Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

This was my response to someone who had raised the topic back in the Pathways-Online days, and the original topic can be found here. I recently posted this on a site (Hourglass2 Outpost) that I occasionally post at, thinking that it would be nice to here what thoughts others might have on the subject, some 6 1/2 years later… and to expand on my own understanding.

What follows then, in a 5-part series, is not only the 6 1/2 year old post, but my response to someone who asked me to comment on their own observations. I hope that it at least provokes further discussion on the topic.

Follow-up Post #3

A well thought out conclusion. Each person needs to make sure on their own, of course.

Please also consider a scripture you didn’t include:
Daniel 10:21, DRC, “But I will tell thee what is set down in the scripture of truth: and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince; [/b]“

If you have the time, please look at my conclusions here:

http://bythebible.page.tl/Jesus-h–Prehuman-Existence.htm

If you still believe your prior conclusion, I would be happy to be informed as to why. I like to see if I am wrong. ha ha

Christian greetings, ‘Fuzzy,’

Thank you for your response and the invitation to review your own observations. What follows are my further responses to the link you provided, and my reasons for those responses. They are given in the spirit of exchange only, and are not to be taken as dogma.

For the sake of my tendency toward longwindedness, I will respond in segments (this being the second segment), to allow for focused responses as well, and to make it easier for others to follow the discussion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Notes: Your original material will be colored in blue to avoid confusion later on.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The fact is that Paul gives a powerful reason for associating that archangel with Jesus whom he also says speaks with an archangel’s voice. (Quoted above) In 1 Cor 10:1-4, Paul associates Jesus directly with the angel that represented God to the Israelites in their exodus. Verse four demonstrates this without doubt:

And, all, drank, the same spiritual drink,—for they continued to drink of the spiritual rock that followed them, and, the rock, was the Christ. (Rotherham)

It’s interesting that you refer to Paul’s own writings as “a powerful reason for associating that archangel with Jesus, and therefore is deserving of a part in my response here.

As you and others may well know, Paul spent a great deal of his time in the ministry trying to help his spiritual brothers and sisters to look beyond the Law and towards what the Law represented in a spiritual sense. Jesus, too, engaged his audience in the same manner.

Too, Paul was a former member of the Pharisees, and as such, he would have been able to readily call upon teachings and common knowledge in order to convey his point.

The example you refer to from 1 Corinthians 10 is one such example.

Let me cite the passage here, using a couple additional Bible translations:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. — 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 (NIV)

My brothers, here is something you should know. Long ago, all our fathers were led by the cloud of God over them. They all went through the Red Sea. It was as if they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same food from the Spirit. They all drank the same water sent by the Spirit. The water they drank came from a Rock of the Spirit which went with them. That Rock was Christ. — 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 (BWE)

I would strongly recommend that you research further on Jewish tradition (exegetical and otherwise) regarding the “rock” that Paul is referring to in reference to the Israelites as they endured the wilderness. Suffice it to say, however, Paul was trying to make the argument that it foreshadowed the Christian congregation’s own time in the wilderness on the way to the Promised Land, nourished and watered by the Rock, which is Christ.

However, it seems that you are taking a significant leap in suggesting what you say here:

In 1 Cor 10:1-4, Paul associates Jesus directly with the angel that represented God to the Israelites in their exodus. Verse four demonstrates this without doubt…

There is no such connection to be found. There is no evidence that the cloud and/or pillar was the manifestation of Michael, an archangel of Jehovah. Is it even implied? No, I do not believe so.

Still, there are Jewish rabbinic traditions that hold that Michael played a significant role as advocate and defender of Israel and intervened not a few times in the Israelites’ behalf. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been privy to these traditions, and I suspect that such traditions were also common knowledge. This would support what Daniel wrote in reference to Michael being a strong advocate for Israel, of course, and who is the prince of the people. What it does not support is that Michael is synonymous with Jesus.

One more point I want to mention before I close this segment is that we hear often how the name “Michael” means “Who is like God?” and that this is further “evidence” that Michael and Jesus are one and the same. However, this assumption is made on the basis of two arguments:

1) That Jesus is the only persona in existence who is like God and therefore can answer such a question as that– an argument that lends itself to either Bitarianism and Trinitarianism, wherein Jesus shares in the very nature of Jehovah.

2) That is a question in the first place.

But, for the sake of discussion, what if it isn’t a question? What if it’s a challenge? From what I have learned about the role that the archangel Michael has had throughout history, his is an unrelenting supporter of Jehovah God amongst the heavenly forces. He wouldn’t hold the position of archangel (“foremost princes”) otherwise, I believe. As such, he takes an avid interest in God’s people and acts as their soldier when the need arises. In Revelation, we find Michael and the angels under his command entering into a cosmic battle with Satan and his own angels, to the point where there is out-and-out war in heaven, but that Michael prevails in that battle and Satan is consequently cast out of heaven, along with his treacherous horde. With that in mind, Michael’s name becomes everything it means. Like David of old, Michael proves that he has God’s backing and is able to overpower and evict this fellow spiritual persona, Satan.

But, you may argue, that victory over Satan and casting him from heaven is a right belonging to Jesus himself.

While it is true that Jesus has the right to do that, there remains a very basic problematic, logical question that rises in assigning the battle/war role to Jesus as described in Revelation, and I think I mention this in my initial post: The entirety of Creation was brought into existence by means of or through the Logos, which is held to be Jesus in his pre-human existence. Everything that exists, mind you. The power that would have required is far, far beyond our capacity to imagine.

Having said that, why would it take–as some suggest–Jesus and his angels to enter into war with Satan, to cast our Accuser out of the heavens? Seriously, now. The Logos was sufficient to bring everything into existence–angels, archangels, the heavenly realm, the earthly realm, humankind… everything. And yet Jesus in his now glorified state needs assistance with dealing with the likes of Satan and his brood?

Quite frankly, I find such a notion insulting to the glory that has been given to Jesus.

Far be it from that being the case, then. Instead, at least to me, it makes much more sense that the angels themselves–like us–have a battling with powers in the spiritual realm, with principalities and forces far beyond our physical senses. We have to take our stand for our God, Jehovah, and for our King, Jesus as the Christ. The angels, too, have to take their stand. The battle involving Michael and Satan is the climax of that confrontation, the finale to a long, ongoing, arduous struggle in the heavens between heavenly angelic brothers. Jesus does not play a role in that battle, for it must be carried out by those whose loyalty remains to be determined. Jesus’ role is as Judge and High Priest and as the rightful Heir to the Kingdom prepared by Jehovah Himself. Jesus has already proven his position on the issue, and shown himself faithful even unto death, and as a result forever removed from access by Satan.

Michael’s name is a challenge to anyone who would dare to undermine Jehovah’s rightful position as Sovereign, and I’m certain that Michael is equally willing to challenge anyone who would dare to undermine Jehovah’s assigned King, Jesus. And there are myriads of angels likewise at-the-ready to do the same, under Michael’s command as their archangel.
Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
A brother in Christ, Timothy