see how your comments are received? Any case, thank you for responding..:-)

      (Quote)

    • andrew says:

      Hi LonelySheep
      There is no need to give me credit, many have seen these things before I have.

      e-Watchman’s theories often appeal to those who are JWs or ex-JWs that see the shortcomings of the Society but still believe JWs are God’s only people. In my opinion this premise can not be supported by the bible. There are many sincere, God fearing christians in other denominations that are our brothers. Do they believe in wrong doctrine? Yes, but so do the JWs. To try to distinguish or separate oneself or one’s group as the only one that has God’s favor is reminiscent of the Pharisees. See Luke 18:9-14

      The separation of the weeds and the wheat has not yet begun. Although e-Watchman has commendably pointed out some things in which the leadership of the JWs has acted unfaithfully, his whole argument is based, in my opinion, on a faulty premise. Namely, that JWs are exclusively God’s only people and all others Christians are false.

        (Quote)

  5. Jon says:

    Timothy Kline has a good article on his site concerning the same subject.

      (Quote)

  6. greybeard says:

    Hi Andrew,

    I agree 1000%.

    You said, “If Jesus is Michael and “one of the chief princes”, are there also other angelic chief princes that are equal to Jesus? That certainly could not be true…”

    I think that say’s it all. There is no way Jesus could be Michael.

    I also agree with your comments on e-Watchman. I think Perminio has the same thinking. True, as you said, there are good Christians in all faiths. Salvation is not based on correct doctrine. As we have learned, it just does not exist 100%. So what percentage is acceptable? 25%, 50%, 75% 95%???

    I believe we won’t have 100% correct doctrine, TRUTH, until Jesus returns and he has not returned yet.

    If JW’s are fulfilling anything is scripture it is prophecies regarding false prophets and Pharisees.

    TMO,
    Your brother,
    Greybeard

      (Quote)

  7. susanna says:

    SOME VERY GOOD POINTS BROUGHT OUT HERE IN REGARDS TO MICHAEL.i AT ONE TIME DID BELIEVE MICHAEL WAS JESUS , BUT SCRIPTURE SHOWS NOT.
    ALSO MANY HONEST ,SINCERE OPINIONS POSTED HERE..

      (Quote)

  8. ResLight says:

    I am not with the JWs, but I have no quarrel with them concerning Jesus as being Michael the Archangel.

    The Archangel is not, never has been, and never will be, of the class of “angels” that Paul refers to in Hebrews.

    Indeed, many of the Protestant reformers taught that Jesus is Michael the archangel. See the website link provided.

    Nevertheless, I would not make acceptance of “Jesus is Michael” a basis for Christian fellowship.

      (Quote)

    • Dennis says:

      “Nevertheless, I would not make acceptance of “Jesus is Michael” a basis for Christian fellowship.”

      What a wonderful Christian attitude ResLight.

      Dennis

        (Quote)

  9. LonelySheep says:

    Hi Andrew,

    I have been struggling with the same premise that JW’s are exclusively ‘Gods chosen’ of late my self.

    As Greybeard said, how much of the Truth must you have before one is acceptable to God. Since JW’s fall short of having the complete Truth then it is clear, this is not the marker of judgement.

    However I do believe that JW’s (as individuals, not necessarily as a Group) are trying their best with the commission to preach, abstain from Wars etc and I hope that this has merit with Jesus when he returns. Are JW’s judgemental, hyper-critical and egotist yes we are, but this is because the leadership have developed a sneering ‘we are better than you’ attitude towards every body else, when in fact in most areas we are no better than those we sneer at.

    I agree with GreyBeard that full truth will not be known until Jesus arrives, but I won’t condemn every JW to the scrap heap because of having been mis-lead. We are unfortunately as a group a product of our teachers.

      (Quote)

    • Dennis says:

      “but I won’t condemn every JW to the scrap heap because of having been mis-lead. We are unfortunately as a group a product of our teachers.”

      Nor will I LonelySheep. Jehovah’s Witnesses are some of the most sincere people I know and truly do want to do what’s right. Unfortunately they (and many others) have fallen into an endless loop of “mislead men, misleading men” (I read that somewhere).

      Dennis

        (Quote)

    • andrew says:

      I would also agree with you and Dennis. JWs are Christians, they are God’s people. They just aren’t exclusively so. I am currently an active JW. If I thought that one could not have God’s favor and be a JW, I would leave immediately.

      All denominations have their weaknesses and strengths. That is also true with the JWs. They aren’t any worse than other denominations, but they aren’t any better either. There is no one true denomination. Christianity is the true religion. And it is found among the members of every denomination.

        (Quote)

      • greybeard says:

        Andrew you said, “JWs are Christians”. Are you saying this in regard to all JW’s as a whole or only those who partake at the memorial. To me, the command to partake is a basic Christian requirement. As you know, most JW’s do not do this. So I ask, how could they be Christian?

        I do not believe they are condemned but will receive another chance on earth during the 1000 years with all of mankind on the earth. I do believe they are missing the true call to the heavenly hope that Christ promised his true followers. I don’t believe doctrine is as big as our heart condition and our faith in Christ. However, to prove our faith in Christ, one requirement is to partake is it not?

        TMO,
        Your brother,
        Greybeard

          (Quote)

        • andrew says:

          GB, you are right in saying that they should partake, but I would say the majority recognize Jesus as their savior.
          The nation of Israel in the past was God’s people whether they were faithful or not. In not obeying the commandment to “keep doing this in memory of me” the JWs have been disobedient, but this isn’t to say they aren’t Christians or part of God’s people.
          Jesus will adjust accounts with all his slaves when he returns.

            (Quote)

          • greybeard says:

            I hope your right Andrew. Most of my family are JW’s. Jesus said unless you do this you you have no life… I know it is not for me to judge.

              (Quote)

      • FutureMan says:

        As one who was an active JW, in the past, I would agree with you accept for the fact that the apostles referred to Christianity as the “Way”, (Jesus Christ and the “narrow road that leads to everlasting life”) and not a religion.

        I do not believe that we should be a religion such as the world would describe today as a religion.

        But all true Christians should be “followers of Christ” the “Lamb”, “no matter where he goes”, also they say no deceitful words and they do not practice any deceit.

          (Quote)

        • JJ says:

          Good point- one that the Bible Students as lead by Pastor Russell espoused many years ago. They didn’t want to even be called a religion because of
          these connotations.

            (Quote)

    • Amos says:

      Remember the parable of the “wheat and the tares”? Our Lord clearly stated that the true & false christians would “grow together, alongside each other until His return & the harvest. This tells me that there are most likely MANY true christians within ALL denominations, including the JW’s.

      We need to realize that it is not the denominational “badge” that we wear that will give us acceptance by the Lord, but our heartfelt acceptance, not only of HIM, but also our spiritual brethren, & in fact our whole outlook on ALL mankind.

      At this point in time WE have not been given the power (or right) to judge, that does not come until the full establishment of the kingdom in the Millennial Age.

      In my opinion if we look at things from a religious perspective, we’ve lost the plot….we need to see things from a scriptural point of view, “GOD IS LOVE”, & as we were made in God’s image, what should we be? We should be like our Heavenly Father!

      We should feel deep sorrow for ALL the human race for the conditions they find themselves in…due to the Edenic fall. It should give us the desire to work along with our Lord in rectifying ALL the ill effects that now exist under the adversary’s rule.

      Like Arni said….”I’ll be back”.

      Your brother in the Lord,
      Amos

        (Quote)

  10. greybeard says:

    Hi ResLight and Susanna,

    I don’t believe I have meet you. Welcome to this site. ResLight you bring up a point here not discussed yet. You said, “a basis for Christian fellowship”. Could you please explain more? What is “a basis for Christian fellowship” that you feel important? The trinity? Believing in hell? What is a basis for Christian fellowship? I look forward to your reply.

    Thank you,
    Your brother,
    Greybeard

      (Quote)

    • ResLight says:

      The basis for Christian fellowship is an active belief that “died for our sin, according to the scriptures.” Belief in the added-on doctrines of the trinity and the traditional idea of “hell” actually hinders an understanding of Jesus’ death, as both of those doctrines tend to nullify the basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. The agreement in Christ is that “if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” — 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2; Romans 10:9.

      It is with such who are thus “saved” that we have a common fellowship. Any teaching that would add to the scriptures, however, that salvation is dependent on acceptance of any doctrine beyond this (as many do with the trinitarian dogma), ends up dividing those who believe in Christ into unauthorized sectarian camps.

      See what I have written on sectarianism:
      http://bstudents.reslight.net/sectarianism

        (Quote)

    • ResLight says:

      I seem to be having some kind of problem in submitting my reply; my first submission did show any results at all. I am not sure if it was received or not, so I am resubmitting my response below.

      The basis for Christian fellowship is an active belief that “died for our sin, according to the scriptures.” Belief in the added-on doctrines of the trinity and the traditional idea of “hell” actually hinders an understanding of Jesus’ death, as both of those doctrines tend to nullify the basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. The agreement in Christ is that “if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” — 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2; Romans 10:9.

      It is with such who are thus “saved” that we have a common fellowship — a common union by means of Christ. Any teaching that would add to the scriptures, however, that salvation is dependent on acceptance of any doctrine or dogma beyond this (as many do with the trinitarian dogma), ends up dividing those who believe in Christ into unauthorized sectarian camps.

      Click my name above to see my short study on sectarianism.

        (Quote)

  11. LonelySheep says:

    I guess opinion is going to be divided on this one.

    In answer to the question I posted to Andrew, somebody directed the counter argument:

    http://e-watchman.com/jehovahs.....angel.html

    But as ResLight said, the true understanding of who Michael/Jesus are (in the context of this discussion) is not a matter of salvation.

      (Quote)

  12. Jon says:

    Dennis, Here is the site
    http://timothy-kline.com/
    If you scroll down he has several chapters on Michael the Archangel

      (Quote)

  13. Dennis says:

    Andrew,

    Thanks for the article. It’s one I’ll save. My leanings are towards your position as well.

    Thanks again.

    Dennis

      (Quote)

  14. serein says:

    this is something that my husband and i have talked about befor and we both a gree that theres no evidence at all that jesus is actualy michael, i also dont think it makes anydifference to our salvation but if we are to teach to people that he is the angel mickael then we would be lieing if hes not and so teaching false doctine to the god fearing people who are looking for truth.

      (Quote)

  15. serein says:

    i posted this subject on b,s site and they not agreeing with me, i mean im not saying he isnt michael but i think theres more proof he isnt than there is that he is him.

      (Quote)

  16. serein says:

    had some good replies on bs site, now im in the middle of the road as to wether hes michael or not hmmmmmm,undersided at mo,but then does it realy matter wether he is or not to us rite now,

      (Quote)

  17. serein says:

    hi reslight is it u on the bs site, :) its u who has me thinking diff on this subgect now.

      (Quote)

  18. LonelySheep says:

    What is the bs site?

      (Quote)

  19. rus virgil says:

    well, LS this is the “Bible Student site/forum”
    http://www.biblestudents.net/f.....opic=284.0

      (Quote)

  20. serein says:

    rus i read up on some of the stuff u wanted me to look at when u sent me that mess and i found it interesting and i did understand it and it was all clear to me, i dont want to go following any group thoe and i just want to keep searching and making sure of all things but il be keeping tabs of what else u have to say more now as i found it all to be very interesting thanks,im the same serene as on bs site but a supose from all my posts u know that.

      (Quote)

  21. Many people get confused with “One Of The Cheif Princes” what many do not know is Angels are Princes Jehovah God in the old testament is The King and all his heavenly Angels are Princes its no diffrent than Kings on the Earth who had sons that become Princes. My friends we know that their is more than one Prince however their is only one Archangel and that is Michael.

      (Quote)

    • Dennis says:

      Dewayne Montgomery:
      however their is only one Archangel and that is Michael.

      Wikipedia – Michael and Gabriel are recognized as archangels by Judaism[1] and by most Christians[2]. The book of Tobit mentions Raphael, who is also considered by some to be an archangel;

      I believe that even JW’s recognize Gabriel as an Archangel don’t they?

      Dennis

        (Quote)

      • andrew says:

        No, the JWs don’t recognize Gabriel as an archangel. Michael is the only one mentioned specifically as an archangel in the Bible, but that certainly doesn’t mean he is the only one. He just happens to be the only one mentioned.

          (Quote)

  22. kabrina says:

    This is not true. If you want to know the truth read the bible. It will tell you everything you need to know. But jesus is not michal the archangel:)

      (Quote)

    • Amos says:

      Hi Kabrina,

      Welcome to the site.

      I totally agree with you, the bible is the only source of truth available to mankind at this time, until the Lord returns.

      I also agree that Jesus is not Michael the Archangel.
      In a simple break down of the term Arch-Angel, he is just that…the “first/highest/leading,” angel, as has already been discussed.

      If we look at the only times that he is mentioned by name (twice), it is with reference to his role as a warrior, so perhaps he is the highest ranking angel within the ranks of the “heavenly angelic army”.

      I believe that if Jesus was indeed Michael, he would be mentioned with that name, at least some times in the book of Revelation, with reference to the destruction of evil, & the abbysing & subsequent destruction of the adversary, Satan.

      Amos

        (Quote)

  23. scott perkins says:

    Well I will proclaim strongly that I do believe in Gods Triunity, but thats for a differant day. So by saying that I completely agree that Micheal is not Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1 destroys that belief system, but also remember that Micheal said he would not rebuke Satan that he would let The Lord do that. Jesus Christ however while being tempted did not have a problem rebuking satan at all. Remember also God in Hebrews says Jesus is not an angel. Micheal is. And all the angels of heaven shall worship Jesus spoken by The Father in the same Chapter of Hebrews one : ) God bless you all.

      (Quote)

  24. clamb says:

    The Society states that Jesus is Michael because in 1 Thes 4:15-16 he has the voice of the archangel, however, in the footnote in the NWT, they credit this to Jehovah, not Jesus. Why do they continue to use this as a proof scripture when their own translation and thus their own footnote credits the voice of the archangel as coming from Jehovah? Are they saying that Jehovah was originally Michael?

      (Quote)

    • Amos says:

      Hi clam,

      I believe they do this type of thing because they don’t think that anyone would bother to check it for themselves. I have mentioned this to several elders many years ago, & was told it would be better not to promote that type of thinking, even though it was in the WTS’s own bible.

      I also believe that Jesus is not Michael.

      Amos

        (Quote)

    • Amos says:

      clamb:
      The Society states that Jesus is Michael because in 1 Thes 4:15-16 he has the voice of the archangel, however, in the footnote in the NWT, they credit this to Jehovah, not Jesus.Why do they continue to use this as a proof scripture when their own translation and thus their own footnote credits the voice of the archangel as coming from Jehovah?Are they saying that Jehovah was originally Michael?

      clamb,

      Could you please contact me through the message section of this website.

      Your brother in Christ,
      ASmos

        (Quote)

  25. OLUWATOBI says:

    ARCH-ANGEL MICHEAL IS NOT JESUS. MICHEAL IS A CREATED ANGEL.

    GOD TELL ALL THE ANGELS TO WORSHIP JESUS. THIS CAN BE FOUND IN HEBREW CHAPTER 1 VERSE 6 IT SAYS AND AGAIN, WHEN BRINGING THE FIRST BEGOTTEN INTO THE WORLD,HE SAID LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM. SO ALL THE ANGELS INCLUDING ARCH- ANGEL MICHEAL IS TO WORSHIP JESUS.

    JESUS IS SUPERIOR THAN THE ANGELS AND ALSO INHERIT A BETTER NAME THAN THE ANGELS THIS CAN BE FOUND IN HEBREW CHAPTER 1 VERSE 4 IT SAYS AND HE IS ALTOGETHER SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS, AS HE ALSO INHERITED A NAME WHICH IS SUPERIOR TO THIERS.

      (Quote)

  26. Anonymous says:

    I have enjoyed your site and reading through your articles. I have also enjoyed reading articles and listening to audio by a man named Walter Martin, he might be someone you or someone else on here would like, he has helped me a lot too.

      (Quote)

  27. John Stoutenburg says:

    I really enjoyed the comments about Michael.I’d like to join the majority here with my vote that,No,he’s not Jesus.Jesus had and always will have god-status ,as he is Co-Creator of ALL things.How could that ever place him in such a lowly class as an angel? (Rev.3:14)

      (Quote)

  28. Willie says:

    WHO IS MICHAEL? Satan is the master counterfeiter and he has spent the last 6000+ years making a counterfeit for the most important parts of God’s “Divine Plan of the Ages” in order to decieve mankind. For instance, Satan made a counterfeit “kingdom of God” on earth with the Roman Catholic Church who “reigned” from 800 to 1800–a thousand years.
    In Rev. 12:7 we read about the counterfeit Michael, which is proof positive {to me at least}, that the REAL Michael is very important–in fact, Michael, which means “who as God,” was Jesus’ “given” name. He was also referred to as the Logos, the Word (John 1:1), which was his heavenly position or office.
    Lucifer was the name of the other arch-angel and he had a different position in that he roamed all over the universe in regard to his duties (Eze. 28:14). In the Garden of Eden he tempted Eve and became the “father” of lies (John 8:44), thereby falling from his previous position and becoming the arch-enemy of God, Satan (Eze. 28:15-19).
    Lucifer is called “son of the morning” in Isa. 14:12-17. Michael and Lucifer are called “the morning stars” in Job 38:7. We know that Jesus was the first created sentient being (Rev. 3:14) and Lucifer was probably the second. Notice that in Rev. 2:28 there is only one “morning star”–because Lucifer has fallen–and in Rev. 22:16 Jesus says, “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” Jesus refers to himself as an angel (16+/- times) and a Lamb (26+/- times) throughout the book of Revelation which is written in symbols per Rev. 1:1–”signified”.
    Michael is called “one of the chief princes” in Dan. 10:13, for originally, as I have endeavored to show, there were two chief princes, Michael and Lucifer. In Dan. 10:21 Michael is referred to as “your prince” and in Dan 12:1 Michael is called “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people [Israel].” Who could that be but the risen Jesus Christ? Jude 9 calls Michael, the archangel, and I Thess 4:16 says, “For the Lord [Jesus Christ] himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel [the only remaining one for Lucifer has fallen (Luke 10:18)]….” Jesus is still of the rank of an archangel because Jesus and the Church (his body/his bride) will be glorified together as we read in Rom. 8:16,17–”The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; And if chidren, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also GLORIFED TOGETHER” {my emphasis}.
    Now back to the false Michael of Rev. 12:7, consider this: there has NEVER been war in the heaven of heavens where Jehovah God reigns supreme, so this heavens must be understood to be the ecclesiastical heavens on earth and the angels the fallen angels confined in the earth’s atmosphere (Tartaroo) since their initial punishment at the time of the flood. The dragon in Revelation represents civil power and the false Michael controlled the papacy which took over ecclesiastical AND civil power and ruled the Holy (?) Roman Empire for a thousand years “with a rod of iron”–the counterfeit Kingdom. Jesus, the Christ, head and body, will reign over the true Kingdom of God on earth, therefore we understand that the false Michael is a copy of the true Michael, Jesus.
    Remember that Revelation is written in symbols and this particular chapter is a record of certain events in church history as viewed in the eyes of orthodox religion. The overall picture has to be taken from Scripture in its entirety to be understood correctly–not a verse here and a verse there. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a thing be established (Matt. 18:16; II Cor. 13:1).
    Using that as a principle: There are over fifty scriptures in the Old Testament that prove that Jehovah God is the sole creator of heaven and earth and several in the New Testament– Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24-26 are examples. There are several scriptures in the New Testament that are used to “prove” that Jesus is the “co-creator.” Heb. 1:1,2 says, “God … hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son [Jesus], whom he hath appointed heir of all things, [for] whom also he [God] made the worlds.” No, that is NOT what is says in the KJV, but it COULD just as easily have said that (which makes more sense to me), because the translators had their choice of over twenty prepositions and they chose “by” instead of “for” so that it would make Jesus appear to be a part of a trinity. John 1:10 could similarily have been translated, “He [Jesus] was in the world, and the world was made [for] him, and the world knew him not.”
    All Scripture harmonizes if it is properly understood.

      (Quote)

    • Anonymous says:

      Thankyou for sharing your perspectives brother Willie.They are always welcome here but I do feel compelled to address a few.
      Respectfully, your arguement is quite full of speculation.

      “in fact, Michael, which means “who as God,” was Jesus’ “given” name.” “In fact”?…really?

      “Lucifer was probably the second.”….probably? hmmm?

      “There are over fifty scriptures in the Old Testament that prove that Jehovah God is the sole creator of heaven and earth and several in the New Testament….There are several scriptures in the New Testament that are used to “prove” that Jesus is the “co-creator.””

      This is pretty clear…through him, by him, and for him.

      Col. 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist”

      Jesus or the Word had not been revealed or known by man in the time of the Old Testament so when it attributes creation soley to Jehovah it is not wrong but neither is it complete in detail. The details were filled in later in the New Testament.

      “Jesus refers to himself as an angel (16+/- times)”
      The meaning of angel is messanger and Jesus rightly serves in that capacity but I believe it a mistake to take this as meaning he is of the same “kind” as the other spirit “sons” of God.

      “Jesus is still of the rank of an archangel because Jesus and the Church (his body/his bride) will be glorified together”

      17 Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,
      5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

      It seems Jesus has indeed been glorified and not only that but rather than a new glory it is a return to a glory which he previously posessed.

      “For the Lord [Jesus Christ] himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel”

      Jesus Christ?…If you look at 1 Thess.4:16 in the NWT referance bible it is interesting to note that the footnote which corrisponds to “LORD” in vs 16 reads “The Lord” or “Jehovah”. So would we speculate that perhaps Jehovah is the archangel?

      I certainly do not agree with a trinitarian Jesus who is co-eternal and co-equal with his Father but I fear you may be relegating him to a position which is below the majesty he posesses. To even put him on the same level as the angels and especially Satan is to me dangerous ground indeed.

        (Quote)

  29. Willie says:

    THANK YOU, Jayme. We never know how profitable or unprofitable our comments are until we get some feedback–which I appreciate. On the other hand, when we live in an age of faith, wouldn’t it be reasonable that our understanding of spiritual things is in part speculation–based upon our personal understanding of Scripture? We don’t have a “thus saith the Lord” for everything. I think the Almighty gives us the perogative to use what I refer to as “consecrated common sense” to “think on these things.” Are we always right? Certainly not! Does that mean that we should stop trying to understand God’s Divine Plan of the Ages? No. We should continue to “rightly divide the word of truth” to the best of our ability. As long as we are doing our OWN Bible study and not being told what to believe, we should, with the help of the holy Spirit, grow in grace and in the knowlege of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as long as we live.
    Now to the subject at hand. Using the Webster’s Dictionary, the word “archangel” is “1. a chief angel; 2. plural: an order of angels–CELESTIAL HIERARCHY.” Quite frankly, I didn’t agree with Webster on his supposition concerning the order of the Celestial Hierarchy, for let’s face it–NOBODY KNOWS. I personally think , as I presented, that the Scriptures indicate that there were two archangels, Michael and Lucifer and that their position was far above a mere angel. I would be tempted to add Gabriel to the list (perhaps he got a promotion after Lucifer/Satan fell), simply because he is the only other angel whose name is given in Scripture. Luke 1:19 does reveal that Gabriel stands in the presence of God. That sounds important! More speculation? After all, some high ranking angel had to take the office of the Logos (whether or not his name was Michael) during the 33 1/2 years that Jesus was on earth.
    If you do not think that Michael was Jesus’ name in heaven, then what do you think it was? Do you think that the Bible would state the spiritual name of Satan (Lucifer) and NOT give the spiritual name of God’s favorite faithful and obedient son who became the Saviour of the world? I don’t think so.
    Now I absolutely agree with you that: “It seems Jesus has indeed been glorified and not only that but rather than a new glory it is a return to a glory which he previously posessed.” To me that is exactly what John 17:5 is saying; however, I would see that as a return to the glory of an archangel, far superior to a mere angel, and I would expect that the glorification to immortality would be a wedding gift to him and his bride (Rom 8:18) at the wedding ceremony–from God his Father, of course. A long line of reasoning goes into this “speculation,” for Jesus does deserve some reward/elevation for what he accomplished during his ministry on earth–not just a return to his former glory. After all he paid the ransom price for Adam and through him, all humanity–not just the Jws. IF he were already co-egual, co-eternal, co-creator, etc., then he could not be further elevated.
    Apparently there are many different degrees of glory, for I Cor. 15:41 says, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.” Phil. 2:11 reads: “And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” In Isa. 42:8 Jehovah God says, “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another….”
    Suffice it to say that I came out of the Protestant religion forty years ago and prior to that I DID believe in the Trinity and in my youth I cannot remember ever giving the word “Michael” a second thought. Since retirement I have had much more time to dwell on spiritual things and study the Bible. I have come to the conclusion that when making a decision on the interpretation of scripture, whatever is most honoring to God the Father is the safest line of reasoning. I personally think that it is more honoring to Jehovah to think of him as the Creator of the Universe and that he made it all for his Son [Michael, the great prince and archangel--formerly occupied in the heavenly position of Logos, the spokesperson of God (John 1:1), who became our Redeemer Jesus Christ] who will be the heir of all things and the Church his joint-heirs (Rom. 8:17).
    I just counted the scriptures in the Old Testament that refer to Jehovah God as the Creator and there were 59. Can’t list them all here, but my favorites are in Isaiah–”Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the evelasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding” (Isa. 40:28). “…I am the LORD that maketh ALL things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF” (Isa. 44:24). “I [the LORD, the holy One of Israel-verse 11] have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, EVEN MY HANDS, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else” (Isa. 45:18). [CAPITAL emphasis mine.]

      (Quote)

  30. Reader says:

    Dear All;
    A near God Jesus?
    Tend to think not. The rags-to-riches story of Joseph, might it suggest Jesus was not of the top ranking Angels at least at first?
    AND if Jesus had a functional first Creation position, would Satan have offered coalition not kingship as Satan would have been talking to one of his creators?
    Genesis 2 v 4 is much missed as it indicates the following is the foundation of what we call the world.
    Have just done a chart on it;
    big file, may be slow to load.

    http://yahweh-immanuel.info/fi.....0plan.html

    Food for thought.
    Still sorting problems with large files on website.
    B

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply