Tag Archives: Michael

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.

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 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. . . .