Counterarguments Against Michael Being Christ

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.

5 thoughts on “Counterarguments Against Michael Being Christ

  1. Jeannie Jaye LeFrancois

    That is because they don’t understand “angel” means “messanger”

    Angels come in the celestial form, but they also come in carnal form and divinty forms

  2. Gene

    The Bible seems to make a distinction between “angel” and “archangel.” Is that something to be considered?

    1. Jon Paulien Post author

      Angel can mean simply “messenger” and the term can also by used for human beings. Archangel is very specifically a heavenly being in most or all contexts.

  3. Jonathan

    There are 2 covering cherubs according to the construction of the Ark. We know Lucifer was one. Who is the other?

    Even though Jesus is God and created all things, why did Lucifer/Satan dispute His divinity?

    Could it be that the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Word, was so humble that only the Father was exalted, while the Word took a “lower” place?

    Why is it that after His ascension all the angels were commanded to worship Him? Is it possible that He was content to “blend in”?

    See for example Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 1

    I believe (cannot prove it) that just like how Jesus was willing to come to the earth as a lowly person, so was He willing to abide in heaven without exaltation.

    I think He may have assumed the role of the other covering cherub, maybe as Micheal, not to deceive, but because it was not necessary in a perfect place to trumpet His status, for humility is one of His greatest attributes.

Comments are closed.